union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ which I shall freely grant him provided he do not limit Schism as formerly he did to the worship of God only yet that he does here againe The consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God marke that is instituted by Jesus Christ is the foundation of what I have further to offer c The Designe of this is that he may have a faire retreat when he is charged with breach of union in other respects and so with Schism to escape by this evasion This breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one Assembly met to that end And that is onely Schism in the Scripture notion as he hath often said But I shall attend his motion § 8 This union being instituted in the Church according to the various acceptions of that word so it is distinguished For which purpose he undertakes three things to shew 1. The severall considerations of the Church with which union is to be preserved 2. What that union is p. 82. we are to keep with the Church in each consideration 3. How that union is broken and what the sinne whereby it is done Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned leaving others to plead for themselves CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall and its Union § 1 THe Church of Christ in this world is taken in Scripture three wayes 1. For the mysticall body of Christ p. 84. his elect redeemed c commonly called the Church Catholick militant 2. For the universalitie of men called by the Word visibly professing the Gospell called the Church Catholick visible 3. For a particular Church of some place wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind This distinction of the Church is rather of the word than of the thing intended by it imports not a three-fold Church but one Church under a threefold consideration arising as he sayes from the nature of the things themselves that is the members of that Church who may be considered either as true believers that makes the invisible Church 2 as professors of the same Faith that makes the Catholike visible Church or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship and that is called a particular Church For as the definition of a Church agrees to it in all the three considerations It is a societie of men called out of the world by the word c So the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches or in that threefold consideration of it at once He that is a true believer of the invisible Church is also a professor of the Faith and so a member of the Catholike visible Church and he that is of both those is or ought to be if possible a member of a particular Church Now the Church having its rise and nature from a call as the word imports that call admitting of severall degrees causes this three-fold notion of the Church That call in Scripture is either internall which he calls effectuall or externall and that again admits of degrees men are called either to the profession of Faith onely lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances or to participatâ—on of the instituted worship also In their obedience to the first call they are said to be members of the Church invisible to the second to be members of the Catholike visible to the third to be members of a particular Church And his own way of raising the former distinction is the same for substance p. 84. § 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last acception is not onely because members of a particular Church are bound to externall rules for joynt communion for to those very rules are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also when it is possible but partly because the Catholike Church in either sense cannot all meet in one place and partly because the opportunitie to yeeld obedience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie not too great or numerous § 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church which 〈◊〉 calls the Mysticall body of Christ his elect page 84. c the Church Catholike militant I have but a little to say I observe onely first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible onely to this world as militant whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect both Militant and Triumphant from Heb. 12.23 The generall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven 2. That he makes the Church invisible the onely Mysticall body of Christ which is ordinarily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state 3. See my Vind Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28 to prove the Catholike invisible Church which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church He sayes They that will apply this text to the Church in any otheâ— sense page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true member of the Church in that sense which will be difficult c But I say that the promise in that text and the rest cited is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church is true They are built upon that Rock and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them but yet it may be true with respect if not to a particular Church which may faile yet to the Catholike visible Church which as it is built upon that Rock the confession of Peter that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Messiah come So it is to continue to the worlds end and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it And this himselfe confesses I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age and such as made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation one way or other p. 86. f. There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church not onely invisible as true beleivers but also of the visible as professors of the Faith of the Gospell and so the promise is made good to it Indeed the promise in that text is made to the whole Church indefinitely and respectively but not to every particular person in it nor to every particular Church There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages but whether it be made to a particular Church That Christ hath had alwayes a Church in this sense in the world himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry p. 85. § 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter § 3 The second thing considerable is the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church among themselves which he makes to be pag. 95. The
of 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
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates
a libertie at first to settle in such a congregation so also to remove their habitations and to settle in another not to goe many miles to partake of the Ordinances which seemes unsuitable to the first plantation of Churches and the mutuall duties of people of one congregation But of that elsewhere And though the Reverend Ministers of London doe grant pag. 203. That in the beginning of Christianitie the number of believers were so few in great Cities as that they might all meet in one place yet they did not imagine that when they at Jerusalem were multiplyed into many thousands or myriads they could so do And if they met in severall places as they must they had also severall Elders to administer the Ordinances to them and yet are called singularly one Church Adde to this that at Ephesus Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove there was but one particular Church there the text sayes expressely there were many Elders there v. 25. you all He sent to Epheâ—us for the Elders of the Church which eâ—idences cleerely that there werâ— more Congregations then one in Ephesus for how could many Elders officiate in one Congregation This alone if nothing else could be said affords more for a Presbyteriall Church than all the New Testament does for an Independent Church gathered I know not how out of many Churches But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I. § 3 To the consideration of the unitie of this Church and the breach of it hee premises some things p. 205. 1. A man may be a member of the Catholick invisible Church 2. Of the Catholick visible Church and yet by some providentiall hinderance be never joyned to a particular Church which I grant as true but onely note two things to be satisfied in 1. How he can reconcile this with what he said afore p. 133. Sect. 26. The members of the Catholick visible Church are initiated into that professsion of faith by baptism But Baptism according to his principles is an Ordinance of worship onely to be enjoyed in a particular Church unlesse he will grant what yet he does deny but will be forced to grant that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church even to the Catholike Church and may administer baptism out of a particular Church as Philip did to the Eunuch and Paul to the Jaylor or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship let him take his choice 2. I note also how he is at distance with some of his friends in New England Mr. Hooker's survey See my Review page 119. who assert That no man can be a member of the Catholike Church but he must first be a member of a particular But 3. he grants Every beleiver is obliged to joyne himself to some one of those Churches that there he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer c if he have opportunitie This he willingly grants and I as willingly accept for an use I shall make of it anone but I like not so well his reasons p. 206 1. There are some duties with cannot possibly be performed but on a supposition of this dutie previously required Math. 18.15 c If he had said those duties cannot so well be performed its true but some of them are due to others beside our own Congregation But I shall make this advantage of it That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed then some of their Church-members are ill gathered living many miles asunder Cohabitation in Townes and Parishes seemes a necessary requisite to Church-membership 2. There are some Ordinances of Christ which they can never be made partakers of not related to some such Society as Admonition participation of the Lords Supper c. As for Admonition it is a duty that concerns every man to any man though not of his particular Church though specially to them of their own society And as for partaking of the Lords Supper why may he not enjoy it in another Church as well as Baptism which he allowed before to one of the Catholick Church If Christians professing the same Faith were looked on as Brethren and as having thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ in any Church where they come they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joyned to a particular Church But this ingrossing the common Ordinances to a few confederate persons and making the rest little better than Heathens as to their Communion violates the Order of the Gospel and the Rule of charity and may justly be called Schism § 4 His third reason I like yet worse That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship meerely and purely of soveraign institution but only to them and by them who are so joyned But then I would ask 1. Whether Philip Baptizing the Eunuch in the way had Christs direction for it or no or is Baptism no part of worship 2. Prayer and reading of the Word in private families are they no duties of worship 3. Preaching to convert Heathens and then to baptize them is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister Rom. 10.14 4 Let me be so bold as to ask once more By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament or at St. Maries in Oxford with a mixt unjoyned congregation c Or are not these there and at that time parts of worship of Christs Institution I hope he will not say so 4. For his fourth reason he gives this The Apostles in planting of Churches took care to leave none whom they converted out of that Order where it was possible c. But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch the Deputy Acts 13. c. Unless where there were enow converted to make a Church But he laying so much stress upon a particular Church and the necessity of joyning with it it seems reasonable there should be some directions to enjoyn every single convert impossibilities only excepted leaving all inconveniences at least to joyn himself to some particular Church rather than not to partake of the Ordinances all his daies as he said afore For the 5. Christs institution of Officers for them c. that is for particular Churches onely if it speak reason is as weak as the rest For its evident 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first for the whole Church as the Apostles c. Eph. 4.11 2 All those Officers ordinary as Pastors or Teachers are set in the Catholick Church and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholick Church if he deny this he knows where to find a learned Antagonist The last reason as all the rest is fallacious or inconsequent Christ took care for particular Churches therefore the Ordinances are no where to be had by any man but in his own particular Congregation § 6 That there is an instituted worship of God to be continued under the New Testament
and never scrupled it to be rebaptized why not Ordination also without a new Ordination They received not baptism from them as if instituted by Antichrist but as an Ordinance of Christ They baptized not as Antichristian not as Bishops or Romish Priests but as Presbyters in whose hands we say Ordination also is Onely since we have taken away those humane Additions which they had sinfully introduced into the Ordinances of Christ The Scriptures are not the Inheritance of Rome but Priviledges for all the people of God where ever they find them and therefore we deny we received them from Rome any more than the Jews received the Golden vessells from Babylon because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus It s false then that Ordination is pleaded from the Authority of the Church of Rome p. 199. as such Nor doth the granting true Ordination as also true baptism to the Church of Rome prove that it is a true Church This he sayes he understands not They who ordained had no power so to do but as they were officers of that Church as such they did it and if others had ordained who were not officers of that Church all will confesse that action to be null Do but change the scene to baptism and heare what he will say They who baptized had no power so to do but as officers of that Church as such they did it both which must be denyed See Apol. against Brown Sect. 27. or he must deny his baptism They did it as Officers not as Officers of that Church that Papall Antichristian Hierarchy And if others had baptised ordained who were not Officers of that Church or they as Officers but not as Officers of that Church which is as a scab upon the hand no rationall man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null This is no such dark passage that the Doctour cannot see one step before him unlesse his new light hath dazled his eyes that he cannot see Wood for Trees which before he fell into this way he saw so many learned and pious men walk in before him For our parts See p. 199 But they who will not be contented c. we professe that in his way of personall qualifications and acceptation of the people to make a man without Ordination a Minister the passages in Scripture or Church stories are so darke that wee cannot see one step before us But this hath sufficiently by others been discussed CHAP. VII Of the particular Church and its Union § 1 VVE are now come to the last Acception of a Church as it frequently signifies a particular Church p. 202. though all the places produced by the Doctor do not I think prove that sense But I shall not contend about it That the Church of Hierusalem was called one Church is true but that those many thousands could meet in one Congregation in one place is nothing probable it possible But take his definition of a particular instituted Church It is a Societie 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 Individuall Ordiances according to the order by Christ prescribed In this definition there are some things to be considered 1. The definition of a particular Church by him given will be applicable and is by himselfe or others of his side applyed to the three severall notions of a Church or the Church in those severall notions 1. To the Catholick invisible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World D. Ames The Church in generall is a societie of men called out of the world p. 64 s 2. by the Word to the obedience of the faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individuall Ordinances according to the order by Christ prescribed This is all of it true of the invisible Church they are called which will be the onely exception to the joynt performance of the worship of God in the same specificall and where its possible individuall Ordinances And all the members thereof ordinarily being of some particular Church it s both possible and necessary to joyne in that performance 2. The same may be said of the Catholick visible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World by the Word c So himselfe describes it It is a collection of all that are duely called Christians in respect of their profession p. 113. and before that p. 112. All Professors of the Gospell throughout the World called to the knowledge of Christ by the Word do make up and constitute his visible Kingdome by their professed subjection to him which subjection hath reference to the commands of Christ to worship him in the same specificall Ordinances indefinitely and in the same Individualls where they are administred And the members of this Church living ordinarily in some particular Church its possible and necessary for them also to joyne in that performance And this is as much is the members of a particular Church are bound to no man being bound to what is to him impossible and it often happening by absence sicknesse or otherwise that it is not possible for them to joyne in that worship 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church we also grant as understood afore 4. But we shall adde by way of improvement that such societies are all our particular Congregations Societies of men called out of the world by the word c holding parallel in every particular with his definition and why we should not be esteemed and called Churches as well as theirs I am to learne the reason What exception may be made we shall heare an one § 2 2. The Order prescribed by Christ is not that all Christians must be of the same Individuall particular congregation but of this or that as is most convenient for them by their habitations Supposing severall meetings or Congregations in Jerusalem one of Paul another of Apollo c no man was obliged by any order from Christ to be of Pauls Congregation or of anothers so he joyned himselfe to one for the participation of the same Ordinances And when a Christian did joyne himselfe to this or that Congregation he did not explicitely enter into a Covenant Every belie is obliged to joyne himselfe to some one of those Churches that therein he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer p. 206. to live and dye in this Congregation but thought himselfe bound to be of one by the obligation of his membership in the Catholike Church with a libertie reserved to remove to another if he saw just reason as our Authour will confesse anone Whence it is evident that from the beginning of Christianity there was no such explicite covenanting or as some speake marrying of the Minister and people or of people one to another that they might not depart without leave but as they had
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
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
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