Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 7
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. 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 onelyonly 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 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. 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 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. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 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. 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, 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) 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 onelyonly, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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: 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 onelyonly 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 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 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 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 foreign, is no (more, but foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly by ſuffering their people to fall from them, but alſo by ſetting themſelves fall into ſtrange opinions, or ſtrong deluſions. Not onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly 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 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? 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 onelyonly occaſionally, which they owe and tender to an Heathen; which not onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly, 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 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, 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 onelyonly 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 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.