which men profess in subjection to one Lord Jesus Christ being initiated into that profession and so that body by Baptism 2. It is such a body as with its head makes up Christ v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Christ what are all the other how many Christs shall we have For my part I conceive as all true believers make up but one spiritual body to which Christ is a saving and spiritual head so all the particular Churches in the world are but one body visible of which Christ is the Political Head Every true believer is said to be married to Christ and of this Church Paul saith he had espoused them to Christ and are not thousands more but we do not read Rev. 22.17 Brides say Come nor of the Lambs wives ch 21.9 but the Lambs Bride and Wife thus the Catholick visible body is called the Kingdom of Christ not Kingdoms though by reason of the numberless number the Lord bids one Pastour feed you my flock there and another feed you my flock there c. yet but one flock one body these meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick by reason of the numerosity of its members for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place and partake of the same numerical ordinances orderly this meeting in several places should cease 3. It is such a body as hath Apostles set in it v. 28. but though the Apostles were officers to this particular Church yet not to this only but to the Catholick 4. It is such a body that the members of it suffer together and rejoyce together v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and sympathy is not confined to the members of that particular Church I hope the same specifical care though not the same gradual care I think such a distinction may help to understand the 25. v. for I conceive there is some neerer tie to my own members in particular as to my own family and yet to have no care of other members of another Church though I see them in danger of sin or require of me the dispensing of an rdinance regularly c. I think this is not right Then 27. v. what I have said of the great body I say to you who are a similar part of this great body and so called the body of Christ Do ye take heed there be no Schism amongst you Thus that parallel Text Rom. 12.4 5. seems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome but the Catholick many members but one body When I can see better reasons given me to prove he is discoursing of a particular Church I shall yield to them Q. But how can Schism be in the Catholick-Church visible this must be enquired into though I fail in the opening of it yet what I have said to the Text before will save me A. I must premise some things then come to the answer The Doctor p. 133. Schis speaking of the Catholick-Church saith The saving doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ and obedience through him to God as professed by them is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body But under favour I conceive the Doctor hath expressed only that bond which is between the body and the head but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other surely if a body there are such the Apostle Eph. 4.16 I think speaks of a bond among the members and by the 11. v. he seems to me to speak of the Catholick-Church-visible from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplieth according to the effectual working in the measure of every part maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it self in love Upon which words Zanchy thus Concludere vult Apostolus quod initio proposuerat fovendam esse unitatem hujus corporis mystici per vinculum pacis Ratio quia ita se habet hoc corpus ut nisi quis per fidem vivam amorisque plenam cum Christo conjunctus per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque ecclesia congruenter coagmentatus permà neat is non possit a Christo vel vitam vel alimentum incrementum accipere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysost Masculus thus Dilectio conglutinat membra Christi and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci est separatis ac divulsis quales quales tandem esse videantur With these agree Beza Charity is the knitting of the limbs together Faith and Love use to be joyned together if the Apostle doth express it as the bond surely we may call it so and thus we have the body united to the head and each member one to another To the preservation of this union saith the Doctor it is required that all those grand and necessary truths of the Gospel without the knowledge where of no man can be saved by Jesus Christ be so far believed as to be outwardly and visibly professed in that variety of ways wherein they are or may be called out thereunto p. 134. To which I add and unto the preservation of that bond of union among the members it 's required that all such Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joyned together as such a body ought carefully and Christianly to be performed when we are regularly called thereunto this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head being not confined to a particular Church but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body by which men shew whose Disciples they are Hence then as all such errors which subvert those grand and necessary Truths being received and believed do dissolve the bond of union between the head and the members and declare men to be Apostates So all such Acts as do openly manifest the causeless breach of Love by which the members are united each to other do declare such persons guilty of Schism Apostasie as I conceive properly respecting the Head but Schism the Body Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclusions 1. The members of this great Body in attending upon those ordinances of worship instituted by their Head especially the two Sacraments doe declare that faith in their Head which they professe Open Baptism we finde nothing there but Christ open the Lords Supper we have nothing there but Christ our Head and the grand and necessary Truths which concerne our salvation As the Martyrs sealed up their Confessions by their blood we doe as it were seal up our Profession in partaking of our Lords blood 2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe professedly declare that Union which they have among themselues by love as such a body It is one reason why the Lords Supper is called a Communion and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament Vnio fidelium inter se as
Instance in the Scripture that men upon such pleas have separated yet causelesse separation is a sin opposite to the Vnion commanded and I think Schism and Vnion are opposite If the Doctor then will give me a poor Countrey-Minister leave I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schism I see it is a sin and offen-five to Christ 1 Cor. 12.25 Now what is opposite to this what is the affirmative precept Vnion of the members amongst themselves This is the thing often commanded the thing Christs heart seemed to be fixed upon John 17. when he was leaving the world and that such Union as thereby the world may know whose disciples we are as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined Schism defined Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body I am not in this place critical about the words Vnion or Vnity the Reader hath my meaning I think the Dr. will not oppose this for I find him enquiring exactly into the Vnion of the Invisible and Visible Church c. For the Invisible Church of Christ there can be no Schism saith the Doctor hence I put it not in It must be in his visible body there I take in the Catholick Church which I look on as most properly his Body-visible and also particular Churches I take this definition to be reciprocal I do not call to mind any schismatical Act but it will comprehend it whether it be Schism in a Church or from a Church in the Catholick or particular Churches and yet my ground is Scriptural also though I go not to a particular instance 1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism Let us see what unity the Lord required of this Church was it onely that inward love and forbearance which the Doctor mentions which by their divisions the Apostle saw they had broken Did he not also require that they should as with reverence towards him so with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worship and ordiuances Sacraments c. The Doctors definition saith as much Numerical Ordinances c. If then Cephas and his company had causelesly made the division and upon this separate from the rest and not joyn with them in the Supper wherein they shew themselves to be One bread Chap. 10.17 and other Ordinances dinances did they not manifestly shew a breach of that unity which the Lord required must I not say Cephas you and your company are highly guilty of Schism let the Reader judge Thus then stands the argument If causelesse separation from a Church be a solution of that unity God requireth in his body then causelesse separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent is true The Consequence is clear 2. In case these who made the Division in Corinth had separated from the other members the Doctor grants it had been a greater sin Rev. p. 68. Since then we must not call it Schism let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that sin let him set down the opposite affirmative precept and see if Union will not be found in it I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men or such as appeared so dared ever to make a causelesse separation from a Church To say it is Apostacie no stay I will suppose those members who thus divide to be persons sound in the main points of faith in their conversation visibly godly such as maintain the Ordinances of God amongst themselves the very case of divers of ours but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company now here is no Apostasie And though it be a Church guilty of Schism and so far a schismatical Church yet a true Church Hence I said a causelesse separation c may be Schism i. e. supposing they hold to what before I mentioned else it fell from the faith c. it had been Apostacy and not properly Schism unless you will say both Hence If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture nor can rationally be referred to any other head then Schism then causeless separation from a Church is Schism But the Antecedent is true ergo the Consequent is true The consequence is clear because it partakes of the nature of no sin as of Schism provided those who separate be such as before I mentioned 3. Since the Doctor makes this instance the only seat of the doctrine of Schism and tieth us up so streightly to it I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schism in any Church but onely in such Churches as do exactly answer this instance hence Schism must be only in such Churches where there are diversity of Officers extraordinary gifts differences about meats c. thus I hope most Churches are uncapable of Schism and that sin will hardly be found in our days It may be he will say by consequence it will follow where there are causeless differences where the form of the sin is found there is the sin of Schism though Churches do not answer Corinth But what the Doctor saith that the Scripture doth not call causeless separation from a Church Schism So I can say this Scripture instance calls that only Schism where some were for Cephas others for Apollos c. But further let us enquire into the form of the sin where it is In the division amongst the members to the disturbance of the order in the worship of God c. I wish the Doctor had told us how that order was disturbed some things he doth mention but whether all the disorder in the worship of God be recorded I know not and that which is recorded admits of some questions to be resolved before we can clearly understand it As for the disturbance of the order I suppose he doth not make that the form of the sin of Schism nor part of it I look on it rather as a consequent of the Schism therefore not the form neither do I look on Order and Schism properly as contrary where Vnum uni tantum opponitur they do not cominus inter se pugnare per proximas formas Nor am I certain that there was ever Schism where yet some disorder have been found I cannot tell that there was Schism amongst the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. but some disorder there was in the exercise of their gifts as it should seem by the last Verse the Apostle calls for order Ecclesiastical union causelesly dissolved I take to be the form of Schism this is it by which Schism is id quod est If then the Doctor will allow that Schism may be in Churches by consequence though the causes be not such as were in Corinth northe
Divines doe unanimously acknowledge upon that 1 Cor. 10.17 Fractio panis est unitatis dilectionis Symbolum saith Pareus Much might be here spoken I know there are other wayes by which Christians manifest their love and so did Heathens in such manner as now is scarcely found amongst Christians but for the manifestation of their love to each other as such a body there is no way that I know of nor no ordinance in which they do so declare it as in this ordinance wherein they though many are one bread 1 Cor. 10.17 3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular Church primarily but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them and so are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body That the Sacraments come to be administred in several particular societies I gave the reason before seeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church by reason of the numerosity of its members That body which the bread signifies in the Supper is but one body and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread Jesus Christ with his body make one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 The Sacraments doe shew our union with our Head Christ primarily and the union of the members amongst themselves I know a person who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles distant this wrong caused a division between this person and the other upon which this person durst not venture to the Supper but kept off till reconciliation was made knowing what the Supper did call for then came to me and joyned in the ordinance I knew not the reason of this person 's holding off so long before If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled since the other person had no relation to our Church This was one bred up in the Episcopal way but it were well if others made so much conscience as this person did in this respect 4. Hence then that Church which shall deny to the members of other Churches qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be and walking orderly in their particular Churches occasionally desiring communion with the Church fellowship with them in the Sacraments because they are not of their judgments as to Congregational Classical or Episcopal principles and will hold fellowship onely with those who are of their principles I charge that Church with Schism in respect of the Catholick Church by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Christ requires in his Church Object But we may love them and shew our love in other wayes though we doe not this way Answ So doe the Heathen shew love to Heathen and so doe we to Heathen though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Christians as members of such a body having union with your Head and union with you also who are of the same body making up one Christ 1 Cor. 12. you deny And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be visible members of Christ being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Christ according to their light in their particular Churches yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head nor to be parts of the Catholick Body neither the members refused nor consequently the Churches to which they belong being of the same judgment So that while you talk of Love I say as the Apostle Shew me thy faith by thy works so shew me your Ecclesiastical love by Church-fellowship To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully Haec scissio maxime perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda c. Thus I conceive Congregational Classical or Episcopal Churches may be guilty of Schism and cause Schism in the Catholick-Church-Visible As for that Doctrine That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordinance to none but his own members This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of and I suppose will not be defended To this I add Suppose there be divers members of several particular Churches who are very zealous for Prophesying and they must have their liberty to prophesie whether they have abilities or not the Churches conceive that the gift of Prophesying being extraordinary is ceased therefore will allow no such liberty These are so set for their Prophesying that they make Divisions in the Churches and at last separate from them all and make up one Church by themselves they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members they have all the ordinances and officers of Christ among them whence I cannot deny but here is a Church but yet they refuse communion with all other Churches in the world unless of their opinion neither give nor take though desired and there are no other Churches in the world of their opinion or practice Now this Church I cannot charge with Apostasie from the Head but with separation from the Catholick Church and so is guilty of Schism If it be said this Church is a part of the Catholick Church how then separate from it It 's true else it were not Schism but Apostasie but as it separates from all other Churches causelesly in that sense I speak Hitherto of the Doctors Definition As for his Design to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schism though we suppose Schism to be a causelesse separation from a Church I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary and that partly because of the honour which I bear to many of these brethren partly because I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind if by the title of his book as I find it quoted by the Doctor for I never saw Mr. Cawdrey Independencie is great Schism he means that congregational principles will necessarily conclude a man a Schismatick Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth such a necessity of Schism will not be forced but whether all in England can quit themselves I doubt it What some may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongst the Independents and now read this I know not Possibly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false or that I am changed from my principles as some have said but I assure the Reader I am not gone back nor advanced one step in these controversies from what I ever manifested in those times when those letters were sent to Mr. Edwards I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written but to come to the point presently In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly say the holy Ghost hath commanded a
the Ordinances we admit Indians to I hope they will not deny them admission to those I omit that great question whether Baptism be not a Regenerating Ordinance which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain and have Scriptures which speak very fairly for them so much as I can scarcely be satisfied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring Now though I have not so much light to carry me in any of these opinions and convince me fully of their truth yet I see so much argument for them that I am very tender towards those who goe upon these grounds whatever arguments I have against them which carry me another way and were I a private member of one of those Churches where there were so many those visible Saints an able godly Pastor and the Supper kept as I said I should not dare to separate from it as others doe I might adde to this how some Ministers though they doe baptize yet they deal roundly first with the Parents and so as some will come no more at them for Baptism And one an Episcopal Divine of eminent note hath refused to administer Baptism to the children of such parents as he found sottishly ignorant but sent them back first to learn the principles of Religion and assent to them So that had these who separate stuck close to their Ministers and encouraged them in thus dealing with those scandalous persons in private they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done 3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth and their children baptized for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers and better part but no command to separate from the Officers 4. Should all the godly Ministers in England separate as these men would have us and goe by their rules in admission of Church-members I question whether there would be a godly Minister left in England the common people would not bear it And verily for godly Ministers to suffer death in things so disputable wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple having so much probability from Scripture as that argument of Circumcision with the rest before mentioned but yet more to suffer for rules which themselves made not the Apostles this is a hard chapter those who are so free of their lives may take their course I will blesse the Lord if he shall please to assist me with grace to lay down my life for him if he shall call me to it in things where I am confident I know his mind and the Scriptures are so clear that I need not doubt and in the mean time thank God I meet with such as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of lesse concernment arguments casting me on that side but not without great scruples on the other side I hear great words from some of these they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for I dare not speak such great words 5. These men who thus separate when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object against yet allow in their Churches and think we are bound to allow such who deny all Infant-Baptism and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Churches These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of Abraham from Church-membership these men must be admitted to the Supper and what not the others are debarred from the Supper but their Infants baptized which of these two is the worst I wonder for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man professing Christ in words then not baptize the child of a godly man more reason and Scripture may be alledged for it Whence me thinks the Doctor being such a strong Champion for Toleration may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren some benefit of his opinion for Toleration is Malorum and if this be evil I presume he looks on the Anabaptistical opinion as evil also and if this must be tolerated in Churches and doth not weaken the purity of the Church why the other should not have some allowance I know not I know no understanding man that is against Toleration simply he that will allow none is not fit to live in these times but how far we are bound to Tolerate is a hard question To conclude Respon ad Apol. 168. I shall only see what our Mr. Norton a man who in some cases allows separation from a true Church and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis to that question how is secession to be made from a true Church answers thus 1. Not without due vse of all means to remove the impurities I am sure amongst those means this is one for these to bear witness against the scandalous members and labour in their places to get them removed regularly those then who never deal with any of these in a Church-way who will not bear witness against them to the Eldership but when their Pastor have asked them Will you prove against these c. answer No not they These use means well yet such separate Also how some of the Congregational Ministers who have had their hands in these separations have used all means when as they never went to the Ministers when they encouraged the people in their separation to speak with them I know not I have heard two Ministers of note complain of this unkind dealing 2. Not presently but they must use prudence patience and long-suffering Those Ministers and Churches who have found these in those who separated from them may testifie for them if they can 3. Without condemning of the Châ—â—ch but acknowledging it from whence this secession is made It were well if we could get so much from many of these to acknowledge any to be true Churches but such as are in their gathered as they call it way 4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful Separation from the Lutheran * Yet Calovius in his answer to Jo. Crocius tells us we differ from them in ten Articles and above thirty Controversies p. 33. Churches he will not allow though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper But our men 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have separated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is sound and the persons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of 2. No nor will some of them so much as hear the officer from whom they have separated though sound and godly but rather set up a Tradesman to prophesie in the absence of their own Minister and before they had a Minister exercise their gifts amongst themselves rather then hear their former Minister Certainly if some Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schism there was never any Schism in this world Thus I have given my reasons why I am not satisfied with all which the
70 c. For the Bishop and the Presbyter it must first be proved that these are distinct officers jure divino or else the contest is vain this is not a question for me to handle in this place but I can safely say this there must be more brought from Divine writ then I see is yet brought to prove it or else I can acknowledge no such thing I suppose Bishop Davenant in his Determination upon the question hath summed up what can be brought from Scripture but that will not doe yet he there in some cases will allow Presbyters to ordain and I think our case is as weighty as any Anselm the Popish Canterburian Arch-Bishop in his Comment upon Titus 1. Though I see much of it is taken out of Jerom gave me enough to quiet my thoughts about this question such lines from his pen took much with me considering the Scriptures he brought I am sure he that made the objection did not own any such distinction I think no sober Bishop did ever yet deny the Ordinations in the French Dutch and Scottish Churches to be valid The second Objection was made by another reverend Divine when I passed the Commissioners He put this question to me Whether I judged Ordination necessary to the Constitution of a Minister I answered Yes if it could be had He asked me to which command I would refer Ordination I answered to the second To which he assenting added Cultus naturalis could not nor must be laid aside but Cultus Institutus might rather then Cultus naturalis should God will have mercy not sacrifice in such a case but if I would say Ordination was necessary and might now be had then I must own it by succession and consequently maintain the Church of Rome to be a true Church Some words then passed but time cut us off To this reverend Divine I shall now give a further answer A. The first part of the speech saith no more then we allow onely when Ordination cannot be had I think it is not then properly laid aside 2. Preaching take the word strictly as it is the act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be referred to the first Commandment I conceive but to the second nor do I see our Divines make it a part of Cultus naturalis 3. This notion will cut off popular election as well as Ordination if preaching belongs to Cultus naturalis for that must not be laid aside saith this Divine I hope popular election doth not belong to the first Commandment then election is as unnecessary and if men may preach without Election and Ordination we shall have brave work Preaching here is put for all other Ordinances where then is the essence of a Minister according to his owne notion But the last part of his speech was that where he put the most strength which yet hath been often answered that I might well spare my pains something I answered then and now will add more 1. Divers of our Congregational Divines of which this reverend Divine is one conceive and practise accordingly the Fraternity to have power of Ordination and if so then if election may be had Ordination may be had so shall it not need be laid aside nor shall we need trouble our selves about Rome that dispute rather may be laid aside I desired an Answer of him what he thought of it but he would give me none 2. But suppose his judgement be contrary According to this argument Ordination which we are sure was once an Ordinance of God and I have before proved it must be utterly lost unless with the Seekers we gape for some Apostles again For this argument of Succession may ever be urged and will be as strong to the worlds end as now But why must the Church lose an Ordinance If the argument be so strong against Ordination is it not as strong against any thing else that came through Rome Rome is no true Church ergo nothing that comes through Rome is valid What will be next Mr. Ainsw and other Separatists zealous enough against Rome would not say so of Baptism therefore admitted of no re-baptizing Nor would Mr. Johnson upon the same ground admit of re-ordination one was as valid as the other 3. If God hath so far owned the Ministry of England as to work with it to the conversion of many soundly and others visibly whence there are numbers to elect Ministers I doubt not but he will as well own the Ordination of Ministers by them though they had some accidental corruptions adhering to their own Ordination for the substance true If he hath not owned the Ministry how came our Brethren to gather Churches here some few years since those who elected them to office I believe very few of them if any in some places were converted by Ministers who were not ordained because they must have their Ordination by succession c. I pray where is there a Ministry in the world which God hath more owned 4. Let it be as this Divine saith because Cultus institutus may be laid aside Ordination may be also c. Let us see whither this will go then official preaching pardon the expression for I think all preaching properly so called is official Baptism the Lord's Supper Discipline may be all laid aside upon the same account for these belong to Cultus Institutus so the whole second Commandment lost which way shall we come to these for fear of Rome will he say that the Churches and those without Ordinances it seems may choose their Pastors suppose Wickliff Luther Zuinglius men gifted and raised extraordinarily and election giving the essence to a Ministers call these may now preach baptize c. so the second Commandment is saved else I know not which way he can save it though they be not ordained may not the same Ministers as well Ordain other Ministers Ordination belonging to the same Commandment surely no rational man can oppose it this he must yield to or else the whole instituted worship of God must be lost out of the Church as well as Ordination But if election will help then I hope most of the godly Ministry in England may ordain for they have been elected by the people men qualified and whom God hath blessed in their work more or less though they have more then election in their own esteem that hinders not they have that which you think can authorize them to preach baptize c. then to ordain as well and those who are ordained by such no doubt but may Ordain again so Rome and Succession trouble us not Ames grants that Wickliff Med. The. l. 1. c. 33. s 39. Luther Zuinglius may not unfitly be called extraordinary Ministers joyning some of our famous Martyrs with them and gives three reasons for the assertion the last is Quia ordine tum temporis perturbato collapso necesse habuerunt non nulla tentare praeter ordinem commune So Syn. Pur. The. D.