Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 6
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. OnelyOnly I am not ſatisfied, with his aſſertion, That he not onelyonly 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 onelyonly to differences, in a particular Aſſembly; 2. His jealouſie of the charge of Schiſm, to be objected to himſelfe, and partie; 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 onelyonly 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 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly apply, what he ſayes of the Donatiſts; Though men of tender conſciences might be ſtartled at the Communion with 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 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 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 onelyonly a diviſion of judgment, in a particular Aſſembly, not a ſeparation from any Church: which if it were true, (as it is proved falſe above) as it would free Protestants from that charge by Papiſts, with eaſe; ſo it will acquit himſelfe, and all Sectaries in the world, from the crime of Schiſm; That the principle, and principall plea of Romaniſts, "that they are the Catholick Church, out of whoſe communion there is no ſalvation, (as the Donatists was of old, was and in Schiſmaticall) was and is the common vote of almoſt all Ancient and moderne Divines. And if it be true, which his partie aſſent to, that their Churches are onelyonly 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 onelyonly true Churches) how it can be exempted from Schiſm, I am to learn.
§. 5 That I was not miſtaken, in the ground he goes upon, to free the Donatiſts of old, and Protestants, together with himſelfe, from the charge of Schiſm, was, his own notion and definition of Schiſm; will now appeare, in his own anſwer to the Romaniſts argument; which he rather inſiſts upon, than upon the ſolutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schiſmin the notion and ſenſe of the Scripture preciſely, that is, for diviſions onelyonly in a particular Church; pag. 193.And thereupon denyes, 1. that there can be any ſeparation from the Catholike inviſible Church; or, if there could, it would be madneſſe to call it Schiſm. 2. nor from the Catholike viſible, becauſe the forſaking its Communion which conſiſts in profeſſion of the ſame Faith, is not Schiſm, but Apostacie.) 3. nor from a particular Church; for that is not properly Schiſm; for ſo he ſayes, 1. I deny that ſeparation from a particular Church, as ſuch, as meerly ſeperation, is Schiſm, or ought to be ſo eſteemed, though perhaps ſuch ſeperation may proceed from Schiſm, and attended with other evils: But this miſtakes the queſtion, for the Romaniſts themſelves do not mean, that every ſeparation from any Church, is Schiſm, as ſuch; but a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from the true 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. 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 onelyonly found, in a particular Church: which muſt ſerve him for more uſes than one, as we ſhall heare anon. And thence he inferres, that ſeparation either of one Church from another, or of perſons from a Church, upon any occaſion, true or falſe, what ever it be, it is no Schiſm; which is ſpoken to, above, and will come againe.
§. 6 But that there may be Schiſm, beſides that in a particular Church, I prove by a double argument, ex confeſſis. 1. Schiſm is a breach of union; But there may be a breach of union in the Catholick viſible Church; 2. Where there are differences raiſed in matter of Faith, profeſſed, (wherein the union of the Catholick Church conſiſts) there may be a breach of union, but there may be differences in the Catholick, or among the members of the Catholick Church, in matters of Faith profeſſed, ergo: I ſuppoſe his anſwer will be; That the forſaking of it's communion, which conſiſts in the profeſſion of faith, is not Schiſm but Apoſtacie, p. 193. ſ. 52. But that is not alwayes ſo; for both there may be differences in the faith, and yet no Apoſtacie; or if there be Apoſtacie, it may be a Schiſm, alſo: Apoſtates 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 onelyonly (and they fundatally maintained with obſtinacie) its Hereſie: but if it be of ſome truths onelyonly, (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 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 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 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 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 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. OnelyOnly 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 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 Church ſtories, are ſo darke, that wee cannot ſee one ſtep before us. But this hath ſufficiently by others been diſcuſſed.