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
done § 5. In the mean time I still follow him it cannot be denied but that their vigorous adhering to the former Advantage a thing to be expected from men wise in their generation hath exposed some of them to a contrary evill whilst in a conceit of their own innocencie as being the only true Churches of Christ they have insensibly slipt as is the manner of men into sleight contemptible thoughts of Schism wherof they are accused as esteeming it no great matter to separate from any or all true Churches making it no Schism See p. 46 no crime at all as will appear hereafter The safest way for them is to deny this Separation to be a Schism for otherwise he asserts well To live in Schism is to live in sinne which unrepented of will ruine a mans eternall condition Upon this therefore depends the issue of this whole cause For if a causelesse Separation from a true Church be proved a Schism as I doubt not it will I shall adde his own words Every man charged with it must either desert his station which gives foundation to his charge or acquit hmself of the crime in that station And this latter for he likes not to leave his Station is that whâ—ch in reference to himself and others he does propose and mannages with much confidence Upon this we put the whole issue of this present cause § 6. For let not them think that the Iniquitie of their Accusers as to other corruptions doth in the least extenuate their crime Schism is Schism stâ—ll Though our Churches from whom they Separate be not so pure as they ought or would be Yea though we were worse than we are as bad as the Church of Corinth yet ought not they to separate from us as no Churches of Christ being desirous of Reformation but are Schismaticks if they do They ought rather to have stayed and helped to reforme us which they make almost impossible by their uncharitable Separation from us This that followes were worth their most serious consideration A conscientious tendernesse and fear of being mistaken will drive this businesse to another Issue whereas their Confidence in carriage of their way is a stop to their and our Reformation § 7. 8. 9. The state of things in this time is too well known in the world to the great scandall of Christianity And wo is to them by whom the offence cometh 1. Protestants are charged by Papists as Schismaticks for departing as they say from the Catholike Church which Church they are 2. Calvinists by Lutherans for no crime in the world but this sayes our Author but because we submit not to all they teach which he counts unreasonable upon this ground That in no instituted Church-relation would they ever admit us to stand with them Which is as considerable an instance of the power of prejudice as this Age can give unlesse it may be paraleld in his own Church It is as well a Schisme to keep fit members out of Church-Relations and priviledges as to separate from a true Church 3. Presbyterians are charged with the same crime by Episcopall men because they reject that way of Government and somwhat of the externall way of Worship 4. The Independents are accused by Presbyterians of the same fault for making differences in and then separating from their Churches as no true Churches and setting up others of their own The learned Doctor supposes this last charge is in a short time almost sunke of it self and so will ask the lesse paines utterly to remove and take off But he is an happy man if things out of sight were presently out of minde His party hath rather sunke the charge by their silence in not answering than dispersed or removed it And he will finde that it swims on the face of those Discourses written against their way if he pleased to take notice of them And this charge revived by his Importunity he will finde will aske more paines to take off than he is aware of much more than we shall need to take to remove the same charge from our selves put upon us by the other three sorts of men Papists Lutherans and Episcopall Had it not been done often and sufficiently by men of our own judgement himself hath removed it from us in removing it from himselfe in this discourse But how he will remove ours comes shortly to be considered § 10. What those general principles of irrefragable evidence are whereby he will acquit us all and himself also from the severall concernments in this charge we shall readily attend unto But how the whole guilt of this crime shall be thrust into one Ephah and by whom carried to build it an house in the Land of Shinar to establish it upon its own Base as he phrasisies it I do not well understand Onely I suppose he will discharge the charge by a new definition of Schism and some other like distinctions which if it be true will carry it almost quite out of the world blesse the Churches with everlasting peace All Schism shall be confined to a particular church of which hereafter § 11. But that he should professe his much rathernesse to spend all his time in making up and healing the breaches and Schisms among Christians than one houre in justififying our divisions c. seemeth strange to me when as his whole book or greatest part is as a learned Doctour said one great Schism P. 8. and in the Designe of it nothing but a justification of himself and partie in their Divisions with us and Separation from us and tells us the cause is so irreconcilable that none but the Lamb is worthy or able to close the differences made Who when he will come and put forth the greatnesse of his power is very uncertain and he puts us out of hope that before that it shall be accomplished And yet sayes In the mean time a Reconciliation amongst all Protestants is our dutie and practicable and had perhaps ere this been in some forwardnesse had men rightly understood wherein such a reconciliation according to the mind of God doth consist Which I hope he will ere we part give us to understand He seems to place it much in a principle of forbearance that is in Toleration of one another in any way of Religion the cursed fruits whereof we reap with lamentation at this day They have indeed strongly improved that principle of forbearance to perswade us to beare with them but how little of it they have shewed to us the world is Judge § 12. The two generall wayes fixed on by some for compassing of peace and union among Christians deserve some consideration and to be searched to the bottom The one is inforcing uniformity by a secular power the other is Toleration of all or most waies of Religion except such as concerne the Civill interest He speaks first of them both together as if there were no hope of union peace love to be expected
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
separate themselves but drew others also into seperation And Clem. Alexandr interprets it segregantes fideles à fidel bus id est alios ab aliis Seperating the faithfull from the faithfull that is some members of the Church from other In a word others understand it of both kinds of separation tam in doctrina quam in coetibus in opinions and parties or assemblyes And both these being causelesse divisions are by all accounted Schism p. 27. Now the reverend Doctor to avoid this calls these Abominations and not Schism As Anabaptists Quakers c do not cease to be Independents but a e that and some thing more and askes whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted Schismaticks or their crime in separating Schism But this is but a dâ—sguise of the businesse For there may be Schism in this and the other two afore and something more He that raises dissentions in a Church and then separates from it either by Apostacie Idlenesse or sensualitie carryes his brand of a Schismatick with him though it seeme to be swallowed up in further abominations There are degrees of Schism as I said which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem the wickednesse that such proceed unto but from the terminus à quo that is from a true Church I shall put him a case If a member of his Congregation inclining to Apostacie Idlenesse or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church concerning any of those and then should seperate from his Church either into irregular walking as some Antinomians or into Abhominations as some Ranters or into totall Apostacie and Atheism which many are fallen into from the height of this way would he not say thee were Schismaticks and something worse And of all it may be said These are they that separate themselves I leave it to him § 5 But he is so confident of the contrary that he redoubles more vigourously his former Assertion I say p. 77. for a man to with-draw or with-hold himself from the Communion externall and visible of any Church or Churches on the pretension and plea be it true or otherwise that the worship doctrine discipline instituted by Christ is corrupted among them with which corruption he dares not defile himselfe it is no where in the Scripture called Schism c. Before I come to scanne the words in particular I shall say in generall this is a fallacious because an ambiguous assertion For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate when there is corruption in some one of these onely or in all of them 2. Nor how far some or all of these must be corrupted before we may separate 3. All these were as much corrupted and more in the Jewish Church as in ours when he and his partie separated from us and yet our Saviour and his Apostles continued their Communion with it and the Church of Corinth in all these was as much and more corrupted than ours yet the Apostle mentions no separating from it 4. He now requires that it be called Schisme in Scripture when as before he said if it had the nature of it it was sufficient 5. If a bare Plea against corruptions true or false may warrant a separation then the most rigid seperatists may be and are by him acquitted from Schism as I said above But more particularly He hath not rightly stated the question as now it lyes between us which is not of a single mans secession from a true Church a particular Congregation to joyne himselfe to another Church of the same Constitution where he may enjoy as he thinks the Ordinances more purely or more profitably For it was ever lawfull for a man to remove his habitation and to joyne himselfe to such a Congregation But the pinch of the question is whether a man or a company of men may separate from a true Church upon a plea of corruption in it true or false set up another Church as to all Ordinances renouncing that Church to be a true Church And so much the worse and more Schismaticall is that separation from a true Church when either those men that separate have not done those duties incumbent on them to reforme it or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavour to reforme it selfe according to the Rule of the Gospell This is plainly our case at present with the Doctor and his Associates § 6 But he further affirmes Of one Church particular departing from that communion with another p. 78. or others be it what it will which it ought to hold unlesse in the departing of some of them in some things from the common Faith which is supposed not to relate to Schism in the Scripture we have no example The more happie were those times that they yeelded no such example But if they did not yet if they give us an example of one Church divided upon differences into severall Congregations or to some Ordinances as we proved they do they come very neere the case of Schism before us And himselfe hath granted that upon supposition that Rome is a particular Church as opposed to the Catholick she is the most Schismaticall Church in the world not onely in regard of her own intestine divisions as he but also in her separation from the Apostolicall primitive Church in doctrine worship and discipline as our Divines do maintaine upon this acount it was that the Divines of the Assembly said To leave all ordinary communion in any Church with dislike where opposition See p. 141 or offence offers it selfe is to seperate from such a Church in the Scripture sense though they adde pag. 79. such separation was not in being in the Apostles time His exception to this is frivolous How they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them I know not The reconciliation is easie In the Apostles time or in that case of the Corinthians such was their happinesse there was no separation of one Church from another in that high manner as after they did but yet the Scripture gives a faire ground by way of consequence there and in other places above named to conclude that if separation in a Church in opinions and judgement be a Schism much more separation from a true Church by persons or Churches leaving all ordinary communion with it with dislike or opposition is to be accounted Schism especially if they first depart from the common Faith and then upon that difference separate from the Church And therefore though he be unwilling I shall not doubt but to be able to compell him to carry on the notion of Schism further than yet he hath done § 7 But that he may shew his skill and gratifie his Adversaries he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue p. 81. according to the common definition of Schism That it is a breach of union onely he will put in a reasonable postulatum that this
union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ which I shall freely grant him provided he do not limit Schism as formerly he did to the worship of God only yet that he does here againe The consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God marke that is instituted by Jesus Christ is the foundation of what I have further to offer c The Designe of this is that he may have a faire retreat when he is charged with breach of union in other respects and so with Schism to escape by this evasion This breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one Assembly met to that end And that is onely Schism in the Scripture notion as he hath often said But I shall attend his motion § 8 This union being instituted in the Church according to the various acceptions of that word so it is distinguished For which purpose he undertakes three things to shew 1. The severall considerations of the Church with which union is to be preserved 2. What that union is p. 82. we are to keep with the Church in each consideration 3. How that union is broken and what the sinne whereby it is done Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned leaving others to plead for themselves CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall and its Union § 1 THe Church of Christ in this world is taken in Scripture three wayes 1. For the mysticall body of Christ p. 84. his elect redeemed c commonly called the Church Catholick militant 2. For the universalitie of men called by the Word visibly professing the Gospell called the Church Catholick visible 3. For a particular Church of some place wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind This distinction of the Church is rather of the word than of the thing intended by it imports not a three-fold Church but one Church under a threefold consideration arising as he sayes from the nature of the things themselves that is the members of that Church who may be considered either as true believers that makes the invisible Church 2 as professors of the same Faith that makes the Catholike visible Church or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship and that is called a particular Church For as the definition of a Church agrees to it in all the three considerations It is a societie of men called out of the world by the word c So the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches or in that threefold consideration of it at once He that is a true believer of the invisible Church is also a professor of the Faith and so a member of the Catholike visible Church and he that is of both those is or ought to be if possible a member of a particular Church Now the Church having its rise and nature from a call as the word imports that call admitting of severall degrees causes this three-fold notion of the Church That call in Scripture is either internall which he calls effectuall or externall and that again admits of degrees men are called either to the profession of Faith onely lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances or to participatâ—on of the instituted worship also In their obedience to the first call they are said to be members of the Church invisible to the second to be members of the Catholike visible to the third to be members of a particular Church And his own way of raising the former distinction is the same for substance p. 84. § 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last acception is not onely because members of a particular Church are bound to externall rules for joynt communion for to those very rules are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also when it is possible but partly because the Catholike Church in either sense cannot all meet in one place and partly because the opportunitie to yeeld obedience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie not too great or numerous § 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church which 〈◊〉 calls the Mysticall body of Christ his elect page 84. c the Church Catholike militant I have but a little to say I observe onely first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible onely to this world as militant whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect both Militant and Triumphant from Heb. 12.23 The generall assembly and Church of the first borne which are written in heaven 2. That he makes the Church invisible the onely Mysticall body of Christ which is ordinarily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state 3. See my Vind Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28 to prove the Catholike invisible Church which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church He sayes They that will apply this text to the Church in any otheâ— sense page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true member of the Church in that sense which will be difficult c But I say that the promise in that text and the rest cited is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church is true They are built upon that Rock and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them but yet it may be true with respect if not to a particular Church which may faile yet to the Catholike visible Church which as it is built upon that Rock the confession of Peter that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God and the Messiah come So it is to continue to the worlds end and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it And this himselfe confesses I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age and such as made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation one way or other p. 86. f. There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church not onely invisible as true beleivers but also of the visible as professors of the Faith of the Gospell and so the promise is made good to it Indeed the promise in that text is made to the whole Church indefinitely and respectively but not to every particular person in it nor to every particular Church There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages but whether it be made to a particular Church That Christ hath had alwayes a Church in this sense in the world himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry p. 85. § 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter § 3 The second thing considerable is the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church among themselves which he makes to be pag. 95. The
use his own words Let the breach of union in the Churches be accounted if you please Schism or a crime for being an evill I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguishâ—d p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists from all other Churches might be called a Schism and takes it for granted they and himselfe are free from that charge for so he sayes p. 167. How little we are at this day in any contests that are mannaged amongst us concerned in those differences of theirs those few considerations afore will evince It s true indeed in our Separation from Rome the instance of the Donatists is very impertinent as in other respects so in this that they separated from the truely Catholick Church we from the Idolatrous corrupt particular Church of Rome falsely called Catholicke But it concernes him and his partie neerely in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches agreeing as they doe in the principles and practices of the Donatists The question then is unresolved whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism All he sayes is this We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church p. 168. which as we have not done so to do is not Schism but a sinne of another nature and importance The ground he goes upon why separation from a true Church is no Schism is that afore That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely a division of judgment in a particular Assembly not a separation from any Church which if it were true as it is proved false above as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papists with ease so it will acquit himselfe and all Sectaries in the world from the crime of Schism That the principle and principall plea of Romanists that they are the Catholick Church out of whose communion there is no salvation as the Donatists was of old was and in Schismaticall was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Divines And if it be true which his partie assent to that their Churches are onely rightly constituted and other Churches and Ministers are false or none as they do also assert they are equally guiltie of that Schismaticall principle That they are the only not Catholick particular Churches out of whose Communion there is ordinarily no Salvation This very principle in the Donatists first and then in the Romanists hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time and of the troubles that have issued thence and to make differences in a Church and troubâ—es thereupon to separate is acknowledged or proved to be Schism then the raising of the like differences and persisting to maintaine them upon the very same principle as the onely true Churches how it can be exempted from Schism I am to learn § 5 That I was not mistaken in the ground he goes upon to free the Donatists of old and Protestants together with himselfe from the charge of Schism was his own notion and definition of Schism will now appeare in his own answer to the Romanists argument which he rather insists upon than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely that is for divisions onely in a particular Church pag. 193. And thereupon denyes 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church or if there could it would be madnesse to call it Schism 2. nor from the Catholike visible because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith is not Schism but Apostacie 3. nor from a particular Church for that is not properly Schism for so he sayes 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church as such as meerly seperation is Schism or ought to be so esteemed though perhaps such seperation may proceed from Schism and attended with other evils But this mistakes the question for the Romanists themselves do not mean that every separation from any Church is Schism as such but a causelesse separation from the true Catholâ—ke Church which they suppose themselves to bee And so some and most of ours do state it as he obâ—erves page 191. s 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry Haeresie c of the Church of Rome as iust cauâ—es of separation from her which plea sayes he will not be shaken to eternitie 2. Hee affirmes that separation however upon just cause p. 194. from any Church is no Schism This as it is the same with the former in â—ense so is by none denyed This is granted by all persons Schism is causelesse say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a dutie and therefore cannot be Schism which is alwayes a sinne Hence it appeares that hee needlessely denyes their Major proposition being rightly understood in their sense who propounded it And our Divines did better to deny the Minor We have neither voluntarily nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome But his answer is another thing Separation in the sense contended about p. 194. must be from some state and condition of Christs institution pag. 195 a Church of his appointment otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism at least not in a Gospel sense The Summe is this Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution but our separation from Rome is not from a Church of Christs institution therefore it is no Schism And though it be true that the nationall Hierarchicall Church of Rome the papall and patriarchall Church be not a Church of Christs institution yet the bottome of his argument lyes here That Schism in the Scripture notion is onely found in a particular Church which must serve him for more uses than one as we shall heare anon And thence he inferres that separation either of one Church from another or of persons from a Church upon any occasion true or false what ever it be it is no Schism which is spoken to above and will come againe § 6 But that there may be Schism besides that in a particular Church I prove by a double argument ex confessis 1. Schism is a breach of union But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible Church 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith professed wherein the union of the Catholick Church consists there may be a breach of union but there may be differences in the Catholick or among the members of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith professed ergo I suppose his answer will be That the forsaking of it's communion which consists in the profession of faith is not Schism but Apostacie p. 193. s 52. But that is not alwayes so for both there may be differences in the faith and yet no Apostacie or if there be Apostacie it may be a Schism also Apostates