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
Church meanes only one particular Church or Congregation So that if a man be not a member of that one Church he can neither be a Schismatick to that Church nor to any other But this I suppose to be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great mistake and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter For as there may be a Schism in a Citie-Church of many Congregations which are such by the appointment or allowance of Jesus Christ suppose them all Independent if he please So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church yea that is a member of none of those but of some other may be a Schismatick to that Church collectively taken and to any one of those particular Congregations to wit if he shall raise any differences in any one of them and persist to maintain them being eâ—ther expresly against the Gospel or meerly of things unnecessary c. And this I shall prove 1. By the Doctors own principle He that raiseth differences in any Congregation and persists therein is a Schismatick as was newly by him asserted But that Christian that breaks the peace of any Church more generall or particular by erronious or unnecessary disputes raises differences in that Church and therefore he is a Schismatick Then it follows that it is not necessarily required to the guilt of Schism that he be a member of that one Church but he may be a member of another Church or of no Church but only a Christian 2. I prove it from a Scripture instance Act. 15.1 Ceratine men which came down from Judaea to Antioch taught the brethren saying except ye be circumcised c ye cannot be saved These men were no members of the Church of Antioch but of Judaea or Christians at large of no particular Church yet these men making differences in the Church of Antioch are said v. 24. to trouble them with words subverting their Souls and therefore might justly be called Schismaticks He cannot now say this was not a Church of the institution of Christ for whether it was then but one particular Congregation or consisted of many congregations as not able to meet in one place both wayes it was a Church of Christs appointment For the very light of reason speaks thus much That when a Congregation or first Church grows too numerous it should swarm out into lesser Congregations and yet those distinct Congregations may fairly be said to be but one Church and have still some dependence what ever it be one upon another § 9 2. It is required sayes he that they either raise entertaine or persist in causelesse differences p. 44. with them of that Church c This is answered in the former in part And I adde that those differences raised c in that Church though by a member of another Church do cause an Interruption of that exercise of love which ought to be amongst them and the disturbance of the duties required of that Church in the worship of God which he requires to make one guiltie of Schism It were very strange that he that entertaines or persists in those differences should be a Schismatick and he that first raised them though of another Church should be none § 10 3. It is further required that these differences be occasioned by and do belong to some things in a remoter or neerer distance to the worship of God This will reach a great way even civill differences as they may be called Schism as we heard above so they may come to trench upon the worship of God But may there not be differences in other matters besides worship which may amount to a Schism He told us above that Schism might be in unnecessary things p. 27. things that properly concerne not the worship of God such were those sidings about their Teachers not in the worship of God but from house to house as he confessed above But supposing the differences to be in the worship of God that is in the time and place of it may they not be in matter of doctrine perhaps he will say that is Heresie or Apostacie not Schism for so he sayes p. 161. But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine is not Heresie much lesse Apostacie Heresie is not charged usually on any but either for fundamentall errours or obstinacie in them And though we commonly place Schism in matter of discipline or circumstances of worship and Heresie in matters of doctrine yet as we see by experience those that beganne with Schismaticall separations end too oft in Heresie So a Schism at first if obstinately persisted in may come to be Heresie for there is a doctrine of discipâ—ine in the Scripture and a Schismatick willfully defending his errour though but in a matter of discipline or other unnecessary opinions may prove to be Hereticall 2. Heresie and Apostacie presuppose Schism first So that a man may be a Schismatick for raising the difference and an Heretick in persisting in it And say the same of Apostacie as more perhaps hereafter Or may there not be Schism in a matter of discipline which is distinguished from worship Surely the greatest Schisms at this day are found about discipline As is evident in the difference between Papists and us in subjection to the Pope between Episcopall men and us about submission to the Hierarchicall Government between the Presbyterians and Independents where the administration of discipline lyes And each parties charge one another with Schism as he affâ—rmes in his following discourse In doctrine and worship the Independents some of them and we agree having the same Confession of Faith the same Ordinance of worship The discipline onely makes the Schism whereof who is most guiltie will appear anone Certaine it is on which party soever the charge falls to be guilty of this crime they will be found to shew themselves carnal or to have indulged to the flesh pag. 44. and the corrupt principle of Self and their own wills c. § 11 But he professes he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism that did comprise that was not exclusive of that pag. 45. which alone in the Scripture is affirmed so to be That shall be tryed by considering the definitions ordinarily given The definition of Austin is this Schisma est dissidium congregationis when men of the same judgment in doctrine and same rites in worship delight in the discord of the Congregation By dissidium Congregationis the Dr. saies he means 'A separation from the Church into a peculiar Congregation Which was the case of the Donatists which he had then in hand But 1. this definition is just the Doctors Dissidium Congregationis is not properly a separation from but in the Church and such was that of the Donatists at first till refusing or receiving no satisfaction they separated into other Congregations and bid defiance to the Church which is the Common issue of such intestine divisions Acts 15.39 Paul and Barnabas
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
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-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. §
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
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
a libertie at first to settle in such a congregation so also to remove their habitations and to settle in another not to goe many miles to partake of the Ordinances which seemes unsuitable to the first plantation of Churches and the mutuall duties of people of one congregation But of that elsewhere And though the Reverend Ministers of London doe grant pag. 203. That in the beginning of Christianitie the number of believers were so few in great Cities as that they might all meet in one place yet they did not imagine that when they at Jerusalem were multiplyed into many thousands or myriads they could so do And if they met in severall places as they must they had also severall Elders to administer the Ordinances to them and yet are called singularly one Church Adde to this that at Ephesus Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove there was but one particular Church there the text sayes expressely there were many Elders there v. 25. you all He sent to Epheâ—us for the Elders of the Church which eâ—idences cleerely that there werâ— more Congregations then one in Ephesus for how could many Elders officiate in one Congregation This alone if nothing else could be said affords more for a Presbyteriall Church than all the New Testament does for an Independent Church gathered I know not how out of many Churches But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I. § 3 To the consideration of the unitie of this Church and the breach of it hee premises some things p. 205. 1. A man may be a member of the Catholick invisible Church 2. Of the Catholick visible Church and yet by some providentiall hinderance be never joyned to a particular Church which I grant as true but onely note two things to be satisfied in 1. How he can reconcile this with what he said afore p. 133. Sect. 26. The members of the Catholick visible Church are initiated into that professsion of faith by baptism But Baptism according to his principles is an Ordinance of worship onely to be enjoyed in a particular Church unlesse he will grant what yet he does deny but will be forced to grant that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church even to the Catholike Church and may administer baptism out of a particular Church as Philip did to the Eunuch and Paul to the Jaylor or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship let him take his choice 2. I note also how he is at distance with some of his friends in New England Mr. Hooker's survey See my Review page 119. who assert That no man can be a member of the Catholike Church but he must first be a member of a particular But 3. he grants Every beleiver is obliged to joyne himself to some one of those Churches that there he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer c if he have opportunitie This he willingly grants and I as willingly accept for an use I shall make of it anone but I like not so well his reasons p. 206 1. There are some duties with cannot possibly be performed but on a supposition of this dutie previously required Math. 18.15 c If he had said those duties cannot so well be performed its true but some of them are due to others beside our own Congregation But I shall make this advantage of it That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed then some of their Church-members are ill gathered living many miles asunder Cohabitation in Townes and Parishes seemes a necessary requisite to Church-membership 2. There are some Ordinances of Christ which they can never be made partakers of not related to some such Society as Admonition participation of the Lords Supper c. As for Admonition it is a duty that concerns every man to any man though not of his particular Church though specially to them of their own society And as for partaking of the Lords Supper why may he not enjoy it in another Church as well as Baptism which he allowed before to one of the Catholick Church If Christians professing the same Faith were looked on as Brethren and as having thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ in any Church where they come they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joyned to a particular Church But this ingrossing the common Ordinances to a few confederate persons and making the rest little better than Heathens as to their Communion violates the Order of the Gospel and the Rule of charity and may justly be called Schism § 4 His third reason I like yet worse That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship meerely and purely of soveraign institution but only to them and by them who are so joyned But then I would ask 1. Whether Philip Baptizing the Eunuch in the way had Christs direction for it or no or is Baptism no part of worship 2. Prayer and reading of the Word in private families are they no duties of worship 3. Preaching to convert Heathens and then to baptize them is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister Rom. 10.14 4 Let me be so bold as to ask once more By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament or at St. Maries in Oxford with a mixt unjoyned congregation c Or are not these there and at that time parts of worship of Christs Institution I hope he will not say so 4. For his fourth reason he gives this The Apostles in planting of Churches took care to leave none whom they converted out of that Order where it was possible c. But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch the Deputy Acts 13. c. Unless where there were enow converted to make a Church But he laying so much stress upon a particular Church and the necessity of joyning with it it seems reasonable there should be some directions to enjoyn every single convert impossibilities only excepted leaving all inconveniences at least to joyn himself to some particular Church rather than not to partake of the Ordinances all his daies as he said afore For the 5. Christs institution of Officers for them c. that is for particular Churches onely if it speak reason is as weak as the rest For its evident 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first for the whole Church as the Apostles c. Eph. 4.11 2 All those Officers ordinary as Pastors or Teachers are set in the Catholick Church and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholick Church if he deny this he knows where to find a learned Antagonist The last reason as all the rest is fallacious or inconsequent Christ took care for particular Churches therefore the Ordinances are no where to be had by any man but in his own particular Congregation § 6 That there is an instituted worship of God to be continued under the New Testament
p. 207. to which humane prudence may add nothing is a certain truth denyed by none but fanatical spirits And as for the institution of particular Churches by express words of Scripture it is no where visible but by a fair and necessary consequence That which is of Institution was that Gods people should serve and worship him severally and joyntly in such and such Ordinances of worship and consequently by a necessity of nature there must be a place for people to meet together in or more as their number is God institutes publick prayer preaching Sacraments therefore there must be societies to perform this worship 1. Because of the multitude of Christians which can neither meet all in one place nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company 2. For the better obligation of all professors as to the exercise of all acts of publick worship which some if left free to joyn with all or any would utterly neglect so of all those private duties required of fellow members which cannot well be performed as was said by persons not conbined But the circumstances of those societies how many how great what persons shall associate is left to humane prudence with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture that all be done decently in order and to edification And that those that are so joyned are so confined that they cannot or may not worship God in the same Ordinances occasionally in other Churches let him that can shew the Institution for I know none yet this is the chief piece of Independency never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party Our Author grants that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases and remove at pleasure And the light of common prudence upon supposition that there must be such societies seems to to dictate that when all of a Nation are Christians there should be a distinction o Churches or as we call them Parishes made by the bounds of mens habitations so that the divisions be discreetly made that the Congregations be neither too big nor too litle and that the parties of each Society may dwell so near together that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in publick decently and in order to edification and also those mutual private duties of brotherly inspection Admonition c. required by Christ Matth. 18.15 1 Thessal 5.14 c. § 7 And this he in a manner confesses That there is in the Institutions of Christ p. 209. much that answers a naturall principle in men who are fitted for society A confederation and consultation to carry on any design of common concernment c. I suppose he may intend this of Synods carryed on by Delegates from several Churches which is sutable to that prudence we see in States assembling in Parliament c. But I shall improve this further As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves in Towns and Cities for their better security and mutual assistance and comfort So the same prudence taught the Ancients to distinguish Cities into Parishes for their better Assembling some else would be of no Church as pretending to be of all or any as we see at this day for carrying on the services of God in a better and more profitable Order and for those private duties afore spoken of Nor does any man rationally hence conclude That there is no more but this in this Church constitution that men may be cast into any prudential form c. For the way of worship is peculiarly instituted but the way of constituting particular Churches for persons for number c. needs no institution but is left to the prudence of men or Churches as afore § 8 Whether by any promise of Christ there shall be alwaies somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances p. 211. he told us above was a needless enquiry p. 85. yet both there and here enclines to the Negative that all such Church state may cease for some time and hereafter talks of an intercision of all Ordinances so far as to make a nullitie in them as to what was of simple and pure institution p. 271 In this pâ—ace he glosses some Scriptures alledged of others as meant of the Catholick visible Church to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ in true believers Luke 1.33 Math. 16.18 Of the sense of which place I shall not now contest with him For the thing it self something shall be said in answering those questions which here he propounds 1. It is said true Churches were at first planted in England how then did they cease to be How or by what Act did God unchurch them They did it themselves meritoriously by Apostacy and Idolatry God legally by his Institution of a Law of rejection of such Churches But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostacy will merit an actual unchurching not only the Israelites but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched And if Apostacy in a great measure will unchurch a people England hath of late years Apostatiz'd sufficiently from our Ancient truths 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law to reject a Church presently so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical Rome had not then been standing at this day 3. It is a question whether God ever absolutely unchurches a people till he utterly destroys them as he did the Israelites of old and the whole Jewish Church after Christs death and the seven famous Churches of Asia since 4. As also it would be resolved when God did unchurch England which he insinuates as granted Whether whilst it was Popish Antichristian or since the Reformation 5. Let him resolve us whether our first Reformers did intend or undertake to raise up a new Church or to repair the old corrupted state thereof as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity did not build a new Temple but repair and purge the old 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. Q. Eliz. days there were not true Churches planted in England then how they came to cease to be seeing they were rather perfected since than corrupted 7. Lastly Whether our Reverend Author do not in his conscience think There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers the Anâ—baptists their elder Brothers and themselves arose and gathered new Churches not out of true Churches but out of Babylon as their Predecessors used to speak which he yet seems to insinuate when he saies The Catholick mystical p. 212. and that visibly professing being preserved entire he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them to joyn in such a Society as those spoken of according to the Institution of Christ is a person delighting in needless scruples As if he should say There was no Church of Christs Institution in England till they or their Predecessors arose and gathered such Societies and when all Church State was here lost
order of the Gospel whilst I labour to exercise faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ and love towards all the Saints I do keep the unity which is of the appointment of Christ and let men say from principles utterly forreign to the Gospel what they please or can to the contrary I am no Schismatick That is though by raising differences I set all the Churches of England on fire I am no Schismatick if I disturb not the peace of my own particular Church How true and reasonable the particulars of his enumeration are let the impartial Reader judge § 31 3. I still return him his own words with a very little change p. 277. Perhaps the discovery which hath been made how much he and his party are concerned in that charge of Schism upon them which is the greatest ball of strife this day in England with respect to the Church may be a most effectual engine or means to reconcile them that truly fear God though engaged in several waies I can heartily say Amen to this but yet must add what follows I have not any great hope of much success on this account whilst men are fore-stalled with prejudices and have their affections engaged thereunto c. But all our hearts are in the hand of God c. § 32 4. To conclude What vaâ—n janglings men are endlesly engaged in who will lay their own false hypotheses such as the Authors new notion of Schism is as a ground of farther procedure is in part evident by what hath been delivered Hence is that doughtie dispute 1. Which is first the Hen or the Egg the Church or its Officers 2. Whether a man may be a Schismatickâ— that is not a member of a particular Church 3. Whether the member of one Church may partake of the Sacraments in another Church and that of the same constitution 4. Whether the child of a scandalous person may be baptized by the Minister of that Church 5. Whether our Churches be true Churches our members true members because not gathered by an explicite Covenant Which as it was never doubted of by Non-conformists at home nor any Reformed Churches abroad till Brownists arose so it may be concluded from his own words in his conclusion He is a member or a particular Church who having been in a due order p. 279. joyned thereunto hath nâ—â—ther voluntarily desâ—rted it nor been judicially ejected out of it But I assume The members of our particular Churches have been in a due order joyned 〈…〉 and neither voluntarily haâ—e deserted them I noâ— been judicially ejected out of them Therefore they are true members of particular Churches and conâ—equently our Churches are true Churches and by a further consequence They that raise differences in them and draw disciples from them and renounce communion with them say they what they please or can to the contrary are Schismaticks Quod erat demonstrandum AN APPENDIX TO The former Discourse of Schism Shewing the inconstancy of the Dr. and the inconsistency of his former and present Opinions § 1 SInce my finishing of the former Discourse there came happily to my hands a Book of the Learned Doctors entitled The duty of Pastors and people distinguished licensed and highly commended by the Reverend and judicious Mr. Joseph Caryl as Written with much clearnesse of judgment and moderation of Spirit put forth in the year 1644. By comparing whereof with this of his of Schism I perceive that wise and judicious men are still but men subject to mistakes and therefore had need of some of the policy or prudence of the five Apologists Apol. Narr pag. 11. not to be too peremptory in their new opinions or wayes not too presumptuous in despising others proceedings but to reserve to themselves a latitude and to keep some casements open to take in New light This our Reverend Authour hath exemplyfied to be necessary for himself to make use of as well as others of his present Independent way or else he will be concluded to contradict himself and in many things to make good the Apostles Dictate Jam. 1.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet had he changed to the better from errour to Truth the thing had been not only justly excusable but truly commendable and might have been salved by a Tract of Retractations as Austin sometime did without any prejudice to his Reputation But to run from opinion to opinion from way to way from truth to errour as many have done not only to contrariety but to contradiction and and take no notice of the difference of Judgment and inconstancy of opinions and waies is too palpable a discovery of an unsettled Spirit that knows not where to fix All the hope is that if their new Notions waies be really discovered ingenuously by them acknowledged to be erroneous they that can change from truth to errour may in Gods good time which is very rare change back again from errour to truth Which wishing that the Dr. and his party may do I shall only present to him â—ome few of his former thoughts to shew in how dissonant they are to his later modernâ— kings § 2 In this Tract his main design is to discover the distance between the Pastors and their people pag. 2. that the sacred calling may retain its ancient dignity and the people of God not deprived of their Christian liberty For in former times he tells us Some would have all Christians to be almost Ministers others none but Ministers to be Gods Clergy Those would give the people the Keyes these use them to lock them out of the Church The one ascribing to them primarily all Ecclesiastical power for the ruling of the Congregation the other abridging them of spiritual duties for the building up of their own souls as though there were no habitable earth between the valley I had almost said the piâ— of Democraticall confusion and the rock of Hierarchical tyranny Who these parties were needs no comment to declare only it would be observed whether our Author be not since fallen into that very pit of Democratical confusion by flying from the rock of Hierarchical tyranny I leave it to his consideration Evident it is that in a true Church-state he sets out the limits or the people that they may not under a pretence of Christian liberty invade the dignity of the sacred calling of the Ministry And much he grants to the people both under the Law and Gospel Alwaies provided that they abstain from fingring the Arke or medling with those things which were appropriated to the office of the Priests p. 17. or of the Minister p. 46. except they can shew some extraordinary call or case for their so doing p. 28. of which he thus delivers his opinion and states the question In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every Christian is so far a Minister of the Gospel as to teach and declare the faith to others although he have no outward
calling thereunto but onely an immediate call from God All I say for the change of his opinion is That he allows them this liberty now in cases ordinary as will appear hereafter § 3 The question then will be in cases more than ordinary when a Church is much degenerated and corrupted what may ordinary Christians do then to the Restauration of Religion Concerning which his judgement was what ever it be now this delivered and rested upon That in a collapsed and corrupted state of the Church pag. 15. when the ordinary Teachers are either utterly ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not perform their duty Gifts in any one to be a Teacher and consent in others by him to be taught are a sufficient warrant for the performance of it That is the duty of teaching or preaching But more expresly p. 40. In such a case of Apostacy in the Church I conceive he may nay he ought to preach and publish the truths discovered to him neither is any other outward call requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him I shâ—ll only remember him That as he spake this of a lay man in Italy for that is his instance so he did not then take Rome to be no Church at all as now he does but a collapsed and corrupted Church but that by the way That which I observe is1. That he is not distinct enough in these Assertions for if he mean that in such a falling state of a Church p. 16. When it is ruinously declining every one of Gods servants hath a sufficient warrant to help or prevent the fall as a common duty of zeal and charity in a charitative way it s not denyed by any Doing it as a charitable duty not as out of necessary function even as Priscilla a woman expounded unto Apollos the word of God c. pag. 50. f. It s the duty of every Christian man or woman to publish truths reâ—ealed to others that will hear him as he speaks hereafter But if he take it in an Authoritative way as an act of the Keys as a Teacher or Preacher is taken under the Gospel for an Officer then its certain that Gifts and the consent of people to be instructed by him is not sufficient warrant to make him a Preacher And this appears upon his own former principles For being at that time a Presbyterian in judgement as we shall hear anon he knew did then hold that Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery was a requisite to make him a Preacher But this he now declines and hath renounced his Ordination and requires now no more but Gifts and peoples consent to make a man a Minister 2. And that not only in a collapsed or corrupted Church where Teachers are either ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not do their duty but now when neither of these can without injury be charged upon our Church-state he requires no more than Gifts and consent to make a man a Preacher in Office 3. Herein his discourse was dark and defective that he allows the people a liberty of preaching or publishing he truths of the Gospel in such a case but tells us not whether such a Preacher be a compleat Minister as to the administration of other Ordinances as the Sacraments not one word of that I suppose then he did not intend so much but now so is he changed he allows some that were never ordained and himself who hath renounced his Ordination not onely to preach the Gospel but also to administer Sacraments as compleat Ministers in the name of Christ Let them fear and tremble to hear one day those questions By what authority do you these things or who gave you this authority It is a dreadfull speech of his own p. 16. Who ever doth any thing in anothers stead not by expresse patent from him is a plain Impostor And yet how many such Impostors are there abroad who take upon them without commission from Christ or Authority from the Church not only to preach but to baptize and give the Lords Supper I have heard a sad story of a young forward man that did so and fell into great perplexity of mind for so doing and as I remember so dyed Many such there are who 〈◊〉 before they are sent having neither Gifts nor consent of people The Lord say it to their hearts and to the hearts of those that indulge them in it as guilty of such usurpation in them and the great contempt of the sacred calling of the Ministry Lastly how ever it might be sufficient in an extraordinary state of a corrupted Church to make a man a Minister to have such Gifts and consent of the people which was all the Dr. then asserted yet that those should be sufficient in an ordinary Reformed Church-state is his 〈◊〉 light and opinion unless they can shew some extraordinary signs of such a call from God which they cannot do For he speaks rationally below when he saies It is certain enough p. 34. that God never sent any one extraordinarily instructed only with ordinary Gifts and for an ordinary end But these his new Preachers have no more than ordinary Gifts some of them not so much wherein others are their equalls if not Superiors and the end is no more but ordinary the conversion of souls and settling the Ordinances in purity Then it follows that these being not 〈…〉 of God nor ordinarily 〈…〉 by the Church are no 〈◊〉 Impostors as he said afore § 4 How long the Dr. hath been of that opinion That the blessed Spirit of God is 〈◊〉 and personally in every true believer I cannot tell but he speaks suspitiously that way as on p. 94 95. and 236. of Schism was noted above c. 7. â— 11 so he speaks the same language here p. 21. with what difference we shall observe Thus he sales As in his Incarnation Christ took upon him our flesh and blood by the work of the Spirit so in our Regeneration he bestoweth on us his flesh and blood by the operation of the same Spirit yea so strict is this latter union which we have with Christ that as the former is truly said to be an union of two natures into one person so this of many persons into one nature for by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature 2 Pet. 1.4 becoming members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Eph. 5.30 We are so parts of him of his mystical body that He and we become thereby as it were one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 And the ground of this is because the same Spirit is in him and us In him indeed dwelleth the fulness of it when it is bestowed upon us only by measure but yet it is still the same Spirit and so makes us one with him as the soul of man being one makes the whole body with it to be but one man These things
must be taken cum graâ—â— salis or else they may prove insipid if not worse As 1. Christ took upon him our nature essentially but he bestows his flesh and blood upon us spiritually and mystically 2. The union of the two natures in Christ was proper and personal into one person hypostatically as the Soul and Body in us make one man But the union of many persons with Christ is not into one nature properly but mystically into one person we are members of his body flesh bones but mystically otherwise the union of many persons into one nature should be like that of Christs two natures into one person hypostatically And like unto the union of the three persons in the Trinity into the same nature or essence which is incomprehensible 3. We are made parts of him of his mystical body that he and we become thereby as it were that is improperly and mystically one Christ 4. We are made partakers of the Divine nature not essentially and personally as Christ but in its graces and operations as generally all Divines understand it renewed by the Spirit into that Divine Image which we had by nature but lost by the fall 5. The same Spirit is indeed in Christ and in us but with this assigned difference In him dwelleth the fulness of it fulness of grace and truth Joh. 1.14 it is bestowed on us in measure 6. This same Spirit makes us one with him that is still mystically not as the Soul of man being one makes with the body one man for that is hypostatically and personally one The words thus expounded and candyed may passe for Orthodox otherwise not to be admitted But now in his Tract of Schism p. 94. of Schism he is declined into that Heterodox opinion so judged by most and best Divines that the holy Spirit dwells personally and essentially in us For 1. he tells us he cannot consent that the Divine nature given us should be no more than the new creature 2 That it is in the person of the Spirit wherof we are by the promise made partakers he is the Spirit of promise pag. 95. and in the participation of the Divine nature consists the union of the Saints with Christ 3. That the union of the head and members is the oneness of the Soul whereby the whole is animated and that which answers hereunto in the mystical body of Christ is the animation of the whole by his Spirit Now every body knows that the Soul is the form of a man and the union of Soul and Body is personal So then must the union of Christ and his body the Church be personal as animated by the same Spirit if the person of the holy Spirit be the Soul that animates the body of Christ And so he saies it is The form of the Church Catholick p. 236. absolutely so called is the unity with Christ and in it self by the one Spirit whereby it is animated I shall not enter upon the contest at this time it being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main businesse its enough to shew the difference of himself from himself then and now § 5 We now return after this digression to consider with him the evidences and signs of an extraordinary vocation which some of late pretend unto There is only one thing briefly to be taken notice of that is Whether the Ministers of the Gospel are by the Scripture to be called Priests which name some have arrogated and ascribed to the Clergy O which he affirms peremptorily p. 25. The name of Priests is no where in the Scripture attributed distinctly to the Ministers of the Gospel Priests and Prelates are a sort of Church Officers whom Christ never appointed c. These were his then thoughts and its like are so still only I would desire to know why he gives that name its suppoâ—ed in scorn to the Ministers of our particular Congregations calling them Parochial Priests or Schism p. 235. I leave him to give or others to guesse the reason of that Appellation and so proceed to what I named before § 6 There are but three waies given by him to receive and be assured that a man is extraordinarily called to the Teaching of others or to be a Preacher 1. p. 30. By immediate Revelation 2. By concurrence of Scripture Rules 3. By some outward acts of providence Concerning w ich in general it may be said 1. That p. 28. he thus resolved In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every one that is allowed to teach or preach the Gospel for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God But of all his three wayes named only one of them is by immediate call from God viz. that of immediate Revelation such as the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles had the other by Rules of Scripture and Acts of providence are but mediate calls or warrants and may be common to all Christians as the case may be 2. Before this p. 15. and again p. 40. In such extraordinary cases of a corrupt Church c. no more is required but Gifts in the man and consent of the people which latter is an outward call and that by men and the former a call from God inward indeed but not immediate These things do not well agree § 7 But come to the particulars The first way of extraordinary calling is immediate Revelation This is specially in two cases p. 33. 1. Either the inchoation of some divine worke to be established among men by a new revelation of Gods will 2. Or a restauration of the same when collapsed and corrupted by men The only question will be Whether there be any revelation to be expected now with respect to either of those And he answers negatively to both To the first thus Nothing in such a way shall again take place God having ultimatly revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation c. To the second thus There being an infallible Rule for the performance of it making it fall within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation and instructed with ordinary Gifts God doth not alwaies immediatly call men unto it But grant that he doth not alwaies immediatly call men to it as oft he did heretofore it would have been resolved Whether sometimes God do now immediatly call men to the work of Restauration of Religion To which he saies nothing If he shall say he does not he contradicts himself who said p. 28. In this case of a corrupted Church every one for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God If he say he does sometimes immediatly now call men to it I would say 1. This is needless by his own grant For there being an infallible rule it falls within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation instructed with ordinary Gifts as he newly said 2. And then I would call for those
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