CHAP. I. By way of Preface.

§. 1 THe Crime of Schism, is so heinous in it self (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 aginst the evils of it, can wel be too great or high. No wonder then, if all men, of any perswasion, 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. [Page 2] for their mistakes there in, had indeed the the Happinesse▪ 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. ‘That they were the onely Church of Christ, in a corner of Africa, and lest no Churches in the world, but their own. 2. That none were truly baptized, or entered members of the Church of Christ, but by some Minister of their partie.’ 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 Romane Catholicke belief. And then, that none are truly Ordained Mini­sters, but by their Bishops; and conse­quently none are truely baptized, or members, but those admitted by men, so ordained. These very principles are again [Page 3] improved by men of other perswasions, (whom I yet name not); and whe­ther our Reverend Author, will ac­knowledg 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 judgement of Ancient and Mo­derne Divines; agreeing (as he does) in the aggravations of its sinfulnesse.

§. 2 That some of the Antients (as Hierom confesses of himself) did per­haps load their Adversaries, with char­ges they were not guilty of, (or the Con­troversie would allow) must be yeelded 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 it self, into the best men, in the heat of their Zeal against errours, 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; [Page 4] as, that none, but himself, should discover that mistake, is not very reasonable to imagine.

§. 3. How ever the Age wherein we live, ‘hath in good measure, freed it self from the bondage of Subjection to the Dictates of men, because they they lived before us: yet this course of procedure, hath not lost its usefulnesse, or is becom impertinent.’ The concur­ring judgement of all men, of all per­swasions, in all Ages, carries weight of reason with it: especially when it agrees with, either expresse Scripture, or regular and rationall deduction, from it (to which he here professes to stand or fall) it is cheerfully to be received. That which may cause him to lye low, as to any expectation of successe, is not onely the praejudice of many ages, the interest of most Christians, and mutuall Consent of parties at variance (taken commonly for unquestionable evidence of truth) but his own prejudicate noti­on of Schism, limiting it as he does, ‘to a difference or division in a parti­cular Assembly parly, which if it be not cleerly and sufficiently made out, will blast his hopes of any good issue, by this Discourse, pag. 30, as himself professeth hereafter.’ [Page 5] But he is not Solicitous of the event, en­deavouring (as he sayes) to go, ‘whi­ther he should, not whither most men go.’

§. 4. What advatage in this busi­nesse, the first chargers of Schism upon others, have gotten, is not very vi­sible. ‘He that is first in his own cause, Pro. 18.17. is righteous, but his (innocent) neigh­bour comes and tryes him.’ 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 lye 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 tho [...]e that succeed them now in their principles) had no colour to charge Schism upon all true Churches; for that must lye upon [Page 6] them, that made so causelesse [...] 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 bin a Famous Church, in the Apostles times, they plead the priviledg­es of that Church, to cover their Aposta­cy. ‘For (to use the words of our Au­thor) if any partie of men can estate themselves at large, in all the priviledg­es granted, and promises made to the Church, in generall, they need not be solicitous about dealing with them that oppose them, having at once ren­dered them no better than Jewes, and Mahumetans, Heathens or Publicans, by appropriating those priviledges unto themselves.’ Which practice, whe­ther it be not imitated by himself and partie; 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 shewed. And I shall adde still his own words; ‘Whereas the par­ties litigant, by all rules of law and equity, ought to stand under an e­quall regard, un [...]ill the severalls of [Page] their differences, have been heard and stated; one part, is hereby utterly condemned before it is heard: and it is all one unto them, whether they are in the right or wrong.’ 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, ‘but that their vigorous adhering to the former Advantage, (a thing to be ex­pected from men, wise in their gene­ration) hath exposed some of them to a contrary evill; whilst, in a conceit of their own innocencie, (as being the only true Churches of Christ) they have insensibly slipt (as is the man­ner of men) into sleight, & contemp­tible thoughts of Schism (wherof they are accused) as esteeming it no great matter to separate from any, or all true Churches; making it no Schism, See. p. 46 no crime at all: as will appear hereafter.’ The sa­fest way for them, is to deny this Sepa­ration to be a Schism: for otherwise, he asserts well; ‘To live in Schism is to live in sinne; which unrepented of, will ruine a mans eternall condition.’ Upon this therefore depends the issue of this whole cause; For if a causelesse Se­paration [Page 8] from a true Church, be proved a Schism, (as, I doubt not, it will) I shall adde his own words: ‘Every man charged with it, must either desert his station, which gives foundation to his charge, or acquit hmself of the crime, in that station.’ And this latter (for he likes not to leave his Station) is that, 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 Iniquitie 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 Schismaticks▪ if they do. They ought ra­ther to have stayed, and helped to reforme us; which they make almost impossible by their uncharitable Separation from us. This that followes, were worth their most serious consideration: ‘A conscientious tendernesse, and fear of [Page 9] being mistaken, will drive this busi­nesse, to another Issue, whereas their Confidence in carriage of their way, is a stop to their, and our Reformation.’

§. 7. 8. 9. The state of things, in this time, is too well known in the world, to the great scandall of Christia­nity; "And wo is to them, by whom the offence cometh. 1. Protestants are charged by Papists, as Schismaticks, for departing (as they say) from the Catho­like Church, which Church they are. 2. Calvinists by Lutherans, for no crime in the world but this (sayes our Au­thor) but because we submit not to all they teach: which he counts unreaso­nable, upon this ground: ‘That in no instituted Church-relation, would they ever admit us to stand with them? Which is as considerable an in­stance of the power of prejudice, as this Age can give; unlesse it may be paraleld in his own Church: It is as well a Schisme, to keep fit members, out of Church-Relations, and priviledges, as to separate from a true Church.’ 3. Pres­byterians are charged with the same crime, by Episcopall men, because they reject that way of Government, and som­what of the externall way of Worship. [Page 10] 4. The Independents are accused, by Presbyterians, of the same fault, for ma­king differences in, and then separating from their Churches, as no true Churches, and setting up others of their own. The learned Doctor supposes, this last charge, ‘is in a short time, almost sunke of it self; and so will ask the lesse paines, utterly to remove and take off.’ But he is an happy man, if things out of sight, were presently out of minde. His party hath rather sunke the charge by their silence in not answer­ing, than dispersed or removed it. And he will finde, that it swims on the face of those Discourses, written against their way; if he pleased to take notice of them. And this charge (revived by his Importunity) he will finde, will aske more paines to take off than he is aware of: much more than we shall need to take, to remove the same charge from our selves, put upon us, by the other three sorts of men; Papists, Lutherans, and Episcopall. Had it not been done of­ten and sufficiently, by men of our own judgement, himself hath removed it from us, in removing it from himselfe, in this discourse. But how he will remove ours, comes shortly to be considered.

[Page 11]§. 10. What those general principles, of ir­refragable evidence are, whereby he will acquit us all, and himself also from the severall concernments, in this charge, we shall readily attend unto. ‘But how the whole guilt of this crime, shall be thrust into one Ephah, and by whom carried to build it an house, in the Land of Shinar, to esta­blish it upon its own Base (as he phra­sisies it) I do not well understand.’ One­ly I suppose, he will discharge the charge, by a new definition of Schism (and some other like distinctions:) which if it be true, will carry it almost quite out of the world, & blesse the Churches with ever­lasting peace. All Schism, shall be con­fined to a particular church: of which hereafter.

§. 11. But that he should professe his much rathernesse, to spend all his time, in making up, and healing the breaches and Schisms among Christians, than one houre in justififying our divisi­ons, &c. seemeth strange to me, when as his whole book, or greatest part, is (as a learned Doctour said) one great Schism, P. 8. and in the Designe of it, nothing but a justification of himself, and partie, in their Divisions, with us, and Separation [Page 12] from us; and tells us, the cause is so irreconcilable, that none but the Lamb, is worthy or able to close the differences made: Who when he will come, and put forth the greatnesse of his power, is very uncertain; and he puts us out of hope, that before that, it shall be accomplished. And yet sayes; ‘In the mean time, a Reconciliation amongst all Protestants, is our dutie, and practi­cable; and had perhaps, ere this, been in some forwardnesse, had men rightly understood, wherein such a reconcili­ation, according to the mind of God doth consist.’ Which, I hope, he will, ere we part, give us to understand. He seems to place it much, in a principle of forbearance; that is, in Toleration of one another, in any way of Religion; the cursed fruits whereof we reap (with lamentation) at this day. They have indeed strongly improved that principle of forbearance, to perswade us to beare with them; but how little of it, they have shewed to us, the world is Judge.

§. 12. The two generall wayes fixed on by some, for compassing of peace, and union among Christians, deserve some consideration, and to be searched to the [Page 13] bottom: The one is, inforcing uniformity by a secular power: the other, is Toleration, of all, or most waies of Religion; (except such as concerne the Civill interest). He speaks first of them both together; as if, there were no hope of union, peace, love to be expected from either, ‘though men of a good zeal, and small experi­ence, or any other account, may pro­mise themselves much thereof. It is something else, that must give peace, than what is the product of the pru­dentiall considerations of men.’ As for Toleration, it is indeed a prudentiall way of those Erastian Polititians, he speaks of below, ‘that would have the world in quietness on any terms Sect. 15. let what wil be come of Religion, Sect. 17. yet indeed is folly and no pru­dentiall way:’ When men have tryed all wayes, to settle their interests; p [...]etie, in cleaving to the way of God, is the best po­licie; as the events of both, (to which he oft appeals) have manifested: And, on the otherside, The Common-wealth of Israel, never prospered better, than when it enforced uniformitie, in the way of Re­ligion prescribed. But this uniformitie compelled, is a product of Divine pru­dence, in the first and second Comman­dements. [Page 14] 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 Ʋniformity en­forced, he sayes, ‘It is the readiest meanes in the world, to root out all Religion from the hearts of men, which if it were true, were a potent Ar­gument for Toleration; which yet hee seemes not to like.’ But 1. This was, by God, thought the best way to plant and preserve Religion, in the hearts of the Jewes. 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 Judgement of no mean Divines) to al­low a power, to bring men to the pub­lick 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. yeares, than the enfor­cing of uniformity did in 70 yeares. 4. To compell uniformitie, (in a true, or false way) may, by the corruptions of mens [Page 15] hearts, breed Hypocrisie, Formality, Fieri nee potest, nec solet, ut Deum sin­cerè colat qui diver­sas simul Religiones fovere desi­derat: certis­simume­nim est, neu­tram credere qui contra­rias admit­tit, Gregor Tholoss. 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 conformitie 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 be­leive; but that professed Christians should be compelled to the externall 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 denyes this, seems to mee, to bee, if not an Atheist, a Skeptick in Religion.

§. 14 I expected now, that he, (having said so much against enforcing of uniformitie) should have said as much, or something, against Toleration; which he calls also a prudentiall way, for Reconciliation. Does he thinke this (if not the other) is the readie way to plant Religion in [Page 16] mens hearts? Let experience speake; If since the men of his way have gotten a Toleration for themselves, they have not opened a doore for all errours, heresies, and horrid blasphemies, or profanesse. But if both these principles bee by him decryed (as hee seemes to insinuate; ‘because he finds, that events & executions fol­low not the conscientious embracing of one or other of these decryed Prin­ciples, he should have done good ser­vice, if he had shewed us another way, to this due and practicable Reconciliation which he hath not done;’ but only tells us, ‘he is perswaded that a gene­rall alteration of the state of the Churches of Christ in this world, must determine this controversie.’ The discovery of that way, might perhaps have freed us, from ‘the vanitie of those reasonings, wherewith we are in­tangled. But I am to seeke what hee meanes, when he sayes, "he hath some­while since ceased to be moved by the clamours of men, concerning bloody persecution on the one hand, and curs­ed intolerable toleration on the o­ther. As if he tooke them to be idle clamours of men that cry down enfor­cing uniformitie, as bloody persecution [Page 17] on the one hand or toleration on the o­ther hand, as cursed and intolerable.’ What, or which of them will please him? or are both of them usefull, 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 con­formitie, to the way of God, is no Perse­cution, much lesse bloody: but is only a just prosecution of evill and refractory Rebells to the Kingdome of Christ; un­lesse Magistrates may be called bloody persecutors, in prosecuting malefactors unto death. And againe, if prosecution of such offenders, as conforme not to the way of God, bee just and necessary, then Toleration of such, in other wayes, is and ou [...]ht to be accounted intolerable, and will be cursed. Certaine 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 providentiall events, sutable thereunto, as men have placed, their ci­vill interests in them; both have met with untimely ends, and fearfull de­struction.

§. 15 He that shall indeed consider, the proposalls and attempts made for Ecclesi­asticall [Page 18] 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, ‘will quickly as­sume, the libertie of affirming, con­cerning them all, that as wise men might easily see flawes in all of them, and an unsuitablenesse to the end pro­posed; and as good men might see so much of carnall interest, sel e, and hy­pocrisie in them, as might discou­rage them from any great expectation: so upon many other accounts, a better issue was not to be looked for from them, than hath beene actually ob­tained, which hath for the most part been this, that those that could dis­semble most deeply, have beene thought to have (and have had) the greatest advantage; and those that have come with the least candor, most fraud, hypocrisie, secular baits for the subverting of others, have in ap­pearance, for a season, seemed to ob­taine successe; And in this spirit of craft and contention, are things yet carryed on in the world.’ This wit­nesse is true, therefore rebuke them sharp­ly.

§. 16 It is true also, that the parties at vari­ance now, ( Independents, and Presbyteri­ans) ‘are so well acquainted at length, with each others principles, Argu­ments, Interests, Prejudices, and reall di [...]tance of their causes, that none of them expect any Reconciliation, but meerly by one parties keeping its sta­tion, and the other coming over whol­ly unto them.’ The one partie are got so high, that they will not come down to the other; the other are so strongly con­vinced of the errour 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 torne in pieces, by her own Children.

§. 17 I shall adde something of the next Section, ‘whereupon having a mutu­all diffidence in each other, they grow weary of all endeavours to be carryed on joyntly in this kind: And this is like to be the state of things, untill a­nother Spirit be powred out on the professours of Christianitie, than that wherewith at present, they seeme mostly to be acted.’ Now the God of grace, and peace, powre out that other good Spirit upon this Church and Nation, before they be utterly destroyed.

§. 18 But is there no Balme in Gilead? no hopefull way of Reconciliation? Yes, he tells us. ‘The only way re­maining to be fixed on, whilst our di­visions continue, is to enquire, where­in the guilt of them doth consist, and who is justly charged therewith: in speciall, what is, and who is guiltie of the sinne of Schism.’ And this will we also do if God permit.

§. 19 Much hath been written, upon this subject of Schisme, by very learned men; who rather (as he sayes) en­deavoured, ‘to convince their Adver­saries (the Romanists) of the insuffici­encie of their charge of the Church of England to be Schismaticks, in sepa­rating from them; than rightly and cleerly to state the thing or matter contended about: which latter seems to me very strange;’ 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 designe in this undertaking: 1. To shew us a new way of his own, to dispell 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 [Page 21] Schism, from himself and his partie; for so he sayes here, and hereafter; ‘The present concernment of some fearing God, lying beyond, what other men have undertaken, somthing may be farther added, as to the satisfaction of the consciences of men unjustly accu­sed of this crime; which is my aime.’ 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 deale 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 onely observe, how he will free himselfe, from that part of it, which concerns himself and his partie.

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

§. 1 THis reverend and learned Authour (as appeares 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 Ʋniversities. And in his vindicati­on of our Church, (as was expected) car­ries on the debate so farre, as not only to vindicate himselfe and his partie 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 designe) will appeare, before we have done. But we shall attend at present, to the method of his proceeding; who thus begins. ‘The thing whereof we treat being a disorder, in the instituted worship of God, P. 21. I suppose it a modest request to desire, that we may abide solely to that discoverie and descripti­on, which is made of it in Scripture; [Page 23] that that alone shall be esteemed Schism, which is there so called, or hath the entire nature of that, which is there so called.’ It is (they say) an ill signe 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 meer 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 meane time we assert the contrary. ‘That as there may be Schism in the Church about other matters, besides instituted wor­ship▪ so there may also be Schism, in other places and times, than those of celebrating worship.’ For the se­cond part of the words, which is a Re­quest, it shall by me be readily granted. ‘That we abide solely to that discovery, and description, which is made of it in scripture; that, that alone be esteemed Schism, which is there so called, or which hath the entire nature of that, [Page 24] which is there so called.’ That is, that only shall be esteemed Schism, which is either expresly in Scripture so called, or in aequivalent words, or may be de­duced thence, by regular, and rational consequence, as he said above, chap. 1. §. 3,

p. 23. §. 2 What the Scripture- use and notion of the word is, is then first to be enquired: It is taken there, either in the prime and proper sense, with respect to bodyes natu­rall, for a seperation into parts, or (as he expresses it, p. 24.) ‘an interruption of continuitie, by an external power, a division of parts before- continued: the places are cited by himselfe, Math. 9.16. Math 27.51. "the vaile of the Tem­ple was rent, from the top to the bot­tome into 2 parts.’ Or in the metaphori­call sense, from bodyes naturall, to bodyes civill, or ecclesiasticall; In a civill body, Joh. 7.43. ‘There was a Schisme or division among the people. So Act. 14.4. the multitude of the cittie was di­vided; that was not only in their opini­ons and judgments, but also into parts or parties, for so its added; [...], and some were with the Jewes, and some with the Apostles.’ So Act 23.7. the multitude was divided, some follo­wing [Page 25] one, some another of their leaders, in that dissension; which is the reverend Doctors own glosse. Thus also it is ex­pressed, in his Testimonie in the margine ‘The Inhabitants of Rome, p. 24. were parted into two parts, and no more agreed, among themselves, and there was a great Schism.’ 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 naturall and politicall sense, it might easily slip, into the like, in its Ecclesiasti­call use; to signifie, not only a diffe­rence in Judgment, but a separation into parties also. As the Assembly may be Civill or Ecclesiasticall; so there may be a twofold Schism in each, (differing only gradually) either a div [...]sion in opinion onely, 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. ‘But when divers spake evill of that way before the multitude, Paul departed, [...] and separated the Disciples, &c.’

§. 3 It is true, that in the Ecclesiasticall sense, the word is not to be found used, p. 25. [Page 26] but in 1 Cor. 1.10. & 11.18. &c: on­ly in the case of differences amongst the Corinthians: ‘I heare, that there are [...], among you; which what they were, will presently come to be consi­dered, when we have heard, what he ac­counts in generall, the constant use of the word;’ ‘To denote differences of mind and judgment, with troubles ensuing thereon, p. 25. amongst men met in some one Assembly, about the the compassing of a common end and designe.’ But that this is a forestalling of the Readers judgment, by a meer beg­ging of the question, hath in part been proved, even from the Scripture it selfe, where it is used for separation into par­ties, upon those differences of mind and judgment, in the politicall use of the word; and why it may not be so used, in the Ecclesiasticall sense, I see yet no reason; especially when the proper use of it, is, to signifie a breach of union, or a separation of a naturall body, into seve­rall 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 himselfe and his partie; as we shall shew hereafter: But, granting him this [Page 27] notion of Schisme, for a while; this is the way, as on the one hand, to free all Church separation, from Schisme, with respect to one another; so on the other to make all particular Churches more or lesse 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 designe. I doubt whether his own be free therefrom. Yet he askes con­fidently below, p. 63. ‘Have we any differences and contentions in our As­semblies? Doe we not worship God, without disputes and divisions?’ Its happie with them, if it be so: For let most of the Assemblyes of severall 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 [Page 28] disorders? p. 27. ‘They had (sayes our Au­thour) differences amongst themselves, about unnecessary things: on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in their solemne Assemblyes, probably much vain jangling, aliena­tion of affections, exasperation of spi­rits, with a neglect of due offices of love, &c. This was their Schism, &c.’ That the Apostle charges this upon them, is true; but was this all? were there not divisions into parties, as well as in judgement? we shall consider that ere long. For the present, I say, difference in judgment, Separati­on may proceed from Schism. p. 194. 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 sayes well. ‘The Apostle would have them joyned together, p. 28. not only in the same Church-order, and fellowship, but also in onenesse of mind and judgment, which if they were not, Schisms would be amongst them, and upon those, separation, into severall as­semblyes; as we see at this day, to a la­mentation.’ Difference in some one point, of doctrine, worship, or discipline, hath [Page 29] 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 (sayes hee) ‘That the thing mentioned, p. 29. is entirely in one Church: no mention of one Church divided against another, or separated from another, or others: the crime lyes wholy within one Church, that met together, for the worship of God, &c:’ This it seemes, is a matter of great concernment, to be granted or denyed. In so much that he professes, p. 30. ‘That unlesse men will condescend so to state it, upon the evidence tender­ed, he shall not hope to prevaile much, in the processe of this discourse.’ This then being the foundation of that great Fabrick of Schism, as he calls it, it had need bee bottomed better, than upon his own bare Affirmation, (which is all, we yet have for it) without any proofe. 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 severall Assemblyes in Corinth (where there were multitudes of Christians) [Page 30] which are sometimes called the Church, yea a particular Church, with respect to the Catholick or other National Churches So himselfe speaks of those ‘Patriarchs (so called) how many or how few soe­ver they were, p. 121. they were particular Churches.’ 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 beggs the question, and consents not with himselfe. For he had said before, ‘they had disputings and sidings, in their solemne Assem­blyes, p. 27. not one, but many Assemblyes.’ 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, [...], not jointly, but severally in their particu­lar places of meeting. As the Congre­gations of London, may be said to meet together on the Lords 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, [Page 31] chap. 1. v. 2. ‘To the Church of God, at Corinth.’ 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. ‘Let your women keep silence in the Churches; one and yet many Churches at Corinth.’ 3. This is also presumed, but not proved, ‘That the crime of Schism was charged on them, onely, within the verge of one Church; as if all their Divisions were confined to the Church; whereas there were Schisms and differences, abroad and out of the Church; which I shall evince, first from the Scripture it selfe.’ The differences or Schisms were of severall 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. ‘When you come toge­ther in the Church, I heare that there are divisions among you.’ But the Doctor carryes it so, as if all their diffe­rences were in the Church meeting, [Page 32] when they met to worship God; for rea­sons hereafter to be given; The Apostle seemes to charge them thus; ‘I hear there are Schisms among you, not only, in private conferences, chap. 1. but also, which is worse, in your solemne Assemblyes, chap. 11. when you meet to worship God.’ And this is the Doctors own Glosse, (unawares confessed) not content to make this ‘difference, p. 27. the matter of their debates and disputes, from house to house, (but) even when they met for publick worship, or that which they all met in, and for, they were divided on that account (also) chap. 11.’ 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, un­lesse by a Negative, which is invalid; ‘There is no mention of such a separati­on, therefore there was none: of which in the next.’

§. 5 2. ‘Here is no mention of any par­ticular man, or number of men's sepa­ration from the Assemblyes of the whole Church, p. 30. or of subduction of [Page 33] themselves, from its power, &c: only they had groundlesse, causelesse diffe­rences amongst themselves.’

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. ‘It hath beene declared to mee, that there are Schisms among you: One saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, &c:’ And againe, chap. 3. v. 3. ‘Whereas there is among you, envying, and strife, and divisions are ye not carnall, [...] and walke as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, are ye not carnall?’ 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, sayes one; such a man for my mony: and I am of such a mans 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? [Page 34] Let experience, this day▪ speake. 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, appeares, cap. 11. that of the Lords Supper (as some do now) v. 18. with 21.22.33. They would, See, Jeams 2.1, 2. &c. such a companie (the richer sort perhaps) meet and receive the Supper together; and separating themselves, not tarry to take the poore with them. This was part of their Schism, which the Apostle charges them with, and warnes them of; They were not yet gone so farre 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 lesse pure than their own; which wee see practised sufficiently at this day. 3. But suppose it granted, there was but one single congregation at Corinth, yet the Apostle dehorting the [Page 35] Brethren, v. 10. from Schisme, and writing to more than the Church of Co­rinth, v. 2. even ‘all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, in every place.’

§. 6 3. ‘Here is no mention of any sub­straction of obedience from Bish [...]ps, Rulers, the Pope, &c:’ p. 31. ‘Nor does the A­postle charge them as Schismaticks from the nationall Church of Achaia, &c:’ 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, See him p. 37. f (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 severall Ministers, which they set up, as is most probable. As in the like case, p. 32. by him instanced in the time of clement. ‘Some few unquiet persons at Corinth, drew the whole So­cietie, into division, and an opposition to their Elders, a few men acted by pride and madness; yet such power had those persons in the Congregation, that they prevailed to depose the Elders, and cast them out of Office.’ Is it not rea­sonable [Page 36] to thinke, they set up new Elders and new Congregations? and most un­reasonable to thinke, that the whole Church, ranne into this madnesse? and so some Congregations remaining sound, the rest made Separations from them: and this, Clement calls their Schism. And besides his severall words, to describe it, [...], &c: his word [...], which signifies to lead away a partie, [...], &c, ‘those that walk well, from their honoured Service (though the Doctor wayes to know what it meant,) and misconstrues it, I say, the word [...] implyes a sepa­ration into other Assemblyes:’ as the manner of seducers is, ‘speaking per­verse things, to draw away, ( [...],) Disciples after them, Act. 20.30.’ The like may be conceived, though not so cleerly 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 Cle­ment, [Page 37] to signifie then, p. 34. not a province (as some,) but a citie Church, consisting of many Congregations, the Church [...], &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 provinciall, or Metropolitane, as some rather dream, than prove) as its said of the Church in or at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. and the Church of God, [...], at Corinth. But yet I cannot agree with him, that either Rome or Corinth, were in Clements time, onely one Parish, (as he now uses the word) or one Congrega­tion, meeting all in one place. For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Co­rinthians, was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea (which whe­ther it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knowes not p. 39. nor was perswaded it was compleated p. 38. but yet supposes, it comes under the same name with Corinth, ibid. though Paul mentions it, as a distinct Church, Rom. 16.1. and Phaebe to be a Deaconesse; or Servant of that Church) to the Church, I say, at Cenchrea; So I see no reason, but there might be & were several Churches, [Page 38] or Assemblies in Corinth, each distinct from other; though not such Parishes, as ours are in London, &c: the greater part, being yet Heathens, and the Magi­strates not yet Christian, to erect, or al­low them Churches, as now we call them; or to distribute them into parti­cular Parishes; which was done, as soon, as most or all became Christians. ‘However, the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be so called, p. 35. from them who met together to break bread, and to eate, from [...] con­vivator. Whence it will follow, that if the multitude be so great, that they cannot meet in one place, to heare the word, or to break bread (as its evident the 3000, or 5000 at Jerusalem, could not) then look how many meeting places there were for this purpose, so many Pa­rishes, or Congregations there were, at Jerusalem or Corinth, having severall, if not fixed Elders over them, and yet the whole but one Church.’

§. 7 p. 42.But if he grant, that this evill men­tioned by the Apostle, is Schism, does it conclude that nothing else is Schism? He answers, ‘he is inclinable so to do, and resolved, that unlesse any man [Page 39] can prove, that somthing else is termed Schism by some Divine writer, &c: he will be at Libertie from admitting it so to be.’ Surely this is no safe Rule to go by: For as there are some vertues, which are not termed so, expresly in Scripture; So there may be degrees of Schism, which are not so expresly called there. It is sufficient, if the one have the nature of such a virtue, the other of such a crime, though not so called. There are other words used to signifie the same thing. As Rom. 16.17. [...], of [...] and [...], as signifying a division in­to two parts, or parties; And what thinks he of the word [...], which comes from a root, that signifies sometimes trahere to draw, and somtimes sectari to fol­low; See Concil. 1. Con­stantinop. some are called Here­ticks; that hold the sound faith [...]. as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them; and those that fol­low them are called Secta, à sequendo; The opinions of the Philosophers, of seve­rall Sects, were called [...], heresies; and their followers, Sects, divided not onely in opinion, but in parties and Schools also. So Paul uses the word, Act. 26.5. ‘according to the mos [...] strict Sect, of our Religion, I lived a pharisee:’ And is not heresie as bad a word as Schism? or is it any advantage [Page 40] for a separatist, to change his name, from Schismatick to Heretick? The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19. uses them promiscuously, one for another: ‘I heare that there are Schisms among you. For there must be he­resies among you also.’ The word heresie commonly is used to signifie errour against Faith, (which sense he is not pleased with, p. 46.) as Schism is a sin against love; If he like not to give his Separation, the name of Schism (though it hath fully the nature of it) let him, have good leave to call it Heresie; This men gaine when they will dispute about words.

Besides, the Scripture uses other words to signifie Schism, in a political sense; Math. 12.25. A Kingdome or house, [...], divided against it selfe; that is, into parts, and so into civill warres, and dissensions, cannot stand: which Act. 14 4. is expressed by [...], the multitude was divided, and that into two parts (as well as opinions) as it followes; and some [...] were with the Jewes, and some with the Apostles, as I noted a­bove: If this may not rather be under­stood of an Ecclesiasticall separation; for it was occasioned by differences in one [Page 41] Assembly, v. 1. They entred into the Synagogue of the Jews, &c: The un­believing Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds ill affected against the brethren, v. 2. which caused that se­paration.

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

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

But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism, but what is in­cluded in this place of the Corinthians, having made it appeare, that there was a separation made in that Church, by such as lead away Disciples after them, or ra­ther by them; who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons, set up one Minister above another, and against another. However, somthing may be deduced by paritie of reason ‘If divisions of persons, in a church, in judgment, may be & is called Schism, in Scripture; then Separation from a true [Page 42] Church, (grounded upon those divisi­ons at first, in an Assembly, about un­necessary things, as he said) may well and much more, be called Schism.’ For (sayes he) ‘He is a Schismatick, p. 43. guiltie of this sinne of Schism, who raiseth, or entertaineth, or persisteth in such differences.’ And is not he much more a Schismatick, who having raised groundlesse differences in a Church, and persisting in them, draws Disciples after him, and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he se­parated? To separate men, in judgment, in a Church, is a Schism and crime bad enough; but to separate them from the Church, upon the former, is farre worse. Now this, as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations, all professing the same truth, and practising the same worship; So the persisting in such diffe­rences by any one Congregation, against the rest, is a Schism in that Church (as of Corinth) and ends commonly in sepa­ration from that Church: But let us heare further, what is required to make guiltie of Schism.

§. 8 1. ‘That they be members of, or be­long to some one Church, which is so [Page 43] by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ.’ The ground of this asser­tion is, that he by one Church, meanes only one particular Church, or Congre­gation; So that if a man be not a mem­ber of that one Church, he can neither be a Schismatick to that Church, nor to any other. But this, I suppose, to be his [...], his great mistake, and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter. For as there may be a Schism in a Citie-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 Schismatick 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 [...]ther expresly against the Gospel, or meerly of things unnecessary, &c. And this I shall prove; 1. By the Doctors own principle; ‘He that raiseth diffe­rences in any Congregation (and persists therein) is a Schismatick; as was newly by him asserted:’ But that Christian that [Page 44] breaks the peace of any Church, more generall or particular, by erronious or un­necessary disputes, raises differences in that Church; and therefore he is a Schismatick. 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. ‘Ceratine men which came down from Judaea, (to Antioch) taught the brethren saying, except ye be circumcised, &c: ye cannot be saved.’ These men were no mem­bers of the Church of Antioch, but of Ju­daea, or Christians at large, of no particu­lar Church: yet these men, making differences in the Church of Antioch, are said, v. 24. ‘to trouble them with words, subverting their Souls, and therefore might justly be called Schismaticks:’ 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 wayes it was a Church of Christs appointment. For the very light of reason, speaks thus much, That when [Page 45] 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. ‘It is required (sayes he) that they either raise, entertaine or persist in causelesse differences, p. 44. with them of that Church, &c:’ This is answered in the former, in part. And I adde, that those differences raised, &c: in that Church, though by a member of another Church, do cause ‘an Interruption of that exercise of love, which ought to be amongst them, and the disturbance of the duties required of that Church, in the worship of God, which he requires to make one guiltie of Schism.’ It were ve­ry strange, that he that entertaines, or persists in those differences should be a Schismatick, and he that first raised them (though of another Church) should be none.

§. 10 3. ‘It is further required, that these differences be occasioned by, and do belong to, some things, in a remoter or neerer distance, to the worship of God.’ This will reach a great way; [Page 46] even civill 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 concerne 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 Heresie, or Apostacie, not Schism (for so he sayes, p. 161.) But 1. Every diffe­rence in matter of doctrine, is not Here­sie, much lesse Apostacie; Heresie is not charged usually on any, but either for fundamentall errours, or obstinacie in them; And though we commonly place, Schism, in matter of discipline, or cir­cumstances of worship, and Heresie in matters of doctrine, yet, as we see by experience, those that beganne with Schismaticall separations, end too oft in Heresie: So a Schism at first, if obsti­nately persisted in, may come to be He­resie, [Page 47] (for there is a doctrine of disci­p [...]ine, in the Scripture): and a Schisma­tick willfully defending his errour, though but in a matter of discipline, or other unnecessary opinions, may prove to be Hereticall. 2. Heresie and Apo­stacie, presuppose Schism first: So that a man may be a Schismatick for raising the difference, and an Heretick in persist­ing in it. And say the same of Apo­stacie; 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 Episcopall men and us, about sub­mission to the Hierarchicall Government, between the Presbyterians and Indepen­dents, where the administration of disci­pline lyes. 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 onely makes the Schism; whereof who is most guil­tie, will appear anone. Certaine it is, [Page 48] on which party soever the charge falls, to be guilty of this crime, they will be found ‘to shew themselves carnal or to have indulged to the flesh, pag. 44. and the corrupt principle of Self, and their own wills, &c.’

§. 11 But he professes, "he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism, ‘that did comprise, that was not exclusive of, that, pag. 45. which alone, in the Scripture, is affirmed so to be.’ That shall be tryed by considering the definitions, ordinarily given. ‘The definition of Austin is this, Schisma est dissidium congregationis; when men of the same judgment in doctrine, and same rites in worship, delight in the discord of the Congregation. By dissidium Congregationis, the Dr. saies he means, 'A separation from the Church, into a peculiar Congregation.’ 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. Acts 15.39. Paul and Bar­nabas, [Page 49] two holy, good men, first fell into a paroxysm of contention, and presently separated and parted asunder.

2. Basil's definition, is almost the same; who makes ‘ schism to be a divi­sion arising from some Church contro­versies; and [...], to be the un­lawful Conventicles, the ordinary con­sequents of such division; First, they raise divisions, that's the first degree of Schism; from Schism they fall into Heresie, the second degree; and then separate into new conventions, pag. 46. which is the highest Schism.’ Nor, because of la­ter years, honest and pious meetings for Religion, were called Conventicles, and Schism, therefore may men conclude, that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church, when it shall be determined so to be.

3. The Common definition given, ‘That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church, &c.’ presupposes a Division in that Church, which occasions that separation, one party not being sa­tisfied by the other. The Crime of which separation, must be taken, and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof, which [Page 50] cannot be in a true Church, but in those that separate from it. For if a Church, be either no true Church, or so extreamly corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin, such a separat [...]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; pag. 46. for he saies, ‘Certain he is, that a separation from some Churches, true, or pretended so to be, is commanded in the Scripture; so that the withdraw­ing from any Church, or society what­ever, upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or false, with a mind & resolu­tion to serve God in the due observati­on of Church institutions, according to that light which we have received, is no where called Schism, nor con­demned as a thing of that nature &c.’ If this be true, there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church, or in the World. If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church, as well as from a false, and that upon a false plea of its corruption, as well as true, only with a good mind to serve God, in Church insti­tutions, true, or conceited by his own light; all the Sectaries & Separatists, Donatists & [Page 51] Brownists in the world may be justified, But this will come again below; thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it.

§. 12 Now lest (by the former indulgence) any should surmise, p. 47. that he complyes with them, that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism, or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches (as we are able to prove them) he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism, when he hath first considered what aggravations, others have put up­on it.

§. 13 1. Some say, it is ‘a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ, pag. 48. but (saies he) they seem to have mistaken their aim, and instead of aggravating, extenuated it: a rent of the body is not hightned, in its being called, the renting of a seamless coat.’ But this is but a nicity. I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion, à minore ad majus. The Souldi­ers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat, whereby it would be ren­dered uselesse to all; how much more heinous was it to rent his Body. The Church is called Christs mystical Body. Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat, and much more to divide by piercing his [Page 52] natural body: so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical; which must needs reach to him the Head. This is the Apo­stles way of arguing, 1 Cor. 1.13. Is Christ divided? [...] divided in­to parts. q. d. Do you not by these divisions, divide and rent the Body of Christ? and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions? But enough of that.

§ 14 2. ‘It is usually said to be a sin a­gainst Charity, pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith: but is Schism so a sin against Charity? doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart?’ He means so, as Heresie does the Faith. But that's not the question; but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity, as well (though not as much) as Heresie is a sin against Faith? And suppose it do not root out Charity, may it not supplant, or at least suppress & weaken it? may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love (as he said above p. 27.) ‘their Church order, as to Love, Peace, Union, were wofully disturbed with divisions, &c.’ And if Schism be persisted in, it may in the end root out Charity, and be incon­sistent with it, as well as Heresie doth the Faith: Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith; a man may be an Heretick [Page 53] in one Article, and Orthodox in the Faith, in others. Yea, pag. 49. himself here confesses, ‘men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices, and duties of love, which are useful, or necessary for the preservati­on of the bond of perfection, and then is it, or may in some sense, be said to be a sin against Love.’ When the Apo­stle saies, that ‘Love is the bond of per­fection, because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints, notwithstand [...]ng all hinderances and oppo­sitions made by Schism;’ He tells us ra­ther what true love is in it self, and ought to be in us, than what it is mani­fested to be in mens corrupt hearts, and con [...]ersations. Divisions among them, breaches of Love: so he, pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that descri­bed it to be " open breach of love, aimed near, at the true nature it; which his wa­ry consideration, doth not excuse from Schism. For suppose it were possib [...]e▪ ‘for a man to be all, and do all, that those were and did, whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks, under the pow­er of some violent temptation, and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints, to the communion disturbed by him, which is very rare;’ Yet that person, who ever he be, could not be ex­cused [Page 54] from Schism and a breach of chari­ty, any more than those, whom the Apo­stle calls Schismaticks, who no doubt some of them, were under some violent temptation. It is again confessed, ‘It is thus far a breach of love, in its own nature, in that in such men, Love can­not exert it self, in its utmost tenden­cy, in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church.’ If this had been said at first, this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism.

§. 15 3. As for those, who say, ‘it is a re­bellion against the Rulers of the Church; if they mean it, pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremo­nies &c. let them plead for themselves.’ But if he mean, that Schism may be rai­sed, against the instituted Rulers of the Church, walking in the truths, and waies of Christ, (as well as against any other members of the Church) it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church, as they▪ that desp [...]se Christs Em­bassadors, despise Him also, the mischiefs whereof, extend to the whole Church. And commonly the Schism begins against the Rulers of the Church; as that a­gainst Moses and Aaron did: So that at [Page 55] Corinth in Clements time. This is too evident, at this time, That all the present Schisms, strike principally at the Mini­sters of the Gospel, All Sects, contending against them primarily▪ and reproaching of them, either as Antichristian, He calls them, pa­rochial Priests. pag. 235. or as no true Ministers (besides worser names of ignominie and contempt) wherein the Dr. and his party, are not a little guil­ty▪ as will appear before we have done.

§. 16 Whether Schismaticks be Church Mem­bers, or no, is a question of no great con­cernment. The Doctor is peremptory ‘It is impossible a man should be a Schismatick, p. 51. unless he be a Church member.’ If he mean it of a member of the Catholick Church, its granted: for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatick. But if he mean (as I believe he does) no man can be such, unless he be a member of a particular Church, it is made appear to the contrary above, and shall be more hereafter. For the present I only say, Suppose a Schismatick of himself departs from the Church, or is ejected by the Church; yet still persists to maintaine the differences by him raised, in that Church; I desire to know, whether he ceases to be a Schismatick, because he is now no member of that Church, or is [Page 56] not still such, by the Doctors own prin­ciples? But too much of that.

§. 17 Upon the Definition of Sch [...]sm, given by himself, ‘A causless difference, or divi­sion, amongst the members of any par­ticular Church, pag. 52. Is not this a mans de­finition, & the strength of it this? such an act is Schisme, therefore none else is: See p. 44. that meet or ought to meet to the worship of God▪ &c. he pro­ceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the sin of Schism, wherein I shall agree with him fully; though not in his definition, in all particulars, as was said above.’ That, that is a Schism I confess, & contains a part, but not the whole nature thereof. For, as I believe, a Schism may be made in a particular Church, by one that is no member thereof▪ (seducers use to creep into houses and Churches, and raise diffe­rences). So I think, a particular Church, or some members of it, may make a Schism in & from the Catholick Church, or other particular Churches, which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given. Look as in the body natural, there may be supposed a Schism, amongst the fingers of either hand, whereof they are the more immediate members, which yet may truly be said, to be a Schism, in rela­tion to the whole body, which hath influ­ence into, and interest in those members, and shall suffer not a litle by their divi­sions: [Page 57] So it is in the body mystical, though the divisions immediatly disturb the particular Church, where they arise, yet they also reach to the disquiet, and dan­ger of the next Congregations, and then of the whole Church, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A mutinie be­gun in a single troop, hath been the ruin of the whole Army. The Design (how­ever disclaimed p. 47. f.) I fear is this. This definition of Schism is forelaid, and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof, upon himself and his own select congregation. If they have but so much wit, or so much grace, as either not to raise, or not to discover any causlesse dif­ferences amongst themselves, though they separate from, and disturbe the peace and union of the whole national Church, or all the Churches of a Nation, they are by no means to be styled Schismaticks. But more of this, in Hypothesi, when he comes to apply it to themselves.

§. 18 Whether the Church of Rome, is a Church of Christ, or no, pag. 56. and how they are Schismatical; I list not to be their Ad­vocate, they are old enough, to answer his charge themselves. I think he hath said enough (if not too much) to vindi­cate the Protestant Churches from Schism, [Page 58] in their separation from Rome. But his principle will carry him further, not on­ly to unchurch Rome, but also all Prote­stant Churches, at home and abroad, for want (as he thinks) of a right constituti­on by Jesus Christ: as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism: as will presently appear. Only I observe that he does not charge Rome it self to be Schismatical, but upon supposition, that it is a Church; (which he denies below) then indeed, by her intestine divisions, she is the most schismatical Church in the world; but if no Church, not schismati­call; whereas our Divines, have proved her schismatical, not only by her intestine differences but chiefly by her schismatical principles, as those above mentioned, That she is the Catholick Church, and none out of her Communion, are any better than Hereticks, Our Con­venticles are no Churches, but styes of beasts p. 63. say they. or Heathens. That Ordination is void, except done by her Bishops; and also, and especially, by her abominable corruptions, doctrine, and worship, depar­ting therein from the Scriptures, and example of the Apostolical Churches. Now his chief, if not only principle, to conclude himself not schismatical, in se­parating from Rome, is this, ‘That there was never any such thing, pag. 60. as that [Page 59] which is called the Church of Rome, in­stituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ, which he here­after affirms also of National, and Presby­terian Churches, as he thereby frees him­self from Schism, in separating from all Churches in the world:’ So he there­with unchurcheth all our Churches, as well as Rome.

§. 19 For so he saies; ‘upon the same prin­ciple, a plea, pag. 64. for freedom from the charge of any Church, really, or pre­tended, as National, may be founded and confirmed.’ That principle is, the de­finition of Schism before given, ‘Schism is an evil amongst the members of a Church.’ And hence he inferred a­gainst the Church of Rome, ‘If our own Congregations be not Churches, what­soever we are, we are not Schismaticks.’ And against them that plead for a Nati­onal Church, and charge them with Schism for separating from it, he saies again; ‘If we are not of the National Church, pag. 67. (as they protest they are not) whatever we are, we are not Schisma­ticks. And this will once more be made use of, against the charge of Schism, in separating from our present Churches; as we shall see below.’ But he makes a [Page 60] Dilemma, and thinks it both waies un­answerable, ‘either we are of the Na­tional Church of England, or we are not. If not, whatever we are, we are not Schismaticks. If we are, and must be of it, whether we will or no, being made so, we know not how, &c. shew us then, what office of Love is incum­bent on us, that we do not perform.’ His arguing is not distinct, having not tot told us what he means by a Natio­nal Church. If he take it, (as he seems to do) for the Hierarchical Church, with National Officers, with subordinations, &c. I would say, 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 Christs institution, he cannot be excu­sed from Schism in separating from it. For though they cannot charge him, as now, of that Church, both it being aboli­shed, and himself changed into another way, yet they may say, he was not long since, a member of that National Church. But if he take National Church, as the Churches were in the Nation, all pro­fessing the same truth, and exercising [Page 61] the same substantial worship, (as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church) he must either ac­knowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church, (as he does pag. 224.) or else renounce communion with her also as no Church, or Churches of Christ: which whether he does or no, comes after to be considered.

§. 20 ‘For the other horn of his Dilemma, If they are, and must be of this Natio­nal Church &c. what duty of Love is there, which they owe to it, and do not perform?’ Seeing he makes the challenge, and professes, ‘that if it can be shewn, he will address himself to it.’ I shal take the pains to inform him fully, before we have done; only now consi­dering what he saies here. ‘Do we not (saies he) joyn in external acts of wor­ship, in peace, with the whole Church? p. 67. Call the whole Church together, & try what we will do?’ Is not all this aequivo­cally spoken? In what external acts of worship, do they joyn with us, as a Church? Do they not disown us, as no Churches? and our Ministers as no Ministers? & admit none to worship with them, but confederat members? When they sometimes preach in our Congregations, or hear us preach, [Page 62] do they not count themselves to us, and us to themselves, as gifted brethren only, but no Ministers? And what means he by the whole Church? or how can it be called together? unless he mean his own Church, or Churches. How then do they joyn in every Congregation in the Nation? When (though they presume to preach in our Churches, to steal away our people from us) their own people will seldome or never come into our Congre­gations to hear, unless some of them preach. Ad populum phaleras. And as for their joyning in peace, with the whole Church, it is a Blind: for they separate themselves with some of our members, from our Churches, to the great discou­ragement of the Ministers, and greater di­sturbance of the whole, and all the Chur­ches of the Nation.

§. 21 The Counsel that he gives ‘to mem­bers of particular Churches, pag. 70, who have voluntarily given up themselves, to walk in them, according to the ap­pointment of Jesus Christ, I fear, ex­tends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches, That they would be careful to prevent causeless differences, in their own meetings, or among them­selves; which if they do, let them all [Page 63] say what they will, they are no Schisma­ticks.’ For as for our particular Congre­gations, they scarce account them Chur­ches, though most of the members of them, ‘have voluntarily given up them­selves explicitely, or implicitely (as New England men confesse) to walk in them, according to the appointment of Jesus Christ.’ And if they grant ours to be true Churches, they must necessari­ly acknowledge, those who first raised causeless differences in them, & now fo­ment them by separation from them, to be Schismaticks, by his own description. Yea so much worse, than those Corinthians, whose case he exemplifies, if so be they did not upon their differences, separate into parties and Churches, (which he de­nies, but we conceive they did) and these both raise differences, and then separate from our Churches, into several combina­tions; and one sayes, I am of Pauls Con­gregation, and another, I am of Apollo's, I speak this in a figure, as Paul did. 1 Cor. 4.6: He can easily apply it.

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

§ 1 HE now fearing this or the like Ob­jection, (as obvious to be made by every man) ‘That if Schism be on [...]y a­mongst the members of one Church, pag. 72. then the separation of any man or men, from a true Church, or one Church from another, is not Schism; which is contrary to the judgement of most Chri­stians, Divines, and Churches; he hopes to help himself by his old definition of Schism, in the Scripture precise descripti­on of it, as he limited above:’ And per­emptorily denies, that ‘in that sense, there is any relinquishment, depar­ture, pag. 73. or separation from any Church, or Churches, mentioned or intimated in the Scripture, which is, or is called Schism, or agreeth with the description by them given us, of that term.’ But to this, I have many things to say. 1. That precise signification of the word, and de­scription of the thing is before disproved. The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts, and is applyed both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture; as was proved above. [Page 65] 2. Supposing that to be the onely sense mentioned in the case of the Co­rinthians (which is denyed and disprov­ed) yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture, and deduced by regular and rationall consequence. The word signifying indefinitely seperation, either in opinion, or parts, is it not a faire conse­quence? ‘If seperation in judgement in a Church, be a Schism, much more upon that difference, to separate from a Church, into another against the Church.’ 3. St. John blames some for sepa­rating from the Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. they went out from us, &c: as is the man­ner of Schismaticall and Hereticall Spi­rits: being obstinate in their opinions, and opposed by the Church, they stay not, till they are cast out, but go out, and be­come the head of a faction, against the Church: as histories do abundantly ma­nifest. 4. His own places brought for instances of blameable separation from a Church do all or some minde the nature of Schism, as precedaneous to that sepa­ration, therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture, we shall consider them in order.

[Page 66] §. 2 1. The first produced, is Heb. 10.25. ‘not forsaking the Assembling of our selves together, as some do: He ren­ders the words (for his own advantage) not wholly deserting the Assembling of our selves, &c:’ and makes it to be ‘Apostacie from the faith, p. 74. and there­upon upon forsaking the Assemblies: would any man call these Schismaticks, sayes hee?’

He former­ly glossed this text, of neglecting the publick Assemblyes onely: see Appendix. §. 14.He makes the context to be with the 26. v. that so he may draw it to Apo­stacie, 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 watchfullnesse in members of a Congregation: Mat. 18.15. [...], not forsaking the assembling, &c: but forsaking another, q. d. If we, for­sake the assemblyes of the Church, we shall quickly neglect that brotherly mu­tuall care and inspection of one another, and so fall into separation or Apostacie. And the 26 v. rather referres 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 sinne willingly, &c: If we forsake the assem­blyes, [Page 67] neglecting brotherly inspection, and so fall into Schism, or Apostacie, (from one to the other) the end will be dreadfull.

But first, Estius in loc. the Latine Interpreters ex­pound it, of forsaking the Assemblyes, either by Schism or Apostacie. 2. Apo­stacie is graduall, either partiall in some point of Faith; or totall 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 Gospell, and joyned Moses with Christ, circumcisi­on with baptism, are said to go out from the Apostles, v. 24. ‘Certaine, that went out from us, have troubled you with words: These were Schismaticks in the one, and Apostates, or Separa­tists in the other.’ An Heretick or an Apostate may be a Schismatick, and something more; as a Schismatick too often proves an Heretick. 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 bodyes; in opposition to the Church as I said above. The Apostle describes them thus, Act. 20.30. ‘Of your [Page 68] own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.’ These are grievous Wolves, v. 23. so farre from taking care of the flock, that they rent and teare it, not sparing the flock. And therefore the Apostle joynes these together, 1 Cor. 13.25. ‘That there should be no Schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another: Implying that where there is a Schism, in the Church, the members neglect the care one of another; and when the members neglect the care one of another, there's a Schism in the Church.’ But if they so farre neglect the care of one another, as to seperate from the Church, that's an higher degree of Schism, even a double Schism. As in the body naturall; if it be a Schism, for one member to rent and teare ano­ther, in the body, much more to rend and divide themselves from the body, when they cannot have any care one of another. Wee see this exemplifyed at this day. When men have first raised divisions in the Church, they seperate from the Church, and gather themselves into distinct bodies, having no care for the body from whence they seperated, [Page 69] scarce owning them for Churches, but rather account them no true Churches, reproaching and reviling them; Are not these Schismaticks.

§. 3 2. The second place, for blameable se­paration, is ‘of some, who withdraw themselves from Church-communion, p. 75. at least for a season by their disorderly and irregular walking. 1 Thes. 5.14. [...], and [...], 2 Thes. 3.2.6. Such there were in the primitive times, and in our dayes, whom we charge not with Schism, but vanity, folly, and disobedience to the precepts of Christ, in generall.’ 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 expresly instances, 2 Thes. 3.11. ‘wee heare that there are some which walk among you dis­orderly, not working at all, but are busybodies.’ They did not separate from the Church, but rather ( [...]s some now do) made their frequenting of pub­lick meetings and exercises, the Cloake for their idlenesse; thinking the Church was bound to maintaine them. They [Page 70] were so farre 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 Societie. Others think that he commands them onely to with­draw from them, in civill respects, and if they will not labour, let them starve, v. 10. As for those [...], in the 2d verse, which he calls ‘persons that a­bide quietly in no place, or station; it is supposed they were not the same men but persecutors of the Apostle, most ab­surdly and unreasonably:’ He knows [...] is a Logicall terme; signifying absurd men, that know not the Topicks, or heads of reasoning; and these are joyned with wicked and faithlesse men. However, the Apostle commanding them to warne those disorderly men as brothers, by no meanes 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 stirre up dis­sensions in the Church, by defence of their idlenesse (which himself calls Schism) and then separate from the Church: but enough of that.

[Page 71] §. 4 3. ‘Men also separated themselves, upon sensualitie, that they might free­ly indulge to their lusts, p. 76. and live in all manner of pleasure all their dayes, Jude 19. v. These are they that sepe­rate themselves, &c:’ That some men do seperate from the Church, upon doctrines of Libertie and licentiousnesse, is too evident, as in the old Gnosticks, so in the late Ranters, and Family of Love; but no doubt these men main­tained their opinions and practises in the Church, so long as they could, which caused divisions in the Church, and so were Schismaticks: 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 are spots in your feasts of charitie, when they feast with you; feeding themselves without feare.’ 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 [Page 72] 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 [...], which, Oecumenius sayes, comes from [...] and signifies, extra terminos ec­clesiae quempiam educere, elicere, to lead, or draw men out of the Church: and so implyes, they did not onely separate themselves, but drew others also into se­peration. And Clem. Alexandr. inter­prets it, segregantes fideles àfidel. bus, id est, alios ab aliis: Seperating the faith­full from the faithfull that is, some mem­bers of the Church from other: In a word, others understand it of both kinds of separation, tam in doctrina quam in coetibus; in opinions and parties, or as­semblyes. And both these being cause­lesse divisions, are by all accounted Schism. p. 27. Now the reverend Doctor, to avoid this, calls these Abominations, and not Schism, As Ana­baptists, Quakers, &c: do not cease to be Indepen­dents, but a e that, and some thing more. and askes, ‘whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted Schismaticks, or their crime, in separating, Schism?’ But this is but a d [...]sguise of the businesse; For there may be Schism in this (and the o­ther two afore) and something more. He that raises dissentions in a Church, and [Page 73] then separates from it; either by Aposta­cie, Idlenesse, or sensualitie, carryes his brand of a Schismatick with him; though it seeme to be swallowed up, in further abominations. There are de­grees of Schism, (as I said) which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem, the wickednesse that such proceed unto; but from the terminus à quo, that is from a true Church. I shall put him a case; If a member of his Congregation, incli­ning to Apostacie, Idlenesse, or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church, concerning any of those, and then should seperate from his Church, either into irregular walking, as some Antino­mians, or into Abhominations, as some Ranters, or into totall Apostacie and Atheism, which many are fallen into, from the height of this way; would he not say thee were Schismaticks and something worse? And of all it may be said, "These are they that separate themselves: I leave it to him.

§. 5 But he is so confident of the contrary, that he redoubles more vigourously, his former Assertion. ‘I say, p. 77. for a man to with-draw, or with-hold himself from the Communion externall and visible [Page 74] of any Church, or Churches, on the pretension and plea, be it true or o­therwise, that the worship, doctrine, discipline instituted by Christ, is cor­rupted among them, with which cor­ruption he dares not defile himselfe, it is no where, in the Scripture called Schism, &c.’ Before I come to scanne the words in particular, I shall say, in generall, this is a fallacious, because an ambiguous, assertion. For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate, when there is corruption in some one of these onely, or in all of them. 2. Nor how far some or all of these, must be corrupted, before we may separate. 3. All these were as much corrupted (and more) in the Jewish Church, as in ours, (when he and his partie separated from us) and yet our Saviour and his Apostles continued their Communion with it: and the Church of Corinth, in all these, was as much and more corrupted, than ours, yet the Apostle mentions, no separating from it: 4. He now requires that it be called Schisme in Scripture; when as before, he said, if it had the nature of it, it was sufficient. 5. If a bare Plea a­gainst corruptions, true or false, may warrant a separation; then the most rigid [Page 75] seperatists may be, and are by him ac­quitted from Schism; as I said above. But more particularly; He hath not rightly stated the question, as now it lyes between us: which is not of a sin­gle mans secession from a true Church, a particular Congregation; to joyne him­selfe to another Church, of the same Constitution, where he may enjoy (as he thinks) the Ordinances more purely, or more profitably. For it was ever law­full for a man to remove his habitation, and to joyne himselfe to such a Congre­gation. But the pinch of the question is, ‘whether a man, or a company of men, may separate from a true Church, upon a plea of corruption in it, true or false, set up another Church, as to all Ordinances, renouncing that Church, to be a true Church.’ And so much the worse and more Schismaticall is that separation, from a true Church, when either those men that separate, have not done those duties incumbent on them, to reforme it; or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavour, to reforme it selfe according to the Rule of the Gospell. This is plainly our case at present, with the Doctor and his As­sociates.

§. 6 But he further affirmes; ‘Of one Church particular, departing from that communion with another, p. 78. or o­thers, be it what it will, which it ought to hold, unlesse in the departing of some of them, in some things, from the common Faith, which is suppo­sed not to relate to Schism, in the Scripture we have no example.’ The more happie were those times, that they yeelded no such example. But if they did not, yet if they give us an example of one Church, divided upon differences, into severall Congregations, or to some Ordinances (as we proved they do) they come very neere the case of Schism before us; And himselfe hath granted, that upon supposition that Rome is a (par­ticular) Church (as opposed to the Ca­tholick) she is the most Schismaticall Church in the world; not onely in re­gard of her own intestine divisions (as he) but also in her separation from the Apo­stolicall primitive Church, in doctrine, worship and discipline; (as our Divines do maintaine) upon this acount it was, that the Divines of the Assembly said; ‘To leave all ordinary communion in any Church, with dislike, where oppo­sition, See p. 141 or offence offers it selfe, is to [Page 77] seperate from such a Church, in the Scripture sense; though they adde, pag. 79. such separation was not in being in the Apostles time.’ His exception to this, is frivolous, ‘How they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them, I know not.’ The reconciliation is easie; In the Apostles time, or in that case of the Corinthians, (such was their happinesse) there was no separati­on of one Church from another, in that high manner, as after they did; but yet the Scripture gives a faire ground, by way of consequence; there and in other places, above named, to conclude, that if separation in a Church, in opinions and judgement, be a Schism, much more se­paration from a true Church by persons, or Churches, leaving all ordinary com­munion with it, with dislike or opposi­tion, is to be accounted Schism; especi­ally if they first depart from the common Faith, and then, upon that difference, se­parate from the Church. And there­fore, though he be unwilling, I shall not doubt but to be able ‘ to compell him to carry on the notion of Schism, further than yet he hath done.’

§. 7 But that he may shew his skill and gratifie his Adversaries, he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue, p. 81. according to the common definition of Schism; "That it is a breach of union, onely he will put in ‘a reasonable postulatum, that this union be an union of the ap­pointment of Jesus Christ, which I shall freely grant him; provided he do not limit Schism, as formerly he did, to the worship of God only:’ yet that he does here againe; ‘The consideration of what sort of union, in reference to the worship of God (marke that) is instituted by Jesus Christ, is the foun­dation of what I have further to offer, &c:’ The Designe of this is, that he may have a faire retreat, when he is charged with breach of union, in other respects, and so with Schism, to escape by this e­vasion, ‘This breach of union, is not in reference to the worship of God, in one Assembly, met to that end.’ And that is onely Schism in the Scripture- no­tion; as he hath often said. But I shall attend his motion.

§. 8 ‘This union being instituted in the Church, according to the various ac­ceptions of that word, so it is distin­guished: [Page 79] For which purpose he under­takes three things, to shew.’ 1. ‘The severall considerations of the Church, with which union is to be preserved. 2. What that union is, p. 82. we are to keep with the Church, in each considerati­on. 3. How that union is broken, and what the sinne whereby it is done.’ Wherein we shall follow him as farre as we are concerned, leaving others to plead for themselves.

CHAP. IV. Of the Church Catholick Mysticall, and its Union.

§. 1 THe Church of Christ in this world, is taken in Scripture three wayes, ‘1. For the mysticall body of Christ, p. 84. his elect redeemed, &c: commonly called the Church Catholick militant, 2. For the universalitie of men, call­ed by the Word, visibly professing the Gospell, called the Church Catholick visible. 3. For a particular Church of some place, wherein the instituted [Page 80] worship of God in Christ, is celebra­ted according to his mind.’ This di­stinction of the Church, is rather of the word, than of the thing intended by it; & imports not a three-fold Church, but one Church under a threefold considera­tion: ‘arising (as he sayes) from the nature of the things themselves, that is, the members of that Church, who may be considered, either as true belie­vers, that makes the invisible Church, 2, as professors of the same Faith, & that makes the Catholike visible Church:’ or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship, and that is called a particular Church: For, as the definition of a Church agrees to it, in all the three considerations; ‘It is a societie of men called out of the world, by the word, &c:’ So, the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches, or in that threefold consideration of it, at once, He that is a true believer of the invisible Church, is also a professor of the Faith, and so a member of the Catholike visible Church, and he that is of both those, is or ought to be (if possible) a member of a particular Church: Now the Church, having its rise and nature from a call, (as the word imports) that call admitting of severall degrees, causes [Page 81] this three-fold notion of the Church, That call in Scripture, is either internall, which he calls effectuall; or externall, and that again admits of degrees: men are called either to the profession of Faith onely (lacking opportunity of publick Ordinances) or to 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 Catholike visible; to the third, to be members of a particular Church: And his own way of raising the former distinction, is the same for substance, p. 84. §. 2. Hence the necessitie of Churches in the last ac­ception is not onely, because members of a particular Church, are bound to exter­nall rules for joynt communion (for to those very rules, are members of the in­visible and visible Church bound also, when it is possible): but partly because, the Catholike Church, in either sense cannot all meet in one place; and part­ly because, the opportunitie to yeeld obe­dience to those rules of joynt communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Societie, not too great, or numerous.

[Page 82] §. 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church, which [...] calls ‘the Mysticall body of Christ his elect, page 84. &c: the Church Catholike militant, I have but a little to say.’ I observe onely, first that he restraines the Catholick Church invisible, onely to this world, as mili­tant; whereas commonly our Div nes take it for the whole number of the elect, both Militant and Triumphant, from Heb. 12.23. ‘The generall assembly, and Church of the first borne, which are written in heaven.’ 2. That he makes the Church invisible, the onely Mysticall body of Christ, which is ordi­narily applyed to the Catholike visible Church also; as contra distinguished to the civill or politicall body of a state. 3. See, my Vind, Vind. p. 9. That he cites Math. 16.28. to prove the Catholike invisible Church, which is commonly understood of the Catholike visible Evangelicall Church; He sayes; ‘They that will apply this (text) to the Church in any othe [...] sense, page 88. must know that it is incumbent on them to esta­blish the promise made to it, unto e­very one that is a true member of the Church, in that sense, which will be difficult, &c:’ But I say, that the pro­mise in that text (and the rest cited) is [Page 83] made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church, is true; They are built upon that Rock, and the gates of Hell shall never prevaile against them; but yet it may be true, with re­spect, (if not to a particular Church, which may faile, yet) to the Catholike visible Church, which as it is built up­on that Rock, the confession of Peter, that Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God, and the Messiah come; So it is to continue to the worlds end, and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile totally to destroy it. And this himselfe confesses, ‘I no way doubt of the perpetuall existence of innumerable believers in every age, and such as made the profession, that is absolutely necessary to salvation, one way or other, p. 86. f.’ There is then a perpetuall existence of the Church, not onely invisible, as true beleivers, but al­so of the visible, as professors of the Faith of the Gospell; and so the promise is made good to it. Indeed the promise in that text, is made to the whole Church indefinitely, and respectively; but not to every particular person in it, nor to every particular Church: There shall be a Church of true beleivers and pro­fessors of the Faith in all ages, but whe­ther [Page 84] it be made to a particular Church, ‘That Christ hath had alwayes a Church, in this sense, in the world, himselfe sayes is a needlesse enquiry, p. 85. §. 5.’ Of which more perhaps hereafter.

§. 3 The second thing considerable is, the Union of the members of this Catholicke invisible Church, among themselves; which he makes to be; pag. 95. ‘The Inhabita­tion, of the same Spirit, or the anima­tion of the whole by the Spirit; this is the fountaine radicall union of this Church, in it selfe, and with its head with the formall reason of it.’ But he cannot but know, that some of his own way, make Faith it selfe, in all the single believers, D. Ames. Mcedull. l. 1. c. 31. §. 21. to be the forme of this invisi­ble Church; which they call the state essentiall of this Church; they meane, the essence of the Church is preserved by Faith, in single believers: but I contend not: Be it Faith, or the Spirit of Faith, in its graces and operations, the matter is not great. But besides this radicall union, pag. 96. he makes a double consequentiall union flowing from that. ‘1. of Faith 2. of Love, of all those united in the head, towards one another, and of [Page 85] every one towards the whole.’ But these are improperly called unions; they are rather consequents of that union by one Spirit, than consequentiall uni­ons; and rather are the meanes of com­munion, Faith with the Head, Love with the members; pag. 98. So he sayes ‘I [...]annot say, they have their union in themselves by Love, but it is the next immediate principle of that communion, which they have one with another, &c.’ but I list not to strive about this neither. The third thing is, to enquire where­in the breach of this union must consist: pag. 99. ‘In these two things. 1. The casting out that Spir [...]t, which gives this union; 2. The losse of Love, flowing from thenee into the body of Christ, &c:’ concern­ing which, he tells his Adversaries, ‘That our perswasion is, that this union was never utterly broken by any man, pag. 100. taken into it, or ever shall be, to the end of the world.’ I shall not differ with him, in this Assertion: Onely I take no ice of the warinesse of his expression; (utterly broken) which in that debate, signifies totally and finally. But if I may gradually and for a t [...]me be inter­rupted, (as our Divines allow) may there not be said to be a breach in that union, [Page 86] 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 [...] offence, there may be a kind of Schism, even in the Invisible Church, if not to a separation of the Spirit utterly, yet to a suspension of its influence, by hiding it selfe, and leaving the Believer to a sad desertion; as experience tells us. Be­sides this, the members of this Church, being also visible in another sense, and so of the Catholike visible Church; may there not be a breach of union, even among them, which may extend, not onely to divisions in judgment, but also to separation into parties, and what is that but Schism? I gave an instance in Paul and Barnabas, both members of this Church; Act. 15. l [...]st; and mem­bers of no particular Church. But strictly to speak, This Church it selfe, and its union being both invisible, quà elect, there can be no 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 Catholick visible, and its Union.

§. 1 THe next whereof is, the Catholick visible Church, which he describes to be, p. 112. ‘The universality of men pro­fessing the doctrine of the Gospel, and obedience to God in Christ, through­out the World.’ These he grants, do constitute the visible Kingdom of Christ, and so may be called his Church: but whether precisely, so called in Scripture, (he saies) is not unquestionable: But to me and others (whom he may do well to satisfie) this is out of question. He makes the question to be, p. 113. ‘what relati­on it stands in, to all particular Chur­ches, whether as a Genus to its Spe­cies, or as a Totum to its parts.’ And he seems to be Negative in both. His gene­ral reason is, because ‘The universal visible Church we speak of, is not a thing that hath, as such, a specificative form, from which it should be so cal­led, as a particular hath for its ground of being so called.’ That shall be tryed, when we hear what is the specificative [Page 88] form of a particular Church. In the mean time, let us consider why he denies this Catholick Church, to stand in relation to the particular Churches, as a Genus to its Species; ‘because this would deprive every one of membership in this uni­versal Church, which is not joyned actually to some particular Church, which is devoid of truth.’ What force there is in this consequence against them of New England, who make particular Churches to be Species of the universal Church, Mr. Hoo­kers Sur­vey. as (say they) several drops of water, are Species of water; and also make a man first a member of a particular Church, before he can be a member of the Catholick, I say, what force there is, in this consequence against them, I do not see; I only note his disagreement with them; though I agree with him in the thing. For the other, That particu­lar Churches are parts of the Catholick, he also denies, because, ‘this were to overthrow a remarkable difference, p. 113. between the Oeconomy of the old Te­stament and the New, to parts & mem­bers of any Catholick Church, as that it should be constituted or made up of them, or by them, for the order and purpose of an instituted Church, for [Page 89] worship of God: he means, as the worship of God was National among the Jewes.’ Mr. Hud­son Vind. But (besides what others have said, to prove the Catholick Church, to be a Political Church, in a candid sense) I would say, the Ceremonial wor­ship only (or chiefly) was National; the moral worship was performed in several Congregations, or Synagogues, (wherein there were Rulers and ruled) and yet those might be called parts of the Jewish Church, as a Totum, or whole. And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholick (which is but the National Church enlarged) I yet see no reason. That all the members of the Ca­tholick Church should meet together, to hear one Sermon, to partake of one Sacra­ment, &c. as it was possible once, when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still, but that the multi­tude makes it impossible. That the parti­cular Congregations should joyn toge­ther, in the same specifical Ordinances, and have Officers over them alike, is certainly an institution of Jesus Christ, as well, as to make the same profession of Faith, and hope. Indeed, that, being so numerous, they should have one Officer over them all, and joyn to hear one Ser­mon, [Page 90] or receive the same Sacrament nume­rical, (as he speaks) is a ridiculous fancy; and not only false, but impossible. But I would gladly know a reason, See John 4.22, 23. why 40, or more, members of no particular Church, but only of the Catholick, mee­ting together, and having a Minister a­mong them, may not joyn together to worship God, in prayer preaching, and partaking of the Sacrament, as well as the members of several particular Churches, and himself among them, may do the same; as they do often at Lon­don and Oxford, when he preaches, un­lesse he will count those Ord [...]nances then and there administred no acts of institu­ted worship, And if he grant them to be worship, how can he deny that Assembly, to be a particular Church, though it be not fixed nor gathered and united, by a­ny explicite Covenant, or consent to live and dye together. I shall only note a­gain, that herein he deserts his friends in New England, Ubi supr. who say, ‘particular Churches, are parts of the universal as a Totum or Integrum.’ And none think otherwise, but they (to use his words) who have profit by the fable.

§ 2 What then is the specificative form of a particular Church? p. 114. ‘The formall reason [Page 91] constituting a particular Church, is, their joyning together, in the same numeri­cal Ordinances for Gods worship.’ It is true indeed, the Catholick Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specifi­cation form: For whether it be conside­red as a Genus or as a Totum, it cannot have the same form, with the Species, or parts. But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church; as well as a particular, from its form, may be called a particular Church. Why then is the Catholick called a Church Universal? ‘Because all Christians through the world, (excepting some individuals providential­ly excluded) do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word, the same Sa­craments administred in Specie, professe one common Faith, & Hope.’ The sum is the specificative form of the Catholick visi­ble Church (if it have any) is the professi­on of the same Faith and Hope of the Go­spel; whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments, admini­stred in Specie or no? And he needed not to have excepted any individualls providentially excluded from those Ordi­nances: for himself tells us an instance of a man, that never was partaker of [Page 92] those Ordinances, and ‘yet a subject of Christs visible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world, p. 139.’ And before that supposes, ‘A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Gospel, by the Scripture it self, and make profession of it, where he lives, though he be a thou­sand miles distant from any particular Church, wherein the Ordinances are ad­ministred, nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world. p. 137.’ If then a joyning together in the same numerical Ordinances, be the specificative form, of a particular Church, (of which more a­none) why may not the profession of the same Faith, and hope of the Gospel, be the specificative form of the Catholick Church. The truth is, the Church consi­dered in the threefold notion, with the threefold differences, is not distinguished into Species, or hath any such specificative forms; but is one and the same Church, considered in that threefold Notion, as the members may be considered, as 1. Believers. 2. As Professors. 3. As Partakers of the same numericall Or­dinances of worship, as is said above, and shall appear more hereafter.

§ 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be considered; which, we shall easily grant him, pag. 116. is not first the same with that of the Catholick invisible, because many are members of this, who are not true be­lievers. 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church, because many are of the Catholick, who never were of a par­ticular Church. 3. Nor yet, hath it its union, by a Relation to any one Officer, given to the whole, or a subordination of Officers, as Papists pretend: In all these we consent with him; and there­fore passe by the large discourse about them, as not concerned in it, It consists saies he, ‘In the profession of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, Eph. 4.5.’ p. 133. That all the members of the Catholick Church are united in this profession, is very true; but this is not all, they are bound to more than this, viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances, to subjection to the same Discipline; as also to Love to one another; and, where it is possible, to the celebrating together, of the same nu­merical worship. And in any of these, to make any differences, is a breach of that union, that ought to be among the mem­bers of the Catholick visible Church. Whereupon that is a strange assertion, or [Page 94] addition of his, pag. 117. ‘If there he not an insti­tution for joyning in the same Numerical Ordinances, the union of this Church, is not really a Church-union.’ For when Christ hath instituted, that every Church meeting together, and every member of of the Catholick Church, should exercise the same specifical Ordinances, is not this a Church union, or union of Churches? And let it then be considered, That if every member of the Church Catholick, may be a member of any, or every particu­lar Church, where providence may cast him, (being rightly qualified thereunto) having right first to the same specifical Or­dinances, as a member of the Catholick, and then to the same numerical Ordi­nances, where he comes and finds them, (as some of his own way do grant, and cannot well be denyed) then the denyal of such a person to joyn in those numerical Ordinances, is a breach of that union and love, which ought to be, be­tween the members of the Cath. Church, which whether it may be called a Schism or no, we shall examine hereafter; Sure we are, this is done continually, by some particular Churches, and members of the same.

§ 4 The properties of that profession, for [Page 95] the preservation of this Union he makes to be three, ‘ 1. p. 134. That all necessary truths of the Gospel, be believed and pro­fessed. 2. That no other principle of the mind, inconsistent with the real belief of those truths professed, be manifested by the professors; Those that are enemies of the Crosse of Christ, are not any members of his Church. 3. That no opinion error or false doctrine everting any necessary truth professed, be added and deliberately professed also.’ To which I have but this to say, 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel, and some professors there were, that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19. Yet these were members of th [...] Catholick Church. 2. Those whom the Apostle cal­led enemies of the Crosse of Christ, were Christians, and so members at least of the Catholick Church, if not of a particular. As the incestuous person, was a member of the Church of Corinth, till he was ejected. And it is a position of his own party. ‘A scandalous member tolerated, is a member to all Ordinances, for him­self, and his seed: wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees, may be seen, when he saies, p. 136. "Mens profession of the [Page 96] knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness, is not to be admitted as a thing giving any priviledge whatever.’ So that such a man is ipso facto unmem­bred, without excommunication; and if he be a wicked Minister, he is ipso facto unministred or degraded, and all his Ministerial acts are null: Adde to this what he saies p. 159. ‘Let those (that are prophane) profess what they will, and cry out a thousand times that they are Chri­stians, I shall never acknowledge them for others, than visible enemies of the crosse of Christ. Traytors and Rebels are not, de fa­cto, Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are so. They are not within the Church, any more than a Jew, or Ma­humetan within the same precincts.’ There are in a few lines, many mistakes; For 1. Though they be as bad as, or worse than Mahumetans, in regard of their spi­ritual estate, yet are they better in regard of Church estate; Does the wickedness of their lives, make their Baptism a meer nullity? then must they be rebap­tized, upon their conversion, as hea­thens are. 2. If they be no better than Heathens, then are their children to be denyed Baptism, and are very Infi­dels: yet a child of the prophanest Jew [Page 97] was circumcised, and had right to other priviledges. 3. ‘That is so far from truth, That Traytors and Rebels are not de facto Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are so, that they cannot pos­sibly be Traytors and Rebels to him, un­less they be his Subject.’ ‘As he said, A man cannot possibly be a Schismatick, unlesse he be a Church-member; either of a particular, or of the Catholick Church.’ 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators, drunkards, unruly walkers, brethren? 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thes. 3.17. But these three properties, are 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 Catholick Church, nor between the members thereof: as appears in his application of them.

§. 2 For granting for process sake, ‘That Schism is the breach of any union in­stituted by Christ; the enquiry is, p. 140. Whe­ther we be gu [...]lty of the breach of such an unity.’ And for the first of these the pro­fession of all necessary truths of the Go­spel, the Church of England in her do­ctrine, is as Orthodox as any Chuch un­der Heaven, consonant to the Scriptures, [Page 98] and Apostolicall Church; (till by Tolera­tion, some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies, and blasphemies, disowned by the Church) The Schism then charged upon us by Pa­pists, See p. 141 in this respect, ‘lieu at their own door, who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves, but cause others also so to do, and attempt to destroy all that will not joyn with them:’ Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries, and Hereticks among us, who are their Disciples, who agree with them, in ma­ny of their errors, and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith, of the Church of England. ‘As for the second; That in our lives, we do not manifest a principle, utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess;’ As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism, in this respect, whose lives generally are as abo­minable as their Doctrines: So I may ra­ther wish I could, See p. 148 than professe I can, ac­quit our Churches from the charge. §. 8 It cannot be denyed but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints, as they would be called, are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine, which we have so long enjoyed. And as for [Page 99] the last, ‘That we add not unto them, in opinion or worship, such things as are de­structive of them or render them insuf­ficient to be saving unto us.’ For our wor­ship, we may I hope, without offence, say, that it is in the publick Congregations, (whatever it is in private Conventicles) according to the simplicity of the Gospel, though perhaps, in some circumstances defective, wherein yet we are endeavou­ring a Reformation. §. 7 Thus far we are cleared, of breach of Unity, and so of Schism. But I have intimated, and partly proved, there may be a breach of Union, with respect to the Catholick Church, upon other considerations. As first, there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church, See pag. 205. § 7. to joyn together in exercising the same specifical Ordinan­ces of worship. When then any man shall refuse to joyn with others, or refuse others to joyn with him, in these Ordi­nances; here is a breach of Love and Union, among the members of the Ca­tholick Church; and in the particular Churches, as parts of the Catholick. And what thinks he of those Churches, who deny Baptism, to Infants altogether? or those that deny Baptism to the chil­dren [Page 100] of godly Parents, not of their own confederate Church? and the Lords Sup­per to the Parents of such Children? The Anabaptists do the one, contrary to the 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. ‘He that will upon that account, undertake to prove them Schismaticall, may find himself to be entangled.’ Of which more here­after.

§. 8 That this Catholick Church is visible, he grants, which others of his friends have denyed. p. 146. That it is an Organical political body, in a right sense, is largely and learnedly proved by others, Mr. Huds. (though he denies it) to them I refer it. One thing I cannot but take notice of, he sayes, ‘It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head; for if as a visi­ble politicall body, it hath a politicall Head, that Head also must be visible.’ [Page 101] But 1. What necessity is there, the Head must be visible? p. 148. seeing he con­fesses, the Common-wealth of the Jewes was a Politicall Body, and God (who is invisible) was their Political Head. 2. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, is a visible Head, yea sometimes more, visus, seen of men, while on earth, though now for a time, in Majesty (as some great Prin­ces do) he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of Angels, and Saints in Heaven. But that, by the by.

CHAP. VI. Independentism is Donatism.

§. 1 VVHat he sayes, for many leaves together, for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism, in their just separation from Rome as the Catholicke Church, I cannot but acknowledge to be rationall, solid, and judicious. Onely I am not satisfied, with his assertion, ‘That he not onely denyes the Church of Rome (so called) to be a particular Church, p. 154. but also affirmes it, to be no Church at all; page 156.’ Wherein he hath deserted most of our Divines; as we shall shew hereafter; our cause being defensible without this Plea. But I am farre more unsatisfied, that he undertakes the cau [...]e of the Donatists, and labours to exempt them from Schism, though he allows them guiltie of other Crimes, and Mis­carriages. The grounds of this under­taking, I suppose to be, 1. His singular notion of Schism, limiting it onely to differences, in a particular Assembly; 2. His jealousie of the charge of Schism, to be objected to himselfe, and partie; [Page 103] if separating from the true Churches of Christ, be truely called Schism. For the ventilating whereof, I suppose, we may, without flattery or falshood, p. 163. grant him his request (in respect to our selves, not to Rome) that is ‘put the whole Protestant Church of God, into that condition of Libertie, and soundnesse of doctrine; which it was in, when that uprore was made by the Donatists.’ Cer­tainely, most of the Protestant Churches (our own among them) have as much Libertie, 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 onely troubled with Heresies, as we all are, but pestered with mul [...]i­tude of Ceremonies, from which wee are freed). And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism, into consideration. The objection raised by himselfe, is this. p. 162. ‘Doth not Austine and the rest of his contemporaries, charge the Donatists with Schism, because they departed from the Catholicke Church? and doth not the charge rise up w [...]th e­quall efficacie against you as them? At least, doth it not g [...]ve you the nature of Schism, in another sense, than is by you [Page 104] granted?’ This objection, concernes not us, the generality of Protestants, who grant that sense of Schism▪ ‘that it is a breach [...]f union, or a causelesse se­paration from the true Churches of Christ:’ but it lyes in full force against him and his partie, who [...]ave broken the union of our Churches, and separated themselvs 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 himselfe 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 erre long.

p. 194.That his designe is, to vindicate him­selfe and his partie, as well as the Dona­tists, from charge of Schism, is evident by what h [...] sayes, ‘I shall cleerly deli­ver my thoughts concerning the Dona­tists wh [...]ch will be comprehensive also of those other, that suffer with them in [Page 105] former, and after ages, under the same imputation.’ It will therefore be neces­sary, or very expedient, to consider, how neer their case comes to be paral­lell, with that of the Donatists, both for matter, and manner, of mannaging it; and then, how he will free them and himselfe from Schism. ‘For the first; The Donatists having raised causlesse dif­ferences in the Church, about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores, (which, whether it were true or false was no just, ground of casting him out of Communion, §. 17) made that the ground of their sepa­ration; how ever they took in other things (as is usual) into their defence afterwards §. 16.’ The principles they first fell up­on, were those two, long since named. ‘ 1. That they were the onely Church of Christ, in a corner of Afr [...]ca. 2. That none were truely bapt [...]sed, or entered members of the Church of Christ, but by some of their partie.’ 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 exemplifie, by drawing up the parallel; he that runnes may read it, in their books and practice. I wonder [Page 106] not; that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome; for he hath done as much to England, and all forraine Protestant Churches; and makes none to be mem­bers of the Church, but such as are by covenant and consent, joyned to some of their Congregations.

§. 3 Secondly, for the manner of man­nagement of their way, the parallel runnes but too smooth and even. 1. He sayes of the Donatists; ‘That upon supposition they had just cause to re­nounce the Communion of Cecilianus, yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage, p. 165. where were ma­ny Elders, not obnoxious to that charge.’ The parallel comes home to him thus. ‘Upon supposition, or grant, that the Church of England, and himselfe, had just cause to renounce the Pope, and Church of Rome; yet had he and his par­tie, no ground to separate from the Church of England, where there were many Elders, and people, not obnoxious, to that charge of Apostacie, upon the Church of Rome, 2. Leaving the in­stance given, to avoid prolixitie; I shall onely apply, what he sayes of the Dona­tists; Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with [Page 107] our late Hierarchicall Church, yet no­thing but the height of pride, madnesse, and corrupt fleshly interest, could make men declare hostilitie against all the Protestant Churches of Christ, in the world; which was to regulate all the Churches in the world, by their own fan­cie and imagination.’ 3. This line is also parallel. ‘Though men of such pride and folly, might judge all the residue of Christians, to be faultie and guiltie in not separating from our Churches, yet to proceed to cast them out, from the very name of Church members, and so disan­null their priviledgts, and ordinances, they had been partakers of, (as mani­festly some doe, by rebaptizing all that enter into their communion; and others by denying both Sacraments, to some; baptism to Children of parents, and Lords Supper to parents themselves, not in their Church way) is such unparallel'd pha­risaism, and tyrannie, as is wholly to be condemned, and intolerable.’ 4. Once more, and I have done; the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation, are too much parallel. ‘The divisions, outrages, and enthusiasticall furies, (in the Levellers and such like) and riots (in the Ranters and Quakers) that have be­fallen [Page 108] some of them, Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami. Mr. Raie. Gem. pleb. or they fell into, (be­ginning at Independentism) were and are, in many pious and wisemens judg­ment, tokens of the hand of God against them, to w [...]tnesse that their undertaking and enterprize, was utterly undue, and unlawfull. pag. 19.’ I wish they may pa­tiently consider all this.

§. 4 Thirdly we expected to heare, how he would free them, and himselfe (so neere agreeing with them), from the charge of Schism, in their separation from the true Churches of Christ. Hee cannot but acknowledg them to be faultie, many wayes, but not guiltie of Sch [...]sm; If he would acknowledge as much of his own way; I should use his own words, ‘Let the breach of union (in the Churches) be accounted (if you please) Schism, or a crime; for being an evill, I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguish [...]d, p. 81.’ But he waves the question whether that separa­tion of the Donatists, from all other Churches, might be called a Schism, and takes it for granted, they and him­selfe, are free from that charge; for so he sayes. p. 167. ‘How little we are, at this day, in any contests that are mannaged a­mongst [Page 109] us, concerned in those differences of theirs, those few considerations afore, will evince.’ 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 truely Catholick Church, we from the Idolatrous, cor­rupt, particular Church of Rome, falsely called Catholicke. But it concernes him and his partie neerely, in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches, agreeing (as they doe) in the principles and practices of the Donatists. The question then is unresolved, whe­ther their and his separation may justly be called Schism. All he sayes is this? ‘ We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism, for the relinquishment of the Catholike Church; p. 168. which as we have not done, so to do, is not Schism, but a sinne of another nature and impor­tance. The ground he goes upon, why separation from a true Church, is no Schism, is that afore: "That Schism, in the Scripture notion, is onely a division of judgment, in a particular Assembly, not a separation from any Church: which if it were true, (as it is proved false above) as it would free Protestants [Page 110] from that charge by Papists, with ease; so it will acquit himselfe, and all Secta­ries in the world, from the crime of Schism; That the principle, and princi­pall plea of Romanists, "that they are the Catholick Church, out of whose com­munion there is no salvation, (as the Donatists was of old, was and in Schis­maticall) was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and moderne Di­vines.’ And if it be true, which his par­tie assent to, that their Churches are onely rightly constituted; and other Churches and Ministers are false, or none; (as they do also assert) they are equally guil­tie of that Schismaticall principle, ‘That they are the only (not Catholick) parti­cular Churches, out of whose Communi­on, there is (ordinarily) no Salvation.’ This very principle, in the Donatists first, and then in the Romanists, hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time, and of the troubles that have issued thence (and to make differences in a Church, and trou­b [...]es & thereupon to separate, is acknow­ledged, or proved to be Schism); then the raising of the like differences, and persisting to maintaine them, upon the very same principle, (as the onely true [Page 111] Churches) how it can be exempted from Schism, I am to learn.

§. 5 That I was not mistaken, in the ground he goes upon, to free the Dona­tists of old, and Protestants, together with himselfe, from the charge of Schism, was, his own notion and defini­tion of Schism; will now appeare, in his own answer to the Romanists argu­ment; which he rather insists upon, than upon the solutions of our learned Di­vines page 192. ‘He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture pre­cisely, that is, for divisions onely in a particular Church;’ pag. 193. And thereupon de­nyes, 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholike invisible Church; or, if there could, it would be madnesse to call it Schism. 2. nor from the Catho­like visible, because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith, is not Schism, but Apo­stacie.) 3. nor from a particular Church; for that is not properly Schism; for so he sayes, 1. ‘I deny that separation from a particular Church, as such, as meerly seperation, is Schism, or ought to be so esteemed, though perhaps such sepe­ration may proceed from Schism, and at­tended [Page 112] with other evils: But this mistakes the question, for the Roma­nists themselves do not mean, that eve­ry separation from any Church, is Schism, as such; but a causelesse separation from the true Cathol [...]ke Church: which they suppose themselves to bee.’ 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 iust cau [...]es of se­paration from her ‘which plea (sayes he) will not be shaken to eternitie.’ 2. Hee affirmes ‘that separation however, upon just cause, p. 194. from any Church, is no Schism.’ This, (as it is the same with the former, in [...]ense, so) is by none denyed; ‘This is granted by all persons; Schism is cause­lesse, say all men however concerned sepa­ration upon a just cause is a dutie, and therefore cannot be Schism, which is al­wayes a sinne.’ Hence it appeares, that hee needlessely denyes their Major pro­position, being rightly understood, in their sense, who propounded it. And our Divines did better to deny the Mi­nor: We have neither voluntarily, nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome. But his answer, is another thing. ‘Separation in the sense contended about, p. 194. [Page 113] must be from some state and condition of Christs institution, pag. 195 a Church of his ap­pointment, otherwise it will not be plead­ed that it is Schism, at least not in a Gos­pel sense.’ The Summe is this, ‘Schism is a separation from a Church of Christs institution; but our separation from Rome, is not from a Church of Christs in­stitution: therefore it is no Schism:’ And though it be true, that the natio­nall, Hierarchicall Church of Rome, the papall, and patriarchall Church, be not a Church of Christs institution, yet the bottome of his argument lyes here, That Schism in the Scripture notion, is onely found, in a particular Church: which must serve him for more uses than one, as we shall heare anon. And thence he inferres, that separation either of one Church from another, or of persons from a Church, upon any occasion, true or false, what ever it be, it is no Schism; which is spoken to, above, and will come againe.

§. 6 But that there may be Schism, be­sides that in a particular Church, I prove by a double argument, ex confessis. ‘ 1. Schism is a breach of union; But there may be a breach of union in the Ca­tholick [Page 114] visible Church; 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith, professed, (wherein the union of the Ca­tholick Church consists) there may be a breach of union, but there may be diffe­rences in the Catholick, or among the members of the Catholick Church, in matters of Faith professed, ergo:’ I suppose his answer will be; ‘That the forsaking of it's communion, which consists in the profession of faith, is not Schism but A­postacie, p. 193. s. 52.’ But that is not alwayes so; for both there may be differences in the faith, and yet no Apostacie; or if there be Apostacie, it may be a Schism, also: Apostates com­monly make differences amongst profes­sors, before they totally depart. He must be remembred of what he said, p. 161. §. 12. ‘The breach of this union (in the Catholick Church) and therein the relinquishment of, the commu­nion of the Church, lies in re­linquishment of, or some opposition to, some or all of the saving necessary truths of the Gospel. Now this is not Schism, but Heresie or Apostacie:’ That must, be thus: If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospell, it is Aposta­cie. If of some onely (and they funda­tally maintained with obstinacie) its He­resie: [Page 115] but if it be of some truths onely, (of lesser or greater concernment) about which, differences are by some raised, a­mongst the members of this Church Ca­tholick, it may, by his own principles, be called Schism. His evasions, will be one of these two, 1. That he did condiscend, to gratifie his Adversaries, that Schism, is a breach of union, but that he denyes to be the Scripture notion of Schism; 2. That upon the same ac­count, he denyes differences to be Schism any where, but in a particular Assembly. Wherein he is singular and alone: and is sufficiently disproved above.

§. 7 But fearing, belike, that in his so an­swering, some of ours, would be readie to take up those words spoken to our Saviour, upon another occasion, ‘Ma­ster, in so saying thou puttest us to rebuke also; "He starts an objection, pag. 196. from the consequence of it utterly unchurch­ing Rome, thus "Whether the devesting of the Synagogue of Rome, of the priviledges of a Church, in any sense, arise not to the denyall of that Ministry, at this day in England.’ To which, before we take his answer, I would say, 1. That most of our pious learned Divines, have hither­to not denyed, but that Rome was a Church, in some sense; not a true, but [Page 116] a corrupt Church, as having some privi­ledges, or rather some remainders of a Church; See D. Hall Apol. a­gainst Brownists Sect. 23. as the same Articles of Faith, baptism, and a kind of Ministry, &c. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true, though some­times, coming thorough their foule hands, with many superadditions to the institution of Christ. Others perhaps would say, we had it not from Rome; there were other Bishops in England, be­fore Austin came hither, from whom we might receive our Ordination successive­ly. But heare his kind answer. ‘If any man hath nothing to plead for his Ministry, but meerely that successive Ordination, which he hath received through the Church of Rome, I cannot see a stable bottome of owning him so to be.’ But (not yet to regest to him, his successive Baptism, which he received through the Church of Rome) this would go neere to annull the Mini­stry, of those Martyr-Bishops, and Mini­sters, our first Reformers, who at first, had nothing to plead, but their succes­sive ordination, from Rome, and acted upon it accordingly; He cannot gratifie Rome better, than to asperse the Mini­stry of England; it is the Jesuiticall busi­ness, in all the present Sectaries. They look [Page 117] upon himself, & his partie, (who have ei­ther none, or have renounced their ordina­tion) as no Ministers at all: If we be none also, then have wee (as they slander us) no Church at all. God help the poore de­spised Ministers of England. The Roma­nists say, we are no Ministers, because we have not our Ordination from Rome, The Sectarists say, we are no Ministers, because we have our Ordination from Rome, which shall wee believe? Nei­ther, for we have it from Jesus Christ, by whose hands soever we had it. But, as a little blushing at this hard saying, p. 196. he will mollifie it a little. ‘I do not say, if he will plead nothing else, but if he hath nothing else to plead. He may have that which will constitute him a Minister, though he will not own, that so it doth.’ What ever else we plead, unlesse we will renounce our Ordination, it will not please them. That by Bishops, is by them pleaded null, or Antichristian; and that by the people, (which he intends) we think is nothing, and cannot own it, as a ground of our Ministry, though perhaps, we have their call, as well as himselfe. We may have (as many of us have) our call, and electi­on to be their Ministers, from the peo­ple; but our Ordination we shall justifie [Page 118] to be from Christ, p. 197. and not from the peo­ple. But hear more, ‘Nor is it said, that any have their Ministry from Rome as though the office which is an Ordi­nance of Christ, was instituted by Anti­christ; but the question is, whether this be a sufficient foundation of any mans in­interest, in the office of the Ministry, that he hath received Ordination, in a succession, through the Administration of, not the woman flying into the Wilder­nesse, not of the two witnesses, not from them, whom we succeed in Doctrine, as the Waldenses, [...]ut the Beast it selfe.’ Does he not by this, cast dirt in the face of our Ministry, as all our good friends, the Sectaries, doe? I have much adoe to forbeare, saying; ('The Lord rebuke thee). But I answer; 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry, Either he must go for­ward to A­n [...]baptism, (as many have done) or come back to us; as was said to the Brownists, by Dr. Hall Apol. Sect. 11. as for our Baptism, which was never questioned hitherto, but by our late Independent Anabaptists, upon ano­ther ground. 2. Had we received our Ordination, from the woman flying into the Wildernesse, or from the two wit­nesses, or the Waldenses, all had been one to him and his partie. For they had not their Ordination from the people, (except some extraordinary cases) but from a presbytery, according to the Insti­tution [Page 119] of Christ. And yet, for­sooth, ‘he will not plead this at large, professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Antichristi­an, who yet adhaere to this Ordination, being many of them eminently guifted of God, and submitted to by his people, &c.’ Egregiam verò laudem! While he se­cretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist, the Beast, &c: that yet adhere to that Ordination, if they have nothing else to plead. As for their eminent guifts, as they do not plead that as suff [...]cient for their interests in the office, without Ordination, so many of his and our brethren have those guifts, whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers, though he do. And as for the submission of the people to us, we had that ever, if not explicitely, (as often) yet implicitely, (which some Indepen­dents allow, as sufficient to make us true Ministers, and true Churches) though we do not own Ordination, as from that submission of our people, but from Je­sus Christ. Even from such also they separate.

§. 8 But some aske; ‘Why not Ordination from Rome, as well as the Scripture?’ which question I like not; p. 198. but should [Page 120] rather after, (why not ordination, as well as baptism): All our fore Fathers doubtlesse 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. Onely since, we have taken away those hu­mane Additions, which they had sinful­ly introduced into the Ordinances of Christ. The Scriptures are not the In­heritance of Rome, but Priviledges for all the people of God, where ever they find them; and therefore we deny we received them from Rome; any more than the Jews received the Golden ves­sells from Babylon, because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus. ‘ Its false then, that Ordination is pleaded from the Au­thority of the Church of Rome, p. 199. as such.’ Nor doth the granting true Ordination (as also true baptism) to the Church of Rome, prove that it is a true Church. This he sayes, ‘he understands not; They who ordained, had no power so to [Page 121] do, but as they were officers of that Church; as such they did it; and if o­thers had ordained, who were not offi­cers of that Church, all will confesse, that action to be null.’ Do but change the scene to baptism; and heare 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 denyed, See Apol. against Brown. Sect. 27. or he must deny his bap­tism; They did it as Officers, not as Of­ficers of that Church, that Papall Anti­christian Hierarchy; And if others had baptised (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 rationall man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null. This is ‘ no such dark passage, that the Doctour cannot see one step before him, unlesse his new light hath dazled his eyes, that he cannot see Wood for Trees, which before he fell into this way, he saw so many learned and pious men walk in, before him.’ For our parts, See p. 199 But they who will not be content­ed, &c. we pro­fesse, that in his way ‘ of personall qua­lifications, and acceptation of the people, to make a man, without Ordination, a Minister, the passages in Scripture or [Page 122] Church stories, are so darke, that wee cannot see one step before us. But this hath sufficiently by others been dis­cussed.’

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

§. 1 VVE are now come to the last Acception of a Church, as it frequently signifies a particular Church: p. 202. 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 Hierusalem, 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. ‘It is a Societie of men called by the word, to the obedience of the Faith in Christ, and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individuall Ordiances; according to the order by Christ prescri­bed. [Page 123] In this definition, there are some things to be considered.’

1. The definition of a particular Church, by him given, will be applica­ble, and is by himselfe or others of his side applyed to the three severall notions of a Church; or the Church in those seve­rall notions. 1. To the Catholick invisible Church, ‘It is a Societie of men called out of the World, D. Ames The Church (in gene­rall) is a societie of men called out of the world. p. 64 s. 2. by the Word to the obedience of the faith in Christ and joynt performance of the worship of God in the same Individu­all Ordinances, according to the order by Christ prescribed.’ This is all of it, true of the invisible Church, they are call­ed (which will be the onely exception) to the joynt performance of the worship of God, in the same (specificall, and, where its possible) individuall Ordi­nances. And all the members thereof (ordinarily) being of some particular Church, its both possible and necessary, to joyne in that performance. 2. The same may be said of the Catholick visible Church; ‘It is a Societie of men, called out of the World by the Word, &c:’ So himselfe describes it, ‘It is a collection of all that are duely called Christians, in respect of their profession; p. 113. and [Page 124] before that, p. 112.’ ‘All Professors of the Gospell, throughout the World, called to the knowledge of Christ, by the Word, do make up, and constitute his visible Kingdome, by their professed subjection to him: which subjection hath reference to the commands of Christ, to worship him, in the same specificall Ordinances, indefinitely, and in the same Individu­alls; where they are administred.’ And the members of this Church, living (or­dinarily) in some particular Church, its possible and necessary for them also, to joyne 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, sicknesse, or otherwise; that it is not possible for them to joyne in that worship. 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church, we also grant, as understood afore: 4. But we shall adde, by way of improve­ment, that such societies, are all our par­ticular Congregations: ‘ Societies of men, called out of the world, by the word, &c: holding parallel in every particular, with his definition: and why we should not be esteemed and called Churches, as well as theirs, I am to learne the reason.’ [Page 125] What exception may be made, we shall heare an one.

§. 2 2. The Order prescribed by Christ, is not that all Christians must be of the same Individuall particular congregati­on, but of this or that, as is most conve­nient for them, by their habitations. Supposing severall meetings or Congre­gations in Jerusalem, one of Paul, ano­ther of Apollo, &c: no man was obli­ged by any order from Christ, to be of Pauls Congregation, or of anothers, so he joyned himselfe to one, for the parti­cipation of the same Ordinances. And when a Christian did joyne himselfe to this or that Congregation, he did not explicitely enter into a Covenant, Every belie- is obliged to joyne him­selfe to some one of those Chur­ches, that therein he may abide in doctrine and fellow­ship, and breaking of bread, and prayer. p. 206. to live and dye in this Congregation, but thought himselfe bound to be of one, by the obligation of his membership in the Catholike Church; with a libertie reserv­ed, to remove to another, if he saw just reason; as our Authour will confesse a­none. Whence it is evident, that from the beginning of Christianity, there was no such explicite covenanting, or (as some speake) marrying of the Minister and people, or of people one to another, that they might not depart without leave: but [Page 126] as they had a libertie at first, to settle in such a congregation; so also to remove their habitations, and to settle in ano­ther: not to goe many miles to partake of the Ordinances, which seemes un­suitable to the first plantation of Chur­ches, and the mutuall duties of people of one congregation: But of that else­where. And though the Reverend Mi­nisters of London doe grant, pag. 203. ‘That in the beginning of Christianitie, the num­ber of believers were so few in great Ci­ties, as that they might all meet in one place, yet they did not imagine, that when they at Jerusalem, were multiply­ed into many thousands, or myriads, they could so do.’ And if they met in seve­rall places; (as they must) they had also severall Elders, to administer the Ordi­nances to them, and yet are called sin­gularly, one Church. Adde to this that at Ephesus (Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove, there was but one particular Church there) the text sayes expressely, there were (many) Elders there. v. 25. you all. ‘ He sent to Ephe [...]us, for the Elders of the Church, which e [...]idences cleerely, that there wer [...] more Congregations then one, in Ephesus: for how could many Elders, officiate in one Congrega­tion.’ [Page 127] This alone, (if nothing else could be said) affords more, for a Pres­byteriall Church, than all the New Testa­ment does for an Independent Church ga­thered, I know not how, out of many Churches. But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I.

§. 3 To the consideration of the unitie of this Church, and the breach of it, hee premises some things: p. 205. ‘ 1. A man may be a member of the Catholick invisible Church. 2. Of the Catholick visible Church, and yet by some providentiall hinderance, be never joyned to a particu­lar Church, which I grant as true, but onely note two things to be satisfied in;’ 1. How he can reconcile this, with what he said afore, p. 133. Sect. 26. ‘The members of the Catholick visible Church, are initiated into that professsion of faith, by baptism.’ But Baptism (according to his principles) is an Ordinance of wor­ship onely to be enjoyed in a particular Church; unlesse he will grant (what yet he does deny, but will be forced to grant) that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church, even to the Catholike Church; and may administer baptism out of a particular Church, as [Page 128] Philip did to the Eunuch, and Paul to the Jaylor; or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship; let him take his choice. 2. I note also, how he is at distance, with some of his friends, in New England, Mr. Hoo­ker's sur­vey See, my Review page 119. who assert, ‘That no man can be a member of the Catholike Church, but he must first be a member of a particular. But 3. he grants; Every beleiver is obliged to joyne himself to some one of those Churches, that there he may abide, in doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayer; &c: if he have opportunitie.’ This he wil­lingly grants, and I as willingly accept, for an use I shall make of it anone, but I like not so well his reasons. p. 206 1. ‘There are some duties with cannot possibly be performed, but on a supposition, of this dutie previously required, Math. 18.15. &c:’ If he had said, those duties can­not so well be performed, its true; but some of them are due to others, beside our own Congregation: But I shall make this advantage of it; That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed, then some of their Church-members, are ill gathered, living many miles asunder. Cohabitation in Townes and Parishes, seemes a necessary requisite, to Church-membership. [Page 129] 2. ‘There are some Ordi­nances of Christ, which they can never be made partakers of, not related to some such Society; as Admonition, partici­pation of the Lords Supper, &c.’ As for Admonition, it is a duty that concerns every man, to any man, though not of his particular Church, though specially to them of their own society; And as for partaking of the Lords Supper, why may he not enjoy it in another Church, as well as Baptism; which he allowed be­fore, to one of the Catholick Church? If Christians, professing the same Faith, were looked on as Brethren, and as ha­ving thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ, in any Church where they come, they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joyned to a parti­cular Church. But this ingrossing the common Ordinances, to a few confederate persons, and making the rest little bet­ter than Heathens, as to their Communi­on, violates the Order of the Gospel, and the Rule of charity, and may justly be called Schism.

§. 4 His third reason, I like yet worse, ‘That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship, meerely and purely of soveraign institution, but only to them, [Page 130] and by them, who are so joyned.’ But then I would ask, 1. Whether Philip Bapti­zing the Eunuch, in the way, had Christs direction for it, or no? or, is Baptism no part of worship? 2. Prayer, and reading of the Word in private families, are they no duties of worship? 3. Preaching to convert Heathens, (and then to baptize them) is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister? Rom. 10.14. 4 Let me be so bold, as to ask once more; By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament, or at St. Maries in Oxford, with a mixt unjoyned congregation, &c? Or are not these there and at that time, parts of worship of Christs Institution? I hope he will not say so. 4. For his fourth reason he gives this, ‘The Apostles in planting of Chur­ches, took care to leave none whom they converted, out of that Order, where it was possible, &c.’ But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch, the De­puty, Acts 13. &c. Unless where there were enow converted to make a Church. But he laying so much stress upon a par­ticular Church, and the necessity of joy­ning with it, it seems reasonable, there should be some directions to enjoyn every single convert (impossibilities only excep­ted) [Page 131] leaving all inconveniences at least, to joyn himself to some particular Church, rather than not to partake of the Ordi­nances all his daies, as he said afore. For the 5. ‘Christs institution of Officers for them, &c.’ that is, for particular Churches onely, if it speak reason, is as weak as the rest; For its evident, 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first, for the whole Church, as the Apostles, &c. Eph. 4.11. 2 All those Officers ordinary, as Pastors or Teachers, are set in the Catho­lick Church, and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholick Church; if he deny this, he knows where to find a lear­ned Antagonist. The last reason (as all the rest) is fallacious, or inconsequent, Christ took care for particular Churches, therefore the Ordinances, are no where to be had by any man, but in his own particular Congregation.

§. 6 That there is an instituted worship of God, to be continued under the New Te­stament, p. 207. to which humane prudence may add nothing, is a certain truth, de­nyed by none, but fanatical spirits. And as for the institution of particular Chur­ches, by express words of Scripture, it is no where visible, but by a fair and neces­sary consequence; That which is of Insti­tution [Page 132] was, that Gods people should serve and worship him severally and joyntly, in such and such Ordinances of worship; and consequently by a necessity of nature, there must be a place for people to meet together in, or more, as their number is; God institutes publick prayer, preaching, Sacraments, therefore there must be soci­eties, to perform this worship. 1. Because of the multitude of Christians, which can neither meet all in one place, nor exer­cise those acts of worship in too great a company. 2. For the better obligation of all professors, as, to the exercise of all acts of publick worship, (which some, if left free to joyn with all, or any, would utterly neglect); so of all those private duties, required of fellow members, which cannot well be performed (as was said) by persons not conbined. But the circum­stances of those societies, how many, how great, what persons shall associate, is left to humane prudence, with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture, that all be done decently, in order, and to edification. And that those that are so joyned, are so confined, that they cannot, or may not worship God in the same Ordinances, oc­casionally in other Churches, let him that can, shew the Institution; for I know [Page 133] none: yet this is the chief piece of Inde­pendency; never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party. Our Author grants, that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases, and remove at pleasure; And the light of common prudence, (upon supposition that there must be such societies) seems to to dictate, that when all of a Nation are Christians, there should be a distinction o Churches, or, as we call them Parishes, made by the bounds of mens habitations; so that the divisions be discreetly made, that the Congregations be neither too big, nor too litle, and that the parties of each Society, may dwell so near toge­ther, that they may be fitter to perform the services of God in publick, decently and in order, to edification: and also those mutual private duties, of brotherly in­spection, Admonition, &c. required by Christ, Matth. 18.15. 1 Thessal. 5.14. &c.

§. 7 And this, he in a manner confesses, ‘That there is in the Institutions of Christ, p. 209. much that answers a naturall principle in men, who are fitted for socie­ty; A confederation and consultation, to carry on any design of common concern­ment, &c.’ I suppose he may intend [Page 134] this, of Synods, carryed on by Delegates from several Churches; which is suta­ble to that prudence we see in States, as­sembling in Parliament &c. But I shall improve this further. As the light of na­ture taught men to unite themselves, in Towns and Cities, for their better security, and mutual assistance, and comfort: So the same prudence taught the Ancients, to distinguish Cities into Parishes, for their better Assembling (some else would be of no Church, as pretending to be of all, or any, as we see at this day) for carry­ing on the services of God, in a better, and more profitable Order; and for those private duties afore spoken of. Nor does any man rationally hence conclude, ‘That there is no more but this, in this Church constitution, that men may be cast into any prudential form, &c.’ For the way of worship, is peculiarly in­stituted; but the way of constituting par­ticular Churches, for persons, for number, &c. needs no institution, but is left to the prudence of men, or Churches, as afore.

§. 8 ‘Whether by any promise of Christ, there shall be alwaies somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances, p. 211. he told us above, was a needless enquiry, p. 85.’ [Page 135] yet both there, and here enclines to the Negative, that all such Church state may cease, for some time, and hereafter talks of ‘an intercision of all Ordinances, so far as to make a nullitie in them, as to what was of simple and pure institution, p. 271,’ In this p [...]ace, he glosses some Scriptures, (alledged of others, as meant of the Ca­tholick visible Church) to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ, in true believers. Luke 1.33. Math. 16.18. Of the sense of which place, I shall not now contest with him: For the thing it self, something shall be said, in answe­ring those questions which here he pro­pounds. 1. ‘It is said, true Churches, were at first planted in England, how then did they cease to be? How, or by what Act did God unchurch them? They did it themselves meritoriously, by Apostacy and Idolatry, God legally by his Instituti­on of a Law of rejection of such Churches.’ But first if Idolatry and grievous Aposta­cy will merit an actual unchurching, not only the Israelites, but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched. And if Apostacy in a great measure will unchurch a people, England hath of late years Apostatiz'd suffici­ently from our Ancient truths. 2. Where [Page 136] hath God instituted such a Law, to reject a Church, presently, so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical? Rome had not then been standing at this day. 3. It is a question, whether God ever absolutely, unchurches a people, till he utterly de­stroys them: as he did the Israelites of old, and the whole Jewish Church, after Christs death: and the seven famous Churches of Asia since. 4. As also, it would be resolved, when God did un­church England, (which he insinuates as granted) Whether whilst it was Popish & Antichristian, or since the Reformati­on? 5. Let him resolve us, whether our first Reformers did intend, or undertake to raise up a new Church, or to repair the old corrupted state thereof (as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity, did not build a new Temple, but repair and purge the old.) 6. Whether at the Refor­mation in K. Edw. & Q. Eliz. days, there were not true Churches planted in Eng­land? & then how they came to cease to be, seeing they were rather perfected since, than corrupted? 7. Lastly, Whether our Reverend Author, do not in his conscience think, ‘There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers, the An [...]baptists, their elder Brothers, and [Page 137] themselves arose and gathered new Chur­ches, not out of true Churches, but out of Babylon, as their Predecessors used to speak: which he yet seems to insinuate when he saies, "The Catholick mystical, p. 212. and that visibly professing being preserved entire, he that thinketh there needs a mi­racle for those who are members of them, to joyn in such a Society, as those spoken of, according to the Institution of Christ, is a person delighting in needless scruples.’ As if he should say, There was no Church of Christs Institution in England, till they or their Predecessors arose, and gathered such Societies; and when all Church State was here lost, they had the happy­nesse and honour to revive it. Macte virtute.

§. 9 2. Those last words of his, were the an­swer to his 2d. question; ‘How then is it possible, that any such Church should be raised anew?’ To which he gives that answer, ‘I say the Catholick Church my­stical, &c.’ And to make it good, he proceeds further to say, ‘Christ hath promised, That where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them.’ But I pray to whom was this promise made? was it not to his Officers, the Apostles, in their consultati­ons, [Page 138] 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? ‘It is now supposed, with some hope to have it granted, that the Scripture being the power of God to salvation, hath a suffici­ent efficacy in it self, for the conversion of Souls.’ 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: ‘It is not impossible that though all Church state should cease in any place, and yet the Scripture by the providence of God, be there in the hand of individuals, two or three should be called, converted and rege­nerated by it.’ This also may be suppo­sed, though I believe he cannot exempli­fie 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 [Page 139] are converted by the Scriptures alone: What then? p. 213. He asks ‘whether these converted persons, may not possibly come together in the name of Jesus.’ 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? See Con­fess. of 7. Anabap. Churches Art. 34. A Church is a company of baptized persons. 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; ‘May they not upon his command, and in expectation of his promise, so come together, with reso­lution to do his will, and exhort one ano­ther thereto?’ Truly (to use his own words) I believe they may, in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen; Where then lyes the difficulty? ‘In this, whether being come together in the name of Christ, they may do what he hath com­manded them or no? whether they may exhort and stir up one another, to do the will of Christ?’ 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, ‘How these persons can come to be a Church, before they are baptized, and how they can be baptized without a Minister?’ Were not men [Page 140] prejudiced, or prepossessed, with some Anabaptistical fancy, So were the Indians Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 15. 16. con­verted by lay-men, as called. 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 looke 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) chuse 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 [Page 141] 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 bottome of the Seekers, now turn'd into Quakers, ‘All Church state it lost, and no recovery of it without new Revelation; and so they fancy the Spirit to be given to them, to begin a new Church.’ And in our bre­threns 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; See Con­fess. of 7. Churches Art. 41. The person dispencing Baptism, is a disciple, not tyed to a Church Officer. 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 [Page 142] 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 carryed away captive to Babylon, with all her Priests and Le­vites, and all the materialls 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, ‘How then it was possible to revive that lost Church-state without a miracle?’ 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: [Page] So, when Antichrist had usurped tyran­nically (like another Nebuchadnezer) 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 substanti­alls, and necessary ingredients to a Church, a Ministry, and baptism, &c. that when he stirred up the heart of Lu­ther, and other Ministers (like another Zerubbabel) and some people to sepa­rate themselves from the Romish tyrannie and corruptions in doctrine and worship, they needed no miracle to beginne a new Church; but some being ministers of the Gospell, so made in their Ordina­tion, and all being baptized, they did not raise a new Church; but onely purg­ed the old.

§. 11 We are come now to consider, with him, ‘What is the Union and Communi­on of a particular Church, pag. 214. that so we may know wherein the bonds thereof do consist.’ And instead of telling us what this union is, he tells us, what is the foun­dation of that union; which he makes to be double; ‘The one externall, pro­curing [Page 144] command ng, viz the Instituti­on of Jesus Christ, before mentioned, requiring peace, order, union, consent and agreement, among all the members of it, &c:’ But I think that all this is the foundation of the union, both of the in­visible, and visible, Catholick Church; All the members of them, (as well as of the particular) are under those com­mands requiring peace, order, &c: for their walking in such societies, when and where they can associate: and where is then the difference of this Church, from the other? 2. ‘The inter­nall foundation of this union, is that Love without dissimulation, which all­wayes is, or ought to be, betweene all the members of such a Church, exerting it selfe, in their respective▪ duties, &c.’ But this also, is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches; Love without d [...]ssimulation; as was said a­bove. p. 98. And so yet we have no difference. But we enquire, what is the union it selfe, or rather what is the forme (for that gives union) the specificating forme, that distinguishes this Church, from the rest, the other two aforegone. This it is; p. 215. ‘The joynt consent of all the members of it, from a principle of Love, to walke [Page 145] together, in the universall celebration of all the Ord [...]nances of the worship of God, and to performe all offices of Love, to one another, &c:’ But most of this, is ap­plicable to the other two Churches, or notions of a Church: All the members of them, are bound by a command of Christ, to consent or agree to joyne toge­ther, (when and where they c [...]n) from a principle of Love, in the universall cele­bration of all the Ordinances or wor­ship, and the rest: what then is the Specificative forme (if it have any) of a particular Church? And if it have a forme, to distinguish it spec fically from the other, have not they also f [...]rmes to distance [...]hem from this? An [...] if [...], are there not three species of a Church? which he seem'd to deny abo [...]e. We have them all, described below, p. 236. ‘The forme of the Church Catholick ab­solutely so called, is the unitie with Christ, and in it selfe, by the one Spirit, whereby it is animated.’ This is not very accurately spoken: is the unitie of the head and members the forme of a man? It is not rather, the one Soul that animates it, ‘the onenesse of soul, where­by the whole is animated.’ p. 95. And [Page 146] will he say, the one Spirit of God is the form, or soul, that animates the Catho­like Church? p. 95. I was afraid when I read above, ‘That which answers hereunto (the soul in man) in the mysticall body of Christ, is the Animation of the whole by his Spirit.’ I was, I say, afraid to fa­sten this conceit upon the words: Nor did, I think, he intended any such thing, when he said; See the Appendix below, Sect. 4. ‘That [...], is no (more, but [...], I cannot easily consent, p. 49.’ But upon second thoughts, finding him to repeat the phrase, of Animation by the Spirit in this place; and to talke of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. & the indwelling Spirit, I beganne to su [...]pect him to in­cline at least, to this errour, (for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Di­vines;) And since I heare, that he preached this publickly at Oxford. ‘That believers have not onely the speciall gra­ces, and operations of the Spirit in them, but the person of the holy Ghost indwel­ling in them, which was the errour of one of the chiefe Leaders of Indepen­dent [...]sm, in New England, and by his brethren there condemned; which is seriously to be by them considered.’ God seemes to blast their way, not onely by [Page 147] suffering their people to fall from them, but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions, or strong delusions. Not onely some that were once theirs, have fallen into some doctrines of Poperie and Arminianism (all most all the sects, preach those points;) but some of them­selves, that fell not so farre, have yet vented dangerous and damnable do­ctrines; as I could instance but forbeare: B [...]t to returne; 1. The forme of the my­sticall Church, is, (say some of his side) Faith. 2. ‘The forme of the Catholike visibly professing, is the unity of that, as being by them professed, that is, say o­thers, (and he above) the profession of the same Faith.’ 3. ‘The forme of the particular Church, p. 236. as such is its obser­vance and performance of the same Ordi­nances of worsh p unmerically in the con­fession of the same Faith, and subjection to the same rules of Love, for the edifica­tion of the whole.’ I observe first, the difference; He said above, the union of this Church, (which he makes the speci­ficating forme, not very properly) is the joynt consent of all the members to per­forme the same Ordinances of worship: but now hee sayes, ‘It is the joynt obser­vance of all Ordinances, &c.’ And in­deed [Page 148] this seemes to be the specificating difference or forme of this Church, as distinct from the other, ‘the Communi­on of all the members of it, in all the same numericall Ordinance, of worship.’ And this is the plaine truth; dropped from him unawares, (contrary to his part­ners and his own Judgment), concern­ing the forme of a particular Church; It is not, (as they have held out hither­to) an explicite consent, of all the mem­bers, but, ‘Its observance and perfor­mance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically, in the confession of the same Faith, &c:’ Whence I would inferre, 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholike do occasi­onally meet together, in observation of the same numericall Ordinances of worship, then and there is found a par­ticular Church; though no explicite consent be passed by them, one to ano­ther. 2. That the explicite consent, they so much talke of, is not necessary by institution of Christ to the forme or essence of a particular Church, (the implicite covenant of Christianitie, binding them to such performance, when and where it is possible) but is [Page 149] onely a prudentiall meanes, or bond, for the better tying of members toge­ther, for observance of the Ordinances, and to exercise mutuall duties of love, to one another, as hath been said. But as I said above, these are not three Churches differing specifically, but a notionall 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 ratio­nall; which may be all three, in one man, & yet but one man, or creature. So then the forme of a particular Church, (if it have any) is rather communion in the same numericall worship, than joynt con­sent to communicate in that worship: That consent Dr. Ames makes not the forme of a particular Church, but the bond, to tye the members faster toge­ther, to their publick and private duties among themselves. For as a man may be a believer, or a professor, and yet not [Page 150] 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 beleive, to professe that faith, and to joyne in the perfor­mance of the same numericall worship, when and where onely he hath op­portunity: Which he granted above, p. 205.

§. 12 But I desire to know, what he means, by that joynt 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 par­tie, that joynes in that societie, gathered, or to be gathered. This is their dayly practise. But then I desire an instance, of any Church in Scripture, or story, so consenting, so co [...]enanting as before. And withall I would aske, whether none be members of his Congregation, but onely such, as give this explicate consent? If he say, Not any, but such; I aske, whether the Children of such Chuch-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 ex­plicite [Page 151] 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 Christianitie, wherein they en­gaged, at baptism, to serve God accor­ding to his will and word, and to walke up to all duties, of all Relations, one to­wards another. 3. I would yet be sa­tisfyed whether this explicite 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 onely 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 practise, its well; but if they have, they destroy their own princi­ples, and prove themselves the more in­jurious [Page 152] to our Churches, in separating from them. 5. And as for those offices of Love, spoken of, I aske once more; are they also exclusive, to be tendered to none, but their own combined mem­bers? It should seeme so, because they are here limited to the members of this particular Church, in their respective places and stations. And their practise hath been answerable: As they account none to be within, but such; so some have said; ‘They had no more to do, with a Christian, not of their own way, than with an Heathen.’ How truely is Schism attended with breach of Cha­ritie?

§. 13 But yet behold his liberalitie. ‘I shall further grant, that over and above the un [...]on, p. 216. that is between the members of severall particular Churches, by vir­tue of their interest in the Church Catho­lick, which draws after it▪ a necessitie of the occasionall exercise of love one to­wards another, and that Communion they have as members of the Catholicke visible Church, &c: There is a [...]m­munion also to be observed, between those Churches as such which is or may be ex­erted in their Assemblyes, by their De­legates, &c: What doth he meane?’ [Page 153] That the members of each particular Church, among themselves, have com­munion, but not with the members of another particular Church? That was their practise somewhere. Or that the members of severall particular Chur­ches, have union and communion, in the worship of God, in the same Church? This was not their practise 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 severall Chur­ches? And for those Offices of love, he speaks of; they were onely occasional­ly, which they owe and tender to an Heathen; which not onely their inte­rest in the Catholicke Church, but even the Law of Humanitie, drawes after it " an occasionall exercise of duties of Love, as the Samaritane once expressed. In a word, this Communion of members of severall Churches, is nothing but what is due to and from the members of the Catholick visible Church, that never were [Page 154] joyned 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 esteeme, by an institution of Christ: but a matter of prudence one­ly, which he so much decryed 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 layes down some Postulata, which he takes as grant­ed, because before debated which are all disproved, and need not here to be done againe. Yet we shall briefly take notice of them, and give them a further answer. p. 217. 1. ‘That the departing of any man or men from any particular Church as to that communion, peculiar to such a Church, is no where called Schism; nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe, &c.’ 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 causelesse differences in a Church, and then sepa­rating [Page 155] from it, as no Church, denying communion with it; hath the nature and name of Schism in all mens 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 sinne. 2. ‘One Church re­fusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them, p. 218. is no Schism, properly so called.’ Be­sides what hath been said above, that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church, which hath the nature of Schism; I adde, that 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 Catholike Church; the refusing to hold communion with ano­ther Church, can be no Schism, because they owe no communion to one another, [Page 156] at least of divine institution, but of mere prudence, as was newly said. But see­ing, as I proved, there ought to be a communion between all particular Chur­ches, not onely in profession of the same Faith, but also in the same specificall, and where it is possible, numericall wor­ship, the refusing to hold this uni­on and communion, in doctrine or wor­ship, hath the nature, and well deserves the name of Schism. 3. ‘If that de­parture of any man or men, be done with­out strife, variance, judging and con­demning of others, it cannot be evill, but from circumstances, &c:’ This is as much as to say, that departure which is not evill, is not evill; For Schism in its nature signifies or presup­poses variance, strife, and divisions be­fore the parting, and is commonly at­tended with judging and condemning of others, both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day; The very separation from a Church, to set up another Church, is a reall judg­ing and condemning of the Church from whence they separated. Is it not the practise of all Separatists, to judge and condemne all our Churches, as Antichristian, or none; to asperse us [Page 157] as no Ministers, but Priests, &c? Is it not the designe of his book, to prove (if he could) and condemne us as no Chur­ches? Let the world be judge; for un­lesse this be proved, he can never justi­fie his separation: either therefore, he must prove us to be no Churches of Christs institution, and that he owes us no communion, nor hath broken any uni­on, of Christs appointment, (which he shall never be able to prove) or else he had need put himselfe, not upon the Justice, but on the largest mercy of his Judges.

CHAP. VIII. Independentism, a great Schism.

§. 1 In his vindicat [...]on of himselfe and par­tie, from the charge of Schism, by Episcopall men, he first layes down their Ind [...]cement: to which how he hath an­swered, and acquitted himselfe let them, if they please, consider. I shall onely take notice by the way, of some things tending to the issue of the debate be­tween us and him, and that very briefly. He first conside [...]s in what sense the Church of England may be taken: As 1. ‘The people of God his elect, &c: in this Nation, may (though improperly) be called the Church of England.’ But why not a properly, as all true beleivers in the world, may be, and are by him, called the Catholike Church. The World and a Nation, differ but as greater and l [...]sser, as a part and the whole; and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholike, and so as properly called a Church. ‘In this sense (sayes he) it is the desire of our souls, to be and ab [...]de members of the Church of England; to keep with it the unitie of the Spirit, in [Page 159] the bond of peace.’ But unlesse he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches, I fear he will be found to break the Union, that ought to be between them. And indeed, it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude, they intend to have none but such of their Churches, which is (as much as they can) to make the invisible Church, to be visible on earth. He speaks something suspitiously this way, p. 90. ‘The Elect and the Church, are the same persons, under several considerations, and therefore even a particular Church, on the account of its participation of the nature of the Catholick is called the elect, 1 Pet. 5.13.’ And yet he speaks ‘ of some parts of the body, uncomely, p. 215. which, who they be in his Church, I know not.’ They leave those to us, to clouth and beautifie, and then they may admit them, into their elected Congregations. But he says, ‘If we have grieved, p. 223. offen­ded, troubled the least member of his Church, so that he may justly take offence at any of our wayes we profess our readi­ness to lie at his foot for reconciliation &c.’ This strengthens the suspicion of what I said; For unless he take us all for Repro­bates, [Page 160] we have and do profess our selves (and we think, justly) offended at their wayes, and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction, let the world judge. The rest that follows, is spoken with equal confidence and truth, ‘If we love not all the members of this Church re­joyce not with them, &c. but I forbear;’ He deludes us, when he saies, if we do not these things, ‘Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismaticks that ever lived on the face of the earth.’ For if we prove all or some of these to be false: yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical, what­ever they may be else.

§. 2: 2. ‘In this sense also, we profess our selves members of the Church of Eng­land, p. 224. as professing and adhering to the doctrine of Faith, in the unity of it, which was here established, declared by Lawes, Confessions, Protestations, &c.’ Will he undertake this, for all the Independent Churches in England? Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the pro­fessed doctrine of this Church, and so He­retical? But, were it true which he says for himself, they may be excused from being Heretical; but they may yet be Schismatical, in denying communion in [Page 161] matter of worship. For the worship of God, was as well declared, professed, pro­tested, as the Doctrine. They hold com­munion with us in profession of the same Faith, but not in the observance of the same worship; yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us, as with them, or let them prove our failings, and we promise a Reformation. In this sense they are neither children, nor members of the Church of England. And this is the wonder, That professing, ‘they re­ceived their regeneration and new birth, p. 225. by the preaching of the word and the sa­ving truths thereof, with the seal of it in their Baptism, they should now separate from us, not only in that Ordinance of the Lords Supper, but also in the prea­ching of the Word and Baptism.’ Could they make use of our preaching and Bap­tism, for their regeneration, and not of the other Sacrament, and the same prea­ching for their 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 ‘,The sincere preaching of [Page 162] the Word, and right administration of the Sacraments, are the Characters of a true Church, Which we having, and they separating from us, in all Church-Communion; how shall this crime be named, but by Schism in the highest de­gree?’

§. 3 But as they have left us, so some of their Independent Churches, p. 226. have left them, viz. ‘Those who have renounced the baptism they received in their infancy, and repeat it amongst themselves.’ And have they not done this, upon their own principle? ‘That all true Church-state is lost in En­gland. And if so, then no true Ministry, no Baptism, no Church; and then it must be revived, by a new-baptism, the door of a true Church;’ It was told the Brownists long ago; ‘either they must come back to us, or go forward to Anabaptism; and so must the Independents, if their princi­ples and conclusions, be consonant to one another, yea many are fallen from them to Anabaptsem; and I believe nothing but the odium, or some private interest keeps many more from following after them.’ But what thinks he of Anabap­tists? are they Schismaticks or no, for their separation? Hear his Apology for them, ‘yet I suppose, that he, who upon [Page 163] that single account, will undertake to prove them Schismatical, may find himself en­tangled. To raise up differences, cause­lesse differences (unlesse Paedobaptism be a trivial thing) and upon that to sepa­rate not only from the judgement and practise of all the Christian Churches in the world, at present, but from the judg­ment and practise also of all the primitive and succeeding Churches in all ages, and all places, if this be not Schismatical, I know nothing that deserves that name.’ Sure the Donatists were generally ac­counted Schismaticks, for rebaptizing those that came to them, from other Churches; but, sayes he, ‘The case is not exactly with the Anabaptists, as it was with the Donatists.’ Exactly the same? True, for they lived in Africk, these in Europe. But they do the same thing; rebaptize the same that were baptized by us. That is granted; ‘but not on the same principle: yes, upon the very same principle; though they added another, which the Donatists knew not; As how? p. 226.’ ‘The Donatists rebaptized those who came to their societies, because they believed, that all administration of Ordinances, not in their Assemblies, was null, and to be looked on, as no such thing.’ And do not [Page 164] Anabaptists think so, and say so of all the Ordinances administred 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, ‘Our A­nabaptists ( yes your Anabaptists) do the same thing, but on this plea that though Baptism be yet Infant Baptism is not an Institution of Christ, and so is null from the nature of the thing it self, not the way of administration of it.’ 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 labour, in this book, to prove, that the Administration of Ordinances, in [Page 165] our Assemblies are null? Our Ordina­tion null, p. 197. and Antichristian, from the Beast: And charging them that in­sist upon it, as ‘keeping up what God would have pull [...]d down, p. 198. and con­sequently, the Ordinances by us admini­stred, are null: And why then, is not he rebaptized?’ Yea our Churches are estee­med not of Christs institution, because not lawfully gathered; See page 206. §. 10. and are not these worse than Donatists? But he saies, ‘This falls not within the verge of my defence.’ Yet he could not but speak a good word for them; They must not be Schisma­ticks, 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 mannage that princi­ple well, ‘That all true Church-state was lost in England: they must not stay where they are but go forward either to Anabaptism, and be rebaptized; or to Quakerism, (as some already are) and deny all use of outward baptism.’

§ 4 But hear his conclusion; ‘In these se­veral considerations, p. 226. we were and do con­tinue members in the Church of God in England; and as to our failing [Page 166] herein, who is it that convinces us of sin?’ 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 Lords 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 Lords supper? If Communion with the Church Catholick, 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, ‘As to our failing herein, who is it that convinces us of sin?’ [Page 167] He that spake those words first, was more than a man. Its too much for any meer 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 joyning 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; ‘Whereas sundry Ordi­nances of the worship of God, p. 245. are rightly to be administred only in a Church, and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto; the denyal of a National Church-state, seems to deny that we had either Mini­sters or Ordinances here in England.’ 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. [Page 168] Thus he saies, and thats all; ‘It may seem so to do, but it doth not: unlesse you will say that unlesse ye be a National Church-state, there is no other; which is too absurd for any one to imagine.’ The consequence cannot well be denyed, in his notion of this Church. For if there were no Ministers, but ordained by those Na­tional Officers, and those Officers not of Christs institution, (as he hath often pleaded) it follows necessarily, that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church, and so no Ordinances truly ad­ministred in it, and at last no Church at all. This I doubt, or rather believe, by what he hath said, is his judgement, 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 admini­stred. 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 our selves. Our former Di­vines [Page 169] of the first reformation, and since, have pleaded, and justifyed their Ordi­nation, for the essentialls of it, received from Rome: which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions, they propagated unto us, who may therefore the better justifie our own. Those Bi­shops that ordained us, had (as he told us above) a double capacitie; One as Lord Bishops, received from the state, p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gos­spell, to preach, administer Sacraments, to joyne 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 followes, that though they presumed to themselves, a Lordly power, not accor­ding unto the institution of Christ, whereby they called themselves a nati­onall Church, &c. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gos­pell (as we beleive it is sufficiently proved, and never yet sufficiently answered) there were Ministers lawful­ly called, and Ordinances by them right­ly administred; and that is the other Church state, which he would not doe us the honour to name, least he should there by condemn himself as a Schis­matick, [Page 170] in departing from this Church-state. These true and faithfull Mini­sters, (with their people in their severall Congregations) administring 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 humane prudence, cannot annull the Ordinances of Christ.

§. 6 The way of the prelates, he told us p. 235. p. 246. to stablish a nationall Church, was descendendo; of the Presbyterians, ascen­dendo: That is, ‘that such a thing should rise from the particular Congre­gations, by sundry Associations, and sub­ordinations of Assemblyes, in and by the representatives of those Chur­ches. But this may prove a mistake,’ For, 1. The Presbyterians rather goe descendendo, as well as the prelates did at least in part: They agree both in this, that they acknowledge their rise and originall 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, [Page 171] say others) and they ordained Presbyters subordinate unto them, or as he styles them) parochiall 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 universall 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 removall, 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 allowes, 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 Ministeriall dutie, to a­nother people: (as when the Parlia­ment commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to, and pray with them) Now this Delegation (which he meanes [Page 172] 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 na­tionall, p. 247. 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 principall way, of that denomi­nation; That was rather, ‘when all the Congregation of a nation, agree in the Doctrine and worship, and celebrate it accordingly.’ The Disciplinary part, or form, of Government, is not essential to the Church, nor absolutely necessa­ry; and the Church may exist, and be nationall without it: much lesse do any of ours say, ‘That subjection to one ci­vill Government, and agreement on the same doctrine and worship specifically, &c: doth constitute one Church:’ or as he [Page 173] expresses it, afterwards, p. 251. they do not say, ‘that being under one civ [...]ll government, does constitute a Nationall Church; for if so (sayes he) its forme and unitie as such, must be given it by the civill Government.’ For the unitie thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship, and not in the modell of civill Government (of what kind soever). p. 250. And if he allow (as he does) an Association of the Delegates, from severall 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 necessitie of Ap­peales, in male-administrations, for end­ing of troubles, and decision of differen­ces, in particular Congregations; as was instanced in the Antiochians ap­peale, to the Church of Jerusalem, in such a case: which (I say) whether it were by an institution of Christ, or an act of Christian prudence, will serve our turne, to justifie such Associations, though we do not account them to be the forme, or cause of the union, of a Presbyterian Church; but rather, pru­dentiall [Page 174] meanes, to preserve that union.

§. 8 Upon that mistake (of the forme of a nationall Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblyes) he pro­ceeds, to premise some things, which may take off the charge of Schism, for their separating from our Churches, as true as their own. 1. ‘No man can possibly be a member of a nationall Church in this sense, pag. 251. but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation; which concurres to make up, the nationall Church.’ But that not being our opinion, the consequence sailes: He granted as much, as we plead, p. 250. ‘On the same account, (that all the professors of the truth throughout the world are the Ca­tholick visible Church of Christ) may all the professors of the truth in England, be called the Church of England.’ And it was his own asser­tion above, to the contrary, ‘That a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church, and yet no member of a particu­lar Church.’ And why then may not a man be a member of a Nationall Church, and yet be no member of a particular Church? I could exemplifie cases, but I forbear. Indeed as the state of the nation, is, at this day, all generally be­ing [Page 175] baptised (except Anabaptists Chil­dren) no man is a member of the natio­nall Church, but he is also a member of some particular Church: That Church being (as he oft hath said) the seat of Or­dinances. Hence, 2. its evident that a man may recede from this nationall Church, and not depatt from some par­ticular Church; because he may be a member of the nationall, (as well as of the Catholick) Church, and yet be no member of a particular Church, &c. on the other side, a man may be a member of some particular Church, and yet be no member of the nationall (in the sense of it by him given) as himselfe and o­thers do too much evidence. 3. He sayes, ‘To make men members of any particular Churches, their own consent is required.’ If he meane this of an ex­plicite consent (as I suppose he does, or he sayes nothing) it is fully disproved a­bove: and implicite confessed sufficient. A man that removes his habitation, (as both he, and we grant its free for him to do) may, by setting down in another Congregation, and submitting himselfe to all the Ordinances of Christ there, with performance of all Officers of Love, to the members of that Congregation, implicitely, and yet sufficiently, consent [Page 176] to be a member thereof. And on the other hand, a man may not remove his habitation, from a Congregation, where­in he hath long consented to communi­cate, and yet remove his consent to be a member of another; as we see too much, in this loose and wandring age.

§. 9 But fourthly, he now speaks out▪ ‘That as yet, p. 252. at least since possibly we could be concerned in it, who are now a­live, no such Church in this nation hath been formed. It is impossible a man should be guiltie of offending, against that which is not; unlesse they will say, we have separated from what should be.’ This Engine hath served him twice be­fore; First against the charge of Schism by the Romanists, Theirs is no Church, at all, how could they separate from that which is not? Then against the Prelat's, Hierarchicall Church: Their's is no Church of Christs institution, ‘That w ^ch is wanting cannot be numbred, p. 242.’ And now the third time, against the same charge by the Presbyterians. It is true indeed, there hath no such natio­nall Church, been uniformely, formed in this nation; but he knows, such a Church hath been endevoured to be, [Page 177] formed, conformable to the Word of God, and to the best reformed Churches abroad, according to our solemne cove­nant; and who have withstood resisted, and hindered it, (and yet do hinder) he knowes well enough. But withall, it cannot be denyed, but there are some Presbyterian Churches settled in Eng­land; (and perhaps some of their mem­bers, if not of themselves have been of them) from these they have separated, as well as from the rest. If there were not such here, there are such abroad, and yet they have renounced communion with them, as no true Churches, and that's a negative separation. Besides, there was, and is, another Church state in England, in our particular Churches; from these also they have most of them (as once of them) 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 wee acknowledg our selves dependent, and would be g [...]ad, we had other Churches to joyne with) and yet they separate from, and disa [...]ow [Page 178] them as well as others. Lastly, I be­lieve those men, that raise differences in a reforming Church, and persist in keep­ing open those divisions, separating also into other new Churches, do as well de­serve the name of Schismaticks, as those that make differences in one particular Church. And unlesse they can better prove (than yet they have done) that we are no true Churches; and their own to be the onely true Churches, in the na­tion, in the World, the Schism will lye at their door, (in all aequall mens judg­ment); remove it, as they can.

§. 10 p. 253. Let him read the next dispu­tation of Amyral­dus, his de­finition of a Schisma­tick: and his censure of those that separate, will little please him. Disput. de ecclesiae membrieAs for Amyraldus his judgement, of the confoederation of Churches, it is the same with ours, or not to the purpose. Our opinion is, that as the consent of particular members, explicite or impli­cite, is not the forme of a particular Church; So the consent of severall Churches, to associate in a classis or Sy­nod, is not the forme of a nationall Church; The explicite consent of mem­bers (as they make use of it) is but a prudentiall way, to tye their members from running away from them, (and yet that will not do the deed) so the expli­cite [Page 179] consent of severall Churches, into Assemblyes, is likewise a prudentiall way, for the better Governing of those Churches, and the easier determining of things of common concernment. And as the one, so the other, is a result of the light of nature, & need no institution. He may now perceive, that he is mistaken, in his thoughts of a mutuall acknowledg­ment of the things by him delivered; hardly in one of them do we agree. But we expected that he would (now at last) ‘have laid down some principles peculiar to himselfe and those with whom he consents, p. 254. in the way of the worship of God, &c:’ for not till then, will the busi­nesse be brought to a speedie issue. As al­so we hoped, that he would have ‘plead­ed the right, libertie, and dutie of ga­thering Churches, in such a state of presessors as that of late, and still amongst us, built upon other (and better) princi­ples than any (though he had occasion e­nough) by him as yet mentioned.’ But we must wait his leasure. His busi­nesse and policie 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 [Page 180] and justifie his own way of gathering Churches.

§. 11 But we are brought againe to his re­movall of the charge of Schism, which he sayes, ‘in the true notion of it, relates not to gathering of Churches, as simply considered.’ 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 condemne their own separation, as being of no Church: And the rather does this relate to Schism in gathering of Churches, because they do not onely depart themselves, (which is more tole­rable) but draw off others also into a formed faction. Lets heare the old D lemma revived against the Presbyteri­ans, as afore against the Prelaticall Church; ‘Either we have been mem­bers by our own voluntary consent, ac­cording to the mind of Christ, of some particular Congregations [...]in such a na­tionall Church, as part of such a Church; [Page 181] or we have not.’ It were ridiculous for any man to charg 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 him­selfe sayes constitutes a Schismatick) 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. ‘But heare another evasion; If we have been members, by our own voluntary consent.’ As much by their own voluntary consent, as they were made members of the Nation; that is, implicitely, 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 [Page 182] they will be bound to communion with some Church or other, in the Na­tion? unlesse they can prove them all he­reticall & Antichristian. Yet further; by way of Recrimination; Have not we done as much as they ‘in separating from the Church of England, pag. 255. of Episcopall con­stitution? rejected their nationall Off­cers? and the way of worship establish­ed, &c? Not to regest to him, "that this was done by other hands, I must tell him, this is an excursion, when he is speaking of his relinquishment of a Presbyterian Church, to turne us back to the Episcopall: But this hath been his businesse from his first letting out, to make the Presbyterian Churches, to walke pari passu, with the Episcopall and Romish Churches.’ 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 heare by and by.

§. 12 But he sayes, ‘We expect not that we shall be accused of Schism, p. 256. for not esteem­ing [Page 183] our selves made members of a parti­cular Church, against our wills, by buy­ing, or hireing an habitation within such a precinct of ground.’ Surely they were once esteemed (and did esteeme 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 Townes 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) ‘that living in Parishes, is not sufficient to make a man a member of a particular Church, a Turke or Pagan may do so:’ 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, unlesse they may be of none? But they adde; ‘All that dwell in a Parish, and constantly heare the word, are not yet to be admitted to the Sacrament, which (sayes he) excludes them from being fideles, or Church-members, and makes them at best, but [Page 184] as the Catechumeni, who were never accounted members of the Church.’ 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 Lords 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 Churchmembers, not yet baptized, are not they Churchmembers? none but an Anabaptist will deny it. And though the old Catechumeni, new come from Gent [...]l sm, we [...]e not accounted Church­members, yet our Catechumen's, Chil­dren o Christian parents, are to be ac­counted such. But we proceed.

§. 13 He hath further to say; ‘If we have been so members by our own consent▪ and do not continue so to bee; p. 257. then this con­gregat [...]on where we were so members, was reformed according to the mind of Chr st or it was not?’ We are now all­most at an issue; the intimation is, ‘the ground of their separation is, that none of [...]ur Churches are reformed, ac­cord [...]ng to the mind of Christ.’ None of them? not at home, nor abroad? [Page 185] 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? ‘If it were reformed, and a man were a member of it by his own volun­tary consent, I confesse it may be diffi­cult, how a man can leave such a Con­gregation, without their consent, in whose power it is to give it to him, with­out giving offence to the Church of God.’ 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 denyed. 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 [Page 186] own Congregations, ( without or against their leave, to which, (they say) they have been marryed, 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 professe, I know no such power, that any Church hath, to engage into, and en­force such an explicite consent, or to deny leave to any member, upon just causes, to depart, without their leave. He said before, ‘ All men must admit it free for a man, to choose where he will fix his ha­bitation. Which if just reasons call him to, either he must leave that Congrega­tion, (as too distant from his habitation) or else tye himself to much inconveni­ence, to enjoy the Ordinances of God there, which he may with ease, and as much profit, enjoy at his own door.’ 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, [Page 187] 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 allowes him this liberty, upon his own light. Hear him speak, ‘As the not giving a mans self up, p. 259. to any way, and submitting to any esta­blishment pretended, or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, is no Schism, So no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion in one Church▪ in all its rela­tions, to joyn with another be so esteemed.’ Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of Independency; or to gratifie all the Sects, Quakers and all, According to that light, which men have recei­ved. with a Toleration. For why should they be denyed 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, p. 46. and desert, what way they suppose to be §. 26 but pretended as the way of Christ. And why should they be denyed to make use of their liberty? without such [Page 188] humble asking leave of the Congregati­on. But I wo [...]d make bo d to ask one question: ‘Whether does he indeed believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ, (for he hath instituted but one way) hav [...]ng run from, and renounced all other waies of Religion in this Nation.’ 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 can not edifie 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 Schismatick.

§. 15 But what if he discovers, ‘That some of the principles of the Churches constituti­on are not according to the mind of Christ, p. 261. which renders the communion of it, by scruples, &c. not so useful to him, as if it were right: and that he hath declared his judgment and dissatisfaction; if no Reformation ensue &c.’ 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; ‘That person I say is doubtlesse at liberty to dis­pose of himself, as to particular Church communion, to his own best advantage.’ 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 any thing amiss in Church or State, to turn Reformers, if Superiours cannot, or will not Reform it. He asks this question; ‘Suppose the Congregation whereof a man is a member, p. 262. is not refor­med, will not, or cannot reform it self, whether in this case is it Schism for any number of men to reform themselves, by reducing the practise of worship to its ori­ginal [Page 190] institution, though the minor part [...]’ 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 exemplifie it neare home; but I think I may safely say, this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle, at the bottome: and say no more.

§. 16 Yet he hath Scripture for it; ‘I will boldly say, p. 263. this Schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost:’ 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. ‘From such withdraw (or separate) thy self.’ 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, [Page 191] 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 disswade those that were of the true Church, from joyning with Idolaters; ‘come not to Gilgal, neither go up to Bethaven, &c.’ for so the for­mer part of the verse hath it, ‘Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Ju­dah offend, &c.’

§. 17 But he speaks with some Indignation, ‘Is this yoak laid upon me by Christ, p. 263. that to go along with the multitude where I live that hate to be reformed, I must for­sake my duty, and despise the priviledges that he hath purchased for me, with his own blood? Is this an unity of Christs institution, that [...] must for ever associate my self with wicked and prophane men, in the worship of God? &c.’ This sounds [Page 192] [...] [Page 193] [...] [Page 192] too much of the Pharisee, the multitude, the wicked and prophane [...] But suppose fire the Church is no corrupt as Israel of [...]ch or Rom [...] Di [...]e years, then [...] command [...] ‘Come out of her, O my peo­ple and be not partaker of [...] sins.’ But suppose a Church [...] in fundamentalls o [...] doctrine and worship, suffering some lesse corruptions, [...] [...]t [...]ce in her com­munion; add perhaps in such a conditi­on, as it either cannot, or will not re­form it self; and there is no other Church easily to joyn with? Will he now leap out of Church and neglect all Ordi­nances, because of some prophane 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 Christs imposing, no priviledge of his purchasing, either to deprive a mans se [...]m's Ordinances for other mens sins, [...] up a n [...]w Church, in opposition to a true Church as no [Page 193] Church rightly constituted, for want of some Reformation, in lesser matters. And does not this speech insinuate so much; ‘That our Churches are such as hate to be reformed, and tolerate pro­phane and wicked men, when it is our grief that we have not power enough to reform or eject them.’ 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, obtaine from them) and then they had had some colour for their separation.

§. 18 And yet see how tender he is of our Churches honour and peace; ‘I speak not this, as for a principle, p. 264. that it is the duty of every man to separate from that Church, wherein evil men are tolerated, &c.’ It is too much that he said, ‘every man is at liberty in such a case, to dis­pose of himself, as to Church-communi­on, p. 261. though he plead it not his duty.’ And here again he says; ‘When a Church is overborne by a multitude of wicked and prophane, so that it cannot, or will not reform it self, a Believer is so far at liberty, that he may desert the com­munion of that society, without the least [Page 194] guilt of Schism.’ He grants him here too litle; 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 mixt 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 & practise accordingly. It were happy for us, if they had shewed 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, p. 265. as some of ours, from which the Apostle advises no man, to separate. He answers, 1. ‘The Church of Corinth was a true Church, instituted according to the mind of Christ, and was not fallen from this priviledge by any mis­carriage; which, wholly differences the case.’ Why, so were the Churches of England (in some of their own confessi­ons) [Page 159] true Churches planted according to the mind of Christ, and needed onely 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. ‘We are yet far from being cleerly delivered from the Romane Apostacy; Rome is much beholden to him, for this courtesie, but not the Church of England.’ 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 endeavouring 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; ‘Yet this I say, p. 266. had the Church of Corinth continued in that condition, &c. it had been the duty (mark that, the duty) of every Saint of God in that Church, to withdraw from it, &c.’ Its strange that the Apostle did not in­form [Page 196] 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 ‘that Eliah and Elisha, p. 267. com­municated with the Israelites in their worship,’ which was most Idolatrous; unlesse 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 Saviour did communi­cate with the Jewes 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 [Page 197] advised to continue in it. ‘The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire, whatsoever they say unto you do it, &c.’

§. 21 We are now drawing to an issue, of this discourse of Schism, in the ordinary Acception of the Word, to signifie, p. 268. A breach of union; which he allows to pass, (such is his condiscension and confidence,) and yet avoid the charge of Schism. Thus he saies, ‘We have broken no band of uni­ty, no order instituted by Christ, we have causlessly deserted no station, that ever we were in, according to his mind, &c.’ which how true it is, and whether he do not hereby asperse all our Churches to be no true Churches of Christs institution, let the Reader indifferent, by what hath been said, be Judge. ‘That on pure grounds of conscience, we have withdrawn or do withhold our selves from partaking in some waies engaged into, upon meer grounds of prudence, we acknowledge.’ Whether they have in their separation from us, gone upon pure and meere grounds of conscience, God and th ir own hearts must determine the business. The world is too apt to judge otherwise upon some suspicious practises of theirs. And suppose they have withdrawn themselves from some waie; of prudence, [Page 198] in some of our Churches, (I suppose he means it of Classical subordinations) yet they have withdrawn themselves also, from some Congregations (not so united) that have only the pure Institutions of Christ; and that may bring the charge of Schism upon them. But have not they also gone upon some meere grounds of prudence (or policy)? Is there any In­stitution of Christ, that they must gather members out of true Churches to make a purer Church (if so it be)? Or is there any Institution of Christ, that a Minister, who is married to a people, (as they hold) should relinquish it, for a place of greater eminency or preferment? Or that people must be tyed to their Pastour, by an explicite Covenant, not to depart with­out their leave humbly desired? Or (to add no more) Is th re any Institution of Christ in express words, that Churches particular must send their Delegates to an Assembly, to determine matters of common concernment? which he granted above. These and some more of their known waies, the world takes to be but products of humane prudence; and he may do well to shew their Instituti­ons.

§. 22 Yet have we more of this confidence, ‘ [Page 199]From what hath been said▪ it appears, in what a fair capacity; notwithstanding any principle or practise owned by us, we are to live peaceably, and to exercise all fruits of love, to the otherwise minded, if we may be permitted to serve God accor­ding to our light.’ And must not the Quakers and the rest, be permitted to serve God according to their light also? But it matters not in what capacity they are to do those things named; let us see the fruits of it. Does not their way break the peace of all our Churches? Hath it not been the door to let in all the errors, heresies, blasphemies, England groans under? Do not all sores of Sects, (being all Independent, and none to con­trole them) exercise all the fruits of ha­tred toward us? look upon us, and car­ry themselves towards us, as their grea­test enemies as no Ministers, no Churches, scarce as Christians? Hath not he him­self in this book, unministred our mini­sters, unmembred our members, unchurcht our Churches? Doth he give us words, when we see such deeds?

§. 23 It is commonly, and truly objected, There is a difference between Reforming of Churches, already gathered; p. 269. and raising [Page 200] of Churches out of meer materials▪ Surely this is evident enough, in raising of a Church out of Infidels, and reducing a corrupted Church to its first institution. This he first sayes concerns not the busi­ness. What's the English of this, if he would speak out? Why the truth is, We have no Churches, and they are not in repairing an old house, but building a new from the ground, But hear him say something; ‘ ¹ I know no other Reforma­tion of any Church, or any thing in it, but the reducing of it to its primitive institu­tion, &c.’ We say so too, grant us to be Churches; Reformation of a Church, or any thing in it, presupposes there is a Church existent, though perhaps rotten and ruinous. But these New builders will gather a Church out of no Churches, and begin a new one. It had been happy for old England, if they had all gone into New England, and laid the foundation of their Churches amongst the Indians, and not to build upon other mens foundati­ons; and then tell us, they are building 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) ‘ [Page 201]When any society or combination of men (whatever hitherto it hath been estee­med) is not capable of such a reducti­on, and renovation, p. 270. I suppose I shall never provoke any wise and sober person, if I profess I cannot look on such a society, [...] a Church of Christ.’ 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 our selves, femented by he knows whom; he cannot but see, as well as we lament. But if we must be denyed to be Churches, because we are not in such a capacity, and cannot do all we would to reform them, we are in a sad condition. What if a Church want some things she had at her first instituti­on perhaps of no great concernment, (or be it great) but either by the prohibition of the present powers, or the opposition of a prevalent party, it is not now capable of Reduction, to its primitive Institution; [Page 202] Will he look upon this society, as no Church of Christ, and think, no wise or so­ber man in that society, or other where will be provoked to anger, if not to in­dignation? And so much the more, when as upon this ground, we are in danger to lose all our best members; for so he advises, ‘thereupon, I shall ad­vise those therein, who have a due right to the priviledges, purchased for them by Christ, as to Gospel Administrations, to take some other peaceable course, to make themselves partakers of them.’ That is, to come out from among them, and joyn themselves to some Independent Congre­gation.

§. 24 To satisfie the former objection, is out of his way at present: p. 270. for he tells us, ‘He must mannage principles, which in this Discourse he hath not been occasioned to draw forth or to improve.’ I cannot but make it my earnest request, (and so I think will many more) that he would be pleased to do us the favour, to bring forth, and mannage those principles, to their utmost clearness, and strength; (which this 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 [Page 203] way, so often desired, so often promised, and as often unfaithfully denyed. We professe our selves utterly unsatisfied, with what hath yet been vouchased us to see. But he will tell us briefly ‘what are the things of great and weightie importance, which must come under de­bate, before a clear account can be given of the case stated in the Objection.’ 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 ‘ 1. The true nature of an Instituted Church, under the Gospel, as to the matter, form, and all other necessary constitutive causes is to be investigated and found out.’ To which I say, 1. Are there any con­stitutive causes, besides Matter & Form? 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 explicite Co­venant, [Page 204] of all the members. But they have been told, they have contradicted themselves, by requiring an explicite con­sent, and yet confessing an implicite 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: ‘It is a society of men, called by the word to the obedience of the Faith in Christ, and joynt performance of the wor­ship of God, in the same individual Ordi­nances, according to the order prescribed by Christ.’ Such societies are ours, in all the particular ingredients of this defi­nition, as was shewed above. All that can be objected, is but to the last parti­cle, ‘according to the order by Christ pre­scribed, which is the question between us, & must not be begged, on either side, but proved, and it concerns him to shew the contrary.’ What Ordinance do we want? or what have we of humane addi­tion? And as for our joynt consent, (though we have it implicitely, 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, [Page 205] as to his own, we are true-insti­tuted Churches; and whether they be Schismaticks, in renouncing communion with us, let the whole Christian Church be Iudge: And I go on to the next.

§. 26 2. ‘The nature and form of such a Church, is to be exemplyfied from the Scripture and the stories of the first Chur­ches, before sensibly infe [...]ted with the poy­son of Apostacy which ensued.’ This hath abundantly been done, by the Assembly, and other Divines, (though he is not pleased to take notice of it) and we dare joyn issue with him, in this debate, when ever he will begin it. 3. ‘The extent of the Apostacy under Antichrist, p. 271. as to the ruining of instituted Churches, making them to be Babylon, and their worship fornication, is duly and carefully to be examined. Here lyes our disor­der; hence our darknesse, &c. though we may arise, we shall not easily shake our selves out of the dust.’ 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 Apostacy; 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 Apo­stacy, [Page 206] in matter of Doctrine; and have more dust upon their garments than ma­ny of ours have. But we shall be content to put our selves upon the search; and if it may appear, that yet we retain any thing of that Apostacy, 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. ‘When the order, spiri­tuality, beauty, and glory of the Church of Christ shall return, &c. these disputes, will have an issue. And again, p. 70. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity, &c.’ And once more p. 200. ‘So soon as Christs Churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon, with his glory shining on them &c.’

§. 27 4. ‘By what way and means, God begat a new and kept alive his elect, p. 271. in their se­veral generations, when Antichristian darkness covered the earth, supposing an intercision of instituted Ordinances▪ so far as to make a nullity in them, as to what was of simple institution &c.’ he may do well to enquire and resolve us. He can­not [Page 207] but know, that there are many lear­ned men, that will not grant him his ‘supposition of an intercision of all instituted Ordinances, so far as to make a nullity in them.’ And something hath been said to this above, which he may do well to consider. The sum is this, ‘That if there was an utter intercision, and so a nullity of all instituted Ordinances, it was impossible to fix the Tabernacle of God with men again, without a miracle or some Divine Revelation.’ 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 Leprosie 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 associats did not so) they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers, by any in communion with them: So they were ‘ perswaded of a necessity of continu­ing that Ordinance, in a way of succession, which whether our Author does, let him declare, when he takes into considera­tion the Bohemian cases.’ They sent to the Greek and Armenian Churches, to [Page 208] 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, p. 272. 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 badnesse of the times were not able to finish their work. But how un­satisfactory their wayes and principles are [Page 209] to our brethrens consciences, to concurr with them, their practise 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. ‘Whether ordinary Officers be before, or after the Church, and whether a Church-state is preserved in the preser­vation of Officers forra [...]gn to that Church; or the Office be preserved, and consequen­ly the Officers in the preservation▪ and constitution of a Church, is the last thing o [...] importance to be considered.’ 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 [Page 210] 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 aimes at in the second question; See pag. 199. They who will not be con­tented, &c. ‘Whether a Church-state is preserved in the Officer, or the Officer in the constitution of a Church.’ 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 forraign 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, So the A­nabaptists, Confess. [...]ct. 36. may meet, and joyn them­selves in a Church society; which done they may, out of themselves (for other [Page 211] Churches or Ministers, are forraign to to them) chuse them Officers, and set them apart by fasting and Prayer: This is pretty, and never exemplyfied in an or­dinary case, till t'other day. But he for­got the main businesse; that he supposes all Church-state lost; but these Christi­ans joyning together are supposed to be baptized; which is a part of a Church-state, and without which they could ne­ver make a Church, much lesse 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 waies; 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, joyn and chuse 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, [Page 221] into consideration also, as things of some importance.

§. 29 The task undertaken is now at it is­sue; p. 273. The miscarriages that he speaks of, ‘as ensuing for want of a due and right ap­prehension of the thing (that is Schism) we have been now long exercised in the consi­deration of, may with no more ease than truth, be rolled back upon himself.’ ‘It is not impossible, that he may begin to apprehend, that he hath been too hasty to judging our Churche; to be none and him­self and his party no Schismaticks in se­parating from them, as no Churches:’ And it may perhap appear to him, that he is the man, ‘that is more ready to charge highly, than able to make good his charge.’ The Schisms that have ensued, ‘by their causlesse imputation of a no-Church-state among us, and setting up new Churches, is too well known.’ 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.

[Page 213] §. 30 2. In these differences, about the way of Religion, we have endeavoured, ‘to drive them to their Rise and Spring, p. 275. and find Schism to be as formidable in its first Original, in respect of its terminus a quo; as in the streams, though much increased by many generations, in regard of the terminus ad quem.’ 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 mens disputations about it. Hear his swelling words, ‘What a stood of abominations doth Schism seem to be, as rolling down to us through the writings of Cyprian, Austin, and Opra­tus of old, &c. Go to its rise, and you will find it quite another thing.’ 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; p. 276. ‘Whilst I have an uncontroulable faithful witness, that I do not willingly break any unity of the institution of Christ. p. 277. Whilst I di­sturb not the Peace of that particular [Page 214] Church, whereof by my own consent, I am a member; nor do raise up nor continue in any can sless [...]d differences, with them, or any of them with whom I walk in the fellowship & order of the Gospel; whilst I labour to exercise faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and love towards all the Saints I do keep the unity which is of the appointment of Christ, and let men say, from principles utterly forreign to the Gospel, what they please, or can, to the contrary, I am no Schismatick.’ That is, though by raising differences, I set all the Churches of England on fire, I am no Schismatick, 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; p. 277. ‘Perhaps the discovery which hath been made, how much he and his party are concerned, in that charge of Schism, upon them, which is the greatest ball of strife this day in England, (with respect to the Church) may be a most effectual engine or means to reconcile them that truly fear God though engaged in several waies.’ I can heartily say Amen to this: but yet must add what [Page 215] follows, ‘I have not any great hope of much success on this account, whilst men are fore-stalled with prejudices, and have their affections engaged thereunto. &c.’ But all our hearts are in the hand of God. &c.

§. 32 4. To conclude; ‘What va [...]n janglings men are endlesly engaged in, who will lay their own false hypotheses, (such as the Authors new notion of Schism is) as a ground of farther procedure, is in part evi­dent by what hath been delivered.’ 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 Schismatick [...] 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 expli­cite 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. ‘ [Page 216]He is a member or a particular Church, who having been in a due order▪ p. 279. joyned thereunto, hath n [...]ther voluntarily des [...]r­ted it, nor been judicially ejected out of it.’ But I assume, The members of our particu­lar Churches have been in a due order joyned [...], 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, ‘They that raise differences in them, and draw disciples from them, and renounce communion with them, say they what they please or can to the contrary are Schismaticks; Quod erat demonstrandum.’