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
no being made so we know not how c. shew us then what office of Love is incumbent on us that we do not perform His arguing is not distinct having not tot told us what he means by a National Church If he take it as he seems to do for the Hierarchical Church with National Officers with subordinations c. I would say It s certain himself was once of that National Church a member of it perhaps zealous of Episcopacy and an exact observer of its Canons So that if that National Church be proved as it is by some attempted to be a Church of Christs institution he cannot be excused from Schism in separating from it For though they cannot charge him as now of that Church both it being abolished and himself changed into another way yet they may say he was not long since a member of that National Church But if he take National Church as the Churches were in the Nation all professing the same truth and exercising the same substantial worship as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church he must either acknowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church as he does pag. 224. or else renounce communion with her also as no Church or Churches of Christ which whether he does or no comes after to be considered § 20 For the other horn of his Dilemma If they are and must be of this National Church c. what duty of Love is there which they owe to it and do not perform Seeing he makes the challenge and professes that if it can be shewn he will address himself to it I shal take the pains to inform him fully before we have done only now considering what he saies here Do we not saies he joyn in external acts of worship in peace with the whole Church p. 67. Call the whole Church together try what we will do Is not all this aequivocally spoken In what external acts of worship do they joyn with us as a Church Do they not disown us as no Churches and our Ministers as no Ministers admit none to worship with them but confederat members When they sometimes preach in our Congregations or hear us preach do they not count themselves to us and us to themselves as gifted brethren only but no Ministers And what means he by the whole Church or how can it be called together unless he mean his own Church or Churches How then do they joyn in every Congregation in the Nation When though they presume to preach in our Churches to steal away our people from us their own people will seldome or never come into our Congregations to hear unless some of them preach Ad populum phaleras And as for their joyning in peace with the whole Church it is a Blind for they separate themselves with some of our members from our Churches to the great discouragement of the Ministers and greater disturbance of the whole and all the Churches of the Nation § 21 The Counsel that he gives to members of particular Churches pag. 70 who have voluntarily given up themselves to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ I fear extends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches That they would be careful to prevent causeless differences in their own meetings or among themselves which if they do let them all say what they will they are no Schismaticks For as for our particular Congregations they scarce account them Churches though most of the members of them have voluntarily given up themselves explicitely or implicitely as New England men confesse to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ And if they grant ours to be true Churches they must necessarily acknowledge those who first raised causeless differences in them now foment them by separation from them to be Schismaticks by his own description Yea so much worse than those Corinthians whose case he exemplifies if so be they did not upon their differences separate into parties and Churches which he denies but we conceive they did and these both raise differences and then separate from our Churches into several combinations and one sayes I am of Pauls Congregation and another I am of Apollo's I speak this in a figure as Paul did 1 Cor. 4.6 He can easily apply it CHAP. III. Causeless Separation from a true Church is Schism § 1 HE now fearing this or the like Objection as obvious to be made by every man That if Schism be onâ—y amongst the members of one Church pag. 72. then the separation of any man or men from a true Church or one Church from another is not Schism which is contrary to the judgement of most Christians Divines and Churches he hopes to help himself by his old definition of Schism in the Scripture precise description of it as he limited above And peremptorily denies that in that sense there is any relinquishment departure pag. 73. or separation from any Church or Churches mentioned or intimated in the Scripture which is or is called Schism or agreeth with the description by them given us of that term But to this I have many things to say 1. That precise signification of the word and description of the thing is before disproved The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts and is applyed both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture as was proved above 2. Supposing that to be the onely sense mentioned in the case of the Corinthians which is denyed and disproved yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture and deduced by regular and rationall consequence The word signifying indefinitely seperation either in opinion or parts is it not a faire consequence If seperation in judgement in a Church be a Schism much more upon that difference to separate from a Church into another against the Church 3. St. John blames some for separating from the Church 1 Joh. 2.19 they went out from us c as is the manner of Schismaticall and Hereticall Spirits being obstinate in their opinions and opposed by the Church they stay not till they are cast out but go out and become the head of a faction against the Church as histories do abundantly manifest 4. His own places brought for instances of blameable separation from a Church do all or some minde the nature of Schism as precedaneous to that separation therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture we shall consider them in order § 2 1. The first produced is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the Assembling of our selves together as some do He renders the words for his own advantage not wholly deserting the Assembling of our selves c and makes it to be Apostacie from the faith p. 74. and thereupon upon forsaking the Assemblies would any man call these Schismaticks sayes hee He formerly glossed this text of neglecting the publick Assemblyes onely see Appendix §. 14. He makes the
union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ which I shall freely grant him provided he do not limit Schism as formerly he did to the worship of God only yet that he does here againe The consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God marke that is instituted by Jesus Christ is the foundation of what I have further to offer c The Designe of this is that he may have a faire retreat when he is charged with breach of union in other respects and so with Schism to escape by this evasion This breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one Assembly met to that end And that is onely Schism in the Scripture notion as he hath often said But I shall attend his motion § 8 This union being instituted in the Church according to the various acceptions of that word so it is distinguished For which purpose he undertakes three things to shew 1. The severall considerations of the Church with which union is to be preserved 2. What that union is p. 82. we are to keep with the Church in each consideration 3. How that union is broken and what the sinne whereby it is done Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned leaving others to plead for themselves CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall and its Union § 1 THe Church of Christ in this world is taken in Scripture three wayes 1. For the mysticall body of Christ p. 84. his elect redeemed c commonly called the Church Catholick militant 2. For the universalitie of men called by the Word visibly professing the Gospell called the Church Catholick visible 3. For a particular Church of some place wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind This distinction of the Church is rather of the word than of the thing intended by it imports not a three-fold Church but one Church under a threefold consideration arising as he sayes from the nature of the things themselves that is the members of that Church who may be considered either as true believers that makes the invisible Church 2 as professors of the same Faith that makes the Catholike visible Church or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship and that is called a particular Church For as the definition of a Church agrees to it in all the three considerations It is a societie of men called out of the world by the word c So the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches or in that threefold consideration of it at once He that is a true believer of the invisible Church is also a professor of the Faith and so a member of the Catholike visible Church and he that is of both those is or ought to be if possible a member of a particular Church Now the Church having its rise and nature from a call as the word imports that call admitting of severall degrees causes this three-fold notion of the Church That call in Scripture is either internall which he calls effectuall or externall and that again admits of degrees men are called either to the profession of Faith onely lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances or to participatâ—on of the instituted worship also In their obedience to the first call they are said to be members of the Church invisible to the second to be members of the Catholike visible to the third to be members of a particular Church And his own way of raising the former distinction is the same for substance p. 84. § 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last acception is not onely because members of a particular Church are bound to externall rules for joynt communion for to those very rules are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also when it is possible but partly because the Catholike Church in either sense cannot all meet in one place and partly because the opportunitie to yeeld obedience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie not too great or numerous § 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church which 〈◊〉 calls the Mysticall body of Christ his elect page 84. c the Church Catholike militant I have but a little to say I observe onely first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible onely to this world as militant whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect both Militant and Triumphant from Heb. 12.23 The generall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven 2. That he makes the Church invisible the onely Mysticall body of Christ which is ordinarily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state 3. See my Vind Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28 to prove the Catholike invisible Church which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church He sayes They that will apply this text to the Church in any otheâ— sense page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true member of the Church in that sense which will be difficult c But I say that the promise in that text and the rest cited is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church is true They are built upon that Rock and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them but yet it may be true with respect if not to a particular Church which may faile yet to the Catholike visible Church which as it is built upon that Rock the confession of Peter that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Messiah come So it is to continue to the worlds end and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it And this himselfe confesses I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age and such as made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation one way or other p. 86. f. There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church not onely invisible as true beleivers but also of the visible as professors of the Faith of the Gospell and so the promise is made good to it Indeed the promise in that text is made to the whole Church indefinitely and respectively but not to every particular person in it nor to every particular Church There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages but whether it be made to a particular Church That Christ hath had alwayes a Church in this sense in the world himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry p. 85. § 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter § 3 The second thing considerable is the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church among themselves which he makes to be pag. 95. The
of our Divines as we shall shew hereafter our cause being defensible without this Plea But I am farre more unsatisfied that he undertakes the cauâ—e of the Donatists and labours to exempt them from Schism though he allows them guiltie of other Crimes and Miscarriages The grounds of this undertaking I suppose to be 1. His singular notion of Schism limiting it onely to differences in a particular Assembly 2. His jealousie of the charge of Schism to be objected to himselfe and partie if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truely called Schism For the ventilating whereof I suppose we may without flattery or falshood p. 163. grant him his request in respect to our selves not to Rome that is put the whole Protestant Church of God into that condition of Libertie and soundnesse of doctrine which it was in when that uprore was made by the Donatists Certainely most of the Protestant Churches our own among them have as much Libertie are as sound in doctrine and as if not more sincere and incorrupt in worship than those Churches from which the Donatists separated they being not onely troubled with Heresies as we all are but pestered with mulâ—itude of Ceremonies from which wee are freed And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism into consideration The objection raised by himselfe is this p. 162. Doth not Austine and the rest of his contemporaries charge the Donatists with Schism because they departed from the Catholicke Church and doth not the charge rise up wâ—th equall efficacie against you as them At least doth it not gâ—ve you the nature of Schism in another sense than is by you granted This objection concernes not us the generality of Protestants who grant that sense of Schism that it is a breach â—f union or a causelesse separation from the true Churches of Christ but it lyes in full force against him and his partie who â—ave broken the union of our Churches and separated themselvs from all the Protestant Churches in the world not of their own constitution and that as no true Churches of Christ for lack as they say of a right constâ—tution We know indeed where and by whom this Cloud is scattered without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause as formerâ—y stated even as himselfe hath stated it and produced the answers of our learned Divines p. 190. § 47. c which he highly approves p. 192. though he rest not in it but rather cleaves to his own way as we shalll see erre long p. 194. That his designe is to vindicate himselfe and his partie as well as the Donatists from charge of Schism is evident by what hâ— sayes I shall cleerly deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists whâ—ch will be comprehensive also of those other that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation It will therefore be necessary or very expedient to consider how neer their case comes to be parallell with that of the Donatists both for matter and manner of mannaging it and then how he will free them and himselfe from Schism For the first The Donatists having raised causlesse differences in the Church about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores which whether it were true or false was no just ground of casting him out of Communion § 17 made that the ground of their separation how ever they took in other things as is usual into their defence afterwards § 16. The principles they first fell upon were those two long since named 1. That they were the onely Church of Christ in a corner of Afrâ—ca 2. That none were truely baptâ—sed or entered members of the Church of Christ but by some of their partie That the Stage is changed from Africa into America is evident but that these were the principles of the Brownists and are now of all Independents for all Sects are Independents I need not exemplifie by drawing up the parallel he that runnes may read it in their books and practice I wonder not that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome for he hath done as much to England and all forraine Protestant Churches and makes none to be members of the Church but such as are by covenant and consent joyned to some of their Congregations § 3 Secondly for the manner of mannagement of their way the parallel runnes but too smooth and even 1. He sayes of the Donatists That upon supposition they had just cause to renounce the Communion of Cecilianus yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage p. 165. where were many Elders not obnoxious to that charge The parallel comes home to him thus Upon supposition or grant that the Church of England and himselfe had just cause to renounce the Pope and Church of Rome yet had he and his partie no ground to separate from the Church of England where there were many Elders and people not obnoxious to that charge of Apostacie upon the Church of Rome 2. Leaving the instance given to avoid prolixitie I shall onely apply what he sayes of the Donatists Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with our late Hierarchicall Church yet nothing but the height of pride madnesse and corrupt fleshly interest could make men declare hostilitie against all the Protestant Churches of Christ in the world which was to regulate all the Churches in the world by their own fancie and imagination 3. This line is also parallel Though men of such pride and folly might judge all the residue of Christians to be faultie and guiltie in not separating from our Churches yet to proceed to cast them out from the very name of Church members and so disannull their priviledgts and ordinances they had been partakers of as manifestly some doe by rebaptizing all that enter into their communion and others by denying both Sacraments to some baptism to Children of parents and Lords Supper to parents themselves not in their Church way is such unparallel'd pharisaism and tyrannie as is wholly to be condemned and intolerable 4. Once more and I have done the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation are too much parallel The divisions outrages and enthusiasticall furies in the Levellers and such like and riots in the Ranters and Quakers that have befallen some of them Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami Mr. Raie Gem. pleb or they fell into beginning at Independentism were and are in many pious and wisemens judgment tokens of the hand of God against them to wâ—tnesse that their undertaking and enterprize was utterly undue and unlawfull pag. 19. I wish they may patiently consider all this § 4 Thirdly we expected to heare how he would free them and himselfe so neere agreeing with them from the charge of Schism in their separation from the true Churches of Christ Hee cannot but acknowledg them to be faultie many wayes but not guiltie of Schâ—sm If he would acknowledge as much of his own way I should
discipline yet God reserved secretly some true believers and some professors together with so much of his Ordinances as to substantialls and necessary ingredients to a Church a Ministry and baptism c. that when he stirred up the heart of Luther and other Ministers like another Zerubbabel and some people to separate themselves from the Romish tyrannie and corruptions in doctrine and worship they needed no miracle to beginne a new Church but some being ministers of the Gospell so made in their Ordination and all being baptized they did not raise a new Church but onely purged the old § 11 We are come now to consider with him What is the Union and Communion of a particular Church pag. 214. that so we may know wherein the bonds thereof do consist And instead of telling us what this union is he tells us what is the foundation of that union which he makes to be double The one externall procuring command ng viz the Institution of Jesus Christ before mentioned requiring peace order union consent and agreement among all the members of it c But I think that all this is the foundation of the union both of the invisible and visible Catholick Church All the members of them as well as of the particular are under those commands requiring peace order c for their walking in such societies when and where they can associate and where is then the difference of this Church from the other 2. The internall foundation of this union is that Love without dissimulation which allwayes is or ought to be betweene all the members of such a Church exerting it selfe in their respective duties c. But this also is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches Love without dâ—ssimulation as was said above p. 98. And so yet we have no difference But we enquire what is the union it selfe or rather what is the forme for that gives union the specificating forme that distinguishes this Church from the rest the other two aforegone This it is p. 215. The joynt consent of all the members of it from a principle of Love to walke together in the universall celebration of all the Ordâ—nances of the worship of God and to performe all offices of Love to one another c But most of this is applicable to the other two Churches or notions of a Church All the members of them are bound by a command of Christ to consent or agree to joyne together when and where they câ—n from a principle of Love in the universall celebration of all the Ordinances or worship and the rest what then is the Specificative forme if it have any of a particular Church And if it have a forme to distinguish it spec fically from the other have not they also fâ—rmes to distance â—hem from this Anâ— if â— are there not three species of a Church which he seem'd to deny aboâ—e We have them all described below p. 236. The forme of the Church Catholick absolutely so called is the unitie with Christ and in it selfe by the one Spirit whereby it is animated This is not very accurately spoken is the unitie of the head and members the forme of a man It is not rather the one Soul that animates it the onenesse of soul whereby the whole is animated p. 95. And will he say the one Spirit of God is the form or soul that animates the Catholike Church p. 95. I was afraid when I read above That which answers hereunto the soul in man in the mysticall body of Christ is the Animation of the whole by his Spirit I was I say afraid to fasten this conceit upon the words Nor did I think he intended any such thing when he said See the Appendix below Sect. 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot easily consent p. 49. But upon second thoughts finding him to repeat the phrase of Animation by the Spirit in this place and to talke of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. the indwelling Spirit I beganne to suâ—pect him to incline at least to this errour for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Divines And since I heare that he preached this publickly at Oxford That believers have not onely the speciall graces and operations of the Spirit in them but the person of the holy Ghost indwelling in them which was the errour of one of the chiefe Leaders of Independentâ—sm in New England and by his brethren there condemned which is seriously to be by them considered God seemes to blast their way not onely by suffering their people to fall from them but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions or strong delusions Not onely some that were once theirs have fallen into some doctrines of Poperie and Arminianism all most all the sects preach those points but some of themselves that fell not so farre have yet vented dangerous and damnable doctrines as I could instance but forbeare Bâ—t to returne 1. The forme of the mysticall Church is say some of his side Faith 2. The forme of the Catholike visibly professing is the unity of that as being by them professed that is say others and he above the profession of the same Faith 3. The forme of the particular Church p. 236. as such is its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worsh p unmerically in the confession of the same Faith and subjection to the same rules of Love for the edification of the whole I observe first the difference He said above the union of this Church which he makes the specificating forme not very properly is the joynt consent of all the members to performe the same Ordinances of worship but now hee sayes It is the joynt observance of all Ordinances c. And indeed this seemes to be the specificating difference or forme of this Church as distinct from the other the Communion of all the members of it in all the same numericall Ordinance of worship And this is the plaine truth dropped from him unawares contrary to his partners and his own Judgment concerning the forme of a particular Church It is not as they have held out hitherto an explicite consent of all the members but Its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically in the confession of the same Faith c Whence I would inferre 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholike do occasionally meet together in observation of the same numericall Ordinances of worship then and there is found a particular Church though no explicite consent be passed by them one to another 2. That the explicite consent they so much talke of is not necessary by institution of Christ to the forme or essence of a particular Church the implicite covenant of Christianitie binding them to such performance when and where it is possible but is onely a prudentiall meanes or bond for the better tying
maintaining those differences is a worse Schism and then upon those dâ—fferences to depart and break the Church inâ—o pieces is Schism in the highest degree and admits of all his own aggravations given above and is an he nous sinne 2. One Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them p. 218. is no Schism properly so called Besides what hath been said above that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church which hath the nature of Schism I adde that theâ—e words are aequivocall for they holding all Churches to be Independent they must hold consequentially there is not necessarily any communion between thâ—m as Churches but as to particular members of the Catholike Church the refusing to hold communion with another Church can be no Schism because they owe no communion to one another at least of divine institution but of mere prudence as was newly said But seeing as I proved there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches not onely in profession of the same Faith but also in the same specificall and where it is possible numericall worship the refusing to hold this union and communion in doctrine or worship hath the nature and well deserves the name of Schism 3. If that departure of any man or men be done without strife variance judging and condemning of others it cannot be evill but from circumstances c This is as much as to say that departure which is not evill is not evill For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance strife and divisions before the parting and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day The very separation from a Church to set up another Church is a reall judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated Is it not the practise of all Separatists to judge and condemne all our Churches as Antichristian or none to asperse us as no Ministers but Priests c Is it not the designe of his book to prove if he could and condemne us as no Churches Let the world be judge for unlesse this be proved he can never justifie his separation either therefore he must prove us to be no Churches of Christs institution and that he owes us no communion nor hath broken any union of Christs appointment which he shall never be able to prove or else he had need put himselfe not upon the Justice but on the largest mercy of his Judges CHAP. VIII Independentism a great Schism § 1 In his vindicatâ—on of himselfe and partie from the charge of Schism by Episcopall men he first layes down their Indâ—cement to which how he hath answered and acquitted himselfe let them if they please consider I shall onely take notice by the way of some things tending to the issue of the debate between us and him and that very briefly He first consideâ—s in what sense the Church of England may be taken As 1. The people of God his elect c in this Nation may though improperly be called the Church of England But why not a properly as all true beleivers in the world may be and are by him called the Catholike Church The World and a Nation differ but as greater and lâ—sser as a part and the whole and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholike and so as properly called a Church In this sense sayes he it is the desire of our souls to be and abâ—de members of the Church of England to keep with it the unitie of the Spirit in the bond of peace But unlesse he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches I fear he will be found to break the Union that ought to be between them And indeed it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude they intend to have none but such of their Churches which is as much as they can to make the invisible Church to be visible on earth He speaks something suspitiously this way p. 90. The Elect and the Church are the same persons under several considerations and therefore even a particular Church on the account of its participation of the nature of the Catholick is called the elect 1 Pet. 5.13 And yet he speaks of some parts of the body uncomely p. 215. which who they be in his Church I know not They leave those to us to clouth and beautifie and then they may admit them into their elected Congregations But he says If we have grieved p. 223. offended troubled the least member of his Church so that he may justly take offence at any of our wayes we profess our readiness to lie at his foot for reconciliation c. This strengthens the suspicion of what I said For unless he take us all for Reprobates we have and do profess our selves and we think justly offended at their wayes and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction let the world judge The rest that follows is spoken with equal confidence and truth If we love not all the members of this Church rejoyce not with them c. but I forbear He deludes us when he saies if we do not these things Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismaticks that ever lived on the face of the earth For if we prove all or some of these to be false yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical whatever they may be else § 2 2. In this sense also we profess our selves members of the Church of England p. 224. as professing and adhering to the doctrine of Faith in the unity of it which was here established declared by Lawes Confessions Protestations c. Will he undertake this for all the Independent Churches in England Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the professed doctrine of this Church and so Heretical But were it true which he says for himself they may be excused from being Heretical but they may yet be Schismatical in denying communion in matter of worship For the worship of God was as well declared professed protested as the Doctrine They hold communion with us in profession of the same Faith but not in the observance of the same worship yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us as with them or let them prove our failings and we promise a Reformation In this sense they are neither children nor members of the Church of England And this is the wonder That professing they received their regeneration and new birth p. 225. by the preaching of the word and the saving truths thereof with the seal of it in their Baptism they should now separate from us not only in that Ordinance of the Lords Supper but also in the preaching of the Word and Baptism Could they make use of our preaching and Baptism for their regeneration and not of the other Sacrament and the same preaching for their
confirmation and besides now renounce us as no true Churches This we think is Brownistical and highly Schismatical The Anabaptists deal more rationally to their own principles in denying our Ministry and Baptism and all Church-state than they do The old Rule was The sincere preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments are the Characters of a true Church Which we having and they separating from us in all church-Church-Communion how shall this crime be named but by Schism in the highest degree § 3 But as they have left us so some of their Independent Churches p. 226. have left them viz. Those who have renounced the baptism they received in their infancy and repeat it amongst themselves And have they not done this upon their own principle That all true Church-state is lost in England And if so then no true Ministry no Baptism no Church and then it must be revived by a new-baptism the door of a true Church It was told the Brownists long ago either they must come back to us or go forward to Anabaptism and so must the Independents if their principles and conclusions be consonant to one another yea many are fallen from them to Anabaptsem and I believe nothing but the odium or some private interest keeps many more from following after them But what thinks he of Anabaptists are they Schismaticks or no for their separation Hear his Apology for them yet I suppose that he who upon that single account will undertake to prove them Schismatical may find himself entangled To raise up differences causelesse differences unlesse Paedobaptism be a trivial thing and upon that to separate not only from the judgement and practise of all the Christian Churches in the world at present but from the judgment and practise also of all the primitive and succeeding Churches in all ages and all places if this be not Schismatical I know nothing that deserves that name Sure the Donatists were generally accounted Schismaticks for rebaptizing those that came to them from other Churches but sayes he The case is not exactly with the Anabaptists as it was with the Donatists Exactly the same True for they lived in Africk these in Europe But they do the same thing rebaptize the same that were baptized by us That is granted but not on the same principle yes upon the very same principle though they added another which the Donatists knew not As how p. 226. The Donatists rebaptized those who came to their societies because they believed that all administration of Ordinances not in their Assemblies was null and to be looked on as no such thing And do not Anabaptists think so and say so of all the Ordinances administred in our Church yea of Baptism given to Infants in the Independent Churches Do they not or would they not rebaptize any that comes from them to their Societies because they think their Baptism null if not their other Ordinances But he hath an help for this Our Anabaptists yes your Anabaptists do the same thing but on this plea that though Baptism be yet Infant Baptism is not an Institution of Christ and so is null from the nature of the thing it self not the way of administration of it Yes both ways they hold it null and so much worse and more Schismatical than the Donatists They rebaptized only as some think those that were baptized by Cecilianus or some of his Ordination but did not so with others nor did they think Baptism in infancy to be null in the nature of the thing But Anabaptists rebaptize all come they from what Church they will and are not these the worser Donatists But let him take heed lest in defending a bad cause he make himself guilty of the sin Does not he himself labour in this book to prove that the Administration of Ordinances in our Assemblies are null Our Ordination null p. 197. and Antichristian from the Beast And charging them that insist upon it as keeping up what God would have pullâ—d down p. 198. and consequently the Ordinances by us administred are null And why then is not he rebaptized Yea our Churches are esteemed not of Christs institution because not lawfully gathered See page 206. §. 10. and are not these worse than Donatists But he saies This falls not within the verge of my defence Yet he could not but speak a good word for them They must not be Schismaticks lest he be proved so too They are but one step before him it may be his own case ere long And I durst almost be his prophet to foretell what he and others will do If they stick close to and mannage that principle well That all true Church-state was lost in England they must not stay where they are but go forward either to Anabaptism and be rebaptized or to Quakerism as some already are and deny all use of outward baptism § 4 But hear his conclusion In these several considerations p. 226. we were and do continue members in the Church of God in England and as to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin How warily first Members in the Church of England not of it not of any particular Church of England but as of a Church new revived and gathered in England But I ask were they not members of some particular Church of England when they were baptized yea for all Ordinances till of late and some of them Ministers besides And have they not renounced Ministry and Lords Supper and all but Baptism Let them speak plainly Were they baptized as members of any Church or no if of any of what if of none how at all unless they hold Baptism no Church Ordinance And by whom by a Minister as such to them or is not Baptism a ministerial act If they may receive Baptism without church-Church-communion if we be no Churches why not also the Lords supper If Communion with the Church Catholick may serve for one Ordinance why not for another Or if they may receive Baptism validly in our Churches why not other Ordinances These questions would be seriously and conscientiously answered But how confidently he shuts up As to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin He that spake those words first was more than a man It s too much for any meer man to think much more to say Who is it that convinces me of sin in his best performances if men cannot God can But if our Churches were not true sure they failed in joyning so long with us Yet we charge them not with failings in their Communion but for relinquishing that Communion and at parting to cast dirt in their Mothers face that bare them them as is confessed as no honest Woman § 5 The rest that follows for many pages together concerning the union of a National Church and breach of that union I leave to them that are concerned in it Only I shall take notice of one passage which is this Whereas sundry
Antiochians appeale to the Church of Jerusalem in such a case which I say whether it were by an institution of Christ or an act of Christian prudence will serve our turne to justifie such Associations though we do not account them to be the forme or cause of the union of a Presbyterian Church but rather prudentiall meanes to preserve that union § 8 Upon that mistake of the forme of a nationall Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes he proceeds to premise some things which may take off the charge of Schism for their separating from our Churches as true as their own 1. No man can possibly be a member of a nationall Church in this sense pag. 251. but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation which concurres to make up the nationall Church But that not being our opinion the consequence sailes He granted as much as we plead p. 250. On the same account that all the professors of the truth throughout the world are the Catholick visible Church of Christ may all the professors of the truth in England be called the Church of England And it was his own assertion above to the contrary That a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church and yet no member of a particular Church And why then may not a man be a member of a Nationall Church and yet be no member of a particular Church I could exemplifie cases but I forbear Indeed as the state of the nation is at this day all generally being baptised except Anabaptists Children no man is a member of the nationall Church but he is also a member of some particular Church That Church being as he oft hath said the seat of Ordinances Hence 2. its evident that a man may recede from this nationall Church and not depatt from some particular Church because he may be a member of the nationall as well as of the Catholick Church and yet be no member of a particular Church c. on the other side a man may be a member of some particular Church and yet be no member of the nationall in the sense of it by him given as himselfe and others do too much evidence 3. He sayes To make men members of any particular Churches their own consent is required If he meane this of an explicite consent as I suppose he does or he sayes nothing it is fully disproved above and implicite confessed sufficient A man that removes his habitation as both he and we grant its free for him to do may by setting down in another Congregation and submitting himselfe to all the Ordinances of Christ there with performance of all Officers of Love to the members of that Congregation implicitely and yet sufficiently consent to be a member thereof And on the other hand a man may not remove his habitation from a Congregation wherein he hath long consented to communicate and yet remove his consent to be a member of another as we see too much in this loose and wandring age § 9 But fourthly he now speaks out That as yet p. 252. at least since possibly we could be concerned in it who are now alive no such Church in this nation hath been formed It is impossible a man should be guiltie of offending against that which is not unlesse they will say we have separated from what should be This Engine hath served him twice before First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists Theirs is no Church at all how could they separate from that which is not Then against the Prelat's Hierarchicall Church Their 's is no Church of Christs institution That which is wanting cannot be numbred p. 242. And now the third time against the same charge by the Presbyterians It is true indeed there hath no such nationall Church been uniformely formed in this nation but he knows such a Church hath been endevoured to be formed conformable to the Word of God and to the best reformed Churches abroad according to our solemne covenant and who have withstood resisted and hindered it and yet do hinder he knowes well enough But withall it cannot be denyed but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in England and perhaps some of their members if not of themselves have been of them from these they have separated as well as from the rest If there were not such here there are such abroad and yet they have renounced communion with them as no true Churches and that 's a negative separation Besides there was and is another Church state in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them pâ—pâ—bly separated The Presbyterian Church state as to particular Congregations in doctrine worship and discipline in them is the very same with theirs excepting that they hold their Congregations to be Independent and entire â—or all Government in themselves but wee acknowledg our selves dependent and would be gâ—ad we had other Churches to joyne with and yet they separate from and disaâ—ow them as well as others Lastly I believe those men that raise differences in a reforming Church and persist in keeping open those divisions separating also into other new Churches do as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one particular Church And unlesse they can better prove than yet they have done that we are no true Churches and their own to be the onely true Churches in the nation in the World the Schism will lye at their door in all aequall mens judgment remove it as they can § 10 p. 253. Let him read the next disputation of Amyraldus his definition of a Schismatick and his censure of those that separate will little please him Disput de ecclesiae membrie As for Amyraldus his judgement of the confoederation of Churches it is the same with ours or not to the purpose Our opinion is that as the consent of particular members explicite or implicite is not the forme of a particular Church So the consent of severall Churches to associate in a classis or Synod is not the forme of a nationall Church The explicite consent of members as they make use of it is but a prudentiall way to tye their members from running away from them and yet that will not do the deed so the explicite consent of severall Churches into Assemblyes is likewise a prudentiall way for the better Governing of those Churches and the easier determining of things of common concernment And as the one so the other is a result of the light of nature need no institution He may now perceive that he is mistaken in his thoughts of a mutuall acknowledgment of the things by him delivered hardly in one of them do we agree But we expected that he would now at last have laid down some principles peculiar to himselfe and those with whom he consents p. 254. in the way of the worship of God c for
not till then will the businesse be brought to a speedie issue As also we hoped that he would have pleaded the right libertie and dutie of gathering Churches in such a state of presessors as that of late and still amongst us built upon other and better principles than any though he had occasion enough by him as yet mentioned But we must wait his leasure His businesse and policie is like the Romanists he spake of at the beginning rather to prove us and all Churches to be corrupt and not rightly instituted than to defend and justifie his own way of gathering Churches § 11 But we are brought againe to his removall of the charge of Schism which he sayes in the true notion of it relates not to gathering of Churches as simply considered If not as simply considered yet as it is the consequent of those divisions and separations included in the nature of Schism Tho e that make differences first and then separate from a Church use not to stay there but being especially Ringleaders of the separation they must conformably gather another Church of a firmer constitution or else condemne their own separation as being of no Church And the rather does this relate to Schism in gathering of Churches because they do not onely depart themselves which is more tolerable but draw off others also into a formed faction Le ts heare the old D lemma revived against the Presbyterians as afore against the Prelaticall Church Either we have been members by our own voluntary consent according to the mind of Christ of some particular Congregations â—in such a nationall Church as part of such a Church or we have not It were ridiculous for any man to charg them with separating from such a Church as never was existent that by their own opposition of its being we blame them for hindering it to be set up and for raising differences in our Churches and then renouncing communion with them and all other of the like constitution as was said above Sure we are most of them if not all were once members of our particular Churches and some of them prime Ministers thereof who after they had raised differences in those Churches which himselfe sayes constitutes a Schismatick separated themselves and drew discâ—ples after them into new never heard of opposite Congregations seâ—ting up Altar against Altar as the Ancients used to speak But heare another evasion If we have been members by our own voluntary consent As much by their own voluntary consent as they were made members of the Nation that is implicitely as borne and bred up in both May they not as well renounce their interest in the nation as their communion with the Church and deny subjection to both Or is it in their power whether they will be bound to communion with some Church or other in the Nation unlesse they can prove them all hereticall Antichristian Yet further by way of Recrimination Have not we done as much as they in separating from the Church of England pag. 255. of Episcopall constitution rejected their nationall Offcers and the way of worship established c Not to regest to him that this was done by other hands I must tell him this is an excursion when he is speaking of his relinquishment of a Presbyterian Church to turne us back to the Episcopall But this hath been his businesse from his first letting out to make the Presbyterian Churches to walke pari passu with the Episcopall and Romish Churches The Churches of England and all Reformed Churches are much beholden to him Let him say plainly have they not renounced all our Churches since both the other were laid aside what can he plead for this but that we are not reformed according to the mind of Christ as we shall heare by and by § 12 But he sayes We expect not that we shall be accused of Schism p. 256. for not esteeming our selves made members of a particular Church against our wills by buying or hireing an habitation within such a precinct of ground Surely they were once esteemed and did esteeme themselves to be members of those particular Churches whether with or without their wills I know not where they were borne or dwelt and must either be of such or none And is it not so for the most part in New England are not their Townes and Churches commensurate was not the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth so called from the places True it is which was said by the Assembly-Divines that living in Parishes is not sufficient to make a man a member of a particular Church a Turke or Pagan may do so but all Church-members in a Parish are members of that Church till they remove their habitations Suppose there were but one such parish must not all Christians be of that unlesse they may be of none But they adde All that dwell in a Parish and constantly heare the word are not yet to be admitted to the Sacrament which sayes he excludes them from being fideles or Church-members and makes them at best but as the Catechumeni who were never accounted members of the Church I pray were not baptized infants and youth's members of the Church yet were not they nor are in their Churches admitted to the Lords Supper If those Divines meant it of unbaptâ—sed persons as they may no mervaiâ—e if they were not accounted Church members Yet what shall we say of Infants of Churchmembers not yet baptized are not they Churchmembers none but an Anabaptist will deny it And though the old Catechumeni new come from Gentâ—l sm weâ—e not accounted Church-members yet our Catechumen's Children o Christian parents are to be accounted such But we proceed § 13 He hath further to say If we have been so members by our own consent and do not continue so to bee p. 257. then this congregatâ—on where we were so members was reformed according to the mind of Chr st or it was not We are now allmost at an issue the intimation is the ground of their separation is that none of â—ur Churches are reformed accordâ—ng to the mind of Christ None of them not at home nor abroad that 's a sad condition But what if they be in reforming should they separate from such Well but suppose any be members of a Church refoâ—med according to the mind of Christ what then If it were reformed and a man were a member of it by his own voluntary consent I confesse it may be difficult how a man can leave such a Congregation without their consent in whose power it is to give it to him without giving offence to the Church of God That they have been members and Misters some of them of our Congregations by their own free consent is evident enough That they have not continued so to be is too manifest That our Congregations some at least were reformed or reforming according to the mind of Christ when they separated from us cannot without great injury be denyed
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
from them but turn them out of the Church by a just censure The last is Hos 4.15 which is only to disswade those that were of the true Church from joyning with Idolaters come not to Gilgal neither go up to Bethaven c. for so the former part of the verse hath it Though thou Israel play the harlot yet let not Judah offend c. § 17 But he speaks with some Indignation Is this yoak laid upon me by Christ p. 263. that to go along with the multitude where I live that hate to be reformed I must forsake my duty and despise the priviledges that he hath purchased for me with his own blood Is this an unity of Christs institution that 〈◊〉 must for ever associate my self with wicked and prophane men in the worship of God c. This sounds too much of the Pharisee the multitude the wicked and prophaneâ— But suppose fire the Church is no corrupt as Israel of â—â—ch or Româ—â— Diâ—â—e years then 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 Come out of her O my people and be not partaker of 〈◊〉 sins But suppose a Church 〈◊〉 in fundamentalls oâ— doctrine and worship suffering some lesse corruptions 〈◊〉 â—tâ—ce in her communion add perhaps in such a condition as it either cannot or will not reform it self and there is no other Church easily to joyn with Will he now leap out of Church and neglect all Ordinances because of some prophane and wicked men Christ himself did not so or will he go and separate into another Church If â—o as it justifies the Brownists in former times in their separation condemned by his own party so it condemns the pious Nonconformists who did not so Though they could not communicate in some Ordinances yet they never withdrew communion from the Church into separate Congregations It is no duty of Christs imposing no priviledge of his purchasing either to deprive a mans seâ—â—â—m's Ordinances for other mens sins 〈…〉 up a nâ—w Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some Reformation in lesser matters And does not this speech insinuate so much That our Churches are such as hate to be reformed and tolerate prophane and wicked men when it is our grief that we have not power enough to reform or eject them They might have stayed till they had found we had hated to be reformed or till they had given us a better Model of a Church-state which never yet we could by our utmost importunity obtaine from them and then they had had some colour for their separation § 18 And yet see how tender he is of our Churches honour and peace I speak not this as for a principle p. 264. that it is the duty of every man to separate from that Church wherein evil men are tolerated c. It is too much that he said every man is at liberty in such a case to dispose of himself as to church-Church-communion p. 261. though he plead it not his duty And here again he says When a Church is overborne by a multitude of wicked and prophane so that it cannot or will not reform it self a Believer is so far at liberty that he may desert the communion of that society without the least guilt of Schism He grants him here too litle for though he desert the purest Church on earth yet he hath told him separation from any or all Churches is no Schism But suppose the Officers of a true Church tolerate wicked men in their Communion which is the grand plea of Separatists a mixt Communion this is taken by them as the duty of private members they sin in that Communion if they separate not They will not bear with such a toleration in our Churches though they do in their own but hold it their duty to leap out of our Câ—urches practise accordingly It were happy for us if they had shewed some of that love and forbearance he so oft speaks of and requiâ—es of us for themselves to our Churches and not reserved it all for their own § 19 The Church of Corinth had as many disorders in it p. 265. as some of ours from which the Apostle advises no man to separate He answers 1. The Church of Corinth was a true Church instituted according to the mind of Christ and was not fallen from this priviledge by any miscarriage which wholly differences the case Why so were the Churches of England in some of their own confessions true Churches planted according to the mind of Christ and needed onely a Reformation and reducing to their first constitution But he plainly insinuates they are no true Churches now by reason of some miscarriages under the Papacy He spake more openly p. 243. We are yet far from being cleerly delivered from the Romane Apostacy Rome is much beholden to him for this courtesie but not the Church of England And as for those miscarriages they were long ago the grossest of them much amended by the first Reformation and more by the second and are endeavouring yet a further Reformation if some had not obstructed it However Corinth had we suppose greater disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us and that before they had used all or any of the remedies of our cure which he requires first to be done in the next page But hear the conclusion Yet this I say p. 266. had the Church of Corinth continued in that condition c. it had been the duty mark that the duty of every Saint of God in that Church to withdraw from it c. It s strange that the Apostle did not inform those Saints of this liberty or duty there or elsewhere It were an hard case for private Christians to be made guilty of the sins of a Church where evil men are tolerated or some of unsound opinions are suffered having I mean done their own duty for amending or ejecting them according to Matth. 18.15 c. § 20 It s true that Austin was mistaken in asserting that Eliah and Elisha p. 267. communicated with the Israelites in their worship which was most Idolatrous unlesse he meant that Elijah sacrificed once among them at his contest with Baals Priests or that both of them were partakers of the Sacrament of Circumcision with them they and theirs if they had any issue But it s as true that our blessed Saviour did communicate with the Jewes in all the true worship of God though the Doctrine was much corrupted and the worship also by will-worship by the Scribes and Pharisees only protesting against those corruptions he communicated in the rest without sin and neither himself separated from that Church nor advised others so to do though shortly to begin the foundation of a new Church way but rather advised to continue in it The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoever they say unto you do it c. §
two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
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
context to be with the 26. v. that so he may draw it to Apostacie they departed to Judaism but it rather looks back to the 24. v. Let us consider one another to provoke unto love good works which is the fruit of brotherly watchfullnesse in members of a Congregation Mat. 18.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not forsaking the assembling c but forsaking another q. d. If we forsake the assemblyes of the Church we shall quickly neglect that brotherly mutuall care and inspection of one another and so fall into separation or Apostacie And the 26 v. rather referres to the latter end of the 25. v. but exhorting one another so much the rather as you see the day approaching For if we sinne willingly c If we forsake the assemblyes neglecting brotherly inspection and so fall into Schism or Apostacie from one to the other the end will be dreadfull But first Estius in loc the Latine Interpreters expound it of forsaking the Assemblyes either by Schism or Apostacie 2. Apostacie is graduall either partiall in some point of Faith or totall in all the first may proceed to a Schism in the Church the second to a separation from the Church As those Act. 15. that in part forsook the way of the Gospell and joyned Moses with Christ circumcision with baptism are said to go out from the Apostles v. 24. Certaine that went out from us have troubled you with words These were Schismaticks in the one and Apostates or Separatists in the other An Heretick or an Apostate may be a Schismatick and something more as a Schismatick too often proves an Heretick For when seducers have first raised divisions in a Church they either voluntarily forsake it or are justly ejected by the Church and then gather their Disciples into distinct bodyes in opposition to the Church as I said above The Apostle describes them thus Act. 20.30 Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them These are grievous Wolves v. 23. so farre from taking care of the flock that they rent and teare it not sparing the flock And therefore the Apostle joynes these together 1 Cor. 13.25 That there should be no Schism in the body but that the members should have the same care one for another Implying that where there is a Schism in the Church the members neglect the care one of another and when the members neglect the care one of another there 's a Schism in the Church But if they so farre neglect the care of one another as to seperate from the Church that 's an higher degree of Schism even a double Schism As in the body naturall if it be a Schism for one member to rent and teare another in the body much more to rend and divide themselves from the body when they cannot have any care one of another Wee see this exemplifyed at this day When men have first raised divisions in the Church they seperate from the Church and gather themselves into distinct bodies having no care for the body from whence they seperated scarce owning them for Churches but rather account them no true Churches reproaching and reviling them Are not these Schismaticks § 3 2. The second place for blameable separation is of some who withdraw themselves from Church-communion p. 75. at least for a season by their disorderly and irregular walking 1 Thes 5.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thes 3.2.6 Such there were in the primitive times and in our dayes whom we charge not with Schism but vanity folly and disobedience to the precepts of Christ in generall No mervail these are not charged with Schism for they neither raised divisions in the Church nor separated from the Church but were disorderly and irregular out of the Church in neglect of their callings So the Apostle expresly instances 2 Thes 3.11 wee heare that there are some which walk among you disorderly not working at all but are busybodies They did not separate from the Church but rather â—s some now do made their frequenting of publick meetings and exercises the Cloake for their idlenesse thinking the Church was bound to maintaine them They were so farre from separating from the Church that some who bring v. 14. for excommunication think the Apostle commands the Church to separate them iâ— they upon warning mend not this fault from the Societie Others think that he commands them onely to withdraw from them in civill respects and if they will not labour let them starve v. 10. As for those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 2d verse which he calls persons that abide quietly in no place or station it is supposed they were not the same men but persecutors of the Apostle most absurdly and unreasonably He knows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Logicall terme signifying absurd men that know not the Topicks or heads of reasoning and these are joyned with wicked and faithlesse men However the Apostle commanding them to warne those disorderly men as brothers by no meanes can be suspected to charge them for separation Yet if he will needs understand it of their separation from Church communion we shall charge them not only with vanity folly disobedience but also with Schâ—sm For they might stirre up dissensions in the Church by defence of their idlenesse which himself calls Schism and then separate from the Church but enough of that § 4 3. Men also separated themselves upon sensualitie that they might freely indulge to their lusts p. 76. and live in all manner of pleasure all their dayes Jude 19. v. These are they that seperate themselves c That some men do seperate from the Church upon doctrines of Libertie and licentiousnesse is too evident as in the old Gnosticks so in the late Ranters and Family of Love but no doubt these men maintained their opinions and practises in the Church so long as they could which caused divisions in the Church and so were Schismaticks and after separated into their own abominable meetings as the world knows That the Apostle spake of the same men in the 4 7 8 10 verses and in the 19. verse is not probable for those former did not separate from the Church or were nor then separated for he speaks of them as frequenters of the Assemblyes v. 12. These are spots in your feasts of charitie when they feast with you feeding themselves without feare These Agapae Love feasts were kept in their Church-meetings at the Sacrament therefore they were not separated And as for the 19. verse it s the judgment of learned Divines it imports just the nature of seducers who draw disciples after them out of the Church The word used to denote this separation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Oecumenius sayes comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies extra terminos ecclesiae quempiam educere elicere to lead or draw men out of the Church and so implyes they did not onely
separate themselves but drew others also into seperation And Clem. Alexandr interprets it segregantes fideles à fidel bus id est alios ab aliis Seperating the faithfull from the faithfull that is some members of the Church from other In a word others understand it of both kinds of separation tam in doctrina quam in coetibus in opinions and parties or assemblyes And both these being causelesse divisions are by all accounted Schism p. 27. Now the reverend Doctor to avoid this calls these Abominations and not Schism As Anabaptists Quakers c do not cease to be Independents but a e that and some thing more and askes whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted Schismaticks or their crime in separating Schism But this is but a dâ—sguise of the businesse For there may be Schism in this and the other two afore and something more He that raises dissentions in a Church and then separates from it either by Apostacie Idlenesse or sensualitie carryes his brand of a Schismatick with him though it seeme to be swallowed up in further abominations There are degrees of Schism as I said which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem the wickednesse that such proceed unto but from the terminus à quo that is from a true Church I shall put him a case If a member of his Congregation inclining to Apostacie Idlenesse or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church concerning any of those and then should seperate from his Church either into irregular walking as some Antinomians or into Abhominations as some Ranters or into totall Apostacie and Atheism which many are fallen into from the height of this way would he not say thee were Schismaticks and something worse And of all it may be said These are they that separate themselves I leave it to him § 5 But he is so confident of the contrary that he redoubles more vigourously his former Assertion I say p. 77. for a man to with-draw or with-hold himself from the Communion externall and visible of any Church or Churches on the pretension and plea be it true or otherwise that the worship doctrine discipline instituted by Christ is corrupted among them with which corruption he dares not defile himselfe it is no where in the Scripture called Schism c. Before I come to scanne the words in particular I shall say in generall this is a fallacious because an ambiguous assertion For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate when there is corruption in some one of these onely or in all of them 2. Nor how far some or all of these must be corrupted before we may separate 3. All these were as much corrupted and more in the Jewish Church as in ours when he and his partie separated from us and yet our Saviour and his Apostles continued their Communion with it and the Church of Corinth in all these was as much and more corrupted than ours yet the Apostle mentions no separating from it 4. He now requires that it be called Schisme in Scripture when as before he said if it had the nature of it it was sufficient 5. If a bare Plea against corruptions true or false may warrant a separation then the most rigid seperatists may be and are by him acquitted from Schism as I said above But more particularly He hath not rightly stated the question as now it lyes between us which is not of a single mans secession from a true Church a particular Congregation to joyne himselfe to another Church of the same Constitution where he may enjoy as he thinks the Ordinances more purely or more profitably For it was ever lawfull for a man to remove his habitation and to joyne himselfe to such a Congregation But the pinch of the question is whether a man or a company of men may separate from a true Church upon a plea of corruption in it true or false set up another Church as to all Ordinances renouncing that Church to be a true Church And so much the worse and more Schismaticall is that separation from a true Church when either those men that separate have not done those duties incumbent on them to reforme it or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavour to reforme it selfe according to the Rule of the Gospell This is plainly our case at present with the Doctor and his Associates § 6 But he further affirmes Of one Church particular departing from that communion with another p. 78. or others be it what it will which it ought to hold unlesse in the departing of some of them in some things from the common Faith which is supposed not to relate to Schism in the Scripture we have no example The more happie were those times that they yeelded no such example But if they did not yet if they give us an example of one Church divided upon differences into severall Congregations or to some Ordinances as we proved they do they come very neere the case of Schism before us And himselfe hath granted that upon supposition that Rome is a particular Church as opposed to the Catholick she is the most Schismaticall Church in the world not onely in regard of her own intestine divisions as he but also in her separation from the Apostolicall primitive Church in doctrine worship and discipline as our Divines do maintaine upon this acount it was that the Divines of the Assembly said To leave all ordinary communion in any Church with dislike where opposition See p. 141 or offence offers it selfe is to seperate from such a Church in the Scripture sense though they adde pag. 79. such separation was not in being in the Apostles time His exception to this is frivolous How they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them I know not The reconciliation is easie In the Apostles time or in that case of the Corinthians such was their happinesse there was no separation of one Church from another in that high manner as after they did but yet the Scripture gives a faire ground by way of consequence there and in other places above named to conclude that if separation in a Church in opinions and judgement be a Schism much more separation from a true Church by persons or Churches leaving all ordinary communion with it with dislike or opposition is to be accounted Schism especially if they first depart from the common Faith and then upon that difference separate from the Church And therefore though he be unwilling I shall not doubt but to be able to compell him to carry on the notion of Schism further than yet he hath done § 7 But that he may shew his skill and gratifie his Adversaries he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue p. 81. according to the common definition of Schism That it is a breach of union onely he will put in a reasonable postulatum that this
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates
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-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
discourse of mine and some former have given him just occasion to produce that we might be once blessed with the sight of that Model of their way so often desired so often promised and as often unfaithfully denyed We professe our selves utterly unsatisfied with what hath yet been vouchased us to see But he will tell us briefly what are the things of great and weightie importance which must come under debate before a clear account can be given of the case stated in the Objection Before we hear them I cannot but say they have dealt the more unbrotherly with us to say no more and all the Reformed Churches abroad in setting up their way of new Churches and never discover to us sufficiently the grounds of their so doing Let him look back to what he said p. 7 The parties litigant c. But we shall attend him for the particular Heads § 25 1. The true nature of an Instituted Church under the Gospel as to the matter form and all other necessary constitutive causes is to be investigated and found out To which I say 1. Are there any constitutive causes besides Matter Form This I thought had been fully done if not by all Reformed Churches yet by those of New England who have done what they could to clear up their way The constituting causes say they are matter and form the matter visible Saints the form an explicite Covenant of all the members But they have been told they have contradicted themselves by requiring an explicite consent and yet confessing an implicite to be sufficient and this to be in our Churches and yet separated from us 2. I had thought his definition of an instituted particular Church given us above had held out all the constituting causes of such a Church It is a society of men called by the word to the obedience of the Faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same individual Ordinances according to the order prescribed by Christ Such societies are ours in all the particular ingredients of this definition as was shewed above All that can be objected is but to the last particle according to the order by Christ prescribed which is the question between us must not be begged on either side but proved and it concerns him to shew the contrary What Ordinance do we want or what have we of humane addition And as for our joynt consent though we have it implicitely yet sufficiently it is not in his definition which yet is one of the constituting causes of their Churches If then the definition of such a Church be as applicabâ—â— to our Churches as to his own we are true-instituted Churches and whether they be Schismaticks in renouncing communion with us let the whole Christian Church be Iudge And I go on to the next § 26 2. The nature and form of such a Church is to be exemplyfied from the Scripture and the stories of the first Churches before sensibly infeâ—ted with the poyson of Apostacy which ensued This hath abundantly been done by the Assembly and other Divines though he is not pleased to take notice of it and we dare joyn issue with him in this debate when ever he will begin it 3. The extent of the Apostacy under Antichrist p. 271. as to the ruining of instituted Churches making them to be Babylon and their worship fornication is duly and carefully to be examined Here lyes our disorder hence our darknesse c. though we may arise we shall not easily shake our selves out of the dust I suppose he does not mean this last of his own Churches they are not only risen but have shaken off the very dust of that Apostacy I shall not contradict him for his own particular Church because I am a stranger to it but of some of the Churches of the same constitution I dare confidently affirm they are fallen again into the old Apostacy in matter of Doctrine and have more dust upon their garments than many of ours have But we shall be content to put our selves upon the search and if it may appear that yet we retain any thing of that Apostacy we shall promise faithfully to relinquish it But I am very jealous he expects a finer and a higher Reformation than we dare look for in in this world till Christ himself come to Reign visibly on earth as some do expect he will ere long viz by Revelation of the Spirit He speaks suspiciously this way p. 42. When the order spirituality beauty and glory of the Church of Christ shall return c. these disputes will have an issue And again p. 70. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity c. And once more p. 200. So soon as Christs Churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon with his glory shining on them c. § 27 4. By what way and means God begat a new and kept alive his elect p. 271. in their several generations when Antichristian darkness covered the earth supposing an intercision of instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them as to what was of simple institution c. he may do well to enquire and resolve us He cannot but know that there are many learned men that will not grant him his supposition of an intercision of all instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them And something hath been said to this above which he may do well to consider The sum is this That if there was an utter intercision and so a nullity of all instituted Ordinances it was impossible to fix the Tabernacle of God with men again without a miracle or some Divine Revelation As for the Bohemian brethren concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian it is not a singular conceit for all reformed Churches are of that opinion They distinguish the Papacy which is as a scab or Leprosie to the hand from the Church of Rome making the former purely Antichristian but not the latter But as perhaps erroneously for Luther and his associats did not so they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers by any in communion with them So they were perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession which whether our Author does let him declare when he takes into consideration the Bohemian cases They sent to the Greek and Armenian Churches to have Ordination from them therefore they did not believe there was an Iâ—â—â—ision of all instituted Ordinances and when they saw their way was perhaps as superstitious another way having no satisfaction there they took their eaâ—e to be extraordinary and so chose themselâ—es Elders and set them apart by fasting and prayer c. where note a double difference Their case was extraordinary there were no Ministers to ordain them but our brethren were ordained by lawful Ministers or might have found enough to do it if they had not been ordained but they renounced what they
pretending to Gifts and finding a people willing to be instructed by him or them to make a Schism in and separation from our Churches by gathering of a Church because of some corruptions in ours yea this is evidence that he now proceeds upon those principles that nothing is required to make a Minister but gifts and consent of people without any outward call of the Church which we shall presently hear he formerly required thereunto And this made him so careless in stating the case of our first Reformers Luther Calvin c. as to say With this I was alwaies so well satisfied p. 41. that I ever deemed all curious disquisition after the outward vocation of our first Reformers altogether needless But by his leave the caâ—e oâ— Luther was not as he saies exactly that which he laid down For he is speaking of a Lay-man by that way to be constituted a Preacher or Minister but Luther was a Minister ordained though with much corruption and so had an outward call by a Church to preach the Gospel in the truth and purity of it and I believe our Authour did then think him to be a Minister of Christ but his present principles deny it Luthers case in regard of the corrupted state of the Church and the zeal and spirit whereby he managed it was extraordinary but his call was ordinary as an ordained Minister 2. The people who fell off from Babylon with him were in Church-state though corrupted as baptized persons and had a command to come out of Babylon but the people that our Authour now gathers come rather out of Sicâ— have no call to separate from us but rather a command not to separate 3. Luther did not renounce his Ordination in the Church of Rome nor his people their Baptism nor did our Authour formerly think it requisite but now he hath renounced his Ordination and former Ministry and upon his principle of gifts and consent of the people made himself a Minister and it is expected that ere long his people if not himself will renounce their Baptism both of them standing or falling together And so I come to the last way § 11 The third and last way of an extraordiry call to preach the Gospel without an ordinary vocation is by some act of providence The instance is Ibid. of a Christian man cast by shipwrack or otherwise amongst barbarous people who receive him humanely may he not ought he not to preach the Gospel unto them and if he convert souls may he not become a Pastour to those converted none I hope makes doubt of it But suppose a Christian woman should be cast upon the same place as once among the Iberians ought she not by his former principles to preach the Gospel to them no doubt she ought But if she convert souls there may she become for a Pastor to them none I hope will say so 2. But we have put him a case else-where of his own making Suppose a Barbarian should find the Scripture and be converted by it alone he being converted converts others I ask now may he become a Pastor to those converts I hope he will not say he may till he be baptized nor can they make a Church till they be baptized but who shall baptize either him or them having no Minister there This while a Presbyterian he would not have granted nor may now by his Independent principles deny till he is turned Anabaptist 3. We read of men in the primitive times as well as that woman who being no Ministers converted the Indians and Moors Socrat. hist l. 1. c. 15. 16. but they neither durst be their Pastors not baptize them till they were ordained in the Christian Church and sent to do it If consent of people and gifts would have constituted them Ministers they needed not to have come home so many hundred miles to fetch their Ordination See but the difference between himself a Presbyterian and now an Independent but enough of that § 12 And that our Author was a Presbyterian formerly and that upon good deliberation and strong resolution so to continue we have his own acknowledgment when thus he writes p. 42. The principles and rules of that Church Government from which in the following assertions I desire not to wander is of that to which I do and allwaies in my poor judgement have adhered since by Gods assistance I had engaged my self to the study of his word which is commonly called Presbyterial or Synodical in opposition to Prelatical or Diocesan on the one side and that which is commonly called independent or Congregational on the other Quantum mutatus ab illo in his Tract of Schism § 13 And this he discovered in the requisite which Presbyterian Government holds forth in ordinary cases to constitute a Minister for thus he â—â—ies For a publick formal p. 46. ministerial teaching two thâ—ngs are required in the Teacher 1. Gifts from God 2. Authority from the Church Whence I wouâ—d inâ—erâ— 1. Tâ—at consent oâ— election of the people is not sufficient to make a man a Minister though well gifted but an Authoritative act of the Church is to passe upon him that is Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery according to his then principles 2. That he is much changed from what he was in the Tract of Schism where he requires no more to constitute a Minister than Gifts of teaching and the peoples submiting to him If any shall say The Dr. by Authority of the Church meant no more but the election or Consent of the people of a Congregation I would answer for him I do not believe that at that time he would or did aequivocate with the world but took it in the Presbyterian sense though now he cries down Ordination by Bishop or Presbytery and hath renounced his own ordination And is not this a great alteration and a sign of much inconstancy § 14 Having said very much in pleading the Liberty of private Christians lest they should surfet of it and presume too far pag. 48. he gives some wholsome Presbyterian Cautions to bound them First The end why God bestoweth his gifts on any is meerly that within the bounds of their own callings in which they are circumscribed 1 Cor. 7.24 they should use them to his glory and the edification of his Church This was then his judgment but now he can allow men of any calling if gifted to violate those bounds set by God himself and to be Preachers of the Gospel in ordinary cases which some of the prime brethren of New England do reject reprobate Secondly He required That they do not under pretence of Christian liberty freedom of conscience cast away all brotherly amity and cut themselves off from the communion of the Church Christ hath not purchased a liberty for any to rent his Body they will prove at length to be no duties of piety which break the sacred bonds of charity Divinely
spoken and like a true Presbyterian To cut themselves off from the communion of the Church which is separation is to rent the body of Christ and what is that but Schism which is so much declamed against in his book of Schism And what liberty his people take and he allows for separation from not ours but any Church is fully discoursed above To separate from the communion of the Church is also affirmed to be a breach of sacred charity which is often denyed in the latter book But yet more Presbyterian Doctrine Men ought not under a pretence of congregating themselves to serve God separate from their brethren neglecting the publick Assemblies as was the manner of some rebuked by the Apostle Heb. 10.5 There be peculiar blessings and transcendent priviledges annexed to publick Assemblies which accompany not private men to their recesses c. yet this is ordinaririly done by most of the Independent way and allowed yea justified now by himself That sense of the text Heb. 10.25 of neglecting the publick Assemblies as the manner of many is is now otherwise glossed and taken for Apostacy from the Faith Of Schism p. 74. And the event hath sadly proved that private recesses are not accompanyed with those peculiar blessings annexed to publick Assemblies witness those errors heresies blasphemies prophanesses which have followed private meetings § 45 Another caution and the third is As the Ministry p. 49. so also ought the Ministers to have that regard respect and obedience which is due to their labours in that sacred calling would we could not too frequently see more puffed up with a conceit of their own gifts into a contempt of the most learned and pious Pastors those are spots in your Feasts of charity c. This is so plain and evidently true as if he that writ it carried the sunne in his hand And he did in a manner prophesie when he said Let not them who despise a faithful Minister in publick flatter themselves with hope of a blessing on their endeavors in private Let them pretend what they will they have not an equal respect unto all Gods Ordinances No doubt he spake then of our Parochial Ministers and Ministry as an Ordinance of God whom now he unministers and despises both them and their Ordination as we have heard above Viderit ipse § 16 It might be objected against the peoples liberty of private Assemblies That this seems to favour licentious Conventicles which in all places the Laws have condemned and the Leâ—rned in all Ages have abhorred as Seminaries of Faction and Schism in the Church To this he answers liâ—e a true Presbyterian p. 51. Under correâ—tion I conceive that the Law layeth hold of none as peccant in such a kind but onely those who have predeclared themselves to be opposers of the worship of God in the publick Assemblies of that Church wherein they live Neither do I conceive that they ought at all to be alloâ—â—d the benefit of private meetings who wilfully abstain from the publick Congregations so long as the true worship of God is held forth in them Enough enough Now what a case are all the Conventicles of Sectaries in the very Seminaries of Schism Faction and besides a sinke of errours heresies blasphemies The only evasion will be one of these two 1. That he spake this under correction as not his peremptory judgement And its likely he hath come under correction of his party and done some kind of pennance for this declaration p. 16. p. 52. and it may be his Latine Discourse he tells us of twice at least as an answer to the Arguments of the Remonstrants and others for such a liberty of prophecyings as they term it hath suffered strangling upon his correction for I hear not that it is in the Land of the living yet born or put forth for if it were it would condemn his own â—aw allowance and toleration of such Conventicles That 's one Or 2. He must affirm That the true worship of God is not held forth in our Congregations which I hope he will not dare to do nor can be able to prove if he do affirm it What his performance in this kind is to plead for his separation we have seen above and to how little satisfaction § 17 There are two other Objections which he answers well as his then opinion was I shall dispatch them in a word 1. Men are apt to pride themselves in their Gifts and so t encroach on the Priests office and create themselves Pastors in seperate Congregations This we see done sufficiently now by others and himself What saies he to it Offences will come c. but God-fearing men will remember Korah p. 53. they that love their souls will not suffer themselves to be carryed away by self-conceit so far as to help to overthrow the very constitution of any Church by confusion or the flourishing of it by ignorance both which would certainly follow such courses This needs no comment nor confirmation only it will need a Reply from himself since he hath retracted this truth by him here delivered by a contrary practise The next Objection is no lesse true and really exemplified in the present Conventicles This may be a means for men to vent their own private fancies unto others to foment and cherish errours in one another to give false interpretations of the word there being no way to prevent it What saies he to this For interpreting the word I speak not but applying of it being rightly interpreted And for the rest would to God the complaints were not true of those things that have for divers years in this Church been done publickly c. But to prevent this the care rests on them whose sedulous endeavour should be to reprove and convince false Doctrine c. That is I suppose the Ministers This may do something in the publick but what 's this to men of private meetings separating from the Church They will not come to hear in publick and he does not intend that Ministers should attend those privatâ— meetings that were to turn them into publick as now they speak How then shall we prevent their boldness in interpreting Scripture or their ignorance and folly in misapplying it This answer is the most weak and defective and how he will give a better in his New way it rests upon him to consider and give at his own leasure FINIS ERRATA Page 1. l. 9. r. against l. last r. chargâ—â— p. 2. l. 2. dele the p. 4. l. 7. del they l. 22. for parly r. only p. 5. l. 5. r. advantage p. 25. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 30. l. 4. 1. Patriarchats l. 34. marg r. Jam. 2. p. 35. after the word place in l. 4. 〈◊〉 how can it rationally he thought or inferred that he dehorted theâ— from no kind or degree of Schism but such iâ— was at that time in the particular Church 〈◊〉 Corinth so that all this is nothing â—ut a begging of the question P. 39. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 â— 53. l. 11. after nature put in p. 58. l. 24. beforâ— dest put in p. 5â— l. 4. â— affirming p. 60. l. 〈◊〉 f. tot r. yet p. 65. l. 24. f. mind r. include p 66. l. 21. r. exhorting one p. 70. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72. marg r. p. 77. p. 85. l. 27. f. l. r. it p. 8â— l. 26. f. to r. so p. 94. l. 7. dele of p. 104. l. 2â— f. erre r. ere p. 110. l. 12. r. assert dele to â— 113. l. 27. r. concessis p. 114. l. 29. r. fundâ—mental p. 115. l. 22. f. it r. his p. 120. l. 1. after r. ask p. 133. l. 9. dele to p. 141. l. 1â— f. it r. is p. 143. l. 5 f. world r. word p 158. 5. af f. as properly r. improperly p. 159. l. af for his r. this p. 167. l. 12. dele them p. 16 l. 3. f. ye r. she p. 170. l. 3. af for r. freâ— p. 172. l. 11. r. Congregations p. 175. l. 3. r. Oâ—ficers p. 18. l. 16. f. firmer r. finer p. 185. last put in their p. 192. l. 14. after of â— in the.