union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ which I shall freely grant him provided he do not limit Schism as formerly he did to the worship of God only yet that he does here againe The consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God marke that is instituted by Jesus Christ is the foundation of what I have further to offer c The Designe of this is that he may have a faire retreat when he is charged with breach of union in other respects and so with Schism to escape by this evasion This breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one Assembly met to that end And that is onely Schism in the Scripture notion as he hath often said But I shall attend his motion § 8 This union being instituted in the Church according to the various acceptions of that word so it is distinguished For which purpose he undertakes three things to shew 1. The severall considerations of the Church with which union is to be preserved 2. What that union is p. 82. we are to keep with the Church in each consideration 3. How that union is broken and what the sinne whereby it is done Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned leaving others to plead for themselves CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall and its Union § 1 THe Church of Christ in this world is taken in Scripture three wayes 1. For the mysticall body of Christ p. 84. his elect redeemed c commonly called the Church Catholick militant 2. For the universalitie of men called by the Word visibly professing the Gospell called the Church Catholick visible 3. For a particular Church of some place wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind This distinction of the Church is rather of the word than of the thing intended by it imports not a three-fold Church but one Church under a threefold consideration arising as he sayes from the nature of the things themselves that is the members of that Church who may be considered either as true believers that makes the invisible Church 2 as professors of the same Faith that makes the Catholike visible Church or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship and that is called a particular Church For as the definition of a Church agrees to it in all the three considerations It is a societie of men called out of the world by the word c So the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches or in that threefold consideration of it at once He that is a true believer of the invisible Church is also a professor of the Faith and so a member of the Catholike visible Church and he that is of both those is or ought to be if possible a member of a particular Church Now the Church having its rise and nature from a call as the word imports that call admitting of severall degrees causes this three-fold notion of the Church That call in Scripture is either internall which he calls effectuall or externall and that again admits of degrees men are called either to the profession of Faith onely lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances or to participatâ—on of the instituted worship also In their obedience to the first call they are said to be members of the Church invisible to the second to be members of the Catholike visible to the third to be members of a particular Church And his own way of raising the former distinction is the same for substance p. 84. § 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last acception is not onely because members of a particular Church are bound to externall rules for joynt communion for to those very rules are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also when it is possible but partly because the Catholike Church in either sense cannot all meet in one place and partly because the opportunitie to yeeld obedience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie not too great or numerous § 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church which 〈◊〉 calls the Mysticall body of Christ his elect page 84. c the Church Catholike militant I have but a little to say I observe onely first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible onely to this world as militant whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect both Militant and Triumphant from Heb. 12.23 The generall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven 2. That he makes the Church invisible the onely Mysticall body of Christ which is ordinarily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state 3. See my Vind Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28 to prove the Catholike invisible Church which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church He sayes They that will apply this text to the Church in any otheâ— sense page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true member of the Church in that sense which will be difficult c But I say that the promise in that text and the rest cited is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church is true They are built upon that Rock and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them but yet it may be true with respect if not to a particular Church which may faile yet to the Catholike visible Church which as it is built upon that Rock the confession of Peter that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Messiah come So it is to continue to the worlds end and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it And this himselfe confesses I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age and such as made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation one way or other p. 86. f. There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church not onely invisible as true beleivers but also of the visible as professors of the Faith of the Gospell and so the promise is made good to it Indeed the promise in that text is made to the whole Church indefinitely and respectively but not to every particular person in it nor to every particular Church There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages but whether it be made to a particular Church That Christ hath had alwayes a Church in this sense in the world himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry p. 85. § 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter § 3 The second thing considerable is the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church among themselves which he makes to be pag. 95. The
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates
discipline yet God reserved secretly some true believers and some professors together with so much of his Ordinances as to substantialls and necessary ingredients to a Church a Ministry and baptism c. that when he stirred up the heart of Luther and other Ministers like another Zerubbabel and some people to separate themselves from the Romish tyrannie and corruptions in doctrine and worship they needed no miracle to beginne a new Church but some being ministers of the Gospell so made in their Ordination and all being baptized they did not raise a new Church but onely purged the old § 11 We are come now to consider with him What is the Union and Communion of a particular Church pag. 214. that so we may know wherein the bonds thereof do consist And instead of telling us what this union is he tells us what is the foundation of that union which he makes to be double The one externall procuring command ng viz the Institution of Jesus Christ before mentioned requiring peace order union consent and agreement among all the members of it c But I think that all this is the foundation of the union both of the invisible and visible Catholick Church All the members of them as well as of the particular are under those commands requiring peace order c for their walking in such societies when and where they can associate and where is then the difference of this Church from the other 2. The internall foundation of this union is that Love without dissimulation which allwayes is or ought to be betweene all the members of such a Church exerting it selfe in their respective duties c. But this also is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches Love without dâ—ssimulation as was said above p. 98. And so yet we have no difference But we enquire what is the union it selfe or rather what is the forme for that gives union the specificating forme that distinguishes this Church from the rest the other two aforegone This it is p. 215. The joynt consent of all the members of it from a principle of Love to walke together in the universall celebration of all the Ordâ—nances of the worship of God and to performe all offices of Love to one another c But most of this is applicable to the other two Churches or notions of a Church All the members of them are bound by a command of Christ to consent or agree to joyne together when and where they câ—n from a principle of Love in the universall celebration of all the Ordinances or worship and the rest what then is the Specificative forme if it have any of a particular Church And if it have a forme to distinguish it spec fically from the other have not they also fâ—rmes to distance â—hem from this Anâ— if â— are there not three species of a Church which he seem'd to deny aboâ—e We have them all described below p. 236. The forme of the Church Catholick absolutely so called is the unitie with Christ and in it selfe by the one Spirit whereby it is animated This is not very accurately spoken is the unitie of the head and members the forme of a man It is not rather the one Soul that animates it the onenesse of soul whereby the whole is animated p. 95. And will he say the one Spirit of God is the form or soul that animates the Catholike Church p. 95. I was afraid when I read above That which answers hereunto the soul in man in the mysticall body of Christ is the Animation of the whole by his Spirit I was I say afraid to fasten this conceit upon the words Nor did I think he intended any such thing when he said See the Appendix below Sect. 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot easily consent p. 49. But upon second thoughts finding him to repeat the phrase of Animation by the Spirit in this place and to talke of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. the indwelling Spirit I beganne to suâ—pect him to incline at least to this errour for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Divines And since I heare that he preached this publickly at Oxford That believers have not onely the speciall graces and operations of the Spirit in them but the person of the holy Ghost indwelling in them which was the errour of one of the chiefe Leaders of Independentâ—sm in New England and by his brethren there condemned which is seriously to be by them considered God seemes to blast their way not onely by suffering their people to fall from them but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions or strong delusions Not onely some that were once theirs have fallen into some doctrines of Poperie and Arminianism all most all the sects preach those points but some of themselves that fell not so farre have yet vented dangerous and damnable doctrines as I could instance but forbeare Bâ—t to returne 1. The forme of the mysticall Church is say some of his side Faith 2. The forme of the Catholike visibly professing is the unity of that as being by them professed that is say others and he above the profession of the same Faith 3. The forme of the particular Church p. 236. as such is its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worsh p unmerically in the confession of the same Faith and subjection to the same rules of Love for the edification of the whole I observe first the difference He said above the union of this Church which he makes the specificating forme not very properly is the joynt consent of all the members to performe the same Ordinances of worship but now hee sayes It is the joynt observance of all Ordinances c. And indeed this seemes to be the specificating difference or forme of this Church as distinct from the other the Communion of all the members of it in all the same numericall Ordinance of worship And this is the plaine truth dropped from him unawares contrary to his partners and his own Judgment concerning the forme of a particular Church It is not as they have held out hitherto an explicite consent of all the members but Its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically in the confession of the same Faith c Whence I would inferre 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholike do occasionally meet together in observation of the same numericall Ordinances of worship then and there is found a particular Church though no explicite consent be passed by them one to another 2. That the explicite consent they so much talke of is not necessary by institution of Christ to the forme or essence of a particular Church the implicite covenant of Christianitie binding them to such performance when and where it is possible but is onely a prudentiall meanes or bond for the better tying
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
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 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