must be taken cum graâ—â— salis or else they may prove insipid if not worse As 1. Christ took upon him our nature essentially but he bestows his flesh and blood upon us spiritually and mystically 2. The union of the two natures in Christ was proper and personal into one person hypostatically as the Soul and Body in us make one man But the union of many persons with Christ is not into one nature properly but mystically into one person we are members of his body flesh bones but mystically otherwise the union of many persons into one nature should be like that of Christs two natures into one person hypostatically And like unto the union of the three persons in the Trinity into the same nature or essence which is incomprehensible 3. We are made parts of him of his mystical body that he and we become thereby as it were that is improperly and mystically one Christ 4. We are made partakers of the Divine nature not essentially and personally as Christ but in its graces and operations as generally all Divines understand it renewed by the Spirit into that Divine Image which we had by nature but lost by the fall 5. The same Spirit is indeed in Christ and in us but with this assigned difference In him dwelleth the fulness of it fulness of grace and truth Joh. 1.14 it is bestowed on us in measure 6. This same Spirit makes us one with him that is still mystically not as the Soul of man being one makes with the body one man for that is hypostatically and personally one The words thus expounded and candyed may passe for Orthodox otherwise not to be admitted But now in his Tract of Schism p. 94. of Schism he is declined into that Heterodox opinion so judged by most and best Divines that the holy Spirit dwells personally and essentially in us For 1. he tells us he cannot consent that the Divine nature given us should be no more than the new creature 2 That it is in the person of the Spirit wherof we are by the promise made partakers he is the Spirit of promise pag. 95. and in the participation of the Divine nature consists the union of the Saints with Christ 3. That the union of the head and members is the oneness of the Soul whereby the whole is animated and that which answers hereunto in the mystical body of Christ is the animation of the whole by his Spirit Now every body knows that the Soul is the form of a man and the union of Soul and Body is personal So then must the union of Christ and his body the Church be personal as animated by the same Spirit if the person of the holy Spirit be the Soul that animates the body of Christ And so he saies it is The form of the Church Catholick p. 236. absolutely so called is the unity with Christ and in it self by the one Spirit whereby it is animated I shall not enter upon the contest at this time it being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main businesse its enough to shew the difference of himself from himself then and now § 5 We now return after this digression to consider with him the evidences and signs of an extraordinary vocation which some of late pretend unto There is only one thing briefly to be taken notice of that is Whether the Ministers of the Gospel are by the Scripture to be called Priests which name some have arrogated and ascribed to the Clergy O which he affirms peremptorily p. 25. The name of Priests is no where in the Scripture attributed distinctly to the Ministers of the Gospel Priests and Prelates are a sort of Church Officers whom Christ never appointed c. These were his then thoughts and its like are so still only I would desire to know why he gives that name its suppoâ—ed in scorn to the Ministers of our particular Congregations calling them Parochial Priests or Schism p. 235. I leave him to give or others to guesse the reason of that Appellation and so proceed to what I named before § 6 There are but three waies given by him to receive and be assured that a man is extraordinarily called to the Teaching of others or to be a Preacher 1. p. 30. By immediate Revelation 2. By concurrence of Scripture Rules 3. By some outward acts of providence Concerning w ich in general it may be said 1. That p. 28. he thus resolved In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every one that is allowed to teach or preach the Gospel for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God But of all his three wayes named only one of them is by immediate call from God viz. that of immediate Revelation such as the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles had the other by Rules of Scripture and Acts of providence are but mediate calls or warrants and may be common to all Christians as the case may be 2. Before this p. 15. and again p. 40. In such extraordinary cases of a corrupt Church c. no more is required but Gifts in the man and consent of the people which latter is an outward call and that by men and the former a call from God inward indeed but not immediate These things do not well agree § 7 But come to the particulars The first way of extraordinary calling is immediate Revelation This is specially in two cases p. 33. 1. Either the inchoation of some divine worke to be established among men by a new revelation of Gods will 2. Or a restauration of the same when collapsed and corrupted by men The only question will be Whether there be any revelation to be expected now with respect to either of those And he answers negatively to both To the first thus Nothing in such a way shall again take place God having ultimatly revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation c. To the second thus There being an infallible Rule for the performance of it making it fall within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation and instructed with ordinary Gifts God doth not alwaies immediatly call men unto it But grant that he doth not alwaies immediatly call men to it as oft he did heretofore it would have been resolved Whether sometimes God do now immediatly call men to the work of Restauration of Religion To which he saies nothing If he shall say he does not he contradicts himself who said p. 28. In this case of a corrupted Church every one for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God If he say he does sometimes immediatly now call men to it I would say 1. This is needless by his own grant For there being an infallible rule it falls within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation instructed with ordinary Gifts as he newly said 2. And then I would call for those
two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
when he saies p. 136. Mens profession of the knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred without excommunication and if he be a wicked Minister he is ipso facto unministred or degraded and all his Ministerial acts are null Adde to this what he saies p. 159. Let those that are prophane profess what they will and cry out a thousand times that they are Christians I shall never acknowledge them for others than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so They are not within the Church any more than a Jew or Mahumetan within the same precincts There are in a few lines many mistakes For 1. Though they be as bad as or worse than Mahumetans in regard of their spiritual estate yet are they better in regard of Church estate Does the wickedness of their lives make their Baptism a meer nullity then must they be rebaptized upon their conversion as heathens are 2. If they be no better than Heathens then are their children to be denyed Baptism and are very Infidels yet a child of the prophanest Jew was circumcised and had right to other priviledges 3. That is so far from truth That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so that they cannot possibly be Traytors and Rebels to him unless they be his Subject As he said A man cannot possibly be a Schismatick unlesse he be a Church-member either of a particular or of the Catholick Church 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators drunkards unruly walkers brethren 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.17 But these three properties are inâ—â—â—ed on to insinuate that if there be no breach of Union in any of these thâ—re is no Schism to be found in the Catholick Church nor between the members thereof as appears in his application of them § 2 For granting for process sake That Schism is the breach of any union instituted by Christ the enquiry is p. 140. Whether we be guâ—lty of the breach of such an unity And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel the Church of England in her doctrine is as Orthodox as any Chuch under Heaven consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall Church till by Toleration some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies and blasphemies disowned by the Church The Schism then charged upon us by Papists See p. 141 in this respect lieu at their own door who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves but cause others also so to do and attempt to destroy all that will not joyn with them Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries and Hereticks among us who are their Disciples who agree with them in many of their errors and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith of the Church of England As for the second That in our lives we do not manifest a principle utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism in this respect whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines So I may rather wish I could See p. 148 than professe I can acquit our Churches from the charge § 8 It cannot be denyed but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints as they would be called are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine which we have so long enjoyed And as for the last That we add not unto them in opinion or worship such things as are destructive of them or render them insufficient to be saving unto us For our worship we may I hope without offence say that it is in the publick Congregations whatever it is in private Conventicles according to the simplicity of the Gospel though perhaps in some circumstances defective wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation § 7 Thus far we are cleared of breach of Unity and so of Schism But I have intimated and partly proved there may be a breach of Union with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations As first there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others or refuse others to joyn with him in these Ordinances here is a breach of Love and Union among the members of the Catholick Church and in the particular Churches as parts of the Catholick And what thinks he of those Churches who deny Baptism to Infants altogether or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents not of their own confederate Church and the Lords Supper to the Parents of such Children The Anabaptists do the one contrary to the practiâ—e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles and themselves do the other daylâ— as is too well known Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church a breach of union and so a Schism Yet as he is earnest to free himâ—elf from Schism in his sâ—paration so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism p. 226. He that will upon that account undertake to prove them Schismaticall may find himself to be entangled Of which more hereafter § 8 That this Catholick Church is visible he grants which others of his friends have denyed p. 146. That it is an Organical political body in a right sense is largely and learnedly proved by others Mr. Huds though he denies it to them I refer it One thing I cannot but take notice of he sayes It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head for if as a visible politicall body it hath a politicall Head that Head also must be visible But 1. What necessity is there the Head must be visible p. 148. seeing he confesses the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body and God who is invisible was their Political Head 2. Jesus Christ the Head of the Church is a visible Head yea sometimes more visus seen of men while on earth though now for a time in Majesty as some great Princes do he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in Heaven But that by the by CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism § 1 VVHat he sayes for many leaves together for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism in their just separation from Rome as the Catholicke Church I cannot but acknowledge to be rationall solid and judicious Onely I am not satisfied with his assertion That he not onely denyes the Church of Rome so called to be a particular Church p. 154. but also affirmes it to be no Church at all page 156. Wherein he hath deserted most