Independency A Great SCHISM.  
PROVED Against Dr. OWEN his APOLOGY in his Tract of SCHISM.  
As also an APPENDIX to the former Discourse, showing the inconstancy of the Dr. and the inconsistency of his former and present OPINIONS.  
By D. Cawdrey Preacher of the Word at Billing Magn, in Northamptonshire.  
LONDON, Printed by J. S. for John Wright at the Kings-Head in the Old-Baley, 1657.   

Independency A great SCHISM.  

CHAP. I. By way of Preface.  
§. 1 THe Crime of Schism, is so heinous in itself (as his own, and other's aggravations of it hereafter, will make good) and so dangerous and noxious to the Church of God, (as the event in all Ages hath declared); that no Invectives against the evils of it, can well be too great or high. No wonder then, if all men, of any persuasion, speaking of this Subject do make their entrance at this door: The Ancients (and latter Divines) agreeing generally in the Notion of Schism, and never changed, till now. for their mistakes there in, had indeed the the Happiness▪ to deal with men evidently guilty of many Miscarriages, as in other things, so for their Schismatical principles: which being taken up, and espoused, by some in after-ages, have justly branded them with the crime and character of Schism. I shall instance in the Donatists (the first in stories, charged with it, as I remember) whose prime principles (for they took up more in after times) were these two, 1. That they were the only Church of Christ, in a corner of Africa, and lest no Churches in the world, but their own. 2. That none were truly baptised, or entered members of the Church of Christ, but by some Minister of their party. The Romanists, (as soon as Antichrist took the throne) have impropriated and stoutly managed these very Principles. They first assume to themselves, the name of the Church, excluding all, that are not (as they speak to contradiction) of the Roman Catholic belief. And then, that none are truly Ordained Ministers, but by their Bishops; and consequently none are truly baptised, or members, but those admitted by men, so ordained. These very principles are again improved by men of other persuasions, (whom I yet name not); and whether our Reverend Author, will acknowledge them to be Schismatical principles, or no, I do not know; But this I know, that all protestant reform Churches at home and abroad (besides those of his constitution) do hold them so to be. And thereupon (if he desired not to be singular) he might give up the nature of this evil of Schism, to the determination and judgement of Ancient and Modern Divines; agreeing (as he does) in the aggravations of its sinfulness.  
§. 2 That some of the Ancients (as Hierom confesses of himself) did perhaps load their Adversaries, with charges they were not guilty of, (or the Controversy would allow) must be yielded as a fault. The ground whereof, was partly this, That they saw further into the ill Consequences of those opinions, than their Adversaries did foresee; and partly a corruption, which insinuates itself, into the best men, in the heat of their Zeal against errors, viz." to strive for victory, rather than Truth. And though they might so miscarry the notion of Schism, yet that all Divines, Pious & Learned, in all ages, should so much mistake the Nature of it, is most improbable; as, that none, but himself, should discover that mistake, is not very reasonable to imagine.  
§. 3. How ever the Age wherein we live, hath in good measure, freed itself from the bondage of Subjection to the Dictates of men, because they they lived before us: yet this course of procedure, hath not lost its usefulness, or is become impertinent. The concurring judgement of all men, of all persuasions, in all Ages, carries weight of reason with it: especially when it agrees with, either express Scripture, or regular and rational deduction, from it (to which he here professes to stand or fall) it is cheerfully to be received. That which may cause him to lie low, as to any expectation of success, is not only the praejudice of many ages, the interest of most Christians, and mutual Consent of parties at variance (taken commonly for unquestionable evidence of truth) but his own prejudicated notion of Schism, limiting it as he does, to a difference or division in a particular Assembly parley, which if it be not clearly and sufficiently made out, will blast his hopes of any good issue, by this Discourse, 
pag. 30,  as himself professeth hereafter. But he is not Solicitous of the event, endeavouring (as he says) to go, whither he should, not whither most men go.  
§. 4. What advatage in this business, the first chargers of Schism upon others, have gotten, is not very visible. He that is first in his own cause, 
Pro. 18.17.  is righteous, but his (innocent) neighbour comes and tries him. Those that are most guilty of it, may first clamour against the innocent, but at last will be proved most Schismatical. But when men cannot reasonably charge others with that crime, as having never separated from their Churches, (of which they never were, as he speaks hereafter) the suspicion at least, will lie at their own door, who have Separated from all Churches (of some whereof they once were) and they must either prove them all Heretical or corrupt, or themselves to be Schismatical, in separating from them. The Romanists indeed have made great use of this Advantage, to accuse first, to hid their own greater Schism. But the Donatists of old (and tho●e that succeed them now in their principles) had no colour to charge Schism upon all true Churches; for that must lie upon them, that made so causelesse● a Separaration; not upon the Churches, which never were of their Association. But the chief Advantage of Rome, lay in this; that having once been a Famous Church, in the Apostles times, they plead the privileges of that Church, to cover their Apostasy. For (to use the words of our Author) if any party of men can estate themselves at large, in all the privileges granted, and promises made to the Church, in general, they need not be solicitous about dealing with them that oppose them, having at once rendered them no better than Jews, and Mahumetans, Heathens or Publicans, by appropriating those privileges unto themselves. Which practice, whether it be not imitated by himself and party; let him consider what ever is spoken in Scripture of the Catholic Church, visible or invisible, they have too often applied to their own particular Churches: and count all without, that are not within the pale of their Societies, as is else where showed. And I shall add still his own words; Whereas the parties litigant, by all rules of law and equity, aught to stand under an equal regard, un●ill the severals of their differences, have been heard and stated; one part, is hereby utterly condemned before it is heard: and it is all one unto them, whether they are in the right or wrong. How applicable all this is to themselves, will appear ere we have done.  
§. 5. In the mean time, (I still follow him) it cannot be denied, but that their vigorous adhering to the former Advantage, (a thing to be expected from men, wise in their generation) hath exposed some of them to a contrary evil; whilst, in a conceit of their own innocence, (as being the only true Churches of Christ) they have insensibly slipped (as is the manner of men) into sleight, & contemptible thoughts of Schism (whereof they are accused) as esteeming it no great matter to separate from any, or all true Churches; making it no Schism, 
See. p. 46  no crime at all: as will appear hereafter. The safest way for them, is to deny this Separation to be a Schism: for otherwise, he asserts well; To live in Schism is to live in sin; which unrepented of, will ruin a man's eternal condition. Upon this therefore depends the issue of this whole cause; For if a causeless Separation from a true Church, be proved a Schism, (as, I doubt not, it will) I shall add his own words: Every man charged with it, must either desert his station, which gives foundation to his charge, or acquit hmself of the crime, in that station. And this latter (for he likes not to leave his Station) is that, wh●ch in reference to himself and others, he does propose, and mannages with much confidence; Upon this we put the whole issue of this present cause.  
§. 6. For let not them think that the Iniquity of their Accusers (as to other corruptions) doth in the least, extenuate their crime; " Schism is Schism st●ll. Though our Churches, from whom they Separate, be not so pure as they ought or would be. Yea though we were worse than we are (as bad as the Church of Corinth) yet ought not they to separate, from us, as no Churches of Christ (being desirous of Reformation) but are Schismatics▪ if they do. They ought rather to have stayed, and helped to reform us; which they make almost impossible by their uncharitable Separation from us. This that follows, were worth their most serious consideration: A conscientious tenderness, and fear of being mistaken, will drive this business, to another Issue, whereas their Confidence in carriage of their way, is a stop to their, and our Reformation.  
§. 7. 8. 9 The state of things, in this time, is too well known in the world, to the great scandal of Christianity;" And woe is to them, by whom the offence cometh. 1. Protestants are charged by Papists, as Schismatics, for departing (as they say) from the Catholic Church, which Church they are. 2. Calvinists by Lutherans, for no crime in the world but this (says our Author) but because we submit not to all they teach: which he counts unreasonable, upon this ground: That in no instituted Church-relation, would they ever admit us to stand with them? Which is as considerable an instance of the power of prejudice, as this Age can give; unless it may be paralleled in his own Church: It is as well a Schism, to keep fit members, out of Church-Relations, and privileges, as to separate from a true Church. 3. Presbyterians are charged with the same crime, by Episcopal men, because they reject that way of Government, and somewhat of the external way of Worship. 4. The Independents are accused, by Presbyterians, of the same fault, for making differences in, and then separating from their Churches, as no true Churches, and setting up others of their own. The learned Doctor supposes, this last charge, is in a short time, almost sunk of itself; and so will ask the less pains, utterly to remove and take off. But he is an happy man, if things out of sight, were presently out of mind. His party hath rather sunk the charge by their silence in not answering, than dispersed or removed it. And he will find, that it swims on the face of those Discourses, written against their way; if he pleased to take notice of them. And this charge (revived by his Importunity) he will find, will ask more pains to take off than he is ware of: much more than we shall need to take, to remove the same charge from ourselves, put upon us, by the other three sorts of men; Papists, Lutherans, and Episcopal. Had it not been done often and sufficiently, by men of our own judgement, himself hath removed it from us, in removing it from himself, in this discourse. But how he will remove ours, comes shortly to be considered.  
§. 10. What those general principles, of irrefragable evidence are, whereby he will acquit us all, and himself also from the several concernments, in this charge, we shall readily attend unto. But how the whole guilt of this crime, shall be thrust into one Ephah, and by whom carried to build it an house, in the Land of Shinar, to establish it upon its own Base (as he phrasisies it) I do not well understand. Only I suppose, he will discharge the charge, by a new definition of Schism (and some other like distinctions:) which if it be true, will carry it almost quite out of the world, & bless the Churches with everlasting peace. All Schism, shall be confined to a particular church: of which hereafter.  
§. 11. But that he should profess his much rathernesse, to spend all his time, in making up, and healing the breaches and Schisms among Christians, than one hour in justififying our divisions, etc. seemeth strange to me, when as his whole book, or greatest part, is (as a learned Doctor said) one great Schism, 
P. 8.  and in the Design of it, nothing but a justification of himself, and party, in their Divisions, with us, and Separation from us; and tells us, the cause is so irreconcilable, that none but the Lamb, is worthy or able to close the differences made: Who when he will come, and put forth the greatness of his power, is very uncertain; and he puts us out of hope, that before that, it shall be accomplished. And yet says; In the mean time, a Reconciliation amongst all Protestants, is our duty, and practicable; and had perhaps, ere this, been in some forwardness, had men rightly understood, wherein such a reconciliation, according to the mind of God doth consist. Which, I hope, he will, ere we part, give us to understand. He seems to place it much, in a principle of forbearance; that is, in Toleration of one another, in any way of Religion; the cursed fruits whereof we reap (with lamentation) at this day. They have indeed strongly improved that principle of forbearance, to persuade us to bear with them; but how little of it, they have showed to us, the world is Judge.  
§. 12. The two general ways fixed on by some, for compassing of peace, and union among Christians, deserve some consideration, and to be searched to the bottom: The one is, enforcing uniformity by a secular power: the other, is Toleration, of all, or most ways of Religion; (except such as concern the Civil interest). He speaks first of them both together; as if, there were no hope of union, peace, love to be expected from either, though men of a good zeal, and small experience, or any other account, may promise themselves much thereof. It is something else, that must give peace, than what is the product of the prudential considerations of men. As for Toleration, it is indeed a prudential way of those Erastian Politicians, he speaks of below, that would have the world in quietness on any terms Sect. 15. let what will be come of Religion, Sect. 17. yet indeed is folly and no prudential way: When men have tried all ways, to settle their interests; p●etie, in cleaving to the way of God, is the best policy; as the events of both, (to which he oft appeals) have manifested: And, on the otherside, The Commonwealth of Israel, never prospered better, than when it enforced uniformity, in the way of Religion prescribed. But this uniformity compelled, is a product of Divine prudence, in the first and second Commandments. And if Christ hath instituted any way of Religion and worship, in the New Testament, that alone must be enforced on all the members of the Church.  
§. 13 Yet concerning that Uniformity enforced, he says, It is the readiest means in the world, to root out all Religion from the hearts of men, which if it were true, were a potent Argument for Toleration; which yet he seems not to like. But 1. This was, by God, thought the best way to plant and preserve Religion, in the hearts of the Jews. Those great Reformers so famous among them, Josiah, &c: are commended for compelling of people, and binding them by oath, to serve the Lord. 2. The parable of compelling men to come in to the Wedding, seems (in the Judgement of no mean Divines) to allow a power, to bring men to the public Ordinances of worship. 3. Toleration (which is our present condition, Sect. 12,) hath done much more towards the rooting of Religion, out of the hearts of many men, in 7. years, than the enforcing of uniformity did in 70 years. 4. To compel uniformity, (in a true, or false way) may, by the corruptions of men's hearts, breed Hypocrisy, Formality, 
Fieri nee potest, nec solet, ut Deum sincerè colat qui diversas simul Religiones fovere desiderat: certissimumenim est, neutram credere qui contrarias admittit, Gregor Tholoss.  Atheism, and Anxiety of conscience in some: But good and gracious souls, have been discovered, and purified by it, as the three Children, and Martyrs have manifested? 5. Many, at least some, that were enforced to conformity in the worship of God, in families, or congregations, have blessed God for that compulsion; who before were Atheists or profane; while they had a cursed, intolerable toleration, to be of any or no Religion. Lastly, the will indeed cannot be forced to believe; but that professed Christians should be compelled to the external profession of that only way of worship, which Christ hath instituted seems as equal & reasonable, as it is unreasonable, that men be left to their own choice, to worship God, either not at all, or after their own fancies. And he that denies this, seems to me, to be, if not an Atheist, a Skeptick in Religion.  
§. 14 I expected now, that he, (having said so much against enforcing of uniformity) should have said as much, or something, against Toleration; which he calls also a prudential way, for Reconciliation. Does he think this (if not the other) is the ready way to plant Religion in men's hearts? Let experience speak; If since the men of his way have gotten a Toleration for themselves, they have not opened a door for all errors, heresies, and horrid blasphemies, or profaneness. But if both these principles be by him decried (as he seems to insinuate; because he finds, that events & executions follow not the conscientious embracing of one or other of these decried Principles, he should have done good service, if he had showed us another way, to this due and practicable Reconciliation which he hath not done; but only tells us, he is persuaded that a general alteration of the state of the Churches of Christ in this world, must determine this controversy. The discovery of that way, might perhaps have freed us, from the vanity of those reasonings, wherewith we are entangled. But I am to seek what he means, when he says," he hath somewhile since ceased to be moved by the clamours of men, concerning bloody persecution on the one hand, and cursed intolerable toleration on the other. As if he took them to be idle clamours of men that cry down enforcing uniformity, as bloody persecution on the one hand or toleration on the other hand, as cursed and intolerable. What, or which of them will please him? or are both of them useful, according to the various interests of N●tions? And I would know, why he calls, enforcing uniformity, by the name of bloody persecution. Surely to force conformity, to the way of God, is no Persecution, much less bloody: but is only a just prosecution of evil and refractory Rebels to the Kingdom of Christ; unless Magistrates may be called bloody persecutors, in prosecuting malefactors unto death. And again, if prosecution of such offenders, as conform not to the way of God, be just and necessary, than Toleration of such, in other ways, is and ou●ht to be accounted intolerable, and will be cursed. Certain it is, that the embracing of, either bloody persecution (which is against the truth) or toleration of all Religions (as well as the truth) have had providential events, suitable thereunto, as men have placed, their civil interests in them; both have met with untimely ends, and fearful destruction.  
§. 15 He that shall indeed consider, the proposals and attempts made for Ecclesiastical peace, in this little world of ours, of later times (not to look back to former) either by Erastian politicians, on the one side, or Jesuitical Toleration●sts, on the other, will quickly assume, the liberty of affirming, concerning them all, that as wise men might easily see flaws in all of them, and an unsuitableness to the end proposed; and as good men might see so much of carnal interest, sell e, and hypocrisy in them, as might discourage them from any great expectation: so upon many other accounts, a better issue was not to be looked for from them, than hath been actually obtained, which hath for the most part been this, that those that could dissemble most deeply, have been thought to have (and have had) the greatest advantage; and those that have come with the least candour, most fraud, hypocrisy, secular baits for the subverting of others, have in appearance, for a season, seemed to obtain success; And in this spirit of craft and contention, are things yet carried on in the world. This witness is true, therefore rebuke them sharply.  
§. 16 It is true also, that the parties at variance now, (Independents, and Presbyterians) are so well acquainted at length, with each others principles, Arguments, Interests, Prejudices, and real distance of their causes, that none of them expect any Reconciliation, but merely by one parties keeping its station, and the other coming over wholly unto them. The one party are got so high, that they will not come down to the other; the other are so strongly convinced of the error of their Independent way, th●t they may not, cannot come up to them: In what a sad condition is poor England the while; like to be torn in pieces, by her own Children.  
§. 17 I shall add something of the next Section, whereupon having a mutual diffidence in each other, they grow weary of all endeavours to be carried on jointly in this kind: And this is like to be the state of things, until another Spirit be poured out on the professors of Christianity, than that wherewith at present, they seem mostly to be acted. Now the God of grace, and peace, pour out that other good Spirit upon this Church and Nation, before they be utterly destroyed.  
§. 18 But is there no Balm in Gilead? no hopeful way of Reconciliation? Yes, he tells us. The only way remaining to be fixed on, whilst our divisions continue, is to inquire, wherein the guilt of them doth consist, and who is justly charged therewith: in special, what is, and who is guilty of the sin of Schism. And this will we also do if God permit.  
§. 19 Much hath been written, upon this subject of Schism, by very learned men; who rather (as he says) endeavoured, to convince their Adversaries (the Romanists) of the insufficiency of their charge of the Church of England to be Schismatics, in separating from them; than rightly and clearly to state the thing or matter contended about: which latter seems to me very strange; For how could they remove the charge of Schism, and not sufficiently declare what Schism is? wherein they and their Adversaries agreed: But our Reverend Doctor, had a double design in this undertaking: 1. To show us a new way of his own, to dispel that charge, by giving us a new Definition of Schism, not known, or made use of in former times. 2. Thereby to remove the charge of Schism, from himself and his party; for so he says here, and hereafter; The present concernment of some fearing God, lying beyond, what other men have undertaken, something may be farther added, as to the satisfaction of the consciences of men unjustly accused of this crime; which is my aim. What satisfaction he can give us and the world in this undertaking, we shall, by his good leave, take notice of. Only premising this, that I intent not to deal with whole Chapter and Section, as hitherto I have done; consenting with him in his Removal of that part of the charge of Schism, which is common to him with us; and only observe, how he will free himself, from that part of it, which concerns himself and his party.   

CHAP. II. Of the Nature of Schism in Scripture.  
§. 1 THis reverend and learned Author (as appears from his, pag. 16. Sect. 16. of the first Chapter) undertakes to answer a Popish charge of Schism, upon the Church of England, directed to both the Universities. And in his vindication of our Church, (as was expected) carries on the debate so fare, as not only to vindicate himself and his party from the like charge, by some at home, but also (as many wise men think) to unchurch his mother the Church of England; and to find or leave no Churches here, but his own as the Donatists of old did. That this is the result of his discourse (if not the design) will appear, before we have done. But we shall attend at present, to the method of his proceeding; who thus gins. The thing whereof we treat being a disorder, in the instituted worship of God, 
P. 21.  I suppose it a modest request to desire, that we may abide solely to that discovery and description, which is made of it in Scripture; that that alone shall be esteemed Schism, which is there so called, or hath the entire nature of that, which is there so called. It is (they say) an ill sign or omen, to stumble at the threshold, in going out. The first part of these words, is very ambiguous, and may have a double sense, either that Schism is to be found, in matter of instituted worship only, or only in the differences made, in the time of celebrating instituted worship: and neither of these is true, or yet proved, and so a mere begging of the question: Yet both of these; are asserted by him hereafter; the first, Sect 23. the latter, Sect. 9 of which, more when we come at them. In the mean time we assert the contrary. That as there may be Schism in the Church about other matters, besides instituted worship▪ so there may also be Schism, in other places and times, than those of celebrating worship. For the second part of the words, which is a Request, it shall by me be readily granted. That we abide solely to that discovery, and description, which is made of it in scripture; that, that alone be esteemed Schism, which is there so called, or which hath the entire nature of that, which is there so called. That is, that only shall be esteemed Schism, which is either expressly in Scripture so called, or in equivalent words, or may be deduced thence, by regular, and rational consequence, as he said above, chap. 1. §. 3,  

p. 23.  §. 2 What the Scripture- use and notion of the word is, is then first to be enquired: It is taken there, either in the prime and proper sense, with respect to bodies natural, for a separation into parts, or (as he expresses it, p. 24.) an interruption of continuity, by an external power, a division of parts before- continued: the places are cited by himself, Math. 9.16. Math 27.51." the veil of the Temple was rend, from the top to the bottom into 2 parts. Or in the metaphorical sense, from body's natural, to bodies civil, or ecclesiastical; In a civil body, Joh. 7.43. There was a Schism or division among the people. So Act. 14.4. the multitude of the city was divided; that was not only in their opinions and judgements, but also into parts or parties, for so it's added; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and some were with the Jews, and some with the Apostles. So Act 23.7. the multitude was divided, some following one, some another of their leaders, in that dissension; which is the reverend Doctors own gloss. Thus also it is expressed, in his Testimony in the margin The Inhabitants of Rome, 
p. 24.  were parted into two parts, and no more agreed, among themselves, and there was a great Schism. They were divided, not only in their judgements, but in their societies also, into two parties. This then being the notion and nature of it in the natural and political sense, it might easily slip, into the like, in its Ecclesiastical use; to signify, not only a difference in Judgement, but a separation into parties also. As the Assembly may be Civil or Ecclesiastical; so there may be a twofold Schism in each, (differing only gradually) either a division in opinion only, or into Parties also, one part separating from another. And that the rather, because the latter is the ordinary issue or consequence of the former. See Act. 19.9. There was but one assembly at the first, in the Synagogue. But when divers spoke evil of that way before the multitude, Paul departed, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and separated the Disciples, etc.  
§. 3 It is true, that in the Ecclesiastical sense, the word is not to be found used, 
p. 25.  but in 1 Cor. 1.10. & 11.18. &c: only in the case of differences amongst the Corinthians: I hear, that there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, among you; which what they were, will presently come to be considered, when we have heard, what he accounts in general, the constant use of the word; To denote differences of mind and judgement, with troubles ensuing thereon, 
p. 25.  amongst men met in some one Assembly, about the the compassing of a common end and design. But that this is a forestall of the Readers judgement, by a mere begging of the question, hath in part been proved, even from the Scripture itself, where it is used for separation into parties, upon those differences of mind and judgement, in the political use of the word; and why it may not be so used, in the Ecclesiastical sense, I see yet no reason; especially when the proper use of it, is, to signify a breach of union, or a separation of a natural body, into several parts, two or more. And I have cause to suspect, that he sticks so hard upon this notion, not so much to confute that charge of Schism upon us, by the Romanists, as to ward off the same charge▪ upon himself and his party; as we shall show hereafter: But, granting him this notion of Schism, for a while; this is the way, as on the one hand, to free all Church separation, from Schism, with respect to one another; so on the other to make all particular Churches more or less Schismatical. For what one Congregation almost is there in the world, where there are not differences of judgements, whence ensue many troubles, about the compassing of one common end and design. I doubt whether his own be free therefrom. Yet he asks confidently below, p. 63. Have we any differences and contentions in our Assemblies? Do we not worship God, without disputes and divisions? It's happy with them, if it be so: For let most of the Assemblies of several sorts and sects be visited, and it will be visible enough, that in their prophesyings, (as they call them) there are differences of mind enough, and troubles more than a good many, with wranglings and janglings, and sometimes railing and reviing good store, that a man might (upon this one principle of his, besides other) venture to call them Schismatical Conventicles, rather than Churches of Christ. And why not, as well as Paul charges that famous Church of Corinth, with the crime of Schism, for the same or like disorders? 
p. 27.  They had (says our Author) differences amongst themselves, about unnecessary things: on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in their solemn Assemblies, probably much vain jangling, alienation of affections, exasperation of spirits, with a neglect of due offices of love, etc. This was their Schism, etc. That the Apostle charges this upon them, is true; but was this all? were there not divisions into parties, as well as in judgement? we shall consider that ere long. For the present, I say, difference in judgement, 
Separation may proceed from Schism. p. 194.  was the ready way, to difference in, and alienation of, affections, and that to exasperation of Spirits, and that to neglect of due offices of love, &c: and at last ere long, to Separation of Societies. And he says well. The Apostle would have them joined together, 
p. 28.  not only in the same Church-order, and fellowship, but also in oneness of mind and judgement, which if they were not, Schisms would be amongst them, and upon those, separation, into several assemblies; as we see at this day, to a lamentation. Difference in some one point, of doctrine, worship, or discipline, hath broken the Church into many fractions, almost as many as men; But I shall observe his observations upon these Divisions amongst the Corinthians.  
§. 4 1. Observe (says he) That the thing mentioned, 
p. 29.  is entirely in one Church: no mention of one Church divided against another, or separated from another, or others: the crime lies wholly within one Church, that met together, for the worship of God, &c: This it seems, is a matter of great concernment, to be granted or denied. In so much that he professes, 
p. 30.  That unless men will condescend so to state it, upon the evidence tendered, he shall not hope to prevail much, in the process of this discourse. This then being the foundation of that great Fabric of Schism, as he calls it, it had need be bottomed better, than upon his own bare Affirmation, (which is all, we yet have for it) without any proof. For this end, I shall take his first observation, into particular consideration. 1. That the divisions mentioned, were in one Church is ambiguously spoken; for it may be taken either for the collection of several Assemblies in Corinth (where there were multitudes of Christians) which are sometimes called the Church, yea a particular Church, with respect to the Catholic or other National Churches So himself speaks of those Patriarches (so called) how many or how few soever they were, 
p. 121.  they were particular Churches. Or else, that the Saints at Corinth, were, at this time, but one particular congregation, meeting all, in one place. In this latter sense, its evident, the Reverend Doctor takes it; but in so doing he begs the question, and consents not with himself. For he had said before, they had dispute and siding, in their solemn Assemblies, 
p. 27.  not one, but many Assemblies. And the Divines of the Assembly, have made it more than probable, that the multitude of Christians of Corinth, were too many to meet in one place, and yet may be said to meet together, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not jointly, but severally in their particular places of meeting. As the Congregations of London, may be said to meet together on the Lord's Day, not conjunctim, but divisim; 2. That, it was amongst the members of one particular Church, is gratis dictum; For that all the Christians in Corinth, and about it, were called one Church collectively, is evident, chap. 1. v. 2. To the Church of God, at Corinth. And that there were more particular Churches there, or thereabouts than one, is also evident, both by Rom. 16.7. The Church at Cenchrea, a particular Church distinct from that at Corinth, and also by, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches; one and yet many Churches at Corinth. 3. This is also presumed, but not proved, That the crime of Schism was charged on them, only, within the verge of one Church; as if all their Divisions were confined to the Church; whereas there were Schisms and differences, abroad and out of the Church; which I shall evince, first from the Scripture itself. The differences or Schisms were of several kinds; Some out of the Assembly, chap. 1. & chap. 3. sidings about their Teachers, as he speaks p. 27. one said, I am of Paul, &c: these were, its likely, abroad as they met, one with another; Some were in the Assembly, as those he charges them with chap 11.18. When you come together in the Church, I hear that there are divisions among you. But the Doctor carries it so, as if all their differences were in the Church meeting, when they met to worship God; for reasons hereafter to be given; The Apostle seems to charge them thus; I hear there are Schisms among you, not only, in private conferences, chap. 1. but also, which is worse, in your solemn Assemblies, chap. 11. when you meet to worship God. And this is the Doctors own Gloss, (unawares confessed) not content to make this difference, 
p. 27.  the matter of their debates and disputes, from house to house, (but) even when they met for public worship, or that which they all met in, and for, they were divided on that account (also) chap. 11. This was their Schism, but not the only, though the worse, Schism; which he confounds too much, to lead us away in a mist. 4. That there was no one Church divided against another, or separated from another, is assumed, but not proved, unless by a Negative, which is invalid; There is no mention of such a separation, therefore there was none: of which in the next.  
§. 5 2. Here is no mention of any particular man, or number of men's separation from the Assemblies of the whole Church, 
p. 30.  or of subduction of themselves, from its power, &c: only they had groundless, causeless differences amongst themselves.  
But was this all? were there not separations made, if not from that Church yet in that Church, as well as divisions? Let the Scripture determine this. 1. The Apostle, cap. 1. charges them with sidings about their Teachers, v. 11. It hath been declared to me, that there are Schisms among you: One saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, &c: And again, chap. 3. v. 3. Whereas there is among you, envying, and strife, and divisions are ye not carnal, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollo, are ye not carnal? That is, I am a discitle of Paul, said one, and I of Apollo said another: In our language, I am a member of such a Ministers Congregation, says one; such a man for my money: and I am of such a man's Congregation, said another; and so a third: And hereupon, they (most probably) separated themselves, into such and such Congregations; with slighting and contempt of other Ministers, with respect to their own. And is not Separation the ordinary issue of such envying, strife, and contentions? Let experience, this day▪ speak. As Love is the Mother of Union; so Envy and strife, of Separation.  
2. That there was a separation of parties in the Church of Corinth, at least as to one Ordinance, appears, cap. 11. that of the Lords Supper (as some do now) v. 18. with 21.22.33. They would, 
See, Jeams 2.1, 2. etc.  such a company (the richer sort perhaps) meet and receive the Supper together; and separating themselves, not tarry to take the poor with them. This was part of their Schism, which the Apostle charges them with, and warns them of; They were not yet gone so fare in Schism, as to separate from the Church, by gathering of Churches, in opposition to it; but they were next door to it, they made separations in the Church, first in their differences of judgement, and then into parties, as to some Ordinances; Not long after, they separated into other Churches, slighting and undervaluing the first Ministers or Churches, as nothing, or less pure than their own; which we see practised sufficiently at this day. 3. But suppose it granted, there was but one single congregation at Corinth, yet the Apostle dehorting the Brethren, v. 10. from Schism, and writing to more than the Church of Corinth, v. 2. even all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus, in every place.  
§. 6 3. Here is no mention of any substraction of obedience from Bishops, Rulers, the Pope, &c: 
p. 31.  Nor does the Apostle charge them as Schismatics from the national Church of Achaia, &c: For the first part, it is no wonder; for such kind of Creatures were not yet hatched, till many, or some generations after. And for the other, the Church, was yet but small in Achaia, 
See him p. 37. f  (some scattered saints there might be, but few Churches) and therefore they are charged only for their Divisions, and separations in, or from the Church of Corinth, according to the several Ministers, which they set up, as is most probable. As in the like case, 
p. 32.  by him instanced in the time of clement. Some few unquiet persons at Corinth, drew the whole Society, into division, and an opposition to their Elders, a few men acted by pride and madness; yet such power had those persons in the Congregation, that they prevailed to depose the Elders, and cast them out of Office. Is it not reasonable to think, they set up new Elders and new Congregations? and most unreasonable to think, that the whole Church, ran into this madness? and so some Congregations remaining sound, the rest made Separations from them: and this, Clement calls their Schism. And besides his several words, to describe it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c: his word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies to lead away a party, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c, those that walk well, from their honoured Service (though the Doctor ways to know what it meant,) and misconstrues it, I say, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implies a separation into other Assemblies: as the manner of seducers is, speaking perverse things, to draw away, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) Disciples after them, Act. 20.30. The like may be conceived, though not so clearly expressed, in this first Schism at Corinth, the same Church, and place: Surely those differences noted by Clement in the same Church, were not divisions in the Church, met together to worship God; but out of the Church, and causing separations from the Elders, and so from the Church, breaking of it into fractions; which yet he calls their Schism.  
As for his notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Clement, to signify then, 
p. 34.  not a province (as some,) but a city Church, consisting of many Congregations, the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c I am apt to believe his conjecture to be true. The Church inhabiting Rome, or the Church at Rome (which at that time, had no such large Territories, as a Church provincial, or Metropolitan, as some rather dream, than prove) as it's said of the Church in or at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. and the Church of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at Corinth. But yet I cannot agree with him, that either Rome or Corinth, were in Clement's time, only one Parish, (as he now uses the word) or one Congregation, meeting all in one place. For as I believe this Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, was intended to be written to the Church of Cenchrea (which whether it were a stated distinct Church or no the Doctor knows not p. 39 nor was persuaded it was completed p. 38. but yet supposes, it comes under the same name with Corinth, ibid. though Paul mentions it, as a distinct Church, Rom. 16.1. and Phoebe to be a deaconess; or Servant of that Church) to the Church, I say, at Cenchrea; So I see no reason, but there might be & were several Churches, or Assemblies in Corinth, each distinct from other; though not such Parishes, as ours are in London, &c: the greater part, being yet Heathens, and the Magistrates not yet Christian, to erect, or allow them Churches, as now we call them; or to distribute them into particular Parishes; which was done, as soon, as most or all became Christians. However, the Doctor acknowledges the word Parochia may be so called, 
p. 35.  from them who met together to break bread, and to eat, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convivator. Whence it will follow, that if the multitude be so great, that they cannot meet in one place, to hear the word, or to break bread (as its evident the 3000, or 5000 at Jerusalem, could not) then look how many meeting places there were for this purpose, so many Parishes, or Congregations there were, at Jerusalem or Corinth, having several, if not fixed Elders over them, and yet the whole but one Church.  
§. 7 
p. 42.  But if he grant, that this evil mentioned by the Apostle, is Schism, does it conclude that nothing else is Schism? He answers, he is inclinable so to do, and resolved, that unless any man can prove, that something else is termed Schism by some Divine writer, &c: he will be at Liberty from admitting it so to be. Surely this is no safe Rule to go by: For as there are some virtues, which are not termed so, expressly in Scripture; So there may be degrees of Schism, which are not so expressly called there. It is sufficient, if the one have the nature of such a virtue, the other of such a crime, though not so called. There are other words used to signify the same thing. As Rom. 16.17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as signifying a division into two parts, or parties; And what thinks he of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which comes from a root, that signifies sometimes trahere to draw, and sometimes sectari to follow; 
See Concil. 1. Constantinop. some are called Heretics; that hold the sound faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  as Sect-masters use to draw away Disciples after them; and those that follow them are called Secta, à sequendo; The opinions of the Philosophers, of several Sects, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, heresies; and their followers, Sects, divided not only in opinion, but in parties and Schools also. So Paul uses the word, Act. 26.5. according to the mos● strict Sect, of our Religion, I lived a pharisee: And is not heresy as bad a word as Schism? or is it any advantage for a separatist, to change his name, from Schismatic to Heretic? The Apostle 1 Cor. 11.18.19. uses them promiscuously, one for another: I hear that there are Schisms among you. For there must be heresies among you also. The word heresy commonly is used to signify error against Faith, (which sense he is not pleased with, p. 46.) as Schism is a sin against love; If he like not to give his Separation, the name of Schism (though it hath fully the nature of it) let him, have good leave to call it Heresy; This men gain when they will dispute about words.  
Besides, the Scripture uses other words to signify Schism, in a political sense; Math. 12.25. A Kingdom or house, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divided against itself; that is, into parts, and so into civil wars, and dissensions, cannot stand: which Act. 14 4. is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the multitude was divided, and that into two parts (as well as opinions) as it follows; and some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were with the Jews, and some with the Apostles, as I noted above: If this may not rather be understood of an Ecclesiastical separation; for it was occasioned by differences in one Assembly, v. 1. They entered into the Synagogue of the Jews, &c: The unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds ill affected against the brethren, v. 2. which caused that separation.  
And the Schism was made by those turbulent Jews, the causes of that separation, not by the Apostles or their party.  
Schism, in the Church, was but an Embryo, in the Apostles time; at first a difference or division only in judgement but quickly grew into separation or division into parties.  
But we need not plead any other text for our notion of Schism, but what is included in this place of the Corinthians, having made it appear, that there was a separation made in that Church, by such as lead away Disciples after them, or rather by them; who by having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons, set up one Minister above another, and against another. However, something may be deduced by parity of reason If divisions of persons, in a church, in judgement, may be & is called Schism, in Scripture; then Separation from a true Church, (grounded upon those divisions at first, in an Assembly, about unnecessary things, as he said) may well and much more, be called Schism. For (says he) He is a Schismatic, 
p. 43.  guilty of this sin of Schism, who raiseth, or entertaineth, or persisteth in such differences. And is not he much more a Schismatic, who having raised groundless differences in a Church, and persisting in them, draws Disciples after him, and sets up another Church in opposition to that from whence he separated? To separate men, in judgement, in a Church, is a Schism and crime bad enough; but to separate them from the Church, upon the former, is fare worse. Now this, as it may be done in a Church of many Congregations, all professing the same truth, and practising the same worship; So the persisting in such differences by any one Congregation, against the rest, is a Schism in that Church (as of Corinth) and ends commonly in separation from that Church: But let us hear further, what is required to make guilty of Schism.  
§. 8 1. That they be members of, or belong to some one Church, which is so by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ. The ground of this assertion is, that he by one Church, means only one particular Church, or Congregation; So that if a man be not a member of that one Church, he can neither be a Schismatic to that Church, nor to any other. But this, I suppose, to be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his great mistake, and the cause of all his miscarriage hereafter. For as there may be a Schism in a Citie-Church, of many Congregations, which are such, by the appointment, or allowance of Jesus Christ, (suppose them all Independent, if he please): So one that is a member of one of the Congregations of that Church, yea that is a member of none of those, but of some other, may be a Schismatic to that Church collectively taken, and to any one of those particular Congregations, to wit, if he shall raise any differences in any one of them, and persist to maintain them, being e●ther expressly against the Gospel, or merely of things unnecessary, etc. And this I shall prove; 1. By the Doctors own principle; He that raiseth differences in any Congregation (and persists therein) is a Schismatic; as was newly by him asserted: But that Christian that breaks the peace of any Church, more general or particular, by erroneous or unnecessary disputes, raises differences in that Church; and therefore he is a Schismatic. Then it follows, that it is not necessarily required, to the guilt of Schism, that he be a member of that one Church, but he may be a member of another Church, or of no Church, but only a Christian. 2. I prove it from a Scripture instance, Act. 15.1. Ceratine men which came down from Judaea, (to Antioch) taught the brethren saying, except ye be circumcised, &c: ye cannot be saved. These men were no members of the Church of Antioch, but of Judaea, or Christians at large, of no particular Church: yet these men, making differences in the Church of Antioch, are said, v. 24. to trouble them with words, subverting their Souls, and therefore might justly be called Schismatics: He cannot now say; this was not a Church of the institution of Christ; for whether it was then but one particular Congregation, or consisted of many congregations, (as not able to meet in one place), both ways it was a Church of Christ's appointment. For the very light of reason, speaks thus much, That when a Congregation or first Church, grows too numerous, it should swarm out into lesser Congregations: and yet those distinct Congregations may fairly be said to be but one Church; and have still some dependence (what ever it be) one upon another.  
§. 9 2. It is required (says he) that they either raise, entertain or persist in causeless differences, 
p. 44.  with them of that Church, &c: This is answered in the former, in part. And I add, that those differences raised, &c: in that Church, though by a member of another Church, do cause an Interruption of that exercise of love, which ought to be amongst them, and the disturbance of the duties required of that Church, in the worship of God, which he requires to make one guilty of Schism. It were very strange, that he that entertains, or persists in those differences should be a Schismatic, and he that first raised them (though of another Church) should be none.  
§. 10 3. It is further required, that these differences be occasioned by, and do belong to, some things, in a remoter or nearer distance, to the worship of God. This will reach a great way; even civil differences (as they may be called Schism, as we heard above▪ so they) may come to trench upon the worship of God. But may there not be differences in other matters, besides worship, which may amount to a Schism? He told us above, that Schism might be, in unnecessary things, p. 27. things that properly concern not the worship of God? such were those sidings about their Teachers; not in the worship of God, but from house to house, as he confessed above. But supposing the differences to be in the worship of God, that is, in the time and place of it, may they not be in matter of doctrine? perhaps he will say, that is Heresy, or Apostasy, not Schism (for so he says, p. 161.) But 1. Every difference in matter of doctrine, is not Heresy, much less Apostasy; Heresy is not charged usually on any, but either for fundamental errors, or obstinacy in them; And though we commonly place, Schism, in matter of discipline, or circumstances of worship, and Heresy in matters of doctrine, yet, as we see by experience, those that began with Schismatical separations, end too oft in Heresy: So a Schism at first, if obstinately persisted in, may come to be Heresy, (for there is a doctrine of discipline, in the Scripture): and a Schismatic wilfully defending his error, though but in a matter of discipline, or other unnecessary opinions, may prove to be Heretical. 2. Heresy and Apostasy, presuppose Schism first: So that a man may be a Schismatic for raising the difference, and an Heretic in persisting in it. And say the same of Apostasy; as more perhaps hereafter. Or may there not be Schism in a matter of discipline, which is distinguished from worship? Surely the greatest Schisms at this day, are found about discipline; As is evident, in the difference between Papists and us, in subjection to the Pope: between Episcopal men and us, about submission to the hierarchical Government, between the Presbyterians and Independents, where the administration of discipline lies. And each parties charge one another with Schism; as he affirms in his following discourse. In doctrine and worship, the Independents, some of them and we agree, having the same Confession of Faith, the same Ordinance of worship. The discipline only makes the Schism; whereof who is most guilty, will appear anon. Certain it is, on which party soever the charge falls, to be guilty of this crime, they will be found to show themselves carnal or to have indulged to the flesh, 
pag. 44.  and the corrupt principle of Self, and their own wills, etc.  
§. 11 But he professes," he could never yet meet with a definition of Schism, that did comprise, that was not exclusive of, that, 
pag. 45.  which alone, in the Scripture, is affirmed so to be. That shall be tried by considering the definitions, ordinarily given. The definition of Austin is this, Schisma est dissidium congregationis; when men of the same judgement in doctrine, and same rites in worship, delight in the discord of the Congregation. By dissidium Congregationis, the Dr. says he means, HE separation from the Church, into a peculiar Congregation. Which was the case of the Donatists, which he had then in hand.  
But 1. this definition is just the Doctors Dissidium Congregationis, is not properly a separation from, but in the Church; and such was that of the Donatists at first, till, refusing, or receiving no satisfaction, they separated into other Congregations, and bid defiance to the Church; which is the Common issue of such intestine divisions. 
Acts 15.39.  Paul and Barnabas, two holy, good men, first fell into a paroxysm of contention, and presently separated and parted asunder.  
2. Basil's definition, is almost the same; who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be the unlawful Conventicles, the ordinary consequents of such division; First, they raise divisions, that's the first degree of Schism; from Schism they fall into Heresy, the second degree; and then separate into new conventions, 
pag. 46.  which is the highest Schism. Nor, because of later years, honest and pious meetings for Religion, were called Conventicles, and Schism, therefore may men conclude, that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church, when it shall be determined so to be.  
3. The Common definition given, That Schism is a causeless separation from the communion and worship of any true Church, etc. presupposes a Division in that Church, which occasions that separation, one party not being satisfied by the other. The Crime of which separation, must be taken, and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof, which cannot be in a true Church, but in those that separate from it. For if a Church, be either no true Church, or so extremely corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin, such a separation is no Schism, but they are the Schismatics, who give the cause of that separation. But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation; 
pag. 46.  for he says, Certain he is, that a separation from some Churches, true, or pretended so to be, is commanded in the Scripture; so that the withdrawing from any Church, or society whatever, upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or false, with a mind & resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions, according to that light which we have received, is not where called Schism, nor condemned as a thing of that nature etc. If this be true, there will be found but little or no Schism in any Church, or in the World. If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church, as well as from a false, and that upon a false plea of its corruption, as well as true, only with a good mind to serve God, in Church institutions, true, or conceited by his own light; all the Sectaries & Separatists, Donatists & Brownists in the world may be justified, But this will come again below; thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it.  
§. 12 Now lest (by the former indulgence) any should surmise, 
p. 47.  that he complyes with them, that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism, or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches (as we are able to prove them) he will at present heighten the heinousness of Schism, when he hath first considered what aggravations, others have put upon it.  
§. 13 1. Some say, it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ, 
pag. 48.  but (says he) they seem to have mistaken their aim, and instead of aggravating, extenuated it: a rent of the body is not heightened, in its being called, the renting of a seamless coat. But this is but a nicety. I suppose they used it only by way of allusion, à minore ad majus. The Soldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat, whereby it would be rendered useless to all; how much more heinous was it to rend his Body. The Church is called Christ's mystical Body. Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Soldiers to divide his seamless coat, and much more to divide by piercing his natural body: so it is more heinous to rend his body mystical; which must needs reach to him the Head. This is the Apostles way of arguing, 1 Cor. 1.13. Is Christ divided? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts.  q. d. Do you not by these divisions, divide and rend the Body of Christ? and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions? But enough of that.  
§ 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity, 
pag. 49.  as Heresy is against Faith: but is Schism so a sin against Charity? doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart? He means so, as Heresy does the Faith. But that's not the question; but whether Schism be not a sin against Charity, as well (though not as much) as Heresy is a sin against Faith? And suppose it do not root out Charity, may it not supplant, or at least suppress & weaken it? may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love (as he said above p. 27.) their Church order, as to Love, Peace, Union, were woefully disturbed with divisions, etc. And if Schism be persisted in, it may in the end root out Charity, and be inconsistent with it, as well as Heresy doth the Faith: Nor does every Heresy root out all Faith; a man may be an Heretic in one Article, and Orthodox in the Faith, in others. Yea, 
pag. 49.  himself here confesses, men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices, and duties of love, which are useful, or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection, and then is it, or may in some sense, be said to be a sin against Love. When the Apostle says, that Love is the bond of perfection, because it preserves that perfect and beautiful order amongst the Saints, notwithstanding all hindrances and oppositions made by Schism; He tells us rather what true love is in itself, and aught to be in us, than what it is manifested to be in men's corrupt hearts, and conversations. 
Divisions among them, breaches of Love: so he, pag. 69. pag. 50.  They than that described it to be" open breach of love, aimed near, at the true nature it; which his wary consideration, doth not excuse from Schism. For suppose it were possible▪ for a man to be all, and do all, that those were and did, whom the Apostle judges for Schismatics, under the power of some violent temptation, and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints, to the communion disturbed by him, which is very rare; Yet that person, who ever he be, could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity, any more than those, whom the Apostle calls Schismatics, who no doubt some of them, were under some violent temptation. It is again confessed, It is thus far a breach of love, in its own nature, in that in such men, Love cannot exert itself, in its utmost tendency, in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church. If this had been said at first, this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulness of Schism.  
§. 15 3. As for those, who say, it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church; if they mean it, 
pag. 50.  in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies etc. let them plead for themselves. But if he mean, that Schism may be raised, against the instituted Rulers of the Church, walking in the truths, and ways of Christ, (as well as against any other members of the Church) it may be so far called Rebellion against the Rulers of the Church, as they▪ that desp●se Christ's Ambassadors, despise Him also, the mischiefs whereof, extend to the whole Church. And commonly the Schism gins against the Rulers of the Church; as that against Moses and Aaron did: So that at Corinth in Clement's time. This is too evident, at this time, That all the present Schisms, strike principally at the Ministers of the Gospel, All Sects, contending against them primarily▪ and reproaching of them, either as Antichristian, 
He calls them, parochial Priests. pag. 235.  or as no true Ministers (besides worse names of ignominy and contempt) wherein the Dr. and his party, are not a little guilty▪ as will appear before we have done.  
§. 16 Whether Schismatics be Church Members, or no, is a question of no great concernment. The Doctor is peremptory It is impossible a man should be a Schismatic, 
p. 51.  unless he be a Church member. If he mean it of a member of the Catholic Church, it's granted: for an Heathen cannot be a Schismatic. But if he mean (as I believe he does) no man can be such, unless he be a member of a particular Church, it is made appear to the contrary above, and shall be more hereafter. For the present I only say, Suppose a Schismatic of himself departs from the Church, or is ejected by the Church; yet still persists to maintain the differences by him raised, in that Church; I desire to know, whether he ceases to be a Schismatic, because he is now no member of that Church, or is not still such, by the Doctors own principles? But too much of that.  
§. 17 Upon the Definition of Schism, given by himself, A causeless difference, or division, amongst the members of any particular Church, 
pag. 52. Is not this a man's definition, & the strength of it this? such an act is Schism, therefore none else is: See p. 44.  that meet or aught to meet to the worship of God▪ etc. he proceeds to deliver the Aggravations of the sin of Schism, wherein I shall agree with him fully; though not in his definition, in all particulars, as was said above. That, that is a Schism I confess, & contains a part, but not the whole nature thereof. For, as I believe, a Schism may be made in a particular Church, by one that is no member thereof▪ (seducers use to creep into houses and Churches, and raise differences). So I think, a particular Church, or some members of it, may make a Schism in & from the Catholic Church, or other particular Churches, which shall be capable of those aggravations by him given. Look as in the body natural, there may be supposed a Schism, amongst the fingers of either hand, whereof they are the more immediate members, which yet may truly be said, to be a Schism, in relation to the whole body, which hath influence into, and interest in those members, and shall suffer not a little by their divisions: So it is in the body mystical, though the divisions immediately disturb the particular Church, where they arise, yet they also reach to the disquiet, and danger of the next Congregations, and then of the whole Church," A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A mutiny begun in a single troop, hath been the ruin of the whole Army. The Design (however disclaimed p. 47. f.) I fear is this. This definition of Schism is forelaid, and so oft repeated to prevent the charge thereof, upon himself and his own select congregation. If they have but so much wit, or so much grace, as either not to raise, or not to discover any causeless differences amongst themselves, though they separate from, and disturb the peace and union of the whole national Church, or all the Churches of a Nation, they are by no means to be styled Schismatics. But more of this, in Hypothesi, when he comes to apply it to themselves.  
§. 18 Whether the Church of Rome, is a Church of Christ, or no, 
pag. 56.  and how they are Schismatical; I list not to be their Advocate, they are old enough, to answer his charge themselves. I think he hath said enough (if not too much) to vindicate the Protestant Churches from Schism, in their separation from Rome. But his principle will carry him further, not only to unchurch Rome, but also all Protestant Churches, at home and abroad, for want (as he thinks) of a right constitution by Jesus Christ: as well as to free himself and his from the crime of Schism: as will presently appear. Only I observe that he does not charge Rome itself to be Schismatical, but upon supposition, that it is a Church; (which he denies below) then indeed, by her intestine divisions, she is the most schismatical Church in the world; but if no Church, not schismatical; whereas our Divines, have proved her schismatical, not only by her intestine differences but chief by her schismatical principles, as those above mentioned, That she is the Catholic Church, and none out of her Communion, are any better than Heretics, 
Our Conventicles are no Churches, but sties of beasts p. 63. say they.  or Heathens. That Ordination is void, except done by her Bishops; and also, and especially, by her abominable corruptions, doctrine, and worship, departing therein from the Scriptures, and example of the Apostolical Churches. Now his chief, if not only principle, to conclude himself not schismatical, in separating from Rome, is this, That there was never any such thing, 
pag. 60.  as that which is called the Church of Rome, instituted in reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ, which he hereafter affirms also of National, and Presbyterian Churches, as he thereby frees himself from Schism, in separating from all Churches in the world: So he therewith unchurcheth all our Churches, as well as Rome.  
§. 19 For so he says; upon the same principle, a plea, 
pag. 64.  for freedom from the charge of any Church, really, or pretended, as National, may be founded and confirmed. That principle is, the definition of Schism before given, Schism is an evil amongst the members of a Church. And hence he inferred against the Church of Rome, If our own Congregations be not Churches, whatsoever we are, we are not Schismatics. And against them that plead for a National Church, and charge them with Schism for separating from it, he says again; If we are not of the National Church, 
pag. 67.  (as they protest they are not) whatever we are, we are not Schismatics. And this will once more be made use of, against the charge of Schism, in separating from our present Churches; as we shall see below. But he makes a Dilemma, and thinks it both ways unanswerable, either we are of the National Church of England, or we are not. If not, whatever we are, we are not Schismatics. If we are, and must be of it, whether we will or no, being made so, we know not how, etc. show us then, what office of Love is incumbent on us, that we do not perform. His arguing is not distinct, having not tot told us what he means by a National Church. If he take it, (as he seems to do) for the Hierarchical Church, with National Officers, with subordinations, etc. I would say, It's certain, himself was once of that National Church, a member of it, perhaps zealous of Episcopacy, and an exact observer of its Canons; So that, if that National Church be proved (as it is by some attempted) to be a Church of Christ's institution, he cannot be excused from Schism in separating from it. For though they cannot charge him, as now, of that Church, both it being abolished, and himself changed into another way, yet they may say, he was not long since, a member of that National Church. But if he take National Church, as the Churches were in the Nation, all professing the same truth, and exercising the same substantial worship, (as the most Orthodox understood England to be a National Church) he must either acknowledge himself to be still a member of this National Church, (as he does pag. 224.) or else renounce communion with her also as no Church, or Churches of Christ: which whether he does or no, comes after to be considered.  
§. 20 For the other horn of his Dilemma, If they are, and must be of this National Church etc. what duty of Love is there, which they own to it, and do not perform? Seeing he makes the challenge, and professes, that if it can be shown, he will address himself to it. I shall take the pains to inform him fully, before we have done; only now considering what he says here. Do we not (says he) join in external acts of worship, in peace, with the whole Church? 
p. 67.  Call the whole Church together, & try what we will do? Is not all this aequivocally spoken? In what external acts of worship, do they join with us, as a Church? Do they not disown us, as no Churches? and our Ministers as no Ministers? & admit none to worship with them, but confederate members? When they sometimes preach in our Congregations, or hear us preach, do they not count themselves to us, and us to themselves, as gifted brethren only, but no Ministers? And what means he by the whole Church? or how can it be called together? unless he mean his own Church, or Churches. How then do they join in every Congregation in the Nation? When (though they presume to preach in our Churches, to steal away our people from us) their own people will seldom or never come into our Congregations to hear, unless some of them preach. Ad populum phaleras. And as for their joining in peace, with the whole Church, it is a Blind: for they separate themselves with some of our members, from our Churches, to the great discouragement of the Ministers, and greater disturbance of the whole, and all the Churches of the Nation.  
§. 21 The Counsel that he gives to members of particular Churches, 
pag. 70,  who have voluntarily given up themselves, to walk in them, according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, I fear, extends no further than to his formed and confederate Churches, That they would be careful to prevent causeless differences, in their own meetings, or among themselves; which if they do, let them all say what they will, they are no Schismatics. For as for our particular Congregations, they scarce account them Churches, though most of the members of them, have voluntarily given up themselves explicitly, or implicitly (as New England men confess) to walk in them, according to the appointment of Jesus Christ. And if they grant ours to be true Churches, they must necessarily acknowledge, those who first raised causeless differences in them, & now foment them by separation from them, to be Schismatics, by his own description. Yea so much worse, than those Corinthians, whose case he exemplifies, if so be they did not upon their differences, separate into parties and Churches, (which he denies, but we conceive they did) and these both raise differences, and then separate from our Churches, into several combinations; and one says, I am of Paul's Congregation, and another, I am of Apollo's, I speak this in a figure, as Paul did. 
1 Cor. 4.6:  He can easily apply it.   

CHAP. III. Causeless Separation from a true Church, is Schism.  
§ 1 HE now fearing this or the like Objection, (as obvious to be made by every man) That if Schism be on●y amongst the members of one Church, 
pag. 72.  than the separation of any man or men, from a true Church, or one Church from another, is not Schism; which is contrary to the judgement of most Christians, Divines, and Churches; he hopes to help himself by his old definition of Schism, in the Scripture precise description of it, as he limited above: And peremptorily denies, that in that sense, there is any relinquishment, departure, 
pag. 73.  or separation from any Church, or Churches, mentioned or intimated in the Scripture, which is, or is called Schism, or agreeth with the description by them given us, of that term. But to this, I have many things to say. 1. That precise signification of the word, and description of the thing is before disproved. The word properly signifies a separation of a Body into parts, and is applied both to political and Ecclesiastical Bodies in the Scripture; as was proved above. 2. Supposing that to be the only sense mentioned in the case of the Corinthians (which is denied and disproved) yet may another sense be intimated in Scripture, and deduced by regular and rational consequence. The word signifying indefinitely separation, either in opinion, or parts, is it not a fair consequence? If separation in judgement in a Church, be a Schism, much more upon that difference, to separate from a Church, into another against the Church. 3. St. John blames some for separating from the Church, 1 Joh. 2.19. they went out from us, &c: as is the manner of Schismatical and Heretical Spirits: being obstinate in their opinions, and opposed by the Church, they stay not, till they are cast out, but go out, and become the head of a faction, against the Church: as histories do abundantly manifest. 4. His own places brought for instances of  separation from a Church do all or some mind the nature of Schism, as precedaneous to that separation, therefore this sense is intimated in the Scripture, we shall consider them in order.  
§. 2 1. The first produced, is Heb. 10.25. not forsaking the Assembling of ourselves together, as some do: He renders the words (for his own advantage) not wholly deserting the Assembling of ourselves, &c: and makes it to be Apostasy from the faith, 
p. 74.  and thereupon upon forsaking the Assemblies: would any man call these Schismatics, says he?  

He formerly glossed this text, of neglecting the public Assemblies only: see Appendix. §. 14.  He makes the context to be with the 26. v. that so he may draw it to Apostasy, they departed to Judaisme; but it rather looks back to the 24. v. Let us consider one another to provoke unto love & good works, which is the fruit of brotherly watchfulness in members of a Congregation: Mat. 18.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not forsaking the assembling, &c: but forsaking another, q. d. If we, forsake the assemblies of the Church, we shall quickly neglect that brotherly mutual care and inspection of one another, and so fall into separation or Apostasy. And the 26 v. rather refers to the latter end of the 25. v. but exhorting one another so much the rather, as you see the day approaching: For if we sinne willingly, &c: If we forsake the assemblies, neglecting brotherly inspection, and so fall into Schism, or Apostasy, (from one to the other) the end will be dreadful.  
But first, 
Estius in loc.  the Latin Interpreters expound it, of forsaking the Assemblies, either by Schism or Apostasy. 2. Apostasy is gradual, either partial in some point of Faith; or total in all; the first may proceed to a Schism in the Church; the second to a separation from the Church. As those, Act. 15. that in part forsook the way of the Gospel, and joined Moses with Christ, circumcision with baptism, are said to go out from the Apostles, v. 24. Certain, that went out from us, have troubled you with words: These were Schismatics in the one, and Apostates, or Separatists in the other. An Heretic or an Apostate may be a Schismatic, and something more; as a Schismatic too often proves an Heretic. For when seducers have first raised divisions in a Church, they either voluntarily forsake it, or are justly ejected by the Church, and then gather their Disciples into distinct bodies; in opposition to the Church as I said above. The Apostle describes them thus, Act. 20.30. Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. These are grievous Wolves, v. 23. so fare from taking care of the flock, that they rend and tear it, not sparing the flock. And therefore the Apostle joins these together, 1 Cor. 13.25. That there should be no Schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another: Implying that where there is a Schism, in the Church, the members neglect the care one of another; and when the members neglect the care one of another, there's a Schism in the Church. But if they so fare neglect the care of one another, as to separate from the Church, that's an higher degree of Schism, even a double Schism. As in the body natural; if it be a Schism, for one member to rent and tear another, in the body, much more to rend and divide themselves from the body, when they cannot have any care one of another. We see this exemplifyed at this day. When men have first raised divisions in the Church, they separate from the Church, and gather themselves into distinct bodies, having no care for the body from whence they separated, scarce owning them for Churches, but rather account them no true Churches, reproaching and reviling them; Are not these Schismatics.  
§. 3 2. The second place, for  separation, is of some, who withdraw themselves from Church-communion, 
p. 75.  at least for a season by their disorderly and irregular walking. 1 Thes. 5.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Thes. 3.2.6. Such there were in the primitive times, and in our days, whom we charge not with Schism, but vanity, folly, and disobedience to the precepts of Christ, in general. No marvel these are not charged with Schism; for they neither raised divisions in the Church, nor separated from the Church but were disorderly and irregular out of the Church, in neglect of their callings; So the Apostle expressly instances, 2 Thes. 3.11. we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, not working at all, but are busybodies. They did not separate from the Church, but rather (●s some now do) made their frequenting of public meetings and exercises, the Cloak for their idleness; thinking the Church was bound to maintain them. They were so fare from separating from the Church, that some (who bring, v. 14. for excommunication) think, the Apostle commands the Church to separate them, (i● they upon warning, mend not this fault) from the Society. Others think that he commands them only to withdraw from them, in civil respects, and if they will not labour, let them starve, v. 10. As for those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the 2d verse, which he calls persons that abide quietly in no place, or station; it is supposed they were not the same men but persecutors of the Apostle, most absurdly and unreasonably: He knows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Logical term; signifying absurd men, that know not the Topics, or heads of reasoning; and these are joined with wicked and faithless men. However, the Apostle commanding them to warn those disorderly men as brothers, by no means can be suspected, to charge them for separation. Yet if he will needs understand it of their separation from Church communion, we shall charge them, not only with vanity, folly, disobedience, but also with Schism. For they might stir up dissensions in the Church, by defence of their idleness (which himself calls Schism) and then separate from the Church: but enough of that.  
§. 4 3. Men also separated themselves, upon sensuality, that they might freely indulge to their lusts, 
p. 76.  and live in all manner of pleasure all their days, Judas 19 v. These are they that separate themselves, &c: That some men do separate from the Church, upon doctrines of Liberty and licentiousness, is too evident, as in the old Gnostics, so in the late Ranters, and Family of Love; but no doubt these men maintained their opinions and practices in the Church, so long as they could, which caused divisions in the Church, and so were Schismatics: and after separated into their own abominable meetings, as the world knows. That the Apostle spoke of the same men in the 4, 7, 8, 10, verses, and in the 19 verse, is not probable, for those former did not separate from the Church, (or were nor then separated) for he speaks of them as frequenters of the Assemblies, v. 12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you; feeding themselves without fear. These Agapae, Love feasts, were kept in their Church-meetings, at the Sacrament; therefore they were not separated. And as for the 19 verse, it's the judgement of learned Divines, it imports just the nature of seducers, who draw disciples after them, out of the Church. The word used to denote this separation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, Oecumenius says, comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies, extra terminos ecclesiae quempiam educere, elicere, to lead, or draw men out of the Church: and so implies, they did not only separate themselves, but drew others also into separation. And Clem. Alexandr. interprets it, segregantes fideles àfidel. bus, id est, alios ab aliis: Separating the faithful from the faithful that is, some members of the Church from other: In a word, others understand it of both kinds of separation, tam in doctrina quam in coetibus; in opinions and parties, or assemblies. And both these being causeless divisions, are by all accounted Schism. 
p. 27.  Now the reverend Doctor, to avoid this, calls these Abominations, and not Schism, 
As Anabaptists, Quakers, &c: do not cease to be Independents, but a e that, and some thing more.  and asks, whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted Schismatics, or their crime, in separating, Schism? But this is but a disguise of the business; For there may be Schism in this (and the other two afore) and something more. He that raises dissensions in a Church, and then separates from it; either by Apostasy, Idleness, or sensuality, carries his brand of a Schismatic with him; though it seem to be swallowed up, in further abominations. There are degrees of Schism, (as I said) which are not denominated from the terminus ad quem, the wickedness that such proceed unto; but from the terminus à quo, that is from a true Church. I shall put him a case; If a member of his Congregation, inclining to Apostasy, Idleness, or sensuality should first raise divisions in his Church, concerning any of those, and then should separate from his Church, either into irregular walking, as some Antinomians, or into Abominations, as some Ranters, or into total Apostasy and Atheism, which many are fallen into, from the height of this way; would he not say thee were Schismatics and something worse? And of all it may be said," These are they that separate themselves: I leave it to him.  
§. 5 But he is so confident of the contrary, that he redoubles more vigorously, his former Assertion. I say, 
p. 77.  for a man to withdraw, or withhold himself from the Communion external and visible of any Church, or Churches, on the pretention and plea, be it true or otherwise, that the worship, doctrine, discipline instituted by Christ, is corrupted among them, with which corruption he dares not defile himself, it is not where, in the Scripture called Schism, etc. Before I come to scan the words in particular, I shall say, in general, this is a fallacious, because an ambiguous, assertion. For 1. He tells not whether a man may separate, when there is corruption in some one of these only, or in all of them. 2. Nor how far some or all of these, must be corrupted, before we may separate. 3. All these were as much corrupted (and more) in the Jewish Church, as in ours, (when he and his party separated from us) and yet our Saviour and his Apostles continued their Communion with it: and the Church of Corinth, in all these, was as much and more corrupted, than ours, yet the Apostle mentions, no separating from it: 4. He now requires that it be called Schism in Scripture; when as before, he said, if it had the nature of it, it was sufficient. 5. If a bare Plea against corruptions, true or false, may warrant a separation; then the most rigid separatists may be, and are by him acquitted from Schism; as I said above. But more particularly; He hath not rightly stated the question, as now it lies between us: which is not of a single man's secession from a true Church, a particular Congregation; to join himself to another Church, of the same Constitution, where he may enjoy (as he thinks) the Ordinances more purely, or more profitably. For it was ever lawful for a man to remove his habitation, and to join himself to such a Congregation. But the pinch of the question is, whether a man, or a company of men, may separate from a true Church, upon a plea of corruption in it, true or false, set up another Church, as to all Ordinances, renouncing that Church, to be a true Church. And so much the worse and more Schismatical is that separation, from a true Church, when either those men that separate, have not done those duties incumbent on them, to reform it; or that Church is upon a Resolution and endeavour, to reform itself according to the Rule of the Gospel. This is plainly our case at present, with the Doctor and his Associates.  
§. 6 But he further affirms; Of one Church particular, departing from that communion with another, 
p. 78.  or others, be it what it will, which it ought to hold, unless in the departing of some of them, in some things, from the common Faith, which is supposed not to relate to Schism, in the Scripture we have no example. The more happy were those times, that they yielded no such example. But if they did not, yet if they give us an example of one Church, divided upon differences, into several Congregations, or to some Ordinances (as we proved they do) they come very near the case of Schism before us; And himself hath granted, that upon supposition that Rome is a (particular) Church (as opposed to the Catholic) she is the most Schismatical Church in the world; not only in regard of her own intestine divisions (as he) but also in her separation from the Apostolical primitive Church, in doctrine, worship and discipline; (as our Divines do maintain) upon this acount it was, that the Divines of the Assembly said; To leave all ordinary communion in any Church, with dislike, where opposition, 
See p. 141  or offence offers itself, is to separate from such a Church, in the Scripture sense; though they add, 
pag. 79.  such separation was not in being in the Apostles time. His exception to this, is frivolous, How they came to know exactly the sense of the Scripture in and about things not mentioned in them, I know not. The reconciliation is easy; In the Apostles time, or in that case of the Corinthians, (such was their happiness) there was no separation of one Church from another, in that high manner, as after they did; but yet the Scripture gives a fair ground, by way of consequence; there and in other places, above named, to conclude, that if separation in a Church, in opinions and judgement, be a Schism, much more separation from a true Church by persons, or Churches, leaving all ordinary communion with it, with dislike or opposition, is to be accounted Schism; especially if they first departed from the common Faith, and then, upon that difference, separate from the Church. And therefore, though he be unwilling, I shall not doubt but to be able to compel him to carry on the notion of Schism, further than yet he hath done.  
§. 7 But that he may show his skill and gratify his Adversaries, he will carry on this discourse to a fuller issue, 
p. 81.  according to the common definition of Schism;" That it is a breach of union, only he will put in a reasonable postulatum, that this union be an union of the appointment of Jesus Christ, which I shall freely grant him; provided he do not limit Schism, as formerly he did, to the worship of God only: yet that he does here again; The consideration of what sort of union, in reference to the worship of God (mark that) is instituted by Jesus Christ, is the foundation of what I have further to offer, &c: The Design of this is, that he may have a fair retreat, when he is charged with breach of union, in other respects, and so with Schism, to escape by this evasion, This breach of union, is not in reference to the worship of God, in one Assembly, met to that end. And that is only Schism in the Scripture- notion; as he hath often said. But I shall attend his motion.  
§. 8 This union being instituted in the Church, according to the various acceptions of that word, so it is distinguished: For which purpose he undertakes three things, to show. 1. The several considerations of the Church, with which union is to be preserved. 2. What that union is, 
p. 82.  we are to keep with the Church, in each consideration. 3. How that union is broken, and what the sin whereby it is done. Wherein we shall follow him as fare as we are concerned, leaving others to plead for themselves.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Church Catholic Mystical, and its Union.  
§. 1 THe Church of Christ in this world, is taken in Scripture three ways, 1. For the mystical body of Christ, 
p. 84.  his elect redeemed, &c: commonly called the Church Catholic militant, 2. For the universality of men, called by the Word, visibly professing the Gospel, called the Church Catholic visible. 3. For a particular Church of some place, wherein the instituted worship of God in Christ, is celebrated according to his mind. This distinction of the Church, is rather of the word, than of the thing intended by it; & imports not a threefold Church, but one Church under a threefold consideration: arising (as he says) from the nature of the things themselves, that is, the members of that Church, who may be considered, either as true believers, that makes the invisible Church, 2, as professors of the same Faith, & that makes the Catholic visible Church: or thirdly as partakers of the same instituted worship, and that is called a particular Church: For, as the definition of a Church agrees to it, in all the three considerations; It is a society of men called out of the world, by the word, &c: So, the same persons are or may be members of all the three Churches, or in that threefold consideration of it, at once, He that is a true believer of the invisible Church, is also a professor of the Faith, and so a member of the Catholic visible Church, and he that is of both those, is or aught to be (if possible) a member of a particular Church: Now the Church, having its rise and nature from a call, (as the word imports) that call admitting of several degrees, causes this threefold notion of the Church, That call in Scripture, is either internal, which he calls effectual; or external, and that again admits of degrees: men are called either to the profession of Faith only (lacking opportunity of public Ordinances) or to participation of the instituted worship also; In their obedience to the first call, they are said to be members of the Church invisible; to the second, to be members of the Catholic visible; to the third, to be members of a particular Church: And his own way of raising the former distinction, is the same for substance, p. 84. §. 2. Hence the necessity of Churches in the last acception is not only, because members of a particular Church, are bound to external rules for joint communion (for to those very rules, are members of the invisible and visible Church bound also, when it is possible): but partly because, the Catholic Church, in either sense cannot all meet in one place; and partly because, the opportunity to yield obedience to those rules of joint communion cannot be exercised but in a particular Society, not too great, or numerous.  
§. 2 1. For his first consideration of the Church, which 〈◊〉 calls the Mystical body of Christ his elect, 
page 84.  &c: the Church Catholic militant, I have but a little to say. I observe only, first that he restrains the Catholic Church invisible, only to this world, as militant; whereas commonly our Divines take it for the whole number of the elect, both Militant and Triumphant, from Heb. 12.23. The general assembly, and Church of the first borne, which are written in heaven. 2. That he makes the Church invisible, the only Mystical body of Christ, which is ordinarily applied to the Catholic visible Church also; as contra distinguished to the civil or political body of a state. 3. 
See, my Vind, Vind. p. 9  That he citys Math. 16.28. to prove the Catholic invisible Church, which is commonly understood of the Catholic visible Evangelicall Church; He says; They that will apply this (text) to the Church in any other sense, 
page 88  must know that it is incumbent on them to establish the promise made to it, unto every one that is a true member of the Church, in that sense, which will be difficult, &c: But I say, that the promise in that text (and the rest cited) is made good to every one that is a true member of the invisible Church, is true; They are built upon that Rock, and the gates of Hell shall never prevail against them; but yet it may be true, with respect, (if not to a particular Church, which may fail, yet) to the Catholic visible Church, which as it is built upon that Rock, the confession of Peter, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah come; So it is to continue to the world's end, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail totally to destroy it. And this himself confesses, I no way doubt of the perpetual existence of innumerable believers in every age, and such as made the profession, that is absolutely necessary to salvation, one way or other, p. 86. f. There is then a perpetual existence of the Church, not only invisible, as true beleivers, but also of the visible, as professors of the Faith of the Gospel; and so the promise is made good to it. Indeed the promise in that text, is made to the whole Church indefinitely, and respectively; but not to every particular person in it, nor to every particular Church: There shall be a Church of true beleivers and professors of the Faith in all ages, but whether it be made to a particular Church, That Christ hath had always a Church, in this sense, in the world, himself says is a needless enquiry, p. 85. §. 5. Of which more perhaps hereafter.  
§. 3 The second thing considerable is, the Union of the members of this Catholic invisible Church, among themselves; which he makes to be; 
pag. 95.  The Inhabitation, of the same Spirit, or the animation of the whole by the Spirit; this is the fountain radical union of this Church, in itself, and with its head with the formal reason of it. But he cannot but know, that some of his own way, make Faith itself, in all the single believers, 
D. Ames. Mcedull. l. 1. c. 31. §. 21.  to be the form of this invisible Church; which they call the state essential of this Church; they mean, the essence of the Church is preserved by Faith, in single believers: but I contend not: Be it Faith, or the Spirit of Faith, in its graces and operations, the matter is not great. But besides this radical union, 
pag. 96.  he makes a double consequential union flowing from that. 1. of Faith 2. of Love, of all those united in the head, towards one another, and of every one towards the whole. But these are improperly called unions; they are rather consequents of that union by one Spirit, than consequential unions; and rather are the means of communion, Faith with the Head, Love with the members; 
pag. 98.  So he says I cannot say, they have their union in themselves by Love, but it is the next immediate principle of that communion, which they have one with another, etc. but I list not to strive about this neither. The third thing is, to inquire wherein the breach of this union must consist: 
pag. 99  In these two things. 1. The casting out that Spirit, which gives this union; 2. The loss of Love, flowing from thenee into the body of Christ, &c: concerning which, he tells his Adversaries, That our persuasion is, that this union was never utterly broken by any man, 
pag. 100  taken into it, or ever shall be, to the end of the world. I shall not differ with him, in this Assertion: Only I take no ice of the wariness of his expression; (utterly broken) which in that debate, signifies totally and finally. But if I may gradually and for a t●me be interrupted, (as our Divines allow) may there not be said to be a breach in that union, though not of that union? And consequentially a bleach in this union by some sin may be called, Schism; which he too slightingly disavows. That Faith may be weakened, and Love remitted, there is no question; and that the Spirit may be quenched, and grieved, the Scripture insinuates; upon whic● offence, there may be a kind of Schism, even in the Invisible Church, if not to a separation of the Spirit utterly, yet to a suspension of its influence, by hiding itself, and leaving the Believer to a sad desertion; as experience tells us. Besides this, the members of this Church, being also visible in another sense, and so of the Catholic visible Church; may there not be a breach of union, even among them, which may extend, not only to divisions in judgement, but also to separation into parties, and what is that but Schism? I gave an instance in Paul and Barnabas, both members of this Church; Act. 15. l●st; and members of no particular Church. But strictly to speak, This Church itself, and its union being both invisible, quà elect, there can be no visible breach of union in it, or among the members of it; and so we must look for Schism, in the other Notions of the Church.   

CHAP. V Of the Church Catholic visible, and its Union.  
§. 1 THe next whereof is, the Catholic visible Church, which he describes to be, 
p. 112.  The universality of men professing the doctrine of the Gospel, and obedience to God in Christ, throughout the World. These he grants, do constitute the visible Kingdom of Christ, and so may be called his Church: but whether precisely, so called in Scripture, (he says) is not unquestionable: But to me and others (whom he may do well to satisfy) this is out of question. He makes the question to be, 
p. 113.  what relation it stands in, to all particular Churches, whether as a Genus to its Species, or as a Totum to its parts. And he seems to be Negative in both. His general reason is, because The universal visible Church we speak of, is not a thing that hath, as such, a specificative form, from which it should be so called, as a particular hath for its ground of being so called. That shall be tried, when we hear what is the specificative form of a particular Church. In the mean time, let us consider why he denies this Catholic Church, to stand in relation to the particular Churches, as a Genus to its Species; because this would deprive every one of membership in this universal Church, which is not joined actually to some particular Church, which is devoid of truth. What force there is in this consequence against them of New England, who make particular Churches to be Species of the universal Church, 
Mr. hooker's Survey.  as (say they) several drops of water, are Species of water; and also make a man first a member of a particular Church, before he can be a member of the Catholic, I say, what force there is, in this consequence against them, I do not see; I only note his disagreement with them; though I agree with him in the thing. For the other, That particular Churches are parts of the Catholic, he also denies, because, this were to overthrow a remarkable difference, 
p. 113.  between the Oeconomy of the old Testament and the New, to parts & members of any Catholic Church, as that it should be constituted or made up of them, or by them, for the order and purpose of an instituted Church, for worship of God: he means, as the worship of God was National among the Jews. 
Mr. Hudson Vind.  But (besides what others have said, to prove the Catholic Church, to be a Political Church, in a candid sense) I would say, the Ceremonial worship only (or chief) was National; the moral worship was performed in several Congregations, or Synagogues, (wherein there were Rulers and ruled) and yet those might be called parts of the Jewish Church, as a Totum, or whole. And why particular Churches may not be called parts of the Catholic (which is but the National Church enlarged) I yet see no reason. That all the members of the Catholic Church should meet together, to hear one Sermon, to partake of one Sacrament, etc. as it was possible once, when their number was but an 120. Acts 1. so they are bound still, but that the multitude makes it impossible. That the particular Congregations should join together, in the same specifical Ordinances, and have Officers over them alike, is certainly an institution of Jesus Christ, as well, as to make the same profession of Faith, and hope. Indeed, that, being so numerous, they should have one Officer over them all, and join to hear one Sermon, or receive the same Sacrament numerical, (as he speaks) is a ridiculous fancy; and not only false, but impossible. But I would gladly know a reason, 
See John 4.22, 23.  why 40, or more, members of no particular Church, but only of the Catholic, meeting together, and having a Minister among them, may not join together to worship God, in prayer preaching, and partaking of the Sacrament, as well as the members of several particular Churches, and himself among them, may do the same; as they do often at London and Oxford, when he preaches, unless he will count those Ordinances then and there administered no acts of instituted worship, And if he grant them to be worship, how can he deny that Assembly, to be a particular Church, though it be not fixed nor gathered and united, by any explicit Covenant, or consent to live and die together. I shall only note again, that herein he deserts his friends in New England, 
Ubi supr.  who say, particular Churches, are parts of the universal as a Totum or Integrum. And none think otherwise, but they (to use his words) who have profit by the fable.  
§ 2 What then is the specificative form of a particular Church? 
p. 114.  The formal reason constituting a particular Church, is, their joining together, in the same numerical Ordinances for God's worship. It is true indeed, the Catholic Church as now it is enlarged hath not the same specification form: For whether it be considered as a Genus or as a Totum, it cannot have the same form, with the Species, or parts. But if it have another specificative form of its own it may from that be called an Universal Church; as well as a particular, from its form, may be called a particular Church. Why then is the Catholic called a Church Universal? Because all Christians through the world, (excepting some individuals providentially excluded) do upon the enjoyment of the same preaching of the Word, the same Sacraments administered in Specie, profess one common Faith, & Hope. The sum is the specificative form of the Catholic visible Church (if it have any) is the profession of the same Faith and Hope of the Gospel; whether the members enjoy the same Word and Sacraments, administered in Specie or no? And he needed not to have excepted any individuals providentially excluded from those Ordinances: for himself tells us an instance of a man, that never was partaker of those Ordinances, and yet a subject of Christ's visible Kingdom a member of this Church in the world, p. 139. And before that supposes, A man may be instructed in the knowledge of the Gospel, by the Scripture itself, and make profession of it, where he lives, though he be a thousand miles distant from any particular Church, wherein the Ordinances are administered, nor perhaps knows there is any such Church in the world. p. 137. If then a joining together in the same numerical Ordinances, be the specificative form, of a particular Church, (of which more anon) why may not the profession of the same Faith, and hope of the Gospel, be the specificative form of the Catholic Church. The truth is, the Church considered in the threefold notion, with the threefold differences, is not distinguished into Species, or hath any such specificative forms; but is one and the same Church, considered in that threefold Notion, as the members may be considered, as 1. Believers. 2. As Professors. 3. As Partakers of the same numerical Ordinances of worship, as is said above, and shall appear more hereafter.  
§ 3 The Union of this Church comes next to be considered; which, we shall easily grant him, 
pag. 116.  is not first the same with that of the Catholic invisible, because many are members of this, who are not true believers. 2. Nor the same with that of a particular Church, because many are of the Catholic, who never were of a particular Church. 3. Nor yet, hath it its union, by a Relation to any one Officer, given to the whole, or a subordination of Officers, as Papists pretend: In all these we consent with him; and therefore pass by the large discourse about them, as not concerned in it, It consists says he, In the profession of one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, Eph. 4.5. 
p. 133.  That all the members of the Catholic Church are united in this profession, is very true; but this is not all, they are bound to more than this, viz. to the exercise of the same specifical Ordinances, to subjection to the same Discipline; as also to Love to one another; and, where it is possible, to the celebrating together, of the same numerical worship. And in any of these, to make any differences, is a breach of that union, that aught to be among the members of the Catholic visible Church. Whereupon that is a strange assertion, or addition of his, 
pag. 117.  If there he not an institution for joining in the same Numerical Ordinances, the union of this Church, is not really a Church-union. For when Christ hath instituted, that every Church meeting together, and every member of of the Catholic Church, should exercise the same specifical Ordinances, is not this a Church union, or union of Churches? And let it then be considered, That if every member of the Church Catholic, may be a member of any, or every particular Church, where providence may cast him, (being rightly qualified thereunto) having right first to the same specifical Ordinances, as a member of the Catholic, and then to the same numerical Ordinances, where he comes and finds them, (as some of his own way do grant, and cannot well be denied) then the denial of such a person to join in those numerical Ordinances, is a breach of that union and love, which ought to be, between the members of the Cath. Church, which whether it may be called a Schism or no, we shall examine hereafter; Sure we are, this is done continually, by some particular Churches, and members of the same.  
§ 4 The properties of that profession, for the preservation of this Union he makes to be three, 1. 
p. 134.  That all necessary truths of the Gospel, be believed and professed. 2. That no other principle of the mind, inconsistent with the real belief of those truths professed, be manifested by the professors; Those that are enemies of the Cross of Christ, are not any members of his Church. 3. That no opinion error or false doctrine everting any necessary truth professed, be added and deliberately professed also. To which I have but this to say, 1. The Apostles of Christ were for a time ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospel, and some professors there were, that had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost or no. Acts 19 Yet these were members of th● Catholic Church. 2. Those whom the Apostle called enemies of the Cross of Christ, were Christians, and so members at least of the Catholic Church, if not of a particular. As the incestuous person, was a member of the Church of Corinth, till he was ejected. And it is a position of his own party. A scandalous member tolerated, is a member to all Ordinances, for himself, and his seed: wherewith how this Reverend Author agrees, may be seen, when he says, 
p. 136. " men's profession of the knowledge of God contradicted by a course of wickedness, is not to be admitted as a thing giving any privilege whatever. So that such a man is ipso facto unmembred, without excommunication; and if he be a wicked Minister, he is ipso facto unministred or degraded, and all his Ministerial acts are null: Add to this what he says p. 159. Let those (that are profane) profess what they will, and cry out a thousand times that they are Christians, I shall never acknowledge them for others, than visible enemies of the cross of Christ. Traitors and Rebels are not, de facto, Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are so. They are not within the Church, any more than a Jew, or Mahometan within the same precincts. There are in a few lines, many mistakes; For 1. Though they be as bad as, or worse than Mahumetans, in regard of their spiritual estate, yet are they better in regard of Church estate; Does the wickedness of their lives, make their Baptism a mere nullity? then must they be rebaptised, upon their conversion, as heathens are. 2. If they be no better than Heathens, then are their children to be denied Baptism, and are very Infidels: yet a child of the profanest Jew was circumcised, and had right to other privileges. 3. That is so far from truth, That Traitors and Rebels are not the facto Subjects of that King, in reference to whom they are so, that they cannot possibly be Traitors and Rebels to him, unless they be his Subject. As he said, A man cannot possibly be a Schismatic, unless he be a Church-member; either of a particular, or of the Catholic Church. 4. Doth not the Apostle call fornicators, drunkards, unruly walkers, brethren? 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thes. 3.17. But these three properties, are in●●●ed on to insinuate, that if there be no breach of Union, in any of these th●re is no Schism to be found in the Catholic Church, nor between the members thereof: as appears in his application of them.  
§. 2 For granting for process sake, That Schism is the breach of any union instituted by Christ; the enquiry is, 
p. 140.  Whether we be guilty of the breach of such an unity. And for the first of these the profession of all necessary truths of the Gospel, the Church of England in her doctrine, is as Orthodox as any Church under Heaven, consonant to the Scriptures, and Apostolical Church; (till by Toleration, some false Teachers have corrupted the Faith by damnable Heresies, and blasphemies, disowned by the Church) The Schism then charged upon us by Papists, 
See p. 141  in this respect, lieu at their own door, who have not only deviated from the common Faith themselves, but cause others also so to do, and attempt to destroy all that will not join with them: Unless we may lay it also upon those Sectaries, and Heretics among us, who are their Disciples, who agree with them, in many of their errors, and are departed from the common Orthodox Faith, of the Church of England. As for the second; That in our lives, we do not manifest a principle, utterly inconsistent with the truths we profess; As Rome hath little reason to charge us with Schism, in this respect, whose lives generally are as abominable as their Doctrines: So I may rather wish I could, 
See p. 148  than profess I can, acquit our Churches from the charge. §. 8 It cannot be denied but the conversations of too many eminent Professors and Saints, as they would be called, are not such as becomes that truth of Doctrine, which we have so long enjoyed. And as for the last, That we add not unto them, in opinion or worship, such things as are destructive of them or render them insufficient to be saving unto us. For our worship, we may I hope, without offence, say, that it is in the public Congregations, (whatever it is in private Conventicles) according to the simplicity of the Gospel, though perhaps, in some circumstances defective, wherein yet we are endeavouring a Reformation. §. 7 Thus far we are cleared, of breach of Unity, and so of Schism. But I have intimated, and partly proved, there may be a breach of Union, with respect to the Catholic Church, upon other considerations. As first, there is a Bond that obliges every member of this Church, 
See pag. 205. § 7.  to join together in exercising the same specifical Ordinances of worship. When then any man shall refuse to join with others, or refuse others to join with him, in these Ordinances; here is a breach of Love and Union, among the members of the Catholic Church; and in the particular Churches, as parts of the Catholic. And what thinks he of those Churches, who deny Baptism, to Infants altogether? or those that deny Baptism to the children of godly Parents, not of their own confederate Church? and the Lords Supper to the Parents of such Children? The Anabaptists do the one, contrary to the practi●e of the Universal Church in all Ages since the Apostles; and themselves do the other dayl●, as is too well known. Is not this a raising of differences in the Universal Church, a breach of union, and so a Schism? Yet as he is earnest to free himself from Schism in his separation; so he seems not to think Anabaptism to be a Schism. p. 226. He that will upon that account, undertake to prove them Schismatical, may find himself to be entangled. Of which more hereafter.  
§. 8 That this Catholic Church is visible, he grants, which others of his friends have denied. 
p. 146.  That it is an Organical political body, in a right sense, is largely and learnedly proved by others, 
Mr. Huds.  (though he denies it) to them I refer it. One thing I cannot but take notice of, he says, It will not suffice to say that Christ is its Head; for if as a visible political body, it hath a political Head, that Head also must be visible. But 1. What necessity is there, the Head must be visible? 
p. 148.  seeing he confesses, the Commonwealth of the Jews was a Political Body, and God (who is invisible) was their Political Head. 2. Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, is a visible Head, yea sometimes more, visus, seen of men, while on earth, though now for a time, in Majesty (as some great Princes do) he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of Angels, and Saints in Heaven. But that, by the by.   

CHAP. VI Independentism is Donatism.  
§. 1 What he says, for many leaves together, for vindication of Protestants from the charge of Schism, in their just separation from Rome as the Catholic Church, I cannot but acknowledge to be rational, solid, and judicious. Only I am not satisfied, with his assertion, That he not only denies the Church of Rome (so called) to be a particular Church, p. 154. but also affirms it, to be no Church at all; page 156. Wherein he hath deserted most of our Divines; as we shall show hereafter; our cause being defensible without this Plea. But I am fare more unsatisfied, that he undertakes the cau●e of the Donatists, and labours to exempt them from Schism, though he allows them guilty of other Crimes, and Miscarriages. The grounds of this undertaking, I suppose to be, 1. His singular notion of Schism, limiting it only to differences, in a particular Assembly; 2. His jealousy of the charge of Schism, to be objected to himself, and party; if separating from the true Churches of Christ, be truly called Schism. For the ventilating whereof, I suppose, we may, without flattery or falsehood, 
p. 163.  grant him his request (in respect to ourselves, not to Rome) that is put the whole Protestant Church of God, into that condition of Liberty, and soundness of doctrine; which it was in, when that uproar was made by the Donatists. Certainly, most of the Protestant Churches (our own among them) have as much Liberty, are as sound in doctrine and as (if not more) sincere and incorrupt in worship, than those Churches from which the Donatists separated; (they being not only troubled with Heresies, as we all are, but pestered with multitude of Ceremonies, from which we are freed). And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists' Schism, into consideration. The objection raised by himself, is this. 
p. 162.  Doth not Austin and the rest of his contemporaries, charge the Donatists with Schism, because they departed from the Catholic Church? and doth not the charge rise up w●th equal efficacy against you as them? At least, doth it not g●ve you the nature of Schism, in another sense, than is by you granted? This objection, concerns not us, the generality of Protestants, who grant that sense of Schism▪ that it is a breach ●f union, or a causeless separation from the true Churches of Christ: but it lies in full force against him and his party, who ●ave broken the union of our Churches, and separated themselves from all the Protestant Churches in the world, not of their own constitution, and that as no true Churches of Christ, for lack (as they say) of a right constitution. We know indeed where and by whom, this Cloud is scattered, without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause, as formerly stated, even as himself hath stated it, and produced the answers of our learned Divines, p. 190. §. 47. &c, which he highly approves, p. 192. though he rest not in it, but rather cleaves to his own way; as we shall see err long.  

p. 194.  That his design is, to vindicate himself and his party, as well as the Donatists, from charge of Schism, is evident by what h● says, I shall clearly deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists' wh●ch will be comprehensive also of those other, that suffer with them in former, and after ages, under the same imputation. It will therefore be necessary, or very expedient, to consider, how near their case comes to be parallel, with that of the Donatists, both for matter, and manner, of managing it; and then, how he will free them and himself from Schism. For the first; The Donatists having raised causeless differences in the Church, about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores, (which, whether it were true or false was no just, ground of casting him out of Communion, §. 17) made that the ground of their separation; how ever they took in other things (as is usual) into their defence afterwards §. 16. The principles they first fell upon, were those two, long since named. 1. That they were the only Church of Christ, in a corner of Afr●ca. 2. That none were truly baptised, or entered members of the Church of Christ, but by some of their party. That the Stage is changed, from Africa, into America, is evident; but that these were the principles of the Brownists, and are now of all Independents, (for all Sects are Independents) I need not exemplify, by drawing up the parallel; he that runs may read it, in their books and practice. I wonder not; that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome; for he hath done as much to England, and all foreign Protestant Churches; and makes none to be members of the Church, but such as are by covenant and consent, joined to some of their Congregations.  
§. 3 Secondly, for the manner of mannagement of their way, the parallel runs but too smooth and even. 1. He says of the Donatists; That upon supposition they had just cause to renounce the Communion of Cecilianus, yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage, 
p. 165.  where were many Elders, not obnoxious to that charge. The parallel comes home to him thus. Upon supposition, or grant, that the Church of England, and himself, had just cause to renounce the Pope, and Church of Rome; yet had he and his party, no ground to separate from the Church of England, where there were many Elders, and people, not obnoxious, to that charge of Apostasy, upon the Church of Rome, 2. Leaving the instance given, to avoid prolixity; I shall only apply, what he says of the Donatists; Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with our late hierarchical Church, yet nothing but the height of pride, madness, and corrupt fleshly interest, could make men declare hostility against all the Protestant Churches of Christ, in the world; which was to regulate all the Churches in the world, by their own fancy and imagination. 3. This line is also parallel. Though men of such pride and folly, might judge all the residue of Christians, to be faulty and guilty in not separating from our Churches, yet to proceed to cast them out, from the very name of Church members, and so disannul their priviledgts, and ordinances, they had been partakers of, (as manifestly some do, by rebaptising all that enter into their communion; and others by denying both Sacraments, to some; baptism to Children of parents, and Lords Supper to parents themselves, not in their Church way) is such unparallelled pharisaism, and tyranny, as is wholly to be condemned, and intolerable. 4. Once more, and I have done; the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation, are too much parallel. The divisions, outrages, and enthusiastical furies, (in the Levellers and such like) and riots (in the Ranters and Quakers) that have befallen some of them, 
Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami. Mr. Ray. Gem. pleb.  or they fell into, (beginning at Independentism) were and are, in many pious and wiseman's judgement, tokens of the hand of God against them, to witness that their undertaking and enterprise, was utterly undue, and unlawful. 
pag. 19  I wish they may patiently consider all this.  
§. 4 Thirdly we expected to hear, how he would free them, and himself (so near agreeing with them), from the charge of Schism, in their separation from the true Churches of Christ. He cannot but acknowledge them to be faulty, many ways, but not guilty of Schism; If he would acknowledge as much of his own way; I should use his own words, Let the breach of union (in the Churches) be accounted (if you please) Schism, or a crime; for being an evil, I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguished, p. 81. But he waves the question whether that separation of the Donatists, from all other Churches, might be called a Schism, and takes it for granted, they and himself, are free from that charge; for so he says. 
p. 167.  How little we are, at this day, in any contests that are managed amongst us, concerned in those differences of theirs, those few considerations afore, will evince. It's true indeed, in our Separation from Rome, the instance of the Donatists, is very impertinent: as in other respects, so in this, that they separated from the truly Catholic Church, we from the Idolatrous, corrupt, particular Church of Rome, falsely called Catholic. But it concerns him and his party nearly, in respect of their separation from all true Protestant Churches, agreeing (as they do) in the principles and practices of the Donatists. The question than is unresolved, whether their and his separation may justly be called Schism. All he says is this? We are thus come off from this part of our charge of Schism, for the relinquishment of the Catholic Church; 
p. 168.  which as we have not done, so to do, is not Schism, but a sin of another nature and importance. The ground he goes upon, why separation from a true Church, is no Schism, is that afore: " That Schism, in the Scripture notion, is only a division of judgement, in a particular Assembly, not a separation from any Church: which if it were true, (as it is proved false above) as it would free Protestant's from that charge by Papists, with ease; so it will acquit himself, and all Sectaries in the world, from the crime of Schism; That the principle, and principal plea of Romanists," that they are the Catholic Church, out of whose communion there is no salvation, (as the Donatists was of old, was and in Schismatical) was and is the common vote of almost all Ancient and modern Divines. And if it be true, which his party assent to, that their Churches are only rightly constituted; and other Churches and Ministers are false, or none; (as they do also assert) they are equally guilty of that Schismatical principle, That they are the only (not Catholic) particular Churches, out of whose Communion, there is (ordinarily) no Salvation. This very principle, in the Donatists first, and then in the Romanists, hath been the ground of all those sad differences among the Churches along time, and of the troubles that have issued thence (and to make differences in a Church, and troub●es & thereupon to separate, is acknowledged, or proved to be Schism); then the raising of the like differences, and persisting to maintain them, upon the very same principle, (as the only true Churches) how it can be exempted from Schism, I am to learn.  
§. 5 That I was not mistaken, in the ground he goes upon, to free the Donatists of old, and Protestants, together with himself, from the charge of Schism, was, his own notion and definition of Schism; will now appear, in his own answer to the Romanists argument; which he rather insists upon, than upon the solutions of our learned Divines page 192. He takes Schismin the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely, that is, for divisions only in a particular Church; 
pag. 193.  And thereupon denies, 1. that there can be any separation from the Catholic invisible Church; or, if there could, it would be madness to call it Schism. 2. nor from the Catholic visible, because the forsaking its Communion which consists in profession of the same Faith, is not Schism, but Apostasy.) 3. nor from a particular Church; for that is not properly Schism; for so he says, 1. I deny that separation from a particular Church, as such, as merely separation, is Schism, or aught to be so esteemed, though perhaps such separation may proceed from Schism, and attended with other evils: But this mistakes the question, for the Romanists themselves do not mean, that every separation from any Church, is Schism, as such; but a causeless separation from the true Catholic Church: which they suppose themselves to be. And so some, and most of ours do state it, as he observes, page 191. s. 48. and so they fall upon the Idolatry, Heresy, &c: of the Church of Rome, as just cau●es of separation from her which plea (says he) will not be shaken to eternity. 2. He affirms that separation however, upon just cause, 
p. 194.  from any Church, is no Schism. This, (as it is the same with the former, in ●ense, so) is by none denied; This is granted by all persons; Schism is causeless, say all men however concerned separation upon a just cause is a duty, and therefore cannot be Schism, which is always a sin. Hence it appears, that he needlessely denies their Major proposition, being rightly understood, in their sense, who propounded it. And our Divines did better to deny the Minor: We have neither voluntarily, nor causelessely separated from the Church of Rome. But his answer, is another thing. Separation in the sense contended about, 
p. 194.  must be from some state and condition of Christ's institution, 
pag. 195  a Church of his appointment, otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is Schism, at least not in a Gospel sense. The Sum is this, Schism is a separation from a Church of Christ's institution; but our separation from Rome, is not from a Church of Christ's institution: therefore it is no Schism: And though it be true, that the national, hierarchical Church of Rome, the papal, and patriarchal Church, be not a Church of Christ's institution, yet the bottom of his argument lies here, That Schism in the Scripture notion, is only found, in a particular Church: which must serve him for more uses than one, as we shall hear anon. And thence he infers, that separation either of one Church from another, or of persons from a Church, upon any occasion, true or false, what ever it be, it is no Schism; which is spoken to, above, and will come again.  
§. 6 But that there may be Schism, besides that in a particular Church, I prove by a double argument, ex confessis. 1. Schism is a breach of union; But there may be a breach of union in the Catholic visible Church; 2. Where there are differences raised in matter of Faith, professed, (wherein the union of the Catholic Church consists) there may be a breach of union, but there may be differences in the Catholic, or among the members of the Catholic Church, in matters of Faith professed, ergo: I suppose his answer will be; That the forsaking of its communion, which consists in the profession of faith, is not Schism but Apostasy, p. 193. s. 52. But that is not always so; for both there may be differences in the faith, and yet no Apostasy; or if there be Apostasy, it may be a Schism, also: Apostates commonly make differences amongst professors, before they totally departed. He must be remembered of what he said, p. 161. §. 12. The breach of this union (in the Catholic Church) and therein the relinquishment of, the communion of the Church, lies in relinquishment of, or some opposition to, some or all of the saving necessary truths of the Gospel. Now this is not Schism, but Heresy or Apostasy: That must, be thus: If it be the relinquishment of all truths of the Gospel, it is Apostasy. If of some only (and they fundatally maintained with obstinacy) its Heresy: but if it be of some truths only, (of lesser or greater concernment) about which, differences are by some raised, amongst the members of this Church Catholic, it may, by his own principles, be called Schism. His evasions, will be one of these two, 1. That he did condescend, to gratify his Adversaries, that Schism, is a breach of union, but that he denies to be the Scripture notion of Schism; 2. That upon the same account, he denies differences to be Schism any where, but in a particular Assembly. Wherein he is singular and alone: and is sufficiently disproved above.  
§. 7 But fearing, belike, that in his so answering, some of ours, would be ready to take up those words spoken to our Saviour, upon another occasion, Master, in so saying thou puttest us to rebuke also;" He starts an objection, 
pag. 196.  from the consequence of it utterly unchurching Rome, thus" Whether the divesting of the Synagogue of Rome, of the privileges of a Church, in any sense, arise not to the denial of that Ministry, at this day in England. To which, before we take his answer, I would say, 1. That most of our pious learned Divines, have hitherto not denied, but that Rome was a Church, in some sense; not a true, but a corrupt Church, as having some privileges, or rather some remainders of a Church; 
See D. Hall Apol. against Brownists Sect. 23.  as the same Articles of Faith, baptism, and a kind of Ministry, etc. 2. That hereupon they have defended our Ministry to be true, though sometimes, coming through their foul hands, with many superadditions to the institution of Christ. Others perhaps would say, we had it not from Rome; there were other Bishops in England, before Austin came hither, from whom we might receive our Ordination successively. But hear his kind answer. If any man hath nothing to plead for his Ministry, but merely that successive Ordination, which he hath received through the Church of Rome, I cannot see a stable bottom of owning him so to be. But (not yet to regest to him, his successive Baptism, which he received through the Church of Rome) this would go near to annul the Ministry, of those Martyr-Bishops, and Ministers, our first Reformers, who at first, had nothing to plead, but their successive ordination, from Rome, and acted upon it accordingly; He cannot gratify Rome better, than to asperse the Ministry of England; it is the Jesuitical business, in all the present Sectaries. They look upon himself, & his party, (who have either none, or have renounced their ordination) as no Ministers at all: If we be none also, then have we (as they slander us) no Church at all. God help the poor despised Ministers of England. The Romanists say, we are no Ministers, because we have not our Ordination from Rome, The Sectarists say, we are no Ministers, because we have our Ordination from Rome, which shall we believe? Neither, for we have it from Jesus Christ, by whose hands soever we had it. But, as a little blushing at this hard saying, 
p. 196.  he will mollify it a little. I do not say, if he will plead nothing else, but if he hath nothing else to plead. He may have that which will constitute him a Minister, though he will not own, that so it doth. What ever else we plead, unless we will renounce our Ordination, it will not please them. That by Bishops, is by them pleaded null, or Antichristian; and that by the people, (which he intends) we think is nothing, and cannot own it, as a ground of our Ministry, though perhaps, we have their call, as well as himself. We may have (as many of us have) our call, and election to be their Ministers, from the people; but our Ordination we shall justify to be from Christ, 
p. 197.  and not from the people. But hear more, Nor is it said, that any have their Ministry from Rome as though the office which is an Ordinance of Christ, was instituted by Antichrist; but the question is, whether this be a sufficient foundation of any man's ininterest, in the office of the Ministry, that he hath received Ordination, in a succession, through the Administration of, not the woman flying into the Wilderness, not of the two witnesses, not from them, whom we succeed in Doctrine, as the Waldenses, ●ut the Beast itself. Does he not by this, cast dirt in the face of our Ministry, as all our good friends, the Sectaries, do? I have much ado to forbear, saying; (' The Lord rebuke thee). But I answer; 1. Why may it not be as sufficient a foundation of our Ministry, 
Either he must go forward to Anabaptism, (as many have done) or come back to us; as was said to the Brownists, by Dr. Hall Apol. Sect. 11.  as for our Baptism, which was never questioned hitherto, but by our late Independent Anabaptists, upon another ground. 2. Had we received our Ordination, from the woman flying into the Wilderness, or from the two witnesses, or the Waldenses, all had been one to him and his party. For they had not their Ordination from the people, (except some extraordinary cases) but from a presbytery, according to the Institution of Christ. And yet, forsooth, he will not plead this at large, professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers as Antichristian, who yet adhaere to this Ordination, being many of them eminently guifted of God, and submitted to by his people, etc. Egregiam verò laudem! While he secretly derives their pedigree from Rome and Antichrist, the Beast, &c: that yet adhere to that Ordination, if they have nothing else to plead. As for their eminent gifts, as they do not plead that as sufficient for their interests in the office, without Ordination, so many of his and our brethren have those gifts, whom we judge not therefore to be Ministers, though he do. And as for the submission of the people to us, we had that ever, if not explicitly, (as often) yet implicitly, (which some Independents allow, as sufficient to make us true Ministers, and true Churches) though we do not own Ordination, as from that submission of our people, but from Jesus Christ. Even from such also they separate.  
§. 8 But some ask; Why not Ordination from Rome, as well as the Scripture? which question I like not; 
p. 198.  but should rather after, (why not ordination, as well as baptism): All our fore Fathers doubtless received their baptism by the hands of Romanists, and never scrupled it, to be rebaptised: why not Ordination also, without a new Ordination? They received not baptism from them, as if instituted by Antichrist, but as an Ordinance of Christ; They baptised, not as Antichristian, not as Bishops, or Romish Priests, but as Presbyters, in whose hands (we say) Ordination also is. Only since, we have taken away those humane Additions, which they had sinfully introduced into the Ordinances of Christ. The Scriptures are not the Inheritance of Rome, but Privileges for all the people of God, where ever they find them; and therefore we deny we received them from Rome; any more than the Jews received the Golden vessels from Babylon, because they were sent by the hands of Cyrus. It's false then, that Ordination is pleaded from the Authority of the Church of Rome, 
p. 199.  as such. Nor doth the granting true Ordination (as also true baptism) to the Church of Rome, prove that it is a true Church. This he says, he understands not; They who ordained, had no power so to do, but as they were officers of that Church; as such they did it; and if others had ordained, who were not officers of that Church, all will confess, that action to be null. Do but change the scene to baptism; and hear what he will say. They who baptised had no power so to do, but as officers of that Church, as such, they did it: both which must be denied, 
See Apol. against Brown. Sect. 27.  or he must deny his baptism; They did it as Officers, not as Officers of that Church, that Papal Antichristian Hierarchy; And if others had baptised (ordained) who were not Officers of that Church, or they, as Officers but not as Officers of that Church, (which is as a scab upon the hand) no rational man hitherto hath asserted that action to be null. This is no such dark passage, that the Doctor cannot see one step before him, unless his new light hath dazzled his eyes, that he cannot see Wood for Trees, which before he fell into this way, he saw so many learned and pious men walk in, before him. For our parts, 
See p. 199 But they who will not be contented, etc.  we profess, that in his way of personal qualifications, and acceptation of the people, to make a man, without Ordination, a Minister, the passages in Scripture or Church stories, are so dark, that we cannot see one step before us. But this hath sufficiently by others been discussed.   

CHAP. VII. Of the particular Church, and its Union.  
§. 1 WE are now come to the last Acception of a Church, as it frequently signifies a particular Church: 
p. 202.  though all, the places produced by the Doctor, do not (I think) prove that sense; But I shall not contend about it. That the Church of Jerusalem, was called one Church, is true, but that those many thousands could meet in one Congregation, in one place, is nothing probable, it possible: But take his definition of a particular instituted Church. It is a Society of men called by the word, to the obedience of the Faith in Christ, and joint performance of the worship of God in the same Individual Ordiances; according to the order by Christ prescribed. In this definition, there are some things to be considered.  
1. The definition of a particular Church, by him given, will be applicable, and is by himself or others of his side applied to the three several notions of a Church; or the Church in those several notions. 1. To the Catholic invisible Church, It is a Society of men called out of the World, 
D. Ames The Church (in general) is a society of men called out of the world. p. 64 s. 2.  by the Word to the obedience of the faith in Christ and joint performance of the worship of God in the same Individual Ordinances, according to the order by Christ prescribed. This is all of it, true of the invisible Church, they are called (which will be the only exception) to the joint performance of the worship of God, in the same (specifical, and, where its possible) individual Ordinances. And all the members thereof (ordinarily) being of some particular Church, it's both possible and necessary, to join in that performance. 2. The same may be said of the Catholic visible Church; It is a Society of men, called out of the World by the Word, &c: So himself describes it, It is a collection of all that are duly called Christians, in respect of their profession; p. 113. and before that, p. 112. All Professors of the Gospel, throughout the World, called to the knowledge of Christ, by the Word, do make up, and constitute his visible Kingdom, by their professed subjection to him: which subjection hath reference to the commands of Christ, to worship him, in the same specifical Ordinances, indefinitely, and in the same individuals; where they are administered. And the members of this Church, living (ordinarily) in some particular Church, its possible and necessary for them also, to join in that performance. And this is as much is the members of a particular Church, are bound to; no man being bound to what is to him impossible; and it often happening, by absence, sickness, or otherwise; that it is not possible for them to join in that worship. 3. That it is the definition of a particular Church, we also grant, as understood afore: 4. But we shall add, by way of improvement, that such societies, are all our particular Congregations: Societies of men, called out of the world, by the word, &c: holding parallel in every particular, with his definition: and why we should not be esteemed and called Churches, as well as theirs, I am to learn the reason. What exception may be made, we shall hear an one.  
§. 2 2. The Order prescribed by Christ, is not that all Christians must be of the same Individual particular congregation, but of this or that, as is most convenient for them, by their habitations. Supposing several meetings or Congregations in Jerusalem, one of Paul, another of Apollo, &c: no man was obliged by any order from Christ, to be of Paul's Congregation, or of another's, so he joined himself to one, for the participation of the same Ordinances. And when a Christian did join himself to this or that Congregation, he did not explicitly enter into a Covenant, 
Every belie- is obliged to join himself to some one of those Churches, that therein he may abide in doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and prayer. p. 206.  to live and die in this Congregation, but thought himself bound to be of one, by the obligation of his membership in the Catholic Church; with a liberty reserved, to remove to another, if he saw just reason; as our Author will confess anon. Whence it is evident, that from the beginning of Christianity, there was no such explicit covenanting, or (as some speak) marrying of the Minister and people, or of people one to another, that they might not departed without leave: but as they had a liberty at first, to settle in such a congregation; so also to remove their habitations, and to settle in another: not to go many miles to partake of the Ordinances, which seems unsuitable to the first plantation of Churches, and the mutual duties of people of one congregation: But of that elsewhere. And though the Reverend Ministers of London do grant, 
pag. 203.  That in the beginning of Christianity, the number of believers were so few in great Cities, as that they might all meet in one place, yet they did not imagine, that when they at Jerusalem, were multiplied into many thousands, or myriads, they could so do. And if they met in several places; (as they must) they had also several Elders, to administer the Ordinances to them, and yet are called singularly, one Church. Add to this that at Ephesus (Act. 20.17 a place brought to prove, there was but one particular Church there) the text says expressly, there were (many) Elders there. 
v. 25. you all.  He sent to Ephe●us, for the Elders of the Church, which evidences clearly, that there wer● more Congregations than one, in Ephesus: for how could many Elders, officiate in one Congregation. This alone, (if nothing else could be said) affords more, for a Presbyterial Church, than all the New Testament does for an Independent Church gathered, I know not how, out of many Churches. But he waves the dispute of this page 204. And so do I  
§. 3 To the consideration of the unity of this Church, and the breach of it, he premises some things: 
p. 205.  1. A man may be a member of the Catholic invisible Church. 2. Of the Catholic visible Church, and yet by some providential hindrance, be never joined to a particular Church, which I grant as true, but only note two things to be satisfied in; 1. How he can reconcile this, with what he said afore, p. 133. Sect. 26. The members of the Catholic visible Church, are initiated into that professsion of faith, by baptism. But Baptism (according to his principles) is an Ordinance of worship only to be enjoyed in a particular Church; unless he will grant (what yet he does deny, but will be forced to grant) that a Minister is a Minister to more than his own Church, even to the Catholic Church; and may administer baptism out of a particular Church, as Philip did to the Eunuch, and Paul to the Jailor; or else deny Baptism to be a part of instituted worship; let him take his choice. 2. I note also, how he is at distance, with some of his friends, in New England, 
Mr. Hooker's survey See, my Review page 119.  who assert, That no man can be a member of the Catholic Church, but he must first be a member of a particular. But 3. he grants; Every beleiver is obliged to join himself to some one of those Churches, that there he may abide, in doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayer; &c: if he have opportunity. This he willingly grants, and I as willingly accept, for an use I shall make of it anon, but I like not so well his reasons. 
p. 206  1. There are some duties with cannot possibly be performed, but on a supposition, of this duty previously required, Math. 18.15. &c: If he had said, those duties cannot so well be performed, its true; but some of them are due to others, beside our own Congregation: But I shall make this advantage of it; That if they cannot possibly otherwise be performed, than some of their Church-members, are ill gathered, living many miles asunder. Cohabitation in Towns and Parishes, seems a necessary requisite, to Church-membership. 2. There are some Ordinances of Christ, which they can never be made partakers of, not related to some such Society; as Admonition, participation of the Lords Supper, etc. As for Admonition, it is a duty that concerns every man, to any man, though not of his particular Church, though specially to them of their own society; And as for partaking of the Lords Supper, why may he not enjoy it in another Church, as well as Baptism; which he allowed before, to one of the Catholic Church? If Christians, professing the same Faith, were looked on as Brethren, and as having thereby right to the Ordinances of Christ, in any Church where they come, they might be partakers of Ordinances though not particularly joined to a particular Church. But this engrossing the common Ordinances, to a few confederate persons, and making the rest little better than Heathens, as to their Communion, violates the Order of the Gospel, and the Rule of charity, and may justly be called Schism.  
§. 4 His third reason, I like yet worse, That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship, merely and purely of sovereign institution, but only to them, and by them, who are so joined. But then I would ask, 1. Whether Philip Baptising the Eunuch, in the way, had Christ's direction for it, or no? or, is Baptism no part of worship? 2. Prayer, and reading of the Word in private families, are they no duties of worship? 3. Preaching to convert Heathens, (and then to baptise them) is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister? Rom. 10.14. 4 Let me be so bold, as to ask once more; By what Authority doth he himself preach and pray to and with the Parliament, or at St. Mary's in Oxford, with a mixed unjoined congregation, & c? Or are not these there and at that time, parts of worship of Christ's Institution? I hope he will not say so. 4. For his fourth reason he gives this, The Apostles in planting of Churches, took care to leave none whom they converted, out of that Order, where it was possible, etc. But this is evidently false in the case of the Eunuch, the Deputy, Acts 13. etc. Unless where there were enough converted to make a Church. But he laying so much stress upon a particular Church, and the necessity of joining with it, it seems reasonable, there should be some directions to enjoin every single convert (impossibilities only excepted) leaving all inconveniences at least, to join himself to some particular Church, rather than not to partake of the Ordinances all his days, as he said afore. For the 5. Christ's institution of Officers for them, etc. that is, for particular Churches only, if it speak reason, is as weak as the rest; For its evident, 1. That Christ instituted Officers at first, for the whole Church, as the Apostles, etc. Eph. 4.11. 2 All those Officers ordinary, as Pastors or Teachers, are set in the Catholic Church, and every Minister is first a Minister to the Catholic Church; if he deny this, he knows where to find a learned Antagonist. The last reason (as all the rest) is fallacious, or inconsequent, Christ took care for particular Churches, therefore the Ordinances, are not where to be had by any man, but in his own particular Congregation.  
§. 6 That there is an instituted worship of God, to be continued under the New Testament, 
p. 207.  to which humane prudence may add nothing, is a certain truth, denied by none, but fanatical spirits. And as for the institution of particular Churches, by express words of Scripture, it is not where visible, but by a fair and necessary consequence; That which is of Institution was, that God's people should serve and worship him severally and jointly, in such and such Ordinances of worship; and consequently by a necessity of nature, there must be a place for people to meet together in, or more, as their number is; God institutes public prayer, preaching, Sacraments, therefore there must be societies, to perform this worship. 1. Because of the multitude of Christians, which can neither meet all in one place, nor exercise those acts of worship in too great a company. 2. For the better obligation of all professors, as, to the exercise of all acts of public worship, (which some, if left free to join with all, or any, would utterly neglect); so of all those private duties, required of fellow members, which cannot well be performed (as was said) by persons not conbined. But the circumstances of those societies, how many, how great, what persons shall associate, is left to humane prudence, with an eye to the general Rules of Scripture, that all be done decently, in order, and to edification. And that those that are so joined, are so confined, that they cannot, or may not worship God in the same Ordinances, occasionally in other Churches, let him that can, show the Institution; for I know none: yet this is the chief piece of Independency; never yet undertaken to be proved by any of that party. Our Author grants, that a man is at Liberty to settle in what Congregation he pleases, and remove at pleasure; And the light of common prudence, (upon supposition that there must be such societies) seems to to dictate, that when all of a Nation are Christians, there should be a distinction oh Churches, or, as we call them Parishes, made by the bounds of men's habitations; so that the divisions be discreetly made, that the Congregations be neither too big, nor too little, and that the parties of each Society, may dwell so near together, that they may be fit to perform the services of God in public, decently and in order, to edification: and also those mutual private duties, of brotherly inspection, Admonition, etc. required by Christ, Matth. 18.15. 1 Thessal. 5.14. etc.  
§. 7 And this, he in a manner confesses, That there is in the Institutions of Christ, 
p. 209.  much that answers a natural principle in men, who are fitted for society; A confederation and consultation, to carry on any design of common concernment, etc. I suppose he may intent this, of Synods, carried on by Delegates from several Churches; which is suitable to that prudence we see in States, assembling in Parliament etc. But I shall improve this further. As the light of nature taught men to unite themselves, in Towns and Cities, for their better security, and mutual assistance, and comfort: So the same prudence taught the Ancients, to distinguish Cities into Parishes, for their better Assembling (some else would be of no Church, as pretending to be of all, or any, as we see at this day) for carrying on the services of God, in a better, and more profitable Order; and for those private duties afore spoken of. Nor does any man rationally hence conclude, That there is no more but this, in this Church constitution, that men may be cast into any prudential form, etc. For the way of worship, is peculiarly instituted; but the way of constituting particular Churches, for persons, for number, etc. needs no institution, but is left to the prudence of men, or Churches, as afore.  
§. 8 Whether by any promise of Christ, there shall be always somewhere a visible Church visibly celebrating his Ordinances, 
p. 211.  he told us above, was a needless enquiry, p. 85. yet both there, and here inclines to the Negative, that all such Church state may cease, for some time, and hereafter talks of an intercision of all Ordinances, so far as to make a nullity in them, as to what was of simple and pure institution, p. 271, In this p●ace, he glosses some Scriptures, (alleged of others, as meant of the Catholic visible Church) to be understood of the spiritual Reign of Christ, in true believers. Luke 1.33. Math. 16.18. Of the sense of which place, I shall not now contest with him: For the thing itself, something shall be said, in answering those questions which here he propounds. 1. It is said, true Churches, were at first planted in England, how then did they cease to be? How, or by what Act did God unchurch them? They did it themselves meritoriously, by Apostasy and Idolatry, God legally by his Institution of a Law of rejection of such Churches. But first if Idolatry and grievous Apostasy will merit an actual unchurching, not only the Israelites, but they of Judah had deserved it long before they were unchurched. And if Apostasy in a great measure will unchurch a people, England hath of late years Apostatised sufficiently from our Ancient truths. 2. Where hath God instituted such a Law, to reject a Church, presently, so soon as it proves Idolatrous or Apostatical? Rome had not then been standing at this day. 3. It is a question, whether God ever absolutely, unchurches a people, till he utterly destroys them: as he did the Israelites of old, and the whole Jewish Church, after Christ's death: and the seven famous Churches of Asia since. 4. As also, it would be resolved, when God did unchurch England, (which he insinuates as granted) Whether whilst it was Popish & Antichristian, or since the Reformation? 5. Let him resolve us, whether our first Reformers did intent, or undertake to raise up a new Church, or to repair the old corrupted state thereof (as they that returned from the Babylonish Captivity, did not build a new Temple, but repair and purge the old.) 6. Whether at the Reformation in K. Edw. & Q. Eliz. days, there were not true Churches planted in England? & then how they came to cease to be, seeing they were rather perfected since, than corrupted? 7. Lastly, Whether our Reverend Author, do not in his conscience think, There were no true Churches in England till the Brownists their Fathers, the An●baptists, their elder Brothers, and themselves arose and gathered new Churches, not out of true Churches, but out of Babylon, as their Predecessors used to speak: which he yet seems to insinuate when he says," The Catholic mystical, 
p. 212.  and that visibly professing being preserved entire, he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them, to join in such a Society, as those spoken of, according to the Institution of Christ, is a person delighting in needless scruples. As if he should say, There was no Church of Christ's Institution in England, till they or their Predecessors arose, and gathered such Societies; and when all Church State was here lost, they had the happiness and honour to revive it. Macte virtute.  
§. 9 2. Those last words of his, were the answer to his 2d. question; How then is it possible, that any such Church should be raised anew? To which he gives that answer, I say the Catholic Church mystical, etc. And to make it good, he proceeds further to say, Christ hath promised, That where two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them. But I pray to whom was this promise made? was it not to his Officers, the Apostles, in their consultations, or Church-determinations? Or grant it made to Believers, is it not as true of them that are out of his Church-fellowship? When two or three Christians accidentally meet together, and pray, etc. Is not Christ also in the midst of them? Yea, grant him his own sense, what then? It is now supposed, with some hope to have it granted, that the Scripture being the power of God to salvation, hath a sufficient efficacy in itself, for the conversion of Souls. All this is granted; what God may do by his extraordinary power, we determine not; but this is ordinarily done by preaching, and those Preachers in Office, Rom. 10.14. But go on: It is not impossible that though all Church state should cease in any place, and yet the Scripture by the providence of God, be there in the hand of individuals, two or three should be called, converted and regenerated by it. This also may be supposed, though I believe he cannot exemplify such a case; The question only would be, if some Heathens should find the Scriptures, how they should understand either the Original Languages, without a Teacher, or a miracle; or the sense of them, without a guide, as the Eunuch said to Philip: But suppose all; they are converted by the Scriptures alone: What then? 
p. 213.  He asks whether these converted persons, may not possibly come together in the name of Jesus. No doubt they may, if they were 20. or 40. of them; But can their assembling together, make them a Church? How can that be, before they are baptised? 
See Confess. of 7. Anabap. Churches Art. 34. A Church is a company of baptised persons.  and how baptised without a Minister? Shall they be Se-baptists, or baptise one another? I suppose our Author is not yet come to this. But he says; May they not upon his command, and in expectation of his promise, so come together, with resolution to do his will, and exhort one another thereto? Truly (to use his own words) I believe they may, in what part of the world soever their Lot is fallen; Where then lies the difficulty? In this, whether being come together in the name of Christ, they may do what he hath commanded them or no? whether they may exhort and stir up one another, to do the will of Christ? No, there is no difficulty, but duty, in all this. But here lies the difficulty, (which his new notion, or his haste made him forget, How these persons can come to be a Church, before they are baptised, and how they can be baptised without a Minister? Were not men prejudiced, or prepossessed, with some Anabaptistical fancy, 
So were the Indians Socrat. Hist. l. 1. c. 15. 16. converted by lay-men, as called.  here would be the difficulty of the business. The Iberians, if stories say true, were converted by a Christian woman, and by a miracle; but surely, she could not baptise them; therefore they sent for some Ministers to baptise, and to put them into Church Order.  
§. 10 It was the Soul-sick fancy of our late Seekers (that had lost all Religion) that all true Church state, was lost in all the world, as well as in England, (and our Author thinks little less, till the form of his own Churches was found) and therefore they expected some extraordinary Officers to raise it up from the dead; which was to look for a miracle. And in the case propounded▪ of two or three converted by the Scripture alone, in a remote corner of the world, I would gladly know, how a Church can be begun without a miracle. For though a company of baptised persons, might (in an extraordinary case) choose themselves, Officers, prima vice, and so make a Church; yet unbaptized persons converted, cannot make a Church, till they be baptised, and who shall baptise them without a miracle, unless providence send them a Minister to do it? For true Believers or Professors of the faith, quà such, cannot make a particular Church: their own first principle of a particular Church, must be baptised persons, and how they can come to be such, without a Minister, without a miracle, I cannot yet see. This is the bottom of the Seekers, now turned into Quakers, All Church state it lost, and no recovery of it without new Revelation; and so they fancy the Spirit to be given to them, to begin a new Church. And in our brethren's new Church way, had their people renounced their baptism, (as Anabaptists have done) as they themselves have renounced their Ministry, I would be informed, whether they could ever have made a Church of unbaptized persons, without a Minister, without a miracle; and then, whether they must not turn, either Anabaptists or Quakers; 
See Confess. of 7. Church's Art. 41. The person dispencing Baptism, is a disciple, not tied to a Church Officer.  either making Baptism administrable, by any brother, that hath the boldness, to take it up; or expect new Revelations of the indwelling Spirit, and so become extraordinary Officers. This and more that might be said, imports (for aught I see) that there shall never cease to be a Church or Churches, wherein some instituted Ordinances shall be preserved (though covered over with much corruption) those particularly, of the Ministry and Baptism; or else the Church-state being once lost, and perished, can never be restored, without a miracle. When Judah was carried away captive to Babylon, with all her Priests and Levites, and all the materials of their National Church-state, the Temple destroyed, etc. It may seem, that their whole Church-state was ceased, as to their Ceremonial worship, for 70 years together; It might be asked, How then it was possible to revive that lost Church-state without a miracle? The answer may be, That God preserved the seed of that Church at Babylon; partly in preserving the people there, a remnant of his circumcised people; partly in reserving the holy vessels, useful for their worship, and partly in keeping the Line and Genealogy of the priesthood entire; so that when all these were brought back to Jerusalem, they had no need of a miracle, to revive their Church-state; or, to build a new Temple; but only to purge and repair the old and to set up the instituted services, in their power and purity. The application is so easy, that the Reader will outrun me: So, when Antichrist had usurped tyrannically (like another Nebuchadnezer) over all Churches, ruind particular Churches, corrupted the Ordinances of Christ, World, worship, discipline, yet God reserved secretly, some true believers, and some professors, together with so much of his Ordinances, as to substantials, and necessary ingredients to a Church, a Ministry, and baptism, etc. that when he stirred up the heart of Luther, and other Ministers (like another Zerubbabel) and some people to separate themselves from the Romish tyranny and corruptions in doctrine and worship, they needed no miracle to begin a new Church; but some being ministers of the Gospel, so made in their Ordination, and all being baptised, they did not raise a new Church; but only purged the old.  
§. 11 We are come now to consider, with him, What is the Union and Communion of a particular Church, 
pag. 214.  that so we may know wherein the bonds thereof do consist. And instead of telling us what this union is, he tells us, what is the foundation of that union; which he makes to be double; The one external, procuring command ng, viz the Institution of Jesus Christ, before mentioned, requiring peace, order, union, consent and agreement, among all the members of it, &c: But I think that all this is the foundation of the union, both of the invisible, and visible, Catholic Church; All the members of them, (as well as of the particular) are under those commands requiring peace, order, &c: for their walking in such societies, when and where they can associate: and where is then the difference of this Church, from the other? 2. The internal foundation of this union, is that Love without dissimulation, which always is, or aught to be, between all the members of such a Church, exerting itself, in their respective▪ duties, etc. But this also, is the foundation of the union of the other two Churches; Love without dissimulation; as was said above. 
p. 98.  And so yet we have no difference. But we inquire, what is the union itself, or rather what is the form (for that gives union) the specificating form, that distinguishes this Church, from the rest, the other two aforegone. This it is; 
p. 215.  The joint consent of all the members of it, from a principle of Love, to walk together, in the universal celebration of all the Ordinances of the worship of God, and to perform all offices of Love, to one another, &c: But most of this, is applicable to the other two Churches, or notions of a Church: All the members of them, are bound by a command of Christ, to consent or agree to join together, (when and where they c●n) from a principle of Love, in the universal celebration of all the Ordinances or worship, and the rest: what then is the Specificative form (if it have any) of a particular Church? And if it have a form, to distinguish it spec fically from the other, have not they also f●rmes to distance ●hem from this? An● if ●, are there not three species of a Church? which he seemed to deny abo●e. We have them all, described below, p. 236. The form of the Church Catholic absolutely so called, is the unity with Christ, and in itself, by the one Spirit, whereby it is animated. This is not very accurately spoken: is the unity of the head and members the form of a man? It is not rather, the one Soul that animates it, the oneness of soul, whereby the whole is animated. p. 95. And will he say, the one Spirit of God is the form, or soul, that animates the Catholic Church? 
p. 95.  I was afraid when I read above, That which answers hereunto (the soul in man) in the mystical body of Christ, is the Animation of the whole by his Spirit. I was, I say, afraid to fasten this conceit upon the words: Nor did, I think, he intended any such thing, when he said; 
See the Appendix below, Sect. 4.  That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not (more, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I cannot easily consent, p. 49. But upon second thoughts, finding him to repeat the phrase, of Animation by the Spirit in this place; and to talk of the Inhabitation of the Spirit p. 94. 95. & the indwelling Spirit, I began to suspect him to incline at least, to this error, (for so it hath been reputed by all Orthodox Divines;) And since I hear, that he preached this publicly at Oxford. That believers have not only the special graces, and operations of the Spirit in them, but the person of the holy Ghost indweling in them, which was the error of one of the chief Leaders of Independentism, in New England, and by his brethren there condemned; which is seriously to be by them considered. God seems to blast their way, not only by suffering their people to fall from them, but also by setting themselves fall into strange opinions, or strong delusions. Not only some that were once theirs, have fallen into some doctrines of Popery and Arminianism (all most all the sects, preach those points;) but some of themselves, that fell not so fare, have yet vented dangerous and damnable doctrines; as I could instance but forbear: B●t to return; 1. The form of the mystical Church, is, (say some of his side) Faith. 2. The form of the Catholic visibly professing, is the unity of that, as being by them professed, that is, say others, (and he above) the profession of the same Faith. 3. The form of the particular Church, 
p. 236.  as such is its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worsh p unmerically in the confession of the same Faith, and subjection to the same rules of Love, for the edification of the whole. I observe first, the difference; He said above, the union of this Church, (which he makes the specificating form, not very properly) is the joint consent of all the members to perform the same Ordinances of worship: but now he says, It is the joint observance of all Ordinances, etc. And indeed this seems to be the specificating difference or form of this Church, as distinct from the other, the Communion of all the members of it, in all the same numerical Ordinance, of worship. And this is the plain truth; dropped from him unawares, (contrary to his partners and his own Judgement), concerning the form of a particular Church; It is not, (as they have held out hitherto) an explicit consent, of all the members, but, Its observance and performance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically, in the confession of the same Faith, &c: Whence I would infer, 1. That if the members of the invisible or visible Church Catholic do occasionally meet together, in observation of the same numerical Ordinances of worship, then and there is found a particular Church; though no explicit consent be passed by them, one to another. 2. That the explicit consent, they so much talk of, is not necessary by institution of Christ to the form or essence of a particular Church, (the implicit covenant of Christianity, binding them to such performance, when and where it is possible) but is only a prudential means, or bond, for the better tying of members together, for observance of the Ordinances, and to exercise mutual duties of love, to one another, as hath been said. But as I said above, these are not three Churches differing specifically, but a notional distinction of that one Church, or the members of it, as they may be considered, 1. As true believers, 2. As professors of the same Faith; 3. As partakers of the same worship. Now its evident that one and the same person, may be all these, an invisible believer, a visible professor, and a fellow worshipper. As we use to say in Philosophy, there is a threefold life, vegetative, sensitive and rational; which may be all three, in one man, & yet but one man, or creature. So then the form of a particular Church, (if it have any) is rather communion in the same numerical worship, than joint consent to communicate in that worship: That consent Dr. Ames makes not the form of a particular Church, but the bond, to tie the members faster together, to their public and private duties among themselves. For as a man may be a believer, or a professor, and yet not have opportunity to communicate in the same worship, (as he said above) ●o all and e●ery member of a Church, every Christian is bound to believe, to profess that faith, and to join in the performance of the same numerical worship, when and where only he hath opportunity: Which he granted above, p. 205.  
§. 12 But I desire to know, what he means, by that joint consent of all the members of a particular Church? I suppo●e he intends it, (as his predecessors did) of, an explicit covenant, entered by every party, that joins in that society, gathered, or to be gathered. This is their daily practice. But then I desire an instance, of any Church in Scripture, or story, so consenting, so covenanting as before. And withal I would ask, whether none be members of his Congregation, but only such, as give this explicate consent? If he say, Not any, but such; I ask, whether the Children of such Chuch-members, born and bred up in that Church▪ be not to be accounted members? If he say, they are confaed●rate in their parents, I regest, that's but an Implicit consent; but he required an explicit one. And then I would tell him, that the brethren of New England grant, that an Implicit consent or covenant is sufficient, to make our Churches true Churches, and yet o●r brethren here separate from us, as no Churches. 2. I wou●d gladly be informed, where the Scripture speaks of any other consent, or Covenant, to Church-membership, than that of Christianity, wherein they engaged, at baptism, to serve God according to his will and word, and to walk up to all duties, of all Relations, one towards another. 3. I would yet be satisfied whether this explicit consent, be exclusive that none may partake of those Ordinances (common to all Christians) in their societies, but such as enter this consent? Their practi●e here and in New England is, or hath been, that none can have Communion with them in Church Ordinances, but only such, as are confdoecrate. 1. They will not baptise the child of the most godly parent, nor admit to the Supper, the best knowing and pious per●on, not- matriculated into their Church. If they have relinquished this practice, it's well; but if they have, they destroy their own principles, and prove themselves the more injurious to our Churches, in separating from them. 5. And as for those offices of Love, spoken of, I ask once more; are they also exclusive, to be tendered to none, but their own combined members? It should seem so, because they are here limited to the members of this particular Church, in their respective places and stations. And their practice hath been answerable: As they account none to be within, but such; so some have said; They had no more to do, with a Christian, not of their own way, than with an Heathen. How truly is Schism attended with breach of Charity?  
§. 13 But yet behold his liberality. I shall further grant, that over and above the un●on, 
p. 216.  that is between the members of several particular Churches, by virtue of their interest in the Church Catholic, which draws after it▪ a necessity of the occasional exercise of love one towards another, and that Communion they have as members of the Catholic visible Church, &c: There is a●●●mmunion also to be observed, between those Churches as such which is or may be exerted in their Assemblies, by their Delegates, &c: What doth he mean? That the members of each particular Church, among themselves, have communion, but not with the members of another particular Church? That was their practice somewhere. Or that the members of several particular Churches, have union and communion, in the worship of God, in the same Church? This was not their practice once, though they were Churches of the same constitution, with their own. A member of one Church might not receive the Supper, in another; Nor one Minister administer baptism or the Supper in another's Church; preach they might, as gifted brethren, which they allowed them to do to Heathens: What union or communion was here of several Churches? And for those Offices of love, he speaks of; they were only occasionally, which they own and tender to an Heathen; which not only their interest in the Catholic Church, but even the Law of Humanity, draws after it" an occasional exercise of duties of Love, as the Samaritane once expressed. In a word, this Communion of members of several Churches, is nothing but what is due to and from the members of the Catholic visible Church, that never were joined in communion with any particular Church. Lastly as for that communion between Churches as such, in their Assemblies by Delegates it is not a comm●n ●n, in his esteem, by an institution of Christ: but a matter of prudence only, which he so much decried before, p. 210.  
§. 14 And now we are coming to consider how he can wash his hands from the guilt of Schism, in making differences, first, and then separating from our Churches. To this end, he lays down some Postulata, which he takes as granted, because before debated which are all disproved, and need not here to be done again. Yet we shall briefly take notice of them, and give them a further answer. 
p. 217.  1. That the departing of any man or men from any particular Church as to that communion, peculiar to such a Church, is not where called Schism; nor is so in the nature of the thing itself, etc. This is not the question, as was said above. A simple secession, of a man or men, upon some ju●t occasion, is not called Schism; But to make causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, as no Church, denying communion with it; hath the nature and name of Schism in all men's judgements, but his own. Yea, according to his own principles, to raze differences in a Church is propery Schism; to persist in maintaining those differences, is a worse Schism; and then upon those differences, to departed and break the Church in●o pieces, is Schism in the highest degree, and admits of all his own aggravations given above, and is an he nous sin. 2. One Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them, 
p. 218.  is no Schism, properly so called. Besides what hath been said above, that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church, which hath the nature of Schism; I add, that the●e words are aequivocal; for they holding all Churches to be Independent, they must hold, consequentially, there is not necessarily any communion between th●m as Churches, but as to particular members of the Catholic Church; the refusing to hold communion with another Church, can be no Schism, because they own no communion to one another, at least of divine institution, but of mere prudence, as was newly said. But seeing, as I proved, there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches, not only in profession of the same Faith, but also in the same specifical, and where it is possible, numerical worship, the refusing to hold this union and communion, in doctrine or worship, hath the nature, and well deserves the name of Schism. 3. If that departure of any man or men, be done without strife, variance, judging and condemning of others, it cannot be evil, but from circumstances, &c: This is as much as to say, that departure which is not evil, is not evil; For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance, strife, and divisions before the parting, and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others, both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day; The very separation from a Church, to set up another Church, is a real judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated. Is it not the practice of all Separatists, to judge and condemn all our Churches, as Antichristian, or none; to asperse us as no Ministers, but Priests, & c? Is it not the design of his book, to prove (if he could) and condemn us as no Churches? Let the world be judge; for unless this be proved, he can never justify his separation: either therefore, he must prove us to be no Churches of Christ's institution, and that he owes us no communion, nor hath broken any union, of Christ's appointment, (which he shall never be able to prove) or else he had need put himself, not upon the Justice, but on the largest mercy of his Judges.   

CHAP. VIII. Independentism, a great Schism.  
§. 1 In his vindication of himself and party, from the charge of Schism, by Episcopal men, he first lays down their Inducement: to which how he hath answered, and acquitted himself let them, if they please, consider. I shall only 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 Catholic 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 Catholic, and so as properly called a Church. In this sense (says he) it is the desire of our souls, to be and ab●de members of the Church of England; to keep with it the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace. But unless 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 aught to be between them. And indeed, it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude, they intent 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 suspiciously 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 Catholic 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 beautify, 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 ways we profess our readiness to lie at his foot for reconciliation etc. This strengthens the suspicion of what I said; For unless he take us all for Reprobates, we have and do profess ourselves (and we think, justly) offended at their ways, 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 rejoice not with them, etc. but I forbear; He deludes us, when he says, if we do not these things, Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismatics 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 ourselves 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 Laws, Confessions, Protestations, etc. Will he undertake this, for all the Independent Churches in England? Are not many of them grossly Apostatised 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. Can 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, than no true Ministry, no Baptism, no Church; and than 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 Schismatics 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, causeless differences (unless Paedobaptism be a trivial thing) and upon that to separate not only from the judgement and practice of all the Christian Churches in the world, at present, but from the judgement 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 Schismatics, for rebaptising those that came to them, from other Churches; but, says he, The case is not exactly with the Anabaptists, as it was with the Donatists. Exactly the same? True, for they lived in afric, these in Europe. But they do the same thing; rebaptize the same that were baptised 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 rebaptised 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 administered 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 itself, 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 rebaptised only (as some think) those that were baptised 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 worse 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 pulled down, p. 198. and consequently, the Ordinances by us administered, are null: And why then, is not he rebaptised? Yea our Churches are esteemed not of Christ's institution, because not lawfully gathered; 
See page 206. §. 10.  and are not these worse than Donatists? But he says, This falls not within the verge of my defence. Yet he could not but speak a good word for them; They must not be Schismatics, 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 manage 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 rebaptised; 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 baptised? 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 baptised 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 Catholic, 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 spoke those words first, was more than a man. It's too much for any mere 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 joining 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 Mother's face that bore 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 administered only in a Church, and Ministers do evidently relate thereunto; the denial 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 says, and that's all; It may seem so to do, but it doth not: unless you will say that unless ye be a National Church-state, there is no other; which is too absurd for any one to imagine. The consequence cannot well be denied, in his notion of this Church. For if there were no Ministers, but ordained by those National Officers, and those Officers not of Christ's institution, (as he hath often pleaded) it follows necessarily, that first there were no Ministers lawful in this Church, and so no Ordinances truly administered 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 administered. 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 Prelate's times, except some Brownistical Societies: we shall not thank him for this jejune and empty vindication, but shall plead for ourselves. Our former Divines of the first reformation, and since, have pleaded, and justified their Ordination, for the essentials of it, received from Rome: which being purged from all those super-induced corruptions, they propagated unto us, who may therefore the better justify our own. Those Bishops that ordained us, had (as he told us above) a double capacity; One as Lord Bishops, received from the state, p. 227. Another as Ministers of the Gospel, to preach, administer Sacraments, to join 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 follows, that though they presumed to themselves, a Lordly power, not according unto the institution of Christ, whereby they called themselves a national Church, etc. Yet the Ordination being according to the Rule of the Gospel (as we believe it is sufficiently proved, and never yet sufficiently answered) there were Ministers lawfully called, and Ordinances by them rightly administered; and that is the other Church state, which he would not do us the honour to name, lest he should there by condemn himself as a Schismatic, in departing from this Church-state. These true and faithful Ministers, (with their people in their several Congregations) administering 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 annul the Ordinances of Christ.  
§. 6 The way of the prelate's, he told us p. 235. 
p. 246.  to establish a national 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 Assemblies, in and by the representatives of those Churches. But this may prove a mistake, For, 1. The Presbyterians rather go descendendo, as well as the prelate's did at least in part: They agree both in this, that they acknowledge their rise and original 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) parochial 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 universal 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 removal, 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 allows, in the Independent way, as above) 3. As he is, in the absence of a particular Minister, desired to Preach, or Baptism, or do any other Ministerial duty, to another people: (as when the Parliament commands Doctor O. to Preach a Sermon to, and pray with them) Now this Delegation (which he means 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 national, 
p. 247.  when all the particular Congregations of one nation, agreeing in doctrine and worship, are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies (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 principal 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 national without it: much less do any of ours say, That subjection to one civil 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 (says he) its form and unity as such, must be given it by the civil Government. For the unity thereof consists still in the agreement in the same doctrine and worship, and not in the model of civil Government (of what kind soever). 
p. 250.  And if he allow (as he does) an Association of the Delegates, from several Churches, to meet for matters of common concernment; by the same reason, (whether it be by Institution, or prudence) he must allow those subordinate Assemblies. For the light of nature teaches the necessity of Appeals, in maladministrations, for ending of troubles, and decision of differences, in particular Congregations; as was instanced in the Antiochians appeal, 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 turn, to justify such Associations, though we do not account them to be the form, or cause of the union, of a Presbyterian Church; but rather, prudential means, to preserve that union.  
§. 8 Upon that mistake (of the form of a national Church to be the institution of greater or lesser Assemblies) 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 national Church in this sense, 
pag. 251.  but by being first member of some particular Church in the nation; which concurres to make up, the national Church. But that not being our opinion, the consequence sails: 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 exemplify 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 national 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 national Church, and not depatt from some particular Church; because he may be a member of the national, (as well as of the Catholic) Church, and yet be no member of a particular Church, etc. on the other side, a man may be a member of some particular Church, and yet be no member of the national (in the sense of it by him given) as himself and others do too much evidence. 3. He says, To make men members of any particular Churches, their own consent is required. If he mean this of an explicit consent (as I suppose he does, or he says nothing) it is fully disproved above: and implicit 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 himself to all the Ordinances of Christ there, with performance of all Officers of Love, to the members of that Congregation, implicitly, 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 lose and wand'ring 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 form. It is impossible a man should be guilty of offending, against that which is not; unless 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 Prelate's, hierarchical Church: Their's is no Church of Christ's institution, That which is wanting cannot be numbered, p. 242. And now the third time, against the same charge by the Presbyterians. It is true indeed, there hath no such national Church, been uniformly, form in this nation; but he knows, such a Church hath been endeavoured to be, form, conformable to the Word of God, and to the best reformed Churches abroad, according to our solemn covenant; and who have withstood resisted, and hindered it, (and yet do hinder) he knows well enough. But withal, it cannot be denied, 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 we acknowledge ourselves dependent, and would be g●ad, we had other Churches to join with) and yet they separate from, and disavow 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 Schismatics, as those that make differences in one particular Church. And unless they can better prove (than yet they have done) that we are no true Churches; and their own to be the only true Churches, in the nation, in the World, the Schism will lie at their door, (in all equal men's judgement); remove it, as they can.  
§. 10 
p. 253. Let him read the next disputation of Amyraldus, his definition of a Schismatic: and his censure of those that separate, will little please him. Disput. de ecclesiae membrie  As 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, explicit or implicit, is not the form of a particular Church; So the consent of several Churches, to associate in a classis or Synod, is not the form of a national Church; The explicit consent of members (as they make use of it) is but a prudential way, to tie their members from running away from them, (and yet that will not do the deed) so the explicit consent of several Churches, into Assemblies, is likewise a prudential 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 mutual acknowledgement 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 himself and those with whom he consents, 
p. 254.  in the way of the worship of God, &c: for not till then, will the business be brought to a speedy issue. As also we hoped, that he would have pleaded the right, liberty, and duty 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 leisure. His business and policy is (like the Romanists he spoke of at the beginning) rather to prove us, and all Churches to be corrupt and not rightly instituted, than to defend and justify his own way of gathering Churches.  
§. 11 But we are brought again to his removal of the charge of Schism, which he says, 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 condemn their own separation, as being of no Church: And the rather does this relate to Schism in gathering of Churches, because they do not only departed themselves, (which is more tolerable) but draw off others also into a form faction. Let's hear the old D lemma revived against the Presbyterians, as afore against the Prelatical Church; Either we have been members by our own voluntary consent, according to the mind of Christ, of some particular Congregations ●in such a national Church, as part of such a Church; or we have not. It were ridiculous for any man to charge 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 himself says constitutes a Schismatic) separated themselves, and drew disciples after them, into new, never heard of opposite Congregations, se●ting up Altar against Altar, as the Ancients used to speak. But hear 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, implicitly, 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? unless they can prove them all heretical & 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 Episcopal constitution? rejected their national Offcers? and the way of worship established, & c? Not too 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 turn us back to the Episcopal: But this hath been his business from his first letting out, to make the Presbyterian Churches, to walk pari passu, with the Episcopal 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 reform according to the mind of Christ? as we shall hear by and by.  
§. 12 But he says, We expect not that we shall be accused of Schism, 
p. 256.  for not esteeming ourselves 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 esteem themselves) to be members of those particular Churches (whether with or without their wills I know not) where they were borne or dwelled, and must either be of such or none. And is it not so, for the most part in New England? are not their Towns 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 Turk 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, unless they may be of none? But they add; All that dwell in a Parish, and constantly hear the word, are not yet to be admitted to the Sacrament, which (says 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 baptised infants, and youths, 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 marvel if they, were not accounted Church members. Yet what shall we say of Infants of Churchmembers, not yet baptised, 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 Church-members, 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 be; 
p. 257.  then this congregation where we were so members, was reform according to the mind of Chr saint or it was not? We are now almost at an issue; the intimation is, the ground of their separation is, that none of ●ur Churches are reform, according 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 reform according to the mind of Christ? what then? If it were reform, and a man were a member of it by his own voluntary consent, I confess 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 Mysteries 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 lest were reform, or reforming according to the mind of Christ, (when they separated from us) cannot without great injury be denied. 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 married, 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 profess, I know no such power, that any Church hath, to engage into, and enforce such an explicit consent, or to deny leave to any member, upon just causes, to departed, 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 tie 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 politic) 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 desert the communion of any society, if it be not reform according to the mind of Christ, p. 265; So he allows him this liberty, upon his own light. Hear him speak, As the not giving a man's 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 man's peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion in one Church▪ in all its relations, to join with another be so esteemed. Where first he seems to me to be a very Sceptic in his way of Independency; or to gratify all the Sects, Quakers and all, 
According to that light, which men have received.  with a Toleration. For why should they be denied 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 denied to make use of their liberty? without such humble ask 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 ways 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 aught he knows, may be the way of Christ? But what's 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 edify 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 Schismatic.  
§. 15 But what if he discovers, That some of the principles of the Church's constitution are not according to the mind of Christ, 
p. 261.  which renders the communion of it, by scruples, etc. not so useful to him, as if it were right: and that he hath declared his judgement and dissatisfaction; if no Reformation ensue etc. The question is whether he sees, or conceits he sees some errors in a Church constitution; and than 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 doubtless 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 Superiors cannot, or will not Reform it. He asks this question; Suppose the Congregation whereof a man is a member, 
p. 262.  is not reform, will not, or cannot reform itself, whether in this case is it Schism for any number of men to reform themselves, by reducing the practice 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 exemplify it near home; but I think I may safely say, this is an Anabaptistical Munster principle, at the bottom: 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) thyself. 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 lose 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 than 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 dissuade those that were of the true Church, from joining with Idolaters; come not to Gilgal, neither go up to Bethaven, etc. for so the former part of the verse hath it, Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend, etc.  
§. 17 But he speaks with some Indignation, Is this yoke laid upon me by Christ, 
p. 263.  that to go along with the multitude where I live that hate to be reform, I must forsake my duty, and despise the privileges that he hath purchased for me, with his own blood? Is this an unity of Christ's institution, that 〈◊〉 must for ever associate myself with wicked and profane men, in the worship of God? etc. This sounds 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, than 〈◊〉 command 〈◊〉 Come out of her, O my people and be not partaker of 〈◊〉 sins. But suppose a Church 〈◊〉 in fundamentals o● doctrine and worship, suffering some less corruptions, 〈◊〉 ●t●ce in her communion; add perhaps in such a condition, as it either cannot, or will not reform itself; and there is no other Church easily to join with? Will he now leap out of Church and neglect all Ordinances, because of some profane 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 Christ's imposing, no privilege of his purchasing, either to deprive a man's se●●●m's Ordinances for other men's 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 reform, and tolerate profane 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 reform; or till they had given us a better Model of a Church-state (which never yet, we could by our utmost importunity, obtain from them) and then they had had some colour for their separation.  
§. 18 And yet see how tender he is of our Church's 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, etc. 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 profane, so that it cannot, or will not reform itself, 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 little; 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 mixed 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 Church's & practise accordingly. It were happy for us, if they had showed 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 privilege 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 only 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 spoke more openly, p. 243. We are yet far from being clearly delivered from the Roman Apostasy; Rome is much beholden to him, for this courtesy, 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, etc. it had been the duty (mark that, the duty) of every Saint of God in that Church, to withdraw from it, etc. It's 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. etc.  
§. 20 It's true, that Austin was mistaken in asserting that Eliah and Elisha, 
p. 267.  communicated with the Israelites in their worship, which was most Idolatrous; unless he meant that Elijah sacrificed once among them, at his contest with Baal's Priests; or that both of them were partakers of the Sacrament of Circumcision with them, they and theirs, if they had any issue: But it's as true, that our blessed Saviour did communicate with the Jews 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 chair, whatsoever they say unto you do it, etc.  
§. 21 We are now drawing to an issue, of this discourse of Schism, in the ordinary Acception of the Word, to signify, 
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 says, 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, etc. which how true it is, and whether he do not hereby asperse all our Churches to be no true Churches of Christ's institution, let the Reader indifferent, by what hath been said, be Judge. That on pure grounds of conscience, we have withdrawn or do withhold ourselves from partaking in some ways engaged into, upon mere grounds of prudence, we acknowledge. Whether they have in their separation from us, gone upon pure and mere grounds of conscience, God and th' it own hearts must determine the business. The world is too apt to judge otherwise upon some suspicious practices of theirs. And suppose they have withdrawn themselves from some way; 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 mere 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 tied to their Pastor, by an explicit Covenant, not to departed 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 ways, the world takes to be but products of humane prudence; and he may do well to show 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 control 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 mere 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 says 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, etc. 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 bvilders 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 men's 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 it's 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 ourselves, femented by he knows whom; he cannot but see, as well as we lament. But if we must be denied 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 privileges, 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 join themselves to some Independent Congregation.  
§. 24 To satisfy the former objection, is out of his way at present: 
p. 270.  for he tells us, He must manage 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 manage 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 denied. We profess ourselves utterly unsatisfied, with what hath yet been vouchased us to see. But he will tell us briefly what are the things of great and weighty 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, etc. 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 explicit Covenant, of all the members. But they have been told, they have contradicted themselves, by requiring an explicit consent, and yet confessing an implicit 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 joint 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 showed 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 show the contrary. What Ordinance do we want? or what have we of humane addition? And as for our joint consent, (though we have it implicitly, 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 Schismatics, in renouncing communion with us, let the whole Christian Church be judge: 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 poison of Apostasy 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 join issue with him, in this debate, when ever he will begin it. 3. The extent of the Apostasy 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 lies our disorder; hence our darkness, etc. though we may arise, we shall not easily shake ourselves 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 Apostasy; 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 Apostasy, in matter of Doctrine; and have more dust upon their garments than many of ours have. But we shall be content to put ourselves upon the search; and if it may appear, that yet we retain any thing of that Apostasy, 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, etc. these disputes, will have an issue. And again, p. 70. When God shall have reduced his Churches to their primitive purity, etc. And once more p. 200. So soon as Christ's Churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon, with his glory shining on them etc.  
§. 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 etc. he may do well to inquire 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 Leprosy 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 associates did not so) they could not allow of the Ordination of Ministers, by any in communion with them: So they were persuaded 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 themselves Elders, and set them apart by fasting and prayer, etc. 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? etc. It is confessed on both sides, they did 〈◊〉 in well but by the badness of the times were not able to finish their work. But how unsatisfactory their ways and principles are to our brethren's consciences, to concur with them, their practice 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 foreign 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 baptises 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 nicety as, which is first, the Hen or the Egg. I perceive what he aims at in the second question; 
See pag. 199. They who will not be contented, etc.  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 foreign 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 join themselves in a Church society; which done they may, out of themselves (for other Churches or Ministers, are foreign to to them) choose 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 business; that he supposes all Church-state lost; but these Christians joining together are supposed to be baptised; which is a part of a Church-state, and without which they could never make a Church, much less 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 ways; either a Minister in Office must baptise converted Heathens, and so make them a Church; or a company of baptised persons when no Minister is to be found, must for once, join and choose themselves Officers (which comes near to an extraordinary case, and not among us now to be made use of): but yet still, the Church-state depends upon the Minister originally, that baptised them; and not upon those people, supposing them unbaptised. 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 Church; to be none and himself and his party no Schismatics in separating from them, as no Churches: And it may perhaps 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 causeless 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 men's 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, etc. 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  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 foreign to the Gospel, what they please, or can, to the contrary, I am no Schismatic. That is, though by raising differences, I set all the Churches of England on fire, I am no Schismatic, 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 ways. I can hearty 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 forestalled with prejudices, and have their affections engaged thereunto. etc. But all our hearts are in the hand of God. etc.  
§. 32 4. To conclude; What va●n janglings men are endlessly engaged in, who will lay their own false hypotheses, (such as the Author's new notion of Schism is) as a ground of farther procedure, is in part evident by what hath been delivered. Hence is that doughty 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 baptised by the Minister of that Church? 5. Whether our Churches be true Churches, our members, true members; because not gathered by an explicit 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.  joined thereunto, hath n●●ther voluntarily deserted it, nor been judicially ejected out of it. But I assume, The members of our particular Churches have been in a due order joined 〈…〉, and neither voluntarily ha●e deserted them I no● been judicially ejected out of them; Therefore they are true members of particular Churches; and consequently, 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 Schismatics; Quod erat demonstrandum.    

AN APPENDIX TO The former Discourse of Schism; Showing, the inconstancy of the Dr. and the inconsistency of his former and present Opinions.  
§. 1 SInce my finishing of the former Discourse there came happily to my hands, a Book of the Learned Doctors, entitled, The duty of Pastors, and people distinguished, licenced, and highly commended, by the Reverend, and judicious Mr. Joseph Caryl, as," Written with much clearness of judgement, and moderation of Spirit▪ put forth in the year 1644. By comparing whereof, with this of his, of Schism, I perceive, that wise and judicious men, are still but men, subject to mistakes; and therefore had need of some of the policy or prudence, of the five Apologists; 
Apol. Narr. pag. 11.  not to be too peremptory in their new opinions, or ways, not too presumptuous in despising others proceed, but to reserve to themselves a latitude; and to keep some casements open, to take in New light. This our Reverend Author hath exemplyfied, to be necessary for himself, to make use of, as well as others of his present Independent way; or else he will be concluded, to contradict himself; and in many things to make good the Apostles Dictate, 
Jam. 1.8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet, had he changed to the better, from error to Truth, the thing had been not only justly excusable but truly commendable, and might have been salved by a Tract of Retractations (as Austin sometime did) without any prejudice to his Reputation. But to run from opinion to opinion, from way to way, from truth to error, (as many have done) not only to contrariety, but to contradiction and; and, take no notice of the difference of Judgement, and inconstancy of opinions and ways, is too palpable a discovery of an unsettled Spirit, that knows not where to fix. All the hope is that if their new Notions, & ways be really discovered, & ingenuously by them acknowledged to be erroneous, they that can change from truth, to error, may in God's good time which is very rare) change back again from error to truth. Which wishing that the Dr. and his party may do; I shall only present to him, ●ome few of his former thoughts to show in how dissonant they are to his later moderns kings.  
§. 2 In this Tract, his main design is to discover, the distance between the Pastors and their people; 
pag. 2.  that the sacred calling may retain its ancient dignity and the people of God not deprived of their Christian liberty. For in former times, he tells us, Some would have all Christians to be almost Ministers; others none but Ministers to be God's Clergy: Those would give the people the Keys; these use them to lock them out of the Church; The one ascribing to them primarily all Ecclesiastical power for the ruling of the Congregation, the other abridging them of spiritual duties, for the building up of their own souls; as though there were no habitable earth between the valley (I had almost said the pi●) of democratical confusion, and the rock of Hierarchical tyranny. Who these parties were, needs no comment to declare; only it would be observed whether our Author be not since fallen into that very pit of Democratical confusion, by flying from the rock of Hierarchical tyranny; I leave it to his consideration, Evident it is, that in a true Church-state, he sets out the limits or the people, that they may not under a pretence of Christian liberty, invade the dignity of the sacred calling of the Ministry. And much he grants to the people, both under the Law and Gospel, Always provided that they abstain from fingering the Ark or meddling with those things which were appropriated to the office of the Priests, p. 17. or of the Minister p. 46. except they can show some extraordinary, call or case, for their so doing: p. 28. of which he thus delivers his opinion, and states the question; In cases extraordinary, it may perhaps be affirmed that every Christian is so far a Minister of the Gospel, as to teach and declare the faith to others, although he have no outward calling thereunto: but only an immediate call from God. All I say (for the change of his opinion) is, That he allows them this liberty now, in cases ordinary; as will appear hereafter.  
§. 3 The question than will be in cases more than ordinary, when a Church is much degenerated, and corrupted; what may ordinary Christians do then to the Restauration of Religion? Concerning which, his judgement was (what ever it be now) this delivered, and rested upon; That in a collapsed and corrupted state of the Church, 
pag. 15.  when the ordinary Teachers are either utterly ignorant, and cannot, or negligent and will not perform their duty; Gifts in any one to be a Teacher, and consent in others, by him to be taught, are a sufficient warrant for the performance of it. That is, the duty of teaching or preaching. But more expressly▪ p. 40. In such a case (of Apostasy in the Church) I conceive he may nay he ought, to preach and publish the truths discovered to him; neither is any other outward call requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of God's people to be instructed by him. I sh●ll only remember him, That as he spoke this of a lay man in Italy, (for that is his instance) so he did not then take Rome to be no Church at all; as now he does; but a collapsed, and corrupted Church: but that by the way: That which I observe is1. That he is not distinct enough in these Assertions; for if he mean, that in such a falling state of a Church; 
p. 16.  When it is ruinously declining every one of God's servants hath a sufficient warrant to help or prevent the fall, as a common duty of zeal and charity, in a charitative way, it's not denied by any; 
Doing it as a charitable duty, not as out of necessary function; even as Priscilla (a woman) expounded unto Apollo's the word of God, etc. pag. 50. f.  It's the duty of every Christian (man or woman) to publish truths re●ealed, to others that will hear him; as he speaks hereafter: But if he take it, in an Authoritative way, as an act of the Keys, (as a Teacher or Preacher is taken under the Gospel for an Officer) than its certain, that Gifts, and the consent of people to be instructed by him, is not sufficient warrant to make him a Preacher; And this appears, upon his own former principles: For being at that time a Presbyterian in judgement, (as we shall hear anon) he knew, & did then hold; that Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery was a requisite to make him a Preacher. But this he now declines, and hath renounced his Ordination; and requires now no more, but Gifts, and people's consent, to make a man a Minister. 2. And that not only in a collapsed, or corrupted Church, where Teachers are either ignorant and cannot, or negligent and will not do their duty; but now, when neither of these can, without injury, be charged upon our Church-state, he requires no more than Gifts and consent, to make a man a Preacher in Office. 3. Herein his discourse was dark and defective, that he allows the people a liberty of preaching, or publishing he truths of the Gospel in such a case; but tells us not, whether such a Preacher be a complete Minister, as to the administration of other Ordinances as the Sacraments, (not one word of that) I suppose than he did not intent so much; but now (so is he changed) he allows some that were never ordained, and himself, who hath renounced his Ordination; not only to preach the Gospel, but also to administer Sacraments as complete Ministers, in the name of Christ. Let them fear and tremble, to hear one day those questions, By what authority do you these things? or who gave you this authority? It is a dreadful speech of his own, p. 16. Who ever doth any thing in another's stead, not by express patent from him, is a plain Impostor. And yet, how many such Impostors, are there abroad, who take upon them, without commission from Christ, or Authority from the Church, not only to preach, but to baptise, and give the Lords Supper? I have heard a sad story of a young forward man, that did so, and fell into great perplexity of mind, for so doing, and as I remember, so died. Many such there are, who 〈◊〉 before they are sent, having neither Gifts, nor consent of people; The Lord say it to their hearts, and to the hearts of those that indulge them in it, as guilty of such usurpation in them, and the great contempt of the sacred calling of the Ministry. Lastly, how ever it might be sufficient in an extraordinary state of a corrupted Church, to make a man a Minister, to have such Gifts and consent of the people; (which was all the Dr. then asserted) yet that those should be sufficient in an ordinary Reformed Church-state, is his 〈◊〉 light and opinion; unless they can show some extraordinary signs of such a call from God, which they cannot do: For he speaks rationally below, when he says. It is certain enough, 
p. 34.  that God never sent any one extraordinarily, instructed only with ordinary Gifts and for an ordinary end. But these his new Preachers, have no more than ordinary Gifts, (some of them not so much) wherein others are▪ their equals if not Superiors; and the end is no more but ordinary the conversion of souls, and settling the Ordinances in purity: Then it follows, that these being not 〈…〉 of God, nor ordinarily 〈…〉 by the Church, are no 〈◊〉 Impostors, as he said afore.  
§. 4 How long the Dr. hath been of that opinion, That the blessed Spirit of God, is 〈◊〉 and personally in every true believer, I cannot tell, but he speaks suspiciously, that way, as on p. 94, 95. and 236. of Schism; was noted above c. 7. ●. 11. so he speaks the same language here p. 21. with what difference we shall observe. Thus he sales, As in his Incarnation, Christ took upon him our flesh and blood, by the work of the Spirit; so in our Regeneration; he bestoweth on us, his flesh and blood, by the operation of the same Spirit: yea so strict is this latter union, which we have with Christ; that as the former is truly said to be an union of two natures into one person; so this, of many persons into one nature: for by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature, 2 Pet. 1.4. becoming members of his body of his flesh, and of his bones, Eph. 5.30. We are so parts of him, of his mystical body, that▪ He and we become thereby, as it were one Christ, 1 Cor. 12.12. And the ground of this is, because the same Spirit is in him, and us: In him indeed dwelleth the fullness of it, when it is bestowed upon us, only by measure: but yet it is still the same Spirit, and so makes us one with him; as the soul of man being one, makes the whole body with it, to be but one man. These things must be taken cum gra●● salis, or else they may prove insipid, if not worse: As 1. Christ took upon him our nature essentially; but he bestows his flesh and blood upon us spiritually and mystically. 2. The union of the two natures in Christ was proper and personal, into one person hypostatically, as the Soul and Body in us, make one man: But the union of many persons with Christ, is not into one nature properly, but mystically into one person; we are members of his body, flesh, bones, but mystically; otherwise, the union of many persons into one nature, should be like that of Christ's two natures, into one person hypostatically: And like unto the union of the three persons in the Trinity, into the same nature or essence, which is incomprehensible. 3. We are made parts of him, of his mystical body, that he and we become thereby, as it were (that is improperly and mystically) one Christ. 4. We are made partakers of the Divine nature, not essentially and personally, as Christ; but in its graces and operations: as generally, all Divines understand it; renewed by the Spirit, into that Divine Image, which we had by nature, but lost by the fall. 5. The same Spirit is indeed in Christ, and in us, but with this assigned difference, In him dwelleth the fullness of it, (fullness of grace and truth Joh. 1.14.) it is bestowed on us in measure. 6. This same Spirit makes us one with him, that is, still mystically not as the Soul of man being one, makes with the body one man; for that is hypostatically and personally one. The words thus expounded, and candyed, may pass for Orthodox; otherwise not to be admitted. But now in his Tract of Schism, 
p. 94. of Schism.  he is declined into that Heterodox opinion, (so judged by most and best Divines) that the holy Spirit, dwells personally and essentially in us. For 1. he tells us, he cannot consent, that the Divine nature, given us, should be no more than the new creature. 2, That it is in the person of the Spirit, whereof we are by the promise made partakers, he is the Spirit of promise; 
pag. 95.  and in the participation of the Divine nature consists the union of the Saints with Christ. 3. That the union of the head and members is the oneness of the Soul whereby the whole is animated and that which answers hereunto in the mystical body of Christ, is the animation of the whole by his Spirit. Now every body knows, that the Soul is the form of a man, and the union of Soul and Body, is personal; So then must the union of Christ, and his body, the Church, be personal, as animated by the same Spirit, if the person of the holy Spirit, be the Soul, that animates the body of Christ. And so he says it is, The form of the Church Catholic, 
p. 236.  absolutely so called, is the unity with Christ, and in itself by the one Spirit whereby it is animated, I shall not enter upon the contest at this time, (it being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main business) its enough to show the difference of himself from himself, then and now.  
§. 5 We now return (after this digression) to consider, with him, the evidences and signs, of an extraordinary vocation, which some of late pretend unto. There is only one thing briefly to be taken notice of, that is, Whether the Ministers of the Gospel are by the Scripture to be called Priests; which name some have arrogated and ascribed to the Clergy: O which he affirms peremptorily, 
p. 25.  The name of Priests is not where in the Scripture attributed distinctly to the Ministers of the Gospel; Priests (and Prelates) are a sort of Church Officers, whom Christ never appointed, etc. These were his then thoughts: and its like are so still; only I would desire to know, why he gives that name (its supposed in scorn) to the Ministers of our particular Congregations, calling them Parochial Priests: or Schism p. 235. I leave him to give, or others to guess, the reason of that Appellation, and so proceed, to what I named before.  
§. 6 There are but three ways given by him to receive and be assured, that a man is extraordinarily called to the Teaching of others, or to be a Preacher; 1. 
p. 30.  By immediate Revelation. 2. By concurrence of Scripture Rules. 3. By some outward acts of providence. Concerning w ich in general it may be said. 1. That p. 28. he thus resolved; In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed, that every one (that is allowed to teach or preach the Gospel) for such an undertaking, must have a warrant by an immediate call from God. But of all his three ways named, only one of them, is by immediate call from God, viz. that of immediate Revelation; such as the Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles had: the other, by Rules of Scripture; and Acts of providence, are but mediate calls, or warrants, and may be common to all Christians, as the case may be. 2. Before this, p. 15. and again p. 40. In such extraordinary cases of a corrupt Church, etc. no more is required, but Gifts in the man, and consent of the people; which latter is an outward call, and that by men; and the former, a call from God, inward indeed, but not immediate. These things do not well agree.  
§. 7 But come to the particulars; The first way of extraordinary calling is immediate Revelation. This is specially in two cases, 
p. 33.  1. Either the inchoation of some divine work to be established among men, by a new revelation of God's will; 2. Or a restauration of the same, when collapsed and corrupted by men. The only question will be, Whether there be any revelation to be expected now, with respect to either of those. And he answers negatively to both: To the first thus, Nothing in such a way shall again take place, God having ultimately revealed his mind, concerning his worship and our salvation etc. To the second thus, There being an infallible Rule, for the performance of it, making it fall within the duty and ability of men, partakers of an ordinary vocation, and instructed with ordinary Gifts, God doth not always immediately call men unto it. But grant that he doth not always immediately call men to it (as oft he did, heretofore) it would have been resolved, Whether sometimes God do now immediately call men to the work of Restauration of Religion? To which he says nothing: If he shall say, he does not, he contradicts himself, who said▪ p. 28. In this case (of a corrupted Church) every one, for such an undertaking, must have a warrant by an immediate call from God, If he say he does sometimes immediately now call men to it; I would say, 1. This is needless (by his own grant) For there being an infallible rule, it falls within the duty and ability of men, partakers of an ordinary vocation, instructed with ordinary Gifts; as he newly said. 2. And then I would call for those signs and evidences required to assure the man himself, and others, of hi● in mediate extraordinary ●●cation. 
p. 34.  These he makes to be a supernatural power, either on discerning of things present, as thoughts and words, or things future, as 1. Things contingent. 2. Speaking with Tongues. 3. Working of Miracles, etc. None of which being now to be found, (or expected) ●rom our new Restorers or Reformers, 
P. 41. f. who ever pretends unto it, not warranted by an evidence of one of those three ways, which God taketh in such proceed, is but a pretender, an impostor, and to be rejected of all God's people.  who yet plead the Revelation of the Spirit, and take themselves extraordinarily called by God, to make new Churches, upon the pretence of a collapsed and corrupted state of this our Church; I say none of these being now to be found amongst them; they prove themselves to be extraordinary impostors; and those that indulge and countenance them are accessary to their impostures. And whether our Author himself, have not relinquished these former Orthodox principles The ●ow supposing an intercision of all Ordinances and all true Church-state lost as the seems to do, in his Tract of Schism, as was said above) whether, I say, he must not maintain; and expect a new immediate call from God to be necessary to the Restauration of a Church, I leave to all to judge; when they consider what is said above at Chap. 7. §. 10. And I proceed to the next.  
§. 8 The 2d. way of an extraordinary call to preach the Gospel is, 
p. 37.  by a concurrence of Scripture Rules; drawn, either from express precept, or approved practice: The precepts are such as these, Luke 22.32. When converted strengthen thy brethren. Jam. ● last. If any err from the truth etc. Math. 5.15. a candle is not to be put under a bushel, etc. 
p. 38.  Whence he infers, 1. There is a general obligation on all Christians, to promote the conversion and instruction of sinners, etc. 2. When any truth necessary is revealed to any out of the Word, not before known, he ought to have an uncontradicted liberty of declaring that truth, etc. 3. Truth revealed, carries with it an unmoveable persuasion of conscience, that it ought to be published. To the first of these it may be said, This is not an immediate call (which he required above); but mediate by the word. Nor yet an extraordinary call, to some particular men, but an ordinary obligation on all Christians; Not only in extraordinary cases of a corrupted Church, but ordinary in the best Church: Nor last is this sufficient to make any man a Preacher; but only an instructor of others, common to all Christians, men, and women. To the second, it had need be cautioned well, not only, because it may either be no truth, which he thinks so; or no necessary truth, and so not fit to disturb the peace of a Church for it: but also, because upon this pretence of truth, every man must take uncontradicted liberty to speak in the Church: which will breed confusion. Himself therefore adds; Provided that he use such ways for that his declaration as the Church wherein he liveth if a right Church doth allow. But this in part contradicts his uncontradicted liberty; for if it be a necessary truth, no Church may hinder him: But then, the case is of a corrupted Church, which will not allow, but contradict that liberty; and what shall he then do? To the third I have only this to say; That a strong error carries oft with it an unmoveable persuasion of conscience, (which is, in a sort obligatory) that it ought to be published to others. And so error must have as much liberty as truth. However, all these Rules bind in ordinary as well as extraordinary cases of a Church; and give no authority to make a man a Preacher.  
§. 9 The examples are of our Saviour himself, 
p. 39  who preached in the Synagogues without any outward call; and of those Acts 8.1. who being scattered, went every where preaching the word; so did Paul and Apollo's, etc. For our Saviour, his call was immediate and extrraordinary; So was Paul's, and Apostle: Apollo's was at first, no more a Preacher, than Aquila and Priscilla, who instructed him in the way, as one Christian may do another: As for those Acts 8.1. it's made more than probable, by others, that they were Elders of the Church, and Preachers by Office: If some were not, they did no more, than any Christian man or woman may do, in such cases, and yet never be Preachers: And all this, in a reformed Church-state, ordinarily; and so not to the purpose.  
§. 10 For he must remember, that he was to show, what might make and justify a lay man to be a Preacher of the Gospel, in an extraordinary case, without an ordinary outward call from the Church; and required no more, but Gifts and consent of people to be instructed by him, as above: Now these instances afore, though they had Gifts sufficient, preached the word, when they had not the consent of people to hear or be instructed by them: and so must every one that hath the truth revealed, speak, whether they will hear, or forbear. His main design is, to discover, what a man no Minister, may do when a Church is collapsed, or corrupted; the ordinary Ministers either so ignorant, they cannot or so negligent they will not teach the truth, p. 15. And of such a state of a Church, he here puts the case p. 39, etc. Suppose a man living in the midst and height of Apostasy, 
p. 40.  when an universal darkness hath spread over the fa●● of the Church: as in Italy, (there the scene is laid though pointing at England) the Lord reveals some points of faith not known or disbelieved, etc. I demand whether that man, without expecting any call from the fomenters of those errors, may not preach and publish these truths to others, etc. Truly, there is no difficulty in this case; I conceive he may, (if he have so much confidence) nay aught, if when and where he can find some that will hear him: But the question is, Whether this, ipso facto, makes him a Preacher in Office? A woman a Christian amongst Iberians, may and did do as much as this yet, I hope no Preacher of the Go pel, in the strict sen●●: yet had she Gifts to preach Christ, and a people willing to be instructed by her. And unless he take preaching in the larger ●ense, he cannot (coul● not then, whatever now) say, No other outward call is requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel, than the consent of God's people to be instructed by him. A Presbyterian (as he was then) cannot affirm this: unless he can suppose a time and place, where there is no ordination to be had; and that, but prima vice, neither; thus the Presbyterians hold. Perhaps these principles of his then laid, might misled others and himself, pretending to Gifts, and finding a people willing to be instructed by him, or them, to make a Schism in, and separation from our Churches; by gathering of a Church, because of some corruptions in ours; yea, this is evidence that he now proceeds upon those principles; that nothing is required to make a Minister, but, gifts and consent of people without any outward call of the Church, which we shall presently hear, he formerly required thereunto. And this made him so careless in stating the case of our first Reformers, Luther, Calvin, etc. as to say, With this I was always so well satisfied, 
p. 41.  that I ever deemed all curious disquisition after the outward vocation of our first Reformers, altogether needless. But, by his leave, the ca●e o● Luther was not (as he says) exactly that which he laid down. For he is speaking of a Layman, by that way to be constituted a Preacher or Minister; but Luther was a Minister ordained; (though with much corruption) and so had an outward call by a Church, to preach the Gospel in the truth and purity of it; and I believe our Author, did then think him to be a Minister of Christ, but his present principles deny it. Luther's case, in regard of the corrupted state of the Church, and the zeal and spirit whereby he managed it, was extraordinary; but his call was ordinary, as an ordained Minister. 2. The people who fell off from Babylon, with him; were in Church-state (though corrupted) as baptised persons, and had a command to come out of Babylon; but the people that our Author now gathers, come rather out of Sic●, & have no call to separate from us; but rather a command, not to separate. 3. Luther did not renounce his Ordination, in the Church of Rome, nor his people their Baptism; nor did our Author formerly, think it requisite: but now he hath renounced his Ordination, and former Ministry; and upon his principle, of gifts and consent of the people, made himself a Minister: and it is expected, that ere long, his people (if not himself) will renounce their Baptism, both of them standing, or falling together. And so I come to the last way.  
§. 11 The third and last way of an extraordiry call, to preach the Gospel, without an ordinary vocation, is by some act of providence. The instance is, 
Ibid.  of a Christian man cast by shipwreck or otherwise, amongst barbarous people, who receive him humanely: may he not, ought he not, to preach the Gospel unto them? and if he convert souls, may he not become a Pastor to those converted? none I hope, makes doubt of it. But suppose a Christian woman, should be cast upon the same place, (as once among the Iberians) ought she not (by his former principles) to preach the Gospel to them? no doubt she ought: But if she convert souls there may she become for a Pastor to them? none, I hope, will say so: 2. But we have put him a case elsewhere, of his own making: Suppose a Barbarian should find the Scripture, and be converted by it alone: he being converted, converts others: I ask now, may he become a Pastor to those converts? I hope he will not say he may, till he be baptised, nor can they make a Church till they be baptised: but who shall baptise either him or them, having no Minister there? This, while a Presbyterian he would not have granted, nor may now by his Independent principles deny, till he is turned Anabaptist. 3. We read of men in the primitive times (as well as that woman) who, being no Ministers, converted the Indians and Moors; 
Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 15. 16.  but they neither durst be their Pastors not baptise them, till they were ordained in the Christian Church, and sent to do it. If consent of people and gifts would have constituted them Ministers, they needed not to have come home so many hundred miles, to fetch their Ordination: See but the difference between himself a Presbyterian, and now an Independent: but enough of that.  
§. 12 And that our Author was a Presbyterian formerly, and that upon good deliberation, and strong resolution so to continue, we have his own acknowledgement, when thus he writes; 
p. 42.  The principles and rules of that Church Government, from which in the following assertions, I desire not to wander, is of that (to which I do, and always in my poor judgement have adhered, since by God's assistance, I had engaged myself to the study of his word) which is commonly called Presbyterial, or Synodical, in opposition to Prelatical or Diocesan, on the one side, and that which is commonly called independent, or Congregational on the other. Quantum mutatus ab illo! in his Tract of Schism.  
§. 13 And this he discovered in the requisite, which Presbyterian Government holds forth, (in ordinary cases) to constitute a Minister: for thus he ●●ies: For a public formal, 
p. 46.  ministerial teaching two th●ngs are required in the Teacher. 1. Gifts from God. 2. Authority from the Church. Whence I wou●d in●er● 1. T●at consent o● election of the people, is not sufficient to make a man a Minister, though well gifted; but an Authoritative act of the Church, is to pass upon him, (that is) Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery, according to his then principles. 2. That he is much changed (from what he was) in the Tract of Schism; where he requires, no more to constitute a Minister, than Gifts of teaching, and the people's submiting to him: If any shall say, The Dr. by, Authority of the Church, meant no more, but the election or Consent of the people of a Congregation: I would answer for him, I do not believe, that at that time he would or did aequivocate with the world; but took it in the Presbyterian sense: though now he cries down Ordination, by Bishop, or Presbytery, and hath renounced his own ordination. And is not this a great alteration, and a sign of much inconstancy?  
§. 14 Having said very much in pleading the Liberty of private Christians, lest they should surfeit of it and presume too far; 
pag. 48.  he gives some wholesome Presbyterian Cautions, to bond them; First, The end why God bestoweth his gifts on any, is merely that within the bounds of their own callings (in which they are circumscribed, 1 Cor. 7.24.) they should use them to his glory, and the edification of his Church. This was then his judgement; but now he can allow men, of any calling, if gifted, to violate those bounds, set by God himself, and to be Preachers of the Gospel, in ordinary cases; which some of the prime brethren of New England do reject & reprobate. Secondly, He required, That they do not under pretence of Christian liberty & freedom of conscience, cast away all brotherly amity, and cut themselves off from the communion of the Church: Christ hath not purchased a liberty for any, to rend his Body; they will prove at length, to be no duties of piety, which break the sacred bonds of charity. Divinely spoken, and like a true Presbyterian: To cut themselves off, from the communion of the Church (which is separation) is to rend the body of Christ; and what is that but Schism? which is so much declamed against, in his book of Schism: And what liberty his people take, and he allows, for separation from not ours, but any Church, is fully discoursed above: To separate from the communion of the Church, is also affirmed to be a breach of sacred charity; which is often denied in the latter book. But yet more Presbyterian Doctrine, Men ought not, under a pretence of congregating themselves to serve God, separate from their brethren; neglecting the public Assemblies, as was the manner of some rebuked by the Apostle, Heb. 10.5. There be peculiar blessings, and transcendent privileges, annexed to public Assemblies, which accompany not private men to their recesses, etc. yet this is ordinaririly done by most of the Independent way; and allowed, yea justified now by himself: That sense of the text, Heb. 10.25. of neglecting the public Assemblies (as the manner of many is) is now, otherwise glossed, and taken for Apostasy from the Faith: Of Schism, p. 74. And the event hath sadly proved, that private recesses are not accompanied, with those peculiar blessings annexed to public Assemblies, witness those errors heresies, blasphemies, prophanesses, which have followed private meetings.  
§. 45 Another caution (and the third is) As the Ministry, 
p. 49.  so also ought the Ministers, to have that regard, respect and obedience, which is due to their labours, in that sacred calling: would we could not too frequently see, more puffed up with a conceit of their own gifts, into a contempt of the most learned and pious Pastors; those are spots in your Feasts of charity, etc. This is so plain and evidently true, as if he that writ it, carried the sun in his hand. And he did in a manner prophesy, when he said, Let not them, who despise a faithful Minister in public, flatter themselves with hope of a blessing on their endeavours in private. Let them pretend what they will, they have not an equal respect unto all God's Ordinances. No doubt he spoke then of our Parochial Ministers, and Ministry, as an Ordinance of God; whom now he unministers, and despises both them and their Ordination, as we have heard above. Viderit ipse.  
§. 16 It might be objected, against the people's liberty of private Assemblies; That this seems to favour licentious Conventicles, which in all places the Laws have condemned; and the Learned in all Ages have abhorred as Seminaries of Faction and Schism, in the Church. To this he answers, li●e a true Presbyterian; 
p. 51.  Under corre●tion I conceive, that the Law layeth hold of none as peccant in such a kind, but only those who have predeclared themselves to be opposers of the worship of God, in the public Assemblies of that Church wherein they live. Neither do I conceive, that they ought at all to be allo●●d the benefit of private meetings, who wilfully abstain from the public Congregations, so long as the true worship of God is held forth in them. Enough, enough: Now, what a case are all the Conventicles of Sectaries in? the very Seminaries of Schism & Faction; and besides, a sink of errors heresies, & blasphemies. The only evasion will be one of these two, 1. That he spoke this, (under correction) as not his peremptory judgement; And its likely he hath come under correction of his party, and done some kind of penance, for this declaration; 
p. 16. p. 52.  and it may be, his Latin Discourse, (he tells us of twice at least) as an answer to the Arguments of the Remonstrants and others, for such a liberty of prophesyings, as they term it, hath suffered strangling upon his correction; for I hear not that it is in the Land of the living, (yet born or put forth) for if it were, it would condemn his own ●aw allowance, and toleration of such Conventicles. That's one. Or 2. He must affirm, That the true worship of God, is not held forth in our Congregations; which, I hope, he will not dare to do; nor can be able to prove, if he do affirm it. What his performance in this kind, is, (to plead for his separation) we have seen above; and to how little satisfaction.  
§. 17 There are two other Objections, which he answers well, as his then opinion was; I shall dispatch them in a word: 1. Men are apt to pride themselves in their Gifts, and so t encroach on the Priest's office, and create themselves Pastors in separate Congregations: This we see done sufficiently now, by others and himself; What says he to it? Offences will come, etc. but God-fearing men, will remember Korah; 
p. 53.  they that love their souls, will not suffer themselves to be carried away by self-conceit, so far as to help to overthrow the very constitution of any Church, by confusion; or the flourishing of it, by ignorance; both which would certainly follow such courses: This needs no comment, nor confirmation; only it will need a Reply from himself, since he hath retracted this truth by him here delivered, by a contrary practice. The next Objection is no less true, and really exemplified in the present Conventicles. This may be a means for men to vent their own private fancies unto others, to foment and cherish errors in one another: to give false interpretations of the word, there being no way to prevent it. What says he to this? For interpreting the word, I speak not, but applying of it being rightly interpreted: And for the rest, would to God, the complaints were not true, of those things, that have for divers years in this Church, been done publicly, etc. But to prevent this, the care rests on them whose sedulous endeavour should be, to reprove and convince false Doctrine, etc. That is, I suppose, the Ministers: This may do something in the public but what's this to men of private meetings, separating from the Church? They will not come to hear in public; and he does not intent, that Ministers should attend those private meetings; that were to turn them into public, as now they speak: How then shall we prevent their boldness, in interpreting Scripture, or their ignorance and folly in misapplying it? This answer is the most weak and defective; and how he will give a better in his New way, it rests upon him to consider, and give at his own leisure.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
Page 1. l. 9 r. against, l. last r. charg●●, p. 2. l. 2. deal the, p. 4. l. 7. del. they, l. 22. for parley r. only, p. 5. l. 5. r. advantage, p. 25. marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 30. l. 4. 1. Patriarchates. l. 34. marg. r. Jam. 2. p. 35. after the word place, in l. 4. 〈◊〉, how can it rationally he thought, or inferred that he dehorted the● from no kind or degree of Schism, but such i● was at that time, in the particular Church 〈◊〉 Corinth▪ so that all this, is nothing ●ut a begging of the question. P. 39 l. 14. r. 〈◊〉, ● 53. l. 11. after nature put, in p. 58. l. 24. befor● dost. put, in, p. 5●. l. 4. ●. affirming, p. 60. l. 〈◊〉 f. tot r. yet, p. 65. l. 24. f. mind r. include, p 66. l. 21. r. exhorting one, p. 70. l. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 72. marg. r. p. 77. p. 85. l. 27. f. l. r. it, p. 8● l. 26. f. to r. so, p. 94. l. 7. deal of, p. 104. l. 2● f. err r. ere, p. 110. l. 12. r. assert, deal to, ● 113. l. 27. r. concessis, p. 114. l. 29. r. fundamental, p. 115. l. 22. f. it r. his. p. 120. l. 1. after r. ask, p. 133. l. 9 deal to. p. 141. l. 1● f. it r. is, p. 143. l. 5 f. world. r. word. p 158. 5. of. f. as properly, r. improperly. p. 159. l. of. for his r. this. p. 167. l. 12. deal them. p. 16 l. 3. f. ye, r. she. p. 170. l. 3. of. for, r. fre● p. 172. l. 11. r. Congregations. p. 175. l. 3. r. Officers. p. 18. l. 16. f. firmer, r. finer. p. 185. last, put in, their. p. 192. l. 14. after of, ● in, the.