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
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
one parties keeping its station and the other coming over wholly unto them The one partie are got so high that they will not come down to the other the other are so strongly convinced of the errour of their Independent way thâ—t they may not cannot come up to them In what a sad condâ—tâ—on is poor England the while like to be torne in pieces by her own Children § 17 I shall adde something of the next Section whereupon having a mutuall diffidence in each other they grow weary of all endeavours to be carryed on joyntly in this kind And this is like to be the state of things untill another Spirit be powred out on the professours of Christianitie than that wherewith at present they seeme mostly to be acted Now the God of grace and peace powre out that other good Spirit upon this Church and Nation before they be utterly destroyed § 18 But is there no Balme in Gilead no hopefull way of Reconciliation Yes he tells us The only way remaining to be fixed on whilst our divisions continue is to enquire wherein the guilt of them doth consist and who is justly charged therewith in speciall what is and who is guiltie of the sinne of Schism And this will we also do if God permit § 19 Much hath been written upon this subject of Schisme by very learned men who rather as he sayes endeavoured to convince their Adversaries the Romanists of the insufficiencie of their charge of the Church of England to be Schismaticks in separating from them than rightly and cleerly to state the thing or matter contended about which latter seems to me very strange For how could they remove the charge of Schism and not sufficiently declare what Schism is wherein they and their Adversaries agreed But our Reverend Doctor had a double designe in this undertaking 1. To shew us a new way of his own to dispell that charge by giving us a new Definition of Schism not known or made use of in former times 2. Thereby to remove the charge of Schism from himself and his partie for so he sayes here and hereafter The present concernment of some fearing God lying beyond what other men have undertaken somthing may be farther added as to the satisfaction of the consciences of men unjustly accused of this crime which is my aime What satisfaction he can give us and the world in this undertaking we shall by his good leave take notice of Only premising this that I intend not to deale with whole Chapter and Section as hitherto I have done consenting with him in his Removall of that part of the charge of Schism which is common to him with us and onely observe how he will free himselfe from that part of it which concerns himself and his partie CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Schism in Scripture § 1 THis reverend and learned Authour as appeares from his pag. 16. Sect. 16. of the first Chapter undertakes to answer a Popish charge of Schism upon the Church of England directed to both the Vniversities And in his vindication of our Church as was expected carries on the debate so farre as not only to vindicate himselfe and his partie from the like charge by some at home but also as many wise men think to unchurch his mother the Church of England and to find or leave no Churches here but his own as the Donatists of old did That this is the result of his discourse if not the designe will appeare before we have done But we shall attend at present to the method of his proceeding who thus begins The thing whereof we treat being a disorder in the instituted worship of God P. 21. I suppose it a modest request to desire that we may abide solely to that discoverie and description which is made of it in Scripture that that alone shall be esteemed Schism which is there so called or hath the entire nature of that which is there so called It is they say an ill signe or omen to stumble at the threshold in going out The first part of these words is very ambiguous and may have a double sense either that Schism is to be found in matter of instituted worship only or only in the dâ—fferences made in the time of celebrating instituted worship and neither of these is true or yet proved and so a meer begging of the question Yet both of these are asserted by him hereafter the first Sect 23. the latter Sect. 9. of which more when we come at them In the meane time we assert the contrary That as there may be Schism in the Church about other matters besides instituted worship so there may also be Schism in other places and times than those of celebrating worship For the second part of the words which is a Request it shall by me be readily granted That we abide solely to that discovery and description which is made of it in scripture that that alone be esteemed Schism which is there so called or which hath the entire nature of that which is there so called That is that only shall be esteemed Schism which is either expresly in Scripture so called or in aequivalent words or may be deduced thence by regular and rational consequence as he said above chap. 1. § 3 p. 23. § 2 What the Scripture use and notion of the word is is then first to be enquired It is taken there either in the prime and proper sense with respect to bodyes naturall for a seperation into parts or as he expresses it p. 24. an interruption of continuitie by an external power a division of parts before continued the places are cited by himselfe Math. 9.16 Math 27.51 the vaile of the Temple was rent from the top to the bottome into 2 parts Or in the metaphoricall sense from bodyes naturall to bodyes civill or ecclesiasticall In a civill body Joh. 7.43 There was a Schisme or division among the people So Act. 14.4 the multitude of the cittie was divided that was not only in their opinions and judgments but also into parts or parties for so it s added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some were with the Jewes and some with the Apostles So Act 23.7 the multitude was divided some following one some another of their leaders in that dissension which is the reverend Doctors own glosse Thus also it is expressed in his Testimonie in the margine The Inhabitants of Rome p. 24. were parted into two parts and no more agreed among themselves and there was a great Schism They were divided not only in their judgments but in their societies also into two parties This then being the notion and nature of it in the naturall and politicall sense it might easily slip into the like in its Ecclesiasticall use to signifie not only a difference in Judgment but a separation into parties also As the Assembly may be Civill or Ecclesiasticall so there may be a twofold Schism in each differing only gradually either a divâ—sion
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
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
they had the happynesse and honour to revive it Macte virtute § 9 2. Those last words of his were the answer to his 2d question How then is it possible that any such Church should be raised anew To which he gives that answer I say the Catholick Church mystical c. And to make it good he proceeds further to say Christ hath promised That where two or three are gathered together in his name he will be in the midst of them But I pray to whom was this promise made was it not to his Officers the Apostles in their consultations or Church-determinations Or grant it made to Believers is it not as true of them that are out of his Church-fellowship When two or three Christians accidentally meet together and pray c. Is not Christ also in the midst of them Yea grant him his own sense what then It is now supposed with some hope to have it granted that the Scripture being the power of God to salvation hath a sufficient efficacy in it self for the conversion of Souls All this is granted what God may do by his extraordinary power we determine not but this is ordinarily done by preaching and those Preachers in Office Rom. 10.14 But go on It is not impossible that though all Church state should cease in any place and yet the Scripture by the providence of God be there in the hand of individuals two or three should be called converted and regenerated by it This also may be supposed though I believe he cannot exemplifie such a case The question only would be if some Heathens should find the Scriptures how they should understand either the Original Languages without a Teacher or a miracle or the sense of them without a guide as the Eunuch said to Philip But suppose all they are converted by the Scriptures alone What then p. 213. He asks whether these converted persons may not possibly come together in the name of Jesus No doubt they may if they were 20. or 40. of them But can their assembling together make them a Church How can that be before they are baptized See Confess of 7. Anabap. Churches Art 34. A Church is a company of baptized persons and how baptized without a Minister Shall they be Se-baptists or baptize one another I suppose our Author is not yet come to this But he says May they not upon his command and in expectation of his promise so come together with resolution to do his will and exhort one another thereto Truly to use his own words I believe they may in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen Where then lyes the difficulty In this whether being come together in the name of Christ they may do what he hath commanded them or no whether they may exhort and stir up one another to do the will of Christ No there is no difficulty but duty in all this But here lies the difficulty which his new notion or his haste made him forget How these persons can come to be a Church before they are baptized and how they can be baptized without a Minister Were not men prejudiced or prepossessed with some Anabaptistical fancy So were the Indians Socrat. Hist l. 1. c. 15. 16. converted by lay-men as called here would be the difficulty of the business The Iberians if stories say true were converted by a Christian woman and by a miracle but surely she could not baptize them therefore they sent for some Ministers to baptize and to put them into Church Order § 10 It was the Soul-sick fancy of our late Seekers that had lost all Religion that all true Church state was lost in all the world as well as in England and our Author thinks little less till the form of his own Churches was found and therefore they expected some extraordinary Officers to raise it up from the dead which was to looke for a miracle And in the case propounded of two or three converted by the Scripture alone in a remote corner of the world I would gladly know how a Church can be begun without a miracle For though a company of baptized persons might in an extraordinary case chuse themselves Officers prima vice and so make a Church yet unbaptized persons converted cannot make a Church till they be baptized and who shall baptize them without a miracle unless providence send them a Minister to do it For true Believers or Professors of the faith quà such cannot make a particular Church their own first principle of a particular Church must be baptized persons and how they can come to be such without a Minister without a miracle I cannot yet see This is the bottome of the Seekers now turn'd into Quakers All Church state it lost and no recovery of it without new Revelation and so they fancy the Spirit to be given to them to begin a new Church And in our brethrens new Church way had their people renounced their baptism as Anabaptists have done as they themselves have renounced their Ministry I would be informed whether they could ever have made a Church of unbaptized persons without a Minister without a miracle and then whether they must not turn either Anabaptists or Quakers See Confess of 7. Churches Art 41. The person dispencing Baptism is a disciple not tyed to a Church Officer either making Baptism administrable by any brother that hath the boldness to take it up or expect new Revelations of the indwelling Spirit and so become extraordinary Officers This and more that might be said imports for ought I see that there shall never cease to be a Church or Churches wherein some instituted Ordinances shall be preserved though covered over with much corruption those particularly of the Ministry and Baptism or else the church-Church-state being once lost and perished can never be restored without a miracle When Judah was carryed away captive to Babylon with all her Priests and Levites and all the materialls of their National Church-state the Temple destroyed c. It may seem that their whole Church-state was ceased as to their Ceremonial worship for 70 years together It might be asked How then it was possible to revive that lost Church-state without a miracle The answer may be That God preserved the seed of that Church at Babylon partly in preserving the people there a remnant of his circumcised people partly in reserving the holy vessels useful for their worship and partly in keeping the Line and Genealogy of the priesthood entire so that when all these were brought back to Jerusalem they had no need of a miracle to revive their Church-state or to build a new Temple but only to purge and repair the old and to set up the instituted services in their power and purity The application is so easy that the Reader will outrun me So when Antichrist had usurped tyrannically like another Nebuchadnezer over all Churches ruind particular Churches corrupted the Ordinances of Christ World worship
confirmation and besides now renounce us as no true Churches This we think is Brownistical and highly Schismatical The Anabaptists deal more rationally to their own principles in denying our Ministry and Baptism and all church-Church-state than they do The old Rule was The sincere preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments are the Characters of a true Church Which we having and they separating from us in all Church-Communion how shall this crime be named but by Schism in the highest degree § 3 But as they have left us so some of their Independent Churches p. 226. have left them viz. Those who have renounced the baptism they received in their infancy and repeat it amongst themselves And have they not done this upon their own principle That all true church-Church-state is lost in England And if so then no true Ministry no Baptism no Church and then it must be revived by a new-baptism the door of a true Church It was told the Brownists long ago either they must come back to us or go forward to Anabaptism and so must the Independents if their principles and conclusions be consonant to one another yea many are fallen from them to Anabaptsem and I believe nothing but the odium or some private interest keeps many more from following after them But what thinks he of Anabaptists are they Schismaticks or no for their separation Hear his Apology for them yet I suppose that he who upon that single account will undertake to prove them Schismatical may find himself entangled To raise up differences causelesse differences unlesse Paedobaptism be a trivial thing and upon that to separate not only from the judgement and practise of all the Christian Churches in the world at present but from the judgment and practise also of all the primitive and succeeding Churches in all ages and all places if this be not Schismatical I know nothing that deserves that name Sure the Donatists were generally accounted Schismaticks for rebaptizing those that came to them from other Churches but sayes he The case is not exactly with the Anabaptists as it was with the Donatists Exactly the same True for they lived in Africk these in Europe But they do the same thing rebaptize the same that were baptized by us That is granted but not on the same principle yes upon the very same principle though they added another which the Donatists knew not As how p. 226. The Donatists rebaptized those who came to their societies because they believed that all administration of Ordinances not in their Assemblies was null and to be looked on as no such thing And do not Anabaptists think so and say so of all the Ordinances administred in our Church yea of Baptism given to Infants in the Independent Churches Do they not or would they not rebaptize any that comes from them to their Societies because they think their Baptism null if not their other Ordinances But he hath an help for this Our Anabaptists yes your Anabaptists do the same thing but on this plea that though Baptism be yet Infant Baptism is not an Institution of Christ and so is null from the nature of the thing it self not the way of administration of it Yes both ways they hold it null and so much worse and more Schismatical than the Donatists They rebaptized only as some think those that were baptized by Cecilianus or some of his Ordination but did not so with others nor did they think Baptism in infancy to be null in the nature of the thing But Anabaptists rebaptize all come they from what Church they will and are not these the worser Donatists But let him take heed lest in defending a bad cause he make himself guilty of the sin Does not he himself labour in this book to prove that the Administration of Ordinances in our Assemblies are null Our Ordination null p. 197. and Antichristian from the Beast And charging them that insist upon it as keeping up what God would have pullâ—d down p. 198. and consequently the Ordinances by us administred are null And why then is not he rebaptized Yea our Churches are esteemed not of Christs institution because not lawfully gathered See page 206. §. 10. and are not these worse than Donatists But he saies This falls not within the verge of my defence Yet he could not but speak a good word for them They must not be Schismaticks lest he be proved so too They are but one step before him it may be his own case ere long And I durst almost be his prophet to foretell what he and others will do If they stick close to and mannage that principle well That all true Church-state was lost in England they must not stay where they are but go forward either to Anabaptism and be rebaptized or to Quakerism as some already are and deny all use of outward baptism § 4 But hear his conclusion In these several considerations p. 226. we were and do continue members in the Church of God in England and as to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin How warily first Members in the Church of England not of it not of any particular Church of England but as of a Church new revived and gathered in England But I ask were they not members of some particular Church of England when they were baptized yea for all Ordinances till of late and some of them Ministers besides And have they not renounced Ministry and Lords Supper and all but Baptism Let them speak plainly Were they baptized as members of any Church or no if of any of what if of none how at all unless they hold Baptism no Church Ordinance And by whom by a Minister as such to them or is not Baptism a ministerial act If they may receive Baptism without Church-communion if we be no Churches why not also the Lords supper If Communion with the Church Catholick may serve for one Ordinance why not for another Or if they may receive Baptism validly in our Churches why not other Ordinances These questions would be seriously and conscientiously answered But how confidently he shuts up As to our failing herein who is it that convinces us of sin He that spake those words first was more than a man It s too much for any meer man to think much more to say Who is it that convinces me of sin in his best performances if men cannot God can But if our Churches were not true sure they failed in joyning so long with us Yet we charge them not with failings in their Communion but for relinquishing that Communion and at parting to cast dirt in their Mothers face that bare them them as is confessed as no honest Woman § 5 The rest that follows for many pages together concerning the union of a National Church and breach of that union I leave to them that are concerned in it Only I shall take notice of one passage which is this Whereas sundry
Ordinances of the worship of God p. 245. are rightly to be administred only in a Church and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto the denyal of a National church-Church-state seems to deny that we had either Ministers or Ordinances here in England How will he answer this especially having renounced his own Ministry received in this National Church and all besides in respect of Church Communion except his Baptism as null or naught Thus he saies and that 's all It may seem so to do but it doth not unlesse you will say that unlesse ye be a National church-Church-state there is no other which is too absurd for any one to imagine The consequence cannot well be denyed in his notion of this Church For if there were no Ministers but ordained by those National Officers and those Officers not of Christs institution as he hath often pleaded it follows necessarily that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church and so no Ordinances truly administred in it and at last no Church at all This I doubt or rather believe by what he hath said is his judgement but he durst not speak out For I ask Does he in his conscience believe there were any true Ministers in this Church in the time of its being National and if no Ministers no Ordinances rightly administred But why does he not tell us what that other church-Church-state is of which he speaks he denies all but the Independent state of new gathered Churches which were not found in the Prelates times except some Brownistical Societies we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication but shall plead for our selves Our former Divines of the first reformation and since have pleaded and justifyed their Ordination for the essentialls of it received from Rome which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions they propagated unto us who may therefore the better justifie our own Those Bishops that ordained us had as he told us above a double capacitie One as Lord Bishops received from the state p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gosspell to preach administer Sacraments to joyne in Ordination of Ministers p. 231. Now in this latter some of themselves professed and so we understood it that they ordained Presbyters as presbyters not as Bishops Hence it followes that though they presumed to themselves a Lordly power not according unto the institution of Christ whereby they called themselves a nationall Church c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospell as we beleive it is sufficiently proved and never yet sufficiently answered there were Ministers lawfully called and Ordinances by them rightly administred and that is the other Church state which he would not doe us the honour to name least he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatick in departing from this Church-state These true and faithfull Ministers with their people in their severall Congregations administring the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ whereof their baptism was one were and still are the true Church-state of England for which we plead and he hath forsaken Some additions of humane prudence cannot annull the Ordinances of Christ § 6 The way of the prelates he told us p. 235. p. 246. to stablish a nationall Church was descendendo of the Presbyterians ascendendo That is that such a thing should rise from the particular Congregations by sundry Associations and subordinations of Assemblyes in and by the representatives of those Churches But this may prove a mistake For 1. The Presbyterians rather goe descendendo as well as the prelates did at least in part They agree both in this that they acknowledge their rise and originall to be from the Apostles who were the first founders of all Churches and the supreme Officers of the Church For them were other Ministers ordained in subordination to them Bishops say some Archbishops and then Bishops say others and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them or as he styles them parochiall Priests p. 235 The Presbyterians say the Apostles first made Presbyters and gave them power to rule their particular Churches and as occasion required to meet together by Delegates in a Classis or Synod as that â—t Jerusalem consisted partly of Elders with the Apostles 2. They lay the rise of Ministerial power to be universall as well as the Prelates supposing a Minister to be a Minister in what part soever of the world his lot happen to be and do not upon his removall give him a new Ordination though he may not for order sake exercise that power but when and where he hath a call 3. That call may be different 1. as he is called to take care of a particular Congregation 2. as a Delegate to a Classis or Synod which himself allowes in the Independent way as above 3. As he is in the absence of a particular Minister desired to Preach or Baptise or do any other Ministeriall dutie to another people as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to and pray with them Now this Delegation which he meanes by ascendendo doth not give him a new power distinct from what he had before by his Ordination but a particular designation to act this power pro hic nunc As he hath often heard but will take no notice of it § 7 Whether a Church may be called nationall p. 247. when all the particular Congregations of one nation agreeing in doctrine and worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblyes as some learned Divines have asserted I will not dispute but leave what they have said to the further consideration of their Adversaries Though this may be said they did not make this the only or the principall way of that denomination That was rather when all the Congregation of a nation agree in the Doctrine and worship and celebrate it accordingly The Disciplinary part or form of Government is not essential to the Church nor absolutely necessary and the Church may exist and be nationall without it much lesse do any of ours say That subjection to one civill Government and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically c doth constitute one Church or as he expresses it afterwards p. 251. they do not say that being under one civâ—ll government does constitute a Nationall Church for if so sayes he its forme and unitie as such must be given it by the civill Government For the unitie thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship and not in the modell of civill Government of what kind soever p. 250. And if he allow as he does an Association of the Delegates from severall Churches to meet for matters of common concernment by the same reason whether it be by Institution or prudence he must allow those subordinate Assemblyes For the light of nature teaches the necessitie of Appeales in male-administrations for ending of troubles and decision of differences in particular Congregations as was instanced in the
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
not till then will the businesse be brought to a speedie issue As also we hoped that he would have pleaded the right libertie and dutie of gathering Churches in such a state of presessors as that of late and still amongst us built upon other and better principles than any though he had occasion enough by him as yet mentioned But we must wait his leasure His businesse and policie is like the Romanists he spake of at the beginning rather to prove us and all Churches to be corrupt and not rightly instituted than to defend and justifie his own way of gathering Churches § 11 But we are brought againe to his removall of the charge of Schism which he sayes in the true notion of it relates not to gathering of Churches as simply considered If not as simply considered yet as it is the consequent of those divisions and separations included in the nature of Schism Tho e that make differences first and then separate from a Church use not to stay there but being especially Ringleaders of the separation they must conformably gather another Church of a firmer constitution or else condemne their own separation as being of no Church And the rather does this relate to Schism in gathering of Churches because they do not onely depart themselves which is more tolerable but draw off others also into a formed faction Le ts heare the old D lemma revived against the Presbyterians as afore against the Prelaticall Church Either we have been members by our own voluntary consent according to the mind of Christ of some particular Congregations â—in such a nationall Church as part of such a Church or we have not It were ridiculous for any man to charg them with separating from such a Church as never was existent that by their own opposition of its being we blame them for hindering it to be set up and for raising differences in our Churches and then renouncing communion with them and all other of the like constitution as was said above Sure we are most of them if not all were once members of our particular Churches and some of them prime Ministers thereof who after they had raised differences in those Churches which himselfe sayes constitutes a Schismatick separated themselves and drew discâ—ples after them into new never heard of opposite Congregations seâ—ting up Altar against Altar as the Ancients used to speak But heare another evasion If we have been members by our own voluntary consent As much by their own voluntary consent as they were made members of the Nation that is implicitely as borne and bred up in both May they not as well renounce their interest in the nation as their communion with the Church and deny subjection to both Or is it in their power whether they will be bound to communion with some Church or other in the Nation unlesse they can prove them all hereticall Antichristian Yet further by way of Recrimination Have not we done as much as they in separating from the Church of England pag. 255. of Episcopall constitution rejected their nationall Offcers and the way of worship established c Not to regest to him that this was done by other hands I must tell him this is an excursion when he is speaking of his relinquishment of a Presbyterian Church to turne us back to the Episcopall But this hath been his businesse from his first letting out to make the Presbyterian Churches to walke pari passu with the Episcopall and Romish Churches The Churches of England and all Reformed Churches are much beholden to him Let him say plainly have they not renounced all our Churches since both the other were laid aside what can he plead for this but that we are not reformed according to the mind of Christ as we shall heare by and by § 12 But he sayes We expect not that we shall be accused of Schism p. 256. for not esteeming our selves made members of a particular Church against our wills by buying or hireing an habitation within such a precinct of ground Surely they were once esteemed and did esteeme themselves to be members of those particular Churches whether with or without their wills I know not where they were borne or dwelt and must either be of such or none And is it not so for the most part in New England are not their Townes and Churches commensurate was not the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth so called from the places True it is which was said by the Assembly-Divines that living in Parishes is not sufficient to make a man a member of a particular Church a Turke or Pagan may do so but all Church-members in a Parish are members of that Church till they remove their habitations Suppose there were but one such parish must not all Christians be of that unlesse they may be of none But they adde All that dwell in a Parish and constantly heare the word are not yet to be admitted to the Sacrament which sayes he excludes them from being fideles or Church-members and makes them at best but as the Catechumeni who were never accounted members of the Church I pray were not baptized infants and youth's members of the Church yet were not they nor are in their Churches admitted to the Lords Supper If those Divines meant it of unbaptâ—sed persons as they may no mervaiâ—e if they were not accounted Church members Yet what shall we say of Infants of Churchmembers not yet baptized are not they Churchmembers none but an Anabaptist will deny it And though the old Catechumeni new come from Gentâ—l sm weâ—e not accounted Church-members yet our Catechumen's Children o Christian parents are to be accounted such But we proceed § 13 He hath further to say If we have been so members by our own consent and do not continue so to bee p. 257. then this congregatâ—on where we were so members was reformed according to the mind of Chr st or it was not We are now allmost at an issue the intimation is the ground of their separation is that none of â—ur Churches are reformed accordâ—ng to the mind of Christ None of them not at home nor abroad that 's a sad condition But what if they be in reforming should they separate from such Well but suppose any be members of a Church refoâ—med according to the mind of Christ what then If it were reformed and a man were a member of it by his own voluntary consent I confesse it may be difficult how a man can leave such a Congregation without their consent in whose power it is to give it to him without giving offence to the Church of God That they have been members and Misters some of them of our Congregations by their own free consent is evident enough That they have not continued so to be is too manifest That our Congregations some at least were reformed or reforming according to the mind of Christ when they separated from us cannot without great injury be denyed
What difficulty then is there to judge them offenders against that and the whole Church of England in leaving those Congregations without yea against their consent if they had such power over them as he grants But no marvel they find no difficulty or scruple in leaving our Congregations without any leave when they can and do leave own Congregations without or against their leave to which they say they have been marryed and may no more justly divorce them than a man may his wife except for fornication and only for a greater portion or preferment But I must professe I know no such power that any Church hath to engage into and enforce such an explicite consent or to deny leave to any member upon just causes to depart without their leave He said before All men must admit it free for a man to choose where he will fix his habitation Which if just reasons call him to either he must leave that Congregation as too distant from his habitation or else tye himself to much inconvenience to enjoy the Ordinances of God there which he may with ease and as much profit enjoy at his own door If this be not an enslaving of Christians to the prudential if not politick institutions of men and manifest prejudice to the liberty wherein Christ hath made them free I know not what is But the best is their people do not believe any such difficulty to remove from their Churches but take the leave without humbly desiring it which he requires without their consent and run readily to the Anabaptists and Quakers Societies § 14 Yea the Dr. is as ready to indulge this Liberty as they to take it it may be he may get the more disciples by it For as he gives any man the liberty to deâ—ert the communion of any society if it be not reformed according to the mind of Christ p. 265 So he allowes him this liberty upon his own light Hear him speak As the not giving a mans self up p. 259. to any way and submitting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ which he hath not light for is no Schism So no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion in one Church in all its relations to joyn with another be so esteemed Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of Independency or to gratifie all the Sects Quakers and all According to that light which men have received with a Toleration For why should they be denyed the liberty of their own light more than others to judge what is or is not according to the mind of Christ and to follow it accordingly submit to p. 46. and desert what way they suppose to be § 26 but pretended as the way of Christ And why should they be denyed to make use of their liberty without such humble asking leave of the Congregation But I woâ—â—d make bo d to ask one question Whether does he indeed believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ for he hath instituted but one way havâ—ng run from and renounced all other waies of Religion in this Nation If so iâ— not every man bound to come into it and not upon any conceited new light to relinquish it If not then why doth he encourage men to leave the Presbyterian way which for ought he knows may be the way of Christ But what 's this to the purpose We do not say it is a Schism for a single person upon good reasons to remove from one Congregation to another as because he can not edifie so well by one Minister as another provided it be not an itching ear that causes it as oft it is or in some necessary worldly respects if he do it peaceably without contempt of the Congregation and Minister from whom he departs and not setting up a new Church against them In this case we leave all our members free It is not actually not communicating with a true Church but renouncing communion that we think makes the Schismatick § 15 But what if he discovers That some of the principles of the Churches constitution are not according to the mind of Christ p. 261. which renders the communion of it by scruples c. not so useful to him as if it were right and that he hath declared his judgment and dissatisfaction if no Reformation ensue c. The question is whether he sees or conceits he sees some errors in a Church constitution and then whether every want or redunduncy in a Church constitution necessitates a separation But he takes no notice but peremptorily determines the case That person I say is doubtlesse at liberty to dispose of himself as to particular Church communion to his own best advantage This is liberality enough and Dictator-like spoken Does not this open a door to all confusion in Church and State and give every man all as well as any liberty if they judge any thing amiss in Church or State to turn Reformers if Superiours cannot or will not Reform it He asks this question Suppose the Congregation whereof a man is a member p. 262. is not reformed will not or cannot reform it self whether in this case is it Schism for any number of men to reform themselves by reducing the practise of worship to its original institution though the minor part 〈◊〉 Put it home in a State or Nationaâ— Church as that of the Jews was it lawful for a few men when State and Church were all corrupted to go and reform both because they who had the power in their hand either could not or would not reform I will not exemplifie it neare home but I think I may safely say this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle at the bottome and say no more § 16 Yet he hath Scripture for it I will boldly say p. 263. this Schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost What Schism means he that a man or men shall separate from the corruptions of a Church or reform themselves from the sins of the place that is certainly commanded But for that man or a minor number of men in a stated National Church to take upon them to reform the Church was never given them in command But see the proofs The first is 1 Tim. 6.5 From such withdraw or separate thy self But this is a great mistake for as the advice is given to a Minister and not a private member so it is not to withdraw from a Church that hath some corruptions in it but from such false Teachers as its likely were of no Church The second is 2 Tim. 3.5 From such turn away Who must do it Timothy a Minister Again from whom from such loose professors or false Teachers as creep into houses and there make divisions and then lead captive their Proselytes from the communion of the Church Surely those were not of Timothy's Congregation for then he would have bidden him not only turn away
had and took it again of the people 2. The Bohemians did it but once prima 〈◊〉 but afterwards kept up Ordination by Ministers and not by the people but ours still continue it by the people I might add a third but I forbear § 28 5. What was the way of the first Reformation p. 272. in this Nation and what principles those godly men proceeded on how far what they did may be satisfactory to our consciences c. It is confessed on both sides they did 〈◊〉 in well but by the badnesse of the times were not able to finish their work But how unsatisfactory their wayes and principles are to our brethrens consciences to concurr with them their practise does demonstrate walking contrary â—o them in deformation of the Church not repairing the oâ—â— but founding and building up a new Church and renouncing their principles 6. Whether ordinary Officers be before or after the Church and whether a church-Church-state is preserved in the preservation of Officers forraâ—gn to that Church or the Office be preserved and consequenly the Officers in the preservation and constitution of a Church is the last thing oâ— importance to be considered For the first whether ordinary Officers were before the Church hath been discussed elsewhere Instances may be given on both sides Sometimes the Church is before the ordinary Officer viz. when one dying another succeeds to that Church in his room Sometimes the ordinary Officer is before the Church aâ— in the gathering of a Church out of Heathens Mr. Eliot in New England an ordinary Officer he converts and baptizes many Indians and gathers them into a Church I hope they do not look for extraordinary Officers now as the Seekers of late did I know his exception aboâ—e This is in ecclesiae constituenda not in ecclesia constituta but I shall give him another instance suppose a Minister comes young to a people lives till all the ancient people he found there be deceased All that remain in the Parish were admitted by him into the Church by baptism here the Officer is before the Church in a Church constituted But this is as very a nicitie as which is first the Hen or the Egg. I perceiâ—e what he aimes at in the second question See pag. 199. They who will not be contented c. Whether a church-Church-state is preserved in the Officer or the Officer in the constitution of a Church He upon his principles must hold the latter part for he holds that no man is an Officer out of his own Church is either the Church be destroyed or he be removed from it he ceases to be an Officer whence it follows that 1 No Minister quà Minister can convert the Heathens 2 That if all church-Church-state be lost it cannot be raised up by an Officer who is forraign to that Church as he speaks here The result is according to his principles the Office first and then the Officers inclusively is preserved in the constitution of a Church As how A company of single Christians So the Anabaptists Confess â—ct 36. may meet and joyn themselves in a Church society which done they may out of themselves for other Churches or Ministers are forraign to to them chuse them Officers and set them apart by fasting and Prayer This is pretty and never exemplyfied in an ordinary case till t'other day But he forgot the main businesse that he supposes all church-Church-state lost but these Christians joyning together are supposed to be baptized which is a part of a Church-state and without which they could never make a Church much lesse an Officer as was discoursed above To raise up and revive a decayed church-Church-state in an ordinary way there is but one of these waies either a Minister in Office must baptize converted Heathens and so make them a Church or a company of baptized persons when no Minister is to be found must for once joyn and chuse themselves Officers which comes near to an extraordinary cafe and not among us now to be made use of but yet still the church-Church-state depends upon the Minister originally that baptized them and not upon those people supposing them unbaptized But more of this above When he takes those important things he speaks of into his discussion let him take those things by me propounded into consideration also as things of some importance § 29 The task undertaken is now at it issue p. 273. The miscarriages that he speaks of as ensuing for want of a due and right apprehension of the thing that is Schism we have been now long exercised in the consideration of may with no more ease than truth be rolled back upon himself It is not impossible that he may begin to apprehend that he hath been too hasty to judging our Churche to be none and himself and his party no Schismaticks in separating from them as no Churches And it may perhap appear to him that he is the man that is more ready to charge highly than able to make good his charge The Schisms that have ensued by their causlesse imputation of a no-church-no-Church-state among us and setting up new Churches is too well known And being in one fault of renouncing communion with us he hath now confirmed himself and his party in it by a new but false notion of Schism which none of his Predecessors had the hap to stumble upon I might parallel the rest in that Section but I forbear and leave it to the Reader § 30 2. In these differences about the way of Religion we have endeavoured to drive them to their Rise and Spring p. 275. and find Schism to be as formidable in its first Original in respect of its terminus a quo as in the streams though much increased by many generations in regard of the terminus ad quem And I cannot but observe how he seems to extenuate the crime of Schism before aggravated by his comparisons Schism at its first rise and Scripture notion if he mistake not was but a little Spring but swelled to a great breadth by mens disputations about it Hear his swelling words What a stood of abominations doth Schism seem to be as rolling down to us through the writings of Cyprian Austin and Opratus of old c. Go to its rise and you will find it quite another thing As if he had said Schism is not so formidable a thing as it 's made by all but himself if you would but take it for some petty differences within one Assembly the charge of it is not so dreadful as some would makestâ— For so he adds p. 276. Whilst I have an uncontroulable faithful witness that I do not willingly break any unity of the institution of Christ. p. 277. Whilst I disturb not the Peace of that particular Church whereof by my own consent I am a member nor do raise up nor continue in any can slessâ—d differences with them or any of them with whom I walk in the fellowship
calling thereunto but onely an immediate call from God All I say for the change of his opinion is That he allows them this liberty now in cases ordinary as will appear hereafter § 3 The question then will be in cases more than ordinary when a Church is much degenerated and corrupted what may ordinary Christians do then to the Restauration of Religion Concerning which his judgement was what ever it be now this delivered and rested upon That in a collapsed and corrupted state of the Church pag. 15. when the ordinary Teachers are either utterly ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not perform their duty Gifts in any one to be a Teacher and consent in others by him to be taught are a sufficient warrant for the performance of it That is the duty of teaching or preaching But more expresly p. 40. In such a case of Apostacy in the Church I conceive he may nay he ought to preach and publish the truths discovered to him neither is any other outward call requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him I shâ—ll only remember him That as he spake this of a lay man in Italy for that is his instance so he did not then take Rome to be no Church at all as now he does but a collapsed and corrupted Church but that by the way That which I observe is1. That he is not distinct enough in these Assertions for if he mean that in such a falling state of a Church p. 16. When it is ruinously declining every one of Gods servants hath a sufficient warrant to help or prevent the fall as a common duty of zeal and charity in a charitative way it s not denyed by any Doing it as a charitable duty not as out of necessary function even as Priscilla a woman expounded unto Apollos the word of God c. pag. 50. f. It s the duty of every Christian man or woman to publish truths reâ—ealed to others that will hear him as he speaks hereafter But if he take it in an Authoritative way as an act of the Keys as a Teacher or Preacher is taken under the Gospel for an Officer then its certain that Gifts and the consent of people to be instructed by him is not sufficient warrant to make him a Preacher And this appears upon his own former principles For being at that time a Presbyterian in judgement as we shall hear anon he knew did then hold that Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery was a requisite to make him a Preacher But this he now declines and hath renounced his Ordination and requires now no more but Gifts and peoples consent to make a man a Minister 2. And that not only in a collapsed or corrupted Church where Teachers are either ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not do their duty but now when neither of these can without injury be charged upon our church-Church-state he requires no more than Gifts and consent to make a man a Preacher in Office 3. Herein his discourse was dark and defective that he allows the people a liberty of preaching or publishing he truths of the Gospel in such a case but tells us not whether such a Preacher be a compleat Minister as to the administration of other Ordinances as the Sacraments not one word of that I suppose then he did not intend so much but now so is he changed he allows some that were never ordained and himself who hath renounced his Ordination not onely to preach the Gospel but also to administer Sacraments as compleat Ministers in the name of Christ Let them fear and tremble to hear one day those questions By what authority do you these things or who gave you this authority It is a dreadfull speech of his own p. 16. Who ever doth any thing in anothers stead not by expresse patent from him is a plain Impostor And yet how many such Impostors are there abroad who take upon them without commission from Christ or Authority from the Church not only to preach but to baptize and give the Lords Supper I have heard a sad story of a young forward man that did so and fell into great perplexity of mind for so doing and as I remember so dyed Many such there are who 〈◊〉 before they are sent having neither Gifts nor consent of people The Lord say it to their hearts and to the hearts of those that indulge them in it as guilty of such usurpation in them and the great contempt of the sacred calling of the Ministry Lastly how ever it might be sufficient in an extraordinary state of a corrupted Church to make a man a Minister to have such Gifts and consent of the people which was all the Dr. then asserted yet that those should be sufficient in an ordinary Reformed church-Church-state is his 〈◊〉 light and opinion unless they can shew some extraordinary signs of such a call from God which they cannot do For he speaks rationally below when he saies It is certain enough p. 34. that God never sent any one extraordinarily instructed only with ordinary Gifts and for an ordinary end But these his new Preachers have no more than ordinary Gifts some of them not so much wherein others are their equalls if not Superiors and the end is no more but ordinary the conversion of souls and settling the Ordinances in purity Then it follows that these being not 〈…〉 of God nor ordinarily 〈…〉 by the Church are no 〈◊〉 Impostors as he said afore § 4 How long the Dr. hath been of that opinion That the blessed Spirit of God is 〈◊〉 and personally in every true believer I cannot tell but he speaks suspitiously that way as on p. 94 95. and 236. of Schism was noted above c. 7. â— 11 so he speaks the same language here p. 21. with what difference we shall observe Thus he sales As in his Incarnation Christ took upon him our flesh and blood by the work of the Spirit so in our Regeneration he bestoweth on us his flesh and blood by the operation of the same Spirit yea so strict is this latter union which we have with Christ that as the former is truly said to be an union of two natures into one person so this of many persons into one nature for by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature 2 Pet. 1.4 becoming members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Eph. 5.30 We are so parts of him of his mystical body that He and we become thereby as it were one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 And the ground of this is because the same Spirit is in him and us In him indeed dwelleth the fulness of it when it is bestowed upon us only by measure but yet it is still the same Spirit and so makes us one with him as the soul of man being one makes the whole body with it to be but one man These things
signs and evidences required to assure the man himself and others of hiâ— in mediate extraordinary â—â—cation p. 34. These he makes to be a supernatural power either on discerning of things present as thoughts and words or things future as 1. Things contingent 2. Speaking with Tongues 3. Working of Miracles c. None of which being now to be found or expected â—rom our new Restorers or Reformers P. 41. f. who ever pretends unto it not warranted by an evidence of one of those three ways which God taketh in such proceedings is but a pretender an impostor and to be reiected of all Gods people who yet plead the Revelation of the Spirit and take themselves extraordinarily called by God to make new Churches upon the pretence of a collapsed and corrupted state of this our Church I say none of these being now to be found amongst them they prove themselves to be extraordinary impostors and those that indulge and countenance them are accessary to tâ—eir impostures And whether our Authour himâ—elf have not relinquished these former Orthodox principles The â—ow supposing an intercision of all Ordinances and all true Church-state lost as the seems to do in his Tract of Schism as was said above whether I say he must not maintain and expect a new immediate call from God to be necessary to the Restauration of a Church I leave to all to judge when they consider what is said above at Chap. 7. § 10. And I proceed to the next § 8 The 2d way of an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel is p. 37. by a concurrence of Scripture Rules drawn either from expresse precept or approved practise The precepts are such as these Luke 22.32 When converted strengthen thy brethren Jam. â— last If any erre from the truth c. Math. 5.15 a candle is not to be put under a bushel c. p. 38. Whence he infers 1. There is a general obligation on all Christians to promote the conversion and instruction of sinners c. 2. When any truth necessary is revealed to any out of the Word not before known he ought to have an uncontradicted liberty of declaring that truth c. 3. Truth revealed carries with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience that it ought to be published To the first of these it may be said This is not an immediate call which he required above but mediate by the word Nor yet an extraordinary call to some particular men but an ordinary obligation on all Christians Not only in extraordinary cases of a corrupted Church but ordinary in the best Church Nor lastly is this sufficient to make any man a Preacher but only an instructer of others common to all Christians men and women To the second it had need be cautioned well not only because it may either be no truth which he thinks so or no necessary truth and so not fit to disturb the peace of a Church for it but also because upon this pretence of truth every man must take uncontradicted liberty to speak in the Church which will breed confusion Himself therefore adds Provided that he use such waies for that his declaration as the Church wherein he liveth if a right Church doth allow But this in part contradicts his uncontradicted liberty for if it be a necessary truth no Church may hinder him But then the case is of a corrupted Church which will not allow but contradict that liberty and what shall he then do To the third I have only this to say That a strong errour carries oft with it an unmoveable perswasion of conscience which is in a sort obligatory that it ought to be published to others And so errour must have as much liberty as truth However all these Rules bind in ordinary as well as extraordinary cases of a Church and give no authority to make a man a Preacher § 9 The examples are of our Saviour himself p. 39. who preached in the Synagogues without any outward call and of those Acts 8.1 who being scattered went every where preaching the word so did Paul and Apollos c. For our Saviour his call was immediate and extrraordinary So was Paul's and Apostle Apollos was at first no more a Preacher than Aquila and Priscilla who instructed him in the way as one Christian may do another As for those Acts 8.1 it s made more than probable by others that they were Elders of the Church and Preachers by Office If some were not they did no more than any Christian man or woman may do in such cases and yet never be Preachers And all this in a reformed church-Church-state ordinarily and so not to the purpose § 10 For he must remember that he was to shew what might make and justifie a lay man to be a Preacher of the Gospel in an extraordinary case without an ordinary outward call from the Church and required no more but Gifts and consent of people to be instructed by him as above Now these instances afore though they had Gifts sufficient preached the word when they had not the consent of people to hear or be instructed by them and so must every one that hath the truth revealed speak whether they will hear or forbear His main design is to discover what a man no Minister may do when a Church is collapsed or corrupted the ordinary Ministers either so ignorant they cannot or so negligent they will not teach the truth p. 15. And of such a state of a Church he here puts the case p. 39 c. Suppose a man living in the midst and height of Apostacy p. 40. when an universal darkness hath spread over the faâ—â— of the Church as in Italy there the â—cene is laid though pointing at England the Lord reveals some points of faith not known or disbelieved c. I demand whether that man without expecting any call from the fomenters of those errors may not preach and publish these truths to others c. Truly there is no difficulty in this case I conceive he may if he have so much confidence nay ought if when and where he can find some that will hear him But the question is Whether this ipso facto makes him a Preacher in Office A woman a Christian amongst Iberians may and did do as much as this yet I hope no Preacher of the Go pel in the strict senâ—â— yet had she Gifts to preach Christ and a people willing to be instructed by her And unless he take preachâ—ng in the larger â—ense he cannot coulâ— not then whatever now say No other outward call is requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him A Presbyterian as he was then cannot affirm this unlesse he can suppose a time and place where there is no ordination to be had and that but prima vice neither thus the Presbyterians hold Perhaps these principles of his then laid might mislead others and himself
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-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