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
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
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
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. §
one parties keeping its station and the other coming over wholly unto them The one partie are got so high that they will not come down to the other the other are so strongly convinced of the errour of their Independent way thâ—t they may not cannot come up to them In what a sad condâ—tâ—on is poor England the while like to be torne in pieces by her own Children § 17 I shall adde something of the next Section whereupon having a mutuall diffidence in each other they grow weary of all endeavours to be carryed on joyntly in this kind And this is like to be the state of things untill another Spirit be powred out on the professours of Christianitie than that wherewith at present they seeme mostly to be acted Now the God of grace and peace powre out that other good Spirit upon this Church and Nation before they be utterly destroyed § 18 But is there no Balme in Gilead no hopefull way of Reconciliation Yes he tells us The only way remaining to be fixed on whilst our divisions continue is to enquire wherein the guilt of them doth consist and who is justly charged therewith in speciall what is and who is guiltie of the sinne of Schism And this will we also do if God permit § 19 Much hath been written upon this subject of Schisme by very learned men who rather as he sayes endeavoured to convince their Adversaries the Romanists of the insufficiencie of their charge of the Church of England to be Schismaticks in separating from them than rightly and cleerly to state the thing or matter contended about which latter seems to me very strange For how could they remove the charge of Schism and not sufficiently declare what Schism is wherein they and their Adversaries agreed But our Reverend Doctor had a double designe in this undertaking 1. To shew us a new way of his own to dispell that charge by giving us a new Definition of Schism not known or made use of in former times 2. Thereby to remove the charge of Schism from himself and his partie for so he sayes here and hereafter The present concernment of some fearing God lying beyond what other men have undertaken somthing may be farther added as to the satisfaction of the consciences of men unjustly accused of this crime which is my aime What satisfaction he can give us and the world in this undertaking we shall by his good leave take notice of Only premising this that I intend not to deale with whole Chapter and Section as hitherto I have done consenting with him in his Removall of that part of the charge of Schism which is common to him with us and onely observe how he will free himselfe from that part of it which concerns himself and his partie CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Schism in Scripture § 1 THis reverend and learned Authour as appeares from his pag. 16. Sect. 16. of the first Chapter undertakes to answer a Popish charge of Schism upon the Church of England directed to both the Vniversities And in his vindication of our Church as was expected carries on the debate so farre as not only to vindicate himselfe and his partie from the like charge by some at home but also as many wise men think to unchurch his mother the Church of England and to find or leave no Churches here but his own as the Donatists of old did That this is the result of his discourse if not the designe will appeare before we have done But we shall attend at present to the method of his proceeding who thus begins The thing whereof we treat being a disorder in the instituted worship of God P. 21. I suppose it a modest request to desire that we may abide solely to that discoverie and description which is made of it in Scripture that that alone shall be esteemed Schism which is there so called or hath the entire nature of that which is there so called It is they say an ill signe or omen to stumble at the threshold in going out The first part of these words is very ambiguous and may have a double sense either that Schism is to be found in matter of instituted worship only or only in the dâ—fferences made in the time of celebrating instituted worship and neither of these is true or yet proved and so a meer begging of the question Yet both of these are asserted by him hereafter the first Sect 23. the latter Sect. 9. of which more when we come at them In the meane time we assert the contrary That as there may be Schism in the Church about other matters besides instituted worship so there may also be Schism in other places and times than those of celebrating worship For the second part of the words which is a Request it shall by me be readily granted That we abide solely to that discovery and description which is made of it in scripture that that alone be esteemed Schism which is there so called or which hath the entire nature of that which is there so called That is that only shall be esteemed Schism which is either expresly in Scripture so called or in aequivalent words or may be deduced thence by regular and rational consequence as he said above chap. 1. § 3 p. 23. § 2 What the Scripture use and notion of the word is is then first to be enquired It is taken there either in the prime and proper sense with respect to bodyes naturall for a seperation into parts or as he expresses it p. 24. an interruption of continuitie by an external power a division of parts before continued the places are cited by himselfe Math. 9.16 Math 27.51 the vaile of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottome into 2 parts Or in the metaphoricall sense from bodyes naturall to bodyes civill or ecclesiasticall In a civill body Joh. 7.43 There was a Schisme or division among the people So Act. 14.4 the multitude of the cittie was divided that was not only in their opinions and judgments but also into parts or parties for so it s added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some were with the Jewes and some with the Apostles So Act 23.7 the multitude was divided some following one some another of their leaders in that dissension which is the reverend Doctors own glosse Thus also it is expressed in his Testimonie in the margine The Inhabitants of Rome p. 24. were parted into two parts and no more agreed among themselves and there was a great Schism They were divided not only in their judgments but in their societies also into two parties This then being the notion and nature of it in the naturall and politicall sense it might easily slip into the like in its Ecclesiasticall use to signifie not only a difference in Judgment but a separation into parties also As the Assembly may be Civill or Ecclesiasticall so there may be a twofold Schism in each differing only gradually either a divâ—sion
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
Inhabitation of the same Spirit or the animation of the whole by the Spirit this is the fountaine radicall union of this Church in it selfe and with its head with the formall reason of it But he cannot but know that some of his own way make Faith it selfe in all the single believers D. Ames Mcedull l. 1. c. 31. §. 21. to be the forme of this invisible Church which they call the state essentiall of this Church they meane the essence of the Church is preserved by Faith in single believers but I contend not Be it Faith or the Spirit of Faith in its graces and operations the matter is not great But besides this radicall union pag. 96. he makes a double consequentiall union flowing from that 1. of Faith 2. of Love of all those united in the head towards one another and of every one towards the whole But these are improperly called unions they are rather consequents of that union by one Spirit than consequentiall unions and rather are the meanes of communion Faith with the Head Love with the members pag. 98. So he sayes I â—annot say they have their union in themselves by Love but it is the next immediate principle of that communion which they have one with another c. but I list not to strive about this neither The third thing is to enquire wherein the breach of this union must consist pag. 99. In these two things 1. The casting out that Spirâ—t which gives this union 2. The losse of Love flowing from thenee into the body of Christ c concerning which he tells his Adversaries That our perswasion is that this union was never utterly broken by any man pag. 100. taken into it or ever shall be to the end of the world I shall not differ with him in this Assertion Onely I take no ice of the warinesse of his expression utterly broken which in that debate signifies totally and finally But if I may gradually and for a tâ—me be interrupted as our Divines allow may there not be said to be a breach in that union though not of that union And consequentially a bleach in this union by some sin may be called Schism which he too slightingly disavows That Faith may be weakened and Love remitted there is no question and that the Spirit may be quenched and grieved the Scripture insinuates upon whicâ— offence there may be a kind of Schism even in the Invisible Church if not to a separation of the Spirit utterly yet to a suspension of its influence by hiding it selfe and leaving the Believer to a sad desertion as experience tells us Besides this the members of this Church being also visible in another sense and so of the Catholike visible Church may there not be a breach of union even among them which may extend not onely to divisions in judgment but also to separation into parties and what is that but Schism I gave an instance in Paul and Barnabas both members of this Church Act. 15. lâ—st and members of no particular Church But strictly to speak This Church it selfe and its union being both invisible quà elect there can be no vâ—sible breach of union in it or among the members of it and so we must look for Schism in the other Notions of the Church CHAP. V. Of the Church Catholick visible and its Union § 1 THe next whereof is the Catholick visible Church which he describes to be p. 112. The universality of men professing the doctrine of the Gospel and obedience to God in Christ throughout the World These he grants do constitute the visible Kingdom of Christ and so may be called his Church but whether precisely so called in Scripture he saies is not unquestionable But to me and others whom he may do well to satisfie this is out of question He makes the question to be p. 113. what relation it stands in to all particular Churches whether as a Genus to its Species or as a Totum to its parts And he seems to be Negative in both His general reason is because The universal visible Church we speak of is not a thing that hath as such a specificative form from which it should be so called as a particular hath for its ground of being so called That shall be tryed when we hear what is the specificative form of a particular Church In the mean time let us consider why he denies this Catholick Church to stand in relation to the particular Churches as a Genus to its Species because this would deprive every one of membership in this universal Church which is not joyned actually to some particular Church which is devoid of truth What force there is in this consequence against them of New England who make particular Churches to be Species of the universal Church Mr. Hookers Survey as say they several drops of water are Species of water and also make a man first a member of a particular Church before he can be a member of the Catholick I say what force there is in this consequence against them I do not see I only note his disagreement with them though I agree with him in the thing For the other That particular Churches are parts of the Catholick he also denies because this were to overthrow a remarkable difference p. 113. between the Oeconomy of the old Testament and the New to parts members of any Catholick Church as that it should be constituted or made up of them or by them for the order and purpose of an instituted Church for worship of God he means as the worship of God was National among the Jewes Mr. Hudson Vind. But besides what others have said to prove the Catholick Church to be a Political Church in a candid sense I would say the Ceremonial worship only or chiefly was National the moral worship was performed in several Congregations or Synagogues wherein there were Rulers and ruled and yet those might be called parts of the Jewish Church as a Totum or whole And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholick which is but the National Church enlarged I yet see no reason That all the members of the Catholick Church should meet together to hear one Sermon to partake of one Sacrament c. as it was possible once when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still but that the multitude makes it impossible That the particular Congregations should joyn together in the same specifical Ordinances and have Officers over them alike is certainly an institution of Jesus Christ as well as to make the same profession of Faith and hope Indeed that being so numerous they should have one Officer over them all and joyn to hear one Sermon or receive the same Sacrament numerical as he speaks is a ridiculous fancy and not only false but impossible But I would gladly know a reason See John 4.22 23. why 40 or more members
of no particular Church but only of the Catholick meeting together and having a Minister among them may not joyn together to worship God in prayer preaching and partaking of the Sacrament as well as the members of several particular Churches and himself among them may do the same as they do often at London and Oxford when he preaches unlesse he will count those Ordâ—nances then and there administred no acts of instituted worship And if he grant them to be worship how can he deny that Assembly to be a particular Church though it be not fixed nor gathered and united by any explicite Covenant or consent to live and dye together I shall only note again that herein he deserts his friends in New England Ubi supr who say particular Churches are parts of the universal as a Totum or Integrum And none think otherwise but they to use his words who have profit by the fable § 2 What then is the specificative form of a particular Church p. 114. The formall reason constituting a particular Church is their joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances for Gods worship It is true indeed the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specification form For whether it be considered as a Genus or as a Totum it cannot have the same form with the Species or parts But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church as well as a particular from its form may be called a particular Church Why then is the Catholick called a Church Universal Because all Christians through the world excepting some individuals providentially excluded do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word the same Sacraments administred in Specie professe one common Faith Hope The sum is the specificative form of the Catholick visible Church if it have any is the profession of the same Faith and Hope of the Gospel whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments administred in Specie or no And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from those Ordinances for himself tells us an instance of a man that never was partaker of those Ordinances and yet a subject of Christs visible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world p. 139. And before that supposes A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Gospel by the Scripture it self and make profession of it where he lives though he be a thousand miles distant from any particular Church wherein the Ordinances are administred nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world p. 137. If then a joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances be the specificative form of a particular Church of which more anone why may not the profession of the same Faith and hope of the Gospel be the specificative form of the Catholick Church The truth is the Church considered in the threefold notion with the threefold differences is not distinguished into Species or hath any such specificative forms but is one and the same Church considered in that threefold Notion as the members may be considered as 1. Believers 2. As Professors 3. As Partakers of the same numericall Ordinances of worship as is said above and shall appear more hereafter § 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be considered which we shall easily grant him pag. 116. is not first the same with that of the Catholick invisible because many are members of this who are not true believers 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church because many are of the Catholick who never were of a particular Church 3. Nor yet hath it its union by a Relation to any one Officer given to the whole or a subordination of Officers as Papists pretend In all these we consent with him and therefore passe by the large discourse about them as not concerned in it It consists saies he In the profession of one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5 p. 133. That all the members of the Catholick Church are united in this profession is very true but this is not all they are bound to more than this viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances to subjection to the same Discipline as also to Love to one another and where it is possible to the celebrating together of the same numerical worship And in any of these to make any differences is a breach of that union that ought to be among the members of the Catholick visible Church Whereupon that is a strange assertion or addition of his pag. 117. If there he not an institution for joyning in the same Numerical Ordinances the union of this Church is not really a Church-union For when Christ hath instituted that every Church meeting together and every member of of the Catholick Church should exercise the same specifical Ordinances is not this a Church union or union of Churches And let it then be considered That if every member of the Church Catholick may be a member of any or every particular Church where providence may cast him being rightly qualified thereunto having right first to the same specifical Ordinances as a member of the Catholick and then to the same numerical Ordinances where he comes and finds them as some of his own way do grant and cannot well be denyed then the denyal of such a person to joyn in those numerical Ordinances is a breach of that union and love which ought to be between the members of the Cath. Church which whether it may be called a Schism or no we shall examine hereafter Sure we are this is done continually by some particular Churches and members of the same § 4 The properties of that profession for the preservation of this Union he makes to be three 1. p. 134. That all necessary truths of the Gospel be believed and professed 2. That no other principle of the mind inconsistent with the real belief of those truths professed be manifested by the professors Those that are enemies of the Crosse of Christ are not any members of his Church 3. That no opinion error or false doctrine everting any necessary truth professed be added and deliberately professed also To which I have but this to say 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel and some professors there were that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19. Yet these were members of thâ— Catholick Church 2. Those whom the Apostle called enemies of the Crosse of Christ were Christians and so members at least of the Catholick Church if not of a particular As the incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth till he was ejected And it is a position of his own party A scandalous member tolerated is a member to all Ordinances for himself and his seed wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees may be seen
when he saies p. 136. Mens profession of the knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred without excommunication and if he be a wicked Minister he is ipso facto unministred or degraded and all his Ministerial acts are null Adde to this what he saies p. 159. Let those that are prophane profess what they will and cry out a thousand times that they are Christians I shall never acknowledge them for others than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so They are not within the Church any more than a Jew or Mahumetan within the same precincts There are in a few lines many mistakes For 1. Though they be as bad as or worse than Mahumetans in regard of their spiritual estate yet are they better in regard of Church estate Does the wickedness of their lives make their Baptism a meer nullity then must they be rebaptized upon their conversion as heathens are 2. If they be no better than Heathens then are their children to be denyed Baptism and are very Infidels yet a child of the prophanest Jew was circumcised and had right to other priviledges 3. That is so far from truth That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so that they cannot possibly be Traytors and Rebels to him unless they be his Subject As he said A man cannot possibly be a Schismatick unlesse he be a Church-member either of a particular or of the Catholick Church 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators drunkards unruly walkers brethren 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.17 But these three properties are inâ—â—â—ed on to insinuate that if there be no breach of Union in any of these thâ—re is no Schism to be found in the Catholick Church nor between the members thereof as appears in his application of them § 2 For granting for process sake That Schism is the breach of any union instituted by Christ the enquiry is p. 140. Whether we be guâ—lty of the breach of such an unity And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel the Church of England in her doctrine is as Orthodox as any Chuch under Heaven consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall Church till by Toleration some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies and blasphemies disowned by the Church The Schism then charged upon us by Papists See p. 141 in this respect lieu at their own door who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves but cause others also so to do and attempt to destroy all that will not joyn with them Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries and Hereticks among us who are their Disciples who agree with them in many of their errors and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith of the Church of England As for the second That in our lives we do not manifest a principle utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism in this respect whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines So I may rather wish I could See p. 148 than professe I can acquit our Churches from the charge § 8 It cannot be denyed but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints as they would be called are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine which we have so long enjoyed And as for the last That we add not unto them in opinion or worship such things as are destructive of them or render them insufficient to be saving unto us For our worship we may I hope without offence say that it is in the publick Congregations whatever it is in private Conventicles according to the simplicity of the Gospel though perhaps in some circumstances defective wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation § 7 Thus far we are cleared of breach of Unity and so of Schism But I have intimated and partly proved there may be a breach of Union with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations As first there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others or refuse others to joyn with him in these Ordinances here is a breach of Love and Union among the members of the Catholick Church and in the particular Churches as parts of the Catholick And what thinks he of those Churches who deny Baptism to Infants altogether or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents not of their own confederate Church and the Lords Supper to the Parents of such Children The Anabaptists do the one contrary to the practiâ—e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles and themselves do the other daylâ— as is too well known Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church a breach of union and so a Schism Yet as he is earnest to free himâ—elf from Schism in his sâ—paration so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism p. 226. He that will upon that account undertake to prove them Schismaticall may find himself to be entangled Of which more hereafter § 8 That this Catholick Church is visible he grants which others of his friends have denyed p. 146. That it is an Organical political body in a right sense is largely and learnedly proved by others Mr. Huds though he denies it to them I refer it One thing I cannot but take notice of he sayes It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head for if as a visible politicall body it hath a politicall Head that Head also must be visible But 1. What necessity is there the Head must be visible p. 148. seeing he confesses the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body and God who is invisible was their Political Head 2. Jesus Christ the Head of the Church is a visible Head yea sometimes more visus seen of men while on earth though now for a time in Majesty as some great Princes do he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in Heaven But that by the by CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism § 1 VVHat he sayes for many leaves together for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism in their just separation from Rome as the Catholicke Church I cannot but acknowledge to be rationall solid and judicious Onely I am not satisfied with his assertion That he not onely denyes the Church of Rome so called to be a particular Church p. 154. but also affirmes it to be no Church at all page 156. Wherein he hath deserted most
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
they had the happynesse and honour to revive it Macte virtute § 9 2. Those last words of his were the answer to his 2d question How then is it possible that any such Church should be raised anew To which he gives that answer I say the Catholick Church mystical c. And to make it good he proceeds further to say Christ hath promised That where two or three are gathered together in his name he will be in the midst of them But I pray to whom was this promise made was it not to his Officers the Apostles in their consultations or Church-determinations Or grant it made to Believers is it not as true of them that are out of his Church-fellowship When two or three Christians accidentally meet together and pray c. Is not Christ also in the midst of them Yea grant him his own sense what then It is now supposed with some hope to have it granted that the Scripture being the power of God to salvation hath a sufficient efficacy in it self for the conversion of Souls All this is granted what God may do by his extraordinary power we determine not but this is ordinarily done by preaching and those Preachers in Office Rom. 10.14 But go on It is not impossible that though all Church state should cease in any place and yet the Scripture by the providence of God be there in the hand of individuals two or three should be called converted and regenerated by it This also may be supposed though I believe he cannot exemplifie such a case The question only would be if some Heathens should find the Scriptures how they should understand either the Original Languages without a Teacher or a miracle or the sense of them without a guide as the Eunuch said to Philip But suppose all they are converted by the Scriptures alone What then p. 213. He asks whether these converted persons may not possibly come together in the name of Jesus No doubt they may if they were 20. or 40. of them But can their assembling together make them a Church How can that be before they are baptized See Confess of 7. Anabap. Churches Art 34. A Church is a company of baptized persons and how baptized without a Minister Shall they be Se-baptists or baptize one another I suppose our Author is not yet come to this But he says May they not upon his command and in expectation of his promise so come together with resolution to do his will and exhort one another thereto Truly to use his own words I believe they may in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen Where then lyes the difficulty In this whether being come together in the name of Christ they may do what he hath commanded them or no whether they may exhort and stir up one another to do the will of Christ No there is no difficulty but duty in all this But here lies the difficulty which his new notion or his haste made him forget How these persons can come to be a Church before they are baptized and how they can be baptized without a Minister Were not men prejudiced or prepossessed with some Anabaptistical fancy So were the Indians Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 15. 16. converted by lay-men as called here would be the difficulty of the business The Iberians if stories say true were converted by a Christian woman and by a miracle but surely she could not baptize them therefore they sent for some Ministers to baptize and to put them into Church Order § 10 It was the Soul-sick fancy of our late Seekers that had lost all Religion that all true Church state was lost in all the world as well as in England and our Author thinks little less till the form of his own Churches was found and therefore they expected some extraordinary Officers to raise it up from the dead which was to looke for a miracle And in the case propounded of two or three converted by the Scripture alone in a remote corner of the world I would gladly know how a Church can be begun without a miracle For though a company of baptized persons might in an extraordinary case chuse themselves Officers prima vice and so make a Church yet unbaptized persons converted cannot make a Church till they be baptized and who shall baptize them without a miracle unless providence send them a Minister to do it For true Believers or Professors of the faith quà such cannot make a particular Church their own first principle of a particular Church must be baptized persons and how they can come to be such without a Minister without a miracle I cannot yet see This is the bottome of the Seekers now turn'd into Quakers All Church state it lost and no recovery of it without new Revelation and so they fancy the Spirit to be given to them to begin a new Church And in our brethrens new Church way had their people renounced their baptism as Anabaptists have done as they themselves have renounced their Ministry I would be informed whether they could ever have made a Church of unbaptized persons without a Minister without a miracle and then whether they must not turn either Anabaptists or Quakers See Confess of 7. Churches Art 41. The person dispencing Baptism is a disciple not tyed to a Church Officer either making Baptism administrable by any brother that hath the boldness to take it up or expect new Revelations of the indwelling Spirit and so become extraordinary Officers This and more that might be said imports for ought I see that there shall never cease to be a Church or Churches wherein some instituted Ordinances shall be preserved though covered over with much corruption those particularly of the Ministry and Baptism or else the Church-state being once lost and perished can never be restored without a miracle When Judah was carryed away captive to Babylon with all her Priests and Levites and all the materialls of their National Church-state the Temple destroyed c. It may seem that their whole Church-state was ceased as to their Ceremonial worship for 70 years together It might be asked How then it was possible to revive that lost Church-state without a miracle The answer may be That God preserved the seed of that Church at Babylon partly in preserving the people there a remnant of his circumcised people partly in reserving the holy vessels useful for their worship and partly in keeping the Line and Genealogy of the priesthood entire so that when all these were brought back to Jerusalem they had no need of a miracle to revive their Church-state or to build a new Temple but only to purge and repair the old and to set up the instituted services in their power and purity The application is so easy that the Reader will outrun me So when Antichrist had usurped tyrannically like another Nebuchadnezer over all Churches ruind particular Churches corrupted the Ordinances of Christ World worship
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
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-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-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
Ordinances of the worship of God p. 245. are rightly to be administred only in a Church and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto the denyal of a National Church-state seems to deny that we had either Ministers or Ordinances here in England How will he answer this especially having renounced his own Ministry received in this National Church and all besides in respect of Church Communion except his Baptism as null or naught Thus he saies and that 's all It may seem so to do but it doth not unlesse you will say that unlesse ye be a National Church-state there is no other which is too absurd for any one to imagine The consequence cannot well be denyed in his notion of this Church For if there were no Ministers but ordained by those National Officers and those Officers not of Christs institution as he hath often pleaded it follows necessarily that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church and so no Ordinances truly administred in it and at last no Church at all This I doubt or rather believe by what he hath said is his judgement but he durst not speak out For I ask Does he in his conscience believe there were any true Ministers in this Church in the time of its being National and if no Ministers no Ordinances rightly administred But why does he not tell us what that other Church-state is of which he speaks he denies all but the Independent state of new gathered Churches which were not found in the Prelates times except some Brownistical Societies we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication but shall plead for our selves Our former Divines of the first reformation and since have pleaded and justifyed their Ordination for the essentialls of it received from Rome which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions they propagated unto us who may therefore the better justifie our own Those Bishops that ordained us had as he told us above a double capacitie One as Lord Bishops received from the state p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gosspell to preach administer Sacraments to joyne in Ordination of Ministers p. 231. Now in this latter some of themselves professed and so we understood it that they ordained Presbyters as presbyters not as Bishops Hence it followes that though they presumed to themselves a Lordly power not according unto the institution of Christ whereby they called themselves a nationall Church c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospell as we beleive it is sufficiently proved and never yet sufficiently answered there were Ministers lawfully called and Ordinances by them rightly administred and that is the other Church state which he would not doe us the honour to name least he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatick in departing from this Church-state These true and faithfull Ministers with their people in their severall Congregations administring the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ whereof their baptism was one were and still are the true Church-state of England for which we plead and he hath forsaken Some additions of humane prudence cannot annull the Ordinances of Christ § 6 The way of the prelates he told us p. 235. p. 246. to stablish a nationall Church was descendendo of the Presbyterians ascendendo That is that such a thing should rise from the particular Congregations by sundry Associations and subordinations of Assemblyes in and by the representatives of those Churches But this may prove a mistake For 1. The Presbyterians rather goe descendendo as well as the prelates did at least in part They agree both in this that they acknowledge their rise and originall to be from the Apostles who were the first founders of all Churches and the supreme Officers of the Church For them were other Ministers ordained in subordination to them Bishops say some Archbishops and then Bishops say others and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them or as he styles them parochiall Priests p. 235 The Presbyterians say the Apostles first made Presbyters and gave them power to rule their particular Churches and as occasion required to meet together by Delegates in a Classis or Synod as that â—t Jerusalem consisted partly of Elders with the Apostles 2. They lay the rise of Ministerial power to be universall as well as the Prelates supposing a Minister to be a Minister in what part soever of the world his lot happen to be and do not upon his removall give him a new Ordination though he may not for order sake exercise that power but when and where he hath a call 3. That call may be different 1. as he is called to take care of a particular Congregation 2. as a Delegate to a Classis or Synod which himself allowes in the Independent way as above 3. As he is in the absence of a particular Minister desired to Preach or Baptise or do any other Ministeriall dutie to another people as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to and pray with them Now this Delegation which he meanes by ascendendo doth not give him a new power distinct from what he had before by his Ordination but a particular designation to act this power pro hic nunc As he hath often heard but will take no notice of it § 7 Whether a Church may be called nationall p. 247. when all the particular Congregations of one nation agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblyes as some learned Divines have asserted I will not dispute but leave what they have said to the further consideration of their Adversaries Though this may be said they did not make this the only or the principall way of that denomination That was rather when all the Congregation of a nation agree in the Doctrine and worship and celebrate it accordingly The Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to the Church nor absolutely necessary and the Church may exist and be nationall without it much lesse do any of ours say That subjection to one civill Government and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically c doth constitute one Church or as he expresses it afterwards p. 251. they do not say that being under one civâ—ll government does constitute a Nationall Church for if so sayes he its forme and unitie as such must be given it by the civill Government For the unitie thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship and not in the modell of civill Government of what kind soever p. 250. And if he allow as he does an Association of the Delegates from severall Churches to meet for matters of common concernment by the same reason whether it be by Institution or prudence he must allow those subordinate Assemblyes For the light of nature teaches the necessitie of Appeales in male-administrations for ending of troubles and decision of differences in particular Congregations as was instanced in the
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
21 We are now drawing to an issue of this discourse of Schism in the ordinary Acception of the Word to signifie p. 268. A breach of union which he allows to pass such is his condiscension and confidence and yet avoid the charge of Schism Thus he saies We have broken no band of unity no order instituted by Christ we have causlessly deserted no station that ever we were in according to his mind c. which how true it is and whether he do not hereby asperse all our Churches to be no true Churches of Christs institution let the Reader indifferent by what hath been said be Judge That on pure grounds of conscience we have withdrawn or do withhold our selves from partaking in some waies engaged into upon meer grounds of prudence we acknowledge Whether they have in their separation from us gone upon pure and meere grounds of conscience God and th ir own hearts must determine the business The world is too apt to judge otherwise upon some suspicious practises of theirs And suppose they have withdrawn themselves from some waie of prudence in some of our Churches I suppose he means it of Classical subordinations yet they have withdrawn themselves also from some Congregations not so united that have only the pure Institutions of Christ and that may bring the charge of Schism upon them But have not they also gone upon some meere grounds of prudence or policy Is there any Institution of Christ that they must gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church if so it be Or is there any Institution of Christ that a Minister who is married to a people as they hold should relinquish it for a place of greater eminency or preferment Or that people must be tyed to their Pastour by an explicite Covenant not to depart without their leave humbly desired Or to add no more Is th re any Institution of Christ in express words that Churches particular must send their Delegates to an Assembly to determine matters of common concernment which he granted above These and some more of their known waies the world takes to be but products of humane prudence and he may do well to shew their Institutions § 22 Yet have we more of this confidence From what hath been said it appears in what a fair capacity notwithstanding any principle or practise owned by us we are to live peaceably and to exercise all fruits of love to the otherwise minded if we may be permitted to serve God according to our light And must not the Quakers and the rest be permitted to serve God according to their light also But it matters not in what capacity they are to do those things named let us see the fruits of it Does not their way break the peace of all our Churches Hath it not been the door to let in all the errors heresies blasphemies England groans under Do not all sores of Sects being all Independent and none to controle them exercise all the fruits of hatred toward us look upon us and carry themselves towards us as their greatest enemies as no Ministers no Churches scarce as Christians Hath not he himself in this book unministred our ministers unmembred our members unchurcht our Churches Doth he give us words when we see such deeds § 23 It is commonly and truly objected There is a difference between Reforming of Churches already gathered p. 269. and raising of Churches out of meer materials Surely this is evident enough in raising of a Church out of Infidels and reducing a corrupted Church to its first institution This he first sayes concerns not the business What 's the English of this if he would speak out Why the truth is We have no Churches and they are not in repairing an old house but building a new from the ground But hear him say something 1 I know no other Reformation of any Church or any thing in it but the reducing of it to its primitive institution c. We say so too grant us to be Churches Reformation of a Church or any thing in it presupposes there is a Church existent though perhaps rotten and ruinous But these New builders will gather a Church out of no Churches and begin a new one It had been happy for old England if they had all gone into New England and laid the foundation of their Churches amongst the Indians and not to build upon other mens foundations and then tell us they are building oâ— spick and span new Churches And does not this hold forth that we are no Churches and our members no members of a Church till admitted into theirs But yet more to discover his very heart When any society or combination of men whatever hitherto it hath been esteemed is not capable of such a reduction and renovation p. 270. I suppose I shall never provoke any wise and sober person if I profess I cannot look on such a society â—â— a Church of Christ Is not Reader this at once to unchurch all the Churches of England since the Reformation for it s known during the Reign of the Prelates they were not capable of that Reduction And what capacity our Churches are now in for that Reduction partly by want of power and assistance from the Magistrate without which some dare not set upon a Reformation for fear of a pramunireâ— partly by our Divisions amongst our selves femented by he knows whom he cannot but see as well as we lament But if we must be denyed to be Churches because we are not in such a capacity and cannot do all we would to reform them we are in a sad condition What if a Church want some things she had at her first institution perhaps of no great concernment or be it great but either by the prohibition of the present powers or the opposition of a prevalent party it is not now capable of Reduction to its primitive Institution Will he look upon this society as no Church of Christ and think no wise or sober man in that society or other where will be provoked to anger if not to indignation And so much the more when as upon this ground we are in danger to lose all our best members for so he advises thereupon I shall advise those therein who have a due right to the priviledges purchased for them by Christ as to Gospel Administrations to take some other peaceable course to make themselves partakers of them That is to come out from among them and joyn themselves to some Independent Congregation § 24 To satisfie the former objection is out of his way at present p. 270. for he tells us He must mannage principles which in this Discourse he hath not been occasioned to draw forth or to improve I cannot but make it my earnest request and so I think will many more that he would be pleased to do us the favour to bring forth and mannage those principles to their utmost clearness and strength which this
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
had and took it again of the people 2. The Bohemians did it but once prima 〈◊〉 but afterwards kept up Ordination by Ministers and not by the people but ours still continue it by the people I might add a third but I forbear § 28 5. What was the way of the first Reformation p. 272. in this Nation and what principles those godly men proceeded on how far what they did may be satisfactory to our consciences c. It is confessed on both sides they did 〈◊〉 in well but by the badnesse of the times were not able to finish their work But how unsatisfactory their wayes and principles are to our brethrens consciences to concurr with them their practise does demonstrate walking contrary â—o them in deformation of the Church not repairing the oâ—â— but founding and building up a new Church and renouncing their principles 6. Whether ordinary Officers be before or after the Church and whether a Church-state is preserved in the preservation of Officers forraâ—gn to that Church or the Office be preserved and consequenly the Officers in the preservation and constitution of a Church is the last thing oâ— importance to be considered For the first whether ordinary Officers were before the Church hath been discussed elsewhere Instances may be given on both sides Sometimes the Church is before the ordinary Officer viz. when one dying another succeeds to that Church in his room Sometimes the ordinary Officer is before the Church aâ— in the gathering of a Church out of Heathens Mr. Eliot in New England an ordinary Officer he converts and baptizes many Indians and gathers them into a Church I hope they do not look for extraordinary Officers now as the Seekers of late did I know his exception aboâ—e This is in ecclesiae constituenda not in ecclesia constituta but I shall give him another instance suppose a Minister comes young to a people lives till all the ancient people he found there be deceased All that remain in the Parish were admitted by him into the Church by baptism here the Officer is before the Church in a Church constituted But this is as very a nicitie as which is first the Hen or the Egg. I perceiâ—e what he aimes at in the second question See pag. 199. They who will not be contented c. Whether a Church-state is preserved in the Officer or the Officer in the constitution of a Church He upon his principles must hold the latter part for he holds that no man is an Officer out of his own Church is either the Church be destroyed or he be removed from it he ceases to be an Officer whence it follows that 1 No Minister quà Minister can convert the Heathens 2 That if all Church-state be lost it cannot be raised up by an Officer who is forraign to that Church as he speaks here The result is according to his principles the Office first and then the Officers inclusively is preserved in the constitution of a Church As how A company of single Christians So the Anabaptists Confess â—ct 36. may meet and joyn themselves in a Church society which done they may out of themselves for other Churches or Ministers are forraign to to them chuse them Officers and set them apart by fasting and Prayer This is pretty and never exemplyfied in an ordinary case till t'other day But he forgot the main businesse that he supposes all Church-state lost but these Christians joyning together are supposed to be baptized which is a part of a Church-state and without which they could never make a Church much lesse an Officer as was discoursed above To raise up and revive a decayed Church-state in an ordinary way there is but one of these waies either a Minister in Office must baptize converted Heathens and so make them a Church or a company of baptized persons when no Minister is to be found must for once joyn and chuse themselves Officers which comes near to an extraordinary cafe and not among us now to be made use of but yet still the Church-state depends upon the Minister originally that baptized them and not upon those people supposing them unbaptized But more of this above When he takes those important things he speaks of into his discussion let him take those things by me propounded into consideration also as things of some importance § 29 The task undertaken is now at it issue p. 273. The miscarriages that he speaks of as ensuing for want of a due and right apprehension of the thing that is Schism we have been now long exercised in the consideration of may with no more ease than truth be rolled back upon himself It is not impossible that he may begin to apprehend that he hath been too hasty to judging our Churche to be none and himself and his party no Schismaticks in separating from them as no Churches And it may perhap appear to him that he is the man that is more ready to charge highly than able to make good his charge The Schisms that have ensued by their causlesse imputation of a no-Church-state among us and setting up new Churches is too well known And being in one fault of renouncing communion with us he hath now confirmed himself and his party in it by a new but false notion of Schism which none of his Predecessors had the hap to stumble upon I might parallel the rest in that Section but I forbear and leave it to the Reader § 30 2. In these differences about the way of Religion we have endeavoured to drive them to their Rise and Spring p. 275. and find Schism to be as formidable in its first Original in respect of its terminus a quo as in the streams though much increased by many generations in regard of the terminus ad quem And I cannot but observe how he seems to extenuate the crime of Schism before aggravated by his comparisons Schism at its first rise and Scripture notion if he mistake not was but a little Spring but swelled to a great breadth by mens disputations about it Hear his swelling words What a stood of abominations doth Schism seem to be as rolling down to us through the writings of Cyprian Austin and Opratus of old c. Go to its rise and you will find it quite another thing As if he had said Schism is not so formidable a thing as it 's made by all but himself if you would but take it for some petty differences within one Assembly the charge of it is not so dreadful as some would makestâ— For so he adds p. 276. Whilst I have an uncontroulable faithful witness that I do not willingly break any unity of the institution of Christ. p. 277. Whilst I disturb not the Peace of that particular Church whereof by my own consent I am a member nor do raise up nor continue in any can slessâ—d differences with them or any of them with whom I walk in the fellowship
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
signs and evidences required to assure the man himself and others of hiâ— in mediate extraordinary â—â—cation p. 34. These he makes to be a supernatural power either on discerning of things present as thoughts and words or things future as 1. Things contingent 2. Speaking with Tongues 3. Working of Miracles c. None of which being now to be found or expected â—rom our new Restorers or Reformers P. 41. f. who ever pretends unto it not warranted by an evidence of one of those three ways which God taketh in such proceedings is but a pretender an impostor and to be reiected of all Gods people who yet plead the Revelation of the Spirit and take themselves extraordinarily called by God to make new Churches upon the pretence of a collapsed and corrupted state of this our Church I say none of these being now to be found amongst them they prove themselves to be extraordinary impostors and those that indulge and countenance them are accessary to tâ—eir impostures And whether our Authour himâ—elf have not relinquished these former Orthodox principles The â—ow supposing an intercision of all Ordinances and all true Church-state lost as the seems to do in his Tract of Schism as was said above whether I say he must not maintain and expect a new immediate call from God to be necessary to the Restauration of a Church I leave to all to judge when they consider what is said above at Chap. 7. § 10. And I proceed to the next § 8 The 2d way of an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel is p. 37. by a concurrence of Scripture Rules drawn either from expresse precept or approved practise The precepts are such as these Luke 22.32 When converted strengthen thy brethren Jam. â— last If any erre from the truth c. Math. 5.15 a candle is not to be put under a bushel c. p. 38. Whence he infers 1. There is a general obligation on all Christians to promote the conversion and instruction of sinners c. 2. When any truth necessary is revealed to any out of the Word not before known he ought to have an uncontradicted liberty of declaring that truth c. 3. Truth revealed carries with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience that it ought to be published To the first of these it may be said This is not an immediate call which he required above but mediate by the word Nor yet an extraordinary call to some particular men but an ordinary obligation on all Christians Not only in extraordinary cases of a corrupted Church but ordinary in the best Church Nor lastly is this sufficient to make any man a Preacher but only an instructer of others common to all Christians men and women To the second it had need be cautioned well not only because it may either be no truth which he thinks so or no necessary truth and so not fit to disturb the peace of a Church for it but also because upon this pretence of truth every man must take uncontradicted liberty to speak in the Church which will breed confusion Himself therefore adds Provided that he use such waies for that his declaration as the Church wherein he liveth if a right Church doth allow But this in part contradicts his uncontradicted liberty for if it be a necessary truth no Church may hinder him But then the case is of a corrupted Church which will not allow but contradict that liberty and what shall he then do To the third I have only this to say That a strong errour carries oft with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience which is in a sort obligatory that it ought to be published to others And so errour must have as much liberty as truth However all these Rules bind in ordinary as well as extraordinary cases of a Church and give no authority to make a man a Preacher § 9 The examples are of our Saviour himself p. 39. who preached in the Synagogues without any outward call and of those Acts 8.1 who being scattered went every where preaching the word so did Paul and Apollos c. For our Saviour his call was immediate and extrraordinary So was Paul's and Apostle Apollos was at first no more a Preacher than Aquila and Priscilla who instructed him in the way as one Christian may do another As for those Acts 8.1 it s made more than probable by others that they were Elders of the Church and Preachers by Office If some were not they did no more than any Christian man or woman may do in such cases and yet never be Preachers And all this in a reformed Church-state ordinarily and so not to the purpose § 10 For he must remember that he was to shew what might make and justifie a lay man to be a Preacher of the Gospel in an extraordinary case without an ordinary outward call from the Church and required no more but Gifts and consent of people to be instructed by him as above Now these instances afore though they had Gifts sufficient preached the word when they had not the consent of people to hear or be instructed by them and so must every one that hath the truth revealed speak whether they will hear or forbear His main design is to discover what a man no Minister may do when a Church is collapsed or corrupted the ordinary Ministers either so ignorant they cannot or so negligent they will not teach the truth p. 15. And of such a state of a Church he here puts the case p. 39 c. Suppose a man living in the midst and height of Apostacy p. 40. when an universal darkness hath spread over the faâ—â— of the Church as in Italy there the â—cene is laid though pointing at England the Lord reveals some points of faith not known or disbelieved c. I demand whether that man without expecting any call from the fomenters of those errors may not preach and publish these truths to others c. Truly there is no difficulty in this case I conceive he may if he have so much confidence nay ought if when and where he can find some that will hear him But the question is Whether this ipso facto makes him a Preacher in Office A woman a Christian amongst Iberians may and did do as much as this yet I hope no Preacher of the Go pel in the strict senâ—â— yet had she Gifts to preach Christ and a people willing to be instructed by her And unless he take preachâ—ng in the larger â—ense he cannot coulâ— not then whatever now say No other outward call is requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him A Presbyterian as he was then cannot affirm this unlesse he can suppose a time and place where there is no ordination to be had and that but prima vice neither thus the Presbyterians hold Perhaps these principles of his then laid might mislead others and himself
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