Independency a Great Schism, Chapter 8
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 onelyonly 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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. 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 wch 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, 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 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 onelyonly 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 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 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 onelyonly 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; 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 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 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 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? 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 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 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) true Churches planted according to the mind of Chriſt, and needed onelyonly 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 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 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, 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, 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 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) 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; 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 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.
§. 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 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 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. 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.