Independency Further Proved to be a Schism

CHAP. I.

IT is very true, which the reverend Doctor says;

The present Sectaries of all sorts, give a sad instance of this, not one of a thousand being reclaimed from their errors, by the clearest demonstrations of truth, but rather There are therefore other ends propounded to themselves, by those that undertake them, Which its well, if they can & do attain. How little success the reverend Doctor expected, he told us in his former Treatise of Schism, and now again professes, (as well he might, upon such principles) That is, Whether from Papists, Episcopal, or Presbyterians. The truth is, he hath given them all a provocation, to an opposition, by his new notion of Schism, (beside others) and I a little wonder, that none other have done it, unless it be upon the old Maxim, Contra negantem princ • pia non est disputandum. The notion of schism, in the nature of the word, & use of it, by all parties hitherto, being a breach of union, in what kind or degree soever. It was well observed by a learned man, that the reverend Doctor's notion of Schism was this: And indeed, if Schism be only a difference, in a particular Congregation, (as the reverend Doctor will have it) and no separation from a true Church, be justly accounted a Schism, (as he professes to hold) the general agreement of all the forenamed parties, in the common notion of Schism, and their concernment in it, (all of them supposing themselves, to be truly constituted Churches) call for an opposition to him, for denying himself and party to be Schismaticall, in renouncing of communion with them, and separating from them all; for they all concur, in the ancient and received notion of Schism, viz. The difference between them is only this, which of them hath the true Church state; which if it be determined, they all agree in the conclusion: Thus the Romanists argued, as himself propounded their argument of Schism, pag. 189. thus the Episcopal party, thus the Presbyterians. But it seems, the reverend Doctor conjectured aright, that the opposition was like to arise from some of the Presbyterian party, though he mistook the reasons; Which what they could be, I cannot conjecture. If his notion were true, it might be as useful to them, as to himself, in freeing them also from the charge of Schism by others: But if it prove false, (as it seems to me, and many) it will be prejudicious to our common cause, against the other parties, to whose charge of Schism he did oppose it. Let him draw up his argument against them, thus I suppose it must be framed: They would quickly deny his major proposition, (for which he offers no proof) Schism, in proper notion of the word, and intention of the Scripture, is of larger, and more general extent; for any breach of union with a true Church, of any degree. And if the proposition be not general, the Syllogism is peccant in the very form, and so a Sophism.

But not content with that former reason, he ( sleightingly enough) gives another:

Whereas it is evident, that the men of the presbyterian party, (even country Ministers, who want Academical opportunities) have done, and do as much contest against those, and other errors, as himself, or any of his party. Few of the men of his way, having appeared in opposition to them, (though too much for toleration of them) but contented to make use of their quietness, to propogate their own design of Independentism; not so much as caring to answer, or take notice, of what hath been written against it. His surmises (which he charges me with hereafter) are as strong, as his conjectures; I can profess, that I expected and hearkened, that some more able hand would have undertaken it; and finding none willing, I ventured my own credit and thoughts, to the vindication of the truth of our Churches and Ministry, to some good progress, before any one man knew I had undertaken it. What acceptance his Treatise found, with many learned and godly persons, (except of his own way ) I cannot conjecture: But this was the resentment of it, by all that I met with, before I ever saw his Book: And everyone wished, that somebody would undertake it, as injurious to our Churches; but none would interest himself therein. I must confess my own presumption, in what I have done, as taking the work out of some learneder hands, whom it more concerned to answer it. The original charge of Schism upon our Church, (which the reverend Doctor took upon him to answer) being directed only to the two Universities, whose cause the reverend Doctor hath I think betrayed, by his new notion of Schism, as if that were the judgment and answer of them all. As some others have found out, page 192. Which new ways our cause needs not, but is easily defended without them; and But he conjecturing right, (as he easily might, being told it) of the party in general, and of the particular person, that was like, and ready to undertake him; he was as confident,

1.

1. No doubt, but he might fully so persuade himself; and what Heretic, learned or unlearned, does not so believe? But what was my design, but to undeceive him in this persuasion, as to many things by him asserted? 2. What was that truth, he was so fully persuaded of? That Schism, in the places of the Corinthians, where the word is only found, was a difference or division in a particular Church, whoever denied it? or what is this to the general nature of Schism? Is that all that Schism imports? Or, proves it, that breach of the union of Churches, or causeless separation from true Churches, is no Schism? What force is there (I appeal to his Logic and Divinity too) in this consequence, Yet this notion, • he reverend Doctor oft makes use of, • o avoid the charge of Schism, upon • imself and party, as I have else-where • hewed.

2.

The sentence afore noted, concerning the notion of Schism. He had indeed laid in a politick petition of the question, that all Readers would be so favorable, as to grant him his new notion, or else he could expect no good issue of his Treatise; for so he professed, pag. 30. And such I think hath been the success. Can any rational man be taken with this inference? Yes, (which to me is a wonder, in so wise a man) the reverend Doctor is convinced by it, and resolved so to continue; for so he said, Somethin • was said to this in my former Tract page 39. I add a little more; 1. His assertion, that this was the chief and only place of the word Schism, in the Ecclesiastical sense, was granted him; bu • that it was the chief and only place of the Doctrine of Schism, is now denied him; because the Apostle did here indeed, reprove and check them for their Schism and divisions, but intended not to speak to the doctrine, or full nature of Schism; that must be elsewhere inquired and found out, either from the notion of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or other words of equivalent sense. 2. He requires, that something else be termed Schism, by some divine Writer; that is he expects, that he must have the same word, or else, though it have the same nature, and be equally criminous, he is resolved, nothing else is Schism, but a division in a particular Church, contrary to his own grant. page 21. of schism; "That that alone shall be esteemed Schism, which is in scripture so called; or (mark that) which hath the entire nature of that, which • s there so called. But (say I) other • ords in other places, have the entire • ture of Schism, viz division in a • hurch, & something more i. e. separati • from it; Ergo, that may be esteemed • hisme, as I instanced in other words • d places; to which the Reverend • octor says nothing.

3. "The whole weight of the little pile, turning on one single hinge and that visible and conspicuous, &c. he promised himself, that he who undertook it, would be far from passing it by, and set himself to the superstructure, &c. This he repeats gain p. 76.

To which I say, 1. And that he should so o • ten charge me 2. I was • far from passing it by, that I grant • them this to be the only place; b • not the full importance and nature • the word; yea I endeavored to she • that there was a degree of Separation, that place, as to some Ministers and O • dinances; which how he hath taken away we shall hear anon, 3. Granting hi • his sense in that place, I proved his co • sequence to be naught Which consequence, all cons • dering and rational men, that I speak with; do wonder to fall from so grea • a Logitian and Divine. 4. This Notion • his, I knew well, was the Hinge or Ce • tree of the whole superstructure; b • the Circumference or lines, by way • consectaries, extended to a great • distance, as thus: If Schism be only Difference in a particular Church, th • his party are no Schismatics; in sep • rating from, 1. The Church of Rom • 2. From our National, 3. Or Presb • terian Churches. Now the Anteced •• being by me demolished, as the hinge such consequences; the whole super ••• ucture is fallen with its own weight, • d his whole Treatise with it; As wiser • en then myself do think.

4. "He expressly waved men's Judgment, and Authority, old or late; and so promised himself, security from such disturbance, &c. To which I •• swered, The Concurring judgment of all • en, in all ages, of all persuasions, •• rryes weight with it, especially when 〈◊〉 agrees with express Scripture; or re • ular and rational deduction: to which •• e professed to stand or fall, Cap. 1.5.3. To which he says just nothing.

5.

But he must know that his defense of some from the crime of Schism, as it was too weak to bear it off, by the bare Notion of Schism by him inverted; so it did cast an aspersion upon others of a false Ac • usation, charging them with Schism; and b • sides, in the consequences of that N • tion, did cast others (beside the Rom • party ) from their places, as no Church no members of a Church, as shall a • peare ere long: but I appeal any of rea • godliness, and indifferent judgmen • to determine whether he himself di • not blow the Coal that gave fire to th • dissension, by his new notions o • Schism, and of a particular Church, &c

6. But he adds this more to hi • thoughts,

Truly that was likely to cause some Opposition; that the Reverend Doctor • went out of the Common rode, (where was no allowed way) by his Singular notion of Schism; that never was gone in by any before him, nor I think will be followed by any after him, (I only except another Notionist, Lud. Molin, in another controversy in his Corollarium, p. 100. Who in approbation of this new notion, tells us; And I realy believe him; only I think he • old have added, that the Apostles • emselves never knew of such a notion. What ever was said by me "about minister's callings, Church-government, or the like, was occasioned by him •• lfe, in his superstructures upon that • eake foundation, as shall appear.

Whether the Reverend Doctor, hath • ven a plain and full return to what • ay seem of importance in my Book, • thers must judge, and not we our • lves; who do observe (all I meet with) • hat little or nothing is said by him, to • he Argumentative part thereof, but • ome sl • ghter velitations, to defend his • wn new Notions; leaving the princi • all parts untouched. This will appear • n his Account of his thoughts, in the • iew of my Treatise; which he twice Recapitulates for failing, to give notice • f the particulars of it. I must take a • eview of them.

1. He says,

I must profess, whe • I first readd this charge, I stood amaze and astonished, that my Treatise shou • be charged with the crime of rev • ling whereupon I took it up, and read • over again and again, to see, if I coul • discover so much weakness or guilt • nesse in myself; and fearing my ow • partiality, I consulted with other lea • ned and godly persons, who had rea • it, who professed, they found nothin • in it, but words of truth and soberness and such as might become a Christia • Adversary, as being sharp to the cause he opposed, but sufficiently respectful • to his person, whom he did oppose. But this is not the least misery in Controversies, that what is intended against the way, is applied to the person, and so provokes by accident to further strife. But for those particulars, by him called revilings, I give him this account: 1. If I at any time call him personally schismatic, which I think I do not, but only his way and party to be schismatical, he knows I cannot avoid it, if I make good the Title of my Book, supposing him to be an Independent, as he is generally taken to be. And why nay not a good man be a schismatic, as well as those honest Corinthians, whom • oth the Apostle and himself, charge with the crime of schism? If I have not • roved his way to be a schism, I shall • onfesse my wrong, in calling of • t, or him, Schismaticall. 2. For • he word Sectary, that follows upon the former; if men by schism separate into fractions or sections, they will deserve the name of Sectaries; and himself calls some men so. 3. For Heretic, as it was more than I charged him or his way with, (speaking strictly of Independents ) so I never call them so; though I believe himself does not deny, but some Independent Churches are Heretical. 4. For Donatists, I only charged their principles upon his way, which if they be acknowledged to be schismatical, (as they are, by all that are Orthodox, and by himself confessed to be criminal at least) the parallel will fall upon them, whether I will or no; as it doth upon the Romanists, embracing and maintaining the same principles. 5. For the word Pharisee, when he spake, as I thought, too contemptibly of Christians, the multitude, the wicked, and profane, I only said, But its known, they separate from the best of our Congregations, as well as from such. My answer here, was just the same, that the learned Doctor Hall gave to the Brownists, for like aspersions upon our Congregations. 6. As for those words, Atheist or Sceptic, the first is but once used, page 15. in these words: What's this to the reverend Doctor, or any man living, that does not deny that my assertion? The word Sceptic is once more used, upon the like supposition, page 187. 7. Lastly, the worst is, that I call him Satan; which I nowhere do, in downright terms, nor necessarily, in an oblick intimation or reflection: For 1. A man that says to a blasphemer, or other notorious slanderer or curser, The Lord rebuke thee, (which were the words he excepts against, & yet these not directly spoken neither) does not presently call him Devil or Satan. 2. The cause of using those words, was very urgent and provoking, as I thought, in his charging our Ordination to come from Antichrist the Beast; which was in effect to deny or annul our Ministry and Churches: As our blessed Savior did obliquely, yea directly, call a man as good as himself, Satan, when he would have hindered him from suffering: 3. And what is that less, (if not more direct) then calling me Satan, page 22? when speaking of me, as carried beyond all bounds of moderation, and Christian tenderness in offending; he adds, Jam sumus ergo pares. If this be reviling, from one end of the book to another, let the indifferent Reader judge. Yea, some do say, (and I could observe it) that the reverend Doctor, though he have given me very sweet words and complemental; yet hath secretly more reviled me, and endeavored to blast my reputation, with godly men, than I have him. I may note it in some passages hereafter.

2. The next is no less bitter;

I have much ado to forbear to say once more, The Lord rebuke thee, in the sense aforesaid. 1. For the first part, that my design was, to prove Independency to be a great schism, and consequently Independents (whom I mean, we shall he • anon) to be schismatical, I cannot deny, if I intended to make good the title of my Book; and such kind of discourse must necessarily fill up my Book, from one end to another. But I pray, am I the first, that hath charged them and their way to be schismatical? have not many learned and pious men done it before me? and is this the first time that I have so charged it, that it seems so novel to the reverend Doctor? And i • they have, some of them, been proved such, and sectaries besides, do not such trouble the peace of the Church? Of some, I doubt not, he will confess it, and, with me, wish them anywhere, rather then in England, and think the Nation happy in their avoidance. Paul said of such, 2. But for the latter part, I should hate myself, if I were guilty of it, and shall appeal all Readers, when they hear my words, whether they import so much; page 200.

3. But he goes on;

The design he told us, was, to prove Independency to be a great schism; and, I must confess, my care was, to make that way to appear as Deformed as I could, with reason and truth; but as for his person, being to me as very a stranger as I to him; I was so far from wronging him, by false or strained imputations, that I gave him his due commendations, where I could; as appears by my p. 36. and p. 102. both in approving, and applauding his discourse; and from one end of my book, to another, giving him his due titles and respect. But let him instance, in those conscience-less imputations upon him. But 1. the Reverend Doctor speaks Hyperbolically enough, when he says it is repeated, an 100 times, that he denies our Ministers, &c. He may do well to number them, and see how far short the reckoning comes, 2. I confess, I took it for granted; that the Reverend Doctor was a thorough Independent, in the voice of all men; and I knew that Independents do deny our Ministers and Churches, &c. If the judgment of the reverend Doctor be now altered, I shall rejoice much, in the success of any Treatise, mine or others, to his conversion, 3. But if he yet be constant to his Principles delivered in his former Treatise, and vox populi be not a very liar; I shall not doubt if need be, to say a thousand times, he does at least by consequence deny our Ministry, and Churches; our Ordination and all, even our Church-membership. But of that more fully anon.

I cannot here but observe one piece of policy, the Reverend Doctor hath made use of (observed also by others) beyond his Praedecess • urs, in this controversy, to ingratiate himself, and way, with vulgar readers, to make them seem the better. 1. That he is so free and frequent in Commending of me, his adversary. p. 10 and 46. 121. and elsewhere; as Jerome said of Ruffinus,

His extraordinary Complements, after the Mode of the times; may pretend to great Humility, considering the distance betwixt him and me, a Reverend Doctor and Dean, and a poor country Presbyter; such as these, See also. p. 92.129.139.180 All most as oft repeated, as those charged upon me afore; all which some would interpret for so many jeares, but I do not so, 3. He hath yet another policy, taking it pro confesso, that I am guilty, and that he would have his Reader think so too; that is, his frequent prayers, for forgiveness of my miscarriages, and his own forgiveness; which is repeated in my observation, 5. Times, p. 14. 51. 124. 149. 180. As if he would by such Charity, persuade me also, as well as his reader, that I had greatly wronged him. And yet it seems that though his charity can forgive his wrongs, yet it cannot forget them; for it is repeated often, (30 times at least) that I wrong him notoriously; and frequent charges of me, with untruth, wrongs, lies, &c. to make me odious to his Reader: yea there is more bitterness couched in one sentence, after he had newly prayed for me, than is to be found in all my books; this it is Whereas I did but cast water, as I thought, upon those flames which he had unhappily kindled, by his new Notions.

But we have a second Review of my Treatise, wherein my M • stakes are presented to the Reader, with respect to that influence they have into the argumentative part of my discourse; viz. my ungrounded suppositions, as he calls them.

1.

let it be considered, that (as I said before) I supposed the Reverend Doctor, to be an Independent, upon the general vote of all men, and I knew it to be the judgment of many; and the consequent of their declared principle, that no Churches are truly constituted, bu • such as are gathered in the Congregational way. 2. took the word Independent generally, as comprehending Brownists, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, wh •• strenuously assert • that we are no true Churches. 3. Though I sometimes speak, as of the reverend Doctor his person, (especially, whe • his notion is new and singular, as in that of schism, &c.) yet I intended indefinitely, any kind of Independents, and not him distinguished from the rest▪ They commonly deny our Churches. In a word, I respected his way, rather then his person; all along my Treatise. What then? does the reverend Doctor in his judgment, without equivocation, hold our Churches to be true Churches? We are glad of his concessions, but fear, that he will be lost with many Independent Churches, who hold us Antichristian; and believe, that his own principles will confute his present concessions. But hear what he says, " I now inform him, that a • l those surmises are fond and untrue, pag. 17. And tells us, He shall as willingly engage in the defense of the Ministry, of the godly Ministers in England, with the lawfulness of their Churches, as any what ever. • g. 20. Though the words be ambi • ously spoken, I must take heed of • pposition or suspicion of insincerity, in • is profession, lest he charge me with • ew surmises: What then doth he scru • e at? A National Church hath (as • e was told) a double notion; it im • orts either an Hierarchical Church, with subordination of Officers, (which • e says, I do not maintain) or a Church, where all the Churches of a Nation • gree in Doctrine and Worship, and • elebrate it accordingly, in the Presby • erian way. Which of these does he question? or rather, which of them does he allow to be true Churches? Does he not renounce and dispute against both, as Churches not truly constituted, and so, in the judgment of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, no true Churches, yea, Antichristian? Do not his own principles infer this conclusio • But all our Minister have nothing else to show, (as valid) 〈◊〉 make them Ministers, but their succe • sive Ordination; Ergo, He looks up •• them as no Ministers of Christ, an • consequently, we have no Church • Will he engage in defense of such Ministry, such Churches? But more • this again, ere long. And now I am no • indebted to give him any satisfaction (having done him no injury) he hader-posed himself to the censure and displeasure of many godly Ministers, Churches and Christians, before ever I saw 〈◊〉 Book. And I go on to the next.

2. A second supposition (he says) is

What say • the Reverend Doctor to this; However, the reverend Doctor himself, might not totally separate from us, holding compli • ce in preaching or hearing, in our • hurches, to what ends, he knows. • et surely, those Independents whom 〈◊〉 names, Brownists, Anabaptists, &c. 〈◊〉 utterly refuse communion with us, Antichristian, as no Churches, no M • • sters: Yea, many of those who are • agle, or singular Independents, not yet one so far as Brownists or Anabaptists, • o not so much as hear (much less re • eive the Sacrament) in our Churches, • nlesse some of theirs preach. And may • hey not justify it upon his own prin •• ples? Does he not confidently deny, • ny separation from a Church to be • chism? And in this place, does he not • losely justify their separation; I pray now, what's this, in true sense, but, we have indeed separated from you, but without breach of any union of Christ's institution, for you were not Churches united, according to his institution. Just as he pleaded for separation from Rome, and from the National Church. And what follows hence, but this, We are no true Churches, and their separation is just. Thus he plead for all, Independents, Brownists, Anab • tists; for the plea is theirs, to justify th • separation. Some of them can come • and hear in our Churches, but up • Robinson's latter principles, not as Chu • ches, or Ministers, but as gifted brethre • But hear him plead for himself: Nor do the Bro • nists so, some true Churches they do a • low us, of the Independent dress; • least, comparatively, they say, we are no • so bad as the Whore of Babylon. But h • goes on: What? was h • never of any particular Church, as member, as a Minister? not of that i • Essex? did he never separate from them, nor disturb the peace of that, or some • Churches, by raising divisions in them soliciting proselytes out of them? Hath he not by his book of Schism, cast fir • into all the Churches of England? Did he not labor to gather a Church, in his own College, if report fail not? In his former book, and present defense, doth he not advise others, to come out of our • hurches? Of schism, page 270. If all • is be true, his crime preceded his pu • hment, and he may be content to bear 〈◊〉 whilst I go on to the next.

3.

No, I supposed (and proved) at he denies the lawfulness of our • ccessive Ordination; by which I under •• ood, not only imposition of hands, • t the whole authoritative translation of man, into the state of an Officer of the • hurch. Now, does not the reverend • octor deny our Ordination as fully, as • rownists or Anabaptists, upon the same • ound, because we had it successively • om Rome? I repeat his words again; If any man have nothing to plead for his Ministry, but merely that successive Ordination, received through the Church of Rome, I cannot see a stable bottom, of owning him so to be. If this be • ot to deny our Ordination and Ministry • o, let the Reader judge. If he thinks 〈◊〉 sufficient to say, he doth not deny • ur Ordination, because he is pleased to • ratify us with another plea, page 197. • f schism; This is s • far from justifying our Ordination, • our being Ministers by virtue thereof that it doth the clean contrary: It tell • us only, That though indeed our Ordination do not make us Ministers, y • we are not by our Ordination so inc • pacitated, but that, notwithstanding it we may by somewhat else be made M • nisters; viz. our gifts, and the people submission. And if (when he says, 〈◊〉 does not renounce his own Ordination his meaning be this, that he doth no deny, but that he was ordained, and ye • holds, that notwithstanding his Ordination, he may (upon some other account) be a Minister, we wish he woul • have spoken out, and let others judge whether this be a renouncing of hi • Ordination or not.

But the reverend Doctor seems to b • turned Orthodox, in point of Ordination;

Mark, Imposition of hands from the Elders of • hat Church, not by a Presbytery for • aigne to that Church; If there be any • here. But if none there, he tells us not, what is to be done then. Besides, he • peaks only of imposition of hands, which he blamed others for) as if than were all of Ordination, when as he told • s, And that succession • e speaks of, ceases, when there are no Officers in that Church, or a new Church 〈◊〉 to be erected; then it must fall upon • he people, or I know not whom. But • ow comes this change, and how long? Was it not the reverend Doctor, that when some young men came to advise with him, about their Ordination, disuaded them from it? Was it not he • hat said, that he would maintain against • ll the Ministers of England, there was 〈◊〉 Scripture no such thing as Ordinati • n? Was it not he, that when it was ob • ected to him, desiring to be a Parliament-Man, that he was incapable of it, as being a Minister, would not answer, He was, or was not a Minister? this was vox populi, at Oxford. And was not this to renounce his Ordination? What then is it, that he doth oppose? This fallacy does not become the reverend Doctor's learning, it is fallacia compositionis. We derive our Ordination, not from Antichrist, but from such as were truly presbyters, successively ordained, though with some corruptions: This he was told again and again, was the answer of all our best Divines, but he takes no notice of it: Yea, Luther, and our first Reformers, had no other Ordination but such; will he look on them as no Ministers of Christ? Consider now, whether the reverend Doctor do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Church, professing the name of Christ and the Gospel, as to the outward profession of it? which lately he did deny, and will again ere long, page 26. And I ask, of what Church Luther and Zwingli were, before the Reformation? either of Rome or none; a corrupt Church, but yet a Church. I hope, if any Church can prove a successive Ordination from the Apostles, it would be no prejudice, but an honor to it; as the Greek Church, I suppose, does plead, and not from Rome. And if it was our unhappiness, to have our successive Ordination through fouler hands, (if at least fouler then some of the Greek Churches) yet truly Ministers, shall that invalidate our Ordination? Must we be charged, to derive our Ordination from Antichrist, as Antichrist, or from the Beast, as the Beast, because we had it from some that were members, or officers of that (newly confessed) Church? That was it that warmed my zeal so much, as to tell the reverend Doctor, that he cast dirt in the face of our Ministry, and to be ready to say, The Lord rebuke thee. Dare he appeal the Search • r of all hearts, he had no design in all this, to cast dirt on any godly Minister in England, when as this is the filth that is daily cast upon us, by his friends, the Brown • sts, Anabaptists, and some Independents, not yet gone so far as others, Our Antichristian Ministry? He called for satisfaction, for supposed wrongs; but what satisfaction will he give, to all the Ministers of England, and other Nations, for thus revileing of them, to say, But (says the reverend Doctor) This is a pleasing notion to the reverend Doctor, for he uses it twice more, once page 28. and again, page 130. But 1. Might not the reverend Doctor have given a better resolution of the case, as all our Divines hitherto have done? Our successive Ordination is not claimed from Rome as Papal or Antichristian, but from Rome, so far as Christian, the Papacy being but the Leprosy of that Church. Must he needs take the worser part of the distinction, and cast dirt on our Ministry, before Papists, and all our Sectarian enemies? And was not that my answer, to which he saith nothing, but still goes on to provoke by scornful language. His Dilemma, with its horns, intends to gore us on both sides; That is, if we do not plead our Ordination from Rome, (and have no other to plead) we have none at all, and so no Min • sters, no Churches, that way. If it be so, that we say, we have our Ordination from Rome, then he concludes us Antichristian, You have your Ordination through the authority of Antichrist. To prevent both these, I distinguished as afore: We have it not from Rome as Antichristian, but from Officers of that Church, though much corrupt. Are we now at all agreed, when he derives our ped • gree from Antichrist and the Beast, and I derive it from Officers of that Church, which he rejects? Calls he this an Agreement? I say it is from Rome, and he says so too, and so the vulgar must believe, we are agreed. Dolosus versatur in universalibus and hates Distinctions as evil doers do the light.

But I asked, why may not this be a sufficient foundation of our Ministry; as well as for our Baptism? He asks me (as afore)

which may receive the same answer as afore: The provocation arose from charging us to receive both, from the Authority of Antichrist. And I asked him; Whence he derived his own Baptism? To which he gives no satisfactory answer, but now tells me (very strangely) Upon what then? Might not the men that received their Baptism and power to Baptize from that successive ordination, receive also power to ordain? or does he so far join with the Anapaptists, that any disciple, no-Minister, may baptize; or does he renounce his successive baptism, as some (if not himself) have done their Ordination from Rome? Hear his answer; Change the Scene, and let him tell us; what he believes concerning Christian Idolatrous persecuting Magistrates; Do they thereupon forfeit their Authority over their people and Churches? Parcius ista: If he say, its otherwise with Ministers, I put him the case of the Idolatrous persecuting high Priests among the Jews; Were they presently Exauthorized upon those miscarriages? nay, must not Antichrist sit in the Temple of God, 2 Thes. 2.4. that is, the Church; The Reverend Doctor hath endeavored to elude that text, (of Schism p. 154.), by a gloss or interpretation of St. Austin's de. civ Dei. l. 10. c. 59. That the words are thus to be rendered; and could be content it should so be taken for a present shift, which is by Papists themselves rejected, as most improbable, who grant it meant of the Church; that Ant • christ must fit in the Church, and by most, if not all our Divines, so understood in the controversy of Anti-Christ, Yea if the Reverend Doctor had consulted the text; he had found Austin's gloss the more improbable if not impossible; for the words are thus in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , would this be a genuine sense; Besides that this would be a kind of Tautology, having before called him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. And did he not tell us, that such Churches as ours, may for ought he knows, be in Italy. p. 49? Lastly, Said he not also, Did not Satan dwell and • ad his throne in a Church, Rev. 2.13. • hat of Perganus? But enough of that. • ut I said, he and his party would not • ave been pleased with Ordination from • Presb • yerie, though not from Rome: • e asks me angerly; I have told him • fore, when and wherein and by what means he hath opposed it; if he please • o look back. I only add, he opposed it, by assigning Imposition of hands only to • he Elders of a particular Church; and by offering to gather an Independent Church, as I have been credibly informed. What need his charge of But, its worse, that he charges me with an untruth, The first Reformers, Luther &c. had not their ordination from the people, but from Rome, p. 116. et alibi. I only excepted some Extraordinary easy, where no Ministers were to be had for Ordinatjon, and that only for the first turn.

But he is as much displeased for m • affirming, that he hath renounced hi • own Ordination. He asks

My reasons, or rather Evidences of thi • charge of renouncing his ordination were these, 1. The world looks at him, as a • Independent of the highest note; and I knew it is their judgment, that our ord • nation is Antichristian; and if so, its time for him to renounce it. 2. I know, from good hand, that some of the Brethren have renounced their ordination; so I am told, Thus one hand washes another, and I might reasonably think; the Reverend Doctor had also renounced his. 3. I had divers times heard, that he declaimed against and dissuaded our ordination; and I thought it not probable he would still retain it. 4. I concluded • m his own principles in his book of • hism, that our successive ordination • me from Antichrist and the Beast as • ore; and that those " That insist upon • that plea, would (if he mistake not) keep • up in this particular what God would have • pulled down, p. 198. of Schism. And • old he keep it up in himself? If I • ere so persuaded; I should renounce • y Ordination to night, before to mor • ow. 5. If this be not sufficient, let him re • ember what he said in the presence of • l or most of his own Canons, at a pub • ck meeting, speaking of his Ordination • y the Bishop of Oxford, in that place; It may be, his Canons will not affirm this to me (though to some others they have,) but I shall put it upon this Issue; that if they will give it under their hands, that they never heard him say those or such like words, I shall believe the report was false. 6. I would appeal his own conscience, Does he believe his former Ordination valid? Does he do any Ministerial act now, by virtue of his former ordination? if not, what's that but a renouncing of his ordination? If he do, he contradicts or condemns himself, reserving an Ordination, which he a • counts Antichristian. And then, wh • means those outcries, B • whether those Recharges upon me, • 30. be not utterly untrue, and unb • coming his Reverence and piety, I lea • to all indifferent Readers to judge, b • what hath been the Language and ca • riage of my former discourse; and wh • hath here been returned. This Chapte • being a Recapitulation of my whole boo • from one end to another, hath held m • very long. I shall promise to be short • in those that follow.

CHAP. II. In answer to my Appendix.

THis Chapter is a mere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if not in that the first is last▪ yet in that the last is first. The Reverend Doctor indeed promised us,

Had not his • ter book of Schism recanted, if I may • t say, contradicted his former judge • ent, I had not meddled with it; I can • cerely profess, my intention was • t to blast his reputation, or to cause • Person to suffer (to whom I was and • a very stranger, not having, above • ce, so much as seen his fa • e) but to • event the prevalency of his way, by • e Author • ty of his person; to the draw • g off of some well meaning people, • ho are easily deceived by fair words, • nd personal respects; this I thought • ight the better be done, by presenting • o them the errors and Inconstancy of •• e men, that endeavor their seduce • ent. The Apostle Jude describes Sedu • ers, by such a Character; they are • andring Stars, as in places, so in judgment Inconsistent with themselves, and • heir own opinions. But if he mark • t, I did first in my precedent Chapters; • ndeavour (with little success, I confess) to show those persons, the errors of that way, before I discovered the inconstancy of the person; and Inconsistency of his former and present thoughts: A • sure we may have reason to suspe • their judgment, who are so changea • in their opinions; having instances • nough of men, that have run from o • sect to another, till they have lost the • selves, and all Religion. But to retu • to the business in hand, the revere • Doctor, after the proposition of oth • ways of excusing himself, for his inco • stancy, at length confesses the fact, wi • the ground and means of that alteratio • of his judgment.

1. The ground was this, the suitabl • nesse of his former principles to the I • dependent way; for so he says:

Those principles were that gifts and submission of the people were sufficient in some cases, to make • Preacher of the Gospel; not having distinguished between a Preacher in a large, and in a stricter sense, that is, be • een an Instructer (common to men • d women,) and a preacher in Office • culiar to some. For neglect of which • tinction, how easy was it for men • upposing the case to be now extraor • ary, and an intercision of all ordinan • s) finding themselves (as they easily • lieve) sufficiently gifted, and a giddy • ple, thirsting after novelties, willing 〈◊〉 be taught by such teachers, to take • on them the Office of Preachers? • his is so visibly the Doctrine and Prac • ce of all the Sects, that he that runs • ay read it. But the Reverend Doctor • d there laid down other Presbyterian • rinciples, which are irreconcilable • ith his new congregational way; as shall • ppear.

2. The means of his conversion was his: Undertaking to read the Books • ritten on both sides (the congre •• tionall and the Presbyterian way) • e fixed on one

And th • commonly it fares with those that undertake controversies, being before prejudiced with the principles of that way as the Reverend Doctor professes he wa • Wherea • now there is little hope of recoverin • him back to his first Principles, for h • tells me I shall only request him, that he would impartially consider, what hath been written against the Treatise of his Conversion, before he enter into new contests with me or others, or publish that tract of the Authors, which he threatn'd me with, in his Epistle: which if he do, there is some hope he may re • rn to his former Presbyterian princi • es, as others have done, without any • eat prejudice to his reputation; he • et professing himself to be of neither, of • o party, p. 27.

Before I consider his answer to my • ppendix, I shall desire leave to pre • ise, that my scope was not

Nor • et to cause his person to suffer, as I said • ore; nor yet to confute that treatise • so, (though by the by, I might disco • er some weaknesses in it): but And I most of all • onder, that he should so confidently • eny his change from what he then de • vered, and say And for • he rest, there needs nothing to con • ince him of a great change, but only • Scheme of his differences in judgment • ow, from what he asserted then; which • shall exhibit to him, at the end of his Chapter.

But before I do that, I shall only, b • way of short strictures, animadvert some few things. 1. That his judgment w • altered, I proved thus: 1. He had, as thought, upon the reasons afore give • renounced his ordination; at which

And I must re-profess, th • I am astonished to think with wh • face or spirit of truth, he dare deny i • if all be true that is reported. I confess, as he carries it, I cannot tell, whether ever he was ordained or no, by • or Presbytery, (for he discovers it not and then indeed, he cannot renounce wh • he never had; as he sometimes argued i • his former treatise of Schism: If he wa • not all ordained, and yet do Ministeri • acts, his tract, I now consider, will condemn him: If he was, I think he hat • done and said enough to argue his renunciation of it. 2. My second proof • so by him contrived, that I think he wa • in a maze, when he writ it down; Untrue indeed and false, in • ords and fact: for my words were • ese; And the thing is true • word and fact; as shall appear. To • y third observation, he says nothing; Whether such a man, as he speaks of, so qualified, be a complete Minister, to preach the Gospel authoritatively by way of Office, and to administer Sacraments? • his we know, is true in fact, of many • f his way: some things more there are • that Section, very considerably wor • hy of an answer; but he is not pleased • o take notice of them.

In the next place, he comes to his • pinion

I have not yet had leisure to • onsider what he hath published upon this head (not having his book), but • cannot yet be convinced, to be of h • judgment, nor many others more jud • cious: I thought I had assigned some • clear differences in the words compare together; but he will not accept m • pains. I shall now tell him of one o • two; 1. His judgment now is, that th • Divine nature, or the Spirit of Go • dwells personally in believers, and th • the Spirit is the Soul that animate Christ and believers: but then, I said the union of Christ and believers mu • be personal; for so is the union of Sou • and body in man, So is the Union o • the Divine and human nature in Christ 2. He said his former tract, that the sam • Spirit is in Christ and us; but with thi • difference; I might add, that the fullness • of the Spirit, when ascribed to Christ a • man, was not the person of the Spirit, (for then the person of the Spirit also was interested in the Mediatorship ) but the fullness of the graces of the Spirit, • hich we have only in a measure, 1 Cor. • .8. But if the • irit personally be given to every be • ever, all these should be given to one • an, even as to Christ. But I for • ar at this time anymore.

As for his calling Ministers, by the • me of Parochial Priests, it is not • orth contending: he puts it off, neat • , " By what the Prelates esteemed and called parish. Ministers which might • ss very easily for an excuse, were it • ot, 1. that many of the same reverend pi • s men, were then Parochial Ministers • hat are now; and ill deserved the name • f Priests. 2. That the same pious men • nd Ministers, are till this day mocked • nd scorned by his Independent way, by • he name of Priests, and worse. I might • dde, that the Reverend Doctor speaks • mbiguously, when he says, " I never called the Presbyterian Ministers of particular congregations Parochial Priests. He may, or some may interpret it, • hat he means, there were no Presby • erian Ministers in Parishes, under the • relates; and then indeed he did not call them Priests: but enough • that.

For the remaining section of my Appe • dix, though there are many things, th • deserved a better account from th • Reverend Doctor; as charging hi • with clear alterat • ons of his • udgmen • and some contradictions to himself; • passes them over,

And be • ides, professes himself, since my exceptions, Only in one thin • (and the worst of all) he confesses • change; That is to say, I do now allow conventicles of all sorts of Sects who cannot in conscience join in public in the celebration of ordinances as they are performed among us: Fo • why should not all have the same liberty of conscience (which all pretend) Anabapt • sts, Quakers, and all, as he pleads for himself and party? And is not this obliquely to brand public worship, as faulty? But this is more than he pleaded for, in his book of Schism: that every man must follow his own light, and so gather into new Churches, to the rending of the Church into a thousand pieces. Did ever any true stated Church suffer such disorder? Will he allow this in his own Church? Do they not bind all their members to continue with them, and not to forsake them? Sees he not sufficiently the mischiefs of such liberty of private conventicles? are they not the Seminaries of faction, Schism, Errors, Blasphemies, and abhominable profaneness. Let him answer his own cautions and objections, with his judgment formerly upon them; with his own Latin discourse, against such liberty pleaded for, by the Remonstrants. Does he not see men pride themselves of their gifts, and create themselves Pastors in separate congregations? Tells us he not, that such doings, How wi • he answer these things? Do we not se • the event of that his prophesy daily before our eyes? And does he now come • to countenance these things, and to contradict himself, and yet tell us, that h • is of the same mind still that he was and no whit changed? May we not sa • to him, as his servants to Pharaoh, Exod 10.7. with change of a word, or as the Disciples to their Master, But I forbear: and because the Reverend Doctor stands so resolutely upon his assertion, that he is not changed, but of the same mind he was fourteen years ago; I shall now present to him and the Reader, a Scheme of his differences from himself, then and now; as followeth.

CHAP. III. A review of his and my Preface.

THe reverend Doctor begins this Chapter with a complaint, (as his Book is full of such, either causeless or needless, complaints) of

To which I shall return but this: 1. The testimony of an adversary is strong against himself; To turn the point of his own sword into his own bowels, is an allowed way of clearest victory; and more than this, I have not done. That which a man condemns in another, may justly be applied to his self-condemnation, if he be guilty of the same crime. If not guilty, it concerned him to d • sprove it, and clear himself, and not to talk of biting reflections.

2. If he could do the like from my words, As I doubt not, but he would "dress me up in the like ornaments; so let him do it with like reason, if he can, and spare me not.

He first falls upon the D • natists principles, improved not only by Romanists, but by others, whom, I said, I yet named not; but (says he) its evident whom he means; though hereafter he tells us, he knows not whom I mean. What thinks he of their two principles, by me expressed, are they schismatical or no? To give me satisfaction, (though with little hope of success) he professes ingenuously, 1.

But then I would say, 1. What is the di •• urbance of the communion of Saints, •• d everting all the rules of love, but •• hism, by his own definition of it? and • et it was not in a particular Church, • ut from the Catholic. 2. If others spouse the same principles, are they • ot as wicked, corrupt, erroneous, and •• hismaticall principles in them, as in • he Donatists? Thus they are improved • y Romanists, Brown • sts, Anabaptists, • nd some more strictly called Indepen • ents. 3. And then I desire to be satisfied, why he (to free his own party ) labored to excuse them from schism, though he seem to make them otherwise criminous; let him consider, if he did not endeavor it. The objection was, that Austin, and others, charged the Donatists with schism, for departing from the Catholic Church: What says the reverend Doctor to it? this; And in delivery of his thoughts of them, charges them with other cr mes, but not with schism, fo • their separation. Upon wha • ground, does he exempt them fro • schism, (as well as Protestants and himself, by Romanists so charged) upon hi • new notion of schism? But the Donat • sts division and separation, was in and from the catholic Church; Ergo, no schism And yet behold his unhappiness, eithe • in his forgetfulness, or in his inconstancy, to his own principles! He seems to me to acknowledge their schism, and them schismatical, in their separation, when he asks me angrily, Let the Reader judge. 2. A fine evasion to save him •• lf; let his Churches shift for them •• lves. I did not ask his own particular •• dgment, in reference to himself, (for did not yet charge him to hold those • rinciples) but in reference to many •• dependent Churches in England, which one those principles, and practice ac • ordingly. And he answers for himself, • hat he But its known too well, • hat many Independent Churches do af •• rm themselves, to be the only Chur • hes in England, and none to be true • embers of a Church, but such as are • oyned in membership by a Covenant; which are the same in substance with • hose of the Donatists, and equally now • ranted, I think, to be schismatical.

But what thinks he of our Churches?

I must profess, that if this was sincerely spoken, I should rejoice much in these concessions, in this vindication of himself; but the words are so ambiguous, that I know not well, by which handle to take them. I ask, Do all Independe • Churches in England think so of them I believe they will under-write, Mag • ster hic non tenetur; and rather renou • him, then assert so much of our Chu • ches. Do they not many, yea most 〈◊〉 them, account us Antichristian, as w • said above? Do not his own principl • contradict his present concessions? And would ask, If we be true Churches, wh • do they and he separate from us? They most of them for certain, do separate • from us, as no Churches, no Ministers doth not he so too? No; Thi • was spoken to above; and I shall take hi • for no Independent, if he do not separate • from our Churches. But I pray, did he not plead for others, his party as well • as himself; from no true Churches in England; why? because they are no truly constituted Churches; or, they were never members of them, and so could not separate from them tha • were not: See page 257. Or, not reformed according to the mind of Christ. This evasion he 〈2 pages missing〉 as spoken above, in this present • hapter. But this will come again • e long, there something shall be said • to it.

When I said, that a learned Doctor • d,

He •• swers, • hat that one Doctor said, many • ore do think; nor is it any nonsense, • t usual Rhetoric, to Scripture, and her Authors, so to speak, to call a • ry schismatical book, a schism, as to • ll profligate sinners, by the name of • ne, and the like. The rest of this • hapter, and the most substantial things • erein, wherein I required satisfa • ion, he overlooks; as those of enforcing •• iformity on the one hand, and tole •• tion of Religions on the other, which • e pretended to be one of them, the • ay to peace; and some other pra • tises of Politicians, with the success • hereof, he thinks not good to take • otice of, or to discover which of the • aies he likes best. And after some renuall of his former complaints, o • suppositions, and many notable lashes &c. he concludes this Chapter thus By which begging of th • question, he would persuade bot • himself, his Reader, and me also, tha • I am very guilty, and himself very charitable, to forgive me, as I note • above.

CHAP. IIII. Of the nature of Schism.

FOr the better finding out of the fu • nature of Schism in the Ecclesiastic • sense and use thereof, I condescende • to follow the Reverend Doctor to take • the notion or notation of it, first in the n • turall and proper sense. There it is take for a division or separation of a body int • parts which all men know, may admit • degrees; and be either partial when th • separation or rent is partial, the part yet cleaving together for all that rent or total, when wholly and quite divi • ed asunder. e. g. In a clothe or gar • ent cut or torn; it may be so cut or • orne, that it may hang together by • ome threads, or else be divided into two • istinct parts. Now it were ridiculous • o say, if the clothe be rent, and hold by • ome threads, it is a Schism; but if it be • uite torn asunder, it is no rent, but • ome other thing. The scripture, as well • s sense, intimates these degrees of • chism, when it says, the rent is made • orse Matth. 9.16. 2. There is a body • olitick, a City, or kingdom; and a • chism may arise in them, either in part, • s when their Judgments are divided, at • ome public assembly as Joh. 7.43. &c. Or else when they are divided into • arties, and fall into a civil war; both • hese met in the case of Jeroboam; first • here was a division in judgment, and • resently after a secession of parties; which divided the kingdom into two parties, and made two kingdoms of one; • nd the latter was far the worser schism. And it were ridiculous in politics to say, the first was a schism or Sedition, the other none; yet this is asserted by one, in defense of the Reverend Doctors notion of Schism; as well as by himself, 3. There is a body Ecclesiastical, whethe • the catholic visible Church; called th • body of Christ: or a particular congregation, which is a lesser body. The sam • degrees of Schism may fall here, eithe • differences in judgment, at or withou • a public Assembly; or separation into several Churches: and it were equally ridiculous (as afore) to say, division in the assembly is a Schism; but separation into several churches, upon those divisions, is no Schism. Yet this our Reverend Author, does assert; it may be some other crime, but Schism it is not, p. 51.

Whence its evident, the Reverend Doctor begged the question from the beginning when he took it, The ground whereof was; because the word is sometimes, (not always) so used in those places of Scripture by him cited. Whereas in the very original nature of the word, it may and does import, a further degree of separation, into parties or Churches. And the inconsequence of the Reverend Doctor's Enthymeme hath already been discovered;

To prosecute this a little further, • rue it is that Schism in the Ecclesiastical • se; signifies a separation good or bad, • lameable or unblameable, according to the Circumstances (as is confessed by himself, p. 218.) which may be thus considered. Schism in the Ecclesiastical use, is either voluntary, or violent and forced.

1. Voluntary, which may be double, 1. from a false and corrupted Church, with which a man cannot hold communion, without communion in their sins and this is commendable, and commanded, "Come out from among them, &c. 2. from a true Church; which may yet be twofold; as first, a simple succession of one or more, upon just occasions, to join with another, of the same constitution: or a separation into a new society, disowning the former, and renouncing communion with it. And this is called a blameable Schism, generally by all, even separatists themselves, who plead, they separate only from a false or corrupt Church, not from a true one. If it shall be said (as it is by the reverend Doctor ) we separate not from a true Church, but only from some corruptions, in it,

The answer is, that that is a misinformed conscience, which will rend the Church, the body of Christ, by a causeless separation, as to themselves, especially having done their duty to reform that corruption, as far as lies in them, according to Math. 18.15. &c. Nothing but fear of sinning, justifies such a separation, as is elsewhere proved.

2. Violent or forced, and that either by the sinful corruptions of a Church, (with which a man cannot communicate without partaking in their sins) being imposed on them by a prevailing party, to enjoy communion with them; or by opposition and persecution, when pious people, are either driven out, or kept out of communion with them, unless they will submit to those sinful Impositions: And this Schism is the sin of those, that any way force it, and they are the Schismatics, who caused that •• paration. This hath often been ex • emplyfied in the Church of Rome • our Divines; and the Schism justly • d at their door. Now our Reverend • octor: 1. Denies anything to be •• hism but a Division made by a mem •• r in a particular Church: 2. Confi •• ntly affirms, that Separation from Church, true or false is no Schism: • y which means he justifies, not only • s own, and party's Separation, but even • the Sectaries, and the Romanists also, their separation from the Primitive • postolicall Church, in Doctrine, worship • nd discipline. They may be Schisma •• cks for their intestine divisions, if •• ey will acknowledge themselves a •• rticular Church, not otherwise; for • chism is only in a particular Church: •• d thus he, who undertook to Vindi •• te the Church of England, and his • wn party especially, from the charge • nd crime of Schism, by the Romanists, • ath justified them from being Schis • aticall, because they are no Church. • ut now upon the former grounds, we • ay prove themselves to Schismaticall; • . By a voluntary separation from true Churches, (with whom, we dare say, they may communicate without sin and so consequently, causelessly re • ding the body of Christ: 2. By the renounceing communion with us, to se • up a Church of another constitution, an • so condemning our Churches, ipso fact • as no truly constituted Churches 3. By keeping out fit members fro • their communion, unless they wi • renounce communion with us, and joy in a Church Covenant with them: The do not indeed drive us out by persecution, (blessed be God it is not i • their power; I speak of Brownists and Anabaptists and the Quakers & such like I mean of the hand, but by tongue the do abundantly; by their cruel mockings, and ungodly railings and reviling • and by their heretical Doctrines, an • blasphemous errors, they keep us ou • of their communion; and by persuasion solicit strongly, to make proselytes and draw them into separation from true • Churches, which sure in Scriptural an • right reason, amount to an heinou • Schism in the Church. And how fa • our best Independents are proceeded, i • some of these, let them consider. I sha • give an instance or two, to make thi • distinction evident. The first shall b • that of Diotrephes, in Scripture, which • he Reverend D • ctor says, p. 79. of • chism,

Let us try that a •• ttle. I suppose the Reverend Doctor • ill not deny, but he made a Schism • n that Church; but that was not all; • or note the particulars; how he made • ot only divisions in the Church, but a • eparation from it: 1. As proper • Schismatic as the Pope himself. For (as we proved) they are Schismatics, who cause others to separate, either by their •• nful Impositions upon the conscience; or keep them out being fit; or drive them • ut by persecution, or cast them out by excommunication unjustly, as well as thos who voluntary separate themselves from a true Church. Next I shall suppose a cast (which lately fell out in NEW ENGLAND, and may do in OLD ENGLAND ) If the Officers of • Church, or the people (if the power b • in them) shall raise causeless difference with someone or more members of Church, and unjustly excommunicate • them and cast them out of the Church would not this Church be twice Schismaticall? once in raising causeless differences in that Church, and then b • unjust casting out and separating such from the Church, by excommunication, and is not here a Schism in separating people from a Church? therefore schism is more then a division in a Church. The like may be said, of keeping fit members out of a Church, denying them communion with that Church, in the public Ordinances of God, unless they will submit to Impositions of men, as I said afore. And let the reverend Doctor consider, whether this be not ordinarily done, by some Independent Churches; and, if he can, deny it to be a schism, &c.

Having thus far discovered the nature and extent of schism, I shall now consider, what exceptions the reverend Doctor hath made to my second Chapter: And first, I am charged with ignorance;

Truly I thought I had understood him, and • thers so understood him as I did; and we mistook, it was long of himself. • e said, Both these • enses of his words were given me by • imself; the first, in Sect. 23. Who would not take it thus, Schism is a difference made • n the worship of God? The other, Sect. 9. And page 25. in general, Which he repeats again in his Review, pag. 56. Let's now hear his own sense; Had he thus expressed it at first, I profess (and so do others) I should less hav • understood him; for what means he That schism is only a disorder in th • divisions of mind and judgment, abou • the being and constitution of a Church▪ and that as it is a part of Worship? I appeal all Readers. Who, but himself would have found out this mystery, in those words? Said he not, pag. 27▪ Is the institution of a Church, as a part of Worship, an unnecessary thing? The question was, whether schism import only a difference in one Assembly, and do not imply also, a separation into parties, upon those divisions. Hear what he says; That is, I understood him • ot at all. I must confess, I did so sup • ose, that he did deny separation to be schism, restraining it (as he did oft) to • ivisions in a Church, not allowing se • aration from a Church, true, or false, • o be a schism. Well then, he grants • ome separation, and because there is a • eparation, is a schism; and so we are • greed. No, because I have not proved • , (from the places cited) Let us re • iew the places cited by me and him; • shall instance only in two, the first, Act. 14.4. That is, said I, They divided into parties. The reverend Doctor approves not this criticism; Let the Context be consulted. I said something to it, in page 40. and now I add; It seems to me to be meant of schism, in an Ecclesiastical sense, (though by him brought as a political schism, page 24. for thus it stands: The Apostles entre • into the Synagogue of the Jews, verse. 1 • (which was a Church-Assembly ) the • a commotion or dissention was made, b • the unbelieving Jews, against the brethren, verse. 2. whereupon the multitude • was divided; first, in minds and judgments, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; then into part or companies, and some were with th • Apostles, some with the Jews; whic • cannot well be meant of, being or sidein • with the Apostles, in judgment only but in society also; as the like phrase i • used in a like case, in a difference between the Philosophers at Athens, and Paul, Act. 17.33, 34. Clav • unto him, not only in their judgments, but in their company, following him upon his departure. This will be more evident in the next Text. Act. 19.8, 9. Which schism • r separation was violently forced by the • urbulent Jews, as I said of the other • ostance pag. 41. And so the sin of that •• hism, was justly imputable to those • ewes, driving out the Apostle, and • orcing that separation. All that the re • erend Doctor says to this instance, is, • hat I confess in the margin, that But that's • othing to the purpose; for Paul was • ot guilty of that schism, but the Jews, who enforced him to make that separa • ion, as I said above. The Romanists are • udged schismatics by ours, because • hey drove and cast us out of communion, by such like dealing with us.

I confessed indeed, that in the Ecclesiastical sense, the word is only used in • he, 1 Cor. 1.9. &c. (I except now the places newly managed, where the one hath the word and the other the matter of Schism) but I do not confess that

This is put upon me; for I rather say, the full importance of the word, is not here to be learned: the word in its proper notion, signifies a breach of union, or a separation into parts; in what degree so ever. And that the Reverend Docto • begs the question is evident, because he infers, He knows, I denied both the Antecedent and the consequence; the Antecedent by manifesting that there was more in their Schism, than only a D • vision o • minds: there was division into parties a separation with respect to several Ministers, I am of Paul &c. and to one Ordinance at least, the Lord's supper: the Consequence, because the word signifies besides, any sinful breach of union, by separation from a true church. For the Antecedent, he answers; first to that of betaking themselves to divers Ministers, 3. things, 1. But if there was any separa • ion in the church, thats more than he did grant at first; and made Schism only a division of mind in that Church; and if he grant any separation in that Church, its as much as I desire; for I undertook to prove, there was more among them, than a bare division of • inds, a degree of separation, which the • postle there charges, as part of their • chism; and this the Reverend Doctor • a manner yields, p. 58. For when I • id, granting him his special notion, this • the way on one hand to free all • hurch-separation from Schism &c. He • nsweres " This is denied: which to me •• ports, that some separation from a • hurch is Schism; which is contrary to • s notion, that Schism is nothing but a • vision in a church, 2. But theres little weight • n this, when as the Apostle first says • xpresly; And then the • ifference of gifts, that was in Paul and Apollos might suffice to make up that • gure, as the Apostle adds; 3. He adds I • may be so; but its very rare to find it so and in this case of that Church, where • there were about their Ministers, its most probable it was not so but people might and did choose thei • own Teachers, with neglect, and slighting of others: sure we are, we find it • now; many by having men's persons in admiration, have separated from on • Churches, by crying up someone Minister, some another, and renounce communion with us. Its very probabl • it was so then; men that had itching ears, heaped to themselves Teachers after their own lusts, 2 Tim. 4.3, 4 This breeds envyings and strife amongst • Ministers, when others steal away thei • Members, and bring sleightings and contempt upon their persons and Ministry • and at last, a lamentable separation, as w • see at this day. What ever he says against that probability of separation, i • little worth; for I did not unde • take (as I said) to prove a separation from that Church, but a separation in that Church, as to some Ordinances, viz. the Ministry, and Sacrament of the supper; of which in the text.

I said, there was a separation as to parties, in that Church, at least as to one Ordinance of the Lord's supper: The answer is,

This is as much as I undertake; that which he calls, using respect of persons in that Ordinance, excluding the poor, that I call a separation, (not from) in that Church, as to a party: This was certainly part of their schism, rebuked by the Apostle. We see this done at this day, not only by some of his party, who will sometimes hear with us, but not receive the Sacrament with us; but also by some of our own, (if we may call them so) who admit all their Congregation to prayer and preaching, but for the Lord's Supper, separate themselves into another Congregation: Is not this a schism? He knows whom I mean.

That in the Church of Corinth, • thereabouts, there was more then on single Congregation; I proved, first, fro • himself, who said, They had siding in their solemn Assemblies; not one, bu • many. He evades this, by saying,

And may it not be true also, of the several places of their meetings? For that the numerous company of Believers a • Corinth, could all meet in one place, is most improbable, if not impossible. Besides, the reverend Doctor will not deny, that the Epistle was written to the Church of Cenchrea, a distinct Church from that at Corinth; then were there at least two distinct Assemblies. To which he says only this; &c. That was not to the purpose; I brought it to prove, there were more particular Churches in Corinth, or thereabouts; and that, it does perform. Now is it probable, that there should be a Church in that little Village, and but one in that great City of Corinth, where were innumerable believers? I instanced therefore in that 1 Cor. 14.34. Not • ne, but many Churches at Corinth. It may be, he will answer as afore, with re • pect to the several times, not the several • laces of their meetings: But that is pre • ented, by that which I newly said. For sure, it might be applied to the Church of Cenchrea, as well as to that • t Corinth, supposing it to be but one Congregation: But enough of that.

He pretends indeed to have proved, and to be confidently resolved, it was but one single Congregation; for proof, I find none, but what I also suppose I had disproved, page 30. To some things whereof, he says nothing: But he is so liberal, as to forego that proof.

And here he ass •• t • me • he is more troubled with my not ••••• s • anding the business, and design he manages, then with all my reviling 〈◊〉 The like he redoubles, page 7 • . As for my revilings, the charge is unjust, and I have said enough to it. But▪ Did he consider the prejudices, that will • fall upon his cause, when he granted these things? For 1. Supposing there were many Churches in Corinth, and that but one Church, it would plead strongly for a Presbyterian, nothing for an Independent Church: That one Church was governed in common, by the several Elders, the Apostle writing to them all. 2. Then it were easy to infer, what I have asserted, that the differences were not in one particular Congregation, but between Churches and Churches, about their Ministers. 3. That if a Church of many Congregations, may be collectively called one Church, then there may be separations of one Church from another, as well as divisions in a particular Congregation; and so schism will extend further, then he would have it. e. g. Supposing the Church of England to be National in a right sense, and so • lled a particular Church, with re • pect either to other National, or the • niversall Church; can there be no • hismaticall separation made, from the National Church of England, in the fall • ng off of one or more Churches, to A • abaptism, or the like? but they must se • arate from the Church of England, and • yne themselves to some Church in Holland, or elsewhere? If there may; • hen, separation in a Church, as well as • eparation from a Church, may be called schism: For I have proved, there was a • separation in the Church of Corinth, as to some Ordinances, and that is charged by the name of schism.

But to prevent my future mistakes of his principle, he tells me, what I must demonstrate, if I will evert it;

No, that which I was to manifest, was, 1. That schism is more then a division in a Church; Even separation from a Church, is schism. 2. That there was more in that schism at Corinth, then a bare division of minds; there was, if not a separation from it, into anothe • Church, yet a separation in it, as t • some Ordinances. Or rather, I was, 1. T • disprove his new notion; that schism is nothing, but a division of minds in a Church 2. To prove, that supposing that schis • charged on the Corinthians, was n • more, but a division in a Church, ye • it follows not, that nothing else wa • schism; which how I have performed let others judge.

And now we are come to Clement Epistle, written to the Church of Corinth forty years after, when they were again fallen into the like schism.

Which may prove a great mistake of his, which thus I demonstrate from Clement's Epistle: First, in general, he calls it, "That abhominable and ungodly sedition, at the beginning: Afterwards, brands the Authors of it, And afterwards more particular • y shows, wherein that schism consi • ed; viz. in casting out of their honest Presbyters: And repeats • t again, and again; Then (a few lines between) follow those words, cited by the reverend Doctor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. How removed them? by casting them out, (as he said afore) or by deposing of them, as the reverend Doctor expressed it in both his Books. Now I demand, whether this deposition, or casting out of their Elders, be not the chief part of the schism, which Clement charges upon them? and whether it be not as great a schism in a Church, f • the people, to cast out, or depose the godly Elders, as voluntarily themselv • to forsake a true Church, and to set • another Church, by substituting oth • Officers in their places? which is mo • probable they did, though the reveren • Doctor would not take upon him t • know it, pag. 32. Of schism. This supposed, to be intended in the wor • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which sometimes signifies t • lead away, sometimes to drive away, o • remove, or depose; as himself expound • it, by casting out, a little before. Th • reverend Doctor understood it other wise; But I doubt, the reverend Doctor mistakes the coherence, which seems to me rather to look at those former words, (those by him cited being rather a parenthesis ) This was their charge, this was part at • east of their schism, and the chiefest part thereof. There was not indeed (for ought I perceive) Let the learned judge.

The rest of this my second Chapter, for thirteen leaves together, the reverend Doctor thinks good to pass untouched, by some of his ordinary language;

Which imputations, how false and slighting they are, above all in my whole book, others must judge. Could I avoid reflections upon Independents, when I had to dea • with him, who is an Independent, and pleads their cause? Did I only intend to deal with him, and not rather with the whole party, whose persons he sustains, and interests himself in thei • judgment, when he commonly speak • in the plural number, and many the like. And could I prove their way to be schismatical, till I had vindicated the notion and nature of schism? Is not this whole Chapter spent in tendency thereunto? But he again complains; What was that whereon he laid the whole weight? Was it, Did I not (upon second thoughts) instance a place or two, (which I have now more enlarged and confirmed) where the word was used in the one, Act. 14.4. and the nature of schism implied in the other, Act. 19.8, 9. in an ecclesiastical sense? Have I not clearly proved, that there were more Churches then one, in and about Corinth, to which that Epistle was written? And considering the multitude of Believers in Corinth, is it not • probable, if not impossible, that they • old all meet in one place, to make • e Church? Hath the reverend Doctor • swered anything to this? Was I to • ove, No, but that there as more then a division of minds in that • hism, even a separation in it, as to some • rdinances; which if it be proved, as I • elieve it is, confutes his new notion, That schism in its nature, and in that Church, was nothing but a division of minds, upon which the whole weight • f his structure is laid. But enough of his before, let others judge.

One thing I cannot but take notice • f,

1. Did not prove he might be so, both from his own description of schism, and also by an instance of those, that came from Jerusalem, and stirred up divisions in • he Church of Antioch? 2. For his pa • enthesis, is it not otherwise professed by me, pag. 55. An Heathen cannot b • a schismatic? Did not the reveren • Doctor wink hard, when he would no • see this? After all this, he charges it • a crime upon me, How is the foundat • on of it taken away? not by his noti • of schism; for though that schism ha • been only a division in a particul • Church, with respect to their mind and judgments; yet it follows not, tha • schism, in the full nature of it, is nothing else. Let him prove the consequenc • if he can, and not make himself ridiculous to all Divines.

But did not I instance in other words which may and do signify separation into parties, as well as difference o • minds? and those used in the same plac • of Scripture. What thinks he of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Cor, 3.3. may not that signifi • a division into parties? What of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made a synonymon by the Apostle himself, 1 Cor. 11.18, 19. with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Now I made it evident, that that word signifies separation into several sects; not divided only in opinions, but in Schools also, amongst the Philosophers; and why may not schism include as much? Besides, I gave other words, that • mply a sinful schismatical separation; that, Act. 20.30. Seducers, that speak perverse things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to draw away disciples after them, from the Church. That of Heb. 10.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , And • hat, Jud. v. 19. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , separating • hemselves. All which imply a sinful • reach of union, and a causeless separation from a true Church; which is the old definition of schism.

There are many things more of great • mportance in this Chapter, which I • annot but think it hard measure, to be • o slighted and despised, as to an an • wer. But the reverend Doctor is so • namoured with his new notion, and so over-joyed with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of invention, that if you will not grant him that, • e professes, to look for no success in • is work, as I said above. But I shall • ustly require and expect, in his next • ndertaking, a better account of them. There is but one thing more I shall take notice of, in the conclusion of this Chapter, that is, about the aggravations of schism: First, those that are given by others, which I re-enforced; not because I hoped, that he would dispute with me about them, (for I see, he can avoid disputing about things, of greater concernment to him) but because I found him disputing against th • m, as I thought, causlessely. Then for his own, he may, without any leave from me, lay what weight he will upon them;

Truly, all the approbation I gave, was, that I could agree with him therein. But, to tell him the truth, it was rather, because they were true, than that they were so pertinent and proper, as those vindicated by me: For as for the three first, that it is a despising, 1. Of the authority of Christ. 2. His wisdom. 3. His grace: What hath he said, that is not competible to the aggravation of any other sin almost, as well as schism? The same aggravations may be applied to our civil dissensions: The last indeed is the most proper, viz. And that's my • dgment, of their present Schism.

CHAP. V.

THe reverend Doctor is still peremptory, that the separation of any • an or men, from a true Church, or of • e Church from another, is not • hism; he means, "In the precise signification of the word, and description of the thing, as given by the holy Ghost. • esides what is said, to disprove that • se of the word, and description of • e thing, I shall now add; 1. He can • t say this of all separation from a true • hurch, for he hath granted some such be schism, as I shown above, from • s 58 page, where he says, "It is denied, that his notion of schism is the way, to free all Church-separation from schism: Ergo, • ome Church-separation schism, as I conceive. 2. In the next page 81. he says,

And before, he said, Then a causeless separation from • Church is evil; and why? but because • it breaks the union of the Church, whic • is the very definition of Schism, commonly given. Which if it be true, ho • could he say indefinitely, the separatio • from a true Church is not schism? Fo • nobody says absolutely, that all separation is schism; but a causeless separation is schism; upon this reason, because • it violates and rends the union of th • Church, the body of Christ. 3. If h • shall stick to the notion of it, in th • place of the Corinthians, that there wa • only a division in the Church, an • therefore separation from the Churc • is no schism, it is incumbent on him t • prove that consequence, which yet h • hath not done. In a word, I ask, Wh • is division of minds in a Church a schism I believe he must answer, Because it i • a breach of union, of Christ's appointment, who requires members of Church to be all of one mind. And is i • not an appointment of Christ, that th • members of a Church be united, as to • he performance of the same numerical Worship? Then by parity of reason, it • ollowes, that to break that union caus • essely, is also a schism. Is not this a • auslesse and worthless vitilitigation of • he learned Doctor?

I brought 1 Joh. 2.19. for a blameable • eparation from the Church; They went • ut from us, as (said I) is the manner of • chismaticall spirits; they stay not till • hey be cast out, but go out, and become • he head of a faction. He ventures to • ay, All Writers expound it of apostasy: They may do so, but not excluding • chism or heresy; for the same phrase of going out is used, Act. 15. of those that • aised a schism at Antioch; yet were not • hey apostates, not denying Christ, but • oyning Moses with Him. But I contend not.

He is as confident, that of the three places by him brought, for blameable departures from a Church,

I • aid, All, or some of them do. Here I must first rectify a mistake in the reve • end Doctor, which he pleases himself with; viz. That he (not consulting the Errata's ) reads mind for include. I said Some of them included the nature 〈◊〉 schism, at least, as precedaneous to th • separation. Upon which mistake, h • sports himself, and adds; Truly I spake so cautiously, fo • his reputation, not any end of my own because some, one at least, of the place speaks of no separation at all; viz. tha • from 1 Thess. 5.14. and 2 Thess. 3.2, 6 as I prove to him; but he will not see For the first, that of Heb. 10.25. whic • he takes to be meant of apostasy; I proved his mistake from the Context clea • red, from others, and from himself who formerly glossed it, neglecting th • public Assemblies; and also because • apostates may be schismatics, and something more. For the third, Jude verse. 19 I proved the separation to be schismatical, from the nature of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the judgment of learned Interpreters: To all which, the reverend Doctor thinks it safest to say nothing. And I must tell him once again, But that such a separation, hath the entire nature of schism • n Scripture, though not the name, according to his first proposal; and that I suppose I have abundantly proved.

When I said, the pinch of the question is this,

He cries out, Was not this scruple started by himself? 1. In giving his definition of schism, to be only a division of minds in a Church, and not any separation in or from it. 2. Did he not vigorously assert, in this very Chapter, pag. 77. Of schism; and here again, pag. 83. Did it not now come to be the cause of my question, which I rightly stated, as I thought, and others think, between us and him, and his Independent associates? Is not their separation from us, the ground of all our differences? Can common honesty disallow this state of the question? Or can he truly deny, that they have made any separation from us, or that they do not deny our Churches? What was said afore, must be again repeated; I spake not only of himself, but of many Independent Churches. Neither was my question propounded in Hypothesi, as respecting them; but in Thesi, of any separation from a true Church. Whether a man, or more, may separate from a true Church, &c. and set up another Church, &c. as afore. And have I not proved also before, that they and he, (if he stand to his principles) have, and do deny our Churches▪ and Ordinances? Hath any man a face or conscience to deny this charge? clamet Melicerta perîsse Frontem de rebus.

The remainder of his Animadversions on this Chapter, is for the most part nothing, but a repetition of those things, which he hath often charged; of mistakes, and surmises, &c. which have • een once at least fully answered. I shall • nely lay hold of his promise, twice •• ade;

Truly I think, I have proved, • hat they have separated from us, and • roke the union of our Churches; and in • o doing, (if he will, as he doth, ac • nowledge us true Churches ) they have made a breach, upon an union of Christ's institution, without which, we are no true Churches. And now I shall expect the performance, of so solemn a promise. But for the contract or condition adjoined, I shall promise, and have performed it; for upon review, of what I formerly have done, I find, that I have dealt fairly and respectfully with him, though perhaps sharply, as in a zealous defense of truth. And if he have (as he hath) dealt more uncivilly with me in this, I shall no • retaliate, but only vindicate the truth as a friendly and Christian adversary.

CHAP. VI, VII.

THat I may not multiply or continue controversies everlastingly, (a • the reverend Doctor causlessely charge • me) though there be some things said i • this Chapter, not so accurately delivered but just acceptions might be put i • against them; yet I shall forbear to exagitate them, and proceed to the next▪ And therein, because the main substantial points of our difference are already discussed, and many things repeated, which have been spoken to, I shall only make some strictures, or animadversions, upon some passages in every Chapter, that the reverend Doctor may see▪ what might have been excepted, and lest he should think himself slighted or neglected, in my passing over the following Chapters, though he hath slighted most of the argumentative part of mine, and many things of some concernment, that required an answer.

Pag. 101.

To which many things were • nswered by me, to which little is said; what is, shall be presently considered. That which I now add, is this: 1. That the reverend Doctor opposes apostasy to schism, as if they might not both meet • n one. The consequence is like the former; It is apostasy, Ergo, it is no schism; whereas they differ (at least sometimes) only in degrees. 2. That he supposes, that there is no breach of union of the Catholic visible Church, but only apostasy, which is usually taken for a total relinquishing of the Christian faith. 3. That in giving those three properties of apostasy, he also supposes, that any one of them denominates a man apostate. Whereas I have proved, a breach of that union may be, 1. When a man believes not someone, of the saving doctrines of the Gospel, and yet be no apostate, 2. That a Christian may be scandalous, and yet a member still, and so no apostate. 3. That a man ma • err in some necessary truth of the Go • pell, and profess that error for a time and yet be Orthodox to the rest, and s • no apostate. And in all these cases of difference, with the Catholic visibl • Church, there may be a schism, o • breach of union, and no apostasy. To hi • questions then, I say; 1. I grant, tha • the Catholic visible Church, is a collection of all professing Christians▪ 2. To be of such, as profess the doctrine of the Gospel, and subjection to Jesus Christ. 3. But I do not say, that every error in doctrine, or d sobedience to some command of Christ, is apostasy, or (as he calls it) 4. I have, and do charge some degree of apostasy, upon some of those Churches, which are called Independents, and shall be able to defend my charge. 5. I do prove, that the breach of that union, if partial only, is not apostasy, (which is a total forsaking of the faith of the Gospel) but rather a schism, which in his own definition, is a division in opinion and judgment. Lastly, I have manifested more than so, that one of the truths of • he Gospel, which all Christians are • ound to, is, the joint exercise of the • ame specifical Ordinances, to subjection • o the same discipline; and, where it is • ossible, to the exercise of the same numerical Worship, which himself granted, Of Schism, p. 205. s. 7. and again here, pag. 109. when he says, to my words • fore; Whereupon I inferred, that the denial of the members of the Catholic Church, to join in the same numerical Ordinances, was a breach of that union, and so a schism, and not apostasy. What excepts he to his own grants? If he mean by, formerly members of that Church, that professors, quà professors, of the same faith; or believers, quà believers, are formally members, and obliged thereunto, he granted before what now he denies, page. 205. s. 7, of Schism. And what I believe concerning the Institution o • particular congregations by Jesus Christ, I gave him my thoughts in my former, page. 131. viz: the same which he granted;

page. 111. He says,

I shall only return, That whatever the matter is, I find him not so cautious in all his Books; its probable, rather than. &c. For the words are more plain and full, than to be so eluded; for they were baptized in Johns baptism only; who did not Baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost for ought appears: and so they might not have heard at all, of the holy Ghost.

There are other particulars in his • hapter deserving some Animadversi •• • but either they have been spoken to • fore, or they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the busi •• sse before us, and I shall not draw the • any longer.

page. 116. Only something may be •• d to what he says, of the subjects of • hrist the Head of the Church, which I •• d, some wicked men may be; He asks. Are indeed those persons any better than Mohammedans, as to Church privileges? shall their Baptism avail them? is it not • null to them? shall such Parents give their Children any right to Church privileges? All these were prevented •• d answered by me, p. 95. 96. of which • e Reverend Doctor takes no notice: •• t repeats the same objections. And •• stly asks,

When as the Text by me produced • xpressely calls such, brethren: 1 Cor. 5. • 1. If that may be eluded • he other cannot: 2 Thes. 13.17. I expect that he an • wer my arguments.

p. 119. He says,

Surely the Revere •• Doctor cannot but understand the di • ference between saying, Rome is no pa • ticular Church, and, no Church at all▪ The mist is of his own making; th •• will not distinguish of the word partic • lar Church; which may be taken eithe • for a national or patriarchal Church, as b • himself it was, page. 121. of Schism; or fo • a particular Congregation, which is the •• ordinary notion. Now though ROM • may be said to be no particular Churc • as a Congregation; yet it may be (and is b • others) taken for a Patriarchal particular Church: which is much more than to say, it is no Church at all: But he says, I affirm the same that he does, in my page. 113. when I say I meant (as I explain myself elsewhere,) that the Papacy or Papal Church, and the Church of ROME, are two distinct things, differing • s the Leprosy and the hand; yet I do not • ay, the hand is no hand, because of that • eprosie; as he says, ROME is no Church, because its Papal, &c.

Page. 120.

• appeal all Readers, whether he did not • abour to exempt the Donatists, from • chism, p. 164. though he condemned • ll their practices as other crimes? And did he not undertake to exempt some others from Schism, (he knows whom) And was it not upon his own new notion; because Schism is only a division • n, not from, a particular Church? Yea was it not Schismaticall for them, to cast Cecilianus out of the Church, renouncing communion with him, and the Church of Carthage also? ibid. p. 17. 18. The World hath hitherto judged it so; and the Reverend Doctor is now come off to that opinion, when he says "Do I labor to exempt them from Schism? which (the Rhetorical Interrogation affirmative, being resolved) is negative I do not labor to exempt them from Schism; Ergo they were Schismatics in that separation. And once more, A sep • ration from a true Church, is sometim • Schism, as well as division in it; But h • says, angerly it seems; was it, that (which is yours) that Schism was only a division in a particular Church? no; but that their Schism was a division in, that Church (with a degree of separation in it, as to some Ordinances as I have proved) not, that that comprehended the full nature of Schism; and if if not that, what else? And what is the breach of the union of that Church, (in his notion ) but Apostasy from the truth of the Gospel? And would this be a congruous answer to the charge of Schism; to say, the Donatists were not Apostates? Did they renounce the Gospel? Nothing less: but renouncing communion with the catholic Cuhrch, and making themselves the only Churches in the world, they were by all men in all ages till now, accounted not Apostates, but Schismatics: But too much of that.

Page. 123.

I pray, is it not as equal for me to call them a party, as for them to separate from us, and make themselves a party, renouncing communion with us? They went out from us not we from them: But it is denied, Let the READER now observe, whether the REVEREND DOCTOR do not either make, or own a p • rty; (we) which he blamed in me? But I add: 1. If he look at himself, he began not his reformation till after—44. when his Tract of Pastor and People came forth, then he was a Presbyterian: yea till 46. when he preached before the PARLIAMENT; then he was a Presbyterian, and (as I hear) pleaded for that way: 2. If he look at the Independents that went out of ENGLAND, they at first disliked nothing but our ceremonies, and desired no Reformation, but a liberty of conscience from those snares, as the rest of the honest non-conformists did, who separated not; a Presbyterian-reformation would then have contented them: but in a little time, the seeds of Brownism were sowed amongst them; and, for that, they were charged with Schism from the beginning thereof, by moderate pious men amongst us, 3. They (nor the Reverend Doctor) have not yet demonstrated their way to be a reformation, but a deformation of our Churches; though sometimes for shame of the World, they call us true Churches; which they contradict by separating from us, and renouncing communion, as Churches, with us: 4. when we began to reform, (by authority of the Magistrate, which they did not) some of his party cast all the blocks they could in our way, and gathered Churches from us. And though he deny it, that they (he says, we) have separated from all the reformed Churches, as no Churches; and himself with them in his principles, if not in practice; is so fully demonstrated above, to all reasonable men, that I wonder that he should expect For the parallel of Independentism and Donatism, how much he or his party is concerned, let others judge.

Pag. 126. He cavils at my first proof, that there may be a b •• ach of union in the Catholic visible Chur • h, if the form of it were faulty. But what is wanting to make up a perfect Syllogism, might easily have been supplied, from the former discourse, by himself, if he had pleased; thus: 1. Schism is the breach of union in a Church, of Christ's institution: But the Catholic Church is a Church of Christ's institution; Ergo, there may be a schism in the Catholic Church. 2. There may be differences in matter of faith professed, which is the union of the Catholic Church; Ergo, there may be schism in the Catholic Church, which not arising to apostasy, must needs be schism, as I proved above: And he must evade, by one of those answers which I presented to him, pag. 115. or else must beg the question. For a close of this; Can there be any breach of union, in the nature of the word, in the language of Scripture, or in reason or common sense, which is not a schism, more or less, according to the degr • e of that breach of union? But to the second, he says,

This breach of union in Paul and Barnabas, professors of no particular Church; that of Chrysostom and Epiphanius, of several Churches: Was it not a fault in one party? both could not be in the right. What, will he call that breach of union? Surely not apostasy, (for they were, he says, professors still) they were far from renouncing the profession of the Gospel, either of them. What then was it, but a schism, and sinful separation in one party? And nothing hinders to call it so, but only the reverend Doctor's new notion of schism, to be only a division in a particular Church.

Pag. 128. and the two following pages, are filled with little to purpose, but with charges,

which are almost an hundred times repeated, but not once proved: He concludes with the guilt of one of my charges, that is, falsehood, when he says, I might cry out of mistakes, calumniations, or equivocations, &c. for neglecting to observe my distinction, given before and after; before: After, in the next page; From whence I said, And I say again, his last words are false; To conclude, he often professes, he hath not renounced his Ordination, by an English Bishop; that Bishop had his succcessive Ordination from some that had it from Rome. Yet he could distinguish a double capacity of those Bishops, one as Lord Bishops, pag. 227. another as Ministers of the Gospel, &c. pag. 231. Now if he renounce not his Ordination, he will deny, that he received it from Bishops, as such; but from them as Ministers of the Gospel. And may not we distinguish so of the Romish Bishops? is it not ordinary for all our Divines so to distinguish? What perverseness is this! The business about Ordination of our Ministers, required his judgment and answer; but he thinks best to wave it, though it was started by himself, p. 196.

Pag. 131. I am causlessely quarrelled 〈◊〉 , for calling his description of a parti • ular Church, a definition; and he says,

Both which, I wonder at, in so great a Logician: For 1. Is not a description in Logic called, an imperfect definition? 〈◊〉 . The contests amongst men, often • imes grow from want of a perfect defi • ition. The true Genus, and proper differentia, being the clearest way to discover, and establish the truth. And this is evident, by his own description of a particular Church: Is it not a definition, consisting of a Genus, a society of men called by the word; and a differentia, the joint performance of the worship of God, in the same individual Ordinances, &c? Did he not make the form of a particular Church to be, pag. 236. And do not both those make up a definition? Whether it be accurate or no, is now to be considered. And that it is not a perfect or full definition, or description, appears from what I said, pag. 123. because it is applicab •• to the Church invisible, and to the visib •• Catholic Church, as well as to a part • cular Congregation. Each, or all •• these, may be described to be And I added, To which he says but this "That was not the thing in question. If i • was not there, it is (he knows) a question between them and us; and my inference was rational, from his description, A particular Church is a soc • ety, &c But ours are such; Ergo, true Churches and consequently, not (without schism to be separated from.

Pag. 132. Concerning the explicit covenant, so much urged by them, h • says,

But did he not give us the form of a particular Church, and the union of it, to consist • t not by them made the very form of • articular Church, without which, • an can no more be a member of a par • ular Church, then a woman can be • th a man's wife, without her explicit • nsent? I noted the difference of his • pression; one while he said, The form a particular Church, was the joint • sent of the members; another while, It is the joint observance of all Ordinances of worship, numerically, &c. Now • evident, that these are not the same • ing; there may be a joint observance the same Ordinances numerically, by • embers of several Churches, me • ng together; yea, by members of the • atholick Church, yet of no particular • hurch, by joint consent. And this latter, • e joint performance of the same Ordi • ances of worship numerically, is the • rm (if it have any) of a particular • hurch, differencing it from the other. • his diversity of expressions, the reve • end Doctor puts off; first, with a sleigh • ing sentence, Id populus curat scilicet; • nd then evades, by asking; Let me ask but so like questions; What's all this to purpose? what to an explicit coven • or consent, which they require? M • not all this be done implicitly, and th • sufficient, in their own confession, make a Church? Did not he say, When a man first professes himself Christian, he virtually and implicit promises to do all those duties, whi •• concern him, in any relation to his fello • members, and Minister: What ne •• then, to lay so much weight upon an e • plicite Covenant, (unless sometimes in prudential way, when a Church renew the general Covenant; or to bind me faster, to what they were bound to before, but neglected) I say, what need i • there, to lay the whole weight of Church- constitution, (as no Churc • without it) upon an explicit covenant • en the implicit is confessed sufficient. • hese things should not have been • ved, or slighted by him, that makes •• e form of a particular Church, to be • oynt consent: by which, if he mean • t an explicit consent or covenant, speaks nothing to the difference be • een us, and ratifies the constituti •• of our Churches, as well as his • wn.

Ibid: "I think no one single congregation is wholly completed according to the mind of Christ, unless there be more Elders than one in it; there should be Elders in every Church. What means • e by Elders in every Church? a Pastor • nd a Teacher? can he prove the Apostle • ft two such Elders in every Church? • r are both these so necessary in every • hurch, that without them, it is no • hurch? Or does he mean, every Church must have, beside those two, • uling Elders in it? Can he prove there • ere such at EPHESUS, Act. 20.17. • nd they sent for, by the Apostle; He • peaks to them as more than one or two, • ou all, v. 25. He may tell us in the next, • ow many Elders, according to the mind of Christ, complete a Church; and ho • he will reconcile the whole differenc • as to their and our Churches: reme • bring this, that as Mr. Simpson had • Ruling Elders, nor did approve of the • in his Church: So I do not know wh • there the Independent Church at Oxfor • have any such Elders, or no.

Page. 134.

I must confess, I know not how to take these words: 1. I • seems at first sight to conclude, tha • himself and the generality of Christian in ENGLAND were never regularly baptized, being baptized all, in some • particular Church: 2. It sounds something Anabaptistical, that a Church is made of baptized persons; baptism precedes admission into Church membership, (say they also) as to a particular Church; and denying Infant baptism to 〈◊〉 valid, they re-baptize men, before they • mit them members of their Church: This is contradicted by the brethren • NEW ENGLAND, who make a •• rticular Church only, the Seat of all •• dinances, and none to be regularly bap •• zed, that are not baptized in a parti • ular Church: 4. The same is asserted • himself, page. 106. of his Review: particular Churches, being by the will of God appointed for the Seat of Ordinances. Then, unless baptism be no Church Ordinance of God, it must be done in a • articular Church. But he says, which we find to be this: Whereupon I asked, whether baptism was a part of worship? If so, how could he reconcile this with what he said afore, For if a professor of the catholic Church only, may be baptized, how is a particular Church, the Seat of all Ordinances? and so to be perform • by them that are so joined? To rectif • not mine, but his own mistake he no • says: How easily might I mistake when himself mistook, and lead me ou • of the way: And will this make me ever the wiser? The thing he had to prov • was He mends it, till it is the worse again? If he would imply, that a Minister in or of a particular Church may perform those ordinances, without those congregations (which only was to purpose) he contradicts himself for saying, A particular Church, is the seat of all Ordinances: If he mean, those Ordinances of worship, are to be performed only by a Minister of a particular Congregation, what shall become of the people? and what made the words, so joined here? Does it • ot concern them to w ••• hip God? Or • ay a Minister perform any acts of wor • hip, out of a particular Church? That I • aid, was denied by men of his way, that • Minister is such to anymore than his • wn Church: He asks me; page. 135. I have been told (and I pre • ume he will not deny it) that when the Learned DOCTOR WALLIS, had brought to him as Vicechancellor, that Question to be defended negative, in the • espers of the public Act at Oxford, • 654. And if this be true, as I presume it is, what need I be further told, that he denies a Minister to be a Minister to more, than his particular congregation? I have also been told further (which I presume he will not deny neither) that when Doctor Wallis 's? Thesis on that Question, was since pri ••• d, this Revered Docto • did employ, or at least encourage (an Amanuensis of his) Mr. Stubbs of Christ▪ Church (now advocate for Mr. Hobs) to write against it: Though indeed, whe • that work written, was found a Scurrilous rid • culous p • ece (for so I hear, h • is since pleased to style it) he did no • think fit to let it be made public, because (they were his own words,) I have h • ard more, to this purpose, but I forb are: Only I shall (to show his Incon •• ancy to himself) let the Reader know how liberally he now grants, I leave him and his friends to debate and reconcile themselves one to another in this.

Page. 136.

These are expressly commanded, D • ut. 6, 7, 8, &c? I shall not follow him in the rest; only whereas he complements with me in so high a • ode; p. 139. • hat there must be particular Churches, • or every professor to join with, one or other, for the celebrating of public Ordinances. I as humbly desire him to • view my 132, page. &c. and to consider my reasons, if they be not as good • s his and what therein is of Institution.

3.

What means he by those words, as described? my words were, is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister? is there any preaching properly so called, that is not a duty of worship? or may any do it but a Minister? Rom. 10.14. In his Tract of Pastor and People; he allowed, in extraordinary cases, any man that had gifts and a people willing to hear him, to be a Preacher; Is that one of the cases, when preaching to convert Heathens is not a duty of worship, and • ot belonging to a Minister? Or is it that parenthesis of mine, (and then to baptize them, when converted) that makes it a duty of worship, and to be performed by a Minister? I humbly conceive, this answer is somewhat obscure▪ and satisfies not my fourth, concerning himself, when I asked, which he calls an invid • ous enquiry, and so passes it by. It required an answer, whether he accounts those to be particular Congregations, that are mixed and unjoyned? Whether he performed those as duties of worship, as a Minister; and by virtue of what Ordination, if he have not renounced it, as, he saith, he hath not? especially, if he was not Ordained in a particular Church? Of which, in the next.

Pag. 138.

I only ask, in what particular Church himself was ordained? and if he was, whether he • id not first renounce his former Ordina • ion by a Bishop, which he hath so oft • enyed to have done? For I do not expect him to say, he is an extraordinary Officer. And if ordinary Officers be only ordained in a particular Church, • t would be resolved, how he can do • ny Ministerial act, to any other particular Church, or to the Catholic Church, or World, which he granted above? And then, how those that are members of that particular Church, are not confined to him, as well as he to them? Pastor and Flock being such Relata's, as Husband and Wife. This piece of Independency was a matter of great contest in new England, by one that was no child in those things: whether the practice of those in old England be otherwise, I know not; if it be, I doubt, it is only to such members, as are of some Church of the same constitution; which is something less, but no whit better, as to our communion with them.

Pag. 140. If the discourse about the intercision of Ordinances, and all Church-state, was an impertinency, it was his own fault, to start it thrice pag. 85. and 211. and 271. and a great fault to wave it here: Only, we have • promise,

Yet, as I said, he insinuated in his question, that England was unchurched, and the Churches planted here did cease to be; and tells us, by what act God did unchurch them: But now waves to answer all my seven questions, (which required an answer) but the last; to which a sufficient reply is made, (where it was unseasonably brought in) upon his first Chapter, to which I refer him. Only I take notice, of his introduction to his answer, which puts me into a suspicion, that the reverend Doctor was offended, that I did not always (for oft I do) give him that •• tle, of the reverend Author, or reverend Doctor; which made him so cry out, And I hear, that somebody hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very • ill.

Pag. 148.

It seems, the reverend Doctor is little acquainted with the principles of the Independents, in new and old England; yea, he considers not the very name of an Independent Church, which what doth it signify, but an Independency, or non communion of one Church with another, as Churches, as I noted, pag. 155. at least of divine institution. The rest, what is it but prudential, or communion of members of the Catholic Church? And I shall only propound this to his consideration: 1. Whether if there be any communion of Churches, as Churches, (which he grants, or else equivocates ) there be not a breach of that communion and union, (and so a schism ) which before, and now, he denies: Unless he mean, it is not properly so called, with respect to his new notion of schism. But now he is upon the common notion of schism, a breach of union or unity; and then it is a schism, to refuse that communion, which ought (by divine appointment) to be between them. 2. They having acknowledged our Churches to be true Churches, and then some communion to be due to us, as Churches; how can they separate from us, and refuse communion with us, without a breach of union, and so without schism? unless he mean, they allow communion of their own Churches, by institution of Christ, but not with ours; no not so much as prudential, as Churches. 3. Many Independents (and the reverend Doctor with them) seem to hold, that communion of Churches by Delegates, in a Council or Synod, is only prudential, and not of Christ's institution; and then he may mean, there is no breach of union, in refusing to hold that communion, because it is not an union or communion of Christ's institution. To conclude this, how little reason the reverend Doctor had, to cry out of outrageous injury done him, in those words of mine; When he hath often told us, that in separation from us, they have broken no union of Christ's institution; as I have often said. And here tells us, Which how unreasonably (I will not say, outrageously) falls it is, I say again, let the world, and Saints, and who will, be judge. And then consider, what need there was, of his which appear to be none. But though I am unjustly charged all along, with such miscarriages, the reverend Doctor And so much of his ninth Chapter.

Pag. 146.

But 1. The reverend Doctor is very forgetful, of what he says; for he told us once before, pag. 47. And once again, pag. 148. My Treatise was intended against all sorts of Independents, and against himself as one of them; for they all plead their Congregations to be Independent, having all Church-power within themselves, that denominates them all Independents, though they otherwise differ one with another. 2. That invidious name, however disowned by them, was first of their own invention, and by practice, (as well as by the former Doctrine) arrogated to themselves. 3. They all agree also in separation from our Churches; they unchurch our Churches, unminister our Ministers, &c. pag. 148. With such I deal. He asks, How he can with conscience deny this, of most of the Sects of Independents, I much wonder; not only Anabaptists, but some of his own way, not yet gone so far, do separate from our Churches, unminister our Ministers, &c. And his own principles do the same, and will ere long lead him thither, as I have abundantly proved. But what means he by Independentism?

Pag. 149.

The like is repeated again, pag. 160. with some little difference; for such, only he pleads. Now to speak in the reverend Doctors mode, I humbly beseech this reverend Author, seriously to consider, what he hath said, and whom he pleads for: 1. Whether he do not plead for all the Sects in the Nation, as to the whole of this, (except one particular, of which by and by)? Do they not all plead a peaceable proceeding of (themselves) the people of God, to join together by their free consent, to walk together in the observation of all the Ordinances, &c? to reform themselves from disorders, as not able to join in the way of presbyterian • eformation? &c. 2. Will he call • hat a peaceable proceeding, which • s done without the authority of • he Christian civil Magistrate, and • o the disturbance of all the Churches of the Nation? 3. Were it granted, that in the first constitution of a Church, people might, by their own free consent, join to walk together, &c. Is this course tolerable in settled Churches, without as he said elsewhere, Duty of Pastor and People, pag. 53. (to which I have spoken, in the end of my second Chapter above) unless he will deny us now to be true Churches. May not the members of his own Church, upon some d • sorders of it, (as they can easily conceive) have the same liberty to separate from them, and join by free consent together, to set up another Church? Nay, do they not take that liberty? and notwithstanding all the bonds and fetters of free consent, and explicit covenant to continue with them, desert them upon this very principle, and join themselves with Anabaptists, and other Sects? 4. And do they not all break the last condition, Lastly, I leave it to his own consideration, whether it be lawful for people, that are members of true Churches, (as ours are acknowledged to be) upon some disorders in a Church, or pretence of reforming themselves, to separate from that Church, and to erect another; when as they have done their duty to reform it, in those disorders; notwithstanding which, they may without sin, communicate with that Church? but rather to break true Churches into pieces, than to bear with some inconveniences. And I • esire a president of such a practice in • cripture or story.

Page. 156.

If they did not suppose themselves to be of some particular Church, it was their error and their fault; their error because all the people of the Nation, were confind to that Church where they lived; and liable to censure for leaving that Church, for partaking of Ordinances; and the Ministers for admitting them: Their fault, because they were bound by way of duty, both by the Laws of the Nation, and also by the Law of God, to be of one or other particular Congregation; as the Reverend Doctor hath oft asserted: and this d • sorder to be of no one congregation, would not be endured in any of their members. The bondage only was that they are obliged to be members, where the Ordinances, were not at all or sinfully administered: In my eighth Chapter, he leaps over above twenty leaves a • once.

Page. 154. I had said, our Churches under the Prelates, were not capable of reduction to the primitive institution; whereupon he professed

Which (said I) was to unchurch all our Churches, since the Reformation: He answers, So are the Churches of ROME capable▪ potentià remotá, to be reduced to the primitive institution: but so hindered by somebody, that he that should go about it, would find thē actually uncapable of such reducement: So are our Churches capable of such a reduction; and it is probable, had been reduced to the primitive institution ere this, but he knows we have obstructed it: as I told him before: yea that Whilst our people have so much liberty to be of any, or no Religion, no R • formation is possible; and yet we are potentially capable of that reduction: And the Reverend Doctor's advice, given before and now again, page. 270. of Schism? comes both too late, for they have done it already by separation from us; and also unreasonably, because if it be taken, it renders us more uncapable of that Reformation desired, by withdrawing the best and most reformed of our members from us, and leaves us but few beside those that hate to be reformed.

Page. 166. Beside the

Now though he cannot break the radical union with the Head; he may break the consequential union or consequence of that union, which consists in mutual love. Paul and Barnabas fell into difference, and separation one from another; yet were, no doubt, true members of the Invisible Church, (though not of any particular Church) and this was at least some degree of breach of that mutual love and peace, that ought to have been between them; hereupon it was that I said, He is grieved he says, at this my declaration; Now when the Reverend Doctor or some Churches of his party, have separated from some whom they acknowledge truly godly; and keep them out of communion with themselves, in their Churches, unless they will give a consent to be members of that Church, by an explicit covenant (he knows where this was practiced) I shall say again, here was a breach of union, that ought to be between the members of that catholic Church:

Page. 167. I had said; By gathering Saints of the greatest magnitude, they do what they can to make the Invisible Church visible. He answers:

And truly, it is our care and endeavor to make all our visible professors, invisible true bel • evers: But this is not their way: They do not, (as we do) labor to make b • re professors (mere natural men, of their own Congregations ) to be real belie- (verse for they pretend to admit none such, if they know them) but they un • easonably and unjustly gather, or rather steal, our best professors, and real believers, to make a Church visible, of invisible members, a Church of all elect ones. Which course, as it is not to be exemplified in all Scripture, or story; So it is forespoken by Christ himself, not to be accomplished; who hath told us, and we doubt not, but they find the impossib • l • ty of effecting that design, when they and the world sees, they have in their Churches some hypocrites, and some as loose, as in some of ours: And their arrogance, in presuming against the p • edictions and providence of Christ, to build a Church, that should reach unto Heaven on Earth, hath been fearfully blasted (as another Babel ) with confusion, by their members, falling into damnable errors, and abhominable profaneness, as I said else-where. Even some Independent Churches, which he too much countenances, if he be not a member of them, may easily be proved, in his own judgment to be heretical, if Arminianism, and some points of Popery, be with him accounted Heresies: I need not instance.

Pag. 168.

Truly, as easily, as the reverend Doctor can free himself from that charge of schism. We have not relinquished the Worship, established by Law, as to the substantials of our Worship, (the Episcopal men join with us, and we with them therein) but in the external formalities, and ceremonial circumstances of that worship; which (as he says somewhere) were laid aside by other hands. But they renounce communion with us, in the substantials of worship, and erect other Churches; and that we judge to be schismatical.

Pag. 169.

For them indeed, the practice of their ways of separation, were not in England; but our way of parochial Congregations, and the substantials of our Worship, in the Word preached, whereby they were regenerated; and the Sacraments administered, whereby they were nourished; were then in England as much as now: Yet from these they separate, and deny communion with us. For the success of their Ministry, as Independents, I see little fruit of it, but schism and separation; nor can they look for any, as Ministers; all their gathered members, being before converted, (as they suppose and desire) by our Ministry: See Anat. of Indep. p. 25 f.

Pag. 172.

Which were they? That he tells us, pag. 173. Who would not think, the reverend Doctor were a Convert, from the way of Independentism, acknowledging all this, and denying separation? Will all Independents yield thus much? Can many of them say, They are not separated? What reserve the reverend Doctor hath, that he is not yet entered a member into one of their Churches, or that he hath not totally renounced his Ordination, (and that but for some disorder only, or some addition of human prudence, in his entrance into the Ministry) or lastly, that he sees some weakness, if not falseness, in his principles;

Pag. 147. Yet he says,

I promise you, this will be an hard labor, having so many things to prove at once, of the same men; when if I prove not some one particular, he will still deny the whole. But since the reverend Doctor puts himself amongst them, I doubt not, but to make all good upon his party, (they made the division into parties) if not upon himself. First, upon his acknowledgment afore, that our particular Congregations, were, and are, true Churches, it is evident, that they have been members (yea, some of them Ministers ) of our particular Churches, or of none. 2. For the due order of being made so, I hope, some little disorder in the institutions of Christ, does not make a nullity in them, though he explains not what he means by due order. 3. According to the mind of Christ. As for substantials, we can affirm it, if not in circumstantialls, wherein scarce any Church on earth, will be found faultless. 4. 5. 6. That they (many of them, whatever the reverend Doctor hath done) have separated from us, renounced communion with us, is as clearly evident. 7. is also too notorious to be denied. And then the conclusion follows.

Pag. 176. I said, the reverend Do • or, by his indulgence of liberty to all • en, to follow their own light, in • bmitting to any way of Religion, • emed to me to be a Sceptic, in his • ay of Independency. He asks;

Where the reer end Doctor confounds what I dis • oyned: He first seems to be a Scep • ick, (which I prove by that which follows, Does he believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ, and yet tolerate other ways?) or he seems to gratify all Sects, Quakers, &c. with a toleration, and leaves them to judge, what is, or is not, according to the mind of Christ, &c. To which he says, May he not say as much for Popery, Anabaptism, or any Sect, and so grant an universal toleration, (which he seems to do, in his Epistle to his Sermon, before the last Session of Parliament; Who is a pointed to judge finally for the • why then should they be deny their liberty? ) He must remembe • we are not speaking of circumstan • alls, about the worship of God wherein several Churches may diffe • without schism; but of the substa • tialls of Doctrine, Worship, and Di • cipline, prescribed by Christ in th • Gospel, which are of necessary observation, for all Christians. And Christ hath limited all to one Truth one way of Worship, one D • scipline (as we both suppose he hath) certainly every man is bound to get into that way of Christ, and not left to his own light, to judge finally fo • himself, or to choose or refuse a wa • of Christ, by his own liberty; and may be compelled to the external profession of Christ's way, in all those particulars, which utterly destroys his tolera ion. What answers he to my question? Thus: But so he might have said of their way, and the Episcopal way, for the substantials of Religion, they were one way; and yet I suppose, he will not grant the members of his Church, liberty, to judge of, and to choose the Episcopal way; or if our way and theirs be nearer one another, he will hardly grant them liberty, to come into our way, because he judges And this, he says, he is ready personally to maintain to me. But why doth he not publicly discover and maintain this, to all the Churches of the Nation, before he set upon the practice of it? and puts us off with delays and designs in hand; which when we shall see, we know not. That he hath run from several ways, is not to be gain-said, from Episcopal to Presbyterian, from that, to Independentism, &c. is no calumny, though it may be to his reproach, which I cannot help. If his way be the only way of Christ, I asked, if every man be not bound to come unto it, and not upon any conceited new light to relinquish it? He answers; But if I were convinced, that it was the only way of Christ, I should think myself schismatical, in not submitting to it; as I do him, for renouncing the Presbyterian way, which once he was convinced of, to be the way o • Christ. However, it concerns him most, in the alteration of his judgment and practice, to demonstrate clearly, his is the way of Christ, and not ours, or else we shall judge him schismatical in that separation. This he promises again and again, pag. 163. and 181. in his conclusion of all: In expectation and earnest desire whereof, I rest.