Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion are opposite If the Doctor then will give me a poor Countrey-Minister leave I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism I see it is a sin and offen-five to Christ 1 Cor. 12.25 Now what is opposite to this what is the affirmative precept Vnion of the members amongst themselves This is the thing often commanded the thing Christs heart seemed to be fixed upon John 17. when he was leaving the world and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined Schism defined Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion of the Invisible and Visible Church c. For the Invisible Church of Christ there can be no Schism saith the Doctor hence I put it not in It must be in his visible body there I take in the Catholick Church which I look on as most properly his Body-visible and also particular Churches I take this definition to be reciprocal I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it whether it be Schism in a Church or from a Church in the Catholick or particular Churches and yet my ground is Scriptural also though I go not to a particular instance 1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church was it onely that inward love and forbearance which the Doctor mentions which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken Did he not also require that they should as with reverence towards him so with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordiuances Sacraments c. The Doctors definition saith as much Numerical Ordinances c. If then Cephas and his company had causelesly made the division and upon this separate from the rest and not joyn with them in the Supper wherein they shew themselves to be One bread Chap. 10.17 and other Ordinances dinances did they not manifestly shew a breach of that unity which the Lord required must I not say Cephas you and your company are highly guilty of Schism let the Reader judge Thus then stands the argument If causelesse separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body then causelesse separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear 2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin Rev. p. 68. Since then we must not call it Schism let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin let him set down the opposite affirmative precept and see if Union will not be found in it I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men or such as appeared so dared ever to make a causelesse separation from a Church To say it is Apostacie no stay I will suppose those members who thus divide to be persons sound in the main points of faith in their conversation visibly godly such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves the very case of divers of ours but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company now here is no Apostasie And though it be a Church guilty of Schism and so far a schismatical Church yet a true Church Hence I said a causelesse separation c may be Schism i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned else it fell from the faith c. it had been Apostacy and not properly Schism unless you will say both Hence If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The consequence is clear because it partakes of the nature of no sin as of Schism provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned 3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism and tieth us up so streightly to it I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but onely in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers extraordinary gifts differences about meats c. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism and that sin will hardly be found in our days It may be he will say by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences where the form of the sin is found there is the sin of Schism though Churches do not answer Corinth But what the Doctor saith that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism So I can say this Scripture instance calls that only Schism where some were for Cephas others for Apollos c. But further let us enquire into the form of the sin where it is In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God c. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed some things he doth mention but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded I know not and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it As for the disturbance of the order I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism nor part of it I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism therefore not the form neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary where Vnum uni tantum opponitur they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts as it should seem by the last Verse the Apostle calls for order Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved I take to be the form of Schism this is it by which Schism is id quod est If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence though the causes be not such as were in Corinth northe
Churches parallel to Corinth in all things because there is the form of that sin which was in Corinth called Schism then if canseless separation from a Church be Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved there must needs by consequence be Schism also for posita forma ponitur formatum 4. The Doctor tells us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession or separation into parties Division it doth signifie but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to signifie Division into parties in an Ecclesiastical sense it is used only in this particular example he saith therefore it can signifie no other I suppose the Syriack Translator was not of the Doctor 's mind for he useth that word in the 11. ch 18. 12. ch 25. which comes from the same root with Peleg Gen. 10.25 Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us and I think there was division into many parties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts Matth. 27.51 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant the Septuagint * Other Greek Versions I have not to see do not use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11 31. yet why the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not be translated by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifie what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth I know not I conceive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of a larger signification then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but comprehends what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth This appears 1. By the Learned who as they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by findo scindo so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 findere scindere qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi continuum dirumpit c. Buxt Schind Pagn Merc. hence as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered scissura so the 70. in v. 30 31 render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scissurae So the vulgar render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 31. Nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts in opposition to the Doctor 's notion more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane the rending of a Muscle they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the part be not separated from the body so Gorraeus 2. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament as to the rending of cloaths here and in divers other Texts So is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 19.24 Matth. 27.51 Luke 5.36 John 21.11 so that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render scindere findere yet none I conceive answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this doth There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25 comes Whence I think we may properly say there was a great Schism in the Church and Commonwealth of Israel and here was separation with a witness To search over other Divines to see what they had said about Schism I thought it in vain because the Doctor had laid a bar against them all they are all mistaken and so their authority is worth nothing but when I had done two men came into my mind who were neer to the Doctor 's principles being Congregational men and therefore had need to look to themselves in their definition of Schism men of great renown for learning and piety Dr. Ames and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in answer to the Q. Quid est schisma I find Ames thus answers Schisma dicitur a scindendo est scissio separatio disjunctio aut dissolutio Vnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari I was neerer to the Doctor 's definition then I was aware of but then he adds Quia autem haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita Communione Ecclesiastica recusanda idcirco illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recte vocatur Schisma thus he Mr. Norton thus Schisma est illicita separatio a Communione Ecclesiae semper grande malum I will look no further these are sufficient Now for the Catholick-Church I am to prove there may be Schism in it For my ground-work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25 That there should be no Schism in the body If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequence cannot be denied The Antecedent is to be proved That by the body is meant the Church the Doctor yields Schis p. 147. but what Church he speaks of is not evident the difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the Church is not in respect of office power and Authority but gifts and graces and usefulness on that account thus he But I had thought that by Apostles Prophets Teachers Helps Governments v. 28. he had properly spoken of office power and authority are gifts and graces meant by these words very strange But to come to our Text. If the Church be here meant then it is either the Church invisible or visible But not the invisible that the Chapter clears and the Doctor saith It 's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church If visible then either the Catholick or a particular Church but not a particular Ergo This I grant that by body in one Text v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned because the Apostle applies what he had been speaking of before to this particular Church being a similar part of the Church-Catholick as our Mr. Norton and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church though some Physitians make different definitions as we respect the matter or form of a similar part yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church or what sins are forbidden these concern every particular Church for Christ giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily no particular Church hath a special law given to it as such whence well may the Apostle apply his speech to this particular Church but that the Apostle was not discoursing of a particular Church in viewing over the Chapter these arguments perswade me 1. It is such a body into which we are all baptized v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church is that the one body the Apostle means Let the Doctor speak Rev. p. 134. I am so far from confining Baptism subjectively to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized As much he seems to intimate Schis p. 133. in his answer to this question wherein consists the unity of the catholick-Catholick-Church A. It is summoned up in Eph. 4.5 one Lord one Faith one Baptism It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body That the Sacraments come to be administred in several particular societies I gave the reason before seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church by reason of the numerosity of its members That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 The Sacraments doe shew our union with our Head Christ primarily and the union of the members amongst themselves I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant this wrong caused a division between this person and the other upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper but kept off till reconciliation was made knowing what the Supper did call for then came to me and joyned in the ordinance I knew not the reason of this person 's holding off so long before If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled since the other person had no relation to our Church This was one bred up in the Episcopal way but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect 4. Hence then that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be and walking orderly in their particular Churches occasionally desiring communion with the Church fellowship with them in the Sacraments because they are not of their judgments as to Congregational Classical or Episcopal principles and will hold fellowship onely with those who are of their principles I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholick Church by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church Object But we may love them and shew our love in other wayes though we doe not this way Answ So doe the Heathen shew love to Heathen and so doe we to Heathen though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Christians as members of such a body having union with your Head and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ 1 Cor. 12. you deny And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head nor to be parts of the Catholick Body neither the members refused nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgment So that while you talk of Love I say as the Apostle Shew me thy faith by thy works so shew me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully Haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda c. Thus I conceive Congregational Classical or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible As for that Doctrine That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of and I suppose will not be defended To this I add Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches who are very zealous for Prophesying and they must have their liberty to prophesie whether they have abilities or not the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying being extraordinary is ceased therefore will allow no such liberty These are so set for their Prophesying that they make Divisions in the Churches and at last separate from them all and make up one Church by themselves they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them whence I cannot deny but here is a Church but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world unless of their opinion neither give nor take though desired and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasie from the Head but with separation from the Catholick Church and so is guilty of Schism If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholick Church how then separate from it It 's true else it were not Schism but Apostasie but as it separates from all other Churches causelesly in that sense I speak Hitherto of the Doctors Definition As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism though we suppose Schism to be a causelesse separation from a Church I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind if by the title of his book as I find it quoted by the Doctor for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey Independencie is great Schism he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatick Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth such a necessity of Schism will not be forced but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongst the Independents and now read this I know not Possibly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false or that I am changed from my principles as some have said but I assure the Reader I am not gone back nor advanced one step in these controversies from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edwards I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written but to come to the point presently In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say the holy Ghost hath commanded a
if you have precepts given where the qualification of persons admitable to Church-fellowship are set down higher then I have set them down I would be thankful if any one would shew me them As for Rev. 21. I confess there is a golden Text but I think they draw a leaden argument from it to our Church-fellowship The fift Monarchy dreams have not as yet infatuated us that time is not yet come 6. Parochial bounding of Churches doth not detract from the truth of Churches it doth not hinder the purity much less the entity of a Church Vicinity of members is requisite for mutual inspection convenient meeting for celebration of ordinances but it adds nothing to the essence of a Church particular Churches must be bounded somewhere When the Law enjoyned men to keep their own parish Churches it was but to prevent disorder that people should be bound to attend ordinarily at that place and not run up and down where they listed If the Minister were godly the Law helped him and it is likely that this hath turned as well to the good of that people which else would not have so attended upon that Ministery which was powerful and searching if the Minister were ungodly it was but the denying of some outward accommodation in that parish and so remove to a godly Minister By vertue of the Law then every one did implicitely choose that Minister to be his where he came which as I said was as well for the good as the hurt of people if men had no mind to the Minister they might choose whither they would go into that Parish or not those who were godly in the Parish and had a good Minister they were not offended at the Law whence this Parochial bounding should be looked upon as such an Antichristian business I cannot imagine The chiefest inconveniency is by reason of the building of the place for Assembling in divers places upon the skirts of Towns yet in N. E. persons who live at farms three miles or more from the place of their Assembling in their own parish go constantly to that place when as they might joyn to another Church much neerer in another Town But let us see what we shall do when Parish bounds are broken down Vicinity is requisite this is agreed upon by all how then shall we agree upon Vicinity what will this Church call Vicinity I doubt if there be a rich person who would joyn and the Officer with members have a mind to him they will stretch vicinity very largely to fetch him in Some of our brethren oppose Parochial boundings because they are so great I doubt our brethren will not bring their Vicinity into a narrower compass nay we see how far they go for members should we go about to alter Parishes I think few would be pleased in the manner of doing it nor will agree upon Vicinity wherefore I think we had better bear with some inconveniences then while we seek to mend them create worse 7. In reducing of Churches to purity the Minister cannot do it alone he must know the members impurity it must be proved to him by witnesses let Churches be gathered or whatever you call them this must be done before persons can be excommunicated But how do these members who find fault with Ministers do this One who came to his Minister and was very urgent to have him thus seclude wicked persons from the Sacraments when the Minister asked him whether he would come and bear witness against them answered so he might leave himself not worth a groat but yet could separate from his Minister is this right These things premised now to an Argument Arg. 1. Where there are the essential causes of a Church matter and form there is a true Church But in many Parochial Congregations of England there are the essential causes of a Church Ergo many Parochial congregations in England are true Churches The Major deny who can Positis causis essentialibus ponitur effectus For the Minor I prove that thus Where there are persons sound in the faith and visibly conformable to the rules of the Gospel in their practice there is the matter of a Church Where these persons doe consent together to worship God in all his ordinances Mr. Burroughs saith all the ordinances so far as they know with Officers duely qualified and for substance orderly called there is the form of a Church But thus it is in many Parochial congregations in England For the matter I suppose we will not deny it there are such for visible appearance as true as those that are in congregational Churches If it be asked How many Parishes are there that have such persons sufficient in number to make a Church That is none of my question to answer but this I can say according to our brethrens practice who make eight or fewer to be sufficient to the first founding of a Church there will be divers Parishes found to have that number without question For the form I have put in enough the covenanting or consenting our brethren make the form But I have put in the Officer and so make it an Organical Church For the Officer if the quarrel be with his qualification I think none dare deny but for personal graces and Ministerial abilities there are abundance such Ministers in several Parishes For their call elected by the people and ordained by a Presbyterie very solemnly If the Episcopal ordination be questioned I have answered to it before as also in my Book against the Separation however I think there is as much cause to question their ordination who are ordained by the people when Elders were present or with others onely praying after election as there is to question Ordination by a Bishop and his Clergy But what doe our brethren cavilling against that when they have Election which is the essence of the call as themselves affirm I think God hath witnessed for them that they were true Ministers in going forth with them and giving such successe to their Ministry as I think our congregational brethren have not found since they came to question and cast off Episcopal Ordination if any doe so I doubt if the congregational Ministers had no more members of their Churches then they have converted since they have so much cried down Parishes and Episcopal Ordination they would have very thin Churches I doe not think the Lord did it therefore because of their Episcopal Ordination yet I think the Lords appearing so much in those days over now he doth in converting-work should teach us much tenderness in these dayes and not to walk so highly as some doe If the objection be about the consenting the election of the people declare it explicitely and their constant attendance upon such a Minister in all the ordinances of God declares their consent implicitely No Congregational Divine makes the form of a Church to consist in the expliciteness of a covenant but affirm that an implicite covenant preserves the
true nature of the Church So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Dis part 1. pag. 47 48. So Mr. Norton Resp ad Apol. p. 22 28. So the Synod of New-England Cap. 4. S. 4. Arg. 2. If there be as much for substance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth to make it a true Church then many Parochial congregations are true Churches But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope For the Antecedent 1. It 's true we have not many preaching officers in one Parish as had that Church which I conceive did not all meet in the same place for Church-worship but in divers 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets as were in that Church though our brethren strangely make those a proof for their private members Prophesying as they call it yea and are so highly carried in their notions that if their Pastor be absent though there be another Minister preach in the Town they will not go to hear him but a Tradesman must Prophesie what this implies who seeth not if a Pastor be dead and the people goe to another congregation the Pastor whereof is of their own principles these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking for not staying at home and Prophesying a sin certainly against the eleventh commandement 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts as that Church had 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apostles 5. Nor called by the Apostles for if these things doe weaken my argument then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches But if the Church of Corinth had persons called by the Word some whereof were real Saints and some onely visible so have we If they had persons Officers who held out the faith of the Gospel in their teaching soundly so have we as sound as they did or could doe if not sounder such as build not hay nor stubble c. If they had the Ordinances of Christ so have we If they consented to worship God c. so doe ours These are the Essentials of that Church The Essence is perpetually the same but Vnaquaeque res vera dicitur a sua naturâ essentiâ If we have corrupt and erroneous members so had they Ours debarr'd suspended from the Lords Table a great part of Church-discipline but that their corrupt members were so I think will not easily be proved a great fault in the Officers who it seemes did not regard discipline scarce at all 2 Cor. 12.20 21. 13.2 Paul threatens that he will not spare Our Churches come to this by the oppression of the Hierarchy the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline but those had none to overtop them and yet were negligent How to get their Churches purer the Ministry find it hard to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren say no to separate from the rest our classical brethren are not clear they quote the Text 2 Cor. 10.8 Their authority is given for edification not destruction They must doe what they can by degrees which they are resolved upon and deserve to be encouraged by all More Arguments I could give as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which else must follow Also I wonder whether our congregational Ministers were converted in Parochial or congregational Churches But I forbear Hence then that congregational brethren may associate with the classical to me there is no question though my practice is something different from the classical brethren yet what they allow is so candid that I am rather thankful to them that they are so willing to associate with me That we way hold communion with a Church so far as we are intangled in no sin I think was never denied but so may we with the classical brethren For what though they baptize all and all of them do not though some do and more endeavour it bring their people to an explicite engagement yet they desire us not to have communion with all their members but with their compleat members i. e. those whom they admit to all Ordinances and I am sure those according to the rules drawn up would have gone for good Church-members in the Apostles days and I think should now so that we are called to associate onely with those who are as good members as our own As for their Baptizing of the Infants of such whom they debar from the Lords table though their arguments doe not convince men no not good Mr. Blake that man who now I hear is with God if he had I would have poofessed it to the world I doe more admire to see what answers so learned a man gives but that I have professed in my Epistle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the question I find it very easie to take off at least in my apprehension what he hath said had but he cast the major proposition in p. 97. thus which he knew was my Scope Such as for manifest unworthiness de jure ought and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table c. To this I have spoken before Then see how his answer from Infants takes me off but I shall adde no more Now though he hath not satisfied me yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of those scandalous persons should be baptized then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptism and the Church yet these our congregational brethren make no scruple to communicate with and to have such members in their Churches Are all the members of congregational Churches such as they ought to be visibly I doubt it Some are as offensive as many in Parochial Churches Should we therefore refuse communion one with another because of such Would Paul have done it at Corinth As for taking members out of other Parishes which our brethren stand upon so stiffely and without which there will be no Association this hath been the old breaking principle and resolved it seems they are to hold it In what cases and upon what conditions it shall be allowed our classical brethren have declared and I think sufficiently to give a heart that loves peace satisfaction For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded I think I might make as good a shift as another and have had tentations strong this way but I did never yet take up such a practice not out of any conscience to the Parish bounds but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church Should I have done it because I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Ministers I knew the impurity of my own heart and looked on my Neighbour-Minister as more godly if I should think more highly of my own parts I knew my own weaknesse and might justly fear lest God should blast the little
Reader be pleased to cast his eye upon what I have said concerning the Text before His first reason hath there its answer also His second and third reasons I think aim both at the same thing Doctrine is added to Baptism and Imposition to intimate the doctrine of the Ordinance not the Ordinance it self was intended the communication of the Spirit is the thing signified or the doctrine of Imposition A. Is indeed the Doctrine of Baptism here only intended and not the Ordinance of Baptism it self I must request him to excuse me I intend not to give so much advantage to the Socinians I think the Ordinance is plainly inded and so is Imposition 2. Doth not the Apostle then Tautologize Do not Repentance and Faith comprehend much of the doctrine of Baptism why should the Ordinance be mentioned if not intended 3. What error is there if we read the words dividedly with a Comma betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as do the Tigurin and Aethiopick Versions So Oecumenius Luther Erasmus Gagnaeus as Gerhard saith and the Greek do not oppose it Thus Cajetan and Aretius See their Comments Then this notion fails and it will make yet more for my Interpretation 4. But let us suppose the Doctrine of Imposition be here intended Yet as Aretius saith well in loc De hac ceremonia admonebantur Neophyti quandoquidem tum in frequenti erat usu quid illa esset cur instituta quibus per quos imponerentur manus item ad quid conduceret discebant Fidei Tyrones Very good must not then the Neophyti answer Hands were Imposed in Ordination of Church Officers If we come to teach ours this head of Catechism and they must answer according to Mr. N. his notion they may well say What is this to us how is it a foundation to us the thing is ceased so many hundred years since besides what I have before said But according to our Interpretation we both open the Doctrine we use the thing and it remains as yet a Foundation to us The old holy non-conformists tell us how they look upon the Ministry there was an objection made We have been taught heretofore that Discipline is an essential part of the Gospel and matter of Faith To this they answer That Discipline of the Church being generally understood is a matter of Faith and an essential mark of the Church I hope our Brethren will not deny for Discipline comprehendeth not only the Administration of the Keys but Ordination and Imposition of hands but without Ordination there are no Preachers Rom. 10.15 and without Preaching there is no belief v. 14. Wherefore without some part of Discipline it cannot be denied but that the Church is no Church Faith no Faith Thus they This suites Mr. Hooker's exposition of our Text. 5. If the confirmation and increasing of ordinary gifts be the Spirit 's work then still it may hold as Zanch. and Chamier before His fourth and fifth reasons are answered before onely whereas he saith Imposition is added as an explicative adjunct of Baptism It should seem no besides what have been said there being so few heads enumerated it 's unlikely the Apostle would add an Adjunct to this ordinance which I think he cannot prove was alwayes at Baptisme I thinke also this crosseth the former head wherein he said Not Baptisme but the Doctrine of Baptisme is intended His seventh it is interpreted in the next v. 4 5. Illumination answers to repentance Taste of the heavenly gift to Faith the participation of the Holy Ghost to the doctrine of Imposition and Baptisme the tasting of the good word to the resurrection A. This doth not please Illumination as most understand the word belonging to the Intellectual part and repentance to the heart do not seem to answer I know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 1. v. if the word be taken strictly as the word sounds belongs to the minde but so as it's Act is perfected in the heart it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Syriack render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 otherwise and that Baptisme is taken for Illumination among the Ancients according to the Syriack who knows not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Just Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. So Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 1. p. 93 95. So Greg. Naz. Orat. 40. 2. Mr. N. saith Justifying Faith is signified in Baptisme then not in the word Faith expressed in the Text then Faith must be taken in a large sense and this will rather answer to Illumination then repentance 3. How doth Resurrection answer to the Taste of the good word when as Resurrection is a terrible word to most The good word of promise rather the promise contains good 4. Why doth he make one word to answer Baptism and Imposition when they were divided in the Text and Mr. N. hath not yet proved that they went always together 5. Why may not the participation of the Holy Ghost have respect also to such gifts as are given now in our days for do we not observe with trembling how some lose their gifts even eminent gifts profession and so fall away as never more return should it be tied up only to extraordinary gifts which I do not believe yet those were given in Ordination as Mr. N. saith so that for that time Imposition must be comprehended His eighth Imposition is made a principle from which it was necessary an Apostate should fall if finally but it is not necessary that one should be instructed touching the office of the Ministry one may be saved and yet be ignorant in the point of Ordination and one may fall away finally though ignorant in this respect A. I know not what he means by the Apostates falling from the principle He doth not mean I suppose that a man must have first those extraordinary gifts and so fall from them else not an Apostate there are too many Apostates yet never reached those gifts 2. One may be saved as well though he doth not understand the extraordinary gifts conferred by Imposition I presume Mr. N. doth not think the Apostles conferred the Holy Ghost in a gracious saving way by Imposition 3. It is one thing for a person to be ignorant of Ordination another to be ignorant of that which Ordination holds out of what necessity the Ministry is Mr. Cartwright and the Non-Conformists before mentioned tell us So the Scripture But Mr. Hooker takes it in a larger sense 4. I think there are few Apostates who have been ignorant of the Ministry for those who have been ignorant of this never came to so much as the Text expresses then they cannot fall away from what they never had His ninth If we should understand the docirine of the Ministry by Imposition then we must exclude the Administration of Baptisme in the principle of Baptisme because Baptisme in this consideration belongeth unto the Ministry and therefore cannot unless it signifie the doctrine of Baptisme onely be a distinct principle from Imposition And if we