me denyed that it was denyed by me he cannot prove but that the contrary was proved by me is evident to all impartiall men that have Considered my Treatise although I cannot allow that the separation in the Church of Corinth was carried to that height as is by him pretended namely as to seperate from the ordinances of the Lord's supper their disorder and division about and in it's Administration are reproved not their separation from it only on that supposition made I confesse I was somewhat surprised with the delivery of his judgment in reference to many of his owne party whom he condemnes of schisme for not administring the Lord's supper to all the Congregation with whom they pray and preach I suppose the greatest part of the most godly and able ministers of the Persbyterian way in England and Scotland are here cast into the same condition of Schismaticks with the Independents And the truth is I am not yet without hopes of seeing a faire coalescency in love and Church Communion between the reforming Presbyterians and Independents though for it they shall with some suffer under the unjust imputatation of schisme But it is incredible to think whithermen will suffer themselves to be carried studio partium and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Hence have we the strange notions of this Authour about Schisme decaies in Grace are Schisme and errours in the Faith are Schisme and Schisme and Apostacy are things of the same kind differing only in degree because the one leades to the other as one sinne of one kind doth often to another drunkennesse to whoredome and envy and malice to lying that differences about civile matters like that of Paul and Barnabas are schisme and this by one blaming me for a departure from the sense of antiquity unto which these insinuations are so many monsters Let us then proceed That Acts 14. 4. Acts 19. 9 18 are pertinently used to discover prove the nature of Schisme in an evangelically ecclesiasticall sense or were ever cited by any of the Antients to that purpose I suppose our Authour on second consideration will not affirme I understand not the sense of this Argument the multitude of the city was divided and part held with the Jewes and part with the Apostle therefore Schisme in a Gospell Church state is not only a division in a Church or that it is a separation into new Churches or that it is something more than the breach of the Union appointed by Christ in an instituted Church much lesse doth any thing of this nature appeare from Paul's seperating the Disciples whom he had converted to the Faith from the unbelieving hardened Jewes an account whereof is given us Act. 19. 9. So then that in this Chapter there is any thing produced de novo to prove that the precise Scripture notion of Schisme in it 's ecclesiasticall sense extends it selfe any further than differences divisions separations in a Church and that a particular Church I find not and doe once more desire our Authour that if he be otherwise minded to spare such another trouble to our selves and others as that wherein we are now engaged he would assigne me some time and place to attend him for the clearing of the truth between us Of Schisme Act. 20. 30. Heb. 10. 28. Jud. 19. there is no mention nor are those places interpreted of any such thing by any Expositors new or old that ever I yet saw nor can any sense be imposed on them enwrapping the nature of Schisme with the least colour or pretence of Reason But now by our Authour Schisme and Apostacy are made things of on kind differing only in degrees pag. 107. so confounding Schisme and heresy contrary to the Constant sense of all antiquity Act. 20. 30. The Apostle speakes of men speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples that is teaching them false doctrines contrary to the truths wherein they had been by him instructed in his Revealing unto them the whole counsell of God vers. 27. This by the Antients is called heresie and is contradistinguished unto Schisme by them constantly So Austin an 100 times To draw men from the Church by drawing them into pernitious errours false doctrine being the cause of their falling off is not schisme nor so called in Scripture nor by any of the Antients that ever yet I observed That the designe of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrewes is to preserve and keep them from Apostasie unto Judaisme besides that it is attested by a cloud of witnesses is to evident from the thing it selfe to be denyed chapt. 10. 25 he warnes them of a common entrance into that fearfull condition which he describes vers. 26 their neglect of the Christian Assemblies was the doore of their Apostacy to Judaisme what is this to schisme would we charge a man with that crime whom we saw neglecting our assemblies and likely to fall into Judaisme are there not more forceable considerations to deale with him upon and doth not the Apostle make use of them Jude 19 hath been so farre spoken unto already that it may not fairely be insisted on againe Parvas habet spes Troja sitables habet In the entrance of the fifth Chapter he takes advantage from my question p. 147. who told him that raising causelesse differences in a Church and then separating from it is not in my judgment schisme when the first part of the assertion included in that interrogation expresseth the formal nature of Schisme which is not destroyed nor can any man be exonerated of it's guilt by the subsequent crime of separation whereby it is aggravated 1 Joh. 2. 19 is againe mentioned to this purpose of schism to as little purpose so also is Heb. 10. 25 both places treat of Apostates who are charged and blamed under other termes than that of Schisme There is in such departures as in every division whatever of that which was in Union somewhat of the generall nature of schisme but that particular crime and guilt of schisme in it's restrained Ecclesiasticall sense is not included in them In his following discourse he renewes his former Charges of denying their ordinances and ministry of separating from them and the like as to the former part of this Charge I have spoken in the entrance of this discourse for the latter of separating from them I say we have no more separated from them then they have from us our right to the celebration of the ordinances of God's worship according to the light we have received from him is in this nation as good as theirs and our plea from the Gospell we are ready to maintaine against them according as we shall at any time be called thereunto If any of our judgment deny them to be Churches I doubt not but he knowes who comes not behind in returnall of Charges on our Churches Doth the Reverend Authour thinke or imagine that we have not in our owne judgment more reason to deny their
institution therefore in that which is so only by call not to any end of joynt worship as such of any union that which consists in the profession of the saving truths of the Gospell and so there may be a schisme in the Catholick Church and so those Presbyterians that reforme their Congregations and do not administer the sacraments to all promiscuously shall be guilty of Schime and indeed as to me what else he pleaseth for my inquiry concernes only the precise limited nature of Schisme in its evangelically ecclesiasticall sense Neither shall I at present alloting very few houres to the dispatch of this businesse which yet I judge more then it deserves consider the scattered ensuing passages about Ordination Church Government number of Elders and the like which all men know not at all to belong unto the maine controversy which was by me undertaken and that they were against all lawes of disputation plucked violently into this contest by our Reverend Author One thing I cannot passe by and it will upon the matter put a close to what I shall at present offer to this Treatise having said that Christ hath given no direction for the performance of any duty of worship of soveraigne institution but only in them and by them meaning particular Churches he answers that if I would imply that a Minister in or of a Particular Church may performe those ordinances without those congregations he contradicts himselfe for saying a particular Church is the seate of all ordinances but why so I pray may not a particular Church be the seat of all ordinances subjectively and yet others be the object of them or of some of them but saith he if he meane those ordinances of worship are to be performed only by a minister of a particular congregation what shall become of the people I suppose they shall be instructed and built up according to the mind of Christ and what would people desire more But whereas he had before said that I denyed a Minister to be a Minister to more then his own Church and I had asked him who told him so adding that explication of my judgment that for so much as men are appointed the objects of the dispensation of the word I grant a Minister in the dispensation of it to act ministerially towards not only the members of the Catholick Church but the visible members of the world also in contradistinction thereunto he now tells me a story of passages between the learned Dr Wallis and my selfe about his question in the Vespers 1654. namely that as to that question An potestas ministri Evangelici ad unius tantum ecclesiae particularis membra extendatur I said that Dr Wallis had brought me a challenge and that If I did dispute on that question I must dispute ex animo although I grant that a Minister as a Minister may preach the word to more then those of his owne congregation yet knowing the sense wherein the learned Dr VVallis maintained that question it is not impossible but I might say if I did dispute I must do it ex animo for his bringing me a challenge I do not know that either he did so or that I put that interpretation on what he did but I shall crave leave to say that if the learned Dr VVallis do find any ground or occasion to bring a challenge unto me to debate any point of difference between us I shall not wave answering his desire although he should bring Mr Cawdry for his second for the present I shall only say that as it is no commendation to the moderation or ingenuity of any one whatever thus to publish to the world private hearesaies and what he hath been told of private conferences so if I would insist on the same course to make publication of what I have been told hath been the private discourse of some men it is not unlikely that I should occasion their shame and trouble yet in this course of proceeding a progres is made in the ensuing words and Mr Stubbes who is now called my Amanuensis who some five yeares ago transcribed about a sheete of paper for me and not one line before or since is said to be employed or at least encouraged by me to write against the learned Dr Wallis his Thesis being published this is as true as much of that that went before and as somewhat of that that followes after and whereas it is added that I said what he had written on that subject was a scurrilous rididulous piece it is of the same nature with the rest of the like reports I knew that Mr Stubbes was writing on that subject but not untill he had proceeded farre in it I neither imployed him nor encouraged him in it any otherwise then the consideration of his papers after he had written them may be so interpreted and the reason why I was not willing he should proceed next to my desire of continuance of peace in this place was his using such expressions of me and somethings of mine in sundry places of his discourse as I could not modestly allow to be divulged the following words to the same purpose with them before mentioned I remember not nor did ever think to be engaged in the consideration of such transgressions of the common rules of humane society as those now passed through Reports heresayes talkes private discourse between friends allegations countenanced by none of these nor any thing else are the weapons wherewith I am assaulted I have heard I am told if reports be true t was vox populi at Oxford is it not so I presume he will not deny it are the ornaments of this discourse strange that men of experience and gravity should be carried by the power of these temptations not only to the forgetfulnesse of the royall law of Christ and all Gospell rule of deportment towards his professed Disciples but also be ingaged into wayes and practises contrary to the dictates of the law of nature and such as sundry heathens would have abhorred For my owne part had not God by his providence placed me in that station wherein others also that feare him are concern'd in me I should not once turne aside to looke upon such heapes as that which I have now passed over my judgment in most heads and articles of Christian Religion is long since published to the world and I continue through the grace and patience of God preaching in publick answerably to the principles I doe professe and if any man shall oppose what I have delivered or shall so deliver in print or in the pulpit or in divinity lectures as my judgment I shall consider his opposition and doe therein as God shall guide with evill surmises charges upon hearesayes and reports attended with perpetuall excursions from the Argument in hand I shall no more contend Some few observations on scattered passages will now speedily issue this discourse Pag. 112. To that Assertion of mine that if Rome be no
they neither Agree with me nor with them They say it is put into diverse hands And he saith it is Given only to Believers And is not this a Contradiction Ans No verily For when I say It is given to Believers as such and expresse virtually as well as Formally The meaning is cleare It is given to all Believers and only to Believers and by them Communicated to such as they doe orderly choose and call forth to the exercise of the same And the publishers of the keyes I doubt not will say as much When I said in the way That the brethren might not administer Sacraments in Defect of all Officers And therefore made it appeare that one sort of men the brethren had not Received all the Power of the keyes Formally The Replyer returneth Truly this is to Discover the Contradiction the more For if the Power of the keyes be Delivered to Believers as such then the Power of Administring the Sacraments is Given to them for that is a Part of the Power of the keyes Ans. It is wearysome to repeat so often the same Answer yet let me say it once more and leave it He that saith Believers Receive all the Power of the keyes as Profest Believers He saith all of them have Received the Power and they only and such as Receive their Power from them And this is the force of quateuus Tale That whosoever Receive any thing as such all such doe Receive it none but such as Derive it from them But saith the Replyer In the Way he giveth the greater part of Church power to the Body of the Church pag. 45. to wit to Ordaine and in some cases to excommunicate all their Church Officers which are the highest Acts of Rule as else where he speaketh Therefore he may not Deny them the lesser which is to Administer the Sacraments Ans. The answer is ready at hand and was ready at his hand in Part 2 of the Congregationall way cleared pag. 29. where I Distinguish Potestas into officiariam and honorariam Excommunication by the Brethren is the highest Act of Honoraria Potestas but not of Officiaria Potestas To Preach the word with Authority and to Administer the Seales of it are acts of the highest office-Power in the Church Popish Divines would take it very ill if any Act of Church Power were said to be higher than Conficere corpus Domini But excommunication largly taken is an Act of a Power proper to a Community Any community hath power ex Natura rei to Receive into their Communion to cast not of their Communion Every sound Body hath a power to cast out his own superfluous humours and to cut off his own Putrid members As for ordination though we looke at it with Dr Ames as Adjunctum consummans of the Peoples Election and vocation of their Officers and therefore not utterly Excentrical from the Peoples power yet our Churches doe not Practise it ordinarily where they have Elders of their own or can Procure other Elders to Joyne with them As for that last words in the Scheme of the first Contradiction I know not whether the Replyer put any weight or stresse in that in the first Columne the keyes are said to be given to wit partly to Believers and in the same Columne againe to the Fraternity with the Presbytery in the second Columne to Profest Believers In the third to Believers Publickly Professing their Faith And in Mr Hookers Judgment Not to Believers as Believers but as Believers Covenanting But if it be requisite to say any thing to this I would say 1. That the Fraternity and Profest Believers and Believers Publickly Professing their Faith are all one And the common Name of Believers is often put for all the rest They that were Added to the Church Acts 2. 47 and 41 are called by the common name of Believers Acts 2. 44. and 4. 32. when Mr Hooker saith the Power is not Given to Believers as Believers but as Believers Covenanting He meaneth the same that I do by Profest Believers As for women whom the Replyer cast in our way before though they be Believers and so partake in the same common Salvation as also in the word and seales yet because of the frailty of their sex they are expresly exempted by the Apostle from any Act of Power in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. and 1 Tim: 2. 11 12. Yet that Impeacheth not the Generality of the Proposition That all the Fraternity of Believers have Part in the Power of the Keyes That all men once Dye is the generall Proposition of the Apostle Heb 9. 27. which is not Impeached by the Translation of Enoch and Elias Having thus cleared the first Answer to this contradiction Let us weigh next what he saith to the second Answer which saith he is given to help out the former for I had said 2. If there had been some Difference between the Keyes and the Way in some expressions yet it lay rather in Logicall Termes then in the Doctrine of Divinity or Church Practise and such is this about the first subject of the Power of the Keyes What saith the Replyer to this He Returneth a double exception 1. Saith He Had it been only a lesser Difference about a Logicall Notion as he minceth it the Assertor had not Observed it But a difference of the highest magnitude to Contradiction in Delivering a New way is very Remarkable How shall we be brought to Agree with them that contradict not only one another but one man himselfe Answer 1. It was not any weaknesse of the first Answer that needed a second to Help it out but variety of fit matter for a just Defence produced it It needed no help but to cleare it selfe from groundlesse exceptions Answer 2. The seeming Difference between the way and the Keyes if any be in this point it lyeth rather in Logicall expressions then in the Doctrine of Divinity or Church Practise For what ever the Different Judgments of men of our way may be touching the first subject of the Power of the Keyes some Placing it in the Body of the Church others Dividing it between officers and Brethren yet in the Doctrine of Divinity we all Agree with one Accord that the Church even the Body of Church-members have power to choose their officers to Admit members and to censure offenders And that the officers only have Power to Preach the word with office and Authority and to Administer the Sacraments And according to this unity of judgment is the uniforme Practise of our Churches And therefore let mincing be left to curious Cookes to prepare their shread meat for queazy stomackes or let it be left to such as would make the best of a bad cause we neither Distrust our Cause to be of God nor do feare any thing more then that it should be hid and clouded with prejudices and calumnies from such as know it not and yet seek the Truth in sincerity And
Messengers sent out of a set and combined Association from neighbour churches They do not herein Dissent from me For the two Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem were too farre remote to stand in a set or combined Association and therefore they may well deny it to be a Formall Synod according to the Forme of Synods now in use in Presbyteriall Churches But that that assembly had the true matter and forme of a just Synod As I do believe it so I do not see that my Brethren deny it For the efficient cause of the Synod the Church of Antioch sent messengers and the Church of Jerusalem whose officers were sent unto they freely gave them a meeting and the Church with them For the matter of the Synod they had the Messengers officers and Brethren of both Churches met together in the Name of Christ It is not necessary to the being of a Synod the convention of the Messengers and members of many Churches The convention of two Churches by themselves or messengers may make a Synod If the convention of one Church may make a Synagogue why may not the convention of two churches make a Synod The forme of a Synod they had in Arguing and disputing the case in hand and freely giving in their Judgments from scripture grounds and at length determining the whole cause with the Joynt consent of the Apostles Elders and Brethren and Publishing the same by letters and messengers to all the churches whom it concerned The establishment of Peace and Truth in the churches was the end of this Synod as it ought to be the end of all It is true here was a consultation in that the church of Antioch sent for counsell and the Apostles and Elders met to consult and consider of the matter But consultation was but one Act of the Assembly many other Formall Acts of a Synod they put forth besides which have been specified The Apostles though they did put forth some Acts of their Apostolicall Power in helping to cleare the Truth by explayning obscure Scriptures and in Ratifying the conclusion with some greater Plerophory of the mind of the Holy Ghost yet in Putting such things to Argumentation and Disputation and allowing Elders and Brethren liberty of Putting in their votes and determining and publishing the sentence in the Name and with the common consent of all herein they Acted as Ordinary Elders and messengers of churches might and ought to do The Notes of about Ten Passages in the Way wherein our Reverend Brethren in England or some of them say they could not fully close with them without Affixing an Asterisk to them If I knew where the Pinch of the Difficulty lay I would Addresse my selfe to give them fuller satisfaction either by condescending to them or giving them just Reason why I could not Meane while I have learned through Grace not to fall out with my Brethren for greater differences in judgment then those be That which is added in the third Columne that they are offended and as you call it Angry with you for that you call for a fuller Declaration of themselves for that themselves can best give you an Account for 1. It may be they think it needlesse to Publish further declaratioÌ„s because over above the former Declarations there have been since published three or foure Pithy Pregnant Declarations of the same Argument as Mr Hookers surv Mr Nortons Answer to Apollonius the Synod at Cambridge the Defence of the Answer to the nine Questions 2. It may be they feare If they should publish more declarations in this case It would Adde rather more Fewell to contention then Prevaile with the Spirits of men contrary minded to Receive satisfaction CHAP. 9. Touching the 20th Contradiction and 21. The 20th Contradiction is thus Expressed 20. It is generally asserted by them that one Church hath not Power to Censure another 20. A Synod hath Power to Determine to withdraw Communion from them if they cannot heale them Keyes pag. 24. 20. The sentence of non Communion denounced against whole Churches Apolog. Narrat p. 18 19. If a Sentence denounced it is a Censure Answer To withdraw Communion from a church is no more an Act of Power over a church then it was to Joyne in Communion with them Communion and non-Communion are Acts of the same power both of them Acts of priviledge or liberty And if withdrawing Communion be not an Act of censure then to determine so to withdraw is no Act of an higher Nature Though a Censure is a sentence denounced yet every sentence denounced is not a Censure unlesse it be Denounced by an higher power then that of equalls When the Ten Tribes denounced their Rejection of service to David's House 1 Kings 12. 16. It was not a censure more then theirs who solemnely Rejected the Rule of Christ we will not have this man to Rule over us Luk. 19. 14. The last Contradiction is declared thus 21. We Say Instituted worship and Ordinances do not flow immediatly from spirituall union and Relation to Christ and his members c. Def. of 9. Pos. pag. 76. He must come at them in a right Order to wâ—t in Fellowship of the Church Surv. pag. 2. 21. Then it followeth that Hearing the word Preached Singing of Psalmes and Baptisme belong not to any but such as are members of a Particular Congregation And yet they say Ordinarily hearing it no signe of a Church member Surv. part 1. pag. 18. 21. A Person hath his first Right to the Sacrament and so to other Ordinances because He hath an Interest in the Covenant of the Gospell Surv. part 1. pag. 65. Answer Here is no semblance of Contradiction Mr Hooker Surv. saith a Person hath his first Right to a Sacrament because he hath an interest in the covenant of the Gospell The defence saith he hath not immediate Right till he be a member of a Particular Congregation And so saith the Survey too in the Place Alledged If Immediate Right and first Right were all one there were some colour for the Exception but it is farre otherwise in having Christ we have a first Right to all things but not an Immediate Right but in Gods way But neither hence will it follow that Instituted Ordinances as hearing the word Singing of Psalmes belong to none but to members of a Particular Congregation For though they be given to such firstly and Immediately yet for their sakes to all that come in amongst them The Childrens Table and the Provisions thereof is first Allowed to the Children of the Family yet in a Bountifull House-keepers Family such part of the Proâ—â—sions may be Allowed to strangers as they may be fit to partake in FINIS Vid. Gerard loc. Com. de Minist. Ecclesiast Sect. 11. 12.
Churches and to charge them with Schisme though we doe neither then they have to charge us therewith and to deny our Churches can any thing be more fondly Pretended than that he hath proved that we have separated from them upon which pag. 105 he requires the performance of my promise to retreat from the state wherein I stand upon the establishment of such proofe Hath he proved the due administration of Ordinances amongst them whom he pleads for Hath he proved any Church Union betweene them as such and us hath hath he proved as to have broken that Union what will not selfe-fulnesse and prejudice put men upon How came they into the sole possession of all Church state in England so that who ever is not of them and with them must be charged to have separated from them Mr Cawdrey sayes indeed that the Episcopall men and they agree in substantialls and differ only in circumstantials but that they and we differ in substantials but let him know they admit not of his compliances they say he is a Schismatick and that all his party are so also let him answer their Charge solidly upon his owne principles and not thinke to owne that which he hath the weakest claime imaginable unto and was never yet in possession of We deny that since the Gospell came into England the Presbyterian Government as by them stated was ever set up in England but in the wils of a party of men so that here as yet unlesse as it lyes in particular Congregations where our right is as good as theirs none have separated from it that I know of though many cannot consent unto it The first Ages we plead ours the following were unquestionably Episcopall In the beginning of Chapter the 6 he attempts to disprove my assertion that the Union of the Church Catholick visible which consists in the professing of the saving doctrine of the Gospell c is broken only by Apostacy to this end he confounds Apostacy and Schisme affirming them only to differ in degrees which is a new notion unknowen to Antiquity and contrary to all sound Reason by the instances he produceth to this purpose he endeavours to prove that there are things which break this union whereby this union is not broken whilst a man continues a member of that church which he is by virtue of the union thereof and his interest therein by no act doth he or can he break that union The partiall breach of that union which consists in the profession of the truth is error and heresy and not Schisme Our Author abounds here in new notions which might easily be discovered to be as fond as new were it worth while to consider them of which in briefe before Only I wonder why giving way to such thoughts as these he should speak of men with contempt under the name of Notionists as he doth of Dr Du Moulin but the truth is the Doctor hath provoked him and were it not for some considerations that are obvious to me I should almost wounder why this Author should sharpen his leasure and zeale against me who scarse ever publickly touched the grounds and foundations of that Cause which he hath so passionately espoused and pase by him who both in Latine and English hath laid his Axe to the very Root of it upon principles sufficiently destructive to it and so apprehended by the best learned in our Authors way that ever these nations brought forth but as I said Reasons lye at hand why it was more necessary to give me this opposition which yet hath not altered my Resolution of handling this controversy in another manner when I meet with another manner of Adversary Pag. 110. He fixes on the examination of a particular passage about the disciples of John mentioned Acts 19. 2. of whom I affirmed that it is probable they were rather ignorant of the miraculous dispensations of the Holy Ghost then of the person of the Holy Ghost alledging to the contrary that the words are more plaine and full then to be so cluded and that for ought appeares John did not baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost I hope the Author doth not so much dwell at home as to suppose this to be a new notion of mine who almost of late in their criticall notes have not either at least considered it or confirmed it neither is the question into whose name they were expressely baptized but in what doctrine they were instructed He knowes who denies that they were at all actually baptized before they were baptized by Paul Nor ought it to be granted without better proofe then any as yet hath been produced that any of the Saints under the old Testament were ignorant of the being of the Holy Ghost neither do the words require the sense by him insisted on {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do no more evince the person of the Holy Ghost to be included in them then in those other Joh. 7. 39. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the latter in the proper sense He will not contend for nor can therefore the expression being uniforme reasonably for the latter Speaking of men openly and notoriously wicked and denying them to be members of any Church whatever he bids me answer his arguments to the contrary from the 1 Cor. 5. 7. 2 Thes. 13. 17. and I cannot but desire him that he would impose that task on them that have nothing else to do for my owne part I shall not intangle my selfe with things to so little purpose Having promised my Reader to attend only to that which looks toward the merit of the cause I must crave his pardon that I have not been able to make good my resolution meeting with so little or nothing at all which is to that purpose I find my selfe entangled in the old diversions that we are now plentifully accustomed unto but yet I shall endeavour to recompence this losse by putting a speedy period to this whole trouble despairing of being able to tender him any other satisfaction whilst I dwell on this discourse In the meane time to obviate all strife of words if it be possible for the future I shall grant this Reverend Author that in the generall large notion of Schisme which his opposition to that insisted on by me hath put him upon I will not deny but that He and I are both Schismaticks and any thing else shall be so that he would have to be so rather then to be engaged in this contest any farther In this sense he affirmes that there was a Schisme between Paul and Barnabas and so one of them at least was a Schismatick as also he affirmes the same of 2 lesser men though great in their generation Chrysostome and Epiphanius so error and heresy if he please shall be Schisme from the Catholick Church and scandall of life shall be Schisme And his argument shall be true that schisme is a breach of union in a Church of Christs