Independency a Great Schism

CHAP. I. By way of Preface.

[§. 1] THe Crime of Schism, is so heinous in itself (as his own, and other's aggravations of it hereafter, will make good) and so dangerous and noxious to the Church of God, (as the event in all Ages hath declared); that no Invectives against the evils of it, can well be too great or high. No wonder then, if all men, of any persuasion, speaking of this Subject do make their entrance at this door: The Ancients (and latter Divines ) agreeing generally in the Notion of Schism, and never changed, till now. for their mistakes there in, had indeed the the Happiness▪ to deal with men evidently guilty of many Miscarriages, as in other things, so for their Schismatical principles: which being taken up, and espoused, by some in after-ages, have justly branded them with the crime and character of Schism. I shall instance in the Donatists (the first in stories, charged with it, as I remember) whose prime principles (for they took up more in after times) were these two, 1.

The Romanists, (as soon as Antichrist took the throne) have impropriated and stoutly managed these very Principles. They first assume to themselves, the name of the Church, excluding all, that are not (as they speak to contradiction) of the Roman Catholic belief. And then, that none are truly Ordained Ministers, but by their Bishops; and consequently none are truly baptized, or members, but those admitted by men, so ordained. These very principles are again improved by men of other persuasions, (whom I yet name not); and whether our Reverend Author, will acknowledge them to be Schismatical principles, or no, I do not know; But this I know, that all protestant reformed Churches at home and abroad (besides those of his constitution ) do hold them so to be. And thereupon (if he desired not to be singular) he might give up the nature of this evil of Schism, to the determination and judgment of Ancient and Moderne Divines; agreeing (as he does) in the aggravations of its sinfulness.

[§. 2] That some of the Ancients (as Jerome confesses of himself) did perhaps load their Adversaries, with charges they were not guilty of, (or the Controversy would allow) must be yielded as a fault. The ground whereof, was partly this, That they saw further into the ill Consequences of those opinions, than their Adversaries did foresee; and partly a corruption, which insinuates itself, into the best men, in the heat of their Zeal against errors, viz. "to strive for victory, rather than Truth. And though they might so miscarry the notion of Schism, yet that all Divines, Pious & Learned, in all ages, should so much mistake the Nature of it, is most improbable; as, that none, but himself, should discover that mistake, is not very reasonable to imagine.

§. 3. How ever the Age wherein we live,

The concurring judgment of all men, of all persuasions, in all Ages, carries weight of reason with it: especially when it agrees with, either express Scripture, or regular and rational deduction, from it (to which he here professes to stand or fall ) it is cheerfully to be received. That which may cause him to lie low, as to any expectation of success, is not only the prejudice of many ages, the interest of most Christians, and mutual Consent of parties at variance (taken commonly for unquestionable evidence of truth) but his own prejudicate notion of Schism, limiting it as he does, But he is not Solicitous of the event, endeavoring (as he says) to go,

§. 4. What advatage in this business, the first chargers of Schism upon others, have gotten, is not very visible.

Those that are most guilty of it, may first clamour against the innocent, but at last will be proved most Schismaticall. But when men cannot reasonably charge others with that crime, as having never separated from their Churches, (of which they never were, as he speaks hereafter) the suspicion at least, will lie at their own door, who have Separated from all Churches (of some whereof they once were) and they must either prove them all Heretical or corrupt, or themselves to be Sch • smaticall, in separating from them. The Romanists indeed have made great use of this Advantage, to accuse first, to hide their own greater Schism. But the Donatists of old (and though • e that succeed them now in their principles ) had no color to charge Schism upon all true Churches; for that must lie upon them, that made so causeless • a Separaration; not upon the Churches, which never were of their Associat • on. But the chief Advantage of Rome, lay in this; that having once been a Famous Church, in the Apostles times, they plead the privileges of that Church, to cover their Apostasy. Which practice, whether it be not imitated by himself and party; let him consider what ever is spoken in Scripture of the Cathol • cke Church, visible or invisible, they have too often applied to their own particular Churches: and count all without, that are not within the pale of their Societies, as is else where shown. And I shall add still his own words; How applicable all this is to themselves, will appear ere we have done.

§. 5. In the mean time, (I still follow him) it cannot be denied,

The safest way for them, is to deny this Separation to be a Schism: for otherwise, he asserts well; Upon this therefore depends the issue of this whole cause; For if a causeless Separation from a true Church, be proved a Schism, (as, I doubt not, it will) I shall add his own words: And this latter (for he likes not to leave his Station ) is that, wh • ch in reference to himself and others, he does propose, and mannages with much confidence; Upon this we put the whole issue of this present cause.

§. 6. For let not them think that the Iniquity of their Accusers (as to other corruptions ) doth in the least, extenuate their crime; "Schism is Schism st • ll. Though our Churches, from whom they Separate, be not so pure as they ought or would be. Yea though we were worse than we are (as bad as the Church of Corinth ) yet ought not they to separate, from us, as no Churches of Christ (being desirous of Reformation ) but are Schismatics▪ if they do. They ought rather to have stayed, and helped to reform us; which they make almost impossible by their uncharitable Separation from us. This that follows, were worth their most serious consideration:

§. 7. 8. 9. The state of things, in this time, is too well known in the world, to the great scandal of Christianity; "And woe is to them, by whom the offense cometh. 1. Protestants are charged by Papists, as Schismatics, for departing (as they say) from the Catholic Church, which Church they are. 2. Calvinists by Lutherans, for no crime in the world but this (says our Author) but because we submit not to all they teach: which he counts unreasonable, upon this ground:

3. Presbyterians are charged with the same crime, by Episcopal men, because they reject that way of Government, and somewhat of the external way of Worship. 4. The Independents are accused, by Presbyterians, of the same fault, for making differences in, and then separating from their Churches, as no true Churches, and setting up others of their own. The learned Doctor supposes, this last charge, But he is an happy man, if things out of sight, were presently out of mind. His party hath rather sunk the charge by their silence in not answering, than dispersed or removed it. And he will find, that it swims on the face of those Discourses, written against their way; if he pleased to take notice of them. And this charge (revived by his Importunity ) he will find, will ask more pains to take off than he is aware of: much more than we shall need to take, to remove the same charge from ourselves, put upon us, by the other three sorts of men; Papists, Lutherans, and Episcopal. Had it not been done often and sufficiently, by men of our own judgment, himself hath removed it from us, in removing it from himself, in this discourse. But how he will remove ours, comes shortly to be considered.

§. 10. What those general principles, of irrefragable evidence are, whereby he will acquit us all, and himself also from the several concernments, in this charge, we shall readily attend unto.

Only I suppose, he will discharge the charge, by a new definition of Schism (and some other like distinctions: ) which if it be true, will carry it almost quite out of the world, & bless the Churches with everlasting peace. All Schism, shall be confined to a particular church: of which hereafter.

§. 11. But that he should profess his much rathernesse, to spend all his time, in making up, and healing the breaches and Schisms among Christians, than one hour in justififying our divisions, &c. seemeth strange to me, when as his whole book, or greatest part, is (as a learned Doctor said) one great Schism, and in the Design of it, nothing but a justification of himself, and party, in their Divisions, with us, and Separation from us; and tells us, the cause is so irreconcilable, that none but the Lamb, is worthy or able to close the differences made: Who when he will come, and put forth the greatness of his power, is very uncertain; and he puts us out of hope, that before that, it shall be accomplished. And yet says;

Which, I hope, he will, ere we part, give us to understand. He seems to place it much, in a principle of forbearance; that is, in Toleration of one another, in any way of Religion; the cursed fruits whereof we reap (with lamentation ) at this day. They have indeed strongly improved that principle of forbearance, to persuade us to bear with them; but how little of it, they have shown to us, the world is Judge.

§. 12. The two general ways fixed on by some, for compassing of peace, and union among Christians, deserve some consideration, and to be searched to the bottom: The one is, enforcing uniformity by a secular power: the other, is Toleration, of all, or most ways of Religion; (except such as concern the Civil interest ). He speaks first of them both together; as if, there were no hope of union, peace, love to be expected from either,

As for Toleration, it is indeed a prudential way of those Erastian Politicians, he speaks of below, When men have tried all ways, to settle their interests; p • etie, in cleaving to the way of God, is the best policy; as the events of both, (to which he oft appeals) have manifested: And, on the other side, The Common-wealth of Israel, never prospered better, than when it enforced uniformity, in the way of Religion prescribed. But this uniformity compelled, is a product of Divine prudence, in the first and second Commandments. And if Christ hath instituted any way of Religion and worship, in the New Testament, that alone must be enforced on all the members of the Church.

[§. 13] Yet concerning that Uniformity enforced, he says,

But 1. This was, by God, thought the best way to plant and preserve Religion, in the hearts of the Jews. Those great Reformers so famous among them, Josiah, &c: are commended for compelling of people, and binding them by oath, to serve the Lord. 2. The parable of compelling men to come in to the Wedding, seems (in the Judgment of no mean Divines ) to allow a power, to bring men to the public Ordinances of worship. 3. Toleration (which is our present condition, Sect. 12,) hath done much more towards the rooting of Religion, out of the hearts of many men, in 7. years, than the enforcing of uniformity did in 70 years. 4. To compel uniformity, (in a true, or false way) may, by the corruptions of men's hearts, breed Hypocrisy, Formality, Atheism, and Anxietie of conscience in some: But good and gracious souls, have been discovered, and purified by it, as the three Children, and Martyrs have manifested? 5. Many, at least some, that were enforced to conformity in the worship of God, in families, or congregations, have blessed God for that compulsion; who before were Atheists or profane; while they had a cursed, intolerable toleration, to be of any or no Religion. Lastly, the will indeed cannot be forced to believe; but that professed Christians should be compelled to the external profession of that only way of worship, which Christ hath instituted seems as equal & reasonable, as it is unreasonable, that men be left to their own choice, to worship God, either not at all, or after their own fancies. And he that denies this, seems to me, to be, if not an Atheist, a Skeptick in Religion.

[§. 14] I expected now, that he, (having said so much against enforcing of uniformity ) should have said as much, or something, against Toleration; which he calls also a prudential way, for Reconciliation. Does he think this (if not the other) is the ready way to plant Religion in men's hearts? Let experience speak; If since the men of his way have gotten a Toleration for themselves, they have not opened a door for all errors, heresies, and horrid blasphemies, or profaneness. But if both these principles be by him decried (as he seems to insinuate;

but only tells us, The discovery of that way, might perhaps have freed us, from What, or which of them will please him? or are both of them useful, according to the various interests of N • tions? And I would know, why he calls, enforcing uniformit • e, by the name of bloody persecution. Surely to force conformity, to the way of God, is no Persecution, much less bloody: but is only a just prosecution of evil and refractory Rebells to the Kingdom of Christ; unless Magistrates may be called bloody persecutors, in prosecuting malefactors unto death. And again, if prosecution of such offenders, as conform not to the way of God, be just and necessary, then Toleration of such, in other ways, is and ou • ht to be accounted intolerable, and will be cursed. Certain it is, that the embracing of, either bloody persecution (which is against the truth ) or toleration of all Religions (as well as the truth) have had providential events, suitable thereunto, as men have placed, their civil interests in them; both have met with untimely ends, and fearful destruction.

[§. 15] He that shall indeed consider, the proposals and attempts made for Ecclesiastical peace, in this little world of ours, of later times (not to look back to former) either by Erast • an polititians, on the one side, or Jesu • ticall Toleration • sts, on the other,

This witness is true, therefore rebuke them sharply.

[§. 16] It is true also, that the parties at variance now, ( Independents, and Presbyterians )

The one party are got so high, that they will not come down to the other; the other are so strongly convinced of the error of their Independent way, th • t they may not, cannot come up to them: In what a sad cond • t • on is poor England the while; like to be torn in pieces, by her own Children.

[§. 17] I shall add something of the next Section,

Now the God of grace, and peace, pour out that other good Spirit upon this Church and Nation, before they be utterly destroyed.

[§. 18] But is there no Balm in Gilead? no hopeful way of Reconciliation? Yes, he tells us.

And this will we also do if God permit.

[§. 19] Much hath been written, upon this subject of Schism, by very learned men; who rather (as he says) endeavored,

For how could they remove the charge of Schism, and not sufficiently declare what Schism is? wherein they and their Adversaries agreed: But our Reverend Doctor, had a double design in this undertaking: 1. To show us a new way of his own, to dispel that charge, by giving us a new Definition of Schism, not known, or made use of in former times. 2. Thereby to remove the charge of Schism, from himself and his party; for so he says here, and hereafter; What satisfaction he can give us and the world in this undertaking, we shall, by his good leave, take notice of. Only premising this, that I intend not to deal with whole Chapter and Section, as hitherto I have done; consenting with him in his Removall of that part of the charge of Schism, which is common to him with us; and only observe, how he will free himself, from that part of it, which concerns himself and his party.

CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Schism in Scripture.

[§. 1] THis reverend and learned Author (as appears from his, pag. 16. Sect. 16. of the first Chapter) undertakes to answer a Popish charge of Schism, upon the Church of England, directed to both the Universities. And in his vindication of our Church, (as was expected) carries on the debate so far, as not only to vindicate himself and his party from the like charge, by some at home, but also (as many wise men think) to unchurch his mother the Church of England; and to find or leave no Churches here, but his own as the Donatists of old did. That this is the result of his discourse (if not the design ) will appear, before we have done. But we shall attend at present, to the method of his proceeding; who thus begins.

It is (they say) an ill sign or omen, to stumble at the threshold, in going out. The first part of these words, is very ambiguous, and may have a double sense, either that Schism is to be found, in matter of instituted worship only, or only in the d • fferences made, in the time of celebrating instituted worship: and neither of these is true, or yet proved, and so a mere begging of the question: Yet both of these; are asserted by him hereafter; the first, Sect 23. the latter, Sect. 9. of which, more when we come at them. In the mean time we assert the contrary. For the second part of the words, which is a Request, it shall by me be readily granted. That is, that only shall be esteemed Schism, which is either expressly in Scripture so called, or in equivalent words, or may be deduced thence, by regular, and rational consequence, as he said above, chap. 1. §. 3,

[§. 2] What the Scripture- use and notion of the word is, is then first to be inquired: It is taken there, either in the prime and proper sense, with respect to bodies natural, for a separation into parts, or (as he expresses it, p. 24.)

Or in the metaphorical sense, from bodies natural, to bodies civil, or ecclesiastical; In a civil body, Joh. 7.43. So Act 23.7. the multitude was divided, some following one, some another of their leaders, in that dissension; which is the reverend Doctors own gloss. Thus also it is expressed, in his Testimony in the margin They were divided, not only in their judgments, but in their societies also, into two parties. This then being the notion and nature of it in the natural and political sense, it might easily slip, into the like, in its Ecclesiastical use; to signify, not only a difference in Judgment, but a separation into parties also. As the Assembly may be Civil or Ecclesiastical; so there may be a twofold Schism in each, (differing only gradually ) either a div • sion in opinion only, or into Parties also, one part separating from another. And that the rather, because the latter is the ordinary issue or consequence of the former. See Act. 19.9. There was but one assembly at the first, in the Synagogue.

[§. 3] It is true, that in the Ecclesiastical sense, the word is not to be found used, but in 1 Cor. 1.10. & 11.18. &c: only in the case of differences amongst the Corinthians:

But that this is a forestalling of the Readers judgment, by a mere begging of the question, hath in part been proved, even from the Scripture it self, where it is used for separation into parties, upon those differences of mind and judgment, in the political use of the word; and why it may not be so used, in the Ecclesiastical sense, I see yet no reason; especially when the proper use of it, is, to signify a breach of union, or a separation of a natural body, into several parts, two or more. And I have cause to suspect, that he sticks so hard upon this notion, not so much to confute that charge of Schism upon us, by the Romanists, as to ward off the same charge▪ upon himself and his party; as we shall show hereafter: But, granting him this notion of Schism, for a while; this is the way, as on the one hand, to free all Church separation, from Schism, with respect to one another; so on the other to make all particular Churches more or less Schismaticall. For what one Congregation almost is there in the world, where there are not differences of judgments, whence ensue many troubles, about the compassing of one common end and design. I doubt whether his own be free therefrom. Yet he asks confidently below, p. 63. Its happy with them, if it be so: For let most of the Assemblyes of several sorts and sects be visited, and it will be visible enough, that in their prophecyings, (as they call them) there are differences of mind enow, and troubles more than a good many, with wranglings and janglings, and sometimes railing and reviings good store, that a man might (upon this one principle of his, besides other) venture to call them Schismaticall Conventicles, rather then Churches of Christ. And why not, as well as Paul charges that famous Church of Corinth, with the crime of Schism, for the same or like disorders? That the Apostle charges this upon them, is true; but was this all? were there not divisions into parties, as well as in judgment? we shall consider that ere long. For the present, I say, difference in judgment, was the ready way, to difference in, and alienation of, affections, and that to exasperation of Spirits, and that to neglect of due offices of love, &c: and at last ere long, to Separation of Societies. And he says well. Difference in someone point, of doctrine, worship, or discipline, hath broken the Church into many fractions, almost as many as men; But I shall observe his observations upon these Divisions amongst the Corinthians.

[§. 4] 1. Observe (says he)

This it seems, is a matter of great concernment, to be granted or denied. In so much that he professes, This then being the foundation of that great Fabric of Schism, as he calls it, it had need be bottomed better, than upon his own bare Affirmation, (which is all, we yet have for it) without any proof. For this end, I shall take his first observation, into particular consideration. 1. That the divisions mentioned, were in one Church is ambiguously spoken; for it may be taken either for the collection of several Assemblyes in Corinth (where there were multitudes of Christians) which are sometimes called the Church, yea a particular Church, with respect to the Catholic or other National Churches So himself speaks of those Or else, that the Saints at Corinth, were, at this time, but one particular congregation, meeting all, in one place. In this latter sense, its evident, the Reverend Doctor takes it; but in so doing he begs the question, and consents not with himself. For he had said before, And the Divines of the Assembly, have made it more than probable, that the multitude of Christians of Corinth, were too many to meet in one place, and yet may be said to meet together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not jointly, but severally in their particular places of meeting. As the Congregations of London, may be said to meet together on the Lord's Day, not conjunctim, but divisim; 2. That, it was amongst the members of one particular Church, is gratis dictum; For that all the Christians in Corinth, and about it, were called one Church collectively, is evident, chap. 1. v. 2. And that there were more particular Churches there, or thereabouts than one, is also evident, both by Rom. 16.7. The Church at Cenchrea, a particular Church distinct from that at Corinth, and also by, 1 Cor. 14.34. 3. This is also presumed, but not proved, The differences or Schisms were of several kinds; Some out of the Assembly, chap. 1. & chap. 3. sidings about their Teachers, as he speaks p. 27. one said, I am of Paul, &c: these were, its likely, abroad as they met, one with another; Some were in the Assembly, as those he charges them with chap 11.18. But the Doctor carries it so, as if all their differences were in the Church meeting, when they met to worship God; for reasons hereafter to be given; The Apostle seems to charge them thus; And this is the Doctors own Gloss, (unawares confessed ) not content to make this This was their Schism, but not the only, though the worser, Schism; which he confounds too much, to lead us away in a mist. 4. That there was no one Church divided against another, or separated from another, is assumed, but not proved, unless by a Negative, which is invalid;

[§. 5] 2.

But was this all? were there not separations made, if not from that Church yet in that Church, as well as divisions? Let the Scripture determine this. 1. The Apostle, cap. 1. charges them with sidings about their Teachers, v. 11.

And again, chap. 3. v. 3. That is, I am a discitle of Paul, said one, and I of Apollo said another: In our language, I am a member of such a Ministers Congregation, says one; such a man for my money: and I am of such a man's Congregation, said another; and so a third: And hereupon, they (most probably) separated themselves, into such and such Congregations; with slighting and contempt of other Ministers, with respect to their own. And is not Separation the ordinary issue of such envying, strife, and contentions? Let experience, this day▪ speak. As Love is the Mother of Union; so Envy and strife, of Separation.

2. That there was a separation of parties in the Church of Corinth, at least as to one Ordinance, appears, cap. 11. that of the Lord's Supper (as some do now) v. 18. with 21.22.33. They would, such a company (the richer sort perhaps) meet and receive the Supper together; and separating themselves, not tarry to take the poor with them. This was part of their Schism, which the Apostle charges them with, and warns them of; They were not yet gone so far in Schism, as to separate from the Church, by gathering of Churches, in opposition to it; but they were next door to it, they made separations in the Church, first in their differences of judgment, and then into parties, as to some Ordinances; Not long after, they separated into other Churches, slighting and undervaluing the first Ministers or Churches, as nothing, or less pure than their own; which we see practiced sufficiently at this day. 3. But suppose it granted, there was but one single congregation at Corinth, yet the Apostle dehorting the Brethren, v. 10. from Schism, and writing to more than the Church of Corinth, v. 2. even

[§. 6] 3.

For the first part, it is no wonder; for such kind of Creatures were not yet hatched, till many, or some generations after. And for the other, the Church, was yet but small in Achaia, (some scattered saints there might be, but few Churches) and therefore they are charged only for their Divisions, and separations in, or from the Church of Corinth, according to the several Ministers, which they set up, as is most probable. As in the like case, by him instanced in the time of clement. Is it not reasonable to think, they set up new Elders and new Congregations? and most unreasonable to think, that the whole Church, ran into this madness? and so some Congregations remaining sound, the rest made Separations from them: and this, Clement calls their Schism. And besides his several words, to describe it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c: his word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifies to lead away a party, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c, as the manner of seducers is, The like may be conceived, though not so clearly expressed, in this first Schism at Corinth, the same Church, and place: Surely those differences noted by Clement in the same Church, were not divisions in the Church, met together to worship God; but out of the Church, and causing separations from the Elders, and so from the Church, breaking of it into fractions; which yet he calls their Schism.

As for his notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Clement, to signify then, not a province (as some,) but a city Church, consisting of many Congregations, the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c I am apt to believe his conjecture to be true. The Church inhab • ting Rome, or the Church at Rome (which at that time, had no such large Territories, as a Church provincial, or Metropolitan, as some rather dream, than prove) as its said of the Church in or at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. and the Church of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , at Corinth. But yet I cannot agree with him, that either Rome or Corinth, were in Clements time, only one Parish, (as he now uses the word) or one Congregation, meeting all in one place. For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea (which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knows not p. 39. nor was persuaded it was completed p. 38. but yet supposes, it comes under the same name with Corinth, ibid. though Paul mentions it, as a distinct Church, Rom. 16.1. and Phaebe to be a Deaconesse; or Servant of that Church ) to the Church, I say, at Cenchrea; So I see no reason, but there might be & were several Churches, or Assemblies in Corinth, each distinct from other; though not such Parishes, as ours are in London, &c: the greater part, being yet Heathens, and the Magistrates not yet Christian, to erect, or allow them Churches, as now we call them; or to distribute them into particular Parishes; which was done, as soon, as most or all became Christians.

[§. 7] But if he grant, that this evil mentioned by the Apostle, is Schism, does it conclude that nothing else is Schism? He answers,

Surely this is no safe Rule to go by: For as there are some virtues, which are not termed so, expressly in Scripture; So there may be degrees of Schism, which are not so expressly called there. It is sufficient, if the one have the nature of such a virtue, the other of such a crime, though not so called. There are other words used to signify the same thing. As Rom. 16.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as signifying a division into two parts, or parties; And what thinks he of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which comes from a root, that signifies sometimes trahere to draw, and sometimes sectari to follow; as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them; and those that follow them are called Secta, à sequendo; The opinions of the Philosophers, of several Sects, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , heresies; and their followers, Sects, divided not only in opinion, but in parties and Schools also. So Paul uses the word, Act. 26.5. And is not heresy as bad a word as Schism? or is it any advantage for a separatist, to change his name, from Schismatic to Heretic? The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19. uses them promiscuously, one for another: The word heresy commonly is used to signify error against Faith, (which sense he is not pleased with, p. 46.) as Schism is a sin against love; If he like not to give his Separation, the name of Schism (though it hath fully the nature of it) let him, have good leave to call it Heresy; This men gain when they will dispute about words.

Besides, the Scripture uses other words to signify Schism, in a political sense; Math. 12.25. A Kingdom or house, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , divided against it self; that is, into parts, and so into civil wars, and dissensions, cannot stand: which Act. 14 4. is expressed by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the multitude was divided, and that into two parts (as well as opinions) as it follows; and some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were with the Jews, and some with the Apostles, as I noted above: If this may not rather be understood of an Ecclesiastical separation; for it was occasioned by differences in one Assembly, v. 1. They entered into the Synagogue of the Jews, &c: The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds ill affected against the brethren, v. 2. which caused that separation.

And the Schism was made by those turbulent Jews, the causes of that separation, not by the Apostles or their party.

Schism, in the Church, was but an Embryo, in the Apostles time; at first a difference or division only in judgment but quickly grew into separation or division into parties.

But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism, but what is included in this place of the Corinthians, having made it appear, that there was a separation made in that Church, by such as lead away Disciples after them, or rather by them; who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons, set up one Minister above another, and against another. However, something may be deduced by parity of reason

For (says he) And is not he much more a Schismatic, who having raised groundless differences in a Church, and persisting in them, draws Disciples after him, and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he separated? To separate men, in judgment, in a Church, is a Schism and crime bad enough; but to separate them from the Church, upon the former, is far worse. Now this, as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations, all professing the same truth, and practicing the same worship; So the persisting in such differences by any one Congregation, against the rest, is a Schism in that Church (as of Corinth ) and ends commonly in separation from that Church: But let us hear further, what is required to make guilty of Schism.

[§. 8] 1.

The ground of this assertion is, that he by one Church, means only one particular Church, or Congregation; So that if a man be not a member of that one Church, he can neither be a Schismatic to that Church, nor to any other. But this, I suppose, to be his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his great mistake, and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter. For as there may be a Schism in a City-Church, of many Congregations, which are such, by the appointment, or allowance of Jesus Christ, (suppose them all Independent, if he please): So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church, yea that is a member of none of those, but of some other, may be a Schismatic to that Church collectively taken, and to any one of those particular Congregations, to wit, if he shall raise any differences in any one of them, and persist to maintain them, being e • there expressly against the Gospel, or merely of things unnecessary, &c. And this I shall prove; 1. By the Doctors own principle; But that Christian that breaks the peace of any Church, more general or particular, by erroneous or unnecessary disputes, raises differences in that Church; and therefore he is a Schismatic. Then it follows, that it is not necessarily required, to the guilt of Schism, that he be a member of that one Church, but he may be a member of another Church, or of no Church, but only a Christian. 2. I prove it from a Scripture instance, Act. 15.1. These men were no members of the Church of Antioch, but of Judea, or Christians at large, of no particular Church: yet these men, making differences in the Church of Antioch, are said, v. 24. He cannot now say; this was not a Church of the institution of Christ; for whether it was then but one particular Congregation, or consisted of many congregations, (as not able to meet in one place), both ways it was a Church of Christ's appointment. For the very light of reason, speaks thus much, That when a Congregation or first Church, grows too numerous, it should swarm out into lesser Congregations: and yet those distinct Congregations may fairly be said to be but one Church; and have still some dependence (what ever it be) one upon another.

[§. 9] 2.

This is answered in the former, in part. And I add, that those differences raised, &c: in that Church, though by a member of another Church, do cause It were very strange, that he that entertains, or persists in those differences should be a Schismatic, and he that first raised them (though of another Church ) should be none.

[§. 10] 3.

This will reach a great way; even civil differences (as they may be called Schism, as we heard above▪ so they) may come to trench upon the worship of God. But may there not be differences in other matters, besides worship, which may amount to a Schism? He told us above, that Schism might be, in unnecessary things, p. 27. things that properly concern not the worship of God? such were those sidings about their Teachers; not in the worship of God, but from house to house, as he confessed above. But supposing the differences to be in the worship of God, that is, in the time and place of it, may they not be in matter of doctrine? perhaps he will say, that is Heresy, or Apostasy, not Schism (for so he says, p. 161.) But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine, is not Heresy, much less Apostasy; Heresy is not charged usually on any, but either for fundamental errors, or obstinacy in them; And though we commonly place, Schism, in matter of discipline, or circumstances of worship, and Heresy in matters of doctrine, yet, as we see by experience, those that began with Schismaticall separations, end too oft in Heresy: So a Schism at first, if obstinately persisted in, may come to be Heresy, (for there is a doctrine of discip • ine, in the Scripture): and a Schismatic willfully defending his error, though but in a matter of discipline, or other unnecessary opinions, may prove to be Heretical. 2. Heresy and Apostasy, presuppose Schism first: So that a man may be a Schismatic for raising the difference, and an Heretic in persisting in it. And say the same of Apostasy; as more perhaps hereafter. Or may there not be Schism in a matter of discipline, which is distinguished from worship? Surely the greatest Schisms at this day, are found about discipline; As is evident, in the difference between Papists and us, in subjection to the Pope: between Episcopal men and us, about submission to the Hierarchical Government, between the Presbyterians and Independents, where the administration of discipline lies. And each parties charge one another with Schism; as he aff • rmes in his following discourse. In doctrine and worship, the Independents, some of them and we agree, having the same Confession of Faith, the same Ordinance of worship. The discipline only makes the Schism; whereof who is most guilty, will appear anon. Certain it is, on which party soever the charge falls, to be guilty of this crime, they will be found

[§. 11] But he professes, "he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism,

That shall be tried by considering the definitions, ordinarily given. Which was the case of the Donatists, which he had then in hand.

But 1. this definition is just the Doctors Dissidium Congregationis, is not properly a separation from, but in the Church; and such was that of the Donatists at first, till, refusing, or receiving no satisfaction, they separated into other Congregations, and bid defiance to the Church; which is the Common issue of such intestine divisions. Paul and Barnabas, two holy, good men, first fell into a paroxysm of contention, and presently separated and parted asunder.

2. Basil 's definition, is almost the same; who makes

Nor, because of later years, honest and pious meetings for Religion, were called Conventicles, and Schism, therefore may men conclude, that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church, when it shall be determined so to be.

3. The Common definition given,

presupposes a Division in that Church, which occasions that separation, one party not being satisfied by the other. The Crime of which separation, must be taken, and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof, which cannot be in a true Church, but in those that separate from it. For if a Church, be either no true Church, or so extremely corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin, such a separate • on is no Schism, but they are the Sch • smaticks, who give the cause of that separation. But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation; for he says, If this be true, there will be found but little or no Schism in any Church, or in the World. If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church, as well as from a false, and that upon a false plea of its corruption, as well as true, only with a good mind to serve God, in Church institutions, true, or conceited by his own light; all the Sectaries & Separatists, Donatists & Brownists in the world may be justified, But this will come again below; thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it.

[§. 12] Now lest (by the former indulgence) any should surmise, that he complyes with them, that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism, or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches (as we are able to prove them) he will at present heighten the heinousness of Schism, when he hath first considered what aggravations, others have put upon it.

[§. 13] 1. Some say, it is

But this is but a nicity. I suppose they used it only by way of allusion, à minore ad majus. The Soldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat, whereby it would be rendered useless to all; how much more heinous was it to rent his Body. The Church is called Christ's mystical Body. Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Soldiers to divide his seamless coat, and much more to divide by piercing his natural body: so it is more heinous to rent his body mystical; which must needs reach to him the Head. This is the Apostles way of arguing, 1 Cor. 1.13. Is Christ divided? q. d. Do you not by these divisions, divide and rent the Body of Christ? and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions? But enough of that.

[§ 14] 2.

He means so, as Heresy does the Faith. But that's not the question; but whether Schism be not a sin against Charity, as well (though not as much) as Heresy is a sin against Faith? And suppose it do not root out Charity, may it not supplant, or at least suppress & weaken it? may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love (as he said above p. 27.) And if Schism be persisted in, it may in the end root out Charity, and be inconsistent with it, as well as Heresy doth the Faith: Nor does every Heresy root out all Faith; a man may be an Heretic in one Article, and Orthodox in the Faith, in others. Yea, himself here confesses, When the Apostle says, that He tells us rather what true love is in itself, and ought to be in us, than what it is manifested to be in men's corrupt hearts, and con • ersations. They then that described it to be " open breach of love, aimed near, at the true nature it; which his wary consideration, doth not excuse from Schism. For suppose it were possib • e▪ Yet that person, whoever he be, could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity, anymore than those, whom the Apostle calls Schismatics, who no doubt some of them, were under some violent temptation. It is again confessed, If this had been said at first, this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulness of Schism.

[§. 15] 3. As for those, who say,

But if he mean, that Schism may be raised, against the instituted Rulers of the Church, walking in the truths, and ways of Christ, (as well as against any other members of the Church) it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church, as they▪ that desp • se Christ's Ambassadors, despise Him also, the mischiefs whereof, extend to the whole Church. And commonly the Schism begins against the Rulers of the Church; as that against Moses and Aaron did: So that at Corinth in Clements time. This is too evident, at this time, That all the present Schisms, strike principally at the Ministers of the Gospel, All Sects, contending against them primarily▪ and reproaching of them, either as Antichristian, or as no true Ministers (besides worser names of ignominy and contempt) wherein the Dr. and his party, are not a little guilty▪ as will appear before we have done.

[§. 16] Whether Schismatics be Church Members, or no, is a question of no great concernment. The Doctor is peremptory

If he mean it of a member of the Catholic Church, its granted: for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatic. But if he mean (as I believe he does) no man can be such, unless he be a member of a particular Church, it is made appear to the contrary above, and shall be more hereafter. For the present I only say, Suppose a Schismatic of himself departs from the Church, or is ejected by the Church; yet still persists to maintain the differences by him raised, in that Church; I desire to know, whether he ceases to be a Schismatic, because he is now no member of that Church, or is not still such, by the Doctors own principles? But too much of that.

[§. 17] Upon the Definition of Sch • sm, given by himself,

That, that is a Schism I confess, & contains a part, but not the whole nature thereof. For, as I believe, a Schism may be made in a particular Church, by one that is no member thereof▪ (seducers use to creep into houses and Churches, and raise differences). So I think, a particular Church, or some members of it, may make a Schism in & from the Catholic Church, or other particular Churches, which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given. Look as in the body natural, there may be supposed a Schism, amongst the fingers of either hand, whereof they are the more immediate members, which yet may truly be said, to be a Schism, in relation to the whole body, which hath influence into, and interest in those members, and shall suffer not a little by their divisions: So it is in the body mystical, though the divisions immediately disturb the particular Church, where they arise, yet they also reach to the disquiet, and danger of the next Congregations, and then of the whole Church, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A mutiny begun in a single troop, hath been the ruin of the whole Army. The Design (however disclaimed p. 47. f.) I fear is this. This definition of Schism is forelaid, and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof, upon himself and his own select congregation. If they have but so much wit, or so much grace, as either not to raise, or not to discover any causeless differences amongst themselves, though they separate from, and disturb the peace and union of the whole national Church, or all the Churches of a Nation, they are by no means to be styled Schismatics. But more of this, in Hypothesi, when he comes to apply it to themselves.

[§. 18] Whether the Church of Rome, is a Church of Christ, or no, and how they are Schismatical; I list not to be their Advocate, they are old enough, to answer his charge themselves. I think he hath said enough (if not too much) to vindicate the Protestant Churches from Schism, in their separation from Rome. But his principle will carry him further, not only to unchurch Rome, but also all Protestant Churches, at home and abroad, for want (as he thinks) of a right constitution by Jesus Christ: as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism: as will presently appear. Only I observe that he does not charge Rome itself to be Schismatical, but upon supposition, that it is a Church; (which he denies below) then indeed, by her intestine divisions, she is the most schismatical Church in the world; but if no Church, not schismatical; whereas our Divines, have proved her schismatical, not only by her intestine differences but chiefly by her schismatical principles, as those above mentioned, That she is the Catholic Church, and none out of her Communion, are any better than Heretics, or Heathens. That Ordination is void, except done by her Bishops; and also, and especially, by her abominable corruptions, doctrine, and worship, departing therein from the Scriptures, and example of the Apostolical Churches. Now his chief, if not only principle, to conclude himself not schismatical, in separating from Rome, is this,

So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches, as well as Rome.

[§. 19] For so he says;

That principle is, the definition of Schism before given, And hence he inferred against the Church of Rome, And against them that plead for a National Church, and charge them with Schism for separating from it, he says again; But he makes a Dilemma, and thinks it both ways unanswerable, His arguing is not distinct, having not tot told us what he means by a National Church. If he take it, (as he seems to do) for the Hierarchical Church, with National Officers, with subordinations, &c. I would say, Its certain, himself was once of that National Church, a member of it, perhaps zealous of Episcopacy, and an exact observer of its Canons; So that, if that National Church be proved (as it is by some attempted) to be a Church of Christ's institution, he cannot be excused from Schism in separating from it. For though they cannot charge him, as now, of that Church, both it being abolished, and himself changed into another way, yet they may say, he was not long since, a member of that National Church. But if he take National Church, as the Churches were in the Nation, all professing the same truth, and exercising the same substantial worship, (as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church) he must either acknowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church, (as he does pag. 224.) or else renounce communion with her also as no Church, or Churches of Christ: which whether he does or no, comes after to be considered.

[§. 20]

Seeing he makes the challenge, and professes, I shall take the pains to inform him fully, before we have done; only now considering what he says here. Is not all this aequivocally spoken? In what external acts of worship, do they join with us, as a Church? Do they not disown us, as no Churches? and our Ministers as no Ministers? & admit none to worship with them, but confederate members? When they sometimes preach in our Congregations, or hear us preach, do they not count themselves to us, and us to themselves, as gifted brethren only, but no Ministers? And what means he by the whole Church? or how can it be called together? unless he mean his own Church, or Churches. How then do they join in every Congregation in the Nation? When (though they presume to preach in our Churches, to steal away our people from us) their own people will seldom or never come into our Congregations to hear, unless some of them preach. Ad populum phaleras. And as for their joining in peace, with the whole Church, it is a Blind: for they separate themselves with some of our members, from our Churches, to the great discouragement of the Ministers, and greater disturbance of the whole, and all the Churches of the Nation.

[§. 21] The Counsel that he gives

For as for our particular Congregations, they scarce account them Churches, though most of the members of them, And if they grant ours to be true Churches, they must necessarily acknowledge, those who first raised causeless differences in them, & now foment them by separation from them, to be Schismatics, by his own description. Yea so much worse, than those Corinthians, whose case he exemplifies, if so be they did not upon their differences, separate into parties and Churches, (which he denies, but we conceive they did) and these both raise differences, and then separate from our Churches, into several combinations; and one says, I am of Paul's Congregation, and another, I am of Apollo's, I speak this in a figure, as Paul did. He can easily apply it.

CHAP. III. Causeless Separation from a true Church, is Schism.

[§ 1] HE now fearing this or the like Objection, (as obvious to be made by every man)

And peremptorily denies, that But to this, I have many things to say. 1. That precise signification of the word, and description of the thing is before disproved. The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts, and is applied both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture; as was proved above. 2. Supposing that to be the only sense mentioned in the case of the Corinthians (which is denied and disproved) yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture, and deduced by regular and rational consequence. The word signifying indefinitely separation, either in opinion, or parts, is it not a fair consequence? 3. St. John blames some for separating from the Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. they went out from us, &c: as is the manner of Schismaticall and Heretical Spirits: being obstinate in their opinions, and opposed by the Church, they stay not, till they are cast out, but go out, and become the head of a faction, against the Church: as histories do abundantly manifest. 4. His own places brought for instances of blameable separation from a Church do all or some mind the nature of Schism, as precedaneous to that separation, therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture, we shall consider them in order.

[§. 2] 1. The first produced, is Heb. 10.25.

and makes it to be

He makes the context to be with the 26. v. that so he may draw it to Apostasy, they departed to Judaism; but it rather looks back to the 24. v. Let us consider one another to provoke unto love & good works, which is the fruit of brotherly watchfulness in members of a Congregation: Mat. 18.15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not forsaking the assembling, &c: but forsaking another, q. d. If we, forsake the assemblies of the Church, we shall quickly neglect that brotherly mutual care and inspection of one another, and so fall into separation or Apostasy. And the 26 v. rather refers to the latter end of the 25. v. but exhorting one another so much the rather, as you see the day approaching: For if we sin willingly, &c: If we forsake the assemblies, neglecting brotherly inspection, and so fall into Schism, or Apostasy, (from one to the other) the end will be dreadful.

But first, the Latin Interpreters expound it, of forsaking the Assemblyes, either by Schism or Apostasy. 2. Apostasy is gradual, either partial in some point of Faith; or total in all; the first may proceed to a Schism in the Church; the second to a separation from the Church. As those, Act. 15. that in part forsook the way of the Gospel, and joined Moses with Christ, circumcision with baptism, are said to go out from the Apostles, v. 24.

An Heretic or an Apostate may be a Schismatic, and something more; as a Schismatic too often proves an Heretic. For when seducers have first raised divisions in a Church, they either voluntarily forsake it, or are justly ejected by the Church, and then gather their Disciples into distinct bodies; in opposition to the Church as I said above. The Apostle describes them thus, Act. 20.30. These are grievous Wolves, v. 23. so far from taking care of the flock, that they rent and tear it, not sparing the flock. And therefore the Apostle joins these together, 1 Cor. 13.25. But if they so far neglect the care of one another, as to separate from the Church, that's an higher degree of Schism, even a double Schism. As in the body natural; if it be a Schism, for one member to rent and tear another, in the body, much more to rend and divide themselves from the body, when they cannot have any care one of another. We see this exemplifyed at this day. When men have first raised divisions in the Church, they separate from the Church, and gather themselves into distinct bodies, having no care for the body from whence they separated, scarce owning them for Churches, but rather account them no true Churches, reproaching and reviling them; Are not these Schismatics.

[§. 3] 2. The second place, for blameable separation, is

No mervail these are not charged with Schism; for they neither raised divisions in the Church, nor separated from the Church but were disorderly and irregular out of the Church, in neglect of their callings; So the Apostle expressly instances, 2 Thes. 3.11. They did not separate from the Church, but rather ( • s some now do) made their frequenting of public meetings and exercises, the Cloake for their idleness; thinking the Church was bound to maintain them. They were so far from separating from the Church, that some (who bring, v. 14. for excommunication ) think, the Apostle commands the Church to separate them, (i • they upon warning, mend not this fault) from the Society. Others think that he commands them only to withdraw from them, in civil respects, and if they will not labor, let them starve, v. 10. As for those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the 2d verse, which he calls He knows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Logical term; signifying absurd men, that know not the Topics, or heads of reasoning; and these are joined with wicked and faithless men. However, the Apostle commanding them to warn those disorderly men as brothers, by no means can be suspected, to charge them for separation. Yet if he will needs understand it of their separation from Church communion, we shall charge them, not only with vanity, folly, disobedience, but also with Sch • sm. For they might stir up dissensions in the Church, by defense of their idleness (which himself calls Schism ) and then separate from the Church: but enough of that.

[§. 4] 3.

That some men do separate from the Church, upon doctrines of Liberty and licentiousness, is too evident, as in the old Gnostics, so in the late Ranters, and Family of Love; but no doubt these men maintained their opinions and practices in the Church, so long as they could, which caused divisions in the Church, and so were Schismatics: and after separated into their own abominable meetings, as the world knows. That the Apostle spake of the same men in the 4, 7, 8, 10, verses, and in the 19. verse, is not probable, for those former did not separate from the Church, (or were nor then separated ) for he speaks of them as frequenters of the Assemblyes, v. 12. These Agapae, Love feasts, were kept in their Church-meetings, at the Sacrament; therefore they were not separated. And as for the 19. verse, its the judgment of learned Divines, it imports just the nature of seducers, who draw disciples after them, out of the Church. The word used to denote this separation is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which, Oecumenius says, comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and signifies, extra terminos ecclesiae quempiam educere, elicere, to lead, or draw men out of the Church: and so implies, they did not only separate themselves, but drew others also into separation. And Clem. Alexander. interprets it, segregantes fideles àfidel. bus, id est, alios ab aliis: Seperating the faithful from the faithful that is, some members of the Church from other: In a word, others understand it of both kinds of separation, tam in doctrina quam in coetibus; in opinions and parties, or assemblies. And both these being causeless divisions, are by all accounted Schism. Now the reverend Doctor, to avoid this, calls these Abominations, and not Schism, and asks, But this is but a d • sguise of the business; For there may be Schism in this (and the other two afore) and something more. He that raises dissensions in a Church, and then separates from it; either by Apostasy, Idleness, or sensuality, carries his brand of a Schismatic with him; though it seem to be swallowed up, in further abominations. There are degrees of Schism, (as I said) which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem, the wickedness that such proceed unto; but from the terminus à quo, that is from a true Church. I shall put him a case; If a member of his Congregation, inclining to Apostasy, Idleness, or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church, concerning any of those, and then should separate from his Church, either into irregular walking, as some Antinomians, or into Abhominations, as some Ranters, or into total Apostasy and Atheism, which many are fallen into, from the height of this way; would he not say thee were Schismatics and something worse? And of all it may be said, "These are they that separate themselves: I leave it to him.

[§. 5] But he is so confident of the contrary, that he redoubles more vigourously, his former Assertion.

Before I come to scan the words in particular, I shall say, in general, this is a fallacious, because an ambiguous, assertion. For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate, when there is corruption in someone of these only, or in all of them. 2. Nor how far some or all of these, must be corrupted, before we may separate. 3. All these were as much corrupted (and more) in the Jewish Church, as in ours, (when he and his party separated from us) and yet our Savior and his Apostles continued their Communion with it: and the Church of Corinth, in all these, was as much and more corrupted, than ours, yet the Apostle mentions, no separating from it: 4. He now requires that it be called Schism in Scripture; when as before, he said, if it had the nature of it, it was sufficient. 5. If a bare Plea against corruptions, true or false, may warrant a separation; then the most rigid seperatists may be, and are by him acquitted from Schism; as I said above. But more particularly; He hath not rightly stated the question, as now it lies between us: which is not of a single man's secession from a true Church, a particular Congregation; to join himself to another Church, of the same Constitution, where he may enjoy (as he thinks) the Ordinances more purely, or more profitably. For it was ever lawful for a man to remove his habitation, and to join himself to such a Congregation. But the pinch of the question is, And so much the worse and more Schismaticall is that separation, from a true Church, when either those men that separate, have not done those duties incumbent on them, to reform it; or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavor, to reform it self according to the Rule of the Gospel. This is plainly our case at present, with the Doctor and his Associates.

[§. 6] But he further affirms;

The more happy were those times, that they yielded no such example. But if they did not, yet if they give us an example of one Church, divided upon differences, into several Congregations, or to some Ordinances (as we proved they do) they come very near the case of Schism before us; And himself hath granted, that upon supposition that Rome is a (particular) Church (as opposed to the Catholic ) she is the most Schismaticall Church in the world; not only in regard of her own intestine divisions (as he) but also in her separation from the Apostolical primitive Church, in doctrine, worship and discipline; (as our Divines do maintain) upon this account it was, that the Divines of the Assembly said; His exception to this, is frivolous, The reconciliation is easy; In the Apostles time, or in that case of the Corinthians, (such was their happiness) there was no separation of one Church from another, in that high manner, as after they did; but yet the Scripture gives a fair ground, by way of consequence; there and in other places, above named, to conclude, that if separation in a Church, in opinions and judgment, be a Schism, much more separation from a true Church by persons, or Churches, leaving all ordinary communion with it, with dislike or opposition, is to be accounted Schism; especially if they first depart from the common Faith, and then, upon that difference, separate from the Church. And therefore, though he be unwilling, I shall not doubt but to be able

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

[§. 7] But that he may show his skill and gratify his Adversaries, he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue, according to the common definition of Schism; "That it is a breach of union, only he will put in

yet that he does here again; The Design of this is, that he may have a fair retreat, when he is charged with breach of union, in other respects, and so with Schism, to escape by this evasion, And that is only Schism in the Scripture- notion; as he hath often said. But I shall attend his motion.

[§. 8]

1. Wherein we shall follow him as far as we are concerned, leaving others to plead for themselves.

CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholic Mystical, and its Union.

[§. 1] THe Church of Christ in this world, is taken in Scripture three ways,

This distinction of the Church, is rather of the word, than of the thing intended by it; & imports not a three-fold Church, but one Church under a threefold consideration: or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship, and that is called a particular Church: For, as the definition of a Church agrees to it, in all the three considerations; So, the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches, or in that threefold consideration of it, at once, He that is a true believer of the invisible Church, is also a professor of the Faith, and so a member of the Catholic visible Church, and he that is of both those, is or ought to be (if possible) a member of a particular Church: Now the Church, having its rise and nature from a call, (as the word imports) that call admitting of several degrees, causes this three-fold notion of the Church, That call in Scripture, is either internal, which he calls effectual; or external, and that again admits of degrees: men are called either to the profession of Faith only (lacking opportunity of public Ordinances) or to participat • on of the instituted worship also; In their obedience to the first call, they are said to be members of the Church invisible; to the second, to be members of the Catholic visible; to the third, to be members of a particular Church: And his own way of raising the former distinction, is the same for substance, p. 84. §. 2. Hence the necessity of Churches in the last acception is not only, because members of a particular Church, are bound to external rules for joint communion (for to those very rules, are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also, when it is possible): but partly because, the Catholic Church, in either sense cannot all meet in one place; and partly because, the opportunity to yield obedience to those rules of joint communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Society, not too great, or numerous.

[§. 2] 1. For his first consideration of the Church, which 〈◊〉 calls

I observe only, first that he restrains the Catholic Church invisible, only to this world, as militant; whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect, both Militant and Triumphant, from Heb. 12.23. 2. That he makes the Church invisible, the only Mystical body of Christ, which is ordinarily applied to the Catholic visible Church also; as contra distinguished to the civil or political body of a state. 3. That he cites Math. 16.28. to prove the Catholic invisible Church, which is commonly understood of the Catholic visible Evangelical Church; He says; But I say, that the promise in that text (and the rest cited) is made good to everyone that is a true member of the invisible Church, is true; They are built upon that Rock, and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against them; but yet it may be true, with respect, (if not to a particular Church, which may fail, yet) to the Catholic visible Church, which as it is built upon that Rock, the confession of Peter, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah come; So it is to continue to the worlds end, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail totally to destroy it. And this himself confesses, There is then a perpetual existence of the Church, not only invisible, as true believers, but also of the visible, as professors of the Faith of the Gospel; and so the promise is made good to it. Indeed the promise in that text, is made to the whole Church indefinitely, and respectively; but not to every particular person in it, nor to every particular Church: There shall be a Church of true believers and professors of the Faith in all ages, but whether it be made to a particular Church, Of which more perhaps hereafter.

[§. 3] The second thing considerable is, the Union of the members of this Catholic invisible Church, among themselves; which he makes to be;

But he cannot but know, that some of his own way, make Faith it self, in all the single believers, to be the form of this invisible Church; which they call the state essential of this Church; they mean, the essence of the Church is preserved by Faith, in single believers: but I contend not: Be it Faith, or the Spirit of Faith, in its graces and operations, the matter is not great. But besides this radical union, he makes a double consequential union flowing from that. But these are improperly called unions; they are rather consequents of that union by one Spirit, than consequential unions; and rather are the means of communion, Faith with the Head, Love with the members; So he says but I list not to strive about this neither. The third thing is, to inquire wherein the breach of this union must consist: concerning which, he tells his Adversaries, I shall not differ with him, in this Assertion: Only I take no ice of the wariness of his expression; (utterly broken) which in that debate, signifies totally and finally. But if I may gradually and for a t • me be interrupted, (as our Divines allow) may there not be said to be a breach in that union, though not of that union? And consequentially a bleach in this union by some sin may be called, Schism; which he too slightingly disavows. That Faith may be weakened, and Love remitted, there is no question; and that the Spirit may be quenched, and grieved, the Scripture insinuates; upon whic • offense, there may be a kind of Schism, even in the Invisible Church, if not to a separation of the Spirit utterly, yet to a suspension of its influence, by hiding it self, and leaving the Believer to a sad desertion; as experience tells us. Besides this, the members of this Church, being also visible in another sense, and so of the Catholic visible Church; may there not be a breach of union, even among them, which may extend, not only to divisions in judgment, but also to separation into parties, and what is that but Schism? I gave an instance in Paul and Barnabas, both members of this Church; Act. 15. l • st; and members of no particular Church. But strictly to speak, This Church it self, and its union being both invisible, quà elect, there can be no v • sible breach of union in it, or among the members of it; and so we must look for Schism, in the other Notions of the Church.

CHAP. V. Of the Church Catholic visible, and its Union.

[§. 1] THe next whereof is, the Catholic visible Church, which he describes to be,

These he grants, do constitute the visible Kingdom of Christ, and so may be called his Church: but whether precisely, so called in Scripture, (he says) is not unquestionable: But to me and others (whom he may do well to satisfy) this is out of question. He makes the question to be, And he seems to be Negative in both. His general reason is, because That shall be tried, when we hear what is the specificative form of a particular Church. In the mean time, let us consider why he denies this Catholic Church, to stand in relation to the particular Churches, as a Genus to its Species; What force there is in this consequence against them of New England, who make particular Churches to be Species of the universal Church, as (say they) several drops of water, are Species of water; and also make a man first a member of a particular Church, before he can be a member of the Catholic, I say, what force there is, in this consequence against them, I do not see; I only note his disagreement with them; though I agree with him in the thing. For the other, That particular Churches are parts of the Catholic, he also denies, because, But (besides what others have said, to prove the Catholic Church, to be a Political Church, in a candid sense) I would say, the Ceremonial worship only (or chiefly) was National; the moral worship was performed in several Congregations, or Synagogues, (wherein there were Rulers and ruled ) and yet those might be called parts of the Jewish Church, as a Totum, or whole. And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholic (which is but the National Church enlarged) I yet see no reason. That all the members of the Catholic Church should meet together, to hear one Sermon, to partake of one Sacrament, &c. as it was possible once, when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still, but that the multitude makes it impossible. That the particular Congregations should join together, in the same specifical Ordinances, and have Officers over them alike, is certainly an institution of Jesus Christ, as well, as to make the same profession of Faith, and hope. Indeed, that, being so numerous, they should have one Officer over them all, and join to hear one Sermon, or receive the same Sacrament numerical, (as he speaks) is a ridiculous fancy; and not only false, but impossible. But I would gladly know a reason, why 40, or more, members of no particular Church, but only of the Catholic, meeting together, and having a Minister among them, may not join together to worship God, in prayer preaching, and partaking of the Sacrament, as well as the members of several particular Churches, and himself among them, may do the same; as they do often at London and Oxford, when he preaches, unless he will count those Ord • nances then and there administered no acts of instituted worship, And if he grant them to be worship, how can he deny that Assembly, to be a particular Church, though it be not fixed nor gathered and united, by any explicit Covenant, or consent to live and die together. I shall only note again, that herein he deserts his friends in New England, who say, And none think otherwise, but they (to use his words) who have profit by the fable.

[§ 2] What then is the specificative form of a particular Church?

It is true indeed, the Catholic Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specification form: For whether it be considered as a Genus or as a Totum, it cannot have the same form, with the Species, or parts. But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church; as well as a particular, from its form, may be called a particular Church. Why then is the Catholic called a Church Universal? The sum is the specificative form of the Catholic visible Church (if it have any) is the profession of the same Faith and Hope of the Gospel; whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments, administered in Specie or no? And he needed not to have excepted any individuals providentially excluded from those Ordinances: for himself tells us an instance of a man, that never was partaker of those Ordinances, and And before that supposes, If then a joining together in the same numerical Ordinances, be the specificative form, of a particular Church, (of which more anon) why may not the profession of the same Faith, and hope of the Gospel, be the specificative form of the Catholic Church. The truth is, the Church considered in the threefold notion, with the threefold differences, is not distinguished into Species, or hath any such specificative forms; but is one and the same Church, considered in that threefold Notion, as the members may be considered, as 1. Believers. 2. As Professors. 3. As Partakers of the same numerical Ordinances of worship, as is said above, and shall appear more hereafter.

[§ 3] The Union of this Church comes next to be considered; which, we shall easily grant him, is not first the same with that of the Catholic invisible, because many are members of this, who are not true believers. 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church, because many are of the Catholic, who never were of a particular Church. 3. Nor yet, hath it its union, by a Relation to any one Officer, given to the whole, or a subordination of Officers, as Papists pretend: In all these we consent with him; and therefore pass by the large discourse about them, as not concerned in it, It consists says he,

That all the members of the Catholic Church are united in this profession, is very true; but this is not all, they are bound to more than this, viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances, to subjection to the same Discipline; as also to Love to one another; and, where it is possible, to the celebrating together, of the same numerical worship. And in any of these, to make any differences, is a breach of that union, that ought to be among the members of the Catholic visible Church. Whereupon that is a strange assertion, or addition of his, For when Christ hath instituted, that every Church meeting together, and every member of of the Catholic Church, should exercise the same specifical Ordinances, is not this a Church union, or union of Churches? And let it then be considered, That if every member of the Church Catholic, may be a member of any, or every particular Church, where providence may cast him, (being rightly qualified thereunto) having right first to the same specifical Ordinances, as a member of the Catholic, and then to the same numerical Ordinances, where he comes and finds them, (as some of his own way do grant, and cannot well be denied) then the denial of such a person to join in those numerical Ordinances, is a breach of that union and love, which ought to be, between the members of the Cath. Church, which whether it may be called a Schism or no, we shall examine hereafter; Sure we are, this is done continually, by some particular Churches, and members of the same.

[§ 4] The properties of that profession, for the preservation of this Union he makes to be three,

To which I have but this to say, 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel, and some professors there were, that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19. Yet these were members of th • Catholic Church. 2. Those whom the Apostle called enemies of the Cross of Christ, were Christians, and so members at least of the Catholic Church, if not of a particular. As the incestuous person, was a member of the Church of Corinth, till he was ejected. And it is a position of his own party. So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred, without excommunication; and if he be a wicked Minister, he is ipso facto unministred or degraded, and all his Ministerial acts are null: Add to this what he says p. 159. There are in a few lines, many mistakes; For 1. Though they be as bad as, or worse than Mohammedans, in regard of their spiritual estate, yet are they better in regard of Church estate; Does the wickedness of their lives, make their Baptism a mere nullity? then must they be rebaptized, upon their conversion, as heathens are. 2. If they be no better than Heathens, then are their children to be denied Baptism, and are very Infidels: yet a child of the profanest Jew was circumcised, and had right to other privileges. 3. 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators, drunkards, unruly walkers, brethren? 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thes. 3.17. But these three properties, are in ••• ed on to insinuate, that if there be no breach of Union, in any of these th • re is no Schism to be found in the Catholic Church, nor between the members thereof: as appears in his application of them.

[§. 2] For granting for process sake,

And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel, the Church of England in her doctrine, is as Orthodox as any Church under Heaven, consonant to the Scriptures, and Apostolical Church; (till by Toleration, some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies, and blasphemies, disowned by the Church) The Schism then charged upon us by Papists, in this respect, Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries, and Heretics among us, who are their Disciples, who agree with them, in many of their errors, and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith, of the Church of England. As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism, in this respect, whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines: So I may rather wish I could, than profess I can, acquit our Churches from the charge. [§. 8] It cannot be denied but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints, as they would be called, are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine, which we have so long enjoyed. And as for the last, For our worship, we may I hope, without offense, say, that it is in the public Congregations, (whatever it is in private Conventicles ) according to the simplicity of the Gospel, though perhaps, in some circumstances defective, wherein yet we are endeavoring a Reformation. [§. 7] Thus far we are cleared, of breach of Unity, and so of Schism. But I have intimated, and partly proved, there may be a breach of Union, with respect to the Catholic Church, upon other considerations. As first, there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church, to join together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship. When then any man shall refuse to join with others, or refuse others to join with him, in these Ordinances; here is a breach of Love and Union, among the members of the Catholic Church; and in the particular Churches, as parts of the Catholic. And what thinks he of those Churches, who deny Baptism, to Infants altogether? or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents, not of their own confederate Church? and the Lord's Supper to the Parents of such Children? The Anabaptists do the one, contrary to the practi • e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles; and themselves do the other dayl • , as is too well known. Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church, a breach of union, and so a Schism? Yet as he is earnest to free him • elf from Schism in his s • paration; so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism. p. 226. Of which more hereafter.

[§. 8] That this Catholic Church is visible, he grants, which others of his friends have denied. That it is an Organical political body, in a right sense, is largely and learnedly proved by others, (though he denies it) to them I refer it. One thing I cannot but take notice of, he says,

But 1. What necessity is there, the Head must be visible? seeing he confesses, the Common-wealth of the Jews was a Political Body, and God (who is invisible) was their Political Head. 2. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, is a visible Head, yea sometimes more, visus, seen of men, while on earth, though now for a time, in Majesty (as some great Princes do) he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of Angels, and Saints in Heaven. But that, by the by.

CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism.

[§. 1] WHat he says, for many leaves together, for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism, in their just separation from Rome as the Catholic Church, I cannot but acknowledge to be rational, solid, and judicious. Only I am not satisfied, with his assertion,

Wherein he hath deserted most of our Divines; as we shall show hereafter; our cause being defensible without this Plea. But I am far more unsatisfied, that he undertakes the cau • e of the Donatists, and labors to exempt them from Schism, though he allows them guilty of other Crimes, and Miscarriages. The grounds of this undertaking, I suppose to be, 1. His singular notion of Schism, limiting it only to differences, in a particular Assembly; 2. His jealousy of the charge of Schism, to be objected to himself, and party; if separating from the true Churches of Christ, be truly called Schism. For the ventilating whereof, I suppose, we may, without flattery or falsehood, grant him his request (in respect to ourselves, not to Rome ) that is Certainly, most of the Protestant Churches (our own among them) have as much Liberty, are as sound in doctrine and as (if not more) sincere and incorrupt in worship, than those Churches from which the Donatists separated; (they being not only troubled with Heresies, as we all are, but pestered with mul • itude of Ceremonies, from which we are freed). And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism, into consideration. The objection raised by himself, is this. This objection, concerns not us, the generality of Protestants, who grant that sense of Schism▪ but it lies in full force against him and his party, who • ave broken the union of our Churches, and separated themselves from all the Protestant Churches in the world, not of their own constitution, and that as no true Churches of Christ, for lack (as they say) of a right const • tution. We know indeed where and by whom, this Cloud is scattered, without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause, as former • y stated, even as himself hath stated it, and produced the answers of our learned Divines, p. 190. §. 47. &c, which he highly approves, p. 192. though he rest not in it, but rather cleaves to his own way; as we shalll see err long.

That his design is, to vindicate himself and his party, as well as the Donatists, from charge of Schism, is evident by what h • says,

It will therefore be necessary, or very expedient, to consider, how near their case comes to be parallel, with that of the Donatists, both for matter, and manner, of managing it; and then, how he will free them and himself from Schism. The principles they first fell upon, were those two, long since named. That the Stage is changed, from Africa, into America, is evident; but that these were the principles of the Brownists, and are now of all Independents, (for all Sects are Independents ) I need not exemplify, by drawing up the parallel; he that runs may read it, in their books and practice. I wonder not; that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome; for he hath done as much to England, and all foreign Protestant Churches; and makes none to be members of the Church, but such as are by covenant and consent, joined to some of their Congregations.

[§. 3] Secondly, for the manner of management of their way, the parallel runs but too smooth and even. 1. He says of the Donatists;

The parallel comes home to him thus. 3. This line is also parallel. 4. Once more, and I have done; the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation, are too much parallel. I wish they may patiently consider all this.

[§. 4] Thirdly we expected to hear, how he would free them, and himself (so near agreeing with them), from the charge of Schism, in their separation from the true Churches of Christ. He cannot but acknowledge them to be faulty, many ways, but not guilty of Sch • sm; If he would acknowledge as much of his own way; I should use his own words,

But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists, from all other Churches, might be called a Schism, and takes it for granted, they and himself, are free from that charge; for so he says. Its true indeed, in our Separation from Rome, the instance of the Donatists, is very impertinent: as in other respects, so in this, that they separated from the truly Catholic Church, we from the Idolatrous, corrupt, particular Church of Rome, falsely called Catholic. But it concerns him and his party nearly, in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches, agreeing (as they do) in the principles and practices of the Donatists. The question then is unresolved, whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism. All he says is this? And if it be true, which his party assent to, that their Churches are only rightly constituted; and other Churches and Ministers are false, or none; (as they do also assert ) they are equally guilty of that Schismaticall principle, This very principle, in the Donatists first, and then in the Romanists, hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time, and of the troubles that have issued thence (and to make differences in a Church, and troub • es & thereupon to separate, is acknowledged, or proved to be Schism ); then the raising of the like differences, and persisting to maintain them, upon the very same principle, (as the only true Churches ) how it can be exempted from Schism, I am to learn.

[§. 5] That I was not mistaken, in the ground he goes upon, to free the Donatists of old, and Protestants, together with himself, from the charge of Schism, was, his own notion and definition of Schism; will now appear, in his own answer to the Romanists argument; which he rather insists upon, than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192.

And thereupon denies, 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholic invisible Church; or, if there could, it would be madness to call it Schism. 2. nor from the Catholic visible, because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith, is not Schism, but Apostasy. ) 3. nor from a particular Church; for that is not properly Schism; for so he says, 1. And so some, and most of ours do state it, as he ob • erves, page 191. s. 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry, Haeresie, &c: of the Church of Rome, as just cau • es of separation from her 2. He affirms This, (as it is the same with the former, in • ense, so) is by none denied; Hence it appears, that he needlessly denies their Major proposition, being rightly understood, in their sense, who propounded it. And our Divines did better to deny the Minor: We have neither voluntarily, nor causelessly separated from the Church of Rome. But his answer, is another thing. The Sum is this, And though it be true, that the national, Hierarchical Church of Rome, the papal, and patriarchall Church, be not a Church of Christ's institution, yet the bottom of his argument lies here, That Schism in the Scripture notion, is only found, in a particular Church: which must serve him for more uses than one, as we shall hear anon. And thence he infers, that separation either of one Church from another, or of persons from a Church, upon any occasion, true or false, what ever it be, it is no Schism; which is spoken to, above, and will come again.

[§. 6] But that there may be Schism, besides that in a particular Church, I prove by a double argument, ex confessis.

I suppose his answer will be; But that is not always so; for both there may be differences in the faith, and yet no Apostasy; or if there be Apostasy, it may be a Schism, also: Apostates commonly make differences amongst professors, before they totally depart. He must be remembered of what he said, p. 161. §. 12. That must, be thus: If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospel, it is Apostasy. If of some only (and they fundatally maintained with obstinacy ) its Heresy: but if it be of some truths only, (of lesser or greater concernment ) about which, differences are by some raised, amongst the members of this Church Catholic, it may, by his own principles, be called Schism. His evasions, will be one of these two, 1. That he did condescend, to gratify his Adversaries, that Schism, is a breach of union, but that he denies to be the Scripture notion of Schism; 2. That upon the same account, he denies differences to be Schism anywhere, but in a particular Assembly. Wherein he is singular and alone: and is sufficiently disproved above.

[§. 7] But fearing, belike, that in his so answering, some of ours, would be ready to take up those words spoken to our Savior, upon another occasion,

To which, before we take his answer, I would say, 1. That most of our pious learned Divines, have hitherto not denied, but that Rome was a Church, in some sense; not a true, but a corrupt Church, as having some privileges, or rather some remainders of a Church; as the same Articles of Faith, baptism, and a kind of Ministry, &c. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true, though sometimes, coming thorough their foul hands, with many superadditions to the institution of Christ. Others perhaps would say, we had it not from Rome; there were other Bishops in England, before Austin came hither, from whom we might receive our Ordination successively. But hear his kind answer. But (not yet to regest to him, his successive Baptism, which he received through the Church of Rome ) this would go near to annul the Ministry, of those Martyr-Bishops, and Ministers, our first Reformers, who at first, had nothing to plead, but their successive ordination, from Rome, and acted upon it accordingly; He cannot gratify Rome better, than to asperse the Ministry of England; it is the Jesuitical business, in all the present Sectaries. They look upon himself, & his party, (who have either none, or have renounced their ordination ) as no Ministers at all: If we be none also, then have we (as they slander us) no Church at all. God help the poor despised Ministers of England. The Romanists say, we are no Ministers, because we have not our Ordination from Rome, The Sectarists say, we are no Ministers, because we have our Ordination from Rome, which shall we believe? Neither, for we have it from Jesus Christ, by whose hands soever we had it. But, as a little blushing at this hard saying, he will mollify it a little. What ever else we plead, unless we will renounce our Ordination, it will not please them. That by Bishops, is by them pleaded null, or Antichristian; and that by the people, (which he intends) we think is nothing, and cannot own it, as a ground of our Ministry, though perhaps, we have their call, as well as himself. We may have (as many of us have) our call, and election to be their Ministers, from the people; but our Ordination we shall justify to be from Christ, and not from the people. But hear more, Does he not by this, cast dirt in the face of our Ministry, as all our good friends, the Sectaries, do? I have much ado to forbear, saying; ('The Lord rebuke thee). But I answer; 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry, as for our Baptism, which was never questioned hitherto, but by our late Independent Anabaptists, upon another ground. 2. Had we received our Ordination, from the woman flying into the Wilderness, or from the two witnesses, or the Waldenses, all had been one to him and his party. For they had not their Ordination from the people, (except some extraordinary cases) but from a presbytery, according to the Institution of Christ. And yet, forsooth, Egregiam vero laudem! While he secretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist, the Beast, &c: that yet adhere to that Ordination, if they have nothing else to plead. As for their eminent gifts, as they do not plead that as suff • cient for their interests in the office, without Ordination, so many of his and our brethren have those gifts, whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers, though he do. And as for the submission of the people to us, we had that ever, if not explicitly, (as often) yet implicitly, (which some Independents allow, as sufficient to make us true Ministers, and true Churches) though we do not own Ordination, as from that submission of our people, but from Jesus Christ. Even from such also they separate.

[§. 8] But some ask;

which question I like not; but should rather after, (why not ordination, as well as baptism): All our fore Fathers doubtless received their baptism by the hands of Romanists, and never scrupled it, to be rebaptized: why not Ordination also, without a new Ordination? They received not baptism from them, as if instituted by Antichrist, but as an Ordinance of Christ; They baptized, not as Antichristian, not as Bishops, or Romish Priests, but as Presbyters, in whose hands (we say) Ordination also is. Only since, we have taken away those human Additions, which they had sinfully introduced into the Ordinances of Christ. The Scriptures are not the Inheritance of Rome, but Privileges for all the people of God, where ever they find them; and therefore we deny we received them from Rome; anymore than the Jews received the Golden vessels from Babylon, because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus. Nor doth the granting true Ordination (as also true baptism ) to the Church of Rome, prove that it is a true Church. This he says, Do but change the scene to baptism; and hear what he will say. They who baptized had no power so to do, but as officers of that Church, as such, they did it: both which must be denied, or he must deny his baptism; They did it as Officers, not as Officers of that Church, that Papal Antichristian Hierarchy; And if others had baptized (ordained) who were not Officers of that Church, or they, as Officers but not as Officers of that Church, (which is as a scab upon the hand) no rational man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null. This is For our parts, we profess, that in his way

CHAP. VII. Of the particular Church, and its Union.

[§. 1] WE are now come to the last Acception of a Church, as it frequently signifies a particular Church: though all, the places produced by the Doctor, do not (I think) prove that sense; But I shall not contend about it. That the Church of Jerusalem, was called one Church, is true, but that those many thousands could meet in one Congregation, in one place, is nothing probable, it possible: But take his definition of a particular instituted Church.

1. The definition of a particular Church, by him given, will be applicable, and is by himself or others of his side applied to the three several notions of a Church; or the Church in those several notions. 1. To the Catholic invisible Church,

This is all of it, true of the invisible Church, they are called (which will be the only exception) to the joint performance of the worship of God, in the same (specifical, and, where its possible) individual Ordinances. And all the members thereof (ordinarily) being of some particular Church, its both possible and necessary, to join in that performance. 2. The same may be said of the Catholic visible Church; So himself describes it, And the members of this Church, living (ordinarily) in some particular Church, its possible and necessary for them also, to join in that performance. And this is as much is the members of a particular Church, are bound to; no man being bound to what is to him impossible; and it often happening, by absence, sickness, or otherwise; that it is not possible for them to join in that worship. 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church, we also grant, as understood afore: 4. But we shall add, by way of improvement, that such societies, are all our particular Congregations: What exception may be made, we shall hear an one.

[§. 2] 2. The Order prescribed by Christ, is not that all Christians must be of the same Individual particular congregation, but of this or that, as is most convenient for them, by their habitations. Supposing several meetings or Congregations in Jerusalem, one of Paul, another of Apollo, &c: no man was obliged by any order from Christ, to be of Paul's Congregation, or of another's, so he joined himself to one, for the participation of the same Ordinances. And when a Christian did join himself to this or that Congregation, he did not explicitly enter into a Covenant, to live and die in this Congregation, but thought himself bound to be of one, by the obligation of his membership in the Catholic Church; with a liberty reserved, to remove to another, if he saw just reason; as our Author will confess anon. Whence it is evident, that from the beginning of Christianity, there was no such explicit covenanting, or (as some speak) marrying of the Minister and people, or of people one to another, that they might not depart without leave: but as they had a liberty at first, to settle in such a congregation; so also to remove their habitations, and to settle in another: not to go many miles to partake of the Ordinances, which seems unsuitable to the first plantation of Churches, and the mutual duties of people of one congregation: But of that elsewhere. And though the Reverend Ministers of London do grant,

And if they met in several places; (as they must) they had also several Elders, to administer the Ordinances to them, and yet are called singularly, one Church. Add to this that at Ephesus (Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove, there was but one particular Church there) the text says expressly, there were (many) Elders there. This alone, (if nothing else could be said) affords more, for a Presbyterial Church, than all the New Testament does for an Independent Church gathered, I know not how, out of many Churches. But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I.

[§. 3] To the consideration of the unity of this Church, and the breach of it, he premises some things:

1. How he can reconcile this, with what he said afore, p. 133. Sect. 26. But Baptism (according to his principles) is an Ordinance of worship only to be enjoyed in a particular Church; unless he will grant (what yet he does deny, but will be forced to grant) that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church, even to the Catholic Church; and may administer baptism out of a particular Church, as Philip did to the Eunuch, and Paul to the Jailor; or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship; let him take his choice. 2. I note also, how he is at distance, with some of his friends, in New England, who assert, This he willingly grants, and I as willingly accept, for an use I shall make of it anon, but I like not so well his reasons. 1. If he had said, those duties cannot so well be performed, its true; but some of them are due to others, beside our own Congregation: But I shall make this advantage of it; That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed, then some of their Church-members, are ill gathered, living many miles asunder. Cohabitation in Towns and Parishes, seems a necessary requisite, to Church-membership. 2. As for Admonition, it is a duty that concerns every man, to any man, though not of his particular Church, though specially to them of their own society; And as for partaking of the Lord's Supper, why may he not enjoy it in another Church, as well as Baptism; which he allowed before, to one of the Catholic Church? If Christians, professing the same Faith, were looked on as Brethren, and as having thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ, in any Church where they come, they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joined to a particular Church. But this ingrossing the common Ordinances, to a few confederate persons, and making the rest little better than Heathens, as to their Communion, violates the Order of the Gospel, and the Rule of charity, and may justly be called Schism.

[§. 4] His third reason, I like yet worse,

But then I would ask, 1. Whether Philip Baptizing the Eunuch, in the way, had Christ's direction for it, or no? or, is Baptism no part of worship? 2. Prayer, and reading of the Word in private families, are they no duties of worship? 3. Preaching to convert Heathens, (and then to baptize them) is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister? Rom. 10.14. 4 Let me be so bold, as to ask once more; By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament, or at St. Mary's in Oxford, with a mixed unjoyned congregation, &c? Or are not these there and at that time, parts of worship of Christ's Institution? I hope he will not say so. 4. For his fourth reason he gives this, But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch, the Deputy, Acts 13. &c. Unless where there were enow converted to make a Church. But he laying so much stress upon a particular Church, and the necessity of joining with it, it seems reasonable, there should be some directions to enjoin every single convert (impossibilities only excepted) leaving all inconveniences at least, to join himself to some particular Church, rather than not to partake of the Ordinances all his days, as he said afore. For the 5. that is, for particular Churches only, if it speak reason, is as weak as the rest; For its evident, 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first, for the whole Church, as the Apostles, &c. Eph. 4.11. 2 All those Officers ordinary, as Pastors or Teachers, are set in the Catholic Church, and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholic Church; if he deny this, he knows where to find a learned Antagonist. The last reason (as all the rest) is fallacious, or inconsequent, Christ took care for particular Churches, therefore the Ordinances, are nowhere to be had by any man, but in his own particular Congregation.

[§. 6] That there is an instituted worship of God, to be continued under the New Testament, to which human prudence may add nothing, is a certain truth, denied by none, but fanatical spirits. And as for the institution of particular Churches, by express words of Scripture, it is nowhere visible, but by a fair and necessary consequence; That which is of Institution was, that God's people should serve and worship him severally and jointly, in such and such Ordinances of worship; and consequently by a necessity of nature, there must be a place for people to meet together in, or more, as their number is; God institutes public prayer, preaching, Sacraments, therefore there must be societies, to perform this worship. 1. Because of the multitude of Christians, which can neither meet all in one place, nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company. 2. For the better obligation of all professors, as, to the exercise of all acts of public worship, (which some, if left free to join with all, or any, would utterly neglect); so of all those private duties, required of fellow members, which cannot well be performed (as was said) by persons not conbined. But the circumstances of those societies, how many, how great, what persons shall associate, is left to human prudence, with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture, that all be done decently, in order, and to edification. And that those that are so joined, are so confined, that they cannot, or may not worship God in the same Ordinances, occasionally in other Churches, let him that can, show the Institution; for I know none: yet this is the chief piece of Independency; never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party. Our Author grants, that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases, and remove at pleasure; And the light of common prudence, (upon supposition that there must be such societies ) seems to to dictate, that when all of a Nation are Christians, there should be a distinction o Churches, or, as we call them Parishes, made by the bounds of men's habitations; so that the divisions be discreetly made, that the Congregations be neither too big, nor too little, and that the parties of each Society, may dwell so near together, that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in public, decently and in order, to edification: and also those mutual private duties, of brotherly inspection, Admonition, &c. required by Christ, Matth. 18.15. 1 Thessal. 5.14. &c.

[§. 7] And this, he in a manner confesses,

I suppose he may intend this, of Synods, carried on by Delegates from several Churches; which is suitable to that prudence we see in States, assembling in Parliament &c. But I shall improve this further. As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves, in Towns and Cities, for their better security, and mutual assistance, and comfort: So the same prudence taught the Ancients, to distinguish Cities into Parishes, for their better Assembling (some else would be of no Church, as pretending to be of all, or any, as we see at this day) for carrying on the services of God, in a better, and more profitable Order; and for those private duties afore spoken of. Nor does any man rationally hence conclude, For the way of worship, is peculiarly instituted; but the way of constituting particular Churches, for persons, for number, &c. needs no institution, but is left to the prudence of men, or Churches, as afore.

[§. 8]

yet both there, and here inclines to the Negative, that all such Church state may cease, for some time, and hereafter talks of In this p • ace, he glosses some Scriptures, (alleged of others, as meant of the Catholic visible Church) to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ, in true believers. Luke 1.33. Math. 16.18. Of the sense of which place, I shall not now contest with him: For the thing itself, something shall be said, in answering those questions which here he propounds. 1. But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostasy will merit an actual unchurching, not only the Israelites, but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched. And if Apostasy in a great measure will unchurch a people, England hath of late years Apostatiz'd sufficiently from our Ancient truths. 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law, to reject a Church, presently, so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical? Rome had not then been standing at this day. 3. It is a question, whether God ever absolutely, unchurches a people, till he utterly destroys them: as he did the Israelites of old, and the whole Jewish Church, after Christ's death: and the seven famous Churches of Asia since. 4. As also, it would be resolved, when God did unchurch England, (which he insinuates as granted) Whether whilst it was Popish & Antichristian, or since the Reformation? 5. Let him resolve us, whether our first Reformers did intend, or undertake to raise up a new Church, or to repair the old corrupted state thereof (as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity, did not build a new Temple, but repair and purge the old.) 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. & Q. Eliz. days, there were not true Churches planted in England? & then how they came to cease to be, seeing they were rather perfected since, than corrupted? 7. Lastly, Whether our Reverend Author, do not in his conscience think, As if he should say, There was no Church of Christ's Institution in England, till they or their Predecessors arose, and gathered such Societies; and when all Church State was here lost, they had the happiness and honor to revive it. Macte virtute.

[§. 9] 2. Those last words of his, were the answer to his 2d. question;

To which he gives that answer, And to make it good, he proceeds further to say, But I pray to whom was this promise made? was it not to his Officers, the Apostles, in their consultations, or Church-determinations? Or grant it made to Believers, is it not as true of them that are out of his Church-fellowship? When two or three Christians accidentally meet together, and pray, &c. Is not Christ also in the midst of them? Yea, grant him his own sense, what then? All this is granted; what God may do by his extraordinary power, we determine not; but this is ordinarily done by preaching, and those Preachers in Office, Rom. 10.14. But go on: This also may be supposed, though I believe he cannot exemplify such a case; The question only would be, if some Heathens should find the Scriptures, how they should understand either the Original Languages, without a Teacher, or a miracle; or the sense of them, without a guide, as the Eunuch said to Philip: But suppose all; they are converted by the Scriptures alone: What then? He asks No doubt they may, if they were 20. or 40. of them; But can their assembling together, make them a Church? How can that be, before they are baptized? and how baptized without a Minister? Shall they be Se-baptists, or baptize one another? I suppose our Author is not yet come to this. But he says; Truly (to use his own words) I believe they may, in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen; Where then lies the difficulty? No, there is no difficulty, but duty, in all this. But here lies the difficulty, (which his new notion, or his haste made him forget, Were not men prejudiced, or prepossessed, with some Anabaptistical fancy, here would be the difficulty of the business. The Iberians, if stories say true, were converted by a Christian woman, and by a miracle; but surely, she could not baptize them; therefore they sent for some Ministers to baptize, and to put them into Church Order.

[§. 10] It was the Soul-sick fancy of our late Seekers (that had lost all Religion ) that all true Church state, was lost in all the world, as well as in England, (and our Author thinks little less, till the form of his own Churches was found) and therefore they expected some extraordinary Officers to raise it up from the dead; which was to look for a miracle. And in the case propounded▪ of two or three converted by the Scripture alone, in a remote corner of the world, I would gladly know, how a Church can be begun without a miracle. For though a company of baptized persons, might (in an extraordinary case) choose themselves, Officers, prima vice, and so make a Church; yet unbaptized persons converted, cannot make a Church, till they be baptized, and who shall baptize them without a miracle, unless providence send them a Minister to do it? For true Believers or Professors of the faith, quà such, cannot make a particular Church: their own first principle of a particular Church, must be baptized persons, and how they can come to be such, without a Minister, without a miracle, I cannot yet see. This is the bottom of the Seekers, now turned into Quakers,

And in our brethren's new Church way, had their people renounced their baptism, (as Anabaptists have done) as they themselves have renounced their Ministry, I would be informed, whether they could ever have made a Church of unbaptized persons, without a Minister, without a miracle; and then, whether they must not turn, either Anabaptists or Quakers; either making Baptism administrable, by any brother, that hath the boldness, to take it up; or expect new Revelations of the indwelling Spirit, and so become extraordinary Officers. This and more that might be said, imports (for ought I see) that there shall never cease to be a Church or Churches, wherein some instituted Ordinances shall be preserved (though covered over with much corruption ) those particularly, of the Ministry and Baptism; or else the Church-state being once lost, and perished, can never be restored, without a miracle. When Judah was carried away captive to Babylon, with all her Priests and Levites, and all the materials of their National Church-state, the Temple destroyed, &c. It may seem, that their whole Church-state was ceased, as to their Ceremonial worship, for 70 years together; It might be asked, The answer may be, That God preserved the seed of that Church at Babylon; partly in preserving the people there, a remnant of his circumcised people; partly in reserving the holy vessels, useful for their worship, and partly in keeping the Line and Genealogy of the priesthood entire; so that when all these were brought back to Jerusalem, they had no need of a miracle, to revive their Church-state; or, to build a new Temple; but only to purge and repair the old and to set up the instituted services, in their power and purity. The application is so easy, that the Reader will outrun me: So, when Antichrist had usurped tyrannically (like another Nebuchadnezzar ) over all Churches, ruind particular Churches, corrupted the Ordinances of Christ, World, worship, discipline, yet God reserved secretly, some true believers, and some professors, together with so much of his Ordinances, as to substantials, and necessary ingredients to a Church, a Ministry, and baptism, &c. that when he stirred up the heart of Luther, and other Ministers (like another Zerubbabel ) and some people to separate themselves from the Romish tyranny and corruptions in doctrine and worship, they needed no miracle to begin a new Church; but some being ministers of the Gospel, so made in their Ordination, and all being baptized, they did not raise a new Church; but only purged the old.

[§. 11] We are come now to consider, with him,

And instead of telling us what this union is, he tells us, what is the foundation of that union; which he makes to be double; But I think that all this is the foundation of the union, both of the invisible, and visible, Catholic Church; All the members of them, (as well as of the particular ) are under those commands requiring peace, order, &c: for their walking in such societies, when and where they can associate: and where is then the difference of this Church, from the other? 2. But this also, is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches; Love without d • ssimulation; as was said above. And so yet we have no difference. But we inquire, what is the union it self, or rather what is the form (for that gives union ) the specificating form, that distinguishes this Church, from the rest, the other two aforegone. This it is; But most of this, is applicable to the other two Churches, or notions of a Church: All the members of them, are bound by a command of Christ, to consent or agree to join together, (when and where they c • n) from a principle of Love, in the universal celebration of all the Ordinances or worship, and the rest: what then is the Specificative form (if it have any) of a particular Church? And if it have a form, to distinguish it spec fically from the other, have not they also f • rmes to distance • hem from this? An • if • , are there not three species of a Church? which he seemed to deny abo • e. We have them all, described below, p. 236. This is not very accurately spoken: is the unity of the head and members the form of a man? It is not rather, the one Soul that animates it, p. 95. And will he say, the one Spirit of God is the form, or soul, that animates the Catholic Church? I was afraid when I read above, I was, I say, afraid to fasten this conceit upon the words: Nor did, I think, he intended any such thing, when he said; But upon second thoughts, finding him to repeat the phrase, of Animation by the Spirit in this place; and to talk of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. & the indwelling Spirit, I began to su • pect him to incline at least, to this error, (for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Divines; ) And since I hear, that he preached this publicly at Oxford. God seems to blast their way, not only by suffering their people to fall from them, but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions, or strong delusions. Not only some that were once theirs, have fallen into some doctrines of Popery and Arminianism (all most all the sects, preach those points;) but some of themselves, that fell not so far, have yet vented dangerous and damnable doctrines; as I could instance but forbear: B • t to return; 1. The form of the mystical Church, is, (say some of his side) Faith. 2. 3. I observe first, the difference; He said above, the union of this Church, (which he makes the specificating form, not very properly) is the joint consent of all the members to perform the same Ordinances of worship: but now he says, And indeed this seems to be the specificating difference or form of this Church, as distinct from the other, And this is the plain truth; dropped from him unawares, (contrary to his partners and his own Judgment), concerning the form of a particular Church; It is not, (as they have held out hitherto) an explicit consent, of all the members, but, Whence I would infer, 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholic do occasionally meet together, in observation of the same numerical Ordinances of worship, then and there is found a particular Church; though no explicit consent be passed by them, one to another. 2. That the explicit consent, they so much talk of, is not necessary by institution of Christ to the form or essence of a particular Church, (the implicit covenant of Christianity, binding them to such performance, when and where it is possible) but is only a prudential means, or bond, for the better tying of members together, for observance of the Ordinances, and to exercise mutual duties of love, to one another, as hath been said. But as I said above, these are not three Churches differing specifically, but a notional distinction of that one Church, or the members of it, as they may be considered, 1. As true believers, 2. As professors of the same Faith; 3. As partakers of the same worship. Now its evident that one and the same person, may be all these, an invisible believer, a visible professor, and a fellow worshipper. As we use to say in Philosophy, there is a threefold life, vegetative, sensitive and rational; which may be all three, in one man, & yet but one man, or creature. So then the form of a particular Church, (if it have any) is rather communion in the same numerical worship, than joint consent to communicate in that worship: That consent Dr. Ames makes not the form of a particular Church, but the bond, to tie the members faster together, to their public and private duties among themselves. For as a man may be a believer, or a professor, and yet not have opportunity to communicate in the same worship, (as he said above) • o all and e • ery member of a Church, every Christian is bound to believe, to profess that faith, and to join in the performance of the same numerical worship, when and where only he hath opportunity: Which he granted above, p. 205.

[§. 12] But I desire to know, what he means, by that joint consent of all the members of a particular Church? I suppo • e he intends it, (as his predecessors did) of, an expl • cite covenant, entered by every party, that joins in that society, gathered, or to be gathered. This is their daily practice. But then I desire an instance, of any Church in Scripture, or story, so consenting, so co • enanting as before. And withal I would ask, whether none be members of his Congregation, but only such, as give this explicate consent? If he say, Not any, but such; I ask, whether the Children of such Church-members, born and bred up in that Church▪ be not to be accounted members? If he say, they are confaed • rate in their parents, I regest, that's but an Implicite consent; but he required an explicit one. And then I would tell him, that the brethren of New England grant, that an Implicite consent or covenant is sufficient, to make our Churches true Churches, and yet o • r brethren here separate from us, as no Churches. 2. I wou • d gladly be informed, where the Scripture speaks of any other consent, or Covenant, to Church-membership, than that of Christianity, wherein they engaged, at baptism, to serve God according to his will and word, and to walk up to all duties, of all Relations, one towards another. 3. I would yet be satisfied whether this explicit consent, be exclusive that none may partake of those Ordinances (common to all Christians) in their societies, but such as enter this consent? Their practi • e here and in New England is, or hath been, that none can have Communion with them in Church Ordinances, but only such, as are confdoecrate. 1. They will not baptize the child of the most godly parent, nor admit to the Supper, the best knowing and pious per • on, not- matriculated into their Church. If they have relinquish'd this practice, its well; but if they have, they destroy their own principles, and prove themselves the more injurious to our Churches, in separating from them. 5. And as for those offices of Love, spoken of, I ask once more; are they also exclusive, to be tendered to none, but their own combined members? It should seem so, because they are here limited to the members of this particular Church, in their respective places and stations. And their practice hath been answerable: As they account none to be within, but such; so some have said;

How truly is Schism attended with breach of Charity?

[§. 13] But yet behold his liberality.

That the members of each particular Church, among themselves, have communion, but not with the members of another particular Church? That was their practice somewhere. Or that the members of several particular Churches, have union and communion, in the worship of God, in the same Church? This was not their practice once, though they were Churches of the same constitution, with their own. A member of one Church might not receive the Supper, in another; Nor one Minister administer baptism or the Supper in another's Church; preach they might, as gifted brethren, which they allowed them to do to Heathens: What union or communion was here of several Churches? And for those Offices of love, he speaks of; they were only occasionally, which they owe and tender to an Heathen; which not only their interest in the Catholic Church, but even the Law of Humanity, draws after it " an occasional exercise of duties of Love, as the Samaritan once expressed. In a word, this Communion of members of several Churches, is nothing but what is due to and from the members of the Catholic visible Church, that never were joined in communion with any particular Church. Lastly as for that communion between Churches as such, in their Assemblyes by Delegates it is not a comm • n • n, in his esteem, by an institution of Christ: but a matter of prudence only, which he so much decried before, p. 210.

[§. 14] And now we are coming to consider how he can wash his hands from the guilt of Schism, in making d • fferences, first, and then separating from our Churches. To this end, he lays down some Postulata, which he takes as granted, because before debated which are all disproved, and need not here to be done again. Yet we shall briefly take notice of them, and give them a further answer. 1.

This is not the question, as was said above. A simple secession, of a man or men, upon some ju • t occasion, is not called Schism; But to make causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, as no Church, denying communion with it; hath the nature and name of Schism in all men's judgments, but his own. Yea, according to his own principles, to rase differences in a Church is propery Schism; to persist in maintaining those differences, is a worse Schism; and then upon those d • fferences, to depart and break the Church in • o pieces, is Schism in the highest degree, and admits of all his own aggravations given above, and is an he nous sin. 2. Besides what hath been said above, that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church, which hath the nature of Schism; I add, that the • e words are aequivocall; for they holding all Churches to be Independent, they must hold, consequentially, there is not necessarily any communion between th • m as Churches, but as to particular members of the Catholic Church; the refusing to hold communion with another Church, can be no Schism, because they owe no communion to one another, at least of divine institution, but of mere prudence, as was newly said. But seeing, as I proved, there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches, not only in profession of the same Faith, but also in the same specifical, and where it is possible, numerical worship, the refusing to hold this union and communion, in doctrine or worship, hath the nature, and well deserves the name of Schism. 3. This is as much as to say, that departure which is not evil, is not evil; For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance, strife, and divisions before the parting, and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others, both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day; The very separation from a Church, to set up another Church, is a real judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated. Is it not the practice of all Separatists, to judge and condemn all our Churches, as Antichristian, or none; to asperse us as no Ministers, but Priests, &c? Is it not the design of his book, to prove (if he could) and condemn us as no Churches? Let the world be judge; for unless this be proved, he can never justify his separation: either therefore, he must prove us to be no Churches of Christ's institution, and that he owes us no communion, nor hath broken any union, of Christ's appointment, (which he shall never be able to prove) or else he had need put himself, not upon the Justice, but on the largest mercy of his Judges.

CHAP. VIII. Independentism, a great Schism.

[§. 1] In his vindicate • on of himself and party, from the charge of Schism, by Episcopal men, he first lays down their Ind • cement: to which how he hath answered, and acquitted himself let them, if they please, consider. I shall only take notice by the way, of some things tending to the issue of the debate between us and him, and that very briefly. He first conside • s in what sense the Church of England may be taken: As 1.

But why not a properly, as all true believers in the world, may be, and are by him, called the Catholic Church. The World and a Nation, differ but as greater and l • sser, as a part and the whole; and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholic, and so as properly called a Church. But unless he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches, I fear he will be found to break the Union, that ought to be between them. And indeed, it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude, they intend to have none but such of their Churches, which is (as much as they can) to make the invisible Church, to be visible on earth. He speaks something suspiciously this way, p. 90. And yet he speaks They leave those to us, to clouth and beautify, and then they may admit them, into their elected Congregations. But he says, This strengthens the suspicion of what I said; For unless he take us all for Reprobates, we have and do profess ourselves (and we think, justly) offended at their ways, and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction, let the world judge. The rest that follows, is spoken with equal confidence and truth, He deludes us, when he says, if we do not these things, For if we prove all or some of these to be false: yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical, whatever they may be else.

[§. 2:] 2.

Will he undertake this, for all the Independent Churches in England? Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the professed doctrine of this Church, and so Heretical? But, were it true which he says for himself, they may be excused from being Heretical; but they may yet be Schismatical, in denying communion in matter of worship. For the worship of God, was as well declared, professed, protested, as the Doctrine. They hold communion with us in profession of the same Faith, but not in the observance of the same worship; yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us, as with them, or let them prove our failings, and we promise a Reformation. In this sense they are neither children, nor members of the Church of England. And this is the wonder, That professing, Could they make use of our preaching and Baptism, for their regeneration, and not of the other Sacrament, and the same preaching for their confirmation? and besides, now renounce us as no true Churches? This we think is Brownistical and highly Schismatical. The Anabaptists deal more rationally, to their own principles, in denying our Ministry, and Baptism, and all Church-state, than they do: The old Rule was

[§. 3] But as they have left us, so some of their Independent Churches, have left them, viz.

And have they not done this, upon their own principle? It was told the Brownists long ago; But what thinks he of Anabaptists? are they Schismatics or no, for their separation? Hear his Apology for them, Sure the Donatists were generally accounted Schismatics, for rebaptizing those that came to them, from other Churches; but, says he, Exactly the same? True, for they lived in Africa, these in Europe. But they do the same thing; rebaptize the same that were baptized by us. That is granted; And do not Anabaptists think so, and say so of all the Ordinances administered in our Church? yea of Baptism, given to Infants, in the Independent Churches? Do they not, or would they not rebaptize any that comes from them, to their Societies? because they think their Baptism null, if not their other Ordinances. But he hath an help for this, Yes, both ways they hold it null; and so much worse and more Schismatical than the Donatists. They rebaptized only (as some think) those that were baptized by Cecilianus, or some of his Ordination; but did not so with others, nor did they think Baptism in infancy to be null in the nature of the thing. But Anabaptists, rebaptize all, come they from what Church they will; and are not these the worser Donatists? But let him take heed, lest in defending a bad cause, he make himself guilty of the sin. Does not he himself labor, in this book, to prove, that the Administration of Ordinances, in our Assemblies are null? Our Ordination null, p. 197. and Antichristian, from the Beast: And charging them that insist upon it, as Yea our Churches are esteemed not of Christ's institution, because not lawfully gathered; and are not these worse than Donatists? But he says, Yet he could not but speak a good word for them; They must not be Schismatics, lest he be proved so too. They are but one step before him, it may be his own case ere long. And I durst almost be his prophet to foretell what he and others will do; If they stick close to, and manage that principle well,

[§ 4] But hear his conclusion;

How warily, first; Members in the Church of England, not of it, not of any particular Church of England; but as of a Church new revived and gathered, in England, But I ask: were they not members of some particular Church of England, when they were baptized? yea, for all Ordinances till of late, and some of them Ministers besides? And have they not renounced Ministry, and Lord's Supper, and all but Baptism? Let them speak plainly: Were they baptized as members of any Church, or no? if of any, of what? if of none, how at all? unless they hold Baptism no Church Ordinance: And by whom? by a Minister as such to them? or is not Baptism a ministerial act? If they may receive Baptism, without Church-communion (if we be no Churches ) why not also the Lord's supper? If Communion with the Church Catholic, may serve for one Ordinance why not for another? Or if they may receive Baptism validly, in our Churches, why not other Ordinances? These questions would be seriously and conscientiously answered. But how confidently he shuts up, He that spake those words first, was more than a man. Its too much for any mere man to think, much more to say, Who is it that convinces me of sin? in his best performances; if men cannot, God can. But if our Churches were not true, sure they failed in joining so long with us. Yet we charge them not with failings in their Communion, but for relinquishing that Communion, and at parting, to cast dirt in their Mothers face that bare them them (as is confessed) as no honest Woman.

[§. 5] The rest that follows for many pages together, concerning the union of a National Church, and breach of that union, I leave to them that are concerned in it. Only I shall take notice of one passage which is this;

How will he answer this? especially having renounced his own Ministry, received in this National Church, and all besides in respect of Church Communion, except his Baptism, as null, or naught. Thus he says, and thats all; The consequence cannot well be denied, in his notion of this Church. For if there were no Ministers, but ordained by those National Officers, and those Officers not of Christ's institution, (as he hath often pleaded) it follows necessarily, that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church, and so no Ordinances truly administered in it, and at last no Church at all. This I doubt, or rather believe, by what he hath said, is his judgment, but he durst not speak out. For I ask, Does he in his conscience believe, there were any true Ministers in this Church, in the time of its being National? and if no Ministers, no Ordinances rightly administered. But why does he not tell us, what that other Church-state is, of which he speaks? he denies all, but the Independent state of new gathered Churches; which were not found in the Prelates times, except some Brownistical Societies: we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication, but shall plead for ourselves. Our former Divines of the first reformation, and since, have pleaded, and justified their Ordination, for the essentials of it, received from Rome: which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions, they propagated unto us, who may therefore the better justify our own. Those Bishops that ordained us, had (as he told us above) a double capacity; One as Lord Bishops, received from the state, p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gosspell, to preach, administer Sacraments, to join in Ordination of Ministers, p. 231. Now in this latter, some of themselves professed, (and so we understood it) that they ordained Presbyters, as presbyters, not as Bishops. Hence it follows, that though they presumed to themselves, a Lordly power, not according unto the institution of Christ, whereby they called themselves a national Church, &c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospel (as we believe it is sufficiently proved, and never yet sufficiently answered) there were Ministers lawfully called, and Ordinances by them rightly administered; and that is the other Church state, which he would not do us the honor to name, least he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatic, in departing from this Church-state. These true and faithful Ministers, (with their people in their several Congregations) administering the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ (whereof their baptism was one) were, and still are the true Church-state of England, for which we plead, and he hath forsaken. Some additions of human prudence, cannot annul the Ordinances of Christ.

[§. 6] The way of the prelates, he told us p. 235. to stablish a national Church, was descendendo; of the Presbyterians, ascendendo: That is,

For, 1. The Presbyterians rather go descendendo, as well as the prelates did at least in part: They agree both in this, that they acknowledge their rise and original to be from the Apostles, who were the first founders of all Churches, and the supreme Officers of the Church; For them were other Ministers ordained, in subordination to them, Bishops say some, ( Archbishops and then Bishops, say others) and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them, or as he styles them) parochial Priests, p. 235: The Presbyterians say, the Apostles first made Presbyters, and gave them power to rule their particular Churches, and as occasion required, to meet together, by Delegates, in a Classis, or Synod (as that • t Jerusalem consisted partly of Elders, with the Apostles ). 2. They lay the rise of Ministerial power, to be universal as well as the Prelates, supposing a Minister to be a Minister, in what part soever of the world, his lot happen to be; and do not, upon his removal, give him a new Ordination; though he may not (for order sake) exercise that power, but when and where he hath a call, 3. That call may be different, 1. as he is called to take care of a particular Congregation, 2. as a Delegate to a Classis, or Synod, (which himself allows, in the Independent way, as above) 3. As he is, in the absence of a particular Minister, desired to Preach, or Baptise, or do any other Ministerial duty, to another people: (as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to, and pray with them) Now this Delegation (which he means by ascendendo ) doth not give him a new power, distinct from what he had before by his Ordination, but a particular designation to act this power, pro hic & nunc. As he hath often heard, but will take no notice of it.

[§. 7] Whether a Church may be called national, when all the particular Congregations of one nation, agreeing in doctrine and worship, are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblyes (as some learned Divines have asserted) I will not dispute, but leave what they have said, to the further consideration of their Adversaries; Though this may be said; they did not make this the only, or the principal way, of that denomination; That was rather,

The Disciplinary part, or form, of Government, is not essential to the Church, nor absolutely necessary; and the Church may exist, and be national without it: much less do any of ours say, or as he expresses it, afterwards, p. 251. they do not say, For the unity thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship, and not in the model of civil Government (of what kind soever). And if he allow (as he does) an Association of the Delegates, from several Churches, to meet for matters of common concernment; by the same reason, (whether it be by Institution, or prudence ) he must allow those subordinate Assemblyes. For the light of nature teaches the necessity of Appeales, in male-administrations, for ending of troubles, and decision of differences, in particular Congregations; as was instanced in the Antiochians appeal, to the Church of Jerusalem, in such a case: which (I say) whether it were by an institution of Christ, or an act of Christian prudence, will serve our turn, to justify such Associations, though we do not account them to be the form, or cause of the union, of a Presbyterian Church; but rather, prudential means, to preserve that union.

[§. 8] Upon that mistake (of the form of a national Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes ) he proceeds, to premise some things, which may take off the charge of Schism, for their separating from our Churches, as true as their own. 1.

But that not being our opinion, the consequence sails: He granted as much, as we plead, p. 250. And it was his own assertion above, to the contrary, And why then may not a man be a member of a National Church, and yet be no member of a particular Church? I could exemplify cases, but I forbear. Indeed as the state of the nation, is, at this day, all generally being baptized (except Anabaptists Children) no man is a member of the national Church, but he is also a member of some particular Church: That Church being (as he oft hath said) the seat of Ordinances. Hence, 2. its evident that a man may recede from this national Church, and not depatt from some particular Church; because he may be a member of the national, (as well as of the Catholic) Church, and yet be no member of a particular Church, &c. on the other side, a man may be a member of some particular Church, and yet be no member of the national (in the sense of it by him given) as himself and others do too much evidence. 3. He says, If he mean this of an explicit consent (as I suppose he does, or he says nothing) it is fully disproved above: and implicit confessed sufficient. A man that removes his habitation, (as both he, and we grant its free for him to do) may, by setting down in another Congregation, and submitting himself to all the Ordinances of Christ there, with performance of all Officers of Love, to the members of that Congregation, implicitly, and yet sufficiently, consent to be a member thereof. And on the other hand, a man may not remove his habitation, from a Congregation, wherein he hath long consented to communicate, and yet remove his consent to be a member of another; as we see too much, in this loose and wandering age.

[§. 9] But fourthly, he now speaks out▪

This Engine hath served him twice before; First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists, Theirs is no Church, at all, how could they separate from that which is not? Then against the Prelat's, Hierarchical Church: Their's is no Church of Christ's institution, And now the third time, against the same charge by the Presbyterians. It is true indeed, there hath no such national Church, been uniformly, formed in this nation; but he knows, such a Church hath been endeavored to be, formed, conformable to the Word of God, and to the best reformed Churches abroad, according to our solemn covenant; and who have withstood resisted, and hindered it, (and yet do hinder) he knows well enough. But withal, it cannot be denied, but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in England; (and perhaps some of their members, if not of themselves have been of them) from these they have separated, as well as from the rest. If there were not such here, there are such abroad, and yet they have renounced communion with them, as no true Churches, and that's a negative separation. Besides, there was, and is, another Church state in England, in our particular Churches; from these also they have most of them (as once of them) p • p • bly separated. The Presbyterian Church state, as to particular Congregations; in doctrine, worship, and discipline in them, is the very same with theirs, (excepting that they hold their Congregations, to be Independent, and entire • or all Government in themselves; but we acknowledge ourselves dependent, and would be g • ad, we had other Churches to join with) and yet they separate from, and disa • ow them as well as others. Lastly, I believe those men, that raise differences in a reforming Church, and persist in keeping open those divisions, separating also into other new Churches, do as well deserve the name of Schismatics, as those that make differences in one particular Church. And unless they can better prove (than yet they have done) that we are no true Churches; and their own to be the only true Churches, in the nation, in the World, the Schism will lie at their door, (in all equal men's judgment); remove it, as they can.

[§. 10] As for Amyraut his judgment, of the confoederation of Churches, it is the same with ours, or not to the purpose. Our opinion is, that as the consent of particular members, explicit or implicit, is not the form of a particular Church; So the consent of several Churches, to associate in a classis or Synod, is not the form of a national Church; The explicit consent of members (as they make use of it) is but a prudential way, to tie their members from running away from them, (and yet that will not do the deed) so the explicit consent of several Churches, into Assemblyes, is likewise a prudential way, for the better Governing of those Churches, and the easier determining of things of common concernment. And as the one, so the other, is a result of the light of nature, & need no institution. He may now perceive, that he is mistaken, in his thoughts of a mutual acknowledgment of the things by him delivered; hardly in one of them do we agree. But we expected that he would (now at last)

for not till then, will the business be brought to a speedy issue. As also we hoped, that he would have But we must wait his leisure. His business and policy is (like the Romanists he spake of at the beginning) rather to prove us, and all Churches to be corrupt and not rightly instituted, than to defend and justify his own way of gathering Churches.

[§. 11] But we are brought again to his removal of the charge of Schism, which he says,

If not as simply considered yet as it is the consequent of those divisions and separations, included in the nature of Schism; Tho e that make differences first, and then separate from a Church, use not to stay there, but being especially Ringleaders of the separation, they must conformably gather another Church, of a firmer constitution, or else condemn their own separation, as being of no Church: And the rather does this relate to Schism in gathering of Churches, because they do not only depart themselves, (which is more tolerable ) but draw off others also into a formed faction. Lets hear the old D lemma revived against the Presbyterians, as afore against the Prelatical Church; It were ridiculous for any man to charge them with separating from such a Church, as never was existent, & that by their own opposition of its being, we blame them for hindering it to be set up and for raising differences in our Churches, and then renouncing communion with them, and all other of the like constitution, as was said above. Sure we are; most of them, if not all, were once members of our particular Churches, and some of them prime Ministers thereof; who after they had raised differences in those Churches (which himself says constitutes a Schismatic ) separated themselves, and drew disc • ples after them, into new, never heard of opposite Congregations, se • ting up Altar against Altar, as the Ancients used to speak. As much by their own voluntary consent, as they were made members of the Nation; that is, implicitly, as borne and bred up in both. May they not as well renounce their interest in the nation, as their communion with the Church? and deny subjection to both? Or, is it in their power whether they will be bound to communion with some Church or other, in the Nation? unless they can prove them all heretical & Antichristian. Yet further; by way of Recrimination; Have not we done as much as they The Churches of England and all Reformed Churches are much beholden to him. Let him say plainly, have they not renounced all our Churches, since both the other were laid aside? what can he plead for this, but that we are not reformed according to the mind of Christ? as we shall hear by and by.

[§. 12] But he says,

Surely they were once esteemed (and did esteem themselves) to be members of those particular Churches (whether with or without their wills I know not) where they were borne or dwelt, and must either be of such or none. And is it not so, for the most part in New England? are not their Towns and Churches commensurate? was not the Church of Jerusalem, and Corinth, so called from the places? True it is (which was said by the Assembly-Divines ) but all Church-members in a Parish, are members of that Church, till they remove their habitations. Suppose there were but one such parish, must not all Christians, be of that, unless they may be of none? But they add; I pray, were not baptized infants, and youth's, members of the Church? yet were not they (nor are in their Churches ) admitted to the Lord's Supper; If those Divines meant it, of unbapt • sed persons (as they may) no mervai • e if they, were not accounted Church members. Yet what shall we say of Infants of Church members, not yet baptized, are not they Church members? none but an Anabaptist will deny it. And though the old Catechumen, new come from Gent • l sm, we • e not accounted Church members, yet our Catechumen's, Children o Christian parents, are to be accounted such. But we proceed.

[§. 13] He hath further to say;

We are now almost at an issue; the intimation is, None of them? not at home, nor abroad? that's a sad condition. But what if they be in reforming should they separate from such? Well, but suppose any be members of a Church refo • med according to the mind of Christ? what then? That they have been members (and Misters some of them) of our Congregations, by their own free consent, is evident enough: That they have not continued so to be, is too manifest. That our Congregations some at least were reformed, or reforming according to the mind of Christ, (when they separated from us) cannot without great injury be denied. What difficulty then is there to judge them offenders against that, and the whole Church of England in leaving those Congregations, without, yea, against their consent, if they had such power over them, as he grants. But no marvel, they find no difficulty or scruple, in leaving our Congregations, without any leave; when they can and do leave own Congregations, ( without or against their leave, to which, (they say) they have been married, and may no more justly divorce them, than a man may his wife, (except for fornication ) and only for a greater portion, or preferment. But I must profess, I know no such power, that any Church hath, to engage into, and enforce such an explicit consent, or to deny leave to any member, upon just causes, to depart, without their leave. He said before, If this be not an enslaving of Christians to the prudential (if not politick) institutions of men, and manifest prejudice to the liberty, wherein Christ hath made them free, I know not what is. But the best is, their people do not believe any such difficulty to remove from their Churches, but take the leave, without humbly desiring it (which he requires) without their consent, and run readily, to the Anabaptists, and Quakers Societies.

[§. 14] Yea the Dr. is as ready to indulge this Liberty, as they to take it; (it may be, he may get the more disciples by it. For as he gives any man the liberty, to de • ert the communion of any society, if it be not reformed according to the mind of Christ, p. 265; So he allows him this liberty, upon his own light. Hear him speak,

Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptic in his way of Independency; or to gratify all the Sects, Quakers and all, with a Toleration. For why should they be denied the liberty, of their own light, more than others? to judge what is, or is not, according to the mind of Christ, and to follow it accordingly, submit to, and desert, what way they suppose to be [§. 26] but pretended as the way of Christ. And why should they be denied to make use of their liberty? without such humble asking leave of the Congregation. But I woe •• d make bo d to ask one question: If so, i • not every man bound to come into it? and not upon any conceited new light, to relinquish it? If not, then why doth he encourage men to leave the Presbyterian way, which, for ought he knows, may be the way of Christ? But whats this to the purpose? We do not say it is a Schism for a single person, upon good reasons, to remove from one Congregation to another; (as because he cannot edify so well by one Minister as another (provided it be not an itching ear, that causes it, as oft it is,) or in some necessary worldly respects ) if he do it peaceably, without contempt of the Congregation, and Minister, from whom he departs; and not setting up a new Church against them: In this case, we leave all our members free. It is not, actually not communicating with a true Church, but renouncing communion, that we think makes the Schismatic.

[§. 15] But what if he discovers,

The question is whether he sees, or conceits he sees some errors in a Church constitution; and then whether every want or redunduncy in a Church constitution, necessitates a separation: But he takes no notice, but peremptorily determines the case; This is liberality enough, and Dictator -like spoken. Does not this open a door to all confusion, in Church and State? and give every man (all as well as any) liberty, if they judge anything amiss in Church or State, to turn Reformers, if Superiors cannot, or will not Reform it. He asks this question; Put it home, in a State or Nationa • Church as that of the Jews; was it lawful for a few men, when State and Church were all corrupted, to go and reform both, because they who had the power in their hand, either could not, or would not reform? I will not exemplify it near home; but I think I may safely say, this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle, at the bottom: and say no more.

[§. 16] Yet he hath Scripture for it;

What Schism means he? that a man or men shall separate from the corruptions of a Church, or reform themselves from the sins of the place? that is certainly commanded. But for that man, or a minor number of men, in a stated National Church, to take upon them to reform the Church, was never given them in command. But see the proofs; The first is, 1 Tim. 6.5. But this is a great mistake, for as the advice is given to a Minister, and not a private member; so it is not to withdraw from a Church, that hath some corruptions in it, but from such false Teachers, as its likely were of no Church. The second is, 2 Tim. 3.5. From such turn away. Who must do it? Timothy a Minister. Again, from whom? from such loose professors, or false Teachers, as creep into houses, and there make divisions, and then lead captive their Proselytes, from the communion of the Church: Surely, those were not of Timothy's Congregation, for then he would have bidden him, not only, turn away from them, but turn them out of the Church, by a just censure. The last is, Hos. 4.15. which is only to dissuade those that were of the true Church, from joining with Idolaters; for so the former part of the verse hath it,

[§. 17] But he speaks with some Indignation,

This sounds 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 too much of the Pharisee, the multitude, the wicked and profane • But suppose fire the Church is no corrupt as Israel of •• ch or Rom •• Di •• e years, then 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 But suppose a Church 〈◊〉 in fundamentals o • doctrine and worship, suffering some less corruptions, 〈◊〉 • t • ce in her communion; add perhaps in such a condition, as it either cannot, or will not reform itself; and there is no other Church easily to join with? Will he now leap out of Church and neglect all Ordinances, because of some profane and wicked men? Christ himself did not so: or will he go and separate into another Church? If • o, as it justifies the Brownists in former times, in their separation (condemned by his own party) so it condemns the pious Nonconformists, who did not so. Though they could not communicate in some Ordinances, yet they never withdrew communion from the Church, into separate Congregations. It is no duty of Christ's imposing, no privilege of his purchasing, either to deprive a man's se ••• m's Ordinances for other men's sins, 〈…〉 up a n • w Church, in opposition to a true Church as no Church rightly constituted, for want of some Reformation, in lesser matters. And does not this speech insinuate so much; They might have stayed till they had found we had hated to be reformed; or till they had given us a better Model of a Church-state (which never yet, we could by our utmost importunity, obtain from them) and then they had had some color for their separation.

[§. 18] And yet see how tender he is of our Churches honor and peace;

It is too much that he said, And here again he says; He grants him here too little; for though he desert the purest Church on earth, yet he hath told him, separation from any, or all Churches is no Schism. But suppose the Officers of a true Church tolerate wicked men in their Communion (which is the grand plea of Separatists, a mixed Communion) this is taken by them as the duty of private members, they sin in that Communion if they separate not: They will not bear with such a toleration in our Churches, (though they do in their own) but hold it their duty to leap out of our C • urches & practice accordingly. It were happy for us, if they had shown some of that love and forbearance, (he so oft speaks of, and requi • es of us for themselves) to our Churches, and not reserved it all for their own.

[§. 19] The Church of Corinth had as many disorders in it, as some of ours, from which the Apostle advises no man, to separate. He answers, 1.

Why, so were the Churches of England (in some of their own confessions) true Churches planted according to the mind of Christ, and needed only a Reformation, and reducing to their first constitution. But he plainly insinuates, they are no true Churches now, by reason of some miscarriages under the Papacy; He spake more openly, p. 243. And as for those miscarriages, they were long ago, the grossest of them, much amended by the first Reformation, and more by the second and are endeavoring yet a further Reformation, if some had not obstructed it. However, Corinth had (we suppose) greater disorders in it, than are to be found (blessed be God) in many of our Congregations; why then, do they fly, and separate from us? and that before they had used all or any of the remedies of our cure, which he requires first to be done, in the next page. But hear the conclusion; Its strange that the Apostle did not inform those Saints, of this liberty or duty there, or elsewhere. It were an hard case for private Christians to be made guilty of the sins of a Church, where evil men are tolerated, or some of unsound opinions, are suffered; having (I mean) done their own duty, for amending or ejecting them, according to Matth. 18.15. &c.

[§. 20] Its true, that Austin was mistaken in asserting

which was most Idolatrous; unless he meant that Elijah sacrificed once among them, at his contest with Baals Priests; or that both of them were partakers of the Sacrament of Circumcision with them, they and theirs, if they had any issue: But its as true, that our blessed Savior did communicate with the Jews in all the true worship of God; though the Doctrine was much corrupted, and the worship also by will-worship, by the Scribes and Pharisees; only protesting against those corruptions, he communicated in the rest, without sin; and neither himself separated from that Church, nor advised others so to do; (though shortly to begin the foundation of a new Church way ) but rather advised to continue in it.

[§. 21] We are now drawing to an issue, of this discourse of Schism, in the ordinary Acception of the Word, to signify, A breach of union; which he allows to pass, (such is his condiscension and confidence, ) and yet avoid the charge of Schism. Thus he says,

which how true it is, and whether he do not hereby asperse all our Churches to be no true Churches of Christ's institution, let the Reader indifferent, by what hath been said, be Judge. Whether they have in their separation from us, gone upon pure and mere grounds of conscience, God and th ir own hearts must determine the business. The world is too apt to judge otherwise upon some suspicious practices of theirs. And suppose they have withdrawn themselves from some way; of prudence, in some of our Churches, (I suppose he means it of Classical subordinations ) yet they have withdrawn themselves also, from some Congregations (not so united) that have only the pure Institutions of Christ; and that may bring the charge of Schism upon them. But have not they also gone upon some mere grounds of prudence (or policy)? Is there any Institution of Christ, that they must gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church (if so it be)? Or is there any Institution of Christ, that a Minister, who is married to a people, (as they hold) should relinquish it, for a place of greater eminency or preferment? Or that people must be tied to their Pastor, by an explicit Covenant, not to depart without their leave humbly desired? Or (to add no more) Is th re any Institution of Christ in express words, that Churches particular must send their Delegates to an Assembly, to determine matters of common concernment? which he granted above. These and some more of their known ways, the world takes to be but products of human prudence; and he may do well to show their Institutions.

[§. 22] Yet have we more of this confidence,

And must not the Quakers and the rest, be permitted to serve God according to their light also? But it matters not in what capacity they are to do those things named; let us see the fruits of it. Does not their way break the peace of all our Churches? Hath it not been the door to let in all the errors, heresies, blasphemies, England groans under? Do not all sores of Sects, (being all Independent, and none to control them) exercise all the fruits of hatred toward us? look upon us, and carry themselves towards us, as their greatest enemies as no Ministers, no Churches, scarce as Christians? Hath not he himself in this book, unministred our ministers, unmembred our members, unchurcht our Churches? Doth he give us words, when we see such deeds?

[§. 23] It is commonly, and truly objected, There is a difference between Reforming of Churches, already gathered; and raising of Churches out of mere materials▪ Surely this is evident enough, in raising of a Church out of Infidels, and reducing a corrupted Church to its first institution. This he first says concerns not the business. What's the English of this, if he would speak out? Why the truth is, We have no Churches, and they are not in repairing an old house, but building a new from the ground, But hear him say something;

We say so too, grant us to be Churches; Reformation of a Church, or anything in it, presupposes there is a Church existent, though perhaps rotten and ruinous. But these New builders will gather a Church out of no Churches, and begin a new one. It had been happy for old England, if they had all gone into New England, and laid the foundation of their Churches amongst the Indians, and not to build upon other men's foundations; and then tell us, they are building o • spick and span new Churches. And does not this hold forth▪ that we are no Churches, and our members no members of a Church, till admitted into theirs? But yet more (to discover his very heart) Is not, Reader, this at once, to unchurch all the Churches of England since the Reformation? for its known, during the Reign of the Prelates, they were not capable of that Reduction. And what capacity our Churches are now in, for that Reduction; partly by want of power, and assistance from the Magistrate; without which some dare not set upon a Reformation, for fear of a pramunire • partly by our Divisions amongst ourselves, femented by he knows whom; he cannot but see, as well as we lament. But if we must be denied to be Churches, because we are not in such a capacity, and cannot do all we would to reform them, we are in a sad condition. What if a Church want some things she had at her first institution perhaps of no great concernment, (or be it great) but either by the prohibition of the present powers, or the opposition of a prevalent party, it is not now capable of Reduction, to its primitive Institution; Will he look upon this society, as no Church of Christ, and think, no wise or sober man in that society, or other where will be provoked to anger, if not to indignation? And so much the more, when as upon this ground, we are in danger to lose all our best members; for so he advises, That is, to come out from among them, and join themselves to some Independent Congregation.

[§. 24] To satisfy the former objection, is out of his way at present: for he tells us,

I cannot but make it my earnest request, (and so I think will many more) that he would be pleased to do us the favor, to bring forth, and manage those principles, to their utmost clearness, and strength; (which this discourse of mine and some former, have given him just occasion to produce) that we might be once blessed, with the sight of that Model of their way, so often desired, so often promised, and as often unfaithfully denied. We profess ourselves utterly unsatisfied, with what hath yet been vouchased us to see. But he will tell us briefly Before we hear them, I cannot but say they have dealt the more unbrotherly with us, (to say no more) and all the Reformed Churches abroad, in setting up their way of new Churches, and never discover to us sufficiently, the grounds of their so doing: Let him look back to what he said, p. 7, The parties litigant, &c. But we shall attend him for the particular Heads.

[§. 25]

To which I say, 1. This (I thought) had been fully done, if not by all Reformed Churches, yet by those of New England who have done what they could, to clear up their way: The constituting causes (say they) are matter and form; the matter, visible Saints; the form, an explicit Covenant, of all the members. But they have been told, they have contradicted themselves, by requiring an explicit consent, and yet confessing an implicit to be sufficient, and this to be in our Churches, and yet separated from us. 2. I had thought his definition of an instituted particular Church, given us above, had held out all the constituting causes of such a Church: Such societies are ours, in all the particular ingredients of this definition, as was shown above. All that can be objected, is but to the last particle, What Ordinance do we want? or what have we of human addition? And as for our joint consent, (though we have it implicitly, yet sufficiently) it is not in his definition, which yet is one of the constituting causes of their Churches; If then the definition of such a Church, be as applicab •• to our Churches, as to his own, we are true-instituted Churches; and whether they be Schismatics, in renouncing communion with us, let the whole Christian Church be Judge: And I go on to the next.

[§. 26] 2.

This hath abundantly been done, by the Assembly, and other Divines, (though he is not pleased to take notice of it) and we dare join issue with him, in this debate, when ever he will begin it. 3. I suppose he does not mean this last of his own Churches; they are not only risen, but have shaken off the very dust of that Apostasy; I shall not contradict, him for his own particular Church, because I am a stranger to it: but of some of the Churches of the same constitution; I dare confidently affirm, they are fallen again into the old Apostasy, in matter of Doctrine; and have more dust upon their garments than many of ours have. But we shall be content to put ourselves upon the search; and if it may appear, that yet we retain anything of that Apostasy, we shall promise faithfully to relinquish it. But I am very jealous, he expects a finer and a higher Reformation, than we dare look for, in in this world, (till Christ himself come to Reign visibly on earth, as some do expect he will ere long) viz: by Revelation of the Spirit. He speaks suspiciously this way; p. 42. And once more p. 200.

[§. 27] 4.

he may do well to inquire and resolve us. He cannot but know, that there are many learned men, that will not grant him his And something hath been said to this above, which he may do well to consider. The sum is this, As for the Bohemian brethren, concluding the whole Papacy, to be purely Antichristian, it is not a singular conceit, for all reformed Churches are of that opinion, They distinguish the Papacy, (which is as a scab or Leprosy to the hand) from the Church of Rome; making the former purely Antichristian, but not the latter. But as (perhaps erroneously; for Luther and his associates did not so) they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers, by any in communion with them: So they were They sent to the Greek and Armenian Churches, to have Ordination from them; (therefore they did not believe there was an I •• • ision of all instituted Ordinances ) and when they saw their way was perhaps, as superstitious, another way; having no satisfaction there, they took their ea • e to be extraordinary, and so chose themsel • es Elders, and set them apart by fasting and prayer, &c. where note a double difference; Their case was extraordinary, there were no Ministers to ordain them, but our brethren were ordained, by lawful Ministers, or might have found enough to do it, if they had not been ordained; but they renounced what they had and took it again of the people. 2. The Bohemians did it but once, prima 〈◊〉 , but afterwards kept up Ordination by Ministers, and not by the people: but ours still continue it, by the people I might add a third, but I forbear.

[§. 28] 5. What was the way of the first Reformation, in this Nation, and what principles those godly men proceeded on how far what they did may be satisfactory to our consciences? &c. It is confessed on both sides, they did 〈◊〉 in well but by the badness of the times were not able to finish their work. But how unsatisfactory their ways and principles are to our brethren's consciences, to concur with them, their practice does demonstrate; walking contrary • o them in deformation of the Church, not repairing the o •• , but founding and building up a new Church, and renouncing their principles. 6.

For the first, whether ordinary Officers, were before the Church, hath been discussed elsewhere Instances may be given on both sides, Sometimes the Church, is before the ordinary Officer viz. when one dying another succeeds to that Church in his room: Sometimes the ordinary Officer is before the Church a • in the gathering of a Church out of Heathens. Mr. Eliot in New England▪ an ordinary Officer he converts and baptizes many Indians and gathers them into a Church: I hope they do not look for extraordinary Officers now as the Seekers of late did. I know his exception abo • e; This is in ecclesiae constituenda, not in ecclesia constituta: but I shall give him another instance, suppose a Minister comes young to a people lives till all the ancient people he found there be deceased; All that remain in the Parish, were admitted by him into the Church, by baptism; here the Officer, is before the Church, in a Church constituted. But this is as very a nicitie as, which is first, the Hen or the Egg. I percei • e what he aims at in the second question; He upon his principles must hold the latter part: for he holds, that no man is an Officer, out of his own Church; is either the Church be destroyed, or he be removed from it, he ceases to be an Officer whence it follows, that ¹ No Minister quà Minister, can convert the Heathens. ² That if all Church-state be lost, it cannot be raised up by an Officer, who is foreign to that Church, as he speaks here. The result is, according to his principles, the Office first, and then the Officers inclusively, is preserved in the constitution of a Church: As how? A company of single Christians, may meet, and join themselves in a Church society; which done they may, out of themselves (for other Churches or Ministers, are foreign to to them) choose them Officers, and set them apart by fasting and Prayer: This is pretty, and never exemplyfied in an ordinary case, till toother day. But he forgot the main business; that he supposes all Church-state lost; but these Christians joining together are supposed to be baptized; which is a part of a Church-state, and without which they could never make a Church, much less an Officer, as was discoursed above: To raise up and revive a decayed Church-state, in an ordinary way, there is but one of these ways; either a Minister in Office must baptize converted Heathens, and so make them a Church; or a company of baptized persons when no Minister is to be found, must for once, join and choose themselves Officers (which comes near to an extraordinary cafe, and not among us now to be made use of): but yet still, the Church-state depends upon the Minister originally, that baptized them; and not upon those people, supposing them unbaptized. But more of this above. When he takes those important things, he speaks of, into his discussion, let him take those things, by me propounded, into consideration also, as things of some importance.

[§. 29] The task undertaken is now at it issue; The miscarriages that he speaks of,

And it may perhap appear to him, that he is the man, The Schisms that have ensued, And being in one fault of renouncing communion with us, he hath now confirmed himself, and his party in it, by a new, but false notion of Schism, which none of his Predecessors, had the hap to stumble upon. I might parallel the rest, in that Section, but I forbear, and leave it to the Reader.

[§. 30] 2. In these differences, about the way of Religion, we have endeavored,

And I cannot but observe, how he seems to extenuate the crime of Schism (before aggravated) by his comparisons. Schism at its first rise, and Scripture notion, (if he mistake not) was but a little Spring; but swelled to a great breadth, by men's disputations about it. Hear his swelling words, As if he had said, Schism is not so formidable a thing, as it's made (by all but himself) if you would but take it for some petty differences, within one Assembly; the charge of it is not so dreadful as some would makest • . For so he adds; That is, though by raising differences, I set all the Churches of England on fire, I am no Schismatic, if I disturb not the peace of my own particular Church, How true and reasonable the particulars of his enumeration are, let the impartial Reader judge.

[§. 31] 3. I still return him his own words, with a very little change;

I can heartily say Amen to this: but yet must add what follows, But all our hearts are in the hand of God. &c.

[§. 32] 4. To conclude;

Hence is that doughtie dispute, 1. Which is first, the Hen or the Egg, the Church, or its Officers? 2. Whether a man may be a Schismatic • that is not a member of a particular Church? 3. Whether the member of one Church, may partake of the Sacraments in another Church, and that of the same constitution? 4. Whether the child of a scandalous person, may be baptized by the Minister of that Church? 5. Whether our Churches be true Churches, our members, true members; because not gathered by an explicit Covenant? Which as it was never doubted of by Non-conformists at home, nor any Reformed Churches abroad, till Brownists arose; so it may be concluded from his own words, in his conclusion. But I assume, The members of our particular Churches have been in a due order joined 〈…〉 , and neither voluntarily ha • e deserted them I no • been judicially ejected out of them; Therefore they are true members of particular Churches; and con • equently, our Churches are true Churches; and by a further consequence,