or Metropolitane as some rather dream than prove as it s said of the Church in or at Jerusalem Act. 8.1 and the Church of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Corinth But yet I cannot agree with him that either Rome or Corinth were in Clements time onely one Parish as he now uses the word or one Congregation meeting all in one place For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knowes not p. 39. nor was perswaded it was compleated p. 38. but yet supposes it comes under the same name with Corinth ibid. though Paul mentions it as a distinct Church Rom. 16.1 and Phaebe to be a Deaconesse or Servant of that Church to the Church I say at Cenchrea So I see no reason but there might be were several Churches or Assemblies in Corinth each distinct from other though not such Parishes as ours are in London c the greater part being yet Heathens and the Magistrates not yet Christian to erect or allow them Churches as now we call them or to distribute them into particular Parishes which was done as soon as most or all became Christians However the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be so called p. 35. from them who met together to break bread and to eate from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convivator Whence it will follow that if the multitude be so great that they cannot meet in one place to heare the word or to break bread as its evident the 3000 or 5000 at Jerusalem could not then look how many meeting places there were for this purpose so many Parishes or Congregations there were at Jerusalem or Corinth having severall if not fixed Elders over them and yet the whole but one Church § 7 p. 42. But if he grant that this evill mentioned by the Apostle is Schism does it conclude that nothing else is Schism He answers he is inclinable so to do and resolved that unlesse any man can prove that somthing else is termed Schism by some Divine writer c he will be at Libertie from admitting it so to be Surely this is no safe Rule to go by For as there are some vertues which are not termed so expresly in Scripture So there may be degrees of Schism which are not so expresly called there It is sufficient if the one have the nature of such a virtue the other of such a crime though not so called There are other words used to signifie the same thing As Rom. 16.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying a division into two parts or parties And what thinks he of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes from a root that signifies sometimes trahere to draw and somtimes sectari to follow See Concil 1. Constantinop some are called Hereticks that hold the sound faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them and those that follow them are called Secta à sequendo The opinions of the Philosophers of severall Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heresies and their followers Sects divided not onely in opinion but in parties and Schools also So Paul uses the word Act. 26.5 according to the mos◠strict Sect of our Religion I lived a pharisee And is not heresie as bad a word as Schism or is it any advantage for a separatist to change his name from Schismatick to Heretick The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19 uses them promiscuously one for another I heare that there are Schisms among you For there must be heresies among you also The word heresie commonly is used to signifie errour against Faith which sense he is not pleased with p. 46. as Schism is a sin against love If he like not to give his Separation the name of Schism though it hath fully the nature of it let him have good leave to call it Heresie This men gaine when they will dispute about words Besides the Scripture uses other words to signifie Schism in a political sense Math. 12.25 A Kingdome or house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided against it selfe that is into parts and so into civill warres and dissensions cannot stand which Act. 14 4. is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude was divided and that into two parts as well as opinions as it followes and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were with the Jewes and some with the Apostles as I noted above If this may not rather be understood of an Ecclesiasticall separation for it was occasioned by differences in one Assembly v. 1. They entred into the Synagogue of the Jews c The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and made their minds ill affected against the brethren v. 2. which caused that separation And the Schism was made by those turbulent Jewes the causes of that separation not by the Apostles or their partie Schism in the Church was but an Embrio in the Apostles time at first a difference or division onely in judgment but quickly grew into separation or division into parties But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism but what is included in this place of the Corinthians having made it appeare that there was a separation made in that Church by such as lead away Disciples after them or rather by them who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons set up one Minister above another and against another However somthing may be deduced by paritie of reason If divisions of persons in a church in judgment may be is called Schism in Scripture then Separation from a true Church grounded upon those divisions at first in an Assembly about unnecessary things as he said may well and much more be called Schism For sayes he He is a Schismatick p. 43. guiltie of this sinne of Schism who raiseth or entertaineth or persisteth in such differences And is not he much more a Schismatick who having raised groundlesse differences in a Church and persisting in them draws Disciples after him and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he separated To separate men in judgment in a Church is a Schism and crime bad enough but to separate them from the Church upon the former is farre worse Now this as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations all professing the same truth and practising the same worship So the persisting in such differences by any one Congregation against the rest is a Schism in that Church as of Corinth and ends commonly in separation from that Church But let us heare further what is required to make guiltie of Schism § 8 1. That they be members of or belong to some one Church which is so by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ The ground of this assertion is that he by one
no being made so we know not how c. shew us then what office of Love is incumbent on us that we do not perform His arguing is not distinct having not tot told us what he means by a National Church If he take it as he seems to do for the Hierarchical Church with National Officers with subordinations c. I would say It s certain himself was once of that National Church a member of it perhaps zealous of Episcopacy and an exact observer of its Canons So that if that National Church be proved as it is by some attempted to be a Church of Christs institution he cannot be excused from Schism in separating from it For though they cannot charge him as now of that Church both it being abolished and himself changed into another way yet they may say he was not long since a member of that National Church But if he take National Church as the Churches were in the Nation all professing the same truth and exercising the same substantial worship as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church he must either acknowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church as he does pag. 224. or else renounce communion with her also as no Church or Churches of Christ which whether he does or no comes after to be considered § 20 For the other horn of his Dilemma If they are and must be of this National Church c. what duty of Love is there which they owe to it and do not perform Seeing he makes the challenge and professes that if it can be shewn he will address himself to it I shal take the pains to inform him fully before we have done only now considering what he saies here Do we not saies he joyn in external acts of worship in peace with the whole Church p. 67. Call the whole Church together try what we will do Is not all this aequivocally spoken In what external acts of worship do they joyn with us as a Church Do they not disown us as no Churches and our Ministers as no Ministers admit none to worship with them but confederat members When they sometimes preach in our Congregations or hear us preach do they not count themselves to us and us to themselves as gifted brethren only but no Ministers And what means he by the whole Church or how can it be called together unless he mean his own Church or Churches How then do they joyn in every Congregation in the Nation When though they presume to preach in our Churches to steal away our people from us their own people will seldome or never come into our Congregations to hear unless some of them preach Ad populum phaleras And as for their joyning in peace with the whole Church it is a Blind for they separate themselves with some of our members from our Churches to the great discouragement of the Ministers and greater disturbance of the whole and all the Churches of the Nation § 21 The Counsel that he gives to members of particular Churches pag. 70 who have voluntarily given up themselves to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ I fear extends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches That they would be careful to prevent causeless differences in their own meetings or among themselves which if they do let them all say what they will they are no Schismaticks For as for our particular Congregations they scarce account them Churches though most of the members of them have voluntarily given up themselves explicitely or implicitely as New England men confesse to walk in them according to the appointment of Jesus Christ And if they grant ours to be true Churches they must necessarily acknowledge those who first raised causeless differences in them now foment them by separation from them to be Schismaticks by his own description Yea so much worse than those Corinthians whose case he exemplifies if so be they did not upon their differences separate into parties and Churches which he denies but we conceive they did and these both raise differences and then separate from our Churches into several combinations and one sayes I am of Pauls Congregation and another I am of Apollo's I speak this in a figure as Paul did 1 Cor. 4.6 He can easily apply it CHAP. III. Causeless Separation from a true Church is Schism § 1 HE now fearing this or the like Objection as obvious to be made by every man That if Schism be onâ—y amongst the members of one Church pag. 72. then the separation of any man or men from a true Church or one Church from another is not Schism which is contrary to the judgement of most Christians Divines and Churches he hopes to help himself by his old definition of Schism in the Scripture precise description of it as he limited above And peremptorily denies that in that sense there is any relinquishment departure pag. 73. or separation from any Church or Churches mentioned or intimated in the Scripture which is or is called Schism or agreeth with the description by them given us of that term But to this I have many things to say 1. That precise signification of the word and description of the thing is before disproved The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts and is applyed both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture as was proved above 2. Supposing that to be the onely sense mentioned in the case of the Corinthians which is denyed and disproved yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture and deduced by regular and rationall consequence The word signifying indefinitely seperation either in opinion or parts is it not a faire consequence If seperation in judgement in a Church be a Schism much more upon that difference to separate from a Church into another against the Church 3. St. John blames some for separating from the Church 1 Joh. 2.19 they went out from us c as is the manner of Schismaticall and Hereticall Spirits being obstinate in their opinions and opposed by the Church they stay not till they are cast out but go out and become the head of a faction against the Church as histories do abundantly manifest 4. His own places brought for instances of blameable separation from a Church do all or some minde the nature of Schism as precedaneous to that separation therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture we shall consider them in order § 2 1. The first produced is Heb. 10.25 not forsaking the Assembling of our selves together as some do He renders the words for his own advantage not wholly deserting the Assembling of our selves c and makes it to be Apostacie from the faith p. 74. and thereupon upon forsaking the Assemblies would any man call these Schismaticks sayes hee He formerly glossed this text of neglecting the publick Assemblyes onely see Appendix §. 14. He makes the
of no particular Church but only of the Catholick meeting together and having a Minister among them may not joyn together to worship God in prayer preaching and partaking of the Sacrament as well as the members of several particular Churches and himself among them may do the same as they do often at London and Oxford when he preaches unlesse he will count those Ordâ—nances then and there administred no acts of instituted worship And if he grant them to be worship how can he deny that Assembly to be a particular Church though it be not fixed nor gathered and united by any explicite Covenant or consent to live and dye together I shall only note again that herein he deserts his friends in New England Ubi supr who say particular Churches are parts of the universal as a Totum or Integrum And none think otherwise but they to use his words who have profit by the fable § 2 What then is the specificative form of a particular Church p. 114. The formall reason constituting a particular Church is their joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances for Gods worship It is true indeed the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specification form For whether it be considered as a Genus or as a Totum it cannot have the same form with the Species or parts But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church as well as a particular from its form may be called a particular Church Why then is the Catholick called a Church Universal Because all Christians through the world excepting some individuals providentially excluded do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word the same Sacraments administred in Specie professe one common Faith Hope The sum is the specificative form of the Catholick visible Church if it have any is the profession of the same Faith and Hope of the Gospel whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments administred in Specie or no And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from those Ordinances for himself tells us an instance of a man that never was partaker of those Ordinances and yet a subject of Christs visible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world p. 139. And before that supposes A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Gospel by the Scripture it self and make profession of it where he lives though he be a thousand miles distant from any particular Church wherein the Ordinances are administred nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world p. 137. If then a joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances be the specificative form of a particular Church of which more anone why may not the profession of the same Faith and hope of the Gospel be the specificative form of the Catholick Church The truth is the Church considered in the threefold notion with the threefold differences is not distinguished into Species or hath any such specificative forms but is one and the same Church considered in that threefold Notion as the members may be considered as 1. Believers 2. As Professors 3. As Partakers of the same numericall Ordinances of worship as is said above and shall appear more hereafter § 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be considered which we shall easily grant him pag. 116. is not first the same with that of the Catholick invisible because many are members of this who are not true believers 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church because many are of the Catholick who never were of a particular Church 3. Nor yet hath it its union by a Relation to any one Officer given to the whole or a subordination of Officers as Papists pretend In all these we consent with him and therefore passe by the large discourse about them as not concerned in it It consists saies he In the profession of one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5 p. 133. That all the members of the Catholick Church are united in this profession is very true but this is not all they are bound to more than this viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances to subjection to the same Discipline as also to Love to one another and where it is possible to the celebrating together of the same numerical worship And in any of these to make any differences is a breach of that union that ought to be among the members of the Catholick visible Church Whereupon that is a strange assertion or addition of his pag. 117. If there he not an institution for joyning in the same Numerical Ordinances the union of this Church is not really a Church-union For when Christ hath instituted that every Church meeting together and every member of of the Catholick Church should exercise the same specifical Ordinances is not this a Church union or union of Churches And let it then be considered That if every member of the Church Catholick may be a member of any or every particular Church where providence may cast him being rightly qualified thereunto having right first to the same specifical Ordinances as a member of the Catholick and then to the same numerical Ordinances where he comes and finds them as some of his own way do grant and cannot well be denyed then the denyal of such a person to joyn in those numerical Ordinances is a breach of that union and love which ought to be between the members of the Cath. Church which whether it may be called a Schism or no we shall examine hereafter Sure we are this is done continually by some particular Churches and members of the same § 4 The properties of that profession for the preservation of this Union he makes to be three 1. p. 134. That all necessary truths of the Gospel be believed and professed 2. That no other principle of the mind inconsistent with the real belief of those truths professed be manifested by the professors Those that are enemies of the Crosse of Christ are not any members of his Church 3. That no opinion error or false doctrine everting any necessary truth professed be added and deliberately professed also To which I have but this to say 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel and some professors there were that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19. Yet these were members of thâ— Catholick Church 2. Those whom the Apostle called enemies of the Crosse of Christ were Christians and so members at least of the Catholick Church if not of a particular As the incestuous person was a member of the Church of Corinth till he was ejected And it is a position of his own party A scandalous member tolerated is a member to all Ordinances for himself and his seed wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees may be seen
when he saies p. 136. Mens profession of the knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred without excommunication and if he be a wicked Minister he is ipso facto unministred or degraded and all his Ministerial acts are null Adde to this what he saies p. 159. Let those that are prophane profess what they will and cry out a thousand times that they are Christians I shall never acknowledge them for others than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so They are not within the Church any more than a Jew or Mahumetan within the same precincts There are in a few lines many mistakes For 1. Though they be as bad as or worse than Mahumetans in regard of their spiritual estate yet are they better in regard of Church estate Does the wickedness of their lives make their Baptism a meer nullity then must they be rebaptized upon their conversion as heathens are 2. If they be no better than Heathens then are their children to be denyed Baptism and are very Infidels yet a child of the prophanest Jew was circumcised and had right to other priviledges 3. That is so far from truth That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King in reference to whom they are so that they cannot possibly be Traytors and Rebels to him unless they be his Subject As he said A man cannot possibly be a Schismatick unlesse he be a Church-member either of a particular or of the Catholick Church 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators drunkards unruly walkers brethren 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.17 But these three properties are inâ—â—â—ed on to insinuate that if there be no breach of Union in any of these thâ—re is no Schism to be found in the Catholick Church nor between the members thereof as appears in his application of them § 2 For granting for process sake That Schism is the breach of any union instituted by Christ the enquiry is p. 140. Whether we be guâ—lty of the breach of such an unity And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel the Church of England in her doctrine is as Orthodox as any Chuch under Heaven consonant to the Scriptures and Apostolicall Church till by Toleration some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies and blasphemies disowned by the Church The Schism then charged upon us by Papists See p. 141 in this respect lieu at their own door who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves but cause others also so to do and attempt to destroy all that will not joyn with them Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries and Hereticks among us who are their Disciples who agree with them in many of their errors and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith of the Church of England As for the second That in our lives we do not manifest a principle utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism in this respect whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines So I may rather wish I could See p. 148 than professe I can acquit our Churches from the charge § 8 It cannot be denyed but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints as they would be called are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine which we have so long enjoyed And as for the last That we add not unto them in opinion or worship such things as are destructive of them or render them insufficient to be saving unto us For our worship we may I hope without offence say that it is in the publick Congregations whatever it is in private Conventicles according to the simplicity of the Gospel though perhaps in some circumstances defective wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation § 7 Thus far we are cleared of breach of Unity and so of Schism But I have intimated and partly proved there may be a breach of Union with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations As first there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others or refuse others to joyn with him in these Ordinances here is a breach of Love and Union among the members of the Catholick Church and in the particular Churches as parts of the Catholick And what thinks he of those Churches who deny Baptism to Infants altogether or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents not of their own confederate Church and the Lords Supper to the Parents of such Children The Anabaptists do the one contrary to the practiâ—e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles and themselves do the other daylâ— as is too well known Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church a breach of union and so a Schism Yet as he is earnest to free himâ—elf from Schism in his sâ—paration so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism p. 226. He that will upon that account undertake to prove them Schismaticall may find himself to be entangled Of which more hereafter § 8 That this Catholick Church is visible he grants which others of his friends have denyed p. 146. That it is an Organical political body in a right sense is largely and learnedly proved by others Mr. Huds though he denies it to them I refer it One thing I cannot but take notice of he sayes It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head for if as a visible politicall body it hath a politicall Head that Head also must be visible But 1. What necessity is there the Head must be visible p. 148. seeing he confesses the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body and God who is invisible was their Political Head 2. Jesus Christ the Head of the Church is a visible Head yea sometimes more visus seen of men while on earth though now for a time in Majesty as some great Princes do he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in Heaven But that by the by CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism § 1 VVHat he sayes for many leaves together for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism in their just separation from Rome as the Catholicke Church I cannot but acknowledge to be rationall solid and judicious Onely I am not satisfied with his assertion That he not onely denyes the Church of Rome so called to be a particular Church p. 154. but also affirmes it to be no Church at all page 156. Wherein he hath deserted most
p. 207. to which humane prudence may add nothing is a certain truth denyed by none but fanatical spirits And as for the institution of particular Churches by express words of Scripture it is no where visible but by a fair and necessary consequence That which is of Institution was that Gods people should serve and worship him severally and joyntly in such and such Ordinances of worship and consequently by a necessity of nature there must be a place for people to meet together in or more as their number is God institutes publick prayer preaching Sacraments therefore there must be societies to perform this worship 1. Because of the multitude of Christians which can neither meet all in one place nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company 2. For the better obligation of all professors as to the exercise of all acts of publick worship which some if left free to joyn with all or any would utterly neglect so of all those private duties required of fellow members which cannot well be performed as was said by persons not conbined But the circumstances of those societies how many how great what persons shall associate is left to humane prudence with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture that all be done decently in order and to edification And that those that are so joyned are so confined that they cannot or may not worship God in the same Ordinances occasionally in other Churches let him that can shew the Institution for I know none yet this is the chief piece of Independency never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party Our Author grants that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases and remove at pleasure And the light of common prudence upon supposition that there must be such societies seems to to dictate that when all of a Nation are Christians there should be a distinction o Churches or as we call them Parishes made by the bounds of mens habitations so that the divisions be discreetly made that the Congregations be neither too big nor too litle and that the parties of each Society may dwell so near together that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in publick decently and in order to edification and also those mutual private duties of brotherly inspection Admonition c. required by Christ Matth. 18.15 1 Thessal 5.14 c. § 7 And this he in a manner confesses That there is in the Institutions of Christ p. 209. much that answers a naturall principle in men who are fitted for society A confederation and consultation to carry on any design of common concernment c. I suppose he may intend this of Synods carryed on by Delegates from several Churches which is sutable to that prudence we see in States assembling in Parliament c. But I shall improve this further As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves in Towns and Cities for their better security and mutual assistance and comfort So the same prudence taught the Ancients to distinguish Cities into Parishes for their better Assembling some else would be of no Church as pretending to be of all or any as we see at this day for carrying on the services of God in a better and more profitable Order and for those private duties afore spoken of Nor does any man rationally hence conclude That there is no more but this in this Church constitution that men may be cast into any prudential form c. For the way of worship is peculiarly instituted but the way of constituting particular Churches for persons for number c. needs no institution but is left to the prudence of men or Churches as afore § 8 Whether by any promise of Christ there shall be alwaies somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances p. 211. he told us above was a needless enquiry p. 85. yet both there and here enclines to the Negative that all such Church state may cease for some time and hereafter talks of an intercision of all Ordinances so far as to make a nullitie in them as to what was of simple and pure institution p. 271 In this pâ—ace he glosses some Scriptures alledged of others as meant of the Catholick visible Church to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ in true believers Luke 1.33 Math. 16.18 Of the sense of which place I shall not now contest with him For the thing it self something shall be said in answering those questions which here he propounds 1. It is said true Churches were at first planted in England how then did they cease to be How or by what Act did God unchurch them They did it themselves meritoriously by Apostacy and Idolatry God legally by his Institution of a Law of rejection of such Churches But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostacy will merit an actual unchurching not only the Israelites but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched And if Apostacy in a great measure will unchurch a people England hath of late years Apostatiz'd sufficiently from our Ancient truths 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law to reject a Church presently so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical Rome had not then been standing at this day 3. It is a question whether God ever absolutely unchurches a people till he utterly destroys them as he did the Israelites of old and the whole Jewish Church after Christs death and the seven famous Churches of Asia since 4. As also it would be resolved when God did unchurch England which he insinuates as granted Whether whilst it was Popish Antichristian or since the Reformation 5. Let him resolve us whether our first Reformers did intend or undertake to raise up a new Church or to repair the old corrupted state thereof as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity did not build a new Temple but repair and purge the old 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. Q. Eliz. days there were not true Churches planted in England then how they came to cease to be seeing they were rather perfected since than corrupted 7. Lastly Whether our Reverend Author do not in his conscience think There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers the Anâ—baptists their elder Brothers and themselves arose and gathered new Churches not out of true Churches but out of Babylon as their Predecessors used to speak which he yet seems to insinuate when he saies The Catholick mystical p. 212. and that visibly professing being preserved entire he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them to joyn in such a Society as those spoken of according to the Institution of Christ is a person delighting in needless scruples As if he should say There was no Church of Christs Institution in England till they or their Predecessors arose and gathered such Societies and when all Church State was here lost
maintaining those differences is a worse Schism and then upon those dâ—fferences to depart and break the Church inâ—o pieces is Schism in the highest degree and admits of all his own aggravations given above and is an he nous sinne 2. One Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them p. 218. is no Schism properly so called Besides what hath been said above that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church which hath the nature of Schism I adde that theâ—e words are aequivocall for they holding all Churches to be Independent they must hold consequentially there is not necessarily any communion between thâ—m as Churches but as to particular members of the Catholike Church the refusing to hold communion with another Church can be no Schism because they owe no communion to one another at least of divine institution but of mere prudence as was newly said But seeing as I proved there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches not onely in profession of the same Faith but also in the same specificall and where it is possible numericall worship the refusing to hold this union and communion in doctrine or worship hath the nature and well deserves the name of Schism 3. If that departure of any man or men be done without strife variance judging and condemning of others it cannot be evill but from circumstances c This is as much as to say that departure which is not evill is not evill For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance strife and divisions before the parting and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day The very separation from a Church to set up another Church is a reall judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated Is it not the practise of all Separatists to judge and condemne all our Churches as Antichristian or none to asperse us as no Ministers but Priests c Is it not the designe of his book to prove if he could and condemne us as no Churches Let the world be judge for unlesse this be proved he can never justifie his separation either therefore he must prove us to be no Churches of Christs institution and that he owes us no communion nor hath broken any union of Christs appointment which he shall never be able to prove or else he had need put himselfe not upon the Justice but on the largest mercy of his Judges CHAP. VIII Independentism a great Schism § 1 In his vindicatâ—on of himselfe and partie from the charge of Schism by Episcopall men he first layes down their Indâ—cement to which how he hath answered and acquitted himselfe let them if they please consider I shall onely take notice by the way of some things tending to the issue of the debate between us and him and that very briefly He first consideâ—s in what sense the Church of England may be taken As 1. The people of God his elect c in this Nation may though improperly be called the Church of England But why not a properly as all true beleivers in the world may be and are by him called the Catholike Church The World and a Nation differ but as greater and lâ—sser as a part and the whole and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholike and so as properly called a Church In this sense sayes he it is the desire of our souls to be and abâ—de members of the Church of England to keep with it the unitie of the Spirit in the bond of peace But unlesse he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches I fear he will be found to break the Union that ought to be between them And indeed it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude they intend to have none but such of their Churches which is as much as they can to make the invisible Church to be visible on earth He speaks something suspitiously this way p. 90. The Elect and the Church are the same persons under several considerations and therefore even a particular Church on the account of its participation of the nature of the Catholick is called the elect 1 Pet. 5.13 And yet he speaks of some parts of the body uncomely p. 215. which who they be in his Church I know not They leave those to us to clouth and beautifie and then they may admit them into their elected Congregations But he says If we have grieved p. 223. offended troubled the least member of his Church so that he may justly take offence at any of our wayes we profess our readiness to lie at his foot for reconciliation c. This strengthens the suspicion of what I said For unless he take us all for Reprobates we have and do profess our selves and we think justly offended at their wayes and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction let the world judge The rest that follows is spoken with equal confidence and truth If we love not all the members of this Church rejoyce not with them c. but I forbear He deludes us when he saies if we do not these things Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismaticks that ever lived on the face of the earth For if we prove all or some of these to be false yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical whatever they may be else § 2 2. In this sense also we profess our selves members of the Church of England p. 224. as professing and adhering to the doctrine of Faith in the unity of it which was here established declared by Lawes Confessions Protestations c. Will he undertake this for all the Independent Churches in England Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the professed doctrine of this Church and so Heretical But were it true which he says for himself they may be excused from being Heretical but they may yet be Schismatical in denying communion in matter of worship For the worship of God was as well declared professed protested as the Doctrine They hold communion with us in profession of the same Faith but not in the observance of the same worship yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us as with them or let them prove our failings and we promise a Reformation In this sense they are neither children nor members of the Church of England And this is the wonder That professing they received their regeneration and new birth p. 225. by the preaching of the word and the saving truths thereof with the seal of it in their Baptism they should now separate from us not only in that Ordinance of the Lords Supper but also in the preaching of the Word and Baptism Could they make use of our preaching and Baptism for their regeneration and not of the other Sacrament and the same preaching for their
Antiochians appeale to the Church of Jerusalem in such a case which I say whether it were by an institution of Christ or an act of Christian prudence will serve our turne to justifie such Associations though we do not account them to be the forme or cause of the union of a Presbyterian Church but rather prudentiall meanes to preserve that union § 8 Upon that mistake of the forme of a nationall Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes he proceeds to premise some things which may take off the charge of Schism for their separating from our Churches as true as their own 1. No man can possibly be a member of a nationall Church in this sense pag. 251. but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation which concurres to make up the nationall Church But that not being our opinion the consequence sailes He granted as much as we plead p. 250. On the same account that all the professors of the truth throughout the world are the Catholick visible Church of Christ may all the professors of the truth in England be called the Church of England And it was his own assertion above to the contrary That a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church and yet no member of a particular Church And why then may not a man be a member of a Nationall Church and yet be no member of a particular Church I could exemplifie cases but I forbear Indeed as the state of the nation is at this day all generally being baptised except Anabaptists Children no man is a member of the nationall Church but he is also a member of some particular Church That Church being as he oft hath said the seat of Ordinances Hence 2. its evident that a man may recede from this nationall Church and not depatt from some particular Church because he may be a member of the nationall as well as of the Catholick Church and yet be no member of a particular Church c. on the other side a man may be a member of some particular Church and yet be no member of the nationall in the sense of it by him given as himselfe and others do too much evidence 3. He sayes To make men members of any particular Churches their own consent is required If he meane this of an explicite consent as I suppose he does or he sayes nothing it is fully disproved above and implicite confessed sufficient A man that removes his habitation as both he and we grant its free for him to do may by setting down in another Congregation and submitting himselfe to all the Ordinances of Christ there with performance of all Officers of Love to the members of that Congregation implicitely and yet sufficiently consent to be a member thereof And on the other hand a man may not remove his habitation from a Congregation wherein he hath long consented to communicate and yet remove his consent to be a member of another as we see too much in this loose and wandring age § 9 But fourthly he now speaks out That as yet p. 252. at least since possibly we could be concerned in it who are now alive no such Church in this nation hath been formed It is impossible a man should be guiltie of offending against that which is not unlesse they will say we have separated from what should be This Engine hath served him twice before First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists Theirs is no Church at all how could they separate from that which is not Then against the Prelat's Hierarchicall Church Their 's is no Church of Christs institution That which is wanting cannot be numbred p. 242. And now the third time against the same charge by the Presbyterians It is true indeed there hath no such nationall Church been uniformely formed in this nation but he knows such a Church hath been endevoured to be formed conformable to the Word of God and to the best reformed Churches abroad according to our solemne covenant and who have withstood resisted and hindered it and yet do hinder he knowes well enough But withall it cannot be denyed but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in England and perhaps some of their members if not of themselves have been of them from these they have separated as well as from the rest If there were not such here there are such abroad and yet they have renounced communion with them as no true Churches and that 's a negative separation Besides there was and is another Church state in England in our particular Churches from these also they have most of them as once of them pâ—pâ—bly separated The Presbyterian Church state as to particular Congregations in doctrine worship and discipline in them is the very same with theirs excepting that they hold their Congregations to be Independent and entire â—or all Government in themselves but wee acknowledg our selves dependent and would be gâ—ad we had other Churches to joyne with and yet they separate from and disaâ—ow them as well as others Lastly I believe those men that raise differences in a reforming Church and persist in keeping open those divisions separating also into other new Churches do as well deserve the name of Schismaticks as those that make differences in one particular Church And unlesse they can better prove than yet they have done that we are no true Churches and their own to be the onely true Churches in the nation in the World the Schism will lye at their door in all aequall mens judgment remove it as they can § 10 p. 253. Let him read the next disputation of Amyraldus his definition of a Schismatick and his censure of those that separate will little please him Disput de ecclesiae membrie As for Amyraldus his judgement of the confoederation of Churches it is the same with ours or not to the purpose Our opinion is that as the consent of particular members explicite or implicite is not the forme of a particular Church So the consent of severall Churches to associate in a classis or Synod is not the forme of a nationall Church The explicite consent of members as they make use of it is but a prudentiall way to tye their members from running away from them and yet that will not do the deed so the explicite consent of severall Churches into Assemblyes is likewise a prudentiall way for the better Governing of those Churches and the easier determining of things of common concernment And as the one so the other is a result of the light of nature need no institution He may now perceive that he is mistaken in his thoughts of a mutuall acknowledgment of the things by him delivered hardly in one of them do we agree But we expected that he would now at last have laid down some principles peculiar to himselfe and those with whom he consents p. 254. in the way of the worship of God c for
instituted Rulers of the Church walking in the truths and waies of Christ as well as against any other members of the Church it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church as they that despâ—se Christs Embassadors despise Him also the mischiefs whereof extend to the whole Church And commonly the Schism begins against the Rulers of the Church as that against Moses and Aaron did So that at Corinth in Clements time This is too evident at this time That all the present Schisms strike principally at the Ministers of the Gospel All Sects contending against them primarily and reproaching of them either as Antichristian He calls them parochial Priests pag. 235. or as no true Ministers besides worser names of ignominie and contempt wherein the Dr. and his party are not a little guilty as will appear before we have done § 16 Whether Schismaticks be Church Members or no is a question of no great concernment The Doctor is peremptory It is impossible a man should be a Schismatick p. 51. unless he be a Church member If he mean it of a member of the Catholick Church it s granted for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatick But if he mean as I believe he does no man can be such unless he be a member of a particular Church it is made appear to the contrary above and shall be more hereafter For the present I only say Suppose a Schismatick of himself departs from the Church or is ejected by the Church yet still persists to maintaine the differences by him raised in that Church I desire to know whether he ceases to be a Schismatick because he is now no member of that Church or is not still such by the Doctors own principles But too much of that § 17 Upon the Definition of Schâ—sm given by himself A causless difference or division amongst the members of any particular Church pag. 52. Is not this a mans definition the strength of it this such an act is Schisme therefore none else is See p. 44. that meet or ought to meet to the worship of God c. he proceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the sin of Schism wherein I shall agree with him fully though not in his definition in all particulars as was said above That that is a Schism I confess contains a part but not the whole nature thereof For as I believe a Schism may be made in a particular Church by one that is no member thereof seducers use to creep into houses and Churches and raise differences So I think a particular Church or some members of it may make a Schism in from the Catholick Church or other particular Churches which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given Look as in the body natural there may be supposed a Schism amongst the fingers of either hand whereof they are the more immediate members which yet may truly be said to be a Schism in relation to the whole body which hath influence into and interest in those members and shall suffer not a litle by their divisions So it is in the body mystical though the divisions immediatly disturb the particular Church where they arise yet they also reach to the disquiet and danger of the next Congregations and then of the whole Church A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump A mutinie begun in a single troop hath been the ruin of the whole Army The Design however disclaimed p. 47. f. I fear is this This definition of Schism is forelaid and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof upon himself and his own select congregation If they have but so much wit or so much grace as either not to raise or not to discover any causlesse differences amongst themselves though they separate from and disturbe the peace and union of the whole national Church or all the Churches of a Nation they are by no means to be styled Schismaticks But more of this in Hypothesi when he comes to apply it to themselves § 18 Whether the Church of Rome is a Church of Christ or no pag. 56. and how they are Schismatical I list not to be their Advocate they are old enough to answer his charge themselves I think he hath said enough if not too much to vindicate the Protestant Churches from Schism in their separation from Rome But his principle will carry him further not only to unchurch Rome but also all Protestant Churches at home and abroad for want as he thinks of a right constitution by Jesus Christ as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism as will presently appear Only I observe that he does not charge Rome it self to be Schismatical but upon supposition that it is a Church which he denies below then indeed by her intestine divisions she is the most schismatical Church in the world but if no Church not schismaticall whereas our Divines have proved her schismatical not only by her intestine differences but chiefly by her schismatical principles as those above mentioned That she is the Catholick Church and none out of her Communion are any better than Hereticks Our Conventicles are no Churches but styes of beasts p. 63. say they or Heathens That Ordination is void except done by her Bishops and also and especially by her abominable corruptions doctrine and worship departing therein from the Scriptures and example of the Apostolical Churches Now his chief if not only principle to conclude himself not schismatical in separating from Rome is this That there was never any such thing pag. 60. as that which is called the Church of Rome instituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ which he hereafter affirms also of National and Presbyterian Churches as he thereby frees himself from Schism in separating from all Churches in the world So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches as well as Rome § 19 For so he saies upon the same principle a plea pag. 64. for freedom from the charge of any Church really or pretended as National may be founded and confirmed That principle is the definition of Schism before given Schism is an evil amongst the members of a Church And hence he inferred against the Church of Rome If our own Congregations be not Churches whatsoever we are we are not Schismaticks And against them that plead for a National Church and charge them with Schism for separating from it he saies again If we are not of the National Church pag. 67. as they protest they are not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks And this will once more be made use of against the charge of Schism in separating from our present Churches as we shall see below But he makes a Dilemma and thinks it both waies unanswerable either we are of the National Church of England or we are not If not whatever we are we are not Schismaticks If we are and must be of it whether we will or
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
commonly make differences amongst professors before they totally depart He must be remembred of what he said p. 161. § 12. The breach of this union in the Catholick Church and therein the relinquishment of the communion of the Church lies in relinquishment of or some opposition to some or all of the saving necessary truths of the Gospel Now this is not Schism but Heresie or Apostacie That must be thus If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospell it is Apostacie If of some onely and they fundatally maintained with obstinacie its Heresie but if it be of some truths onely of lesser or greater concernment about which differences are by some raised amongst the members of this Church Catholick it may by his own principles be called Schism His evasions will be one of these two 1. That he did condiscend to gratifie his Adversaries that Schism is a breach of union but that he denyes to be the Scripture notion of Schism 2. That upon the same account he denyes differences to be Schism any where but in a particular Assembly Wherein he is singular and alone and is sufficiently disproved above § 7 But fearing belike that in his so answering some of ours would be readie to take up those words spoken to our Saviour upon another occasion Master in so saying thou puttest us to rebuke also He starts an objection pag. 196. from the consequence of it utterly unchurching Rome thus Whether the devesting of the Synagogue of Rome of the priviledges of a Church in any sense arise not to the denyall of that Ministry at this day in England To which before we take his answer I would say 1. That most of our pious learned Divines have hitherto not denyed but that Rome was a Church in some sense not a true but a corrupt Church as having some priviledges or rather some remainders of a Church See D. Hall Apol. against Brownists Sect. 23. as the same Articles of Faith baptism and a kind of Ministry c. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true though sometimes coming thorough their foule hands with many superadditions to the institution of Christ Others perhaps would say we had it not from Rome there were other Bishops in England before Austin came hither from whom we might receive our Ordination successively But heare his kind answer If any man hath nothing to plead for his Ministry but meerely that successive Ordination which he hath received through the Church of Rome I cannot see a stable bottome of owning him so to be But not yet to regest to him his successive Baptism which he received through the Church of Rome this would go neere to annull the Ministry of those Martyr-Bishops and Ministers our first Reformers who at first had nothing to plead but their successive ordination from Rome and acted upon it accordingly He cannot gratifie Rome better than to asperse the Ministry of England it is the Jesuiticall business in all the present Sectaries They look upon himself his partie who have either none or have renounced their ordination as no Ministers at all If we be none also then have wee as they slander us no Church at all God help the poore despised Ministers of England The Romanists say we are no Ministers because we have not our Ordination from Rome The Sectarists say we are no Ministers because we have our Ordination from Rome which shall wee believe Neither for we have it from Jesus Christ by whose hands soever we had it But as a little blushing at this hard saying p. 196. he will mollifie it a little I do not say if he will plead nothing else but if he hath nothing else to plead He may have that which will constitute him a Minister though he will not own that so it doth What ever else we plead unlesse we will renounce our Ordination it will not please them That by Bishops is by them pleaded null or Antichristian and that by the people which he intends we think is nothing and cannot own it as a ground of our Ministry though perhaps we have their call as well as himselfe We may have as many of us have our call and election to be their Ministers from the people but our Ordination we shall justifie to be from Christ p. 197. and not from the people But hear more Nor is it said that any have their Ministry from Rome as though the office which is an Ordinance of Christ was instituted by Antichrist but the question is whether this be a sufficient foundation of any mans ininterest in the office of the Ministry that he hath received Ordination in a succession through the Administration of not the woman flying into the Wildernesse not of the two witnesses not from them whom we succeed in Doctrine as the Waldenses â—ut the Beast it selfe Does he not by this cast dirt in the face of our Ministry as all our good friends the Sectaries doe I have much adoe to forbeare saying ' The Lord rebuke thee But I answer 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry Either he must go forward to Anâ—baptism as many have done or come back to us as was said to the Brownists by Dr. Hall Apol. Sect. 11. as for our Baptism which was never questioned hitherto but by our late Independent Anabaptists upon another ground 2. Had we received our Ordination from the woman flying into the Wildernesse or from the two witnesses or the Waldenses all had been one to him and his partie For they had not their Ordination from the people except some extraordinary cases but from a presbytery according to the Institution of Christ And yet forsooth he will not plead this at large professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Antichristian who yet adhaere to this Ordination being many of them eminently guifted of God and submitted to by his people c. Egregiam verò laudem While he secretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist the Beast c that yet adhere to that Ordination if they have nothing else to plead As for their eminent guifts as they do not plead that as suffâ—cient for their interests in the office without Ordination so many of his and our brethren have those guifts whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers though he do And as for the submission of the people to us we had that ever if not explicitely as often yet implicitely which some Independents allow as sufficient to make us true Ministers and true Churches though we do not own Ordination as from that submission of our people but from Jesus Christ Even from such also they separate § 8 But some aske Why not Ordination from Rome as well as the Scripture which question I like not p. 198. but should rather after why not ordination as well as baptism All our fore Fathers doubtlesse received their baptism by the hands of Romanists
discipline yet God reserved secretly some true believers and some professors together with so much of his Ordinances as to substantialls and necessary ingredients to a Church a Ministry and baptism c. that when he stirred up the heart of Luther and other Ministers like another Zerubbabel and some people to separate themselves from the Romish tyrannie and corruptions in doctrine and worship they needed no miracle to beginne a new Church but some being ministers of the Gospell so made in their Ordination and all being baptized they did not raise a new Church but onely purged the old § 11 We are come now to consider with him What is the Union and Communion of a particular Church pag. 214. that so we may know wherein the bonds thereof do consist And instead of telling us what this union is he tells us what is the foundation of that union which he makes to be double The one externall procuring command ng viz the Institution of Jesus Christ before mentioned requiring peace order union consent and agreement among all the members of it c But I think that all this is the foundation of the union both of the invisible and visible Catholick Church All the members of them as well as of the particular are under those commands requiring peace order c for their walking in such societies when and where they can associate and where is then the difference of this Church from the other 2. The internall foundation of this union is that Love without dissimulation which allwayes is or ought to be betweene all the members of such a Church exerting it selfe in their respective duties c. But this also is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches Love without dâ—ssimulation as was said above p. 98. And so yet we have no difference But we enquire what is the union it selfe or rather what is the forme for that gives union the specificating forme that distinguishes this Church from the rest the other two aforegone This it is p. 215. The joynt consent of all the members of it from a principle of Love to walke together in the universall celebration of all the Ordâ—nances of the worship of God and to performe all offices of Love to one another c But most of this is applicable to the other two Churches or notions of a Church All the members of them are bound by a command of Christ to consent or agree to joyne together when and where they câ—n from a principle of Love in the universall celebration of all the Ordinances or worship and the rest what then is the Specificative forme if it have any of a particular Church And if it have a forme to distinguish it spec fically from the other have not they also fâ—rmes to distance â—hem from this Anâ— if â— are there not three species of a Church which he seem'd to deny aboâ—e We have them all described below p. 236. The forme of the Church Catholick absolutely so called is the unitie with Christ and in it selfe by the one Spirit whereby it is animated This is not very accurately spoken is the unitie of the head and members the forme of a man It is not rather the one Soul that animates it the onenesse of soul whereby the whole is animated p. 95. And will he say the one Spirit of God is the form or soul that animates the Catholike Church p. 95. I was afraid when I read above That which answers hereunto the soul in man in the mysticall body of Christ is the Animation of the whole by his Spirit I was I say afraid to fasten this conceit upon the words Nor did I think he intended any such thing when he said See the Appendix below Sect. 4. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot easily consent p. 49. But upon second thoughts finding him to repeat the phrase of Animation by the Spirit in this place and to talke of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. the indwelling Spirit I beganne to suâ—pect him to incline at least to this errour for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Divines And since I heare that he preached this publickly at Oxford That believers have not onely the speciall graces and operations of the Spirit in them but the person of the holy Ghost indwelling in them which was the errour of one of the chiefe Leaders of Independentâ—sm in New England and by his brethren there condemned which is seriously to be by them considered God seemes to blast their way not onely by suffering their people to fall from them but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions or strong delusions Not onely some that were once theirs have fallen into some doctrines of Poperie and Arminianism all most all the sects preach those points but some of themselves that fell not so farre have yet vented dangerous and damnable doctrines as I could instance but forbeare Bâ—t to returne 1. The forme of the mysticall Church is say some of his side Faith 2. The forme of the Catholike visibly professing is the unity of that as being by them professed that is say others and he above the profession of the same Faith 3. The forme of the particular Church p. 236. as such is its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worsh p unmerically in the confession of the same Faith and subjection to the same rules of Love for the edification of the whole I observe first the difference He said above the union of this Church which he makes the specificating forme not very properly is the joynt consent of all the members to performe the same Ordinances of worship but now hee sayes It is the joynt observance of all Ordinances c. And indeed this seemes to be the specificating difference or forme of this Church as distinct from the other the Communion of all the members of it in all the same numericall Ordinance of worship And this is the plaine truth dropped from him unawares contrary to his partners and his own Judgment concerning the forme of a particular Church It is not as they have held out hitherto an explicite consent of all the members but Its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically in the confession of the same Faith c Whence I would inferre 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholike do occasionally meet together in observation of the same numericall Ordinances of worship then and there is found a particular Church though no explicite consent be passed by them one to another 2. That the explicite consent they so much talke of is not necessary by institution of Christ to the forme or essence of a particular Church the implicite covenant of Christianitie binding them to such performance when and where it is possible but is onely a prudentiall meanes or bond for the better tying
21 We are now drawing to an issue of this discourse of Schism in the ordinary Acception of the Word to signifie p. 268. A breach of union which he allows to pass such is his condiscension and confidence and yet avoid the charge of Schism Thus he saies We have broken no band of unity no order instituted by Christ we have causlessly deserted no station that ever we were in according to his mind c. which how true it is and whether he do not hereby asperse all our Churches to be no true Churches of Christs institution let the Reader indifferent by what hath been said be Judge That on pure grounds of conscience we have withdrawn or do withhold our selves from partaking in some waies engaged into upon meer grounds of prudence we acknowledge Whether they have in their separation from us gone upon pure and meere grounds of conscience God and th ir own hearts must determine the business The world is too apt to judge otherwise upon some suspicious practises of theirs And suppose they have withdrawn themselves from some waie of prudence in some of our Churches I suppose he means it of Classical subordinations yet they have withdrawn themselves also from some Congregations not so united that have only the pure Institutions of Christ and that may bring the charge of Schism upon them But have not they also gone upon some meere grounds of prudence or policy Is there any Institution of Christ that they must gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church if so it be Or is there any Institution of Christ that a Minister who is married to a people as they hold should relinquish it for a place of greater eminency or preferment Or that people must be tyed to their Pastour by an explicite Covenant not to depart without their leave humbly desired Or to add no more Is th re any Institution of Christ in express words that Churches particular must send their Delegates to an Assembly to determine matters of common concernment which he granted above These and some more of their known waies the world takes to be but products of humane prudence and he may do well to shew their Institutions § 22 Yet have we more of this confidence From what hath been said it appears in what a fair capacity notwithstanding any principle or practise owned by us we are to live peaceably and to exercise all fruits of love to the otherwise minded if we may be permitted to serve God according to our light And must not the Quakers and the rest be permitted to serve God according to their light also But it matters not in what capacity they are to do those things named let us see the fruits of it Does not their way break the peace of all our Churches Hath it not been the door to let in all the errors heresies blasphemies England groans under Do not all sores of Sects being all Independent and none to controle them exercise all the fruits of hatred toward us look upon us and carry themselves towards us as their greatest enemies as no Ministers no Churches scarce as Christians Hath not he himself in this book unministred our ministers unmembred our members unchurcht our Churches Doth he give us words when we see such deeds § 23 It is commonly and truly objected There is a difference between Reforming of Churches already gathered p. 269. and raising of Churches out of meer materials Surely this is evident enough in raising of a Church out of Infidels and reducing a corrupted Church to its first institution This he first sayes concerns not the business What 's the English of this if he would speak out Why the truth is We have no Churches and they are not in repairing an old house but building a new from the ground But hear him say something 1 I know no other Reformation of any Church or any thing in it but the reducing of it to its primitive institution c. We say so too grant us to be Churches Reformation of a Church or any thing in it presupposes there is a Church existent though perhaps rotten and ruinous But these New builders will gather a Church out of no Churches and begin a new one It had been happy for old England if they had all gone into New England and laid the foundation of their Churches amongst the Indians and not to build upon other mens foundations and then tell us they are building oâ— spick and span new Churches And does not this hold forth that we are no Churches and our members no members of a Church till admitted into theirs But yet more to discover his very heart When any society or combination of men whatever hitherto it hath been esteemed is not capable of such a reduction and renovation p. 270. I suppose I shall never provoke any wise and sober person if I profess I cannot look on such a society â—â— a Church of Christ Is not Reader this at once to unchurch all the Churches of England since the Reformation for it s known during the Reign of the Prelates they were not capable of that Reduction And what capacity our Churches are now in for that Reduction partly by want of power and assistance from the Magistrate without which some dare not set upon a Reformation for fear of a pramunireâ— partly by our Divisions amongst our selves femented by he knows whom he cannot but see as well as we lament But if we must be denyed to be Churches because we are not in such a capacity and cannot do all we would to reform them we are in a sad condition What if a Church want some things she had at her first institution perhaps of no great concernment or be it great but either by the prohibition of the present powers or the opposition of a prevalent party it is not now capable of Reduction to its primitive Institution Will he look upon this society as no Church of Christ and think no wise or sober man in that society or other where will be provoked to anger if not to indignation And so much the more when as upon this ground we are in danger to lose all our best members for so he advises thereupon I shall advise those therein who have a due right to the priviledges purchased for them by Christ as to Gospel Administrations to take some other peaceable course to make themselves partakers of them That is to come out from among them and joyn themselves to some Independent Congregation § 24 To satisfie the former objection is out of his way at present p. 270. for he tells us He must mannage principles which in this Discourse he hath not been occasioned to draw forth or to improve I cannot but make it my earnest request and so I think will many more that he would be pleased to do us the favour to bring forth and mannage those principles to their utmost clearness and strength which this
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-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-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-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-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
spoken and like a true Presbyterian To cut themselves off from the communion of the Church which is separation is to rent the body of Christ and what is that but Schism which is so much declamed against in his book of Schism And what liberty his people take and he allows for separation from not ours but any Church is fully discoursed above To separate from the communion of the Church is also affirmed to be a breach of sacred charity which is often denyed in the latter book But yet more Presbyterian Doctrine Men ought not under a pretence of congregating themselves to serve God separate from their brethren neglecting the publick Assemblies as was the manner of some rebuked by the Apostle Heb. 10.5 There be peculiar blessings and transcendent priviledges annexed to publick Assemblies which accompany not private men to their recesses c. yet this is ordinaririly done by most of the Independent way and allowed yea justified now by himself That sense of the text Heb. 10.25 of neglecting the publick Assemblies as the manner of many is is now otherwise glossed and taken for Apostacy from the Faith Of Schism p. 74. And the event hath sadly proved that private recesses are not accompanyed with those peculiar blessings annexed to publick Assemblies witness those errors heresies blasphemies prophanesses which have followed private meetings § 45 Another caution and the third is As the Ministry p. 49. so also ought the Ministers to have that regard respect and obedience which is due to their labours in that sacred calling would we could not too frequently see more puffed up with a conceit of their own gifts into a contempt of the most learned and pious Pastors those are spots in your Feasts of charity c. This is so plain and evidently true as if he that writ it carried the sunne in his hand And he did in a manner prophesie when he said Let not them who despise a faithful Minister in publick flatter themselves with hope of a blessing on their endeavors in private Let them pretend what they will they have not an equal respect unto all Gods Ordinances No doubt he spake then of our Parochial Ministers and Ministry as an Ordinance of God whom now he unministers and despises both them and their Ordination as we have heard above Viderit ipse § 16 It might be objected against the peoples liberty of private Assemblies That this seems to favour licentious Conventicles which in all places the Laws have condemned and the Leâ—rned in all Ages have abhorred as Seminaries of Faction and Schism in the Church To this he answers liâ—e a true Presbyterian p. 51. Under correâ—tion I conceive that the Law layeth hold of none as peccant in such a kind but onely those who have predeclared themselves to be opposers of the worship of God in the publick Assemblies of that Church wherein they live Neither do I conceive that they ought at all to be alloâ—â—d the benefit of private meetings who wilfully abstain from the publick Congregations so long as the true worship of God is held forth in them Enough enough Now what a case are all the Conventicles of Sectaries in the very Seminaries of Schism Faction and besides a sinke of errours heresies blasphemies The only evasion will be one of these two 1. That he spake this under correction as not his peremptory judgement And its likely he hath come under correction of his party and done some kind of pennance for this declaration p. 16. p. 52. and it may be his Latine Discourse he tells us of twice at least as an answer to the Arguments of the Remonstrants and others for such a liberty of prophecyings as they term it hath suffered strangling upon his correction for I hear not that it is in the Land of the living yet born or put forth for if it were it would condemn his own â—aw allowance and toleration of such Conventicles That 's one Or 2. He must affirm That the true worship of God is not held forth in our Congregations which I hope he will not dare to do nor can be able to prove if he do affirm it What his performance in this kind is to plead for his separation we have seen above and to how little satisfaction § 17 There are two other Objections which he answers well as his then opinion was I shall dispatch them in a word 1. Men are apt to pride themselves in their Gifts and so t encroach on the Priests office and create themselves Pastors in seperate Congregations This we see done sufficiently now by others and himself What saies he to it Offences will come c. but God-fearing men will remember Korah p. 53. they that love their souls will not suffer themselves to be carryed away by self-conceit so far as to help to overthrow the very constitution of any Church by confusion or the flourishing of it by ignorance both which would certainly follow such courses This needs no comment nor confirmation only it will need a Reply from himself since he hath retracted this truth by him here delivered by a contrary practise The next Objection is no lesse true and really exemplified in the present Conventicles This may be a means for men to vent their own private fancies unto others to foment and cherish errours in one another to give false interpretations of the word there being no way to prevent it What saies he to this For interpreting the word I speak not but applying of it being rightly interpreted And for the rest would to God the complaints were not true of those things that have for divers years in this Church been done publickly c. But to prevent this the care rests on them whose sedulous endeavour should be to reprove and convince false Doctrine c. That is I suppose the Ministers This may do something in the publick but what 's this to men of private meetings separating from the Church They will not come to hear in publick and he does not intend that Ministers should attend those privatâ— meetings that were to turn them into publick as now they speak How then shall we prevent their boldness in interpreting Scripture or their ignorance and folly in misapplying it This answer is the most weak and defective and how he will give a better in his New way it rests upon him to consider and give at his own leasure FINIS ERRATA Page 1. l. 9. r. against l. last r. chargâ—â— p. 2. l. 2. dele the p. 4. l. 7. del they l. 22. for parly r. only p. 5. l. 5. r. advantage p. 25. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 30. l. 4. 1. Patriarchats l. 34. marg r. Jam. 2. p. 35. after the word place in l. 4. 〈◊〉 how can it rationally he thought or inferred that he dehorted theâ— from no kind or degree of Schism but such iâ— was at that time in the particular Church 〈◊〉 Corinth so that all this is nothing â—ut a begging of the question P. 39. l. 14. r. 〈◊〉 â— 53. l. 11. after nature put in p. 58. l. 24. beforâ— dest put in p. 5â— l. 4. â— affirming p. 60. l. 〈◊〉 f. tot r. yet p. 65. l. 24. f. mind r. include p 66. l. 21. r. exhorting one p. 70. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72. marg r. p. 77. p. 85. l. 27. f. l. r. it p. 8â— l. 26. f. to r. so p. 94. l. 7. dele of p. 104. l. 2â— f. erre r. ere p. 110. l. 12. r. assert dele to â— 113. l. 27. r. concessis p. 114. l. 29. r. fundâ—mental p. 115. l. 22. f. it r. his p. 120. l. 1. after r. ask p. 133. l. 9. dele to p. 141. l. 1â— f. it r. is p. 143. l. 5 f. world r. word p 158. 5. af f. as properly r. improperly p. 159. l. af for his r. this p. 167. l. 12. dele them p. 16 l. 3. f. ye r. she p. 170. l. 3. af for r. freâ— p. 172. l. 11. r. Congregations p. 175. l. 3. r. Oâ—ficers p. 18. l. 16. f. firmer r. finer p. 185. last put in their p. 192. l. 14. after of â— in the.
two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
a libertie at first to settle in such a congregation so also to remove their habitations and to settle in another not to goe many miles to partake of the Ordinances which seemes unsuitable to the first plantation of Churches and the mutuall duties of people of one congregation But of that elsewhere And though the Reverend Ministers of London doe grant pag. 203. That in the beginning of Christianitie the number of believers were so few in great Cities as that they might all meet in one place yet they did not imagine that when they at Jerusalem were multiplyed into many thousands or myriads they could so do And if they met in severall places as they must they had also severall Elders to administer the Ordinances to them and yet are called singularly one Church Adde to this that at Ephesus Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove there was but one particular Church there the text sayes expressely there were many Elders there v. 25. you all He sent to Epheâ—us for the Elders of the Church which eâ—idences cleerely that there werâ— more Congregations then one in Ephesus for how could many Elders officiate in one Congregation This alone if nothing else could be said affords more for a Presbyteriall Church than all the New Testament does for an Independent Church gathered I know not how out of many Churches But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I. § 3 To the consideration of the unitie of this Church and the breach of it hee premises some things p. 205. 1. A man may be a member of the Catholick invisible Church 2. Of the Catholick visible Church and yet by some providentiall hinderance be never joyned to a particular Church which I grant as true but onely note two things to be satisfied in 1. How he can reconcile this with what he said afore p. 133. Sect. 26. The members of the Catholick visible Church are initiated into that professsion of faith by baptism But Baptism according to his principles is an Ordinance of worship onely to be enjoyed in a particular Church unlesse he will grant what yet he does deny but will be forced to grant that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church even to the Catholike Church and may administer baptism out of a particular Church as Philip did to the Eunuch and Paul to the Jaylor or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship let him take his choice 2. I note also how he is at distance with some of his friends in New England Mr. Hooker's survey See my Review page 119. who assert That no man can be a member of the Catholike Church but he must first be a member of a particular But 3. he grants Every beleiver is obliged to joyne himself to some one of those Churches that there he may abide in doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer c if he have opportunitie This he willingly grants and I as willingly accept for an use I shall make of it anone but I like not so well his reasons p. 206 1. There are some duties with cannot possibly be performed but on a supposition of this dutie previously required Math. 18.15 c If he had said those duties cannot so well be performed its true but some of them are due to others beside our own Congregation But I shall make this advantage of it That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed then some of their Church-members are ill gathered living many miles asunder Cohabitation in Townes and Parishes seemes a necessary requisite to Church-membership 2. There are some Ordinances of Christ which they can never be made partakers of not related to some such Society as Admonition participation of the Lords Supper c. As for Admonition it is a duty that concerns every man to any man though not of his particular Church though specially to them of their own society And as for partaking of the Lords Supper why may he not enjoy it in another Church as well as Baptism which he allowed before to one of the Catholick Church If Christians professing the same Faith were looked on as Brethren and as having thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ in any Church where they come they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joyned to a particular Church But this ingrossing the common Ordinances to a few confederate persons and making the rest little better than Heathens as to their Communion violates the Order of the Gospel and the Rule of charity and may justly be called Schism § 4 His third reason I like yet worse That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship meerely and purely of soveraign institution but only to them and by them who are so joyned But then I would ask 1. Whether Philip Baptizing the Eunuch in the way had Christs direction for it or no or is Baptism no part of worship 2. Prayer and reading of the Word in private families are they no duties of worship 3. Preaching to convert Heathens and then to baptize them is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister Rom. 10.14 4 Let me be so bold as to ask once more By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament or at St. Maries in Oxford with a mixt unjoyned congregation c Or are not these there and at that time parts of worship of Christs Institution I hope he will not say so 4. For his fourth reason he gives this The Apostles in planting of Churches took care to leave none whom they converted out of that Order where it was possible c. But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch the Deputy Acts 13. c. Unless where there were enow converted to make a Church But he laying so much stress upon a particular Church and the necessity of joyning with it it seems reasonable there should be some directions to enjoyn every single convert impossibilities only excepted leaving all inconveniences at least to joyn himself to some particular Church rather than not to partake of the Ordinances all his daies as he said afore For the 5. Christs institution of Officers for them c. that is for particular Churches onely if it speak reason is as weak as the rest For its evident 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first for the whole Church as the Apostles c. Eph. 4.11 2 All those Officers ordinary as Pastors or Teachers are set in the Catholick Church and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholick Church if he deny this he knows where to find a learned Antagonist The last reason as all the rest is fallacious or inconsequent Christ took care for particular Churches therefore the Ordinances are no where to be had by any man but in his own particular Congregation § 6 That there is an instituted worship of God to be continued under the New Testament