celebration of the same numerical ordinances to the disturbance of the order appointed by Jesus Christ and contrary to that exercise of love in wisedom and mutual forbearance which is required of them Two things I gather from this definition and the Doctors discourse in his Books 1. That he confines Schism to a particular Church onely 2. If Divisions in a particular Church grow so high that divers of the members doe causelesly make a Separation from the Church holding Communion with themselves apart that this is not Schism in the precise notion however for disputation-sake against the Romanists and the Episcopal-men he may yield it to be so The withdrawing from any Church or Society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true of false with a mind and resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church Institutions according to that light which men have received is no where called Schism p. 46 77. And Rev. p. 83. It is not called Schism ergo it is not Schism Will the consequence hold if the plea be false What is it called I pray Welfare an erroneous conscience but suppose upon a false plea such a conscience should raise divisions in a Church according to the definition without separating from the Church were it Schism or not I thought by one passage in the Doctor 's Pre-view p. 54. I had mistaken him for thus he speaks to Mr. C. If he suppose that I deny that to be Schism where there is a separation and that because there is a separation as though Schism were in its whole nature exclusive of all separation and lost its being when separation ensued he hath taken my mind as rightly as he hath done the whole design of my book But adds withall Because this is not proved I shall desire him not to make use of it for the future as though it were so These words I did not observe till I had done 1. If Schism in its whole nature will include causeless separation from a particular Church and this according to Scripture warrant then the false plea of an erroneous conscience for causeless separation from a Church upon pretence of serving God in his Institutions according to its light must be Schism whether it be called so or not unless you can tell us how else it is called 2. Why then doth the Doctor pass by the definition of Schism so generally received for he knows this is the thing which hath given that great offence separation from true Churches and that which must satisfie here must be to prove that all this separation is just and warrantable by Scripture and if so I know not who can charge these men with Schism nor any thing else in so separating so that there was no need of departing from the definition generally received and giving a new one of which I know no use unless First To shew there can be no Schism in the Catholick Church And secondly To shew that Church-Members may be guilty of Schism though they do not separate into parties and so shew that our Churches are more guilty of Schism then we are aware of which I believe to be true but this will bring no honour I doubt to some Congregational Churches Alas what Schisms have we known this is so common a thing that a Divine whom I know and so doth the Doctor once a high Congregational man suffered much under that name for whom my principles were not strait enough but now he looks on me as erroneous and too strait though I am the same I was then being now turned about and against all Congregational Churches saith this of them they will all break in pieces and come to nothing 3. Let the Reader be pleased to observe these passages in his books then judge if I mistake him 1. In the same book where he speaks so to Mr. C. who had said there was a separation into parties in the Church of Corinth this the Doctor stifly denies p. 70. and in p. 62. saith The Schism the Apostle rebuked consisted in Division in it and not in separation from it Then in p. 72. What that Schism was from which he dehorts them he declares only in the instance of the Church of Corinth and thence is the measure of it to be taken in reference to all dehorted from it Hence then we must dehort men from divisions in the Church as being Schism the measure allows it but we must not dehort them from causeless separation from a Church as being Schism because that only instance which is the measure doth not call it Schism If that instance be the measure what then doth not punctually agree with it is not Schism 2. In his book of Schism p. 42. To this Q. If any one now shall say will you conclude because this evil mentioned by the Apostle is Schism therefore nothing else is so he saith I answer that having before asserted this to be the chiefe and only seat of the doctrine of Schism I am inclinable so to do This instance is the only seat of the doctrine of Schism but this instance speaketh only of division in the Church not of separation from it saith he 3. P. 193. Ib. Take it for a particular Church of Christ I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly separation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such separation may proceed from Schism and be also attended with other evils Who ever said that meer separation separating all moral considerations from it just or unjust was Schism we are speaking of an unjust or causeless separation from a Church is that Schism No it seems Before this causeless separation there was division most likely in the Church and this is allowed to be Schism this Schism at last produces separation causelesly but this separation is not Schism nor must be so esteemed he saith Compare this with his speech to Mr. C. 4. The Doctor seems to define the whole nature of Schism It is a causeless division among members c. meeting together for the celebration of the same numerical ordinances c. Had he thought there might be schismatical acts besides this Act in Corinth viz. Causeless separation from a Church which was not here he saith then his work was only to describe what was this Schism the Apostle reproves and so should have said This Schism was a causeless division c. But he defines Schism is c. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book which promiseth to shew us the True nature of Schism hitherto mistaken it seems by all Divines and that definition the Doctor only embraceth and for others he can own them against the Romanists ex abundantiâ— but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens definitions because they mistooke this particular act of Schism in Corinth which it may be they never intended but to give the whole
nature of the sin as Logicians should doe and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all particular Acts but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schism according to the precise notion of Scripture What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. Ca. I know not these grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not mistaken in what I gather from him I see in his Rev. p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. Ca. because he had said that he delivered himself obscurely But Mr. Ca. is not the first man whom I have heard complain of obscurity in his book but divers others I could set down their expressions but forbear In several places I observe things are not clear and should have taken some things in the same sense Mr. Ca. hath done for which the Doctor blames him The Doctor then must pardon us though poor country-Ministers are not so quick of understanding to find out his meaning So far then as I understand the Doctor I am not in divers things satisfied and in particular not with his definition which I doe not look upon as Logical For one rule of Definition is this Definitio ne-sit angustior neve latior suo definito but the Doctors definition is angustior suo definito Therefore not logical It is angustior in two respects 1. It takes not in causelesse separation from a Church which I doubt not may be Schism 2. It takes not in the Schism in the Catholick Church The Doctor saith there can be none Whether there can be no Schism from the Catholick Church is a harder question it would seem rather to be Apostacie as saith the Doctor yet I do almost think we may suppose Schism to be from the Catholick Church But that there is Schism in the Catholick Church I doubt not Now if these two can be made good then the Doctors definition is not logical Every definition must exhaurire totam naturam specificam saltem sui definiti else not adequate nor reciprocal which must be 1. Then Causeless separation from a Church may be Schism Why I put in the word May I shall give the reason afterwards But it may be the Doctor may say That definition of Schism which onely agreeth with Scripture that and that onely is the true definition of Schism But such is mine Ergo The Minor which I shall deny he proves from this instance of the Church in Corinth Where is no mention made of Separation from a Church there was onely Division in a Church The word Onely I put into the proposition and the Doctor himself speaks as much Here is the chief and onely seat of the doctrine of Schism p. 42. else though I yield such a definition agrees with a particular instance yet it agreeth not with the whole specifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into and therefore not logical Doth every Scripture-instance give a full definition of the fin forbidden The Command saith Thou shalt not steal in Exod. 22.2 I finde mention made of a thief breaking in c. to which Christ alludes Mat. 24.43 Suppose there were no other instance of theft in all the Scripture shall I now goe set forth a book about the true nature of theft and goe to this Instance and there ground my Definition and say Theft is an illegal and violent breaking into a mans house and taking away goods against the owners will and say nothing else can be Theft in the precise notion of Scripture because the Scripture-instance calls nothing else theft This were strange Is not robbing at Sea theft though no such instance is found in Scripture That definition given Furtum est ablatio injusta rei alienae invito domino will fetch in all theft It is true every particular Act of any sin forbidden hath the specifical nature of that sin in it If a man take my goods unjustly whether it be at sea or on the high-way out of my house openly or privately and several other ways all these have the specifical nature of theft in them and theft is predicated of them we doe not make several definitions of theft because there are several Acts Vnius rei una tantum est definitio There may be divers degrees of the same sin as there is of Schism yet gradus non variant speciem But we do not use to goe to particular Acts of any sin and out of such an Act fetch the definition of the sin confining the specifical nature which is more large to that individual or singular Act. So here There is a command given 1 Cor. 12.25 There must be no Schism in the body Now if I would define Schism must I goe to a particular instance and give a definition of the fiâ— from that and say this is Schism and nothing else Division in a Church but no causelesse separation from a Church because there is no instance given where such separation is called Schism as if we had particular instances in Scripture of all the acts of sins forbidden in the ten commandements It is true that is Schism i. e. the causeleffe Division in the Church of Corinth though they did not separate from it into parties whether they did or no I passe not which here the Apostle reproves But is nothing else Schism Put case the division had risen so high that Cephas and his company had separated from Apollos and his company and held communion apart by themselves had not this been Schism give a reason Object Such separation is not called Schism Answ It cannot be called so unlesse it were the Doctor says it was not we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done when they are not done But ex hypothesi I ask the question if it had been so as it is now common with us that Cephas had separated causelesly had it not been Schism Certainly if Racha and thou fool be breaches of the sixt Command then if one adde to his word blows and wounds unjustly that man is guilty of killing also So if Cephas and his company will adde Separation to Division and that unjustly let Cephas pretend what he will it is Schism There are divers professors in these dayes have been and would be esteemed glorious ones still who are so spiritual that they live above Ordinances a carnal and wicked spirituality they have their grounds and pleas why they do so but we find no such Instance in all the Scripture of men upon the plea of spiritualness to live above them Now to which command shall we reduce this sin certainly a sin it is if I can find a command where the Lord hath instituted his external worship and commanded all to attend upon it thither I reduce it to the second So if men though godly for I know not but they have sin and the Devil may abuse them will causelesly separate though they think not so but plead this or that because I find no such
Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion are opposite If the Doctor then will give me a poor Countrey-Minister leave I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism I see it is a sin and offen-five to Christ 1 Cor. 12.25 Now what is opposite to this what is the affirmative precept Vnion of the members amongst themselves This is the thing often commanded the thing Christs heart seemed to be fixed upon John 17. when he was leaving the world and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined Schism defined Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion of the Invisible and Visible Church c. For the Invisible Church of Christ there can be no Schism saith the Doctor hence I put it not in It must be in his visible body there I take in the Catholick Church which I look on as most properly his Body-visible and also particular Churches I take this definition to be reciprocal I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it whether it be Schism in a Church or from a Church in the Catholick or particular Churches and yet my ground is Scriptural also though I go not to a particular instance 1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church was it onely that inward love and forbearance which the Doctor mentions which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken Did he not also require that they should as with reverence towards him so with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordiuances Sacraments c. The Doctors definition saith as much Numerical Ordinances c. If then Cephas and his company had causelesly made the division and upon this separate from the rest and not joyn with them in the Supper wherein they shew themselves to be One bread Chap. 10.17 and other Ordinances dinances did they not manifestly shew a breach of that unity which the Lord required must I not say Cephas you and your company are highly guilty of Schism let the Reader judge Thus then stands the argument If causelesse separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body then causelesse separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear 2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin Rev. p. 68. Since then we must not call it Schism let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin let him set down the opposite affirmative precept and see if Union will not be found in it I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men or such as appeared so dared ever to make a causelesse separation from a Church To say it is Apostacie no stay I will suppose those members who thus divide to be persons sound in the main points of faith in their conversation visibly godly such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves the very case of divers of ours but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company now here is no Apostasie And though it be a Church guilty of Schism and so far a schismatical Church yet a true Church Hence I said a causelesse separation c may be Schism i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned else it fell from the faith c. it had been Apostacy and not properly Schism unless you will say both Hence If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The consequence is clear because it partakes of the nature of no sin as of Schism provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned 3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism and tieth us up so streightly to it I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but onely in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers extraordinary gifts differences about meats c. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism and that sin will hardly be found in our days It may be he will say by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences where the form of the sin is found there is the sin of Schism though Churches do not answer Corinth But what the Doctor saith that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism So I can say this Scripture instance calls that only Schism where some were for Cephas others for Apollos c. But further let us enquire into the form of the sin where it is In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God c. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed some things he doth mention but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded I know not and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it As for the disturbance of the order I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism nor part of it I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism therefore not the form neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary where Vnum uni tantum opponitur they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts as it should seem by the last Verse the Apostle calls for order Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved I take to be the form of Schism this is it by which Schism is id quod est If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence though the causes be not such as were in Corinth northe
Churches parallel to Corinth in all things because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism then if canseless separation from a Church be Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession or separation into parties Division it doth signifie but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to signifie Division into parties in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example he saith therefore it can signifie no other I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor 's mind for he useth that word in the 11. ch 18. 12. ch 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg Gen. 10.25 Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us and I think there was division into many parties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24 Matth. 27.51 Luke 5.36 John 21.11 so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere findere yet none I conceive answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25 comes Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel and here was separation with a witness To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all they are all mistaken and so their authority is worth nothing but when I had done two men came into my mind who were neer to the Doctor 's principles being Congregational men and therefore had need to look to themselves in their definition of Schism men of great renown for learning and piety Dr. Ames and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma I find Ames thus answers Schisma dicitur a scindendo est scissio separatio disjunctio aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was neerer to the Doctor 's definition then I was aware of but then he adds Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recte vocatur Schisma thus he Mr. Norton thus Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae semper grande malum I will look no further these are sufficient Now for the Catholick-Church I am to prove there may be Schism in it For my ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied The Antecedent is to be proved That by the body is meant the Church the Doctor yields Schis p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church is not in respect of office power and Authority but gifts and graces and usefulness on that account thus he But I had thought that by Apostles Prophets Teachers Helps Governments v. 28. he had properly spoken of office power and authority are gifts and graces meant by these words very strange But to come to our Text. If the Church be here meant then it is either the Church invisible or visible But not the invisible that the Chapter clears and the Doctor saith It 's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church If visible then either the Catholick or a particular Church but not a particular Ergo This I grant that by body in one Text v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church being a similar part of the Church-Catholick as our Mr. Norton and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church though some Physitians make different definitions as we respect the matter or form of a similar part yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church or what sins are forbidden these concern every particular Church for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church in viewing over the Chapter these arguments perswade me 1. It is such a body into which we are all baptized v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church is that the one body the Apostle means Let the Doctor speak Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized As much he seems to intimate Schis p. 133. in his answer to this question wherein consists the unity of the Catholick-Church A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body That the Sacraments come to be administred in several particular societies I gave the reason before seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church by reason of the numerosity of its members That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 The Sacraments doe shew our union with our Head Christ primarily and the union of the members amongst themselves I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant this wrong caused a division between this person and the other upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper but kept off till reconciliation was made knowing what the Supper did call for then came to me and joyned in the ordinance I knew not the reason of this person 's holding off so long before If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled since the other person had no relation to our Church This was one bred up in the Episcopal way but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect 4. Hence then that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be and walking orderly in their particular Churches occasionally desiring communion with the Church fellowship with them in the Sacraments because they are not of their judgments as to Congregational Classical or Episcopal principles and will hold fellowship onely with those who are of their principles I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholick Church by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church Object But we may love them and shew our love in other wayes though we doe not this way Answ So doe the Heathen shew love to Heathen and so doe we to Heathen though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Christians as members of such a body having union with your Head and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ 1 Cor. 12. you deny And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head nor to be parts of the Catholick Body neither the members refused nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgment So that while you talk of Love I say as the Apostle Shew me thy faith by thy works so shew me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully Haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda c. Thus I conceive Congregational Classical or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible As for that Doctrine That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of and I suppose will not be defended To this I add Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches who are very zealous for Prophesying and they must have their liberty to prophesie whether they have abilities or not the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying being extraordinary is ceased therefore will allow no such liberty These are so set for their Prophesying that they make Divisions in the Churches and at last separate from them all and make up one Church by themselves they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them whence I cannot deny but here is a Church but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world unless of their opinion neither give nor take though desired and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasie from the Head but with separation from the Catholick Church and so is guilty of Schism If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholick Church how then separate from it It 's true else it were not Schism but Apostasie but as it separates from all other Churches causelesly in that sense I speak Hitherto of the Doctors Definition As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism though we suppose Schism to be a causelesse separation from a Church I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind if by the title of his book as I find it quoted by the Doctor for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey Independencie is great Schism he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatick Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth such a necessity of Schism will not be forced but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongst the Independents and now read this I know not Possibly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false or that I am changed from my principles as some have said but I assure the Reader I am not gone back nor advanced one step in these controversies from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edwards I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written but to come to the point presently In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say the holy Ghost hath commanded a
which men profess in subjection to one Lord Jesus Christ being initiated into that profession and so that body by Baptism 2. It is such a body as with its head makes up Christ v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Christ what are all the other how many Christs shall we have For my part I conceive as all true believers make up but one spiritual body to which Christ is a saving and spiritual head so all the particular Churches in the world are but one body visible of which Christ is the Political Head Every true believer is said to be married to Christ and of this Church Paul saith he had espoused them to Christ and are not thousands more but we do not read Rev. 22.17 Brides say Come nor of the Lambs wives ch 21.9 but the Lambs Bride and Wife thus the Catholick visible body is called the Kingdom of Christ not Kingdoms though by reason of the numberless number the Lord bids one Pastour feed you my flock there and another feed you my flock there c. yet but one flock one body these meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical ordinances orderly this meeting in several places should cease 3. It is such a body as hath Apostles set in it v. 28. but though the Apostles were officers to this particular Church yet not to this only but to the Catholick 4. It is such a body that the members of it suffer together and rejoyce together v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and sympathy is not confined to the members of that particular Church I hope the same specifical care though not the same gradual care I think such a distinction may help to understand the 25. v. for I conceive there is some neerer tie to my own members in particular as to my own family and yet to have no care of other members of another Church though I see them in danger of sin or require of me the dispensing of an rdinance regularly c. I think this is not right Then 27. v. what I have said of the great body I say to you who are a similar part of this great body and so called the body of Christ Do ye take heed there be no Schism amongst you Thus that parallel Text Rom. 12.4 5. seems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome but the Catholick many members but one body When I can see better reasons given me to prove he is discoursing of a particular Church I shall yield to them Q. But how can Schism be in the catholick-Catholick-Church visible this must be enquired into though I fail in the opening of it yet what I have said to the Text before will save me A. I must premise some things then come to the answer The Doctor p. 133. Schis speaking of the Catholick-Church saith The saving doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ and obedience through him to God as professed by them is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body But under favour I conceive the Doctor hath expressed only that bond which is between the body and the head but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other surely if a body there are such the Apostle Eph. 4.16 I think speaks of a bond among the members and by the 11. v. he seems to me to speak of the Catholick-Church-visible from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love Upon which words Zanchy thus Concludere vult Apostolus quod initio proposuerat fovendam esse unitatem hujus corporis mystici per vinculum pacis Ratio quia ita se habet hoc corpus ut nisi quis per fidem vivam amorisque plenam cum Christo conjunctus per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque ecclesia congruenter coagmentatus permà neat is non possit a Christo vel vitam vel alimentum incrementum accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Masculus thus Dilectio conglutinat membra Christi and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci est separatis ac divulsis quales quales tandem esse videantur With these agree Beza Charity is the knitting of the limbs together Faith and Love use to be joyned together if the Apostle doth express it as the bond surely we may call it so and thus we have the body united to the head and each member one to another To the preservation of this union saith the Doctor it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel without the knowledge where of no man can be saved by Jesus Christ be so far believed as to be outwardly and visibly professed in that variety of ways wherein they are or may be called out thereunto p. 134. To which I add and unto the preservation of that bond of union among the members it 's required that all such Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joyned together as such a body ought carefully and Christianly to be performed when we are regularly called thereunto this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head being not confined to a particular Church but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body by which men shew whose Disciples they are Hence then as all such errors which subvert those grand and necessary Truths being received and believed do dissolve the bond of union between the head and the members and declare men to be Apostates So all such Acts as do openly manifest the causeless breach of Love by which the members are united each to other do declare such persons guilty of Schism Apostasie as I conceive properly respecting the Head but Schism the Body Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclusions 1. The members of this great Body in attending upon those ordinances of worship instituted by their Head especially the two Sacraments doe declare that faith in their Head which they professe Open Baptism we finde nothing there but Christ open the Lords Supper we have nothing there but Christ our Head and the grand and necessary Truths which concerne our salvation As the Martyrs sealed up their Confessions by their blood we doe as it were seal up our Profession in partaking of our Lords blood 2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe professedly declare that Union which they have among themselues by love as such a body It is one reason why the Lords Supper is called a Communion and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament Vnio fidelium inter se as
Schism from a congregation that is not reformed will not nor cannot reform it self with p. 262. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.5 Hos 4.12 If the Dr. apply these Texts to our separations which some congregational Churches make I question whether they will carry the thing he produces them for But to be short I will not say the Holy Ghost commands Schism but Separation in some cases he doth therein I agree with the Doctor and accordingly practice different from my brethren but it is onely within my own congregation denying to admit those who are as Mr. Vines calls the generality of the people in this Land Bruits for their knowledge and beasts for their lives and so will be unto the seals of the covenant of grace Sacram. p. 152. So I have made a separation in the congregation but not from the congregation Had I read that the Apostles had stood upon the reality of grace in their admission into Church-fellowship I would have been as strict as some brethren say they are but because I find it not in their practice I look on it as mens adding to the Word and so let it alone But our question is not whether any Separation but whether such a Separation be commanded as thus Here is a Church where are many corrupt members that is true but withall here are 1. many real and visible Saints 2. A Pastor godly sound in doctrine and able for his work preaching Christ soundly 3. The Ordinances in themselves clear from humane mixtures 4. Though here are corrupt members yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated they are separated not admitted but there is a pure lump 5. The Church is not puffed up but rather grieved that there are so many corrupt members amongst them but according to their light they being so many know not how to cast them out left there by other mens sins but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing Yet notwithstanding a few of these Visible Saints the minor part be sure we observe shall make separation not onely from the corrupt members but from the major part of the godly and visible Saints from that godly Pastor having no communion with these no not in the Supper where they are a pure lump and yet this minor part have not done their part to reform these corrupt members If the Holy Ghost hath commanded such a Separation I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it I fear he will hardly find three texts for such a Separation yet I know where such Separations are and of these men complain If he cannot produce Scriptures he hath said nothing to many of our Separations The Dr. I perceive speaks much of original Institution and primitive Constitution of Churches but I shall desire him to shew us the Scriptures where the Apostles did use to goe to several Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members but withal many godly at least visible Saints who had walked before with their godly Pastors in constant attendance upon and subjection to the Ordinances of Christ and there the Apostles did pick out some of the best of the members and leaving the Pastor and others grieved weakened and thus did constitute Churches I cannot remember any Scripture which shews this was their practice whence I doubt this kind of constitution is not so old but rather had its original since 1640. As for Parochial Precincis I shall speak to them hereafter Object But why then doe not these godly Pastors and visible Saints you speak of separate the profane and grossely ignorant from their Congregations but sinfully retain them or at least suffer them to abide with them If they did so they should not be troubled with godly mens separating from them they sweep not the Lords house Answ Whether godly men would not separate then I cannot tell If the Apostles rules of admission were sufficient to guide us there might be more hopes they would not But when men set up rules themselves and all men must come to their rules and wayes they would be as apt to separate from those whom the Apostles would admit I think they would be almost as eager for separation as now Whether those Pastors and Saints visible doe sinfully suffer such in their Churches and so are blame-worthy I dispute not but as to the present state of these Churches left such by the negligence sin of those who usurped the power over them whence some will scarce own them for Churches and others plead so much for separation from them something may be fairly offered which may plead for them True it is men of great grace great gifts great purses great courage great favour with great men having the chiefest persons in a Town on their sides which last was my advantage in this small village may doe more towards the reformation of their particular congregations then other men can doe who are not so advantaged Magisterial and Curst Divines who being aloft every way consider not the tentations of men below them are not such honourable men with me as some others are Those men who have lien in pickle in the brine of varieties of tentations twenty years have known by experience the evils of debts poverty joyned to great family-charges low gifts desperate workings of spiritual and fleshly corruptions sense of guilt these are the men who shall write practical books for me these I doubt not will write low and speak low these will feel their brethrens temptations But to the point 1. These men doe separate at the Lords Supper and there allow them no communion This is attained with much difficulty in our dayes we know they contend much for it 2. The most they doe is they admit their children to Baptism which considered in themselves are not profane and were Baptism administred by that latitude which the Apostles did administer it I doubt not but many may be admitted to it Now in that this is all the priviledge they have more then these men who separate will allow them the question is whether there be nothing considerable to sway men to this practice 1. It is a question disputable whether the immediate Parents onely can give title whether the Grandfather or Grandmother being in covenant may not help to give title to a grandchild Upon this account divers administer Baptism 2. There is a question whether if others under the covenant will undertake the education of such children may they not be baptized as our Mr. Norton conceives they may 3. There are eminent Divines who maintain that though the Parents be excommunicated yet the child of such ought to be baptized Zanch. Perkins and divers whom I could name Now if this be true then though all these were excommunicated which is the most those who separate can desire yet their children should be baptized which is all the priviledge these men have though not excommunicated and which those who separate can stumble at For the rest of
the Ordinances we admit Indians to I hope they will not deny them admission to those I omit that great question whether Baptism be not a Regenerating Ordinance which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain and have Scriptures which speak very fairly for them so much as I can scarcely be satisfied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring Now though I have not so much light to carry me in any of these opinions and convince me fully of their truth yet I see so much argument for them that I am very tender towards those who goe upon these grounds whatever arguments I have against them which carry me another way and were I a private member of one of those Churches where there were so many those visible Saints an able godly Pastor and the Supper kept as I said I should not dare to separate from it as others doe I might adde to this how some Ministers though they doe baptize yet they deal roundly first with the Parents and so as some will come no more at them for Baptism And one an Episcopal Divine of eminent note hath refused to administer Baptism to the children of such parents as he found sottishly ignorant but sent them back first to learn the principles of Religion and assent to them So that had these who separate stuck close to their Ministers and encouraged them in thus dealing with those scandalous persons in private they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done 3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth and their children baptized for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers and better part but no command to separate from the Officers 4. Should all the godly Ministers in England separate as these men would have us and goe by their rules in admission of Church-members I question whether there would be a godly Minister left in England the common people would not bear it And verily for godly Ministers to suffer death in things so disputable wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple having so much probability from Scripture as that argument of Circumcision with the rest before mentioned but yet more to suffer for rules which themselves made not the Apostles this is a hard chapter those who are so free of their lives may take their course I will blesse the Lord if he shall please to assist me with grace to lay down my life for him if he shall call me to it in things where I am confident I know his mind and the Scriptures are so clear that I need not doubt and in the mean time thank God I meet with such as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of lesse concernment arguments casting me on that side but not without great scruples on the other side I hear great words from some of these they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for I dare not speak such great words 5. These men who thus separate when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object against yet allow in their Churches and think we are bound to allow such who deny all Infant-Baptism and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Churches These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of Abraham from Church-membership these men must be admitted to the Supper and what not the others are debarred from the Supper but their Infants baptized which of these two is the worst I wonder for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man professing Christ in words then not baptize the child of a godly man more reason and Scripture may be alledged for it Whence me thinks the Doctor being such a strong Champion for Toleration may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren some benefit of his opinion for Toleration is Malorum and if this be evil I presume he looks on the Anabaptistical opinion as evil also and if this must be tolerated in Churches and doth not weaken the purity of the Church why the other should not have some allowance I know not I know no understanding man that is against Toleration simply he that will allow none is not fit to live in these times but how far we are bound to Tolerate is a hard question To conclude Respon ad Apol. 168. I shall only see what our Mr. Norton a man who in some cases allows separation from a true Church and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis to that question how is secession to be made from a true Church answers thus 1. Not without due vse of all means to remove the impurities I am sure amongst those means this is one for these to bear witness against the scandalous members and labour in their places to get them removed regularly those then who never deal with any of these in a Church-way who will not bear witness against them to the Eldership but when their Pastor have asked them Will you prove against these c. answer No not they These use means well yet such separate Also how some of the Congregational Ministers who have had their hands in these separations have used all means when as they never went to the Ministers when they encouraged the people in their separation to speak with them I know not I have heard two Ministers of note complain of this unkind dealing 2. Not presently but they must use prudence patience and long-suffering Those Ministers and Churches who have found these in those who separated from them may testifie for them if they can 3. Without condemning of the Châ—â—ch but acknowledging it from whence this secession is made It were well if we could get so much from many of these to acknowledge any to be true Churches but such as are in their gathered as they call it way 4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful Separation from the Lutheran * Yet Calovius in his answer to Jo. Crocius tells us we differ from them in ten Articles and above thirty Controversies p. 33. Churches he will not allow though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper But our men 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have separated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is sound and the persons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of 2. No nor will some of them so much as hear the officer from whom they have separated though sound and godly but rather set up a Tradesman to prophesie in the absence of their own Minister and before they had a Minister exercise their gifts amongst themselves rather then hear their former Minister Certainly if some Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schism there was never any Schism in this world Thus I have given my reasons why I am not satisfied with all which the
I had But 1. I hope our brethren doe not think it a sin for a Minister to keep to his own Parish if they doe let us hear them prove it I have heard it reported by a very serious Christian that one of our brethren should affirm that Christians were bound to come out of their Parochial wayes and to joyn in Church-fellowship after the congregating manner else they did partake of the mark of the Beast I write it as well as I can remember it but because I heard it not with my own ears first I doe not so fully believe the truth of it yet there are good reasons why I should believe it I had something to say but at present let it alone 2. I am sure Paul said All things are lawful to me but all things are not expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 Is not this a rule for us grant the thing to be lawful that is it might be done without any breach of Gods Law though not commanded to doe it yet I am sure it is not expedient for us to doe it because we see it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us If we be commanded to follow peace with all men then I hope to follow after and endeavour the peace of the Churches is a duty of great weight But this is looked upon as the Ministers weakness that this should break peace 1. Be it so that it is their weaknesse then let others shew their strength in bearing with their weaknesse since they have no command to take people from other good Ministers Those who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak 2. But I doubt there is strong reason for this weaknesse For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother to have those in whom lies his chiefest comfort taken from him if you take away my comfort there is reason why I should be grieved would you not have a godly person to be a comfort to the Minister 2. It weakens the hands of that good Minister in endeavours to reform Who will stand by him if the godly be gone from him Those commonly who are taken out of other Parishes are not of the poorest sort 3. When a place hath wanted a Minister it hath been a cause of such discouragement to godly Ministers that a godly man will not readily come into such a Parish because the congregational men have taken out the good people or some of them it may be the chief out of the Parish and so the Parish lie destitute of a Minister a long time and at last must get such as they can and thus the souls of others are endangered As for their returning of such to that Minister in case he will come we know their judgment by their practises When Parishes have had good Ministers this hath helped to remove them That practice then which so discourageth good Ministers as it causeth their removal and hinders others from coming into place I doe not look at this as a light matter but a practice intolerable in the Churches Though this be not so bad as is the practice of some by me yet in effect it comes to the same Two small Parishes lying so as they may easily joyn and would but those in them who had a shew of Religion turn'd to the Separation whence no godly Minister cares for coming among them but there the people lie year after year no Minister to regard them no Ordinances who knowes what God might have done for the souls of some of them had the professing party held close and encouraged a godly Minister to come amongst them whereas now for divers years they have had none nor are like to have This practice of our brethren comes to the same in conclusion if they thus take away the good people out of other Parishes 4. What weaknesse soever this is in them I doubt our strong men would not take it well to have another come and take away their people from them Something I heard hisce auribus what one said when a Minister would have come into another Parish by and took away some of his people Those who are eminent in parts and have their people sure to them may say Let them goe but what they would doe if the thing should be practised I know not But however 't is good to weigh things in the scales of reason and if so I think it a just matter of grief and so of offence to good Ministers against their free consent to take away any of their people So much for weakness 3. The congregational brethren being lesse in number by ten if not twenty parts compared with the number of other Ministers and those godly one would think it should be a mercy sufficient that they live in such a Nation as this quietly having the freedome of their consciences let them reform what they can in their own places The Magistrate doth countenance the Ministers though of different judgments and so numerous yet willing to associate and shew brotherly communion For my part I look on it as a great mercy had I a heart to answer it though I doe not goe and fleet the cream of my neighbours congregations because they are not of my judgment This is spoken in reference to our Associating which if it were but yielded there were hopes of closure Nor do I see any reason why our brethren should so much stand upon it for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almost at an end for those who have a mind to separate affect no Churches rather then Congregational Churches As for such to whom the brethren have offered the Agreement for peace and they refuse to associate with their brethren without any Scriptural reason given why they so refuse a great care having been taken of crossing of mens principles which were not plainly against Scripture and might stand with peace and sobriety but rather affect to stand alone if any in their Parishes shall desire to joyn with any of the Associated Churches I know no reason why our hands should be so bound up that we should not receive them but others must take from us especially if they be such who have a right to the Lords Supper but did not nor will communicate with such a congregation because they require that of them which the Word doth not before they will admit them This I conceive were great bondage that a Minister with three or four men shall set up a way of admission to the Lords Supper which all must come to the thing it self may be good but not required to a Church-state nor the receiving of the Supper and that all must stoop to this or have no Supper there and because of Parochial bounds they must have it no where else Men may be of different judgments from mine but that shall never hinder communion if they be
render the word Et constituerunt The same verb and in the same conjugation which Paul useth 1 Tit. 5. But if it were the peoples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which did constitute Officers certainly Paul needed not to have left Titus there to doe that which they could doe without him and did though he were there to leave Titus onely to contribute an Adjunct when the people have given the Essence I could never receive this conceit The Arabick also refers the Act to the Apostles Et designarunt eis manibus suis in singulis Ecclesiis Presbyteros And by this the Imposition o◠hands is plainly implyed c. All things considered I do much more question whether any thing can be brought from this word to prove popular Election then I doe believe popular Election constitutes a Minister To have a Minister imposed upon godly people or a true Visible Church without their consent I look on it as great tyranny This was not the primitive practice Ep. ad Cor. p 57. for Clemens saith when the Apostles or other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no mention made of the Fraternity doing it did constitute Elders he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet I do not think that the people elect tanquam ex authoritate Electio non cogit they doe eligere non per jurisdictionem sed per subjectionem saith Ames This power the people have that no man shal have power over them unlesse they consent to subject unto him but what is this to their having so much power over him as to make him a Minister To be their Minister and to be a Minister are two things If no Authority be put forth in the peoples Election there is none put forth in Ordination sure if it be but an Adjunct certainly the Adjunct should most properly belong to them who give the Essence then Ministers come into Office without any Authoritative Act put forth fasting and prayer common to all Christians which they make Ordination is no Act of Authority It is strange Doctrine to me that a Minister should be a Minister onely in that congregation which elected him Mr Noyes tells us That the Elders of one Church have power to act in all Churches upon mtreaty P 48. and yet tells us the power of the Keyes is originally and essentially in the body of the members that they give the Keys p. 10. p. 11. that Election is the Essence of the Call which doctrine I cannot yet receive I question not but every true Minister bears relation to the Church Catholick were now the Catholick Church reduced to six particular Churches if members came to my congregation out of all those six I would not question to administer the Lords Supper to them all at one time and this our brethren deny not but why must I perform an official act to them to whom I bear no relation If I should goe with my people into any one of these six congregations then I hope I may administer there also this I suppose may be allowed for why may not I as well administer there as in my own place I hope they will not tye up Churches to places so as the place makes the difference I know what men argue from the Analogy of a Mayor in a Corporation which is no proof but only illustration and if our brethren can find out that Christ hath one Catholick Civil Common-wealth which makes up his body as we can find he hath a Catholick Church which is his body then the Analogy will have more force But I must break off from this discourse though I had something more to have said to this I doubt not but in some cases a man may be Ordained and Authoritatively sent forth to preach the Gospel and baptize without popular election preceding What Athanasius did with Frumentius is well known and so others whom I spare to name If this be true Loc. Com. p. 199. then popular election gives not the Essence Musculus though he had pleaded for that priviledge of the people in the Apostolical Primitive Churches yet again shews that that custome cannot be profitable to the Churches now and therefore in their Churches the people did not elect So much for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know no other Texts that can be brought for popular election Our brethren doe allow Ordination besides Election but whether that be Ordination which they call Ordination is the question being I am now upon the Text and think it is that which they build upon for I know no other I will briefly examine and so return to this Text no more 1. It is true that when a Minister is to be ordained the Church doth solemnly seek the Lord by fasting and prayer for his grace and blessing upon the person to be ordained which shews the weight of the office and of Ordination to it but commending here doth not relate to their fasting and prayer but is distinct Fasting and prayer relates to their Ordination Cor. a Lap. saith here is a Histerologia Oratio enim jejunium praemissum fuit ordinationi presbyterorum Intex ut in Cap. 13. v. 2 3. Therefore Luke useth the Aorist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. postquam orassent q.d. cum post orationem jejunium constituissent eis Presbyteros Nor is that the main business of Ordination to commend a man to God this Text will not force it as in the next I shall clear 〈…〉 ordinationis proprius est collatio protestatis docendi sacramenta administrandi ad illum ordinatio per se dirigitur De Minis Eccles p. 182. eundemque perpetuo infallibiliter consequitur saith Gerhard with whom agrees the stream of Divines and the practise of the Churches in N. England For though a man may teach for the trial of his gifts in order to office half a year a whole year yet he administers no Sacraments till he be ordained Sepa Exa p. 54 55. I have spoken more to this in my Book against the separation 2. This Text serves not our brethrens turns for if so then All those whom the Apostles here commended to God the Apostles ordained But the Apostles did not ordain all those whom they commended to God ergo ordination is not a commending c. The major is plain for Definitio Definitum reciprocantur Our brethren will say but the commending of persons chosen c. will be ordination by this Text. No for the last words shew whom they commended The Believing Disciples The whole Churches they commended them to God in whom they had believed Now believing is not the next cause of a persons being ordained but they did commend them to God quatenus believers The method of Ordination is thus 1. A Believer 2. A Person gifted 3. A Person elected in constituted Churches 4. Ordained Women did believe and they were commended to God as well as any other So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉