Independency Further Proved to be a Schism, Chapter 6, 7

Independency Further Proved to be a Schism · Chapter 6, 7

p. 106CHAP. VI, VII.

THat I may not multiply or continue controverſies everlaſtingly, (a… the reverend Doctor cauſleſſely charge… me) though there be ſome things ſaid i… this Chapter, not ſo accurately delivered but juſt acceptions might be put i… againſt them; yet I ſhall forbear to exagitate them, and proceed to the next▪ And therein, becauſe the main ſubſtantiall points of our difference are already diſcuſſed, and many things repeated, which have been ſpoken to, I ſhall onelyonly make ſome ſtrictures, or animadverſions, upon ſome paſſages in every Chapter, that the reverend Doctor may ſee▪ what might have been excepted, and leſt he ſhould think himſelf ſleighted or neglected, in my paſſing over the following Chapters, though he hath ſleighted moſt of the argumentative part of mine, and many things of ſome concernment, that required an anſwer.

p. 107Pag. 101. The union of the Catholick viſible Church, in the profeſſion of the ſaving doctrine of the Goſpell, not everted by any of the miſcariages, errors, or oppoſition to it, formerly recounted; the breach of this union is apoſtacy, and ſo no ſchiſm. To which many things were …nſwered by me, to which little is ſaid; what is, ſhall be preſently conſidered. That which I now add, is this: 1. That the reverend Doctor oppoſes apoſtacy to ſchiſm, as if they might not both meet …n one. The conſequence is like the former; It is apoſtacy, Ergo, it is no ſchiſm; whereas they differ (at leaſt ſometimes) onelyonly in degrees. 2. That he ſuppoſes, that there is no breach of union of the Catholick viſible Church, but onelyonly apoſtacy, which is uſually taken for a totall relinquiſhing of the Chriſtian faith. 3. That in giving thoſe three properties of apoſtacy, he alſo ſuppoſes, that any one of them denominates a man apoſtate. Whereas I have proved, a breach of that union may be, 1. When a man believes not ſome one, of the ſaving doctrines of the Goſpell, and yet be no apoſtate, 2. That a Chriſtian may be ſcandalous, and yet a member ſtill, p. 108and ſo no apoſtate. 3. That a man ma… erre in ſome neceſſary truth of the Go… pell, and profeſſe that error for a time and yet be Orthodox to the reſt, and ſ… no apoſtate. And in all theſe caſes of difference, with the Catholick viſibl… Church, there may be a ſchiſm, o… breach of union, and no apoſtacy. To hi… queſtions then, I ſay; 1. I grant, tha… the Catholick viſible Church, is a collection of all profeſſing Chriſtians▪ 2. To be of ſuch, as profeſs the doctrine of the Goſpell, and ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt. 3. But I do not ſay, that every error in doctrine, or d ſobedience to ſome command of Chriſt, is apoſtacy, or (as he calls it) a diſſolution (totall) of that union, as to the intereſt of any member by it, in the body. 4. I have, and do charge ſome degree of apoſtacy, upon ſome of thoſe Churches, which are called Independents, and ſhall be able to defend my charge. 5. I do prove, that the breach of that union, if partiall onelyonly, is not apoſtacy, (which is a totall forſaking of the faith of the Goſpell) but rather a ſchiſm, which in his own definition, is a diviſion in opinion and judgment.p. 94 & 99 Laſtly, I have manifeſted p. 109more than ſo, that one of the truths of …he Goſpell, which all Chriſtians are …ound to, is, the joynt exerciſe of the …ame ſpecificall Ordinances, to ſubjection …o the ſame diſcipline; and, where it is …oſſible, to the exerciſe of the ſame numericall Worſhip, which himſelf granted, Of Schiſm, p. 205. ſ. 7. and again here, pag. 109. when he ſaies, to my words …fore; All this was expreſſely affirmed by me before; it is all**If every profeſſor be virtually bound by his profeſſion, to thoſe duties, what needs an explicite conſent to bind them again? virtually contained in their profeſſion, ſo far as the things are revealed in the Goſpell. Whereupon I inferred, that the denyall of the members of the Catholick Church, to joyne in the ſame numericall Ordinances, was a breach of that union, and ſo a ſchiſm, and not apoſtacy. What excepts he to his own grants? OnelyOnly as to the celebrating of the ſame numericall Ordinances, I cannot grant, that they are obliged hereunto, as formerly conſidered members of that Church, nor ſhall, till this reverend Author ſhall think meet to prove, that particular Congregations, are not the inſtitutions of Jeſus Chriſt. If he mean by, formerly members of that Church, that profeſſors, quà profeſſors, of the ſame faith; or believers, quà believers, p. 110are formally members, and obliged thereunto, he granted before what now he denies, page. 205. ſ. 7, of Schiſm. And what I believe concerning the Inſtitution o… particular congregations by Jeſus Chriſt, I gave him my thoughts in my former, page. 131. viz: the ſame which he granted; Every Chriſtian is bound to be of ſome particular Congregation, not of this or that: this is only of Inſtitution; the reſt is prudentiall: to which the Reverend Doctor ſaid nothing in its place; let him now review it.

page. 111. He ſayes, As for thoſe in Act. 19. which had not heard, whether there were an Holy Ghoſt or no; its probable they were ignorant of the miraculous diſpenſations of the Holy Ghoſt, rather than of the perſon of the Holy Ghoſt. I ſhall onelyonly returne, That whatever the matter is, I find him not ſo cautious in all his Books; its probable, rather than. &c. For the words are more plain and full, than to be ſo eluded; for they were baptized in Johns baptiſm only; who did not Baptize into the name of the Holy Ghoſt for ought appeares: and ſo they might not have heard at all, of the holy Ghoſt.

p. 111There are other particulars in his …hapter deſerving ſome Animadverſi… … but either they have been ſpoken to …fore, or they are foreign to the buſi…ſſe before us, and I ſhall not draw the … any longer.

page. 116. OnelyOnly ſomething may be …d to what he ſayes, of the ſubjects of …hriſt the Head of the Church, which I …d, ſome wicked men may be; He askes. Are indeed thoſe perſons any better than Mahumetans, as to Church priviledges? ſhall their Baptiſm availe them? is it not …null to them? ſhall ſuch Parents give their Children any right to Church priviledges? All theſe were prevented …d anſwered by me, p. 95. 96. of which …e Reverend Doctor takes no notice: …t repeates the ſame objections. And …ſtly askes, Doth the Apoſtle any where call ſuch perſons brethren?What uſe is there of excommunication, if wicked perſons be no members of the Church, & are ipſo fado unmembred, &c. as I ſaid, page. 96. God forbid we ſhould imagine theſe things ſo to be. When as the Text by me produced …xpreſſely calls ſuch, brethren: 1 Cor. 5.…1. If any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, &c. If that may be eluded …he other cannot: 2 Theſ. 13.17. Count him not as an enemy, but admoniſh him as a brother. I expect that he an…wer my arguments.

p. 112p. 119. He ſayes, I am not with… trouble that I cannot underſtand, w… he meanes, by placing my words ſo, a… intimate, that I ſay, not onelyonly that … Church of Rome is no particular Chur… but alſo, that it is no Church at all; though it might in his judgment mine, be any Church, if it be not a pa… ticular Church: Surely the Revere… Doctor cannot but underſtand the di… ference between ſaying, Rome is no pa… ticular Church, and, no Church at all▪ The miſt is of his owne making; th… will not diſtinguiſh of the word partic… lar Church; which may be taken eithe… for a nationall or patriarchal Church, as b… himſelf it was, page. 121. of Schiſm; or fo… a particular Congregation, which is the… ordinary notion. Now though ROM… may be ſaid to be no particular Churc… as a Congregation; yet it may be (and is b… others) taken for a Patriarchal particular Church: which is much more than to ſay, it is no Church at all: But he ſayes, I affirme the ſame that he does, in my page. 113. when I ſay the Hierarchicall Papall Church, is not a Church of Chriſts inſtitutions. I meant (as I explain my ſelf elſewhere,) that the Papacy p. 113or Papall Church, and the Church of ROME, are two diſtinct things, differing …s the Leproſie and the hand; yet I do not …ay, the hand is no hand, becauſe of that …eproſie; as he ſayes, ROME is no Church, becauſe its Papall, &c.

Page. 120. Do I undertake the cauſe of the Donatiſts? do I labour to exempt them from Schiſm? are theſe the wayes of peace, love, and truth, he walkes in? … appeal all Readers, whether he did not …abour to exempt the Donatiſts, from …chiſm, p. 164. though he condemned …ll their practiſes as other crimes? And did he not undertake to exempt ſome others from Schiſm, (he knowes whom) that ſuffer with them, in former and after ages, under the ſame imputation? And was it not upon his own new notion; becauſe Schiſm is only a diviſion …n, not from, a particular Church? Yea was it not Schiſmaticall for them, to caſt Cecilianus out of the Church, renouncing communion with him, and the Church of Carthage alſo? ibid. p. 17. 18. The World hath hitherto judged it ſo; and the Reverend Doctor is now come off to that opinion, when he ſayes "Do I labour to exempt them from Schiſm? p. 114which (the Rhetoricall Interrogation affirmative, being reſolved) is negative I do not labour to exempt them from Schiſm; Ergo they were Schiſmaticks in that ſeparation. And once more, A ſep… ration from a true Church, is ſometim… Schiſm, as well as diviſion in it; But h… ſayes, angerly it ſeems; Sir, I have no ſingular notion of Schiſm, but that wch Pau… long ſince declared, I pray, what was Pauls notion of the Schiſm amongſt the Corinthians? was it, that (which is yours) that Schiſm was onelyonly a diviſion in a particular Church? no; but that their Schiſm was a diviſion in, that Church (with a degree of ſeparation in it, as to ſome Ordinances as I have proved) not, that that comprehended the full nature of Schiſm; and if the notion of Schiſm was not at all under conſideration in reference to the Donatiſts, I deſire him to look back to the objection which he undertooke to anſwer; was it not the charge of Schiſm? if not that, what elſe? Not Schiſm, but the union of the Church Catholick, and the breach thereof. And what is the breach of the union of that Church, (in his notion) but Apoſtacy from the truth of the Goſpell? p. 115And would this be a congruous anſwer to the charge of Schiſm; to ſay, the Donatiſts were not Apoſtates? Did they renounce the Goſpel? Nothing leſſe: but renouncing communion with the catholick Cuhrch, and making themſelves the only Churches in the world, they were by all men in all ages till now, accounted not Apoſtates, but Schiſmaticks: But too much of that.

Page. 123. I and my party, (that's the Phraſeologie, this Author in his love to union, delights in) have broken the union of their Churches. I pray, is it not as equall for me to call them a partie, as for them to ſeparate from us, and make themſelves a party, renouncing communion with us? They went out from us not we from them: But it is denied, We have no more broken the union of their Churches, than they of ours: For we began our reformation with them on even termes, and were as early at work as they. Let the READER now obſerve, whether the REVEREND DOCTOR do not either make, or own a p…rty; (we) which he blam'd in me? But I adde: 1. If he looke at himſelfe, he began not his reformation till after—44. vvhen his Tract p. 116of Paſtor and People came forth, then he was a Preſbyterian: yea till 46. vvhen he preached before the PARLIAMENT; then he was a Preſbyterian, and (as I hear) pleaded for that way: 2. If he looke at the Independents that went out of ENGLAND, they at firſt diſliked nothing but our ceremonies, and deſired no Reformation, but a liberty of conſcience from thoſe ſnares, as the reſt of the honeſt non-conformiſts did, who ſeparated not; a Preſbyterian-reformation would then have contented them: but in a little time, the ſeeds of Browniſm were ſowed amongſt them; and, for that, they were charged with Schiſm from the beginning thereof, by moderate pious men amongſt us, 3. They (nor the Reverend Doctor) have not yet demonſtrated their way to be a reformation, but a deformation of our Churches; though ſometimes for ſhame of the World, they call us true Churches; which they contradict by ſeparating from us, and renouncing communion, as Churches, with us: 4. vvhen we began to reforme, (by authority of the Magiſtrate, which they did not) ſome of his party caſt all the blocks they could in our way, and p. 117gathered Churches from us. And though he deny it, that they (he ſaies, we) have ſeparated from all the reformed Churches, as no Churches; and himſelf with them in his principles, if not in practiſe; is ſo fully demonſtrated above, to all reaſonable men, that I wonder that he ſhould expect recompence and ſatisfaction, for calumniating-accuſations and ſlanders, which are proved truths; and talk of his forgivneſſe of one, that never wronged him. For the parallel of Independentiſm and Donatiſm, how much he or his party is concerned, let others judge.

Pag. 126. He cavills at my firſt proof, that there may be a b…ach of union in the Catholick viſible Chur…h, if the form of it were faulty. But what is wanting to make up a perfect Syllogiſm, might eaſily have been ſupplyed, from the former diſcourſe, by himſelf, if he had pleaſed; thus: 1. Schiſm is the breach of union in a Church, of Chriſts inſtitution: But the Catholick Church is a Church of Chriſts inſtitution; Ergo, there may be a ſchiſm in the Catholick Church. 2. There may be differences in matter of faith profeſſed, which is the union of the p. 118Catholick Church; Ergo, there may be ſchiſm in the Catholick Church, which not ariſing to apoſtacy, muſt needs be ſchiſm, as I proved above: And he muſt evade, by one of thoſe anſwers which I preſented to him, pag. 115. or elſe muſt beg the queſtion. For a cloſe of this; Can there be any breach of union, in the nature of the word, in the language of Scripture, or in reaſon or common ſenſe, which is not a ſchiſm, more or leſſe, according to the degr…e of that breach of union? But to the ſecond, he ſaies, Two profeſſors may fall out, and differ, and yet continue both profeſſors ſtill; Paul and Barnabas did ſo, ſo Chryſoſtom and Epiphanius, &c. This breach of union in Paul and Barnabas, profeſſors of no particular Church; that of Chryſoſtom and Epiphanius, of ſeverall Churches:Act. 15.39 foreign.Acts 15:39 Was it not a fault in one party? both could not be in the right. What, will he call that breach of union? Surely not apoſtacy, (for they were, he ſaies, profeſſors ſtill) they were far from renouncing the profeſſion of the Goſpell, either of them. What then was it, but a ſchiſm, and ſinfull ſeparation in one party? And nothing p. 119hinders to call it ſo, but onelyonly the reverend Doctor's new notion of ſchiſm, to be onelyonly a diviſion in a particular Church.

Pag. 128. and the two following pages, are filled with little to purpoſe, but with charges, of evill ſurmiſes, reproaches, falſe criminations, wranglings, impertinencies, bitterneſs of ſpirit, &c. which are almoſt an hundred times repeated, but not once proved: He concludes with the guilt of one of my charges, that is, falſhood, when he ſaies, I am glad to find him, pag. 120. renouncing Ordination, from the authority of the Church of Rome, as ſuch: For I am aſſured, that in ſo doing, he can claim it no way from, by, or through Rome; for nothing came to us from thence, but what came in and by the authority of that Church. I might cry out of miſtakes, calumniations, or equivocations, &c. for neglecting to obſerve my diſtinction, given before and after; before: They baptized and ordained, not as Antichriſtian, not as Biſhops, or Romiſh Prieſts, but as Preſbyters. After, in the next page; They did it as Officers, not as Officers of that Church, that Papall Antichriſtian p. 120Hierarchy. From whence I ſaid, It is falſe then, that (which he had charged, pag. 199.) that Ordination is pleaded, from the authority of the Church of Rome, as ſuch: That is, as Antichriſtian. And I ſay again, his laſt words are falſe; That nothing came to us from thence, but what came in, and by, the authority of that Church, if he mean, the Antichriſtian Church of Rome. To conclude, he often profeſſes, he hath not renounced his Ordination, by an Engliſh Biſhop; that Biſhop had his ſuccceſſive Ordination from ſome that had it from Rome. Yet he could diſtinguiſh a double capacity of thoſe Biſhops, one as Lord Biſhops, pag. 227. another as Miniſters of the Goſpell, &c. pag. 231. Now if he renounce not his Ordination, he will deny, that he received it from Biſhops, as ſuch; but from them as Miniſters of the Goſpell. And may not we diſtinguiſh ſo of the Romiſh Biſhops? is it not ordinary for all our Divines ſo to diſtinguiſh? What perverſneſſe is this! The buſineſſe about Ordination of our Miniſters, required his judgment and anſwer; but he thinks beſt to wave it, though it was ſtarted by himſelf, p. 196.

p. 121Pag. 131. I am cauſleſſely quarell'd …, for calling his deſcription of a parti…ular Church, a definition; and he ſaies, He waved conteſts about accurate definitions, which uſually tend very little, to the diſcovery or eſtabliſhment of truth. Both which, I wonder at, in ſo great a Logician: For 1. Is not a deſcription in Logick call'd, an imperfect definition? …. The conteſts amongſt men, often…imes grow from want of a perfect defi…ition. The true Genus, and proper differentia, being the cleareſt way to diſcover, and eſtabliſh the truth. And this is evident, by his own deſcription of a particular Church: Is it not a definition, conſiſting of a Genus, a ſociety of men called by the word; and a differentia, the joynt performance of the worſhip of God, in the ſame individuall Ordinances, &c? Did he not make the form of a particular Church to be, The obſervance and performance of the ſame Ordinances of Worſhip, numerically, &c. pag. 236. And do not both thoſe make up a definition? Whether it be accurate or no, is now to be conſidered. And that it is not a perfect or full definition, or deſcription, appears from what I p. 122ſaid, pag. 123. becauſe it is applicab… to the Church inviſible, and to the viſib… Catholick Church, as well as to a part… cular Congregation. Each, or all … theſe, may be deſcribed to be a ſoci… ty of men, called out of the world, by t… Word, &c. according to all the part… culars of his deſcription, as hath bee… evidenced by me, and acknowledged b… himſelf above? And I added, Th… ſuch ſocieties are all our particular Congregations; and ſo, as true Churches a… theirs. To which he ſaies but this "That was not the thing in queſtion. If i… was not there, it is (he knowes) a queſtion between them and us; and my inference was rationall, from his deſcription, A particular Church is a ſoc…ety, &c But ours are ſuch; Ergo, true Churches and conſequently, not (without ſchiſm to be ſeparated from.

Pag. 132. Concerning the explicit covenant, ſo much urged by them, h… ſaies, I am not at all concerned in it; … purpoſely waved all expreſſions concerning it, one way or other, &c. But did he not give us the form of a particular Church,pag. 215. and the union of it, to conſiſt in a joynt conſent of the members, to walk p. 123together, &c. ſee pag. 142. of Review? …t not by them made the very form of …articular Church, without which,M. Hooker Survey …an can no more be a member of a par…ular Church, then a woman can be …th a mans wife, without her explicite …nſent? I noted the difference of his …preſſion; one while he ſaid, The form a particular Church, was the joynt …ſent of the members; another while, It is the joynt obſervance of all Ordinances of worſhip, numerically, &c. Now … evident, that theſe are not the ſame …ing; there may be a joynt obſervance the ſame Ordinances numerically, by …embers of ſeverall Churches, mee…ng together; yea, by members of the …atholick Church, yet of no particular …hurch, by joynt conſent. And this latter, …e joynt performance of the ſame Ordi…ances of worſhip numerically, is the …rm (if it have any) of a particular …hurch, differencing it from the other. …his diverſity of expreſſions, the reve…end Doctor puts off; firſt, with a ſleigh…ing ſentence, Id populus curat ſcilicet; …nd then evades, by asking;pag. 144. Is it the command of Chriſt, that believers ſhould ſo do? Is not their obedience to that command, p. 124their conſent ſo to do? Is it the duty of every one, to joyne himſel… ſome one of the Churches? Can any do ſo, without his conſenting ſo to Is this conſent any thing, but his vol… tary ſubmiſſion, to the Ordinances worſhip therein? Let me ask but ſo like queſtions; What's all this to purpoſe? what to an explicite coven… or conſent, which they require? M… not all this be done implicitely, and th… ſufficient, in their own confeſſion, make a Church? Did not he ſay, … this was virtual y contained in their pr… feſſion ſo far,See p. 145. As an expreſſe conſent, &c. as the things mentioned … revealed in the Goſpell, pag. 10 When a man firſt profeſſes himſelf Chriſtian, he virtually and implicite promiſes to do all thoſe duties, whi… concern him, in any relation to his fello… members, and Miniſter: What ne… then, to lay ſo much weight upon an e… plicite Covenant, (unleſſe ſometimes in prudentiall way, when a Church renew the generall Covenant; or to bind me faſter, to what they were bound to before, but neglected) I ſay, what need i… there, to lay the whole weight of Church-conſtitution, (as no Churc… p. 125without it) upon an explicite covenant …en the implicite is confeſſ'd ſufficient. …heſe things ſhould not have been …ved, or ſleighted by him, that makes …e form of a particular Church, to be …oynt conſent: by which, if he mean …t an explicite conſent or covenant, ſpeaks nothing to the difference be…een us, and ratifies the conſtituti… of our Churches, as well as his …wn.

Ibid: "I thinke no one ſingle congregation is wholly compleated according to the mind of Chriſt, unleſſe there be more Elders than one in it; there ſhould be Elders in every Church. What meanes …e by Elders in every Church? a Paſtor …nd a Teacher? can he prove the Apoſtle …ft two ſuch Elders in every Church? …r are both theſe ſo neceſſary in every …hurch, that without them, it is no …hurch? Or does he meane, every Church muſt have, beſide thoſe two, …uling Elders in it? Can he prove there …ere ſuch at EPHESUS, Act. 20.17. …nd they ſent for, by the Apoſtle; He …peaks to them as more than one or two, …ou all, v. 25. He may tell us in the next, …ow many Elders, according to the mind p. 126of Chriſt, compleat a Church; and ho… he will reconcile the whole differenc… as to their and our Churches:Anat of Independent page. 26. reme… bring this, that as Mr. Simpſon had … Ruling Elders, nor did approve of the… in his Church: So I do not know wh… ther the Independent Church at Oxfor… have any ſuch Elders, or no.

Page. 134. I am ſo farre from confirming baptiſm ſubjectively to a part… cular Church, that I do not believe, th… any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized: Baptiſ… precedes admiſſion into Church-memberſh…p, as to a particular Church: the ſubject of it, is profeſſing believers, and the… ſeed, whether joyned to any particula… Church or no. I muſt confeſſe, I know not how to take theſe words: 1. I… ſeems at firſt ſight to conclude, tha… himſelf and the generality of Chriſtian in ENGLAND were never regularly baptized, being baptized all, in ſom… particular Church: 2. It ſounds ſomething Anabaptiſticall, that a Church is made of baptized perſons; baptiſm precedes admiſſion into Church memberſhip, (ſay they alſo) as to a particular Church; and denying Infant baptiſm to p. 127… valid, they re-baptize men, before they …mit them members of their Church:Of Schiſm p. 85.208. Theſe Churches were (by Jeſus Chriſt) made the only Seate of that worſhip, which in particular he expreſſeed his will to have continued untill he came, &c. This is contradicted by the brethren … NEW ENGLAND, who make a …rticular Church only, the Seat of all …dinances, and none to be regularly bap…zed, that are not baptized in a parti…ular Church: 4. The ſame is aſſerted … himſelf, page. 106. of his Review: particular Churches, being by the will of God appoynted for the Seat of Ordinances. Then, unleſs baptiſm be no Church Ordinance of God, it muſt be done in a …articular Church. But he ſayes, for his preſent miſtake, I ſhall not complain ſeeing that ſome occaſion may be adminiſtred to it, from an expreſſion of mine; which we find to be this: Chriſt hath given no direction for any duty of worſhip, but only to them and by them who are ſo joyned, Of Schiſm, page. 206. ſ. 10. Whereupon I asked, whether baptiſm was a part of worſhip? If ſo, how could he reconcile this with what he ſaid afore, that members of the Catholick Church are initiated into that profeſſion by Babtiſm: For if a profeſſor of the catholick Church only, may be baptized, how is a particular Church, the Seat of p. 128all Ordinances? and ſo to be performe… by them that are ſo joyned? To rectif… not mine, but his own miſtake he no… ſayes: Baptiſm is ſo to be performed … them, that is a Miniſter in or of them Page. 136. How eaſily might I miſtake when himſelf miſtook, and lead me ou… of the way: And will this make me ever the wiſer? The thing he had to prov… was the neceſſity of every believer's joyning to ſome one particular Church, … enjoy the Ordinances of the Goſpell: Thi… he proves, "becauſe Chriſt hath given n… direction for the performance of any duty of worſhip of Soveraign inſtitution, bu… only in them (the particular Churches) and by them, who are ſo joyned. He mends it, till it is the worſe again? If he would imply, that a Miniſter in or of a particular Church may perform thoſe ordinances, without thoſe congregations (which onelyonly was to purpoſe) he contradicts himſelf for ſaying, A particular Church, is the ſeat of all Ordinances: If he meane, thoſe Ordinances of worſhip, are to be performed only by a Miniſter of a particular Congregation, what ſhall become of the people? and what made the words, ſo joyned here? Does it p. 129…ot concern them to w…hip God? Or …ay a Miniſter perform any acts of wor…hip, out of a particular Church? That I …aid, was denyed by men of his way, that … Miniſter is ſuch to any more than his …wn Church: He askes me; Who told me he denies a Miniſter, to be a Miniſter to more than his own Church, &c. page. 135. I have been told (and I pre…ume he will not deny it) that when the Learned DOCTOR WALLIS, had brought to him as Vicechancellor, that Queſtion to be defended negativè, in the …eſpers of the publick Act at Oxford, …654. An poteſtas Miniſtri evangelici, ad unius tantum Eccleſiae particularis membra extendatur, this Reverend Doctor ſaid thereupon, that Doctor Wallis had brought him a challenge, adding, that if he did diſpute upon that Queſtion, he muſt diſpute ex animo. And if this be true, as I preſume it is, what need I be further told, that he denyes a Miniſter to be a Miniſter to more, than his particular congregation? I have alſo been told further (which I preſume he will not deny neither) that when Doctor Wallis's? Theſis on that Queſtion, p. 130was ſince pri…d, this Revered Docto… did imploy, or at leaſt encourage (an Amanuenſis of his) Mr. Stubbs of Chriſt▪ Church (now advocate for Mr. Hobs) to write againſt it: Though indeed, whe… that work written, was found a Scurrilous rid…culous p…ece (for ſo I heare, h… is ſince pleaſed to ſtyle it) he did no… thinke fit to let it be made publick, becauſe (they were his own words,) h… would not have that cauſe ſuffer ſo much as to be defended by ſuch a Penne. I have h…ard more, to this purpoſe, but I forb are: Only I ſhall (to ſhew his Incon…ancy to himſelf) let the Reader know how liberally he now grants, Miniſteriall Acts may be performed not only to the members of the Catholick Church, but to the viſible members of the world alſo. I leave him and his friends to debate and reconcile themſelves one to another in this.

Page. 136. Prayer and reading the Word in private families are parts of wor…hip, but not meerely and purely of Soveraign inſtitution: Theſe are expreſſely commanded, D…ut. 6, 7, 8, &c? I ſhall not follow him in the reſt; only whereas he complements with me in ſo high a p. 131…ode; p. 139. I would humbly intreat this reverend Author, to ſend me his reaſons, whereby it may be confirmed, viz. …hat there muſt be particular Churches, …or every profeſſor to joyne with, one or other, for the celebrating of publick Ordinances. I as humbly deſire him to …view my 132, page. &c. and to conſider my reaſons, if they be not as good …s his and what therein is of Inſtitution.

3. Preaching to convert Heathens is not (as deſcribed) a duty of worſhip in all caſes; and when it is, it is to be performed by a Miniſter. What meanes he by thoſe words, as deſcribed? my words were, preaching to convert Heathens and then to baptize them; is it not a duty of worſhip belonging to a Miniſter? is there any preaching properly ſo called, that is not a duty of worſhip? or may any do it but a Miniſter? Rom. 10.14. In his Tract of Paſtor and People; he allowed, in extraordinary caſes, any man that had gifts and a people willing to hear him, to be a Preacher; Is that one of the caſes, vvhen preaching to convert Heathens is not a duty of worſhip, p. 132and …ot belonging to a Miniſter? Or is it that parentheſis of mine, (and then to baptize them, when converted) that makes it a duty of worſhip, and to be performed by a Miniſter? I humbly conceive, this anſwer is ſomewhat obſcure▪ and ſatisfies not my fourth, concerning himſelf, when I asked, By what authority he himſelf Preaches, and Prayes too? and with the Parliament, &c. Or are not thoſe, there done, parts of worſhip? which he calls an invid…ous enquiry, and ſo paſſes it by. It required an anſwer, whether he accounts thoſe to be particular Congregations, that are mixt and unjoyned? Whether he performed thoſe as duties of worſhip, as a Miniſter; and by vertue of what Ordination, if he have not renounced it, as, he ſaith, he hath not? eſpecially, if he was not Ordained in a particular Church? Of which, in the next.

Pag. 138. My judgement is, that ordinary Officers are firſtly to be ordained, in particular Churches. I onelyonly ask, in what particular Church himſelf was ordained? and if he was, whether he p. 133…id not firſt renounce his former Ordina…ion by a Biſhop, which he hath ſo oft …enyed to have done? For I do not expect him to ſay, he is an extraordinary Officer. And if ordinary Officers be onelyonly ordained in a particular Church, …t would be reſolved, how he can do …ny Miniſteriall act, to any other particular Church, or to the Catholick Church, or World, which he granted above? And then, how thoſe that are members of that particular Church, are not confined to him, as well as he to them? Paſtor and Flock being ſuch Relata's, as Husband and Wife. This piece of Independency was a matter of great conteſt in new England, by one that was no child in thoſe things: whether the practiſe of thoſe in old England be otherwiſe, I know not; if it be, I doubt, it is onelyonly to ſuch members, as are of ſome Church of the ſame conſtitution; which is ſomething leſſe, but no whit better, as to our communion with them.

Pag. 140. If the diſcourſe about the interciſion of Ordinances, and all Church-ſtate, was an impertinency, it p. 134was his own fault, to ſtart it thrice pag. 85. and 211. and 271. and a greate fault to wave it here: OnelyOnly, we have … promiſe, That in convenient time, h… may offer ſomewhat further, toward the inveſtigation of the mind of Go… therein; and it becomes me to wai… his leiſure: "It is not a matter to be toſse… up and down, in this ſcambling chaſe▪ Yet, as I ſaid, he inſinuated in his queſtion, that England was unchurched, and the Churches planted here did ceaſe to be; and tells us, by what act God did unchurch them: But now waves to anſwer all my ſeven queſtions, (which required an anſwer) but the laſt; to which a ſufficient reply is made, (where it was unſeaſonably brought in) upon his firſt Chapter,Ad. p. 21. to which I refer him. OnelyOnly I take notice, of his introduction to his anſwer, with thanks for the civility of the enquiry, in the manner of its expreſſion. My words were theſe, Whether our reverend Author do not in his conſcience think, there were no true Churches in England, till, &c. which puts me into a ſuſpicion, that the reverend Doctor was offended, that I did p. 135not alwaies (for oft I do) give him that …tle, of the reverend Author, or reverend Doctor; which made him ſo cry out, He was never ſo dealt with, by any party, as by me; though upon review, I do not find, that I gave him any uncivill …anguage, unbeſeeming me to give, or …im to receive: And I hear, that ſome body hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that reſpect, which he took very …ill.

Pag. 148. For my part, I am not acquainted with thoſe Independents, which allow no communion of Churches, but what is prudentiall. It ſeems, the reverend Doctor is little acquainted with the principles of the Independents, in new and old England; yea, he conſiders not the very name of an Independent Church, which what doth it ſignifie, but an Independency, or non communion of one Church with another, as Churches, as I noted, pag. 155. at leaſt of divine inſtitution. The reſt, what is it but prudentiall, or communion of members of the Catholick Church? And I ſhall onelyonly propound this to his conſideration: 1. Whether if there be p. 136any communion of Churches, as Churches, (which he grants, or elſe equivocates) there be not a breach of that communion and union, (and ſo a ſchiſm) When one Church refuſes to hold tha… communion with another, which ought to be between them; which before, and now, he denies: it is no ſchiſm, properly ſo called: Unleſſe he mean, it is not properly ſo called, with reſpect to his new notion of ſchiſm. But now he is upon the common notion of ſchiſm, a breach of union or unity; and then it is a ſchiſm, to refuſe that communion, which ought (by divine appointment) to be between them. 2. They having acknowledged our Churches to be true Churches, and then ſome communion to be due to us, as Churches; how can they ſeparate from us, and refuſe communion with us, without a breach of union, and ſo without ſchiſm? unleſſe he mean, they allow communion of their own Churches, by inſtitution of Chriſt, but not with ours; no not ſo much as prudentiall, as Churches. 3. Many Independents (and the reverend Doctor with them) ſeem to hold, that communion p. 137of Churches by Delegates, in a Councill or Synod, is onelyonly prudentiall, and not of Chriſts inſtitution; and then he may mean, there is no breach of union, in refuſing to hold that communion, becauſe it is not an union or communion of Chriſts inſtitution. To conclude this, how little reaſon the reverend Doctor had, to cry out of outragious injury done him, in thoſe words of mine; Is not the deſigne of his Book to prove, if he could, and condemn us as no Churches? Let the world be judge. When he hath often told us, that in ſeparation from us, they have broken no union of Chriſts inſtitution; as I have often ſaid. And here tells us, I have no more ſeparated from you, than you have done from me:Of ſchiſm, pag. 218. Which how unreaſonably (I will not ſay, outragiouſly) falſ it is, I ſay again, let the world, and Saints, and who wil, be judge. And then conſider, what need there was, of his forgivneſſe, of all my reproaches, revilings, &c. which appear to be none. But though I am unjuſtly charged all p. 138along, with ſuch miſcariages, the reverend Doctor ſhall have a place in my heart and prayers. And ſo much of his ninth Chapter.

Pag. 146. What Independentiſm is, he doth neither here declare, nor do I know what it is that he intends by it; the name is invidiouſly broached, and diſowned by them to whom it is aſcribed, &c. But 1. The reverend Doctor is very forgetfull, of what he ſaies; for he told us once before, pag. 47. Though he name not that party, yet it is evident whom he intends. And once again, pag. 148. What Sect it is, any man may judge, that takes the leaſt view of his Treatiſe. My Treatiſe was intended againſt all ſorts of Independents, and againſt himſelf as one of them; for they all plead their Congregations to be Independent, having all Church-power within themſelves, that denominates them all Independents, See Anat. of Indep. p. 37, 38.though they otherwiſe differ one with another. 2. That invidious name, however diſowned by them, was firſt of their own invention, and p. 139by practiſe, (as well as by the former Doctrine) arrogated to themſelves. 3. They all agree alſo in ſeparation from our Churches; they unchurch our Churches, unminiſter our Miniſters, &c. pag. 148. With ſuch I deal. He asks, Is this Independentiſm a ſchiſm, properly ſo called? I hope he did not expect, that I ſhould plead for it. I deny that I unminiſter their Miniſters, &c. How he can with conſcience deny this, of moſt of the Sects of Independents, I much wonder; not onelyonly Anabaptiſts, but ſome of his own way, not yet gone ſo far, do ſeparate from our Churches, unminiſter our Miniſters, &c. And his own principles do the ſame, and will ere long lead him thither, as I have abundantly proved. But what means he by Independentiſm?

Pag. 149. If by Independentiſm he underſtands, the peaceable proceeding of any of the people of God, in this Nation, in the ſeverall parts of it, to joyne themſelves, by their free conſent, to walk together in the obſervation of all the Ordinances of p. 140Chriſt, appointed to be obſerved in particular Churches, ſo to reform themſelves from ſome diſorders, wherein they were entangled, being not able in ſome things, to joyne in the preſbyterian way of reformation, without judging and condemning them, as to the whole of their ſtation and Ordinances; when it ſhall be proved ſchiſm, it ſhall be attended to. The like is repeated again, pag. 160. with ſome little difference; for ſuch, onelyonly he pleads. Now to ſpeak in the reverend Doctors mode, I humbly beſeech this reverend Author, ſeriouſly to conſider, what he hath ſaid, and whom he pleads for: 1. Whether he do not plead for all the Sects in the Nation, as to the whole of this, (except one particular, of which by and by)? Do they not all plead a peaceable proceeding of (themſelves) the people of God, to joyne together by their free conſent, to walk together in the obſervation of all the Ordinances, &c? to reform themſelves from diſorders, as not able p. 141to joyne in the way of preſbyterian …eformation? &c. 2. Will he call …hat a peacable proceeding, which …s done without the authority of …he Chriſtian civill Magiſtrate, and …o the diſturbance of all the Churches of the Nation? 3. Were it granted, that in the firſt conſtitution **So he ſeems to mean, pag. 160. when he ſpeaks of Members of the Catholick Church, both inviſible and viſible, to be joyned in particular Churches.of a Church, people might, by their own free conſent, joyne to walk together, &c. Is this courſe tolerable in ſetled Churches, without confuſion, and overthrowing of the very conſtitution of Churches, &c? as he ſaid elſewhere, Duty of Paſtor and People, pag. 53. (to which I have ſpoken, in the end of my ſecond Chapter above) unleſſe he will deny us now to be true Churches. May not the members of his own Church, upon ſome d…ſorders of it, (as they can eaſily conceive) have the ſame liberty to ſeparate from them, and joyne by free conſent together, to ſet up another Church? Nay, do they not take p. 142that liberty? and notwithſtanding all the bonds and fetters of free conſent, and explicite covenant to continue with them, deſert them upon this very principle, and joyne themſelves with Anabaptiſts, and other Sects? 4. And do they not all break the laſt condition, judging and condemning the preſent way of reformation, as to the whole of their ſtation and Ordinances? Will the reverend Doctor put out the eyes of all men, but his own? Laſtly,Nothing but apparent ſin, in the way of performance of morall duties, can excuſe the withdrawing from them, when occaſion of enjoying is offered. Robinſ. Treat. of lawfulneſse of hearing Engliſh Miniſters, pag. 6. See alſo pag. 17. and his Apol. pag. 87. I leave it to his own conſideration, whether it be lawful for people, that are members of true Churches, (as ours are acknowledged to be) upon ſome diſorders in a Church, or pretence of reforming themſelves, to ſeparate from that Church, and to erect another; when as they have done their duty to reform it, in thoſe diſorders; notwithſtanding which, they may without ſin, communicate with that p. 143Church? but rather to breake true Churches into pieces, than to bear with ſome inconveniences. And I …eſire a preſident of ſuch a practiſe in …cripture or ſtory.

Page. 156. When they and we began to reforme, thouſands of the people of God in this nation, had no reaſon to ſuppoſe themſelves to belong to one particular Church rather than another; they lived in one Pariſh, heard in another. If they did not ſuppoſe themſelves to be of ſome particular Church, it was their error and their fault; their errour becauſe all the people of the Nation, were confind to that Church where they lived; and lyable to cenſure for leaving that Church, for partaking of Ordinances; and the Miniſters for admitting them: Their fault, becauſe they were bound by way of duty, both by the Lawes of the Nation, and alſo by the Law of God, to be of one or other particular Congregation; as the Reverend Doctor hath oft aſſerted: and this d…ſorder to be of no one congregation, would not be indured in p. 144any of their members. The bondage only was that they are obliged to be members, where the Ordinances, were not at all or ſinfully adminiſtred: In my eighth Chapter, he leapes over above twenty leaves a… once.

Page. 154. I had ſaid, our Churches under the Prelates, were not capable of reduction to the primitive inſtitution; whereupon he profeſſed he could not looke upon ſuch ſocieties as Churches of Chriſt. Which (ſaid I) was to unchurch all our Churches, ſince the Reformation: He anſwers, The Churches of ENGLAND were capable of that reduction under the Prelates, though in ſome things hindered by them, from an actuall reducement. Doth this become the Doctor's ingenuity? So are the Churches of ROME capable▪ potentià remotá, to be reduced to the primitive inſtitution: but ſo hindered by ſome body, that he that ſhould go about it, would find thē actually uncapable of ſuch reducement: So are our Churches capable of ſuch a reduction; and it is probable, p. 145had been reduced to the primitive inſtitution ere this, but he knows we have obſtructed it: as I told him before: yea that perfect liberty for reformation, or rather toleration of all Religions, is the greateſt Impediment to our Reformation; and vvhilſt it continues, will render us more uncapable of Reduction to the primitive inſtitution: Whilſt our people have ſo much liberty to be of any, or no Religion, no R…formation is poſſible; and yet vve are potentially capable of that reduction: And the Reverend Doctor's advice, given before and novv againe, page. 270. of Schiſm? that people take ſome other peaceable way, to make themſelves partakers of thoſe purchaſed priviledges, &c. comes both too late, for they have done it already by ſeparation from us; and alſo unreaſonably, becauſe if it be taken, it renders us more uncapable of that Reformation deſired, by withdrawing the beſt and moſt reformed of our members from us, and leaves us but few beſide thoſe that hate to be reformed.

Page. 166. Beſide the radicall p. 146union (as he calls it, page. 96. of Schiſm?) of the Church Catholick: inviſible in it ſelfe, and with its head; there is (as he tells us alſo, pag. 97.) "another conſequentiall union, with peculiar reference to the members themſelves, and that is the mutual love of all thoſe united in the Head; towards one another, &c. Novv though he cannot break the radicall union with the Head; he may breake the conſequentiall union or conſequence of that union, which conſiſts in mutuall love. Paul and Barnabas fell into difference, and ſeparation one from another; yet were, no doubt, true members of the Inviſible Church, (though not of any particular Church) and this was at leaſt ſome degree of breach of that mutuall love and peace, that ought to have been between them; hereupon it was that I ſaid, unleſſe the Reverend Doctor think there are no members of this Church in ENGLAND, but theſe that are of his formed particular Congregations, I feare he will be found to break the union, that ought to be between them. He is grieved p. 147he ſayes, at this my declaration; becauſe the union of the members of this Church in this ſenſe, conſiſts in their joynt union to, and with Chriſt their head, by one ſpirit, concealing the other, of mutuall love, which I intended: Now when the Reverend Doctor or ſome Churches of his party, have ſeparated from ſome whom they acknowledge truely godly; and keep them out of communion with themſelves, in their Churches, unleſs they will give a conſent to be members of that Church, by an explicite covenant (he knowes where this was practiſed) I ſhall ſay again, here was a breach of union, that ought to be between the members of that catholick Church: It is not his ſaying, that he does not think, all the members of that Church are compriſed in their Churches or ours, that will help it (who made the firſt diviſion, they or we, is well known): but it is the denyall of communion with ſuch members, on the termes aforeſaid, that breaks the union of mutuall love, between thoſe members.

p. 148Page. 167. I had ſaid; By gathering Saints of the greateſt magnitude, they do what they can to make the Inviſible Church viſible. He anſwers: It is confeſſed we do ſo; This, with al… that lyes in us, we draw them unto. And truly, it is our care and indeavour to make all our viſible profeſſours, inviſible true bel…evers: But this is not their way: They do not, (as we do) labour to make b…re profeſſours (meere naturall men, of their own Congregations) to be reall belie- (vers for they pretend to admit none ſuch, if they know them) but they un…eaſonably and unjuſtly gather, or rather ſteal, our beſt profeſſours, and reall believers, to make a Church viſible, of inviſible members, a Church of all elect ones. Which courſe, as it is not to be exemplified in all Scripture, or ſtorie; So it is foreſpoken by Chriſt himſelf, not to be accompliſhed; who hath told us, the Wheate and the Tares, the Goates and t…e Sheep, muſt be mixt together in the Church, till the great day of finall ſeparation? and we doubt not, but p. 149they find the impoſſib…l…ty of effecting that deſigne, when they and the world ſees, they have in their Churches ſome hypocrites, and ſome as looſe, as in ſome of ours: And their arrogance, in preſuming againſt the p…edictions and providence of Chriſt, to build a Church, that ſhould reach unto Heaven on Earth, hath been fearfully blaſted (as another Babel) with confuſion, by their members, falling into damnable errours, and abhominable profaneneſſe, as I ſaid elſe-where. Even ſome Independent Churches, which he too much countenances, if he be not a member of them, may eaſily be proved, in his own judgment to be hereticall, if Arminianiſm, and ſome points of Popery, be with him accounted Hereſies: I need not inſtance.

Pag. 168. As to the worſhip eſtabliſhed in this Nation, for the ſubſtantialls, we are all agreed in: I ſuppoſe, he will not ſay, a relinquiſhment of the practiſe of it, is a ſchiſm; if he do, I know what uſe ſome men will make of his affirmation, though I p. 150know not how he will free himſelf,See p. 171. from being Schiſmaticall. Truly, as eaſily, as the reverend Doctor can free himſelf from that charge of ſchiſm. We have not relinquiſhed the Worſhip, eſtabliſhed by Law, as to the ſubſtantialls of our Worſhip, (the Epiſcopall men joyne with us, and we with them therein) but in the externall formalities, and ceremoniall circumſtances of that worſhip; which (as he ſaies ſomewhere) were laid aſide by other hands. But they renounce communion with us, in the ſubſtantialls of worſhip, and erect other Churches; and that we judge to be ſchiſmaticall.

Pag. 169. When moſt of us received our new birth in England, through the preaching of the Word, neither they nor we, as to the practiſe of our waies, were in England. For them indeed, the practiſe of their wayes of ſeparation, were not in England; but our way of parochiall Congregations, and the ſubſtantialls of our Worſhip, in the Word preached, whereby they were regenerated; p. 151and the Sacraments adminiſtred, whereby they were nouriſhed; were then in England as much as now: Yet from theſe they ſeparate, and deny communion with us. For the ſucceſſe of their Miniſtry, as Independents, I ſee little fruit of it, but ſchiſm and ſeparation; nor can they look for any, as Miniſters; all their gathered members, being before converted, (as they ſuppoſe and deſire) by our Miniſtry: See Anat. of Indep. p. 25 f.

Pag. 172. That in England, under the Prelates, there were true Churches, and true Miniſters, though in much diſorder, as to the way of entring into the Miniſtry, and diſpencing of Ordinances, I freely grant. Which were they? That he tells us, pag. 173. Here I let him know, that I aſſent unto that ſumme of all that he hath to ſay; namely, (which were my words) that the true and faithfull Miniſters, with the people in their ſeverall Congregations, adminiſtring the true Ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt, whereof Baptiſm p. 152is one, was, and is, the true Church-ſtate of England, from which I am not ſeparated. Who would not think, the reverend Doctor were a Convert, from the way of Independentiſm, acknowledging all this, and denying ſeparation? Will all Independents yield thus much? Can many of them ſay, They are not ſeparated? What reſerve the reverend Doctor hath, that he is not yet entred a member into one of their Churches, or that he hath not totally renounced his Ordination, (and that but for ſome diſorder onelyonly, or ſome addition of human prudence, in his entrance into the Miniſtry) or laſtly, that he ſees ſome weakneſſe, if not falſneſſe, in his principles; That ſucceſſive Ordination from Rome, as a Church, is Antichriſtian, as from the Beaſt, I cannot tell, nor wiſer men then I; but ſure we are, that moſt Independents are of another mind, and will not thank him for theſe conceſſions, being not able to juſtifie their ſeparation from our Churches, if all the reverend Doctor hath ſaid, be true.

p. 153Pag. 147. Yet he ſaies, It is incumbent on this Author, to prove, that we have been members of ſome of thoſe particular Churches, in due order, according to the mind of Chriſt, to all intents and purpoſes of Church-memberſhip; and that we have in our individuall perſons, ra…ſed cauſleſſe differences, in thoſe particular Churches, and ſo ſeparated from them, with the condemnation of them. I promiſe you, this will be an hard labour, having ſo many things to prove at once, of the ſame men; when if I prove not ſome one particular, he will ſtill deny the whole. But ſince the reverend Doctor puts himſelf amongſt them, I doubt not, but to make all good upon his party, (they made the diviſion into parties) if not upon himſelf. Firſt, upon his acknowledgment afore, that our particular Congregations, were, and are, true Churches, it is evident, that they have been members (yea, ſome of them Miniſters) of our particular Churches, or of none. 2. For the due order of being made ſo, I hope, ſome little diſorder p. 154in the inſtitutions of Chriſt, does not make a nullity in them, though he explains not what he means by due order. 3. According to the mind of Chriſt. As for ſubſtantialls, we can affirm it, if not in circumſtantialls, wherein ſcarce any Church on earth, will be found faultleſſe. 4. To all intents and purpoſes of Church-memberſhip. Surely our Chriſtianity, and covenant in Baptiſm, bound us to all the duties of Church-memberſhip, though we may fail, as to performance of them. 5. That, in their individuall perſons, they have many of them, actually, or really, by ſeparation, raiſed differences in our Churches, whereof they were members; is too evident to be denyed, by conſcientious men. 6. That they (many of them, whatever the reverend Doctor hath done) have ſeparated from us, renounced communion with us, is as clearly evident. 7. And that with condemnation of our Churches, as Antichriſtian, &c. is alſo too notorious to be denyed. And then the concluſion followes.

p. 155Pag. 176. I ſaid, the reverend Do…or, by his indulgence of liberty to all …en, to follow their own light, in …bmitting to any way of Religion, …emed to me to be a Sceptick, in his …ay of Independency. He asks; Why ſo? this will gratifie all Sects, Quakers and all, with a toleration: How, I pray? It is ſchiſm, not toleration, we are treating about. Where the reer end Doctor confounds what I diſ…oyned: He firſt ſeems to be a Scep…ick, (which I prove by that which followes, Does he believe his own way to be the onelyonly true way of Chriſt, and yet tolerate other waies?) or he ſeems to gratifie all Sects, Quakers, &c. with a toleration, and leaves them to judge, what is, or is not, according to the mind of Chriſt, &c. To which he ſaies, Pray, Sir, who is appointed to judge finally for them? why then ſhould they be denyed their liberty? May he not ſay as much for Popery, Anabaptiſm, or any Sect, and ſo grant an univerſall toleration, (which he ſeems to do, in his Epiſtle to his Sermon, before the laſt p. 156Seſſion of Parliament; Who is a pointed to judge finally for the… why then ſhould they be deny their liberty?) He muſt remembe… we are not ſpeaking of circumſtan… alls, about the worſhip of God wherein ſeverall Churches may diffe… without ſchiſm; but of the ſubſta… tialls of Doctrine, Worſhip, and Di… cipline, preſcribed by Chriſt in th… Goſpell, which are of neceſſary obſervation, for all Chriſtians. And Chriſt hath limited all to one Truth one way of Worſhip, one D…ſcipline (as we both ſuppoſe he hath) certainly every man is bound to get into that way of Chriſt, and not left to his own light, to judge finally fo… himſelf, or to chuſe or refuſe a wa… of Chriſt, by his own liberty; and may be compelled to the externall profeſſion of Chriſts way, in all thoſe particulars, which utterly deſtroyes his tolera ion. What anſwers he to my queſtion? Thus: How if I ſhould ſay, that our way, and their way, for the ſubſtance of them, is one way? But ſo he might have ſaid of their p. 157way, and the Epiſcopall way, for the ſubſtantialls of Religion, they were one way; and yet I ſuppoſe, he will not grant the members of his Church, liberty, to judge of, and to chuſe the Epiſcopall way; or if our way and theirs be neerer one another, he will hardly grant them liberty, to come into our way, becauſe he judges their way,They (of N. Eng.) anſwered, They could not grant any form of Government, but one, ſeeing there is but one way laid down in the Word, and that unchangeable. Anſw. to 32. Queſt. to be according to the mind of Chriſt, and not ours; pag. 178. And this, he ſaies, he is ready perſonally to maintain to me. But why doth he not publickly diſcover and maintain this, to all the Churches of the Nation, before he ſet upon the practiſe of it? and puts us off with delayes and deſignes in hand; which when we ſhall ſee, we know not. That he hath run from ſeverall waies, is not to be gain-ſaid, from Epiſcopall to Preſbyterian, from that, to Independentiſm, &c. is no calumny, though it may be to his reproach, which I cannot help. If his way be the onelyonly way of Chriſt, I asked, if every man be not bound to come unto it, and not upon any conceited new light to relinquiſh it? He anſwers; Truly I think M. C. p. 158himſelf is bound to come into it (ſurely not till he give me bette… light, that it is the way of Chriſt) yet I do not think, that his not-ſo-doing makes him a ſchiſmatick. But if I were convinced, that it was the onelyonly way of Chriſt, I ſhould think my ſelf ſchiſmaticall, in not ſubmitting to it; as I do him, for renouncing the Preſbyterian way, which once he was convinced of, to be the way o… Chriſt. However, it concerns him moſt, in the alteration of his judgment and practiſe, to demonſtrate clearly, his is the way of Chriſt, and not ours, or elſe we ſhall judge him ſchiſmaticall in that ſeparation. This he promiſes again and again, pag. 163. and 181. in his concluſion of all: In expectation and earneſt deſire whereof, I reſt.

FINIS.

End of the text · Daniel Cawdry, Independency Further Proved to be a Schism (1658)