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
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
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
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
in opinion onely or into Parties also one part separating from another And that the rather because the latter is the ordinary issue or consequence of the former See Act. 19.9 There was but one assembly at the first in the Synagogue But when divers spake evill of that way before the multitude Paul departed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated the Disciples c. § 3 It is true that in the Ecclesiasticall sense the word is not to be found used p. 25. but in 1 Cor. 1.10 11.18 c only in the case of differences amongst the Corinthians I heare that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among you which what they were will presently come to be considered when we have heard what he accounts in generall the constant use of the word To denote differences of mind and judgment with troubles ensuing thereon p. 25. amongst men met in some one Assembly about the the compassing of a common end and designe But that this is a forestalling of the Readers judgment by a meer begging of the question hath in part been proved even from the Scripture it selfe where it is used for separation into parties upon those differences of mind and judgment in the politicall use of the word and why it may not be so used in the Ecclesiasticall sense I see yet no reason especially when the proper use of it is to signifie a breach of union or a separation of a naturall body into severall parts two or more And I have cause to suspect that he sticks so hard upon this notion not so much to confute that charge of Schism upon us by the Romanists as to ward off the same charge upon himselfe and his partie as we shall shew hereafter But granting him this notion of Schisme for a while this is the way as on the one hand to free all Church separation from Schisme with respect to one another so on the other to make all particular Churches more or lesse Schismaticall For what one Congregation almost is there in the world where there are not differences of judgments whence ensue many troubles about the compassing of one common end and designe I doubt whether his own be free therefrom Yet he askes confidently below p. 63. Have we any differences and contentions in our Assemblies Doe we not worship God without disputes and divisions It s happie with them if it be so For let most of the Assemblyes of severall sorts and sects be visited and it will be visible enough that in their prophecyings as they call them there are differences of mind enow and troubles more than a good many with wranglings and janglings and sometimes railing and reviings good store that a man might upon this one principle of his besides other venture to call them Schismaticall Conventicles rather then Churches of Christ And why not as well as Paul charges that famous Church of Corinth with the crime of Schism for the same or like disorders p. 27. They had sayes our Authour differences amongst themselves about unnecessary things on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in their solemne Assemblyes probably much vain jangling alienation of affections exasperation of spirits with a neglect of due offices of love c. This was their Schism c. That the Apostle charges this upon them is true but was this all were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgement we shall consider that ere long For the present I say difference in judgment Separation may proceed from Schism p. 194. was the ready way to difference in and alienation of affections and that to exasperation of Spirits and that to neglect of due offices of love c and at last ere long to Separation of Societies And he sayes well The Apostle would have them joyned together p. 28. not only in the same Church-order and fellowship but also in onenesse of mind and judgment which if they were not Schisms would be amongst them and upon those separation into severall assemblyes as we see at this day to a lamentation Difference in some one point of doctrine worship or discipline hath broken the Church into many fractions almost as many as men But I shall observe his observations upon these Divisions amongst the Corinthians § 4 1. Observe sayes hee That the thing mentioned p. 29. is entirely in one Church no mention of one Church divided against another or separated from another or others the crime lyes wholy within one Church that met together for the worship of God c This it seemes is a matter of great concernment to be granted or denyed In so much that he professes p. 30. That unlesse men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendered he shall not hope to prevaile much in the processe of this discourse This then being the foundation of that great Fabrick of Schism as he calls it it had need bee bottomed better than upon his own bare Affirmation which is all we yet have for it without any proofe For this end I shall take his first observation into particular consideration 1. That the divisions mentioned were in one Church is ambiguously spoken for it may be taken either for the collection of severall Assemblyes in Corinth where there were multitudes of Christians which are sometimes called the Church yea a particular Church with respect to the Catholick or other National Churches So himselfe speaks of those Patriarchs so called how many or how few soever they were p. 121. they were particular Churches Or else that the Saints at Corinth were at this time but one particular congregation meeting all in one place In this latter sense its evident the Reverend Doctor takes it but in so doing he beggs the question and consents not with himselfe For he had said before they had disputings and sidings in their solemne Assemblyes p. 27. not one but many Assemblyes And the Divines of the Assembly have made it more than probable that the multitude of Christians of Corinth were too many to meet in one place and yet may be said to meet together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not jointly but severally in their particular places of meeting As the Congregations of London may be said to meet together on the Lords Day not conjunctim but divisim 2. That it was amongst the members of one particular Church is gratis dictum For that all the Christians in Corinth and about it were called one Church collectively is evident chap. 1. v. 2. To the Church of God at Corinth And that there were more particular Churches there or thereabouts than one is also evident both by Rom. 16.7 The Church at Cenchrea a particular Church distinct from that at Corinth and also by 1 Cor. 14.34 Let your women keep silence in the Churches one and yet many Churches at Corinth 3. This is also presumed but not proved That the crime of Schism was charged on them onely within
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
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
of our Divines as we shall shew hereafter our cause being defensible without this Plea But I am farre more unsatisfied that he undertakes the cauâ—e of the Donatists and labours to exempt them from Schism though he allows them guiltie of other Crimes and Miscarriages The grounds of this undertaking I suppose to be 1. His singular notion of Schism limiting it onely to differences in a particular Assembly 2. His jealousie of the charge of Schism to be objected to himselfe and partie if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truely called Schism For the ventilating whereof I suppose we may without flattery or falshood p. 163. grant him his request in respect to our selves not to Rome that is put the whole Protestant Church of God into that condition of Libertie and soundnesse of doctrine which it was in when that uprore was made by the Donatists Certainely most of the Protestant Churches our own among them have as much Libertie are as sound in doctrine and as if not more sincere and incorrupt in worship than those Churches from which the Donatists separated they being not onely troubled with Heresies as we all are but pestered with mulâ—itude of Ceremonies from which wee are freed And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism into consideration The objection raised by himselfe is this p. 162. Doth not Austine and the rest of his contemporaries charge the Donatists with Schism because they departed from the Catholicke Church and doth not the charge rise up wâ—th equall efficacie against you as them At least doth it not gâ—ve you the nature of Schism in another sense than is by you granted This objection concernes not us the generality of Protestants who grant that sense of Schism that it is a breach â—f union or a causelesse separation from the true Churches of Christ but it lyes in full force against him and his partie who â—ave broken the union of our Churches and separated themselvs from all the Protestant Churches in the world not of their own constitution and that as no true Churches of Christ for lack as they say of a right constâ—tution We know indeed where and by whom this Cloud is scattered without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause as formerâ—y stated even as himselfe hath stated it and produced the answers of our learned Divines p. 190. § 47. c which he highly approves p. 192. though he rest not in it but rather cleaves to his own way as we shalll see erre long p. 194. That his designe is to vindicate himselfe and his partie as well as the Donatists from charge of Schism is evident by what hâ— sayes I shall cleerly deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists whâ—ch will be comprehensive also of those other that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation It will therefore be necessary or very expedient to consider how neer their case comes to be parallell with that of the Donatists both for matter and manner of mannaging it and then how he will free them and himselfe from Schism For the first The Donatists having raised causlesse differences in the Church about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores which whether it were true or false was no just ground of casting him out of Communion § 17 made that the ground of their separation how ever they took in other things as is usual into their defence afterwards § 16. The principles they first fell upon were those two long since named 1. That they were the onely Church of Christ in a corner of Afrâ—ca 2. That none were truely baptâ—sed or entered members of the Church of Christ but by some of their partie That the Stage is changed from Africa into America is evident but that these were the principles of the Brownists and are now of all Independents for all Sects are Independents I need not exemplifie by drawing up the parallel he that runnes may read it in their books and practice I wonder not that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome for he hath done as much to England and all forraine Protestant Churches and makes none to be members of the Church but such as are by covenant and consent joyned to some of their Congregations § 3 Secondly for the manner of mannagement of their way the parallel runnes but too smooth and even 1. He sayes of the Donatists That upon supposition they had just cause to renounce the Communion of Cecilianus yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage p. 165. where were many Elders not obnoxious to that charge The parallel comes home to him thus Upon supposition or grant that the Church of England and himselfe had just cause to renounce the Pope and Church of Rome yet had he and his partie no ground to separate from the Church of England where there were many Elders and people not obnoxious to that charge of Apostacie upon the Church of Rome 2. Leaving the instance given to avoid prolixitie I shall onely apply what he sayes of the Donatists Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with our late Hierarchicall Church yet nothing but the height of pride madnesse and corrupt fleshly interest could make men declare hostilitie against all the Protestant Churches of Christ in the world which was to regulate all the Churches in the world by their own fancie and imagination 3. This line is also parallel Though men of such pride and folly might judge all the residue of Christians to be faultie and guiltie in not separating from our Churches yet to proceed to cast them out from the very name of Church members and so disannull their priviledgts and ordinances they had been partakers of as manifestly some doe by rebaptizing all that enter into their communion and others by denying both Sacraments to some baptism to Children of parents and Lords Supper to parents themselves not in their Church way is such unparallel'd pharisaism and tyrannie as is wholly to be condemned and intolerable 4. Once more and I have done the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation are too much parallel The divisions outrages and enthusiasticall furies in the Levellers and such like and riots in the Ranters and Quakers that have befallen some of them Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami Mr. Raie Gem. pleb or they fell into beginning at Independentism were and are in many pious and wisemens judgment tokens of the hand of God against them to wâ—tnesse that their undertaking and enterprize was utterly undue and unlawfull pag. 19. I wish they may patiently consider all this § 4 Thirdly we expected to heare how he would free them and himselfe so neere agreeing with them from the charge of Schism in their separation from the true Churches of Christ Hee cannot but acknowledg them to be faultie many wayes but not guiltie of Schâ—sm If he would acknowledge as much of his own way I should
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
and never scrupled it to be rebaptized why not Ordination also without a new Ordination They received not baptism from them as if instituted by Antichrist but as an Ordinance of Christ They baptized not as Antichristian not as Bishops or Romish Priests but as Presbyters in whose hands we say Ordination also is Onely since we have taken away those humane Additions which they had sinfully introduced into the Ordinances of Christ The Scriptures are not the Inheritance of Rome but Priviledges for all the people of God where ever they find them and therefore we deny we received them from Rome any more than the Jews received the Golden vessells from Babylon because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus It s false then that Ordination is pleaded from the Authority of the Church of Rome p. 199. as such Nor doth the granting true Ordination as also true baptism to the Church of Rome prove that it is a true Church This he sayes he understands not They who ordained had no power so to do but as they were officers of that Church as such they did it and if others had ordained who were not officers of that Church all will confesse that action to be null Do but change the scene to baptism and heare what he will say They who baptized had no power so to do but as officers of that Church as such they did it both which must be denyed See Apol. against Brown Sect. 27. or he must deny his baptism They did it as Officers not as Officers of that Church that Papall Antichristian Hierarchy And if others had baptised ordained who were not Officers of that Church or they as Officers but not as Officers of that Church which is as a scab upon the hand no rationall man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null This is no such dark passage that the Doctour cannot see one step before him unlesse his new light hath dazled his eyes that he cannot see Wood for Trees which before he fell into this way he saw so many learned and pious men walk in before him For our parts See p. 199 But they who will not be contented c. we professe that in his way of personall qualifications and acceptation of the people to make a man without Ordination a Minister the passages in Scripture or Church stories are so darke that wee cannot see one step before us But this hath sufficiently by others been discussed CHAP. VII Of the particular Church and its Union § 1 VVE are now come to the last Acception of a Church as it frequently signifies a particular Church p. 202. though all the places produced by the Doctor do not I think prove that sense But I shall not contend about it That the Church of Hierusalem was called one Church is true but that those many thousands could meet in one Congregation in one place is nothing probable it possible But take his definition of a particular instituted Church It is a Societie of men called by the word to the obedience of the Faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individuall Ordiances according to the order by Christ prescribed In this definition there are some things to be considered 1. The definition of a particular Church by him given will be applicable and is by himselfe or others of his side applyed to the three severall notions of a Church or the Church in those severall notions 1. To the Catholick invisible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World D. Ames The Church in generall is a societie of men called out of the world p. 64 s 2. by the Word to the obedience of the faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individuall Ordinances according to the order by Christ prescribed This is all of it true of the invisible Church they are called which will be the onely exception to the joynt performance of the worship of God in the same specificall and where its possible individuall Ordinances And all the members thereof ordinarily being of some particular Church it s both possible and necessary to joyne in that performance 2. The same may be said of the Catholick visible Church It is a Societie of men called out of the World by the Word c So himselfe describes it It is a collection of all that are duely called Christians in respect of their profession p. 113. and before that p. 112. All Professors of the Gospell throughout the World called to the knowledge of Christ by the Word do make up and constitute his visible Kingdome by their professed subjection to him which subjection hath reference to the commands of Christ to worship him in the same specificall Ordinances indefinitely and in the same Individualls where they are administred And the members of this Church living ordinarily in some particular Church its possible and necessary for them also to joyne in that performance And this is as much is the members of a particular Church are bound to no man being bound to what is to him impossible and it often happening by absence sicknesse or otherwise that it is not possible for them to joyne in that worship 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church we also grant as understood afore 4. But we shall adde by way of improvement that such societies are all our particular Congregations Societies of men called out of the world by the word c holding parallel in every particular with his definition and why we should not be esteemed and called Churches as well as theirs I am to learne the reason What exception may be made we shall heare an one § 2 2. The Order prescribed by Christ is not that all Christians must be of the same Individuall particular congregation but of this or that as is most convenient for them by their habitations Supposing severall meetings or Congregations in Jerusalem one of Paul another of Apollo c no man was obliged by any order from Christ to be of Pauls Congregation or of anothers so he joyned himselfe to one for the participation of the same Ordinances And when a Christian did joyne himselfe to this or that Congregation he did not explicitely enter into a Covenant Every belie is obliged to joyne himselfe to some one of those Churches that therein he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer p. 206. to live and dye in this Congregation but thought himselfe bound to be of one by the obligation of his membership in the Catholike Church with a libertie reserved to remove to another if he saw just reason as our Authour will confesse anone Whence it is evident that from the beginning of Christianity there was no such explicite covenanting or as some speake marrying of the Minister and people or of people one to another that they might not depart without leave but as they had
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
maintaining those differences is a worse Schism and then upon those dâ—fferences to depart and break the Church inâ—o pieces is Schism in the highest degree and admits of all his own aggravations given above and is an he nous sinne 2. One Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them p. 218. is no Schism properly so called Besides what hath been said above that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church which hath the nature of Schism I adde that theâ—e words are aequivocall for they holding all Churches to be Independent they must hold consequentially there is not necessarily any communion between thâ—m as Churches but as to particular members of the Catholike Church the refusing to hold communion with another Church can be no Schism because they owe no communion to one another at least of divine institution but of mere prudence as was newly said But seeing as I proved there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches not onely in profession of the same Faith but also in the same specificall and where it is possible numericall worship the refusing to hold this union and communion in doctrine or worship hath the nature and well deserves the name of Schism 3. If that departure of any man or men be done without strife variance judging and condemning of others it cannot be evill but from circumstances c This is as much as to say that departure which is not evill is not evill For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance strife and divisions before the parting and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day The very separation from a Church to set up another Church is a reall judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated Is it not the practise of all Separatists to judge and condemne all our Churches as Antichristian or none to asperse us as no Ministers but Priests c Is it not the designe of his book to prove if he could and condemne us as no Churches Let the world be judge for unlesse this be proved he can never justifie his separation either therefore he must prove us to be no Churches of Christs institution and that he owes us no communion nor hath broken any union of Christs appointment which he shall never be able to prove or else he had need put himselfe not upon the Justice but on the largest mercy of his Judges CHAP. VIII Independentism a great Schism § 1 In his vindicatâ—on of himselfe and partie from the charge of Schism by Episcopall men he first layes down their Indâ—cement to which how he hath answered and acquitted himselfe let them if they please consider I shall onely take notice by the way of some things tending to the issue of the debate between us and him and that very briefly He first consideâ—s in what sense the Church of England may be taken As 1. The people of God his elect c in this Nation may though improperly be called the Church of England But why not a properly as all true beleivers in the world may be and are by him called the Catholike Church The World and a Nation differ but as greater and lâ—sser as a part and the whole and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholike and so as properly called a Church In this sense sayes he it is the desire of our souls to be and abâ—de members of the Church of England to keep with it the unitie of the Spirit in the bond of peace But unlesse he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches I fear he will be found to break the Union that ought to be between them And indeed it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude they intend to have none but such of their Churches which is as much as they can to make the invisible Church to be visible on earth He speaks something suspitiously this way p. 90. The Elect and the Church are the same persons under several considerations and therefore even a particular Church on the account of its participation of the nature of the Catholick is called the elect 1 Pet. 5.13 And yet he speaks of some parts of the body uncomely p. 215. which who they be in his Church I know not They leave those to us to clouth and beautifie and then they may admit them into their elected Congregations But he says If we have grieved p. 223. offended troubled the least member of his Church so that he may justly take offence at any of our wayes we profess our readiness to lie at his foot for reconciliation c. This strengthens the suspicion of what I said For unless he take us all for Reprobates we have and do profess our selves and we think justly offended at their wayes and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction let the world judge The rest that follows is spoken with equal confidence and truth If we love not all the members of this Church rejoyce not with them c. but I forbear He deludes us when he saies if we do not these things Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismaticks that ever lived on the face of the earth For if we prove all or some of these to be false yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical whatever they may be else § 2 2. In this sense also we profess our selves members of the Church of England p. 224. as professing and adhering to the doctrine of Faith in the unity of it which was here established declared by Lawes Confessions Protestations c. Will he undertake this for all the Independent Churches in England Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the professed doctrine of this Church and so Heretical But were it true which he says for himself they may be excused from being Heretical but they may yet be Schismatical in denying communion in matter of worship For the worship of God was as well declared professed protested as the Doctrine They hold communion with us in profession of the same Faith but not in the observance of the same worship yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us as with them or let them prove our failings and we promise a Reformation In this sense they are neither children nor members of the Church of England And this is the wonder That professing they received their regeneration and new birth p. 225. by the preaching of the word and the saving truths thereof with the seal of it in their Baptism they should now separate from us not only in that Ordinance of the Lords Supper but also in the preaching of the Word and Baptism Could they make use of our preaching and Baptism for their regeneration and not of the other Sacrament and the same preaching for their
Antiochians appeale to the Church of Jerusalem in such a case which I say whether it were by an institution of Christ or an act of Christian prudence will serve our turne to justifie such Associations though we do not account them to be the forme or cause of the union of a Presbyterian Church but rather prudentiall meanes to preserve that union § 8 Upon that mistake of the forme of a nationall Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes he proceeds to premise some things which may take off the charge of Schism for their separating from our Churches as true as their own 1. No man can possibly be a member of a nationall Church in this sense pag. 251. but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation which concurres to make up the nationall Church But that not being our opinion the consequence sailes He granted as much as we plead p. 250. On the same account that all the professors of the truth throughout the world are the Catholick visible Church of Christ may all the professors of the truth in England be called the Church of England And it was his own assertion above to the contrary That a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church and yet no member of a particular Church And why then may not a man be a member of a Nationall Church and yet be no member of a particular Church I could exemplifie cases but I forbear Indeed as the state of the nation is at this day all generally being baptised except Anabaptists Children no man is a member of the nationall Church but he is also a member of some particular Church That Church being as he oft hath said the seat of Ordinances Hence 2. its evident that a man may recede from this nationall Church and not depatt from some particular Church because he may be a member of the nationall as well as of the Catholick Church and yet be no member of a particular Church c. on the other side a man may be a member of some particular Church and yet be no member of the nationall in the sense of it by him given as himselfe and others do too much evidence 3. He sayes To make men members of any particular Churches their own consent is required If he meane this of an explicite consent as I suppose he does or he sayes nothing it is fully disproved above and implicite confessed sufficient A man that removes his habitation as both he and we grant its free for him to do may by setting down in another Congregation and submitting himselfe to all the Ordinances of Christ there with performance of all Officers of Love to the members of that Congregation implicitely and yet sufficiently consent to be a member thereof And on the other hand a man may not remove his habitation from a Congregation wherein he hath long consented to communicate and yet remove his consent to be a member of another as we see too much in this loose and wandring age § 9 But fourthly he now speaks out That as yet p. 252. at least since possibly we could be concerned in it who are now alive no such Church in this nation hath been formed It is impossible a man should be guiltie of offending against that which is not unlesse they will say we have separated from what should be This Engine hath served him twice before First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists Theirs is no Church at all how could they separate from that which is not Then against the Prelat's Hierarchicall Church Their 's is no Church of Christs institution That which is wanting cannot be numbred p. 242. And now the third time against the same charge by the Presbyterians It is true indeed there hath no such nationall Church been uniformely formed in this nation but he knows such a Church hath been endevoured to be formed conformable to the Word of God and to the best reformed Churches abroad according to our solemne covenant and who have withstood resisted and hindered it and yet do hinder he knowes well enough But withall it cannot be denyed but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in England and perhaps some of their members if not of themselves have been of them from these they have separated as well as from the rest If there were not such here there are such abroad and yet they have renounced communion with them as no true Churches and that 's a negative separation Besides there was and is another Church state in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them pâ—pâ—bly separated The Presbyterian Church state as to particular Congregations in doctrine worship and discipline in them is the very same with theirs excepting that they hold their Congregations to be Independent and entire â—or all Government in themselves but wee acknowledg our selves dependent and would be gâ—ad we had other Churches to joyne with and yet they separate from and disaâ—ow them as well as others Lastly I believe those men that raise differences in a reforming Church and persist in keeping open those divisions separating also into other new Churches do as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one particular Church And unlesse they can better prove than yet they have done that we are no true Churches and their own to be the onely true Churches in the nation in the World the Schism will lye at their door in all aequall mens judgment remove it as they can § 10 p. 253. Let him read the next disputation of Amyraldus his definition of a Schismatick and his censure of those that separate will little please him Disput de ecclesiae membrie As for Amyraldus his judgement of the confoederation of Churches it is the same with ours or not to the purpose Our opinion is that as the consent of particular members explicite or implicite is not the forme of a particular Church So the consent of severall Churches to associate in a classis or Synod is not the forme of a nationall Church The explicite consent of members as they make use of it is but a prudentiall way to tye their members from running away from them and yet that will not do the deed so the explicite consent of severall Churches into Assemblyes is likewise a prudentiall way for the better Governing of those Churches and the easier determining of things of common concernment And as the one so the other is a result of the light of nature need no institution He may now perceive that he is mistaken in his thoughts of a mutuall acknowledgment of the things by him delivered hardly in one of them do we agree But we expected that he would now at last have laid down some principles peculiar to himselfe and those with whom he consents p. 254. in the way of the worship of God c for
pretending to Gifts and finding a people willing to be instructed by him or them to make a Schism in and separation from our Churches by gathering of a Church because of some corruptions in ours yea this is evidence that he now proceeds upon those principles that nothing is required to make a Minister but gifts and consent of people without any outward call of the Church which we shall presently hear he formerly required thereunto And this made him so careless in stating the case of our first Reformers Luther Calvin c. as to say With this I was alwaies so well satisfied p. 41. that I ever deemed all curious disquisition after the outward vocation of our first Reformers altogether needless But by his leave the caâ—e oâ— Luther was not as he saies exactly that which he laid down For he is speaking of a Lay-man by that way to be constituted a Preacher or Minister but Luther was a Minister ordained though with much corruption and so had an outward call by a Church to preach the Gospel in the truth and purity of it and I believe our Authour did then think him to be a Minister of Christ but his present principles deny it Luthers case in regard of the corrupted state of the Church and the zeal and spirit whereby he managed it was extraordinary but his call was ordinary as an ordained Minister 2. The people who fell off from Babylon with him were in Church-state though corrupted as baptized persons and had a command to come out of Babylon but the people that our Authour now gathers come rather out of Sicâ— have no call to separate from us but rather a command not to separate 3. Luther did not renounce his Ordination in the Church of Rome nor his people their Baptism nor did our Authour formerly think it requisite but now he hath renounced his Ordination and former Ministry and upon his principle of gifts and consent of the people made himself a Minister and it is expected that ere long his people if not himself will renounce their Baptism both of them standing or falling together And so I come to the last way § 11 The third and last way of an extraordiry call to preach the Gospel without an ordinary vocation is by some act of providence The instance is Ibid. of a Christian man cast by shipwrack or otherwise amongst barbarous people who receive him humanely may he not ought he not to preach the Gospel unto them and if he convert souls may he not become a Pastour to those converted none I hope makes doubt of it But suppose a Christian woman should be cast upon the same place as once among the Iberians ought she not by his former principles to preach the Gospel to them no doubt she ought But if she convert souls there may she become for a Pastor to them none I hope will say so 2. But we have put him a case else-where of his own making Suppose a Barbarian should find the Scripture and be converted by it alone he being converted converts others I ask now may he become a Pastor to those converts I hope he will not say he may till he be baptized nor can they make a Church till they be baptized but who shall baptize either him or them having no Minister there This while a Presbyterian he would not have granted nor may now by his Independent principles deny till he is turned Anabaptist 3. We read of men in the primitive times as well as that woman who being no Ministers converted the Indians and Moors Socrat. hist l. 1. c. 15. 16. but they neither durst be their Pastors not baptize them till they were ordained in the Christian Church and sent to do it If consent of people and gifts would have constituted them Ministers they needed not to have come home so many hundred miles to fetch their Ordination See but the difference between himself a Presbyterian and now an Independent but enough of that § 12 And that our Author was a Presbyterian formerly and that upon good deliberation and strong resolution so to continue we have his own acknowledgment when thus he writes p. 42. The principles and rules of that Church Government from which in the following assertions I desire not to wander is of that to which I do and allwaies in my poor judgement have adhered since by Gods assistance I had engaged my self to the study of his word which is commonly called Presbyterial or Synodical in opposition to Prelatical or Diocesan on the one side and that which is commonly called independent or Congregational on the other Quantum mutatus ab illo in his Tract of Schism § 13 And this he discovered in the requisite which Presbyterian Government holds forth in ordinary cases to constitute a Minister for thus he â—â—ies For a publick formal p. 46. ministerial teaching two thâ—ngs are required in the Teacher 1. Gifts from God 2. Authority from the Church Whence I wouâ—d inâ—erâ— 1. Tâ—at consent oâ— election of the people is not sufficient to make a man a Minister though well gifted but an Authoritative act of the Church is to passe upon him that is Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery according to his then principles 2. That he is much changed from what he was in the Tract of Schism where he requires no more to constitute a Minister than Gifts of teaching and the peoples submiting to him If any shall say The Dr. by Authority of the Church meant no more but the election or Consent of the people of a Congregation I would answer for him I do not believe that at that time he would or did aequivocate with the world but took it in the Presbyterian sense though now he cries down Ordination by Bishop or Presbytery and hath renounced his own ordination And is not this a great alteration and a sign of much inconstancy § 14 Having said very much in pleading the Liberty of private Christians lest they should surfet of it and presume too far pag. 48. he gives some wholsome Presbyterian Cautions to bound them First The end why God bestoweth his gifts on any is meerly that within the bounds of their own callings in which they are circumscribed 1 Cor. 7.24 they should use them to his glory and the edification of his Church This was then his judgment but now he can allow men of any calling if gifted to violate those bounds set by God himself and to be Preachers of the Gospel in ordinary cases which some of the prime brethren of New England do reject reprobate Secondly He required That they do not under pretence of Christian liberty freedom of conscience cast away all brotherly amity and cut themselves off from the communion of the Church Christ hath not purchased a liberty for any to rent his Body they will prove at length to be no duties of piety which break the sacred bonds of charity Divinely