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
separate themselves but drew others also into seperation And Clem. Alexandr interprets it segregantes fideles à fidel bus id est alios ab aliis Seperating the faithfull from the faithfull that is some members of the Church from other In a word others understand it of both kinds of separation tam in doctrina quam in coetibus in opinions and parties or assemblyes And both these being causelesse divisions are by all accounted Schism p. 27. Now the reverend Doctor to avoid this calls these Abominations and not Schism As Anabaptists Quakers c do not cease to be Independents but a e that and some thing more and askes whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted Schismaticks or their crime in separating Schism But this is but a dâ—sguise of the businesse For there may be Schism in this and the other two afore and something more He that raises dissentions in a Church and then separates from it either by Apostacie Idlenesse or sensualitie carryes his brand of a Schismatick with him though it seeme to be swallowed up in further abominations There are degrees of Schism as I said which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem the wickednesse that such proceed unto but from the terminus à quo that is from a true Church I shall put him a case If a member of his Congregation inclining to Apostacie Idlenesse or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church concerning any of those and then should seperate from his Church either into irregular walking as some Antinomians or into Abhominations as some Ranters or into totall Apostacie and Atheism which many are fallen into from the height of this way would he not say thee were Schismaticks and something worse And of all it may be said These are they that separate themselves I leave it to him § 5 But he is so confident of the contrary that he redoubles more vigourously his former Assertion I say p. 77. for a man to with-draw or with-hold himself from the Communion externall and visible of any Church or Churches on the pretension and plea be it true or otherwise that the worship doctrine discipline instituted by Christ is corrupted among them with which corruption he dares not defile himselfe it is no where in the Scripture called Schism c. Before I come to scanne the words in particular I shall say in generall this is a fallacious because an ambiguous assertion For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate when there is corruption in some one of these onely or in all of them 2. Nor how far some or all of these must be corrupted before we may separate 3. All these were as much corrupted and more in the Jewish Church as in ours when he and his partie separated from us and yet our Saviour and his Apostles continued their Communion with it and the Church of Corinth in all these was as much and more corrupted than ours yet the Apostle mentions no separating from it 4. He now requires that it be called Schisme in Scripture when as before he said if it had the nature of it it was sufficient 5. If a bare Plea against corruptions true or false may warrant a separation then the most rigid seperatists may be and are by him acquitted from Schism as I said above But more particularly He hath not rightly stated the question as now it lyes between us which is not of a single mans secession from a true Church a particular Congregation to joyne himselfe to another Church of the same Constitution where he may enjoy as he thinks the Ordinances more purely or more profitably For it was ever lawfull for a man to remove his habitation and to joyne himselfe to such a Congregation But the pinch of the question is whether a man or a company of men may separate from a true Church upon a plea of corruption in it true or false set up another Church as to all Ordinances renouncing that Church to be a true Church And so much the worse and more Schismaticall is that separation from a true Church when either those men that separate have not done those duties incumbent on them to reforme it or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavour to reforme it selfe according to the Rule of the Gospell This is plainly our case at present with the Doctor and his Associates § 6 But he further affirmes Of one Church particular departing from that communion with another p. 78. or others be it what it will which it ought to hold unlesse in the departing of some of them in some things from the common Faith which is supposed not to relate to Schism in the Scripture we have no example The more happie were those times that they yeelded no such example But if they did not yet if they give us an example of one Church divided upon differences into severall Congregations or to some Ordinances as we proved they do they come very neere the case of Schism before us And himselfe hath granted that upon supposition that Rome is a particular Church as opposed to the Catholick she is the most Schismaticall Church in the world not onely in regard of her own intestine divisions as he but also in her separation from the Apostolicall primitive Church in doctrine worship and discipline as our Divines do maintaine upon this acount it was that the Divines of the Assembly said To leave all ordinary communion in any Church with dislike where opposition See p. 141 or offence offers it selfe is to seperate from such a Church in the Scripture sense though they adde pag. 79. such separation was not in being in the Apostles time His exception to this is frivolous How they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them I know not The reconciliation is easie In the Apostles time or in that case of the Corinthians such was their happinesse there was no separation of one Church from another in that high manner as after they did but yet the Scripture gives a faire ground by way of consequence there and in other places above named to conclude that if separation in a Church in opinions and judgement be a Schism much more separation from a true Church by persons or Churches leaving all ordinary communion with it with dislike or opposition is to be accounted Schism especially if they first depart from the common Faith and then upon that difference separate from the Church And therefore though he be unwilling I shall not doubt but to be able to compell him to carry on the notion of Schism further than yet he hath done § 7 But that he may shew his skill and gratifie his Adversaries he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue p. 81. according to the common definition of Schism That it is a breach of union onely he will put in a reasonable postulatum that this
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
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
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
two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
instituted Rulers of the Church walking in the truths and waies of Christ as well as against any other members of the Church it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church as they that despâ—se Christs Embassadors despise Him also the mischiefs whereof extend to the whole Church And commonly the Schism begins against the Rulers of the Church as that against Moses and Aaron did So that at Corinth in Clements time This is too evident at this time That all the present Schisms strike principally at the Ministers of the Gospel All Sects contending against them primarily and reproaching of them either as Antichristian He calls them parochial Priests pag. 235. or as no true Ministers besides worser names of ignominie and contempt wherein the Dr. and his party are not a little guilty as will appear before we have done § 16 Whether Schismaticks be Church Members or no is a question of no great concernment The Doctor is peremptory It is impossible a man should be a Schismatick p. 51. unless he be a Church member If he mean it of a member of the Catholick Church it s granted for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatick But if he mean as I believe he does no man can be such unless he be a member of a particular Church it is made appear to the contrary above and shall be more hereafter For the present I only say Suppose a Schismatick of himself departs from the Church or is ejected by the Church yet still persists to maintaine the differences by him raised in that Church I desire to know whether he ceases to be a Schismatick because he is now no member of that Church or is not still such by the Doctors own principles But too much of that § 17 Upon the Definition of Schâ—sm given by himself A causless difference or division amongst the members of any particular Church pag. 52. Is not this a mans definition the strength of it this such an act is Schisme therefore none else is See p. 44. that meet or ought to meet to the worship of God c. he proceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the sin of Schism wherein I shall agree with him fully though not in his definition in all particulars as was said above That that is a Schism I confess contains a part but not the whole nature thereof For as I believe a Schism may be made in a particular Church by one that is no member thereof seducers use to creep into houses and Churches and raise differences So I think a particular Church or some members of it may make a Schism in from the Catholick Church or other particular Churches which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given Look as in the body natural there may be supposed a Schism amongst the fingers of either hand whereof they are the more immediate members which yet may truly be said to be a Schism in relation to the whole body which hath influence into and interest in those members and shall suffer not a litle by their divisions So it is in the body mystical though the divisions immediatly disturb the particular Church where they arise yet they also reach to the disquiet and danger of the next Congregations and then of the whole Church A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump A mutinie begun in a single troop hath been the ruin of the whole Army The Design however disclaimed p. 47. f. I fear is this This definition of Schism is forelaid and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof upon himself and his own select congregation If they have but so much wit or so much grace as either not to raise or not to discover any causlesse differences amongst themselves though they separate from and disturbe the peace and union of the whole national Church or all the Churches of a Nation they are by no means to be styled Schismaticks But more of this in Hypothesi when he comes to apply it to themselves § 18 Whether the Church of Rome is a Church of Christ or no pag. 56. and how they are Schismatical I list not to be their Advocate they are old enough to answer his charge themselves I think he hath said enough if not too much to vindicate the Protestant Churches from Schism in their separation from Rome But his principle will carry him further not only to unchurch Rome but also all Protestant Churches at home and abroad for want as he thinks of a right constitution by Jesus Christ as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism as will presently appear Only I observe that he does not charge Rome it self to be Schismatical but upon supposition that it is a Church which he denies below then indeed by her intestine divisions she is the most schismatical Church in the world but if no Church not schismaticall whereas our Divines have proved her schismatical not only by her intestine differences but chiefly by her schismatical principles as those above mentioned That she is the Catholick Church and none out of her Communion are any better than Hereticks Our Conventicles are no Churches but styes of beasts p. 63. say they or Heathens That Ordination is void except done by her Bishops and also and especially by her abominable corruptions doctrine and worship departing therein from the Scriptures and example of the Apostolical Churches Now his chief if not only principle to conclude himself not schismatical in separating from Rome is this That there was never any such thing pag. 60. as that which is called the Church of Rome instituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ which he hereafter affirms also of National and Presbyterian Churches as he thereby frees himself from Schism in separating from all Churches in the world So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches as well as Rome § 19 For so he saies upon the same principle a plea pag. 64. for freedom from the charge of any Church really or pretended as National may be founded and confirmed That principle is the definition of Schism before given Schism is an evil amongst the members of a Church And hence he inferred against the Church of Rome If our own Congregations be not Churches whatsoever we are we are not Schismaticks And against them that plead for a National Church and charge them with Schism for separating from it he saies again If we are not of the National Church pag. 67. as they protest they are not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks And this will once more be made use of against the charge of Schism in separating from our present Churches as we shall see below But he makes a Dilemma and thinks it both waies unanswerable either we are of the National Church of England or we are not If not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks If we are and must be of it whether we will or
no being made so we know not how c. shew us then what office of Love is incumbent on us that we do not perform His arguing is not distinct having not tot told us what he means by a National Church If he take it as he seems to do for the Hierarchical Church with National Officers with subordinations c. I would say It s certain himself was once of that National Church a member of it perhaps zealous of Episcopacy and an exact observer of its Canons So that if that National Church be proved as it is by some attempted to be a Church of Christs institution he cannot be excused from Schism in separating from it For though they cannot charge him as now of that Church both it being abolished and himself changed into another way yet they may say he was not long since a member of that National Church But if he take National Church as the Churches were in the Nation all professing the same truth and exercising the same substantial worship as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church he must either acknowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church as he does pag. 224. or else renounce communion with her also as no Church or Churches of Christ which whether he does or no comes after to be considered § 20 For the other horn of his Dilemma If they are and must be of this National Church c. what duty of Love is there which they owe to it and do not perform Seeing he makes the challenge and professes that if it can be shewn he will address himself to it I shal take the pains to inform him fully before we have done only now considering what he saies here Do we not saies he joyn in external acts of worship in peace with the whole Church p. 67. Call the whole Church together try what we will do Is not all this aequivocally spoken In what external acts of worship do they joyn with us as a Church Do they not disown us as no Churches and our Ministers as no Ministers admit none to worship with them but confederat members When they sometimes preach in our Congregations or hear us preach do they not count themselves to us and us to themselves as gifted brethren only but no Ministers And what means he by the whole Church or how can it be called together unless he mean his own Church or Churches How then do they joyn in every Congregation in the Nation When though they presume to preach in our Churches to steal away our people from us their own people will seldome or never come into our Congregations to hear unless some of them preach Ad populum phaleras And as for their joyning in peace with the whole Church it is a Blind for they separate themselves with some of our members from our Churches to the great discouragement of the Ministers and greater disturbance of the whole and all the Churches of the Nation § 21 The Counsel that he gives to members of particular Churches pag. 70 who have voluntarily given up themselves to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ I fear extends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches That they would be careful to prevent causeless differences in their own meetings or among themselves which if they do let them all say what they will they are no Schismaticks For as for our particular Congregations they scarce account them Churches though most of the members of them have voluntarily given up themselves explicitely or implicitely as New England men confesse to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ And if they grant ours to be true Churches they must necessarily acknowledge those who first raised causeless differences in them now foment them by separation from them to be Schismaticks by his own description Yea so much worse than those Corinthians whose case he exemplifies if so be they did not upon their differences separate into parties and Churches which he denies but we conceive they did and these both raise differences and then separate from our Churches into several combinations and one sayes I am of Pauls Congregation and another I am of Apollo's I speak this in a figure as Paul did 1 Cor. 4.6 He can easily apply it CHAP. III. Causeless Separation from a true Church is Schism § 1 HE now fearing this or the like Objection as obvious to be made by every man That if Schism be onâ—y amongst the members of one Church pag. 72. then the separation of any man or men from a true Church or one Church from another is not Schism which is contrary to the judgement of most Christians Divines and Churches he hopes to help himself by his old definition of Schism in the Scripture precise description of it as he limited above And peremptorily denies that in that sense there is any relinquishment departure pag. 73. or separation from any Church or Churches mentioned or intimated in the Scripture which is or is called Schism or agreeth with the description by them given us of that term But to this I have many things to say 1. That precise signification of the word and description of the thing is before disproved The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts and is applyed both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture as was proved above 2. Supposing that to be the onely sense mentioned in the case of the Corinthians which is denyed and disproved yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture and deduced by regular and rationall consequence The word signifying indefinitely seperation either in opinion or parts is it not a faire consequence If seperation in judgement in a Church be a Schism much more upon that difference to separate from a Church into another against the Church 3. St. John blames some for separating from the Church 1 Joh. 2.19 they went out from us c as is the manner of Schismaticall and Hereticall Spirits being obstinate in their opinions and opposed by the Church they stay not till they are cast out but go out and become the head of a faction against the Church as histories do abundantly manifest 4. His own places brought for instances of blameable separation from a Church do all or some minde the nature of Schism as precedaneous to that separation therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture we shall consider them in order § 2 1. The first produced is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the Assembling of our selves together as some do He renders the words for his own advantage not wholly deserting the Assembling of our selves c and makes it to be Apostacie from the faith p. 74. and thereupon upon forsaking the Assemblies would any man call these Schismaticks sayes hee He formerly glossed this text of neglecting the publick Assemblyes onely see Appendix §. 14. He makes the
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
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
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
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates
commonly make differences amongst professors before they totally depart He must be remembred of what he said p. 161. § 12. The breach of this union in the Catholick Church and therein the relinquishment of the communion of the Church lies in relinquishment of or some opposition to some or all of the saving necessary truths of the Gospel Now this is not Schism but Heresie or Apostacie That must be thus If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospell it is Apostacie If of some onely and they fundatally maintained with obstinacie its Heresie but if it be of some truths onely of lesser or greater concernment about which differences are by some raised amongst the members of this Church Catholick it may by his own principles be called Schism His evasions will be one of these two 1. That he did condiscend to gratifie his Adversaries that Schism is a breach of union but that he denyes to be the Scripture notion of Schism 2. That upon the same account he denyes differences to be Schism any where but in a particular Assembly Wherein he is singular and alone and is sufficiently disproved above § 7 But fearing belike that in his so answering some of ours would be readie to take up those words spoken to our Saviour upon another occasion Master in so saying thou puttest us to rebuke also He starts an objection pag. 196. from the consequence of it utterly unchurching Rome thus Whether the devesting of the Synagogue of Rome of the priviledges of a Church in any sense arise not to the denyall of that Ministry at this day in England To which before we take his answer I would say 1. That most of our pious learned Divines have hitherto not denyed but that Rome was a Church in some sense not a true but a corrupt Church as having some priviledges or rather some remainders of a Church See D. Hall Apol. against Brownists Sect. 23. as the same Articles of Faith baptism and a kind of Ministry c. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true though sometimes coming thorough their foule hands with many superadditions to the institution of Christ Others perhaps would say we had it not from Rome there were other Bishops in England before Austin came hither from whom we might receive our Ordination successively But heare his kind answer If any man hath nothing to plead for his Ministry but meerely that successive Ordination which he hath received through the Church of Rome I cannot see a stable bottome of owning him so to be But not yet to regest to him his successive Baptism which he received through the Church of Rome this would go neere to annull the Ministry of those Martyr-Bishops and Ministers our first Reformers who at first had nothing to plead but their successive ordination from Rome and acted upon it accordingly He cannot gratifie Rome better than to asperse the Ministry of England it is the Jesuiticall business in all the present Sectaries They look upon himself his partie who have either none or have renounced their ordination as no Ministers at all If we be none also then have wee as they slander us no Church at all God help the poore despised Ministers of England The Romanists say we are no Ministers because we have not our Ordination from Rome The Sectarists say we are no Ministers because we have our Ordination from Rome which shall wee believe Neither for we have it from Jesus Christ by whose hands soever we had it But as a little blushing at this hard saying p. 196. he will mollifie it a little I do not say if he will plead nothing else but if he hath nothing else to plead He may have that which will constitute him a Minister though he will not own that so it doth What ever else we plead unlesse we will renounce our Ordination it will not please them That by Bishops is by them pleaded null or Antichristian and that by the people which he intends we think is nothing and cannot own it as a ground of our Ministry though perhaps we have their call as well as himselfe We may have as many of us have our call and election to be their Ministers from the people but our Ordination we shall justifie to be from Christ p. 197. and not from the people But hear more Nor is it said that any have their Ministry from Rome as though the office which is an Ordinance of Christ was instituted by Antichrist but the question is whether this be a sufficient foundation of any mans ininterest in the office of the Ministry that he hath received Ordination in a succession through the Administration of not the woman flying into the Wildernesse not of the two witnesses not from them whom we succeed in Doctrine as the Waldenses â—ut the Beast it selfe Does he not by this cast dirt in the face of our Ministry as all our good friends the Sectaries doe I have much adoe to forbeare saying ' The Lord rebuke thee But I answer 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry Either he must go forward to Anâ—baptism as many have done or come back to us as was said to the Brownists by Dr. Hall Apol. Sect. 11. as for our Baptism which was never questioned hitherto but by our late Independent Anabaptists upon another ground 2. Had we received our Ordination from the woman flying into the Wildernesse or from the two witnesses or the Waldenses all had been one to him and his partie For they had not their Ordination from the people except some extraordinary cases but from a presbytery according to the Institution of Christ And yet forsooth he will not plead this at large professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Antichristian who yet adhaere to this Ordination being many of them eminently guifted of God and submitted to by his people c. Egregiam verò laudem While he secretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist the Beast c that yet adhere to that Ordination if they have nothing else to plead As for their eminent guifts as they do not plead that as suffâ—cient for their interests in the office without Ordination so many of his and our brethren have those guifts whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers though he do And as for the submission of the people to us we had that ever if not explicitely as often yet implicitely which some Independents allow as sufficient to make us true Ministers and true Churches though we do not own Ordination as from that submission of our people but from Jesus Christ Even from such also they separate § 8 But some aske Why not Ordination from Rome as well as the Scripture which question I like not p. 198. but should rather after why not ordination as well as baptism All our fore Fathers doubtlesse received their baptism by the hands of Romanists
p. 207. to which humane prudence may add nothing is a certain truth denyed by none but fanatical spirits And as for the institution of particular Churches by express words of Scripture it is no where visible but by a fair and necessary consequence That which is of Institution was that Gods people should serve and worship him severally and joyntly in such and such Ordinances of worship and consequently by a necessity of nature there must be a place for people to meet together in or more as their number is God institutes publick prayer preaching Sacraments therefore there must be societies to perform this worship 1. Because of the multitude of Christians which can neither meet all in one place nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company 2. For the better obligation of all professors as to the exercise of all acts of publick worship which some if left free to joyn with all or any would utterly neglect so of all those private duties required of fellow members which cannot well be performed as was said by persons not conbined But the circumstances of those societies how many how great what persons shall associate is left to humane prudence with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture that all be done decently in order and to edification And that those that are so joyned are so confined that they cannot or may not worship God in the same Ordinances occasionally in other Churches let him that can shew the Institution for I know none yet this is the chief piece of Independency never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party Our Author grants that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases and remove at pleasure And the light of common prudence upon supposition that there must be such societies seems to to dictate that when all of a Nation are Christians there should be a distinction o Churches or as we call them Parishes made by the bounds of mens habitations so that the divisions be discreetly made that the Congregations be neither too big nor too litle and that the parties of each Society may dwell so near together that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in publick decently and in order to edification and also those mutual private duties of brotherly inspection Admonition c. required by Christ Matth. 18.15 1 Thessal 5.14 c. § 7 And this he in a manner confesses That there is in the Institutions of Christ p. 209. much that answers a naturall principle in men who are fitted for society A confederation and consultation to carry on any design of common concernment c. I suppose he may intend this of Synods carryed on by Delegates from several Churches which is sutable to that prudence we see in States assembling in Parliament c. But I shall improve this further As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves in Towns and Cities for their better security and mutual assistance and comfort So the same prudence taught the Ancients to distinguish Cities into Parishes for their better Assembling some else would be of no Church as pretending to be of all or any as we see at this day for carrying on the services of God in a better and more profitable Order and for those private duties afore spoken of Nor does any man rationally hence conclude That there is no more but this in this Church constitution that men may be cast into any prudential form c. For the way of worship is peculiarly instituted but the way of constituting particular Churches for persons for number c. needs no institution but is left to the prudence of men or Churches as afore § 8 Whether by any promise of Christ there shall be alwaies somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances p. 211. he told us above was a needless enquiry p. 85. yet both there and here enclines to the Negative that all such Church state may cease for some time and hereafter talks of an intercision of all Ordinances so far as to make a nullitie in them as to what was of simple and pure institution p. 271 In this pâ—ace he glosses some Scriptures alledged of others as meant of the Catholick visible Church to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ in true believers Luke 1.33 Math. 16.18 Of the sense of which place I shall not now contest with him For the thing it self something shall be said in answering those questions which here he propounds 1. It is said true Churches were at first planted in England how then did they cease to be How or by what Act did God unchurch them They did it themselves meritoriously by Apostacy and Idolatry God legally by his Institution of a Law of rejection of such Churches But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostacy will merit an actual unchurching not only the Israelites but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched And if Apostacy in a great measure will unchurch a people England hath of late years Apostatiz'd sufficiently from our Ancient truths 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law to reject a Church presently so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical Rome had not then been standing at this day 3. It is a question whether God ever absolutely unchurches a people till he utterly destroys them as he did the Israelites of old and the whole Jewish Church after Christs death and the seven famous Churches of Asia since 4. As also it would be resolved when God did unchurch England which he insinuates as granted Whether whilst it was Popish Antichristian or since the Reformation 5. Let him resolve us whether our first Reformers did intend or undertake to raise up a new Church or to repair the old corrupted state thereof as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity did not build a new Temple but repair and purge the old 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. Q. Eliz. days there were not true Churches planted in England then how they came to cease to be seeing they were rather perfected since than corrupted 7. Lastly Whether our Reverend Author do not in his conscience think There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers the Anâ—baptists their elder Brothers and themselves arose and gathered new Churches not out of true Churches but out of Babylon as their Predecessors used to speak which he yet seems to insinuate when he saies The Catholick mystical p. 212. and that visibly professing being preserved entire he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them to joyn in such a Society as those spoken of according to the Institution of Christ is a person delighting in needless scruples As if he should say There was no Church of Christs Institution in England till they or their Predecessors arose and gathered such Societies and when all Church State was here lost
they had the happynesse and honour to revive it Macte virtute § 9 2. Those last words of his were the answer to his 2d question How then is it possible that any such Church should be raised anew To which he gives that answer I say the Catholick Church mystical c. And to make it good he proceeds further to say Christ hath promised That where two or three are gathered together in his name he will be in the midst of them But I pray to whom was this promise made was it not to his Officers the Apostles in their consultations or Church-determinations Or grant it made to Believers is it not as true of them that are out of his Church-fellowship When two or three Christians accidentally meet together and pray c. Is not Christ also in the midst of them Yea grant him his own sense what then It is now supposed with some hope to have it granted that the Scripture being the power of God to salvation hath a sufficient efficacy in it self for the conversion of Souls All this is granted what God may do by his extraordinary power we determine not but this is ordinarily done by preaching and those Preachers in Office Rom. 10.14 But go on It is not impossible that though all Church state should cease in any place and yet the Scripture by the providence of God be there in the hand of individuals two or three should be called converted and regenerated by it This also may be supposed though I believe he cannot exemplifie such a case The question only would be if some Heathens should find the Scriptures how they should understand either the Original Languages without a Teacher or a miracle or the sense of them without a guide as the Eunuch said to Philip But suppose all they are converted by the Scriptures alone What then p. 213. He asks whether these converted persons may not possibly come together in the name of Jesus No doubt they may if they were 20. or 40. of them But can their assembling together make them a Church How can that be before they are baptized See Confess of 7. Anabap. Churches Art 34. A Church is a company of baptized persons and how baptized without a Minister Shall they be Se-baptists or baptize one another I suppose our Author is not yet come to this But he says May they not upon his command and in expectation of his promise so come together with resolution to do his will and exhort one another thereto Truly to use his own words I believe they may in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen Where then lyes the difficulty In this whether being come together in the name of Christ they may do what he hath commanded them or no whether they may exhort and stir up one another to do the will of Christ No there is no difficulty but duty in all this But here lies the difficulty which his new notion or his haste made him forget How these persons can come to be a Church before they are baptized and how they can be baptized without a Minister Were not men prejudiced or prepossessed with some Anabaptistical fancy So were the Indians Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 15. 16. converted by lay-men as called here would be the difficulty of the business The Iberians if stories say true were converted by a Christian woman and by a miracle but surely she could not baptize them therefore they sent for some Ministers to baptize and to put them into Church Order § 10 It was the Soul-sick fancy of our late Seekers that had lost all Religion that all true Church state was lost in all the world as well as in England and our Author thinks little less till the form of his own Churches was found and therefore they expected some extraordinary Officers to raise it up from the dead which was to looke for a miracle And in the case propounded of two or three converted by the Scripture alone in a remote corner of the world I would gladly know how a Church can be begun without a miracle For though a company of baptized persons might in an extraordinary case chuse themselves Officers prima vice and so make a Church yet unbaptized persons converted cannot make a Church till they be baptized and who shall baptize them without a miracle unless providence send them a Minister to do it For true Believers or Professors of the faith quà such cannot make a particular Church their own first principle of a particular Church must be baptized persons and how they can come to be such without a Minister without a miracle I cannot yet see This is the bottome of the Seekers now turn'd into Quakers All Church state it lost and no recovery of it without new Revelation and so they fancy the Spirit to be given to them to begin a new Church And in our brethrens new Church way had their people renounced their baptism as Anabaptists have done as they themselves have renounced their Ministry I would be informed whether they could ever have made a Church of unbaptized persons without a Minister without a miracle and then whether they must not turn either Anabaptists or Quakers See Confess of 7. Churches Art 41. The person dispencing Baptism is a disciple not tyed to a Church Officer either making Baptism administrable by any brother that hath the boldness to take it up or expect new Revelations of the indwelling Spirit and so become extraordinary Officers This and more that might be said imports for ought I see that there shall never cease to be a Church or Churches wherein some instituted Ordinances shall be preserved though covered over with much corruption those particularly of the Ministry and Baptism or else the Church-state being once lost and perished can never be restored without a miracle When Judah was carryed away captive to Babylon with all her Priests and Levites and all the materialls of their National Church-state the Temple destroyed c. It may seem that their whole Church-state was ceased as to their Ceremonial worship for 70 years together It might be asked How then it was possible to revive that lost Church-state without a miracle The answer may be That God preserved the seed of that Church at Babylon partly in preserving the people there a remnant of his circumcised people partly in reserving the holy vessels useful for their worship and partly in keeping the Line and Genealogy of the priesthood entire so that when all these were brought back to Jerusalem they had no need of a miracle to revive their Church-state or to build a new Temple but only to purge and repair the old and to set up the instituted services in their power and purity The application is so easy that the Reader will outrun me So when Antichrist had usurped tyrannically like another Nebuchadnezer over all Churches ruind particular Churches corrupted the Ordinances of Christ World worship
of members together for observance of the Ordinances and to exercise mutuall duties of love to one another as hath been said But as I said above these are not three Churches differing specifically but a notionall distinction of that one Church or the members of it as they may be considered 1. As true believers 2. As professors of the same Faith 3. As partakers of the same worship Now its evident that one and the same person may be all these an invisible believer a visible professor and a fellow worshipper As we use to say in Philosophy there is a threefold life vegetative sensitive and rationall which may be all three in one man yet but one man or creature So then the forme of a particular Church if it have any is rather communion in the same numericall worship than joynt consent to communicate in that worship That consent Dr. Ames makes not the forme of a particular Church but the bond to tye the members faster together to their publick and private duties among themselves For as a man may be a believer or a professor and yet not have opportunity to communicate in the same worship as he said above â—o all and eâ—ery member of a Church every Christian is bound to beleive to professe that faith and to joyne in the performance of the same numericall worship when and where onely he hath opportunity Which he granted above p. 205. § 12 But I desire to know what he means by that joynt consent of all the members of a particular Church I suppoâ—e he intends it as his predecessors did of an explâ—cite covenant entered by every partie that joynes in that societie gathered or to be gathered This is their dayly practise But then I desire an instance of any Church in Scripture or story so consenting so coâ—enanting as before And withall I would aske whether none be members of his Congregation but onely such as give this explicate consent If he say Not any but such I aske whether the Children of such Chuch-members born and bred up in that Church be not to be accounted members If he say they are confaedâ—rate in their parents I regest that 's but an Implicite consent but he required an explicite one And then I would tell him that the brethren of New England grant that an Implicite consent or covenant is sufficient to make our Churches true Churches and yet oâ—r brethren here separate from us as no Churches 2. I wouâ—d gladly be informed where the Scripture speaks of any other consent or Covenant to Church-membership than that of Christianitie wherein they engaged at baptism to serve God according to his will and word and to walke up to all duties of all Relations one towards another 3. I would yet be satisfyed whether this explicite consent be exclusive that none may partake of those Ordinances common to all Christians in their societies but such as enter this consent Their practiâ—e here and in New England is or hath been that none can have Communion with them in Church Ordinances but onely such as are confdoecrate 1. They will not baptize the child of the most godly parent nor admit to the Supper the best knowing and pious perâ—on not matriculated into their Church If they have relinquish'd this practise it s well but if they have they destroy their own principles and prove themselves the more injurious to our Churches in separating from them 5. And as for those offices of Love spoken of I aske once more are they also exclusive to be tendered to none but their own combined members It should seeme so because they are here limited to the members of this particular Church in their respective places and stations And their practise hath been answerable As they account none to be within but such so some have said They had no more to do with a Christian not of their own way than with an Heathen How truely is Schism attended with breach of Charitie § 13 But yet behold his liberalitie I shall further grant that over and above the unâ—on p. 216. that is between the members of severall particular Churches by virtue of their interest in the Church Catholick which draws after it a necessitie of the occasionall exercise of love one towards another and that Communion they have as members of the Catholicke visible Church c There is aâ—â—â—mmunion also to be observed between those Churches as such which is or may be exerted in their Assemblyes by their Delegates c What doth he meane That the members of each particular Church among themselves have communion but not with the members of another particular Church That was their practise somewhere Or that the members of severall particular Churches have union and communion in the worship of God in the same Church This was not their practise once though they were Churches of the same constitution with their own A member of one Church might not receive the Supper in another Nor one Minister administer baptism or the Supper in another's Church preach they might as gifted brethren which they allowed them to do to Heathens What union or communion was here of severall Churches And for those Offices of love he speaks of they were onely occasionally which they owe and tender to an Heathen which not onely their interest in the Catholicke Church but even the Law of Humanitie drawes after it an occasionall exercise of duties of Love as the Samaritane once expressed In a word this Communion of members of severall Churches is nothing but what is due to and from the members of the Catholick visible Church that never were joyned in communion with any particular Church Lastly as for that communion between Churches as such in their Assemblyes by Delegates it is not a commâ—n â—n in his esteeme by an institution of Christ but a matter of prudence onely which he so much decryed before p. 210. § 14 And now we are coming to consider how he can wash his hands from the guilt of Schism in making dâ—fferences first and then separating from our Churches To this end he layes down some Postulata which he takes as granted because before debated which are all disproved and need not here to be done againe Yet we shall briefly take notice of them and give them a further answer p. 217. 1. That the departing of any man or men from any particular Church as to that communion peculiar to such a Church is no where called Schism nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe c. This is not the question as was said above A simple secession of a man or men upon some juâ—t occasion is not called Schism But to make causelesse differences in a Church and then separating from it as no Church denying communion with it hath the nature and name of Schism in all mens judgments but his own Yea according to his own principles to rase differences in a Church is propery Schism to persist in
discourse of mine and some former have given him just occasion to produce that we might be once blessed with the sight of that Model of their way so often desired so often promised and as often unfaithfully denyed We professe our selves utterly unsatisfied with what hath yet been vouchased us to see But he will tell us briefly what are the things of great and weightie importance which must come under debate before a clear account can be given of the case stated in the Objection Before we hear them I cannot but say they have dealt the more unbrotherly with us to say no more and all the Reformed Churches abroad in setting up their way of new Churches and never discover to us sufficiently the grounds of their so doing Let him look back to what he said p. 7 The parties litigant c. But we shall attend him for the particular Heads § 25 1. The true nature of an Instituted Church under the Gospel as to the matter form and all other necessary constitutive causes is to be investigated and found out To which I say 1. Are there any constitutive causes besides Matter Form This I thought had been fully done if not by all Reformed Churches yet by those of New England who have done what they could to clear up their way The constituting causes say they are matter and form the matter visible Saints the form an explicite Covenant of all the members But they have been told they have contradicted themselves by requiring an explicite consent and yet confessing an implicite to be sufficient and this to be in our Churches and yet separated from us 2. I had thought his definition of an instituted particular Church given us above had held out all the constituting causes of such a Church It is a society 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 individual Ordinances according to the order prescribed by Christ Such societies are ours in all the particular ingredients of this definition as was shewed above All that can be objected is but to the last particle according to the order by Christ prescribed which is the question between us must not be begged on either side but proved and it concerns him to shew the contrary What Ordinance do we want or what have we of humane addition And as for our joynt consent though we have it implicitely yet sufficiently it is not in his definition which yet is one of the constituting causes of their Churches If then the definition of such a Church be as applicabâ—â— to our Churches as to his own we are true-instituted Churches and whether they be Schismaticks in renouncing communion with us let the whole Christian Church be Iudge And I go on to the next § 26 2. The nature and form of such a Church is to be exemplyfied from the Scripture and the stories of the first Churches before sensibly infeâ—ted with the poyson of Apostacy which ensued This hath abundantly been done by the Assembly and other Divines though he is not pleased to take notice of it and we dare joyn issue with him in this debate when ever he will begin it 3. The extent of the Apostacy under Antichrist p. 271. as to the ruining of instituted Churches making them to be Babylon and their worship fornication is duly and carefully to be examined Here lyes our disorder hence our darknesse c. though we may arise we shall not easily shake our selves out of the dust I suppose he does not mean this last of his own Churches they are not only risen but have shaken off the very dust of that Apostacy I shall not contradict him for his own particular Church because I am a stranger to it but of some of the Churches of the same constitution I dare confidently affirm they are fallen again into the old Apostacy in matter of Doctrine and have more dust upon their garments than many of ours have But we shall be content to put our selves upon the search and if it may appear that yet we retain any thing of that Apostacy we shall promise faithfully to relinquish it But I am very jealous he expects a finer and a higher Reformation than we dare look for in in this world till Christ himself come to Reign visibly on earth as some do expect he will ere long viz by Revelation of the Spirit He speaks suspiciously this way p. 42. When the order spirituality beauty and glory of the Church of Christ shall return c. these disputes will have an issue And again p. 70. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity c. And once more p. 200. So soon as Christs Churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon with his glory shining on them c. § 27 4. By what way and means God begat a new and kept alive his elect p. 271. in their several generations when Antichristian darkness covered the earth supposing an intercision of instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them as to what was of simple institution c. he may do well to enquire and resolve us He cannot but know that there are many learned men that will not grant him his supposition of an intercision of all instituted Ordinances so far as to make a nullity in them And something hath been said to this above which he may do well to consider The sum is this That if there was an utter intercision and so a nullity of all instituted Ordinances it was impossible to fix the Tabernacle of God with men again without a miracle or some Divine Revelation As for the Bohemian brethren concluding the whole Papacy to be purely Antichristian it is not a singular conceit for all reformed Churches are of that opinion They distinguish the Papacy which is as a scab or Leprosie to the hand from the Church of Rome making the former purely Antichristian but not the latter But as perhaps erroneously for Luther and his associats did not so they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers by any in communion with them So they were perswaded of a necessity of continuing that Ordinance in a way of succession which whether our Author does let him declare when he takes into consideration the Bohemian cases They sent to the Greek and Armenian Churches to have Ordination from them therefore they did not believe there was an Iâ—â—â—ision of all instituted Ordinances and when they saw their way was perhaps as superstitious another way having no satisfaction there they took their eaâ—e to be extraordinary and so chose themselâ—es Elders and set them apart by fasting and prayer c. where note a double difference Their case was extraordinary there were no Ministers to ordain them but our brethren were ordained by lawful Ministers or might have found enough to do it if they had not been ordained but they renounced what they
signs and evidences required to assure the man himself and others of hiâ— in mediate extraordinary â—â—cation p. 34. These he makes to be a supernatural power either on discerning of things present as thoughts and words or things future as 1. Things contingent 2. Speaking with Tongues 3. Working of Miracles c. None of which being now to be found or expected â—rom our new Restorers or Reformers P. 41. f. who ever pretends unto it not warranted by an evidence of one of those three ways which God taketh in such proceedings is but a pretender an impostor and to be reiected of all Gods people who yet plead the Revelation of the Spirit and take themselves extraordinarily called by God to make new Churches upon the pretence of a collapsed and corrupted state of this our Church I say none of these being now to be found amongst them they prove themselves to be extraordinary impostors and those that indulge and countenance them are accessary to tâ—eir impostures And whether our Authour himâ—elf have not relinquished these former Orthodox principles The â—ow supposing an intercision of all Ordinances and all true Church-state lost as the seems to do in his Tract of Schism as was said above whether I say he must not maintain and expect a new immediate call from God to be necessary to the Restauration of a Church I leave to all to judge when they consider what is said above at Chap. 7. § 10. And I proceed to the next § 8 The 2d way of an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel is p. 37. by a concurrence of Scripture Rules drawn either from expresse precept or approved practise The precepts are such as these Luke 22.32 When converted strengthen thy brethren Jam. â— last If any erre from the truth c. Math. 5.15 a candle is not to be put under a bushel c. p. 38. Whence he infers 1. There is a general obligation on all Christians to promote the conversion and instruction of sinners c. 2. When any truth necessary is revealed to any out of the Word not before known he ought to have an uncontradicted liberty of declaring that truth c. 3. Truth revealed carries with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience that it ought to be published To the first of these it may be said This is not an immediate call which he required above but mediate by the word Nor yet an extraordinary call to some particular men but an ordinary obligation on all Christians Not only in extraordinary cases of a corrupted Church but ordinary in the best Church Nor lastly is this sufficient to make any man a Preacher but only an instructer of others common to all Christians men and women To the second it had need be cautioned well not only because it may either be no truth which he thinks so or no necessary truth and so not fit to disturb the peace of a Church for it but also because upon this pretence of truth every man must take uncontradicted liberty to speak in the Church which will breed confusion Himself therefore adds Provided that he use such waies for that his declaration as the Church wherein he liveth if a right Church doth allow But this in part contradicts his uncontradicted liberty for if it be a necessary truth no Church may hinder him But then the case is of a corrupted Church which will not allow but contradict that liberty and what shall he then do To the third I have only this to say That a strong errour carries oft with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience which is in a sort obligatory that it ought to be published to others And so errour must have as much liberty as truth However all these Rules bind in ordinary as well as extraordinary cases of a Church and give no authority to make a man a Preacher § 9 The examples are of our Saviour himself p. 39. who preached in the Synagogues without any outward call and of those Acts 8.1 who being scattered went every where preaching the word so did Paul and Apollos c. For our Saviour his call was immediate and extrraordinary So was Paul's and Apostle Apollos was at first no more a Preacher than Aquila and Priscilla who instructed him in the way as one Christian may do another As for those Acts 8.1 it s made more than probable by others that they were Elders of the Church and Preachers by Office If some were not they did no more than any Christian man or woman may do in such cases and yet never be Preachers And all this in a reformed Church-state ordinarily and so not to the purpose § 10 For he must remember that he was to shew what might make and justifie a lay man to be a Preacher of the Gospel in an extraordinary case without an ordinary outward call from the Church and required no more but Gifts and consent of people to be instructed by him as above Now these instances afore though they had Gifts sufficient preached the word when they had not the consent of people to hear or be instructed by them and so must every one that hath the truth revealed speak whether they will hear or forbear His main design is to discover what a man no Minister may do when a Church is collapsed or corrupted the ordinary Ministers either so ignorant they cannot or so negligent they will not teach the truth p. 15. And of such a state of a Church he here puts the case p. 39 c. Suppose a man living in the midst and height of Apostacy p. 40. when an universal darkness hath spread over the faâ—â— of the Church as in Italy there the â—cene is laid though pointing at England the Lord reveals some points of faith not known or disbelieved c. I demand whether that man without expecting any call from the fomenters of those errors may not preach and publish these truths to others c. Truly there is no difficulty in this case I conceive he may if he have so much confidence nay ought if when and where he can find some that will hear him But the question is Whether this ipso facto makes him a Preacher in Office A woman a Christian amongst Iberians may and did do as much as this yet I hope no Preacher of the Go pel in the strict senâ—â— yet had she Gifts to preach Christ and a people willing to be instructed by her And unless he take preachâ—ng in the larger â—ense he cannot coulâ— not then whatever now say No other outward call is requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him A Presbyterian as he was then cannot affirm this unlesse he can suppose a time and place where there is no ordination to be had and that but prima vice neither thus the Presbyterians hold Perhaps these principles of his then laid might mislead others and himself
spoken and like a true Presbyterian To cut themselves off from the communion of the Church which is separation is to rent the body of Christ and what is that but Schism which is so much declamed against in his book of Schism And what liberty his people take and he allows for separation from not ours but any Church is fully discoursed above To separate from the communion of the Church is also affirmed to be a breach of sacred charity which is often denyed in the latter book But yet more Presbyterian Doctrine Men ought not under a pretence of congregating themselves to serve God separate from their brethren neglecting the publick Assemblies as was the manner of some rebuked by the Apostle Heb. 10.5 There be peculiar blessings and transcendent priviledges annexed to publick Assemblies which accompany not private men to their recesses c. yet this is ordinaririly done by most of the Independent way and allowed yea justified now by himself That sense of the text Heb. 10.25 of neglecting the publick Assemblies as the manner of many is is now otherwise glossed and taken for Apostacy from the Faith Of Schism p. 74. And the event hath sadly proved that private recesses are not accompanyed with those peculiar blessings annexed to publick Assemblies witness those errors heresies blasphemies prophanesses which have followed private meetings § 45 Another caution and the third is As the Ministry p. 49. so also ought the Ministers to have that regard respect and obedience which is due to their labours in that sacred calling would we could not too frequently see more puffed up with a conceit of their own gifts into a contempt of the most learned and pious Pastors those are spots in your Feasts of charity c. This is so plain and evidently true as if he that writ it carried the sunne in his hand And he did in a manner prophesie when he said Let not them who despise a faithful Minister in publick flatter themselves with hope of a blessing on their endeavors in private Let them pretend what they will they have not an equal respect unto all Gods Ordinances No doubt he spake then of our Parochial Ministers and Ministry as an Ordinance of God whom now he unministers and despises both them and their Ordination as we have heard above Viderit ipse § 16 It might be objected against the peoples liberty of private Assemblies That this seems to favour licentious Conventicles which in all places the Laws have condemned and the Leâ—rned in all Ages have abhorred as Seminaries of Faction and Schism in the Church To this he answers liâ—e a true Presbyterian p. 51. Under correâ—tion I conceive that the Law layeth hold of none as peccant in such a kind but onely those who have predeclared themselves to be opposers of the worship of God in the publick Assemblies of that Church wherein they live Neither do I conceive that they ought at all to be alloâ—â—d the benefit of private meetings who wilfully abstain from the publick Congregations so long as the true worship of God is held forth in them Enough enough Now what a case are all the Conventicles of Sectaries in the very Seminaries of Schism Faction and besides a sinke of errours heresies blasphemies The only evasion will be one of these two 1. That he spake this under correction as not his peremptory judgement And its likely he hath come under correction of his party and done some kind of pennance for this declaration p. 16. p. 52. and it may be his Latine Discourse he tells us of twice at least as an answer to the Arguments of the Remonstrants and others for such a liberty of prophecyings as they term it hath suffered strangling upon his correction for I hear not that it is in the Land of the living yet born or put forth for if it were it would condemn his own â—aw allowance and toleration of such Conventicles That 's one Or 2. He must affirm That the true worship of God is not held forth in our Congregations which I hope he will not dare to do nor can be able to prove if he do affirm it What his performance in this kind is to plead for his separation we have seen above and to how little satisfaction § 17 There are two other Objections which he answers well as his then opinion was I shall dispatch them in a word 1. Men are apt to pride themselves in their Gifts and so t encroach on the Priests office and create themselves Pastors in seperate Congregations This we see done sufficiently now by others and himself What saies he to it Offences will come c. but God-fearing men will remember Korah p. 53. they that love their souls will not suffer themselves to be carryed away by self-conceit so far as to help to overthrow the very constitution of any Church by confusion or the flourishing of it by ignorance both which would certainly follow such courses This needs no comment nor confirmation only it will need a Reply from himself since he hath retracted this truth by him here delivered by a contrary practise The next Objection is no lesse true and really exemplified in the present Conventicles This may be a means for men to vent their own private fancies unto others to foment and cherish errours in one another to give false interpretations of the word there being no way to prevent it What saies he to this For interpreting the word I speak not but applying of it being rightly interpreted And for the rest would to God the complaints were not true of those things that have for divers years in this Church been done publickly c. But to prevent this the care rests on them whose sedulous endeavour should be to reprove and convince false Doctrine c. That is I suppose the Ministers This may do something in the publick but what 's this to men of private meetings separating from the Church They will not come to hear in publick and he does not intend that Ministers should attend those privatâ— meetings that were to turn them into publick as now they speak How then shall we prevent their boldness in interpreting Scripture or their ignorance and folly in misapplying it This answer is the most weak and defective and how he will give a better in his New way it rests upon him to consider and give at his own leasure FINIS ERRATA Page 1. l. 9. r. against l. last r. chargâ—â— p. 2. l. 2. dele the p. 4. l. 7. del they l. 22. for parly r. only p. 5. l. 5. r. advantage p. 25. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 30. l. 4. 1. Patriarchats l. 34. marg r. Jam. 2. p. 35. after the word place in l. 4. 〈◊〉 how can it rationally he thought or inferred that he dehorted theâ— from no kind or degree of Schism but such iâ— was at that time in the particular Church 〈◊〉 Corinth so that all this is nothing â—ut a begging of the question P. 39. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 â— 53. l. 11. after nature put in p. 58. l. 24. beforâ— dest put in p. 5â— l. 4. â— affirming p. 60. l. 〈◊〉 f. tot r. yet p. 65. l. 24. f. mind r. include p 66. l. 21. r. exhorting one p. 70. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72. marg r. p. 77. p. 85. l. 27. f. l. r. it p. 8â— l. 26. f. to r. so p. 94. l. 7. dele of p. 104. l. 2â— f. erre r. ere p. 110. l. 12. r. assert dele to â— 113. l. 27. r. concessis p. 114. l. 29. r. fundâ—mental p. 115. l. 22. f. it r. his p. 120. l. 1. after r. ask p. 133. l. 9. dele to p. 141. l. 1â— f. it r. is p. 143. l. 5 f. world r. word p 158. 5. af f. as properly r. improperly p. 159. l. af for his r. this p. 167. l. 12. dele them p. 16 l. 3. f. ye r. she p. 170. l. 3. af for r. freâ— p. 172. l. 11. r. Congregations p. 175. l. 3. r. Oâ—ficers p. 18. l. 16. f. firmer r. finer p. 185. last put in their p. 192. l. 14. after of â— in the.