Inhabitation of the same Spirit or the animation of the whole by the Spirit this is the fountaine radicall union of this Church in it selfe and with its head with the formall reason of it But he cannot but know that some of his own way make Faith it selfe in all the single believers D. Ames Mcedull l. 1. c. 31. §. 21. to be the forme of this invisible Church which they call the state essentiall of this Church they meane the essence of the Church is preserved by Faith in single believers but I contend not Be it Faith or the Spirit of Faith in its graces and operations the matter is not great But besides this radicall union pag. 96. he makes a double consequentiall union flowing from that 1. of Faith 2. of Love of all those united in the head towards one another and of every one towards the whole But these are improperly called unions they are rather consequents of that union by one Spirit than consequentiall unions and rather are the meanes of communion Faith with the Head Love with the members pag. 98. So he sayes I â—annot say they have their union in themselves by Love but it is the next immediate principle of that communion which they have one with another c. but I list not to strive about this neither The third thing is to enquire wherein the breach of this union must consist pag. 99. In these two things 1. The casting out that Spirâ—t which gives this union 2. The losse of Love flowing from thenee into the body of Christ c concerning which he tells his Adversaries That our perswasion is that this union was never utterly broken by any man pag. 100. taken into it or ever shall be to the end of the world I shall not differ with him in this Assertion Onely I take no ice of the warinesse of his expression utterly broken which in that debate signifies totally and finally But if I may gradually and for a tâ—me be interrupted as our Divines allow may there not be said to be a breach in that union though not of that union And consequentially a bleach in this union by some sin may be called Schism which he too slightingly disavows That Faith may be weakened and Love remitted there is no question and that the Spirit may be quenched and grieved the Scripture insinuates upon whicâ— offence there may be a kind of Schism even in the Invisible Church if not to a separation of the Spirit utterly yet to a suspension of its influence by hiding it selfe and leaving the Believer to a sad desertion as experience tells us Besides this the members of this Church being also visible in another sense and so of the Catholike visible Church may there not be a breach of union even among them which may extend not onely to divisions in judgment but also to separation into parties and what is that but Schism I gave an instance in Paul and Barnabas both members of this Church Act. 15. lâ—st and members of no particular Church But strictly to speak This Church it selfe and its union being both invisible quà elect there can be no vâ—sible breach of union in it or among the members of it and so we must look for Schism in the other Notions of the Church CHAP. V. Of the Church Catholick visible and its Union § 1 THe next whereof is the Catholick visible Church which he describes to be p. 112. The universality of men professing the doctrine of the Gospel and obedience to God in Christ throughout the World These he grants do constitute the visible Kingdom of Christ and so may be called his Church but whether precisely so called in Scripture he saies is not unquestionable But to me and others whom he may do well to satisfie this is out of question He makes the question to be p. 113. what relation it stands in to all particular Churches whether as a Genus to its Species or as a Totum to its parts And he seems to be Negative in both His general reason is because The universal visible Church we speak of is not a thing that hath as such a specificative form from which it should be so called as a particular hath for its ground of being so called That shall be tryed when we hear what is the specificative form of a particular Church In the mean time let us consider why he denies this Catholick Church to stand in relation to the particular Churches as a Genus to its Species because this would deprive every one of membership in this universal Church which is not joyned actually to some particular Church which is devoid of truth What force there is in this consequence against them of New England who make particular Churches to be Species of the universal Church Mr. Hookers Survey as say they several drops of water are Species of water and also make a man first a member of a particular Church before he can be a member of the Catholick I say what force there is in this consequence against them I do not see I only note his disagreement with them though I agree with him in the thing For the other That particular Churches are parts of the Catholick he also denies because this were to overthrow a remarkable difference p. 113. between the Oeconomy of the old Testament and the New to parts members of any Catholick Church as that it should be constituted or made up of them or by them for the order and purpose of an instituted Church for worship of God he means as the worship of God was National among the Jewes Mr. Hudson Vind. But besides what others have said to prove the Catholick Church to be a Political Church in a candid sense I would say the Ceremonial worship only or chiefly was National the moral worship was performed in several Congregations or Synagogues wherein there were Rulers and ruled and yet those might be called parts of the Jewish Church as a Totum or whole And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholick which is but the National Church enlarged I yet see no reason That all the members of the Catholick Church should meet together to hear one Sermon to partake of one Sacrament c. as it was possible once when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still but that the multitude makes it impossible That the particular Congregations should joyn together in the same specifical Ordinances and have Officers over them alike is certainly an institution of Jesus Christ as well as to make the same profession of Faith and hope Indeed that being so numerous they should have one Officer over them all and joyn to hear one Sermon or receive the same Sacrament numerical as he speaks is a ridiculous fancy and not only false but impossible But I would gladly know a reason See John 4.22 23. why 40 or more members
Church meanes only one particular Church or Congregation So that if a man be not a member of that one Church he can neither be a Schismatick to that Church nor to any other But this I suppose to be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his great mistake and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter For as there may be a Schism in a Citie-Church of many Congregations which are such by the appointment or allowance of Jesus Christ suppose them all Independent if he please So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church yea that is a member of none of those but of some other may be a Schismatick to that Church collectively taken and to any one of those particular Congregations to wit if he shall raise any differences in any one of them and persist to maintain them being eâ—ther expresly against the Gospel or meerly of things unnecessary c. And this I shall prove 1. By the Doctors own principle He that raiseth differences in any Congregation and persists therein is a Schismatick as was newly by him asserted But that Christian that breaks the peace of any Church more generall or particular by erronious or unnecessary disputes raises differences in that Church and therefore he is a Schismatick Then it follows that it is not necessarily required to the guilt of Schism that he be a member of that one Church but he may be a member of another Church or of no Church but only a Christian 2. I prove it from a Scripture instance Act. 15.1 Ceratine men which came down from Judaea to Antioch taught the brethren saying except ye be circumcised c ye cannot be saved These men were no members of the Church of Antioch but of Judaea or Christians at large of no particular Church yet these men making differences in the Church of Antioch are said v. 24. to trouble them with words subverting their Souls and therefore might justly be called Schismaticks He cannot now say this was not a Church of the institution of Christ for whether it was then but one particular Congregation or consisted of many congregations as not able to meet in one place both wayes it was a Church of Christs appointment For the very light of reason speaks thus much That when a Congregation or first Church grows too numerous it should swarm out into lesser Congregations and yet those distinct Congregations may fairly be said to be but one Church and have still some dependence what ever it be one upon another § 9 2. It is required sayes he that they either raise entertaine or persist in causelesse differences p. 44. with them of that Church c This is answered in the former in part And I adde that those differences raised c in that Church though by a member of another Church do cause an Interruption of that exercise of love which ought to be amongst them and the disturbance of the duties required of that Church in the worship of God which he requires to make one guiltie of Schism It were very strange that he that entertaines or persists in those differences should be a Schismatick and he that first raised them though of another Church should be none § 10 3. It is further required that these differences be occasioned by and do belong to some things in a remoter or neerer distance to the worship of God This will reach a great way even civill differences as they may be called Schism as we heard above so they may come to trench upon the worship of God But may there not be differences in other matters besides worship which may amount to a Schism He told us above that Schism might be in unnecessary things p. 27. things that properly concerne not the worship of God such were those sidings about their Teachers not in the worship of God but from house to house as he confessed above But supposing the differences to be in the worship of God that is in the time and place of it may they not be in matter of doctrine perhaps he will say that is Heresie or Apostacie not Schism for so he sayes p. 161. But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine is not Heresie much lesse Apostacie Heresie is not charged usually on any but either for fundamentall errours or obstinacie in them And though we commonly place Schism in matter of discipline or circumstances of worship and Heresie in matters of doctrine yet as we see by experience those that beganne with Schismaticall separations end too oft in Heresie So a Schism at first if obstinately persisted in may come to be Heresie for there is a doctrine of discipâ—ine in the Scripture and a Schismatick willfully defending his errour though but in a matter of discipline or other unnecessary opinions may prove to be Hereticall 2. Heresie and Apostacie presuppose Schism first So that a man may be a Schismatick for raising the difference and an Heretick in persisting in it And say the same of Apostacie as more perhaps hereafter Or may there not be Schism in a matter of discipline which is distinguished from worship Surely the greatest Schisms at this day are found about discipline As is evident in the difference between Papists and us in subjection to the Pope between Episcopall men and us about submission to the Hierarchicall Government between the Presbyterians and Independents where the administration of discipline lyes And each parties charge one another with Schism as he affâ—rmes in his following discourse In doctrine and worship the Independents some of them and we agree having the same Confession of Faith the same Ordinance of worship The discipline onely makes the Schism whereof who is most guiltie will appear anone Certaine it is on which party soever the charge falls to be guilty of this crime they will be found to shew themselves carnal or to have indulged to the flesh pag. 44. and the corrupt principle of Self and their own wills c. § 11 But he professes he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism that did comprise that was not exclusive of that pag. 45. which alone in the Scripture is affirmed so to be That shall be tryed by considering the definitions ordinarily given The definition of Austin is this Schisma est dissidium congregationis when men of the same judgment in doctrine and same rites in worship delight in the discord of the Congregation By dissidium Congregationis the Dr. saies he means 'A separation from the Church into a peculiar Congregation Which was the case of the Donatists which he had then in hand But 1. this definition is just the Doctors Dissidium Congregationis is not properly a separation from but in the Church and such was that of the Donatists at first till refusing or receiving no satisfaction they separated into other Congregations and bid defiance to the Church which is the Common issue of such intestine divisions Acts 15.39 Paul and Barnabas
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
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
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
from either though men of a good zeal and small experience or any other account may promise themselves much thereof It is something else that must give peace than what is the product of the prudentiall considerations of men As for Toleration it is indeed a prudentiall way of those Erastian Polititians he speaks of below that would have the world in quietness on any terms Sect. 15. let what wil be come of Religion Sect. 17. yet indeed is folly and no prudentiall way When men have tryed all wayes to settle their interests pâ—etie in cleaving to the way of God is the best policie as the events of both to which he oft appeals have manifested And on the otherside The Common-wealth of Israel never prospered better than when it enforced uniformitie in the way of Religion prescribed But this uniformitie compelled is a product of Divine prudence in the first and second Commandements And if Christ hath instituted any way of Religion and worship in the New Testament that alone must be enforced on all the members of the Church § 13 Yet concerning that Vniformity enforced he sayes It is the readiest meanes in the world to root out all Religion from the hearts of men which if it were true were a potent Argument for Toleration which yet hee seemes not to like But 1. This was by God thought the best way to plant and preserve Religion in the hearts of the Jewes Those great Reformers so famous among them Josiah c are commended for compelling of people and binding them by oath to serve the Lord. 2. The parable of compelling men to come in to the Wedding seems in the Judgement of no mean Divines to allow a power to bring men to the publick Ordinances of worship 3. Toleration which is our present condition Sect. 12 hath done much more towards the rooting of Religion out of the hearts of many men in 7. yeares than the enforcing of uniformity did in 70 yeares 4. To compell uniformitie in a true or false way may by the corruptions of mens hearts breed Hypocrisie Formality Fieri nee potest nec solet ut Deum sincerè colat qui diversas simul Religiones fovere desiderat certissimumenim est neutram credere qui contrarias admittit Gregor Tholoss Atheism and Anxietie of conscience in some But good and gracious souls have been discovered and purified by it as the three Children and Martyrs have manifested 5. Many at least some that were enforced to conformitie in the worship of God in families or congregations have blessed God for that compulsion who before were Atheists or profane while they had a cursed intolerable toleration to be of any or no Religion Lastly the will indeed cannot be forced to beleive but that professed Christians should be compelled to the externall profession of that only way of worship which Christ hath instituted seems as equal reasonable as it is unreasonable that men be left to their own choice to worship God either not at all or after their own fancies And he that denyes this seems to mee to bee if not an Atheist a Skeptick in Religion § 14 I expected now that he having said so much against enforcing of uniformitie should have said as much or something against Toleration which he calls also a prudentiall way for Reconciliation Does he thinke this if not the other is the readie way to plant Religion in mens hearts Let experience speake If since the men of his way have gotten a Toleration for themselves they have not opened a doore for all errours heresies and horrid blasphemies or profanesse But if both these principles bee by him decryed as hee seemes to insinuate because he finds that events executions follow not the conscientious embracing of one or other of these decryed Principles he should have done good service if he had shewed us another way to this due and practicable Reconciliation which he hath not done but only tells us he is perswaded that a generall alteration of the state of the Churches of Christ in this world must determine this controversie The discovery of that way might perhaps have freed us from the vanitie of those reasonings wherewith we are intangled But I am to seeke what hee meanes when he sayes he hath somewhile since ceased to be moved by the clamours of men concerning bloody persecution on the one hand and cursed intolerable toleration on the other As if he tooke them to be idle clamours of men that cry down enforcing uniformitie as bloody persecution on the one hand or toleration on the other hand as cursed and intolerable What or which of them will please him or are both of them usefull according to the various interests of Nâ—tions And I would know why he calls enforcing uniformitâ—e by the name of bloody persecution Surely to force conformitie to the way of God is no Persecution much lesse bloody but is only a just prosecution of evill and refractory Rebells to the Kingdome of Christ unlesse Magistrates may be called bloody persecutors in prosecuting malefactors unto death And againe if prosecution of such offenders as conforme not to the way of God bee just and necessary then Toleration of such in other wayes is and ouâ—ht to be accounted intolerable and will be cursed Certaine it is that the embracing of either bloody persecution which is against the truth or toleration of all Religions as well as the truth have had providentiall events sutable thereunto as men have placed their civill interests in them both have met with untimely ends and fearfull destruction § 15 He that shall indeed consider the proposalls and attempts made for Ecclesiasticall peace in this little world of ours of later times not to look back to former either by Erastâ—an polititians on the one side or Jesuâ—ticall Tolerationâ—sts on the other will quickly assume the libertie of affirming concerning them all that as wise men might easily see flawes in all of them and an unsuitablenesse to the end proposed and as good men might see so much of carnall interest sel e and hypocrisie in them as might discourage them from any great expectation so upon many other accounts a better issue was not to be looked for from them than hath beene actually obtained which hath for the most part been this that those that could dissemble most deeply have beene thought to have and have had the greatest advantage and those that have come with the least candor most fraud hypocrisie secular baits for the subverting of others have in appearance for a season seemed to obtaine successe And in this spirit of craft and contention are things yet carryed on in the world This witnesse is true therefore rebuke them sharply § 16 It is true also that the parties at variance now Independents and Presbyterians are so well acquainted at length with each others principles Arguments Interests Prejudices and reall diâ—tance of their causes that none of them expect any Reconciliation but meerly by
the verge of one Church as if all their Divisions were confined to the Church whereas there were Schisms and differences abroad and out of the Church which I shall evince first from the Scripture it selfe The differences or Schisms were of severall kinds Some out of the Assembly chap. 1. chap. 3. sidings about their Teachers as he speaks p. 27. one said I am of Paul c these were its likely abroad as they met one with another Some were in the Assembly as those he charges them with chap 11.18 When you come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions among you But the Doctor carryes it so as if all their differences were in the Church meeting when they met to worship God for reasons hereafter to be given The Apostle seemes to charge them thus I hear there are Schisms among you not only in private conferences chap. 1. but also which is worse in your solemne Assemblyes chap. 11. when you meet to worship God And this is the Doctors own Glosse unawares confessed not content to make this difference p. 27. the matter of their debates and disputes from house to house but even when they met for publick worship or that which they all met in and for they were divided on that account also chap. 11. This was their Schism but not the only though the worser Schism which he confounds too much to lead us away in a mist 4. That there was no one Church divided against another or separated from another is assumed but not proved unlesse by a Negative which is invalid There is no mention of such a separation therefore there was none of which in the next § 5 2. Here is no mention of any particular man or number of men's separation from the Assemblyes of the whole Church p. 30. or of subduction of themselves from its power c only they had groundlesse causelesse differences amongst themselves But was this all were there not separations made if not from that Church yet in that Church as well as divisions Let the Scripture determine this 1. The Apostle cap. 1. charges them with sidings about their Teachers v. 11. It hath beene declared to mee that there are Schisms among you One saith I am of Paul and I of Apollo c And againe chap. 3. v. 3. Whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions are ye not carnall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and walke as men For while one saith I am of Paul and another I am of Apollo are ye not carnall That is I am a discitle of Paul said one and I of Apollo said another In our language I am a member of such a Ministers Congregation sayes one such a man for my mony and I am of such a mans Congregation said another and so a third And hereupon they most probably separated themselves into such and such Congregations with slighting and contempt of other Ministers with respect to their own And is not Separation the ordinary issue of such envying strife and contentions Let experience this day speake As Love is the Mother of Union so Envy and strife of Separation 2. That there was a separation of parties in the Church of Corinth at least as to one Ordinance appeares cap. 11. that of the Lords Supper as some do now v. 18. with 21.22.33 They would See Jeams 2.1 2. c. such a companie the richer sort perhaps meet and receive the Supper together and separating themselves not tarry to take the poore with them This was part of their Schism which the Apostle charges them with and warnes them of They were not yet gone so farre in Schism as to separate from the Church by gathering of Churches in opposition to it but they were next door to it they made separations in the Church first in their differences of judgment and then into parties as to some Ordinances Not long after they separated into other Churches slighting and undervaluing the first Ministers or Churches as nothing or lesse pure than their own which wee see practised sufficiently at this day 3. But suppose it granted there was but one single congregation at Corinth yet the Apostle dehorting the Brethren v. 10. from Schisme and writing to more than the Church of Corinth v. 2. even all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in every place § 6 3. Here is no mention of any substraction of obedience from Bishâ—ps Rulers the Pope c p. 31. Nor does the Apostle charge them as Schismaticks from the nationall Church of Achaia c For the first part it is no wonder for such kind of Creatures were not yet hatched till many or some generations after And for the other the Church was yet but small in Achaia See him p. 37. f some scattered saints there might be but few Churches and therefore they are charged only for their Divisions and separations in or from the Church of Corinth according to the severall Ministers which they set up as is most probable As in the like case p. 32. by him instanced in the time of clement Some few unquiet persons at Corinth drew the whole Societie into division and an opposition to their Elders a few men acted by pride and madness yet such power had those persons in the Congregation that they prevailed to depose the Elders and cast them out of Office Is it not reasonable to thinke they set up new Elders and new Congregations and most unreasonable to thinke that the whole Church ranne into this madnesse and so some Congregations remaining sound the rest made Separations from them and this Clement calls their Schism And besides his severall words to describe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to lead away a partie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c those that walk well from their honoured Service though the Doctor wayes to know what it meant and misconstrues it I say the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implyes a separation into other Assemblyes as the manner of seducers is speaking perverse things to draw away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disciples after them Act. 20.30 The like may be conceived though not so cleerly expressed in this first Schism at Corinth the same Church and place Surely those differences noted by Clement in the same Church were not divisions in the Church met together to worship God but out of the Church and causing separations from the Elders and so from the Church breaking of it into fractions which yet he calls their Schism As for his notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Clement to signifie then p. 34. not a province as some but a citie Church consisting of many Congregations the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c I am apt to believe his conjecture to be true The Church inhabâ—ting Rome or the Church at Rome which at that time had no such large Territories as a Church provinciall
or Metropolitane as some rather dream than prove as it s said of the Church in or at Jerusalem Act. 8.1 and the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Corinth But yet I cannot agree with him that either Rome or Corinth were in Clements time onely one Parish as he now uses the word or one Congregation meeting all in one place For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knowes not p. 39. nor was perswaded it was compleated p. 38. but yet supposes it comes under the same name with Corinth ibid. though Paul mentions it as a distinct Church Rom. 16.1 and Phaebe to be a Deaconesse or Servant of that Church to the Church I say at Cenchrea So I see no reason but there might be were several Churches or Assemblies in Corinth each distinct from other though not such Parishes as ours are in London c the greater part being yet Heathens and the Magistrates not yet Christian to erect or allow them Churches as now we call them or to distribute them into particular Parishes which was done as soon as most or all became Christians However the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be so called p. 35. from them who met together to break bread and to eate from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convivator Whence it will follow that if the multitude be so great that they cannot meet in one place to heare the word or to break bread as its evident the 3000 or 5000 at Jerusalem could not then look how many meeting places there were for this purpose so many Parishes or Congregations there were at Jerusalem or Corinth having severall if not fixed Elders over them and yet the whole but one Church § 7 p. 42. But if he grant that this evill mentioned by the Apostle is Schism does it conclude that nothing else is Schism He answers he is inclinable so to do and resolved that unlesse any man can prove that somthing else is termed Schism by some Divine writer c he will be at Libertie from admitting it so to be Surely this is no safe Rule to go by For as there are some vertues which are not termed so expresly in Scripture So there may be degrees of Schism which are not so expresly called there It is sufficient if the one have the nature of such a virtue the other of such a crime though not so called There are other words used to signifie the same thing As Rom. 16.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying a division into two parts or parties And what thinks he of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from a root that signifies sometimes trahere to draw and somtimes sectari to follow See Concil 1. Constantinop some are called Hereticks that hold the sound faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them and those that follow them are called Secta à sequendo The opinions of the Philosophers of severall Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heresies and their followers Sects divided not onely in opinion but in parties and Schools also So Paul uses the word Act. 26.5 according to the mos◠strict Sect of our Religion I lived a pharisee And is not heresie as bad a word as Schism or is it any advantage for a separatist to change his name from Schismatick to Heretick The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19 uses them promiscuously one for another I heare that there are Schisms among you For there must be heresies among you also The word heresie commonly is used to signifie errour against Faith which sense he is not pleased with p. 46. as Schism is a sin against love If he like not to give his Separation the name of Schism though it hath fully the nature of it let him have good leave to call it Heresie This men gaine when they will dispute about words Besides the Scripture uses other words to signifie Schism in a political sense Math. 12.25 A Kingdome or house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided against it selfe that is into parts and so into civill warres and dissensions cannot stand which Act. 14 4. is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude was divided and that into two parts as well as opinions as it followes and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were with the Jewes and some with the Apostles as I noted above If this may not rather be understood of an Ecclesiasticall separation for it was occasioned by differences in one Assembly v. 1. They entred into the Synagogue of the Jews c The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and made their minds ill affected against the brethren v. 2. which caused that separation And the Schism was made by those turbulent Jewes the causes of that separation not by the Apostles or their partie Schism in the Church was but an Embrio in the Apostles time at first a difference or division onely in judgment but quickly grew into separation or division into parties But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism but what is included in this place of the Corinthians having made it appeare that there was a separation made in that Church by such as lead away Disciples after them or rather by them who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons set up one Minister above another and against another However somthing may be deduced by paritie of reason If divisions of persons in a church in judgment may be is called Schism in Scripture then Separation from a true Church grounded upon those divisions at first in an Assembly about unnecessary things as he said may well and much more be called Schism For sayes he He is a Schismatick p. 43. guiltie of this sinne of Schism who raiseth or entertaineth or persisteth in such differences And is not he much more a Schismatick who having raised groundlesse differences in a Church and persisting in them draws Disciples after him and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he separated To separate men in judgment in a Church is a Schism and crime bad enough but to separate them from the Church upon the former is farre worse Now this as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations all professing the same truth and practising the same worship So the persisting in such differences by any one Congregation against the rest is a Schism in that Church as of Corinth and ends commonly in separation from that Church But let us heare further what is required to make guiltie of Schism § 8 1. That they be members of or belong to some one Church which is so by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ The ground of this assertion is that he by one
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
Ordinances of the worship of God p. 245. are rightly to be administred only in a Church and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto the denyal of a National Church-state seems to deny that we had either Ministers or Ordinances here in England How will he answer this especially having renounced his own Ministry received in this National Church and all besides in respect of Church Communion except his Baptism as null or naught Thus he saies and that 's all It may seem so to do but it doth not unlesse you will say that unlesse ye be a National Church-state there is no other which is too absurd for any one to imagine The consequence cannot well be denyed in his notion of this Church For if there were no Ministers but ordained by those National Officers and those Officers not of Christs institution as he hath often pleaded it follows necessarily that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church and so no Ordinances truly administred in it and at last no Church at all This I doubt or rather believe by what he hath said is his judgement but he durst not speak out For I ask Does he in his conscience believe there were any true Ministers in this Church in the time of its being National and if no Ministers no Ordinances rightly administred But why does he not tell us what that other Church-state is of which he speaks he denies all but the Independent state of new gathered Churches which were not found in the Prelates times except some Brownistical Societies we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication but shall plead for our selves Our former Divines of the first reformation and since have pleaded and justifyed their Ordination for the essentialls of it received from Rome which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions they propagated unto us who may therefore the better justifie our own Those Bishops that ordained us had as he told us above a double capacitie One as Lord Bishops received from the state p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gosspell to preach administer Sacraments to joyne in Ordination of Ministers p. 231. Now in this latter some of themselves professed and so we understood it that they ordained Presbyters as presbyters not as Bishops Hence it followes that though they presumed to themselves a Lordly power not according unto the institution of Christ whereby they called themselves a nationall Church c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospell as we beleive it is sufficiently proved and never yet sufficiently answered there were Ministers lawfully called and Ordinances by them rightly administred and that is the other Church state which he would not doe us the honour to name least he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatick in departing from this Church-state These true and faithfull Ministers with their people in their severall Congregations administring the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ whereof their baptism was one were and still are the true Church-state of England for which we plead and he hath forsaken Some additions of humane prudence cannot annull the Ordinances of Christ § 6 The way of the prelates he told us p. 235. p. 246. to stablish a nationall Church was descendendo of the Presbyterians ascendendo That is that such a thing should rise from the particular Congregations by sundry Associations and subordinations of Assemblyes in and by the representatives of those Churches But this may prove a mistake For 1. The Presbyterians rather goe descendendo as well as the prelates did at least in part They agree both in this that they acknowledge their rise and originall to be from the Apostles who were the first founders of all Churches and the supreme Officers of the Church For them were other Ministers ordained in subordination to them Bishops say some Archbishops and then Bishops say others and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them or as he styles them parochiall Priests p. 235 The Presbyterians say the Apostles first made Presbyters and gave them power to rule their particular Churches and as occasion required to meet together by Delegates in a Classis or Synod as that â—t Jerusalem consisted partly of Elders with the Apostles 2. They lay the rise of Ministerial power to be universall as well as the Prelates supposing a Minister to be a Minister in what part soever of the world his lot happen to be and do not upon his removall give him a new Ordination though he may not for order sake exercise that power but when and where he hath a call 3. That call may be different 1. as he is called to take care of a particular Congregation 2. as a Delegate to a Classis or Synod which himself allowes in the Independent way as above 3. As he is in the absence of a particular Minister desired to Preach or Baptise or do any other Ministeriall dutie to another people as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to and pray with them Now this Delegation which he meanes by ascendendo doth not give him a new power distinct from what he had before by his Ordination but a particular designation to act this power pro hic nunc As he hath often heard but will take no notice of it § 7 Whether a Church may be called nationall p. 247. when all the particular Congregations of one nation agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblyes as some learned Divines have asserted I will not dispute but leave what they have said to the further consideration of their Adversaries Though this may be said they did not make this the only or the principall way of that denomination That was rather when all the Congregation of a nation agree in the Doctrine and worship and celebrate it accordingly The Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to the Church nor absolutely necessary and the Church may exist and be nationall without it much lesse do any of ours say That subjection to one civill Government and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically c doth constitute one Church or as he expresses it afterwards p. 251. they do not say that being under one civâ—ll government does constitute a Nationall Church for if so sayes he its forme and unitie as such must be given it by the civill Government For the unitie thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship and not in the modell of civill Government of what kind soever p. 250. And if he allow as he does an Association of the Delegates from severall Churches to meet for matters of common concernment by the same reason whether it be by Institution or prudence he must allow those subordinate Assemblyes For the light of nature teaches the necessitie of Appeales in male-administrations for ending of troubles and decision of differences in particular Congregations as was instanced in the
What difficulty then is there to judge them offenders against that and the whole Church of England in leaving those Congregations without yea against their consent if they had such power over them as he grants But no marvel they find no difficulty or scruple in leaving our Congregations without any leave when they can and do leave own Congregations without or against their leave to which they say they have been marryed and may no more justly divorce them than a man may his wife except for fornication and only for a greater portion or preferment But I must professe I know no such power that any Church hath to engage into and enforce such an explicite consent or to deny leave to any member upon just causes to depart without their leave He said before All men must admit it free for a man to choose where he will fix his habitation Which if just reasons call him to either he must leave that Congregation as too distant from his habitation or else tye himself to much inconvenience to enjoy the Ordinances of God there which he may with ease and as much profit enjoy at his own door If this be not an enslaving of Christians to the prudential if not politick institutions of men and manifest prejudice to the liberty wherein Christ hath made them free I know not what is But the best is their people do not believe any such difficulty to remove from their Churches but take the leave without humbly desiring it which he requires without their consent and run readily to the Anabaptists and Quakers Societies § 14 Yea the Dr. is as ready to indulge this Liberty as they to take it it may be he may get the more disciples by it For as he gives any man the liberty to deâ—ert the communion of any society if it be not reformed according to the mind of Christ p. 265 So he allowes him this liberty upon his own light Hear him speak As the not giving a mans self up p. 259. to any way and submitting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ which he hath not light for is no Schism So no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion in one Church in all its relations to joyn with another be so esteemed Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of Independency or to gratifie all the Sects Quakers and all According to that light which men have received with a Toleration For why should they be denyed the liberty of their own light more than others to judge what is or is not according to the mind of Christ and to follow it accordingly submit to p. 46. and desert what way they suppose to be § 26 but pretended as the way of Christ And why should they be denyed to make use of their liberty without such humble asking leave of the Congregation But I woâ—â—d make bo d to ask one question Whether does he indeed believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ for he hath instituted but one way havâ—ng run from and renounced all other waies of Religion in this Nation If so iâ— not every man bound to come into it and not upon any conceited new light to relinquish it If not then why doth he encourage men to leave the Presbyterian way which for ought he knows may be the way of Christ But what 's this to the purpose We do not say it is a Schism for a single person upon good reasons to remove from one Congregation to another as because he can not edifie so well by one Minister as another provided it be not an itching ear that causes it as oft it is or in some necessary worldly respects if he do it peaceably without contempt of the Congregation and Minister from whom he departs and not setting up a new Church against them In this case we leave all our members free It is not actually not communicating with a true Church but renouncing communion that we think makes the Schismatick § 15 But what if he discovers That some of the principles of the Churches constitution are not according to the mind of Christ p. 261. which renders the communion of it by scruples c. not so useful to him as if it were right and that he hath declared his judgment and dissatisfaction if no Reformation ensue c. The question is whether he sees or conceits he sees some errors in a Church constitution and then whether every want or redunduncy in a Church constitution necessitates a separation But he takes no notice but peremptorily determines the case That person I say is doubtlesse at liberty to dispose of himself as to particular Church communion to his own best advantage This is liberality enough and Dictator-like spoken Does not this open a door to all confusion in Church and State and give every man all as well as any liberty if they judge any thing amiss in Church or State to turn Reformers if Superiours cannot or will not Reform it He asks this question Suppose the Congregation whereof a man is a member p. 262. is not reformed will not or cannot reform it self whether in this case is it Schism for any number of men to reform themselves by reducing the practise of worship to its original institution though the minor part 〈◊〉 Put it home in a State or Nationaâ— Church as that of the Jews was it lawful for a few men when State and Church were all corrupted to go and reform both because they who had the power in their hand either could not or would not reform I will not exemplifie it neare home but I think I may safely say this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle at the bottome and say no more § 16 Yet he hath Scripture for it I will boldly say p. 263. this Schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost What Schism means he that a man or men shall separate from the corruptions of a Church or reform themselves from the sins of the place that is certainly commanded But for that man or a minor number of men in a stated National Church to take upon them to reform the Church was never given them in command But see the proofs The first is 1 Tim. 6.5 From such withdraw or separate thy self But this is a great mistake for as the advice is given to a Minister and not a private member so it is not to withdraw from a Church that hath some corruptions in it but from such false Teachers as its likely were of no Church The second is 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn away Who must do it Timothy a Minister Again from whom from such loose professors or false Teachers as creep into houses and there make divisions and then lead captive their Proselytes from the communion of the Church Surely those were not of Timothy's Congregation for then he would have bidden him not only turn away
from them but turn them out of the Church by a just censure The last is Hos 4.15 which is only to disswade those that were of the true Church from joyning with Idolaters come not to Gilgal neither go up to Bethaven c. for so the former part of the verse hath it Though thou Israel play the harlot yet let not Judah offend c. § 17 But he speaks with some Indignation Is this yoak laid upon me by Christ p. 263. that to go along with the multitude where I live that hate to be reformed I must forsake my duty and despise the priviledges that he hath purchased for me with his own blood Is this an unity of Christs institution that 〈◊〉 must for ever associate my self with wicked and prophane men in the worship of God c. This sounds too much of the Pharisee the multitude the wicked and prophaneâ— But suppose fire the Church is no corrupt as Israel of â—â—ch or Româ—â— Diâ—â—e years then 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 Come out of her O my people and be not partaker of 〈◊〉 sins But suppose a Church 〈◊〉 in fundamentalls oâ— doctrine and worship suffering some lesse corruptions 〈◊〉 â—tâ—ce in her communion add perhaps in such a condition as it either cannot or will not reform it self and there is no other Church easily to joyn with Will he now leap out of Church and neglect all Ordinances because of some prophane and wicked men Christ himself did not so or will he go and separate into another Church If â—o as it justifies the Brownists in former times in their separation condemned by his own party so it condemns the pious Nonconformists who did not so Though they could not communicate in some Ordinances yet they never withdrew communion from the Church into separate Congregations It is no duty of Christs imposing no priviledge of his purchasing either to deprive a mans seâ—â—â—m's Ordinances for other mens sins 〈…〉 up a nâ—w Church in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted for want of some Reformation in lesser matters And does not this speech insinuate so much That our Churches are such as hate to be reformed and tolerate prophane and wicked men when it is our grief that we have not power enough to reform or eject them They might have stayed till they had found we had hated to be reformed or till they had given us a better Model of a Church-state which never yet we could by our utmost importunity obtaine from them and then they had had some colour for their separation § 18 And yet see how tender he is of our Churches honour and peace I speak not this as for a principle p. 264. that it is the duty of every man to separate from that Church wherein evil men are tolerated c. It is too much that he said every man is at liberty in such a case to dispose of himself as to Church-communion p. 261. though he plead it not his duty And here again he says When a Church is overborne by a multitude of wicked and prophane so that it cannot or will not reform it self a Believer is so far at liberty that he may desert the communion of that society without the least guilt of Schism He grants him here too litle for though he desert the purest Church on earth yet he hath told him separation from any or all Churches is no Schism But suppose the Officers of a true Church tolerate wicked men in their Communion which is the grand plea of Separatists a mixt Communion this is taken by them as the duty of private members they sin in that Communion if they separate not They will not bear with such a toleration in our Churches though they do in their own but hold it their duty to leap out of our Câ—urches practise accordingly It were happy for us if they had shewed some of that love and forbearance he so oft speaks of and requiâ—es of us for themselves to our Churches and not reserved it all for their own § 19 The Church of Corinth had as many disorders in it p. 265. as some of ours from which the Apostle advises no man to separate He answers 1. The Church of Corinth was a true Church instituted according to the mind of Christ and was not fallen from this priviledge by any miscarriage which wholly differences the case Why so were the Churches of England in some of their own confessions true Churches planted according to the mind of Christ and needed onely a Reformation and reducing to their first constitution But he plainly insinuates they are no true Churches now by reason of some miscarriages under the Papacy He spake more openly p. 243. We are yet far from being cleerly delivered from the Romane Apostacy Rome is much beholden to him for this courtesie but not the Church of England And as for those miscarriages they were long ago the grossest of them much amended by the first Reformation and more by the second and are endeavouring yet a further Reformation if some had not obstructed it However Corinth had we suppose greater disorders in it than are to be found blessed be God in many of our Congregations why then do they fly and separate from us and that before they had used all or any of the remedies of our cure which he requires first to be done in the next page But hear the conclusion Yet this I say p. 266. had the Church of Corinth continued in that condition c. it had been the duty mark that the duty of every Saint of God in that Church to withdraw from it c. It s strange that the Apostle did not inform those Saints of this liberty or duty there or elsewhere It were an hard case for private Christians to be made guilty of the sins of a Church where evil men are tolerated or some of unsound opinions are suffered having I mean done their own duty for amending or ejecting them according to Matth. 18.15 c. § 20 It s true that Austin was mistaken in asserting that Eliah and Elisha p. 267. communicated with the Israelites in their worship which was most Idolatrous unlesse he meant that Elijah sacrificed once among them at his contest with Baals Priests or that both of them were partakers of the Sacrament of Circumcision with them they and theirs if they had any issue But it s as true that our blessed Saviour did communicate with the Jewes in all the true worship of God though the Doctrine was much corrupted and the worship also by will-worship by the Scribes and Pharisees only protesting against those corruptions he communicated in the rest without sin and neither himself separated from that Church nor advised others so to do though shortly to begin the foundation of a new Church way but rather advised to continue in it The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoever they say unto you do it c. §
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