INDEPENDENCY Further proved to be a SCHISM. OR, A Survey of Dr Owens Review of his Tract of Schism;  
With a Vindication of the Author from his unjust clamours and false Aspersions.  
By D. Cawdry Preacher of the Word at Billing Magn. in Northamptonshire.  
LONDON, Printed for John Wright, at the King's Head in the Old-Bayley. 1658.   

To the Reader.  
HOw unpleasing and distasteful the undertaking of the following rejoinder was, and is, to me; not only God, and mine own conscience, but also some special friends, can witness for me: And that the rather, because I cannot (if I would not wrong my Cause, and myself) but discover some personal weaknesses, or forgetfulness of my reverend Adversary, upon his denials of some things, which (if there be any truth in reports) were known to be true. I could have hearty ished, that the reverend Doctor had ken more time, than the spare hours of four or five days, when he was pressed with more than ordinary occasions of sundry sorts; and deferred the examination of mine till further leisure, when his spirit was more sedate and serious: For I perceive, he was in some passion, (which quickened that haste) at my Tract, coming out at that time, (a little before the public Act) and that did cast a mist upon his judgement and memory, which caused this abortive birth. I conjectured by his Epistle, what I might expect in his Treatise, the heads whereof were these: 1. My manifold mistakes. 2. My presumptions, upon my own principles. 3. My casting reproaches on them, with whom I had to do, etc. All which are answered in my following Discourse, and therefore spared here. One thing he prepossesses his Reader with; That he expect not any thing from this Tract, but what is necessary, for the refutation of the Book, whereunto it is opposed; which is least ●f all performed. Complaints there ●re good store, of personal wrongs, many times repeated, from one end of the Book to the other; but little or nothing said to the vindication of his Cause, against the Argumentative part of mine; as many others have observed. He further says, He forbears all re-charge on the Presbyterian way; as to the differences in judgement and practice among themselves, which are more and greater, than any this Author hath found amongst them. Truly it cannot be denied, but there ●re too many differences amongst ●s, in judgement and practice, (who caused them, I forbear to say) but with this difference, from them and theirs, that ours are betwixt man and man, one man and another; theirs are in one and the same man, differing from, and contradicting himself, in a short space of time, as hath been made appear elsewhere. Another thing he would have his Reader expect, (the waiting for which, hath caused this delay of mine, at lest in part) A vindication of Mr. J. C. from some unjust (so he calls them) imputations of mine. Truly there wa● nothing imputed to him, but his inconstancy in his opinions, and self-contradictions, (as now to th● reverend Doctor) out of his own Writings. I heard of that Discourse above three years since, in the hand of one of the Brethrens; and intended than, by him, to be published (as it is now promised, or rathe● threatened, by the reverend Doctor to cast a slur upon me, (as it i● thought) which why it is thus lon● silenced, I will not conjecture. Onel● I wish those, that intent to rake i● the ashes of the Dead, to consider, ●hether they shall deserve any ●hanks for their labour. I have no more to say to his Epistle, referring the rest to the Tract itself. Farewell, and love Truth as well as Peace.   

Errata.  
PAge 5. line 4. à fine, read propagate. p. 8. l. 15. r. that. p: 12. l. 5. for them, r. him. p. 13. l. last, r. invented. p. 38. l. 5. à fine, r. Anabap. p. 41. l. 2. à fine for easy, r. case. p. 50. l. 11. à fine after not, put in at. p. 52. l. 17. after said, put, in. p. 55. l. 2. after brand, put in our. Ibid. l. 3. after is, put in (no.) p. 71. l. 5. for singular, r. signify. Ib. l. 8. à fine, r. secession. p. 72. Matth. 18. in Marg. that Note should have stood higher, about the middle. p. 73. l. 3. à fine after to, put in be. p. 166. l. 10. r. exceptions. p. 109. l. 8. à fine, r. formally and the same. l. 3. à fine. p. 111. l. 1. for his, read this.   

Independency further proved to be a Schism. OR, A Survey of Dr. Owen's Review of his Tract of Schism.  

CHAP. I  
IT is very true, which the reverend Doctor says; That considering the various interests of Parties at difference, there is no great success to be promised, by the management of controversies, though with never so much evidence and conviction of truth. The present Sectaries of all sorts, give a sad instance of this, not one of a thousand being reclaimed from their errors, by the clearest demonstrations of truth, but rather growing worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, as the Apostle did foretell us. There are therefore other ends propounded to themselves, by those that undertake them, As the rendering an homage to the truth, the safegarding of some weaker professors, from the sophisms and violence of adversaries, etc. Which its well, if they can & do attain. How little success the reverend Doctor expected, he told us in his former Treatise of Schism, and now again professes, (as well he might, upon such principles) That he was so far from hoping, to see speedily any visible fruits, of the efficacy of the truth, he had managed, that he promised himself a vigorous opposition; only, he was not able to conjecture, from what hand the first assault of it would arise: That is, Whether from Papists, Episcopal, or Presbyterians. The truth is, he hath given them all a provocation, to an opposition, by his new notion of Schism, (beside others) and I a little wonder, that none other have done it, unless it be upon the old Maxim, Contra negantem princ●pia non est disputandum. The notion of schism, in the nature of the word, & use of it, by all parties hitherto, being a breach of union, in what kind 
Mar. ●. 21.  or degree soever. It was well observed by a learned man, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The rent is made worse  that the reverend Doctor's notion of Schism was this: If my coat be rend, and hung together by some threads; it is a Schism; but if a piece be quite torn of, it is none. And indeed, if Schism be only a difference, in a particular Congregation, (as the reverend Doctor will have it) and no separation from a true Church, be justly accounted a Schism, (as he professes to hold) the general agreement of all the forenamed parties, in the common notion of Schism, and their concernment in it, (all of them supposing themselves, to be truly constituted Churches) call for an opposition to him, for denying himself and party to be Schismatical, in renouncing of communion with them, and separating from them all; for they all concur, in the ancient and received notion of Schism, viz. A breach of union, or a causeless separation, from a truly stated Church. The difference between them is only this, which of them hath the true Church state; which if it be determined, they all agreed in the conclusion: A breach of union with, or a causeless separation from such a Church so stated, is a Schism. Thus the Romanists argued, as himself propounded their argument of Schism, pag. 189. thus the Episcopal party, thus the Presbyterians. But it seems, the reverend Doctor conjectured aright, that the opposition was like to arise from some of the Presbyterian party, though he mistook the reasons; The prejudices that they might fear themselves, and interests, obnoxious to, by a reception and establishment of that his notion of Schism: Which what they could be, I cannot conjecture. If his notion were true, it might be as useful to them, as to himself, in freeing them also from the charge of Schism by others: But if it prove false, (as it seems to me, and many) it will be prejudicious to our common cause, against the other parties, to whose charge of Schism he did oppose it. Let him draw up his argument against them, thus I suppose it must be framed: All Schism (in the Scripture Ecclesiastical sense) is a division in a particular Church: But we have made no division in (or separation from) any particular Church, (one of you pleading yourselves to be the Catholic the other a Nationall Church), Ergo, We are no Schismatics: They would quickly deny his mayor proposition, (for which he offers no proof) Schism, in proper notion of the word, and intention of the Scripture, is of larger, and more general extent; for any breach of union with a true Church, of any degree. And if the proposition be not general, the Syllogism is peccant in the very form, and so a Sophism.  
But not content with that former reason, 
Page. 4.  he (slightingly enough) gives another: Mens contentedness, to make use of their quietness, in reference to Popery, Socinianism, Arminianism— confirmed such thoughts in me. Whereas it is evident, that the men of the presbyterian party, (even country Ministers, who want Academical opportunities) have done, and do as much contest against those, and other errors, as himself, or any of his party. Few of the men of his way, having appeared in opposition to them, (though too much for toleration of them) but contented to make use of their quietness, to propagate their own design of Independentism; not so much as caring to answer, or take notice, of what hath been written against it. His surmises (which he charges me with hereafter) are as strong, as his conjectures; That his Treatise should be refuted, he heard it was judged necessary at sundry conventions. And page 9 talks of my advisers; and once more, of the promoters of my work page 181. whereof I know nothing. I can profess, that I expected and harkened, that some more able hand would have undertaken it; and finding none willing, I ventured my own credit and thoughts, to the vindication of the truth of our Churches and Ministry, to some good progress, before any one man knew I had undertaken it. What acceptance his Treatise found, with many learned and godly persons, (except of his own way) I cannot conjecture: But this was the resentment of it, by all that I met with, before I ever saw his Book: That by his new notions of Schism, and constitution of a particular Church, he had not only freed his party from the charge of Schism; but also unchurcht our Churches, and unministred our Ministers, and denied our Ordination. And every one wished, that some body would undertake it, as injurious to our Churches; but none would interest himself therein. I must confess my own presumption, in what I have done, as taking the work out of some learneder hands, whom it more concerned to answer it. The original charge of Schism upon our Church, (which the reverend Doctor took upon him to answer) being directed only to the two Universities, whose cause the reverend Doctor hath I think betrayed, by his new notion of Schism, as if that were the judgement and answer of them all. As some others have found out, A new way of justifying our separation from Rome, on principles of limiting the jurisdiction of that Bishop, to a peculiar Patriarchate, and the like; as the reverend Doctor told us, of Schism. page 192. Which new ways our cause needs not, but is easily defended without them; and our plea will not be shaken to eternity, as the reverend Doctor asserted, page 192. of Schism. But he conjecturing right, (as he easily might, being told it) of the party in general, and of the particular person, that was like, and ready to undertake him; he was as confident, That he might relieve himself from his fears, and loathing to be engaged in those contests, by these ensuing considerations which I shall briefly consider.  

Page 5.  1. He was fully persuaded, that what he had written, was, for the substance of it, the truth of God, which he had good security he had in weakness maintained, page 3. 1. No doubt, but he might fully so persuade himself; and what Heretic, learned or unlearned, does not so believe? But what was my design, but to undeceive him in this persuasion, as to many things by him asserted? 2. What was that truth, he was so fully persuaded of? That Schism, in the places of the Corinthians, where the word is only found, was a difference or division in a particular Church, who ever denied it? or what is this to the general nature of Schism? Is that all that Schism imports? Or, proves it, that breach of the union of Churches, or causeless separation from true Churches, is no Schism? What force is there (I appeal to his Logic and Divinity too) in this consequence, Schism, in the places cited, was a division in a particular Church; Ergo, Nothing is a Schism but that; in Scripture notion. Yet this notion, ●he reverend Doctor often makes use of, ●o avoid the charge of Schism, upon himself and party, as I have elsewhere ●hewed.  
2. He had (he says) laid in provision, against all contending about words, expressions, etc. and every thing, though true, that might be separated from the life or substance, of the notion or truth pleaded for: viz. The sentence afore noted, concerning the notion of Schism. He had indeed laid in a politic petition of the question, that all Readers would be so favourable, as to grant him his new notion, or else he could expect no good issue of his Treatise; for so he professed, pag. 30. Unless men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendered, I shall not hope to prevail much, in the process of this discourse: And such I think hath been the success. Can any rational man be taken with this inference? This evil mentioned by the Apostle, is Schism; therefore nothing else is so? Yes, (which to me is a wonder, in so wise a man) the reverend Doctor is convinced by it, and resolved so to continued; for so he said, Having before asserted this to be the chief and only seat of the Doctri●● of Schism, 
Of schism. pag. 42.  I am inclinable so to do and this I am resolved of, that unle● any man can prove, that somethi● else is termed Schism, by some divin● Writer, etc. I will be at liberty, fro● admitting it so to be. Something was said to this in my former Tract page 39 I add a little more; 1. His assertion, that this was the chief and only place of the word Schism, in the Ecclesiastical sense, was granted him; bu● that it was the chief and only place of the Doctrine of Schism, is now denied him; because the Apostle did here indeed, reprove and check them for their Schism and divisions, but intended not to speak to the doctrine, or full nature of Schism; that must be elsewhere enquired and found out, either from the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or other words of equivalent sense. 2. He requires, that something else be termed Schism, by some divine Writer; that is he expects, that he must have the same word, or else, though it have the same nature, and be equally criminous, he is resolved, nothing else is Schism, but a division in a particular Church, contrary to his own grant. page 21. of schism;" That that alone shallbe esteemed Schism, which is in scripture so called; or (mark that) which hath the entire nature of that, which ●s there so called. But (say I) other ●ords in other places, have the entire stir of Schism, viz division in a church, & something more i e. separati● from it; Ergo, that may be esteemed ●hisme, as I instanced in other words ●d places; to which the Reverend doctor says nothing.  
3." The whole weight of the little pile, turning on one single hinge and that visible and conspicuous, etc. he promised himself, that he who undertook it, would be fare from passing it by, and set himself to the superstructure, etc. This he repeats gain p. 76. That he laid the great weight of the whole, upon this notion of Schism; that in that only place of the Corinthians, there is mention of Schism in an Ecclesiastical sense. etc. To which I say, 1. If his hinge of the whole, was so visible ●nd conspicuous, I cannot but wonder; ●hat I alone should not see that, which to every considering person that should but view the Treatise, 
pag. 6.  would be evident. And that he should so o●ten charge me with ignorance of h● design; of which anon. 2. I was ● fare from passing it by, that I grant● them this to be the only place; b● not the full importance and nature ● the word; yea I endeavoured to she● that there was a degree of Separation, that place, as to some Ministers and Ordinances; which how he hath taken away we shall hear anon, 3. Granting hi● his sense in that place, I proved his consequence to be naught The Schis● amongst the Corinthians, was a division in a particular Church; Fro● nothing else is schim, in the scripture sense. Which consequence, all considering and rational men, that I speak with; do wonder to fall from so grea● a Logician and Divine. 4. This Notion ● his, I knew well, was the Hinge or Centre of the whole superstructure; b● the Circumference or lines, by way ● consectaries, 
* He says his first Chapter of the nature of Schism; contained the foundation of many inferences Page. 52.  extended to a great● distance, as thus: If Schism be only Difference in a particular Church, th● his party are no Schismatics; in separating from, 1. The Church of Rom● 2. From our Nationall, 3. Or Presbyterian Churches. Now the Anteced●● being by me demolished, as the hinge such consequences; the whole superstructure is fallen with its own weight, ●d his whole Treatise with it; As wiser ●en than myself do think.  
4." He expressly waved men's Judgement, and Authority, old or late; and so promised himself, security from such disturbance, etc. To which I answered, The Concurring judgement of all ●en, in all ages, of all persuasions, 
Page. 4.  ●●rryes weight with it, especially when 〈◊〉 agrees with express Scripture; or regular and rational deduction: to which ●●e professed to stand or fall, Cap. 1.5.3. To which he says just nothing.  
5. Whereas he had confined himself to a bore defensative of some, 
Page. 6.  not intending to cast others from their places, (unless the Roman party) he had some expectations that peace-loving godly men, would not be troubled, that an apparent immunity from a crime, was, without their prejudice, manifested in behalf of their brethrens, etc. But he must know that his defence of some from the crime of Schism, as it was too weak to bear it of, by the bore Notion of Schism by him inverted; so it did cast an aspersion upon others of a false Accusation, charging them with Schism; and besides, in the consequences of that N●tion, did cast others (beside the Rom● party) from their places, as no Church no members of a Church, as shall appear ere long: but I appeal any of rea● godliness, and indifferent judgement to determine whether he himself di● not blow the Coal that gave fire to th● dissension, by his new notions o● Schism, and of a particular Church, &c  
6. But he adds this more to hi● thoughts, 
pag. 8.  That he obviated the facility of tendering a discourse to th● purpose; by its being led out of th● common road, wherein common place-supplyes would be of little use. Truly that was likely to 'cause some Opposition; that the Reverend Doctor● went out of the Common road, (where was not allowed way) by his Singular notion of Schism; that never was gone in by any before him, nor I think will be followed by any after him, (I only except another Notionist, Lud. Molin, in another controversy in his Corollarium, p. 100 Who in approbation of this new notion, tells us; The whole Christian world, from the Apostles times, never knew of such a notion of the nature of Schism, till the Reverend Doctor taught it them. And I realy believe him; only I think he ●ould have added, that the Apostles ●emselves never knew of such a notion. What ever was said by me" about minister's callings, Church-government, or the like, was occasioned by him●●lfe, in his superstructures upon that ●eake foundation, as shall appear.  
Whether the Reverend Doctor, hath ●ven a plain and full return to what ●ay seem of importance in my Book, 
pag. 9  others must judge, and not we our ●lves; who do observe (all I meet with) ●hat little or nothing is said by him, to ●he Argumentative part thereof, but ●ome sl●ghter velitations, to defend his ●wn new Notions; leaving the principal parts untouched. This will appear ●n his Account of his thoughts, in the ●iew of my Treatise; which he twice Recapitulates for failing, to give notice ●f the particulars of it. I must take a review of them.  
1. He says, I am without any provocation intended or given, reviled from one end of it to the other; and called partly in downright terms, partly by obliqne intimation Satan, Atheist, Sceptic, Donatis● Heretic, etc. I must profess, whe● I first readd this charge, I stood amaze and astonished, that my Treatise shou● be charged with the crime of rev●ling whereupon I took it up, and read ● over again and again, to see, if I coul● discover so much weakness or guilt●nesse in myself; and fearing my ow● partiality, I consulted with other learned and godly persons, who had rea● it, who professed, they found nothing in it, but words of truth and soberness and such as might become a Christia● Adversary, as being sharp to the cause he opposed, but sufficiently respectful to his person, whom he did oppose. But this is not the lest misery in Controversies, that what is intended against the way, is applied to the person, and so provokes by accident to further strife. But for those particulars, by him called revile, I give him this account: 1. If I at any time call him personally schismatic, which I think I do not, but only his way and party to be schismatical, he knows I cannot avoid it, if I make good the Title of my Book, supposing him to be an Independent, as he is generally taken to be. And why nay not a good man be a schismatic, as well as those honest Corinthians, whom ●oth the Apostle and himself, charge with the crime of schism? If I have not ●roved his way to be a schism, I shall ●onfesse my wrong, in calling of ●t, or him, Schismatical. 2. For ●he word Sectary, that follows upon the former; if men by schism separate into fractions or sections, they will deserve the name of Sectaries; and himself calls some men so. 3. For Heretic, as it was more than I charged him or his way with, (speaking strictly of Independents) so I never call them so; though I believe himself does not deny, but some Independent Churches are Heretical. 4. For Donatists, I only charged their principles upon his way, which if they be acknowledged to be schismatical, (as they are, by all that are Orthodox, and by himself confessed to be criminal at lest) the parallel will fall upon them, whether I will or not; as it doth upon the Romanists, embracing and maintaining the same principles. 5. For the word Pharisee, when he spoke, as I thought, too contemptibly of Christians, the multitude, the wicked, and profane, I only said, This sounds too much of the Pharisee. But it's known, they separate from the best of our Congregations, as well as from such. My answer here, was just the same, that the learned Doctor Hall gave to the Brownists, 
Apol. s. 28.  for like aspersions upon our Congregations. 6. As for those words, Atheist or Sceptic, the first is but once used, page 15. in these words: He that denies, that professed Christians may be compelled to the external profession of the only way of worship, seems to me to be, if not an Atheist, a Sceptic in Religion. What's this to the reverend Doctor, or any man living, that does not deny that my assertion? The word Sceptic is once more used, upon the like supposition, page 187. 7. Lastly, the worst is, that I call him Satan; which I no where do, in downright terms, nor necessarily, in an oblick intimation or reflection: For 1. A man that says to a blasphemer, or other notorious slanderer or curser, The Lord rebuke thee, (which were the words he excepts against, & yet these not directly spoken neither) does not presently call him Devil or Satan. 2. The cause of using those words, was very urgent and provoking, as I thought, in his charging our Ordination to come from Antichrist the Beast; which was in effect to deny or annul our Ministry and Churches: As our blessed Saviour did obliquely, yea directly, call a man as good as himself, Satan, when he would have hindered him from suffering: Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, etc. 3. And what is that less, (if not more direct) than calling me Satan, page 22? when speaking of me, as carried beyond all bounds of moderation, and Christian tenderness in offending; he adds, I no way doubt, but that Satan hath his design in this whole business. Jam sumus ergo pares. If this be reviling, from one end of the book to another, let the indifferent Reader judge. Yea, some do say, (and I could observe it) that the reverend Doctor, though he have given me very sweet words and complimental; 
In this one p. 11▪ discovering sanguinary thoughts against them pag. 11.  yet hath secretly more reviled me, and endeavoured to blast my reputation, with godly men, than I have him. I may note it in some passages hereafter.  
2. The next is not less bitter; The professed design of the whole, is to prove Independency to be a great schism, and that Independents are schismatical sectaries, the troublers of England. That it were happy for the Nation, they were out of it. Or discovering sanguinary thoughts, in reference to them. And these kind of discourses fill up the book, almost from one end to the other. I have much ado to forbear to say once more, The Lord rebuke thee, in the sense aforesaid. 1. For the first part, that my design was, to prove Independency to be a great schism, and consequently Independents (whom I mean, we shall hea● anon) to be schismatical, I cannot deny, if I intended to make good the title of my Book; and such kind of discourse must necessarily fill up my Book, from one end to another. But I pray, am I the first, that hath charged them and their way to be schismatical? have not many learned and pious men done it before me? and is this the first time that I have so charged it, that it seems so novel to the reverend Doctor? And i● they have, some of them, been proved such, and sectaries besides, do not such trouble the peace of the Church? Of some, I doubt not, he will confess it, and, with me, wish them any where, rather than in England, and think the Nation happy in their avoidance. Paul said of such, I would they were cut of that trouble you. 2. But for the latter part, 
Men whose tender mercies are cruel. p. 18.  My discovering sanguinary thoughts, in reference to them. I should hate myself, if I were guilty of it, and shall appeal all Readers, when they hear my words, whether they import so much; page 200. 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 than tell us, They are building spick and span new Churches. This was the worst I said, and but once only; as far from sanguinary, as from filling up my Book, from one end to the other.  
3. But he goes on; 
pag. 11.  No Christian care seems to have been taken, nor good conscience exercised, from the beginning to the ending, as to imputation of any thing unto me, or upon me, that may serve to help the design in hand. The design he told us, was, to prove Independency to be a great schism; and, I must confess, my care was, to make that way to appear as Deformed as I could, with reason and truth; but as for his person, being to me as very a stranger as I to him; I was so fare from wronging him, by false or strained imputations, that I gave him his due commendations, where I could; as appears by my p. 36. and p. 102. both in approving, and applauding his discourse; and from one end of my book, to another, giving him his due titles and respect. But let him instance, in those conscience-lesse imputations upon him. Hence (he says) I think it is repeated an hundred times, that I deny their Ministers, 
pag. 12.  Churches, and all Reformed, but our own; which is notoriously untrue, contrary to my known judgement, to express affirmations in my book, etc. But 1. the Reverend Doctor speaks Hyperbolically enough, when he says it is repeated, an 100 times, that he denies our Ministers, etc. He may do well to number them, and see how fare short the reckoning comes, 2. I confess, I took it for granted; that the Reverend Doctor was a through Independent, in the voice of all men; and I knew that Independents do deny our Ministers and Churches, etc. If the judgement of the reverend Doctor be now altered, I shall rejoice much, in the success of any Treatise, mine or others, to his conversion, 3. But if he yet be constant to his Principles delivered in his former Treatise, and vox populi be not a very liar; I shall not doubt if need be, to say a thousand times, he does at lest by consequence deny our Ministry, and Churches; our Ordination and all, even our Church-membership. But of that more fully anon.  
I cannot hear but observe one piece of policy, the Reverend Doctor hath made use of (observed also by others) beyond his Praedecess●urs, in this controversy, to ingratiate himself, and way, with vulgar readers, to make them seem the better. 1. That he is so free and frequent in Commending of me, his adversary. p. 10 and 46. 121. and elsewhere; as Hierome said of Ruffinus, He wrongs me with praises; Surely (they will think) he will never wrong the truth, that does right to his Adversary, 2. His extraordinary Compliments, after the Mode of the times; may pretend to great Humility, considering the distance betwixt him and me, a Reverend Doctor and Deane, and a poor country Presbyter; such as these, Let him at any time give me a command to wait upon him, p● 19 I desire to know, when and where I may personally wait upon him, p. 39. ● humbly beg of this Author, that h● would favour me with a command, &c p. 85. See also. p. 92.129.139.180 All most as often repeated, as those charged upon me afore; all which some would interpret for so many jeers, but I do not so, 3. He hath yet another policy, taking it pro confesso, that I am guilty, and that he would have his Reader think so too; that is, his frequent prayers, for forgiveness of my miscarriages, and his own forgiveness; which is repeated in my observation, 5. Times, p. 14. 51. 124. 149. 180. As if he would by such Charity, persuade me also, as well as his reader, that I had greatly wronged him. And yet it seems that though his charity can forgive his wrongs, yet it cannot forget them; for it is repeated often, (30 times at lest) that I wrong him notoriously; and frequent charges of me, with untruth, wrongs, lies, etc. to make me odious to his Reader: yea there is more bitterness couched in one sentence, after he had newly prayed for me, than is to be found in all my books; this it is Until I saw this Treatise, 
pag. 14.  I did not believe that there had remained in any one godly, sober, judicious person in England, such thoughts of heart; in reference to our present differences, as are visible and legible therein and tells ●ne boldly," I have taken pains to cast oil on those flames, which it is every one's duty to labour to extinguish. Whereas I did but cast water, as I thought, upon those flames which he had unhappily kindled, by his new Notions.  
But we have a second Review of my Treatise, wherein my Mistakes are presented to the Reader, with respect to that influence they have into the argumentative part of my discourse; viz. my ungrounded suppositions, as he calls them.  
1. It is (says he) strenuously supposed all along, 
pag. 16.  that I deny all Churches in England to be true churches of Christ except only the Churches gathered in the congregational way, That I may distinctly answer this; let it be considered, that (as I said before) I supposed the Reverend Doctor, to be an Independent, upon the general vote of all men, and I knew it to be the judgement of many; and the 
* That this is the consequence of their explicit Covenant, see what is the judgement of the Walachrian Churches: Haec sententia privat omnes Ecclesias reformatas, quae tali foedere non uniuntur, vero Ecclesiastico ministerio, potestate Vocandi & Ordinandi ministros, legitima sacramentorum administratione, Ecclesiastica jurisdictione, etc. Et negat omnes in Ecclesiis islis baptizatos, ritè & verè baptizatos este, etc. Apollon. Consid. quarundam Controu. etc. pag. 23.  consequent of their declared principle, that no Churches are truly constituted, bu● such as are gathered in the congregational way. 2. took the word Independent generally, as comprehending Brownists, Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, wh●● strenuously assert● that we are no true Churches. 3. Though I sometimes speak, as of the reverend Doctor his person, (especially, whe● his notion is new and singular, as in that of schism, etc.) yet I intended indefinitely, any kind of Independents, and not him distinguished from the rest▪ They commonly deny our Churches. In a word, I respected his way, rather than his person; all along my Treatise. What than? does the reverend Doctor in his judgement, without equivocation, hold our Churches to be true Churches? We are glad of his concessions, but fear, that he will be lost with many Independent Churches, who hold us Antichristian; and believe, that his own principles will confute his present concessions. But hear what he says," I now inform him, that a●l those surmises are fond and untrue, pag. 17. And tells us, He shall as willingly engage in the defence of the Ministry, of the godly Ministers in England, with the lawfulness of their Churches, as any what ever. ●g. 20. Though the words be ambi●ously spoken, I must take heed of ●pposition or suspicion of insincerity, in ●is profession, jest he charge me with ●ew surmises: What than doth he scru●e at? I only in my Treatise have questioned, the institution of a Nationall Church. A Nationall Church hath (as ●e was told) a double notion; it imports either an hierarchical Church, with subordination of Officers, (which ●e says, I do not maintain) or a Church, where all the Churches of a Nation ●gree in Doctrine and Worship, and celebrated it accordingly, in the Presbyterian way. Which of these does he question? or rather, which of them does he allow to be true Churches? Does he not renounce and dispute against both, as Churches not truly constituted, and so, in the judgement of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, no true Churches, yea, Antichristian? Do not his own principles infer this conclusion If any man hath nothing to show, but 〈◊〉 successive Ordination, through, or fr●● Rome, he looks not on him, as a Minister of Christ. But all our Minister have nothing else to show, (as valid) 〈◊〉 make them Ministers, but their successive Ordination; Ergo, He looks up●● them as no Ministers of Christ, an● consequently, we have no Churche● Will he engage in defence of such Ministry, such Churches? But more ● this again, ere long. And now I am no● indebted to give him any satisfaction (having done him no injury) he hader-posed himself to the censure and displeasure of many godly Ministers, 
pag. 21.  Churches and Christians, before ever I saw 〈◊〉 Book. And I go on to the next.  
2. A second supposition (he says) is That what ever the presbyterian Ministers and Churches be, he hath separated from them, as have done all those, whom he calls Independents. What saye● the Reverend Doctor to this; Doth no● this reverend Author know, that this is denied by us? Is it nos sufficiently disproved, in that very Treatise which he undertakes to answer? However, the reverend Doctor himself, might not totally separate from us, holding compli●ce in preaching or hearing, in our church's, to what ends, he knows. ●et surely, those Independents whom 〈◊〉 names, Brownists, Anabaptists, etc. 〈◊〉 utterly refuse communion with us, Antichristian, as no Churches, no M●●sters: Yea, many of those who are ●agle, or singular Independents, not yet one so far as Brownists or Anabaptists, ●o not so much as hear (much less re●eive the Sacrament) in our Churches, ●nlesse some of theirs preach. And may ●hey not justify it upon his own principles? Does he not confidently deny, ●ny separation from a Church to be schism? And in this place, does he not closely justify their separation; The  separation must respect some union of Christ's institution. 
pag. 22.  Now wherein have we (we, not I) separated from them, as to the breach of any such union? I pray now, what's this, in true sense, but, we have indeed separated from you, but without breach of any union of Christ's institution, for you were not Churches united, according to his institution. Just as he pleaded for separation from Rome, and from the Nationall Church. And what follows hence, but this, We are no true Churches, and their separation is just. Thus he pled for all, Independents, Brownists, Anab●tists; for the plea is theirs, to justify th● separation. Some of them can com● and hear in our Churches, but up● Robinson's latter principles, not as Church's, or Ministers, but as gifted brothers But hear him pled for himself: p● my part, what hath he to lay to my charge I condemn not their Churches in gener● to be no Churches. Nor do the Bro●nists so, some true Churches they do a●low us, of the Independent dress; ● lest, 
See Dr. Hall Apol p. 52. Med.  comparatively, they say, we are no● so bad as the Whore of Babylon. But h● goes on: I never disturbed, that I kno● of, the peace of any one of them, n● separated from them. What? was h● never of any particular Church, as member, as a Minister? not of that i● Essex? did he never separate from them, nor disturb the peace of that, or som● Churches, by raising divisions in them soliciting proselytes out of them? Hath he not by his book of Schism, cast fir● into all the Churches of England? Did he not labour to gather a Church, in his own College, if report fail not? In his former book, and present defence, doth he not advice others, to come out of our church's? Of schism, page 270. If all ●is be true, his crime preceded his pu●hment, and he may be content to bear 〈◊〉 whilst I go on to the next.  
3. He supposeth throughout, that I deny, not only the necessity of a successive Ordination; but, the lawfulness of it also. Not, I supposed (and proved) at he denies the lawfulness of our accessive Ordination; by which I understood, not only imposition of hands, ●t the whole authoritative translation of man, into the state of an Officer of the church. Now, does not the reverend doctor deny our Ordination as fully, as ●rownists or Anabaptists, upon the same ●ound, because we had it successively ●om Rome? I repeat his words again; If any man have nothing to pled for his Ministry, 
Of schism. p. 196.  but merely that successive Ordination, received through the Church of Rome, I cannot see a stable bottom, of owning him so to be. If this be ●ot to deny our Ordination and Ministry ●o, let the Reader judge. If he thinks 〈◊〉 sufficient to say, he doth not deny ●ur Ordination, because he is pleased to gratify us with another plea, page 197. ●f schism; that he disclaims all thoughts of rejecting those Ministers, as Papa● and Antichristian, who yet adhere ● that Ordination, being many of the● eminently gifted of God, etc. and submitted to by the people, etc. This is s● far from justifying our Ordination, ● our being Ministers by virtue thereof that it doth the clean contrary: It tel● us only, That though indeed our Ordination do not make us Ministers, y● we are not by our Ordination so incapacitated, but that, notwithstanding it we may by somewhat else be made Minister's; viz. our gifts, and the people submission. And if (when he says, 〈◊〉 does not renounce his own Ordination his meaning be this, that he doth no deny, but that he was ordained, and ye● holds, that notwithstanding his Ordination, he may (upon some other account) be a Minister, we wish he woul● have spoken out, and let others judge whether this be a renouncing of hi● Ordination or not.  

pag. 24.  But the reverend Doctor seems to b● turned Orthodox, in point of Ordination; I say, it is according to the mi● of Christ, that he who is to be ordaine● unto office in any Church, receive imposition of hands from the Elders of th● Church, if there be any there; and this to be done in a way of succession, that the Churches may be perpetuated. Mark, Imposition of hands from the Elders of ●hat Church, not by a Presbytery for●aigne to that Church; If there be any ●here. But if none there, he tells us not, what is to be done than. Besides, he speaks only of imposition of hands, which he blamed others for) as if than were all of Ordination, when as he told ●s, The Scripture compriseth in it, the whole authoritative translation of a man into an Officer, differing from the other as whole and part. And that succession ●e speaks of, ceases, when there are no Officers in that Church, or a new Church 〈◊〉 to be erected; than it must fall upon ●he people, or I know not whom. But ●ow comes this change, and how long? Was it not the reverend Doctor, that when some young men came to advice with him, about their Ordination, dissuaded them from it? Was it not he ●hat said, that he would maintain against ●ll the Ministers of England, there was 〈◊〉 Scripture no such thing as Ordination? Was it not he, that when it was ob●ected to him, desiring to be a Parliament-Man, that he was incapable of it, as being a Minister, would not answer, He was, or was not a Minister? this was vox populi, at Oxford. And was not this to renounce his Ordination? What than is it, that he doth oppose? The denying (I suppose it should be the deriving) of this successive Ordination, through the authority of Antichrist. This fallacy does not become the reverend Doctor's learning, it is fallacia compositionis. We derive our Ordination, not from Antichrist, but from such as were truly presbyters, successively ordained, though with some corruptions: This he was told again and again, was the answer of all our best Divines, but he takes no notice of it: Yea, Luther, and our first Reformers, had no other Ordination but such; will he look on them as no Ministers of Christ? Hear what he says; Before the blessed Reformation begun, 
pag. 24.  and carried on by Zuinglius, Luther, etc. there were, and had been, two states of men in the world, professing the name of Christ and the Gospel, as to the outward profession thereof; the one in glory, etc. the other poor, etc. Consider now, whether the reverend Doctor do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Church, professing the name of Christ and the Gospel, as to the outward profession of it? which lately he did deny, and will again ere long, page 26. And I ask, of what Church Luther and Zuingulius were, before the Reformation? either of Rome or none; a corrupt Church, but yet a Church. But he adds; As to the claim of a successive Ordination, down from the Apostles, 
pag. 25.  I made bold to affirm, I could not understand the validity of it, as successive, which was derived to us, from, and by, the first party of men in the world. I hope, if any Church can prove a successive Ordination from the Apostles, it would be no prejudice, but an honour to it; as the Greek Church, I suppose, does pled, and not from Rome. And if it was our unhappiness, to have our successive Ordination through fouler hands, (if at lest fouler than some of the Greek Churches) yet truly Ministers, shall that invalidate our Ordination? Must we be charged, to derive our Ordination from Antichrist, as Antichrist, or from the Beast, as the Beast, because we had it from some that were members, or officers of that (newly confessed) Church? That was it that warmed my 
* So he excused Austin against the Donatists, p. 166  zeal so much, as to tell the reverend Doctor, 
Of schism. pag. 25.  that he cast dirt in the face of our Ministry, and to be ready to say, The Lord rebuke thee. Dare he appeal the Searcher of all hearts, he had no design in all this, to cast dirt on any godly Minister in England, when as this is the filth that is daily cast upon us, by his friends, the Brown●sts, Anabaptists, and some Independents, not yet gone so far as others, Our Antichristian Ministry? 
Bartlet, in his Model.  He called for satisfaction, for supposed wrongs; but what satisfaction will he give, to all the Ministers of England, and other Nations, for thus reviling of them, to say, They derived their successive Ordination, through the authority of Antichrist. But (says the reverend Doctor) Might not another answer have been returned, 
pag. 26.  without that wrath? This is so, or it is not so, in reference to this Nation: If it be not so, and they pled not their successive Ordination from Rome, there is an end of this difference. This is a pleasing notion to the reverend Doctor, for he uses it twice more, once page 28. and again, page 130. But 1. Might not the reverend Doctor have given a better resolution of the case, 
D. Hal Apol. against Brownists, sect. 30. p. 508.  as all our Divines hitherto have done? Our successive Ordination is not claimed from Rome as Papal or Antichristian, but from Rome, so far as Christian, the Papacy being but the Leprosy of that Church. Must he needs take the worse part of the distinction, and cast dirt on our Ministry, before Papists, and all our Sectarian enemies? And was not that my answer, to which he saith nothing, but still goes on to provoke by scornful language. His Dilemma, with its horns, intends to gore us on both sides; If it be not so, there's an end of this difference, we are wholly agreed; and what need those exclamations? pag. 28. That is, if we do not pled our Ordination from Rome, (and have no other to pled) we have none at all, and so no Minister's, no Churches, that way. If it be so, that we say, we have our Ordination from Rome, than he concludes us Antichristian, You have your Ordination through the authority of Antichrist. To prevent both these, I distinguished as afore: We have it not from Rome as Antichristian, but from Officers of that Church, though much corrupt. Are we now at all agreed, when he derives our pedigree from Antichrist and the Beast, and I derive it from Officers of that Church, which he rejects? Calls he this an Agreement? I say it is from Rome, and he says so too, and so the vulgar must believe, we are agreed. Dolosus versatur in universalibus and hates Distinctions as evil doers do the light.  
But I asked, why may not this be a sufficient foundation of our Ministry; as well as for our Baptism? He asks me (as afore) If it be so, and be so acknowledged, whence is that provocation that arose from my Enquiry after it; which may receive the same answer as afore: The provocation arose from charging us to receive both, from the Authority of Antichrist. And I asked him; Whence he derived his own Baptism? To which he gives no satisfactory answer, but now tells me (very strangely) I judge their Baptism good and valid; but to deal plainly with him, not on that foundation. Upon what than? Might not the men that received their Baptism and power to Baptise from that successive ordination, receive also power to ordain? or does he so far join with the Anapaptists, that any disciple, no-Minister, may baptise; or does he renounce his successive baptism, as some (if not himself) have done their Ordination from Rome? Hear his answer; I cannot believe, that that Idolater, murderer, man of sin, had, since the days of his open Idolatry persecution and enmity to Christ, any authority more or less committed to him from the Lord, nor over his Churches. Change the Scene, and let him tell us; what he believes concerning Christian Idolatrous persecuting Magistrates; Do they thereupon forfeit their Authority over their people and Churches? Parcius ista: If he say, it's otherwise with Ministers, I put him the case of the Idolatrous persecuting high Priests among the Jews; Were they presently Exauthorized upon those miscarriages? nay, must not Antichrist sit in the Temple of God, 2 Thes. 2.4. that is, the Church; professing the name of Christ, and the Gospel, as to the outward profession thereof; as he told us, p. 24. The Reverend Doctor hath endeavoured to elude that text, (of Schism p. 154.), by a gloss or interpretation of St. Augustine's de. civ Dei. l. 10. c. 59 That the words are thus to be rendered; A setting up against the Temple of God, not a sitting in the Temple of God; 
Estius, in loco.  and could be content it should so be taken for a present shift, which is by Papists themselves rejected, as most improbable, who grant it meant of the Church; that Ant●christ must fit in the Church, and by most, if not all our Divines, so understood in the controversy of Antichrist, He must not be looked for, without the Church, but within the bosom of the Church; Beza in locum. Yea if the Reverend Doctor had consulted the text; he had found Augustine's gloss the more improbable if not impossible; for the words are thus in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, would this be a genuine sense; So that he as God, sets up himself against the Temple of God? Besides that this would be a kind of Tautology, having before called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. And did he not tell us, that such Churches as ours, may for aught he knows, be in Italy. p. 49? Lastly, Said he not also, Grant the usually received sense, it imports no more, but that the man of sin, shall set up his power against God, in the midst of them, who by their outward visible profession, have right to be called his Temple, that is, the Church: for are not they that make an outward visible profession of Christ and the Gospel; rightly called a Church though corrupt and wicked. Did not Satan devil and ●ad his throne in a Church, Rev. 2.13. ●hat of Perganus? But enough of that. ●ut I said, he and his party would not ●ave been pleased with Ordination from ● Presb●yerie, though not from Rome: ●e asks me angrily; I pray, who told you so? when, wherein, and by what means have I opposed it? I acknowledge myself of no party. I have told him afore, when and wherein and by what means he hath opposed it; if he please ●o look back. I only add, he opposed it, by assigning Imposition of hands only to ●he Elders of a particular Church; and by offering to gather an Independent Church, as I have been credibly informed. What need his charge of Transportation and reflections upon him, 
pag. 27.  and that without due observation of truth and love. But, it's worse, that he charges me with an untruth, As if I acknowledged those first Reformers had their ordination from the people; when as I speak the direct contrary. The first Reformers, Luther etc. had not their ordination from the people, but from Rome, p. 116. et alibi. I only excepted some Extraordinary easy, where no Ministers were to be had for Ordinatjon, and that only for the first turn.  
But he is as much displeased for m● affirming, that he hath renounced hi● own Ordination. 
pag. 29.  He asks Who tol● him these things? I am now necessitated to tell him, that all these things are false● and utterly in part and in whole untrue ● and he is not able to prove one of them. My reasons, or rather Evidences of thi● charge of renouncing his ordination were these, 1. The world looks at him, as a● Independent of the highest note; and I knew it is their judgement, that our ordination is Antichristian; and if so, its time for him to renounce it. 2. I know, from good hand, that some of the Brethrens have renounced their ordination; so I am told, They all renounced their ordination in England, 
Anat. of Independ. pag. 23.  and ordained one another in Holland; when Mr. Ward was chosen pastor, and Mr. Bridges Teacher at Rotterdam, first Mr. Bridges ordained Mr. Ward, and than immediately Mr. Ward again ordained Mr. Bridges. Thus one hand washes another, and I might reasonably think; the Reverend Doctor had also renounced his. 3. I had divers times heard, that he declaimed against and dissuaded our ordination; and I thought it not probable he would still retain it. 4. I concluded ●m his own principles in his book of chism, that our successive ordination ●me from Antichrist and the Beast as ●ore; and that those" That insist upon ● that plea, would (if he mistake not) keep ● up in this particular what God would have ● pulled down, p. 198. of Schism. And ●ould he keep it up in himself? If I ●ere so persuaded; I should renounce ●y Ordination to night, before to morrow. 5. If this be not sufficient, let him remember what he said in the presence of ●l or most of his own Canons, at a pub●ck meeting, speaking of his Ordination ●y the Bishop of Oxford, in that place; That he valued it not more, than that crumb upon his trencher or near it, which he fillipped away. It may be, his Canons will not affirm this to me (though to some others they have,) but I shall put it upon this Issue; that if they will give it under their hands, that they never heard him say those or such like words, I shall believe the report was false. 6. I would appeal his own conscience, Does he believe his former Ordination valid? Does he do any Ministerial act now, by virtue of his former ordination? if not, what's that but a renouncing of his ordination? If he do, he contradicts or condemns himself, reserving an Ordination, which he accounts Antichristian. And than, wh● means those outcries, I was nev● yet so dealt withal, by any man ● what party soever: 
pag. 29.  Does this dealing become a Minister of the gospels etc. B● whether those Recharges upon me, ● 30. be not utterly untrue, and unbecoming his Reverence and piety, I lea● to all indifferent Readers to judge, b● what hath been the Language and carriage of my former discourse; and wh● hath here been returned. This Chapter being a Recapitulation of my whole boo● from one end to another, hath held m● very long. I shall promise' to be shorte● in those that follow.   

CHAP. II. In answer to my Appendix.  
THis Chapter is a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if not in that the first is last▪ yet in that the last is first. The Reverend Doctor indeed promised us, A● speedy account of the Closure of my book, p. 11. and in the Close of his former Chapter: but I must confess, I did not ●t expect it; nor will I conjecture at ●s preproperous vindication of his sputation, as he calls it. Had not his ●ter book of Schism recanted, if I may ●t say, contradicted his former judgement, I had not meddled with it; I can ●cerely profess, my intention was ●t to blast his reputation, or to 'cause ● Person to suffer (to whom I was and ● a very stranger, not having, above ●ce, so much as seen his fa●e) but to ●event the prevalency of his way, by ●e Authority of his person; to the draw●g of of some well meaning people, 
Rom. 16.8.  ●ho are easily deceived by fair words, ●nd personal respects; this I thought ●ight the better be done, by presenting ●o them the errors and Inconstancy of ●●e men, that endeavour their seducement. The Apostle Judas describes Sedu●ers, by such a Character; they are randring Stars, as in places, so in judgement Inconsistent with themselves, and ●heir own opinions. But if he mark ●t, I did first in my precedent Chapters; ●ndeavour (with little success, I confess) to show those persons, the errors of that way, before I discovered the inconstancy of the person; and Inconsistency of his former and present thoughts: Assure we may have reason to suspect their judgement, who are so changea● in their opinions; having instances ●nough of men, that have run from o● sect to another, till they have lost themselves, and all Religion. But to retu● to the business in hand, the revere● Doctor, after the proposition of oth● ways of excusing himself, for his inconstancy, at length confesses the fact, wi● the ground and means of that alteration of his judgement.  
1. The ground was this, the suitabl●nesse of his former principles to the Independent way; 
pag. 34.  for so he says: Upon review of what I had than asserted, (i● his former Treatise) I found, that 〈◊〉 principles were far more suited, to wh● is the judgement and practice of the Co●gregationall men, than those of the Pre●byterians. This was the ground of h● change, that I conjectured at, when ● said," Perhaps these principles of his, the laid, might misled others and himself etc. pag. 237. Those principles were that gifts and submission of the people were sufficient in some cases, to make ● Preacher of the Gospel; not having distinguished between a Preacher in a large, and in a stricter sense, that is, beseen an Instructor (common to men ●d women,) and a preacher in Office ●culiar to some. For neglect of which ●tinction, how easy was it for men supposing the case to be now extraor●ary, and an intercision of all ordinan●s) finding themselves (as they easily ●lieve) sufficiently gifted, and a giddy ople, thirsting after novelties, willing 〈◊〉 be taught by such teachers, to take ●on them the Office of Preachers? ●his is so visibly the Doctrine and Practice of all the Sects, that he that runs ●ay read it. But the Reverend Doctored ●d there laid down other Presbyterian ●rinciples, which are irreconcilable ●ith his new congregational way; as shall appear.  
2. The means of his conversion was his: Undertaking to read the Books ●ritten on both sides (the congre●●tionall and the Presbyterian way) ●e fixed on one to take under peculiar examination; which seemed most methodical, 
pag. 3  and strongly to maintain that which was contrary to his present persuasion: that was Mr. Cottons Book of the Keys; intending the confutation of it. But contrary to his many Interests, he was prevailed on, to receive that a● those principles, which he thought to s● himself in an opposition unto. And th● commonly it fares with those that undertake controversies, being before prejudiced with the principles of that way as the Reverend Doctor professes he wa● But had he observed his own rule ● examining impartially all things by t● Word, comparing causes with cause● etc. laying aside all prejudicated respects unto persons or present traditions, an● considered the books written against that very Treatise, and no more; h● might perhaps have been confirmed i● his Presbyterian way, as many learne● and pious men have been. Wherea● now there is little hope of recovering him back to his first Principles, for h● tells me That being by that means settled in the Truth, 
pag. 37.  he is ready to maintain it to me and others, and finds cause to rejoice in it, in the day of the Lord Jesus. I shall only request him, that he would impartially consider, what hath been written against the Treatise of his Conversion, before he enter into new contests with me or others, or publish that tract of the Authors, which he threatened me with, in his Epistle: which if he do, there is some hope he may re●rn to his former Presbyterian princi●es, as others have done, without any ●eat prejudice to his reputation; he ●et professing himself to be of neither, of ●o party, p. 27.  
Before I consider his answer to my appendix, I shall desire leave to pre●ise, that my scope was not to help on with the proof, that Independency is a great Schism, as he pretends p. 32. Nor ●et to 'cause his person to suffer, as I said ●ore; nor yet to confute that treatise ● so, (though by the by, I might discover some weaknesses in it): but to prove from it, his inconstancy and inconsistency with himself, who yet undertakes ●o convert others to, or settle them in, the ●ndependent way: And I most of all ●onder, that he should so confidently ●eny his change from what he than de●vered, and say I am punctually of the same judgement still, 
page. 40.  when as he clearly ●rofesses his change in one particular, ●. 44. and that a material one; And for ●he rest, there needs nothing to convince him of a great change, but only ● Scheme of his differences in judgement ●ow, from what he asserted than; which ● shall exhibit to him, at the end of his Chapter.  
But before I do that, I shall only, b● way of short strictures, animadvert some few things. 1. That his judgement w● altered, I proved thus: 1. He had, as thought, upon the reasons afore give● renounced his ordination; at which ● professes himself astonished to thin● with what frame of Spirit, what negley of all truth and love, this business managed. And I must re-professe, th● I am astonished to think with wh● face or spirit of truth, he dare deny i● if all be true that is reported. I confess, as he carries it, I cannot tell, whether ever he was ordained or not, by ● or Presbytery, (for he discovers it not and than indeed, he cannot renounce wh● he never had; as he sometimes argued i● his former treatise of Schism: If he wa● not all ordained, and yet do Ministry acts, his tract, I now consider, will condemn him: If he was, I think he hat● done and said enough to argue his renuntiation of it. 2. My second proof ● so by him contrived, that I think he wa● in a maze, when he writ it down; because he thinks now, not only in a complete Church-state, but when no suc● thing can be charged, that gifts & conse● of the people, is enough to make a man ● Preacher in office; both untrue and false in fact. Untrue indeed and false, in ●ords and fact: for my words were ●ese; 
page. 222.  He requires now no more but gifts and consent, and that not only in a collapsed and corrupted Church, etc. but now, when neither negligence nor ignorance, can, without injury, be charged upon our Church-state; The difference visible to every seeing eye, without ●y exagitation. And the thing is true ● word and fact; as shall appear. To ●y third observation, he says nothing; Whether such a man, as he speaks of, so qualified, be a complete Minister, to preach the Gospel authoritatively by way of Office, and to administer Sacraments? ●his we know, is true in fact, of many ●f his way: some things more there are ● that Section, 
Sect. 3.  very considerably worthy of an answer; but he is not pleased ●o take notice of them.  
In the next place, he comes to his opinion of the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers, and will ●either admit of my explication of his ●ormer words, nor acknowledge any difference of his judgement now and ●hen. I have not yet had leisure to consider what he hath published upon this head (not having his book), but ● cannot yet be convinced, to be of h● judgement, nor many others more judicious: I thought I had assigned som● clear differences in the words compare together; but he will not accept m● pains. I shall now tell him of one o● two; 1. His judgement now is, that th● Divine nature, or the Spirit of Go● dwells personally in believers, and th● the Spirit is the Soul that animate Christ and believers: but than, I said the union of Christ and believers mu● be personal; for so is the union of Sou● and body in man, So is the Union o● the Divine and human nature in Christ 2. He said his former tract, that the sam● Spirit is in Christ and us; but with thi● difference; In him indeed dwelleth th● fullness of it; when it is bestowed on u● only by measure: but in his latter, o● Schism, he says the Spirit dwells personally in believers; but than (say I) we have the fullness of the Spirit, as well a● Christ; his person and fullness being inseparable. I might add, that the fullness of the Spirit, when ascribed to Christ a● man, was not the person of the Spirit, (for than the person of the Spirit also was interessed in the Mediatorship) but the fullness of the graces of the Spirit, ●hich we have only in a measure, 1 Cor. ●. 8. To one is given the word of Wisdom; to another knowledge; to another faith, by the same Spirit. But if the ●irit personally be given to every be●ever, all these should be given to one ●an, even as to Christ. But I for●ar at this time any more.  
As for his calling Ministers, by the ●me of Parochial Priests, it is not ●orth contending: he puts it of, neat●," By what the Prelates esteemed and called parish. Ministers which might ●ss very easily for an excuse, were it ●ot, 1. that many of the same reverend pi●s men, were than Parochial Ministers ●hat are now; and ill deserved the name ●f Priests. 2. That the same pious men ●nd Ministers, are till this day mocked ●nd scorned by his Independent way, by ●he name of Priests, and worse. I might ●dde, that the Reverend Doctor speaks ambiguously, when he says," I never called the Presbyterian Ministers of particular congregations Parochial Priests. He may, or some may interpret it, ●hat he means, there were no Presbyterian Ministers in Parishes, under the prelate's; and than indeed he did not call them Priests: but enough ● that.  
For the remaining section of my Appendix, though there are many things, th● deserved a better account from th● Reverend Doctor; as charging hi● with clear alterat●ons of his judgement and some contradictions to himself; ● passes them over, 
page. 42● etc.  some as untrue some as full of reflections, s rmizes, a● prognostications, And be●ides, professes himself, since my exceptions, ● be of the same mind, that he was, without the lest a terations. Only in one thin● (and the worst of all) he confesses ● change; 
page. 44.  As to the liberty to be allowed ● them, which meet in private, who cann● in conscience join in the celebration of public Ordinances, as they are performed amongst us, I confess my se● to be otherwise minded at present, tha● the words there quoted (Sect. 16.) ● express. That is to say, I do now allow conventicles of all sorts of Sects who cannot in conscience join in public in the celebration of ordinances as they are performed among us: Fo● why should not all have the same liberty of conscience (which all pretend) Anabapt●sts, Quakers, and all, as he pleads for himself and party? And is not this obliquely to brand public worship, as faulty? But this is more than he pleaded for, in his book of Schism: that every man must follow his own light, and so gather into new Churches, to the rending of the Church into a thousand pieces. Did ever any true stated Church suffer such disorder? Will he allow this in his own Church? Do they not bind all their members to continued with them, and not to forsake them? Sees he not sufficiently the mischiefs of such liberty of private conventicles? are they not the Seminaries of faction, Schism, Errors, Blasphemies, and abominable profaneness. Let him answer his own cautions and objections, with his judgement formerly upon them; with his own Latin discourse, against such liberty pleaded for, by the Remonstrants. Does he not see men pride themselves of their gifts, and created themselves Pastors in separate congregations? Tells us he not, that such do, 
page. 53.  will help to overthrew the very constitution of any Church, by confusion; or the flourishing of it, by Ignorance; both which certainly follow such courses? Says he not well;" This may be a means for men to vent their ow● private fancies to other; to foment an● cherish errors in one another; to gius false interpretations of the Word, ther● being no way to prevent it? How wi● he answer these things? Do we not se● the event of that his prophecy daily before our eyes? And does he now com● to countenance these things, and to contradict himself, and yet tell us, that h● is of the same mind still that he was and no whit changed? May we not sa● to him, as his servants to Pharaoh, Exod 10.7. with change of a word, Knowest thou not yet, that England, (the Church of England) is destroyed; or as the Disciples to their Master, Carest thou not, that we perish? But I forbear: and because the Reverend Doctor stands so resolutely upon his assertion, that he is not changed, but of the same mind he was fourteen years ago; I shall now present to him and the Reader, a Scheme of his differences from himself, than and now; as followeth.  
●uty of Pastors & people distinguished  
1. He spoke of ●o●e, as a collapsed, corrupted Church in Italy, ●ag. 40.  
2. Gifts in the ●erson, and con●ent of people, is warrant enough to make 〈◊〉 man a Preacher, in an extraordinary case only: pag. 15. and pag. 40.  
3. He made the Union of Christ and believers, to be mystical, pag. 21. We are so parts of him, of his mystical body, that he & we are become thereby, as it were, one Christ. In him dwells the fullness of the Spirit, it is given to us in measure.  
4. In extraordinary cases, every one that undertakes to preach the Gospel, must have an immediate Call from God, pag. 28.  
5. The Church government, from which I desire not to wander, is the Presbyterial. pag 42.  
6. Men aught not to cut themselves from the communion of the Church, to rend the body of Christ, and break the sacred bonds of charity. pag. 48.  
7. I conceive, they aught not at all, to be allowed the benefit of private meetings, who wilfully abstain from the public Congregations, etc. pag. 51.  
Of Schism.  
1. He says, Rome we accounted no Church at all, pag. 156.  
2 Denying our Ordination as sufficient, he says, He may have that, which indeed constitutes him a Minister; viz. gifts, and submission by the people, pag. 198. in our case.  
3. He makes the union to be Personal, pag. 94, 95. It is in the person of the Spirit, whereof we are made partakers. Ibid.  
The form of the Church Catholic is the Spirit, whereby it is animated, as the body of man by the soul, pag. 95. and 28.  
4. Yet required no more of before, but gifts, and consent of people, which are ordinary and mediate Calls. pag. 15. Neither is there any need or use of an immediate call, pag. 33. Of Pastor and People.  
5. He now is engaged in the Independent way  
6. He says, Separation is no schism, nor schism any breach of charity, pag. 48, 49.  
Review.  
1. I do not believe, that Idolater, etc. had any authority in, or over, the Churches. pag. 26.  
2. I am punctually of the same mind still, pag. 40. yet had said in his first Book, pag. 46. As to formal teaching is required, 1. Gifts; 2. Authority from the Church; if he do not here equivocate.  
3. Am I changed in this? Not, pag. 40. If the Spirit personally devil in us, we have him in fullness as well as Christ, and not in measure.  
The union of soul and body is personal; the union of man and wife is mystical, not personal: Such is ours with Christ.  
4. And to assure a man, he is extraordinarily called to it, he gives three ways▪ 1. Immediate Revelation. 2. Concurrence of Scripture-rules. 3. Some outward acts of providence. The two last whereof are mediate calls, pag. 30. Past. & Peop.  
5. As settled in the truth, which he is ready to maintain, pag. 36. and knows it will be found his rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus. pag 37.  
6. There is not one word in either of those cautions, that I do not still own and allow, pag. 44. Sure not without equivocation.  
7. As to the liberty to be allowed to them, which meet in private, etc. I confess myself to be otherwise minded. pag. 44.   

CHAP. III. A review of his and my Preface.  
THe reverend Doctor gins this Chapter with a complaint, (as his Book is full of such, either causeless or needless, complaints) of my repetition of his words, of such as I could wrist, by cutting of one and another parcel, etc. to serve me, to make biting reflections upon them, with whom I have to deal. To which I shall return but this: 1. The testimony of an adversary is strong against himself; To turn the point of his own sword into his own bowels, is an allowed way of clearest victory; and more than this, I have not done. That which a man condemns in another, may justly be applied to his self-condemnation, if he be guilty of the same crime. If not guilty, it concerned him to disprove it, and clear himself, and not to talk of biting reflections.  
2. If he could do the like from my words, As I doubt not, but he would " dress me up in the like ornaments; so let him do it with like reason, if he can, and spare me not.  
He first falls upon the Donatists' principles, improved not only by Romanists, but by others, whom, I said, I yet named not; but (says he) its evident whom he means; though hereafter he tells us, he knows not whom I mean. What thinks he of their two principles, by me expressed, are they schismatical or no? To give me satisfaction, (though with little hope of success) he professes ingenuously, 1. If they were considered in reference to the Donatists, who owned them; I say, they were wicked, corrupt, erroneous principles, tending to the disturbance of the communion of Saints, and eve●ting all the rules of love, etc. But than I would say, 1. What is the disturbance of the communion of Saints, ●●d everting all the rules of love, but ●●hism, by his own definition of it? and ●et it was not in a particular Church, ●ut from the Catholic. 2. If others spouse the same principles, are they ●ot as wicked, corrupt, erroneous, and schismatical principles in them, as in ●he Donatists? Thus they are improved ●y Romanists, Brown●sts, Anabaptists, ●nd some more strictly called Independents. 3. And than I desire to be satisfied, why he (to free his own party) laboured to excuse them from schism, though he seem to make them otherwise criminous; let him consider, if he did not endeavour it. The objection was, that Austin, and others, charged the Donatists with schism, for departing from the Catholic Church: What says the reverend Doctor to it? this; I shall freely declare my thoughts, concerning the Donatists, 
Of schism, page 164.  which will be comprehensive also of those other, that suffer with them in former and after ages, under the same imputation: That is, unjustly called schismatics, for the like separation. And in delivery of his thoughts of them, charges them with other cr mes, but not with schism, fo● their separation. 
pag. 168.  To relinquish the catholic visible Church, is not schism, b● a sin of another nature. Upon wha● ground, does he exempt them fro● schism, (as well as Protestants and himself, by Romanists so charged) upon hi● new notion of schism? I take schis● in this argument, in the notion and sen● of the Scripture precisely, page 192 That is, for division of judgement in particular Church. But the Donatists division and separation, was in and from the catholic Church; Ergo, no schism And yet behold his unhappiness, either in his forgetfulness, or in his inconstancy, to his own principles! He seems to me to acknowledge their schism, and them schismatical, in their separation, when he asks me angrily, Do I plea● for them? 
Review, pag. 120.  do I labour to exempt them from schism? Let the Reader judge. 2. If he intent my judgement of them, (those principles of the Donatists) in reference to the Churches of England, which he calls Independent, I am sorry he should think, he hath any reason to make this enquiry. I know not that man in the world, who is less concerned in obtaining countenance to those principles, than I am. A fine evasion to save himself; let his Church's shift for themselves. I did not ask his own particular ●●dgment, in reference to himself, (for did not yet charge him to hold those principles) but in reference to many ●●dependent Churches in England, which one those principles, and practise accordingly. And he answers for himself, ●hat he is not concerned, in obtaining countenance to those principles: obscure●● enough. But it's known too well, ●hat many Independent Churches do af●●rm themselves, to be the only Church's in England, and none to be true members of a Church, but such as are soyned in membership by a Covenant; which are the same in substance with ●hose of the Donatists, and equally now granted, I think, to be schismatical.  
But what thinks he of our Churches? For my part, I acknowledge the Churches in England, Scotland, and France, etc. to be true Churches: Such, for aught I know, may be in Italy or Spain. I must profess, that if this was sincerely spoken, I should rejoice much in these concessions, in this vindication of himself; but the words are so ambiguous, that I know not well, by which handle to take them. I ask, Do all Independe● Churches in England think so of them I believe they will underwrite, Mag●ster hic non tenetur; and rather renouf him, than assert so much of our Church's. Do they not many, yea most 〈◊〉 them, accounted us Antichristian, as w● said above? Do not his own principle contradict his present concessions? And would ask, If we be true Churches, wh● do they and he separate from us? They most of them for certain, do separate from us, as no Churches, no Ministers doth not he so too? Not; I have undeniably proved in my book of Schism, 〈◊〉 have separated from none of them. Thi● was spoken to above; and I shall take hi● for no Independent, if he do not separate from our Churches. But I pray, did he not pled for others, his party as wel● as himself; We have separated from no● of them? from no true Churches in England; why? because they are not truly constituted Churches; or, they were never members of them, and so could not separate from 
* See pag. 252. ss. 35. It is impossible a man should offend against that which is not, unless they will say, We have separated from what should be.  them tha● were not: See page 257. Or, not reform according to the mind of Christ. This evasion he as spoken above, in this present chapter. But this will come again ●e long, there something shall be said ●to it.  
When I said, that a learned Doctored ●d, His whole Book, or the greatest part of it, was one great schism: He answers, I hope that is but one Doctor's opinion, because being nonsense, it is not fit it should be entertained by many. ●hat that one Doctor said, many ●ore do think; nor is it any nonsense, ●t usual Rhetoric, to Scripture, and her Authors, so to speak, to call a ●ry schismatical book, a schism, as to ●ll profligate sinners, by the name of ●ne, and the like. The rest of this chapter, and the most substantial things ●erein, wherein I required satisfa●ion, he overlooks; as those of enforcing ●●iformity on the one hand, and toleration of Religions on the other, which ●e pretended to be one of them, the ●ay to peace; and some other practices of Politicians, with the successe ●hereof, he thinks not good to take notice of, or to discover which of the ●aies he likes best. And after some renuall of his former complaints, o● suppositions, and many notable lashes etc. he concludes this Chapter thus So his first Chapter is discussed an● forgiven. By which begging of th● question, he would persuade bot● himself, his Reader, and me also, tha● I am very guilty, and himself very charitable, to forgive me, as I note● above.   

CHAP. FOUR Of the nature of Schism.  
FOr the better finding out of the fu● nature of Schism in the Ecclesiastics sense and use thereof, I condescended to follow the Reverend Doctor to tak● the notion or notation of it, first in the natural and proper sense. There it is take for a division or separation of a body into parts which all men know, may admits degrees; and be either partial when th● separation or rent is partial, the part yet cleaving together for all that rent or total, when wholly and quite divi●ed asunder. e. g. In a cloth or garment cut or torn; it may be so cut or ●orne, that it may hung together by ●ome threads, or else be divided into two distinct parts. Now it were ridiculous ●o say, if the cloth be rend, and hold by ●ome threads, it is a Schism; but if it be ●uite torn asunder, it is no rent, but ●ome other thing. The scripture, as well ●s sense, intimates these degrees of schism, when it says, the rent is made ●orse Matth. 9.16. 2. There is a body politic, a City, or kingdom; and a schism may arise in them, either in part, ●s when their Judgements are divided, at ●ome public assembly as Joh. 7.43. etc. Or else when they are divided into party's, and fall into a civil war; both ●hese met in the case of Jeroboam; first ●here was a division in judgement, and presently after a secession of parties; which divided the kingdom into two parties, and made two kingdoms of one; ●nd the latter was far the worse schism. And it were ridiculous in politics to say, the first was a schism or Sedition, 
Lud. Moulin. Corollar. pag. 102.  the other none; yet this is asserted by one, in defence of the Reverend Doctor's notion of Schism; as well as by himself, 3. There is a body Ecclesiastical, whethe● the catholic visible Church; called th● body of Christ: or a particular congregation, which is a lesser body. The sam● degrees of Schism may fall here, either differences in judgement, at or without a public Assembly; or separation into several Churches: and it were equally ridiculous (as afore) to say, division in the assembly is a Schism; but separation into several churches, upon those divisions, is no Schism. Yet this our Reverend Author, does assert; it may be some other crime, but Schism it is not, p. 51. Other crimes a man may be guilty of, of Schism only in a Church. Whence its evident, the Reverend Doctor begged the question from the beginning when he took it, To denote (only) differences of mind and judgement, etc. amongst men met in some one assembly, about the compassing of a common design, p. 25. The ground whereof was; because the word is sometimes, (not always) so used in those places of Scripture by him cited. Whereas in the very original nature of the word, it may and does import, a further degree of separation, into parties or Churches. And the inconsequence of the Reverend Doctor's Enthymeme hath already been discovered; Schism in the places cited by the Apostle, was a division only in a particular assembly; Ergo Schism in the nature of it, does not singular separation from a Church.  
To prosecute this a little further, ●rue it is that Schism in the Ecclesiasticall ●se; signifies a separation good or bad, unblameable or unblameable, according to the Circumstances (as is confessed by himself, p. 218.) which may be thus considered. Schism in the Ecclesiastical use, is either voluntary, or violent and forced.  
1. Voluntary, which may be double, 1. from a false and corrupted Church, with which a man cannot hold communion, without communion in their sins and this is commendable, and commanded, " Come out from among them, etc. 2. from a true Church; which may yet be twofold; as first, a simple succession of one or more, upon just occasions, to join with another, of the same constitution: or a separation into a new society, disowning the former, and renouncing communion with it. And this is called a  Schism, generally by all, even separatists themselves, who pled, they separate only from a false or corrupt Church, not from a true one. If it shall be said (as it is by the reverend Doctor) we separate not from a true Church, but only from some corruptions, in it, which we cannot in conscience join with, in the celebration of public Ordinances as they are performed among us, as he said, p. 44. The answer is, that that is a misinformed conscience, which will rend the Church, the body of Christ, by a causeless separation, as to themselves, especially having done their duty to reform that corruption, as far as lies in them, according to Math. 18.15. etc. Nothing but fear of sinning, justifies such a separation, as is elsewhere proved.  
2. Violent or forced, and that either by the sinful corruptions of a Church, (with which a man cannot communicate without partaking in their sins) being imposed on them by a prevailing party, 
Church reformation promoted on Math. 13.15. etc.  to enjoy communion with them; or by opposition and persecution, when pious people, are either driven out, or kept out of communion with them, unless they will submit to those sinful Impositions: And this Schism is the sin of those, that any way force it, and they are the Schismatics, who caused that ●●paration. This hath often been ex●emplyfied in the Church of Rome ● our Divines; 
* We say, this Schism lies at their door, who not only have deviated from the common faith, themselves; but do also actually cause, and attempt to destroy temporally and eternally, all that will not join with them therein: Of Schism. pag. 144.  and the Schism justly ●d at their door. Now our Reverend doctor: 1. Denies any thing to be ●●hism but a Division made by a mem●●r in a particular Church: 2. Confidently affirms, that Separation from Church, true or false is no Schism: ●y which means he justifies, not only ●s own, and party's Separation, but even ● the Sectaries, and the Romanists also, their separation from the Primitive apostolical Church, in Doctrine, worship ●nd discipline. They may be Schismatics for their intestine divisions, if ●●ey will acknowledge themselves a ●●rticular Church, not otherwise; for schism is only in a particular Church: ●●d thus he, who undertook to Vindicate the Church of England, and his ●wn party especially, from the charge ●nd crime of Schism, by the Romanists, ●ath justified them from being Schismatical, because they are no Church. ●ut now upon the former grounds, we ●ay prove themselves to Schismatical; ●. By a voluntary separation from true Churches, (with whom, we dare say, they may communicate without sin and so consequently, causelessely re●ding the body of Christ: 2. By the renounceing communion with us, to se● up a Church of another constitution, an● so condemning our Churches, ipso fact● as no truly constituted Churches 3. By keeping out fit members fro● their communion, unless they wi● renounce communion with us, and joy in a Church Covenant with them: The do not indeed drive us out by persecution, (blessed be God it is not i● their power; I speak of Brownists and Anabaptists and the Quakers & such like I mean of the hand, but by tongue the do abundantly; by their cruel mockings, and ungodly rail and reviling and by their heretical Doctrines, an● blasphemous errors, they keep us ou● of their communion; and by persuasion solicit strongly, to make proselytes and draw them into separation from tru● Churches, which sure in scriptural an● right reason, amount to an heinous Schism in the Church. And how fa● our best Independents are proceeded, i● some of these, let them consider. I sha● give an instance or two, to make thi● distinction evident. The first shall b● that of Diotrephes, in Scripture, which ●he Reverend D●ctor says, p. 79. of schism, makes the nearest approach to ● such a division, (from a Church) yet at ● such a distance, that it is not at all to our ● purpose in hand. Let us try that a ●●ttle. I suppose the Reverend Doctor ●ill not deny, but he made a Schism ●n that Church; but that was not all; ●or note the particulars; how he made ●ot only divisions in the Church, but a ●eparation from it: 1. He withstood the Apostle, and received him not: 2. He reviled him, prating against him with malicious words: 3. refused to admit those brethrens (whom he knew to be fit members) which he sent unto that Church to be admitted: 4. forbade and hindered those that would receive them: 5. and cast them out of the Church. As proper ● Schismatic as the Pope himself. For (as we proved) they are Schismatics, who 'cause others to separate, either by their ●●nful Impositions upon the conscience; or keep them out being fit; or drive them ●ut by persecution, or cast them out by excommunication unjustly, as well as those who voluntary separate themselves from a true Church. Next I shall suppose a cast (which lately fell out in NEW ENGLAND, and may do in OLD ENGLAND) If the Officers of ● Church, or the people (if the power b● in them) shall raise causeless difference with some one or more members of Church, and unjustly excommunicate them and cast them out of the Church would not this Church be twice Schismatical? once in raising causeless differences in that Church, and than b● unjust casting out and separating such from the Church, by excommunication, and is not here a Schism in separating people from a Church? therefore schism is more than a division in a Church. The like may be said, of keeping fit members out of a Church, denying them communion with that Church, in the public Ordinances of God, unless they will submit to Impositions of men, as I said afore. And let the reverend Doctor consider, whether this be not ordinarily done, by some Independent Churches; and, if he can, deny it to be a schism, etc.  
Having thus far discovered the nature and extent of schism, I shall now consider, what exceptions the reverend Doctor hath made to my second Chapter: And first, I am charged with ignorance; The reverend Author understood me not at all, in what I affirmed. Truly I thought I had understood him, and others so understood him as I did; and we mistook, it was long of himself. ●e said, The thing whereof we treat, is a disorder, in the instituted Worship of God; that is, as I understood it, and uthers with me, either in the matter of instituted worship only, (and in nothing else) or only in the time of celebrating instituted worship. Both these ●enses of his words were given me by himself; the first, in Sect. 23. The differences must be occasioned by, and do belong to some things, appertaining to the worship of God. Who would not take it thus, Schism is a difference made ●n the worship of God? The other, Sect. 9 It lies wholly within the verge of one Church, that met together for the worship of God, etc. And page 25. in general, It denotes differences of mind and judgement amongst men, met in some one Assembly, etc. Which he repeats again in his Review, pag. 56. Differences amongst men, met in some one Assembly, etc. and gives it for the importance of the word. Let's now hear his own sense; I say not, that schism in the Church, is either about institute Worship, 
See pag. 91. By the Worship of God I intent, the whole compass of Institutions, and their tendency thereto, etc. If he speak properly now, I am sure he spoke obscurely before.  or only in the time of Worship but the thing I treat of, is a disorder in the institutes Worship of God and so it is, ● the being an● constitution o● any Church, be a part of God's Worship Had he thus expressed it at first, I profess (and so do others) I should less hav● understood him; for what means he That schism is only a disorder in th● divisions of mind and judgement, abou● the being and constitution of a Church▪ and that as it is a part of Worship? I appeal all Readers. Who, but himself would have found out this mystery, in those words? Said he not, pag. 27▪ They had differences amongst themselves, about unnecessary things? Is the institution of a Church, as a part of Worship, an unnecessary thing? The question was, whether schism import only a difference in one Assembly, and do not imply also, a separation into parties, upon those divisions. 
pag. 54.  Hear what he says; I do here inform him, that if he suppose, that I deny that to be a schism, where there is a separation, and that because there is a separation; as if schism were in its whole nature exclusive of all separation, and lost its being, when separation ensued; he hath taken my mind as rightly, as he hath done the whole design of my book: That is, I understood him ●ot at all. I must confess, I did so suppose, that he did deny separation to be schism, restraining it (as he did often) to divisions in a Church, not allowing separation from a Church, true, or false, ●o be a schism. Well than, he grants ●ome separation, and because there is a ●eparation, is a schism; and so we are ●greed. Not, because I have not proved ●, (from the places cited) I am desired not to make use of it. 
pag 35.  Let us re●iew the places cited by me and him; ● shall instance only in two, the first, Act. 14.4. The multitude was divided, and some were with the Apostles, and some with the Jews: That is, said I, They divided into parties. The reverend Doctor approves not this criticism; The utmost intended, seems to be, the sideing of the multitude, some with one, some with another, whilst they were in a public commotion. Let the Context be consulted. I said something to it, in page 40. and now I add; It seems to me to be meant of schism, in an Ecclesiastical sense, (though by him brought as a political schism, page 24. for thus it stands: The Apostles entry into the Synagogue of the Jews, vers. 1● (which was a Church-Assembly) the● a commotion or dissension was made, b● the unbelieving Jews, against the brethrens, vers. 2. whereupon the multitude was divided; first, in minds and judgements, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; than into part or companies, and some were with th● Apostles, some with the Jews; whic● cannot well be meant of, being or sidein● with the Apostles, in judgement only but in society also; as the like phrase i● used in a like case, in a difference between the Philosophers at Athens, and Paul, Act. 17.33, 34. Paul departe● from them. Howbeit certain men cleaving unto him, believed, etc. Clav● unto him, not only in their judgements, but in their company, following him upon his departure. This will be more evident in the next Text. Act. 19.8, 9 Paul entering into the Synagogue, spoke boldly for three months, etc. But some being hardened, and unbelieving, speaking evil of that way before the people; Paul departing from them, separated the disciples, teaching daily in the school of one Tyrannus. Which schism ●r separation was violently forced by the turbulent Jews, as I said of the other ●ostance pag. 41. And so the sin of that ●●hism, was justly imputable to those ●ewes, driving out the Apostle, and forcing that separation. All that the re●erend Doctor says to this instance, is, ●hat I confess in the margin, that the word there used, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Both the words signify to separate, or part into pieces, as Synonyma's.  which hath no relation to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But that's ●othing to the purpose; for Paul was ●ot guilty of that schism, but the Jews, who enforced him to make that separation, as I said above. The Romanists are ●udged schismatics by ours, because ●hey drove and cast us out of communion, by such like dealing with us.  
I confessed indeed, that in the Ecclesiastical sense, the word is only used in ●he, 1 Cor. 1.9. etc. (I except now the places newly managed, where the one hath the word and the other the matter of Schism) but I do not confess that therefore from thence the proper use and importance of it, is to be learned, 
pag. 56.  This is put upon me; for I rather say, the full importance of the word, is not here to be learned: the word in its proper notion, signifies a breach of union, or a separation into parts; in what degree so ever. And that the Reverend Doctor begs the question is evident, because he infers, That Schism being so taken in those places, Ergo it signifies n● more in the nature of the word, or thing▪ He knows, I denied both the Antecedent and the consequence; the Antecedent by manifesting that there was more in their Schism, than only a D●vision o● minds: there was division into parties a separation with respect to several Ministers, I am of Paul etc. and to one Ordinance at lest, the Lords supper: the Consequence, because the word signifies besides, any sinful breach of union, by separation from a true church. For the Antecedent, he answers; first to that of betaking themselves to divers Ministers, 3. things, 
pag. 67.  1. It is not separation in the Church, by men's divisions, continuing members of that Church, that he denies to be charged with Schism. But if there was any separation in the church, that's more than he did grant at first; and made Schism only a division of mind in that Church; and if he grant any separation in that Church, it's as much as I desire; for I undertook to prove, there was more among them, than a bore division of ●inds, a degree of separation, which the apostle there charges, as part of their schism; and this the Reverend Doctor ● a manner yields, p. 58. For when I ●id, granting him his special notion, this ● the way on one hand to free all ●hurch-separation from Schism etc. He answers" This is denied: which to me ●●ports, that some separation from a church is Schism; which is contrary to ●s notion, that Schism is nothing but a avision in a church, 2. The disputes amongst them (says he) about Paul and Apollo's, cannot possibly be understood to relate unto Ministers of distinct congregation among them; Paul and Apollo's were not so, and could not be figures of them that were. But there's little weight ●n this, when as the Apostle first says expressly; He had in a figure transferred these things to himself and to Apollo's for their sakes etc. 
1 Cor. 4.6  And than the difference of gifts, that was in Paul and Apollos might suffice to make up that egure, as the Apostle adds; That ye might learn in us, not to think of men (your Ministers) above that which is written; that no one of you, be puffed up for one against another: see, Chap. 3.5. 3. He adds Men may cry up som● one Minister of one congregation, som● of another, and yet neither of them separate from the one, or other, or the congregations fall into any separation. I● may be so; but it's very rare to found it so and in this case of that Church, wher● there were envying, and strife and divisions, Chap. 3.3. about their Ministers, its most probable it was not so but people might and did choose thei● own Teachers, with neglect, and slighting of others: sure we are, we found it ● now; many by having men's persons in admiration, have separated from on● Churches, by crying up some one Minister, some another, and renounce communion with us. It's very probabl● it was so than; men that had itching ears, heaped to themselves Teachers after their own lusts, 2 Tim. 4.3, 4 This breeds envyings and strife amongst Ministers, when others steal away thei● Members, and bring sleightings and contempt upon their persons and Ministry ● and at last, a lamentable separation, as w● see at this day. What ever he says against that probability of separation, i● little worth; for I did not undertake (as I said) to prove a separation from that Church, but a separation in that Church, as to some Ordinances, viz. the Ministry, and Sacrament of the supper; of which in the text.  
I said, there was a separation as to parties, in that Church, at lest as to one Ordinance of the Lords supper: The answer is, 
pag. 69.  It is acknowledged there were disorders among them in the administration of the Lords supper; that therein they used respects of persons: they tarried not one for another: That they separated into several congregations, is not in the lest intimation signified. This is as much as I undertake; that which he calls, using respect of persons in that Ordinance, excluding the poor, that I call a separation, (not from) in that Church, as to a party: This was certainly part of their schism, rebuked by the Apostle. We see this done at this day, not only by some of his party, who will sometimes hear with us, but not receive the Sacrament with us; but also by some of our own, (if we may call them so) who admit all their Congregation to prayer and preaching, but for the Lords Supper, separate themselves into another Congregation: Is not this a schism? He knows whom I mean.  
That in the Church of Corinth, ● thereabouts, there was more than on single Congregation; I proved, first, fro● himself, who said, They had siding in their solemn Assemblies; not one, bu● many. 
pag 61.  He evades this, by saying, ● suppose, one particular Congregation may have as many solemn Assemblies as there are times wherein they assemble▪ And may it not be true also, of the several places of their meetings? For that the numerous company of Believers a● Corinth, could all meet in one place, is most improbable, if not impossible. Besides, the reverend Doctor will not deny, that the Epistle was written to the Church of Cenchrea, a distinct Church from that at Corinth; than were there at lest two distinct Assemblies. To which he says only this; Is there any mention, that that Church made any separation from that of Corinth? etc. That was not to the purpose; I brought it to prove, there were more particular Churches in Corinth, or thereabouts; and that, it does perform. Now is it probable, that there should be a Church in that little Village, and but one in that great City of Corinth, where were innumerable believers? I instanced therefore in that 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep silence in the Churches. Not ●ne, but many Churches at Corinth. It may be, he will answer as afore, with respect to the several times, not the several places of their meetings: But that is pre●ented, by that which I newly said. For sure, it might be applied to the Church of Cenchrea, as well as to that ●t Corinth, supposing it to be but one Congregation: Let your women keep silence in both your Congregations, when ever they meet. But enough of that.  
He pretends indeed to have proved, and to be confidently resolved, it was but one single Congregation; for proof, I found none, but what I also suppose I had disproved, page 30. To some things whereof, he says nothing: But he is so liberal, as to forego that proof. 
pag. 63.  Is it any thing to my present design, though there were twenty particular Congregations in Corinth, supposing that on any consideration, 〈…〉 Church? And here he ass●●t● me ●he is more troubled with my not ●●●●●s●anding the business, and design he manages, than with all my reviling 〈◊〉 The like he redoubles, page 7●. And will suppose the Church to be of what kind I please, if I will acknowledge it ● be the particular Church of Corinth▪ As for my revile, the charge is unjust, and I have said enough to it. But▪ Did he consider the prejudices, that wil● fall upon his cause, 
He defined Schism, to be a causeless difference, amongst the members of any particular Church, that meet together, or aught so to do, for the worship of God, and celebration of the same numerical Ordinances, etc. Of Schism, pag. 52. Can a particular Church, of many Churches, so meet together, to the same numerical Ordinances?  when he granted these things? For 1. Supposing there were many Churches in Corinth, and that but one Church, it would pled strongly for a Presbyterian, nothing for an Independent Church: That one Church was governed in common, by the several Elders, the Apostle writing to them all. 2. Than it were easy to infer, what I have asserted, that the differences were not in one particular Congregation, but between Churches and Churches, about their Ministers. 3. That if a Church of many Congregations, may be collectively called one Church, than there may be separations of one Church from another, as well as divisions in a particular Congregation; and so schism will extend further, than he would have it. e. g. Supposing the Church of England to be Nationall in a right sense, and so ●lled a particular Church, with respect either to other Nationall, or the ●niversall Church; can there be no ●hismaticall separation made, from the Nationall Church of England, in the falling of of one or more Churches, to Anabaptism, or the like? but they must separate from the Church of England, and ●yne themselves to some Church in Holland, or elsewhere? If there may; ●hen, separation in a Church, as well as ●eparation from a Church, may be called schism: For I have proved, there was a ● separation in the Church of Corinth, as to some Ordinances, and that is charged by the name of schism.  
But to prevent my future mistakes of his principle, he tells me, what I must demonstrate, if I will evert it; 
pag. 65.  That the schism charged on the Corinthians by Paul, consisted in the separation from that Church, whereof they were members, and congregating into another, etc. Not, that which I was to manifest, was, 1. That schism is more than a division in a Church; Even separation from a Church, is schism. 2. That there was more in that schism at Corinth, than a bore division of minds; there was, if not a separation from it, into another Church, yet a separation in it, as t● some Ordinances. Or rather, I was, 1. T● disprove his new notion; that schism is nothing, but a division of minds in a Church 2. To prove, that supposing that schis● charged on the Corinthians, was n● more, but a division in a Church, ye● it follows not, that nothing else wa● schism; which how I have performed let others judge.  
And now we are come to Clement Epistle, written to the Church of Corinth forty years after, when they were again fallen into the like schism. That schism, the reverend Doctor said, was only, the difference in the Church. This difference in it, Clement calls every where, their schism, Of schism, pag. 33. Nor are they accused of schism, for the deposition of their Elders, but for their differences amongst themselves: Which may prove a great mistake of his, which thus I demonstrate from Clement's Epistle: First, in general, he calls it, " That abominable and ungodly sedition, at the beginning: Afterwards, brands the Authors of it, The heads and leaders of a detestable strife and faction, is the pride and disorderliness of their spirit; whom those Corinthians followed. And afterwards more particularly shows, wherein that schism consigned; viz. in casting out of their honest Presbyters: Who have of a long time had a good testimony from all men: Such, we think, cannot with any justice be cast out of their Ministry. And repeats ●t again, and again; Foul, beloved, and very foul, are the reports, and unbeseeming, etc. that the most stayed and ancient Church of the Corinthians, by the means of one or two persons, should rise up in sedition against their Elders. Indeed it will be no small sin unto us, if we cast of those, who have unblamably and holily, undergone the duties of their Episcopacy. Than (a few lines between) follow those words, cited by the reverend Doctor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For we perceive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ye have removed some, who performed their Office well, etc. How removed them? by casting them out, (as he said afore) or by deposing of them, as the reverend Doctor expressed it in both his Books. Now I demand, whether this deposition, or casting out of their Elders, be not the chief part of the schism, which Clement charges upon them? and whether it be not as great a schism in a Church, f● the people, to cast out, or depose the godly Elders, as voluntarily themselv● to forsake a true Church, and to set ● another Church, by substituting oth● Officers in their places? which is mo● probable they did, though the reveren● Doctor would not take upon him t● know it, pag. 32. Of schism. This supposed, to be intended in the wor● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which sometimes signifies t● lead away, sometimes to drive away, o● remove, or depose; as himself expound it, by casting out, a little before. Th● reverend Doctor understood it other wise; What he meant by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. he declares in the words foregoing where he calls the Elders that were departed this life, happy and blessed, as no● being subject to expulsion out of their Offices. But I doubt, the reverend Doctor mistakes the coherence, which seems to me rather to look at those former words, (those by him cited being rather a parenthesis) It will be no small sin unto us, if we cast out those, who have unblamably and holily undergone their duties of Episcopacy; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for, or but, we perceive, that ye have cast out, driven out, expelled, or deposed such from their Ministry, etc. This was their charge, this was part at ●east of their schism, and the chiefest part thereof. There was not indeed (for aught I perceive) any separation voluntarily made from it, by any of the members thereof; but there was plainly a separation made by men, acted by pride and madness, in casting out, and deposing of their Elders; and they were the schismatics, (as I said) that forced that separation. Let the learned judge.  
The rest of this my second Chapter, for thirteen leaves together, the reverend Doctor thinks good to pass untouched, by some of his ordinary language; of my prejudices, mistakes, extravagances, reflections, mean affections to Independents; that I have not made the lest attempt, towards the eversion of what he had asserted, etc. That I have not made good the title of my book, though I scarce forget it, or any thing concerning it, but its proof, in any whole leaf of my Treatise. Which imputations, how false and slighting they are, above all in my whole book, others must judge. Can I avoid reflections upon Independents, when I had to dea● with him, who is an Independent, and pleads their cause? Did I only intent to deal with him, and not rather with the whole party, whose persons he sustains, and interests himself in thei● judgement, when he commonly speak● in the plural number, We have separated from none of their Churches? and many the like. And could I prove their way to be schismatical, till I had vindicated the notion and nature of schism? Is not this whole Chapter spent in tendency thereunto? But he again complains; That I should so slightly pass over that, whereon I knew, that he laid the great weight of the whole? What was that whereon he laid the whole weight? Was it, That that place to the Corinthians, is the only place, where there is any mention of schism in the ecclesiastical sense? Did I not (upon second thoughts) instance a place or two, (which I have now more enlarged and confirmed) where the word was used in the one, Act. 14.4. and the nature of schism employed in the other, Act. 19.8, 9 in an ecclesiastical sense? Have I not clearly proved, that there were more Churches than one, in and about Corinth, to which that Epistle was written? And considering the multitude of Believers in Corinth, is it not ●probable, if not impossible, that they ●ould all meet in one place, to make ●e Church? Hath the reverend Doctor ●swered any thing to this? Was I to ●ove, That the evil reproved, was separation from it? Not, but that there as more than a division of minds in that chism, even a separation in it, as to some ordinances; which if it be proved, as I ●elieve it is, confutes his new notion, That schism in its nature, and in that Church, was nothing but a division of minds, upon which the whole weight ●f his structure is laid. But enough of his before, let others judge.  
One thing I cannot but take notice ●f, That I would have it granted, 
pag. 78.  that because schism consists in a difference amongst Church-members, therefore he that raises such a difference, whether he be a member of that Church, or any other, or not, 
pag. 43.  (suppose he be a Mahometan, or a Jew) is a schismatic. 1. Did not prove he might be so, both from his own description of schism, and also by an instance of those, that came from Jerusalem, and stirred up divisions in ●he Church of Antioch? 2. For his parenthesis, is it not otherwise professed by me, pag. 55. An Heathen cannot b● a schismatic? Did not the reveren● Doctor wink hard, when he would no● see this? After all this, he charges it ● a crime upon me, That I pled for t● old definition of schism, as suitable to t● Scripture, after the whole foundation ● it is taken away. How is the foundation of it taken away? not by his noti● of schism; for though that schism ha● been only a division in a particul● Church, with respect to their mind and judgements; yet it follows not, tha● schism, in the full nature of it, is nothing else. Let him prove the consequenc● if he can, and not make himself ridiculous to all Divines.  
But did not I instance in other words which may and do signify separation into parties, as well as difference o● minds? and those used in the same plac● of Scripture. What thinks he of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor, 3.3. may not that signifi● a division into parties? 
pag. 39  What of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a synonymon by the Apostle himself, 1 Cor. 11.18, 19 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I hear that there are schisms, for ther● must be heresies also amongst you. Now I made it evident, that that word signifies separation into several sects; not divided only in opinions, but in Schools also, amongst the Philosophers; and why may not schism include as much? Besides, I gave other words, that ●mply a sinful schismatical separation; that, Act. 20.30. Seducers, that speak perverse things, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to draw away disciples after them, from the Church. That of Heb. 10.25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. And ●hat, Jud. v. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, separating themselves. All which imply a sinful ●reach of union, and a causeless separation from a true Church; which is the old definition of schism.  
There are many things more of great importance in this Chapter, which I cannot but think it hard measure, to be ●o slighted and despised, as to an answer. But the reverend Doctor is so ●namoured with his new notion, and so overjoyed with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of invention, that if you will not grant him that, ●e professes, to look for no success in ●is work, as I said above. But I shall ●ustly require and expect, in his next ●ndertaking, a better account of them. There is but one thing more I shall take notice of, in the conclusion of this Chapter, that is, about the aggravations of schism: First, those that are given by others, which I reinforced; not because I hoped, that he would dispute with me about them, (for I see, he can avoid disputing about things, of greater concernment to him) but because I found him disputing against th●m, as I thought, causlessely. Than for his own, he may, without any leave from me, lay what weight he will upon them; encouraged (he says) by my approbation of them. Truly, all the approbation I gave, was, that I could agreed with him therein. But, to tell him the truth, it was rather, because they were true, than that they were so pertinent and proper, as those vindicated by me: For as for the three first, that it is a despising, 1. Of the authority of Christ. 2. His wisdom. 3. His grace: What hath he said, that is not compatible to the aggravation of any other sin almost, as well as schism? The same aggravations may be applied to our civil dissensions: The last indeed is the most proper, viz. It's constant growing to farther evil, in some, to Apostasy itself; its usual and certain ending in strife, variance, debate, evil surmisings, wrath, confusion, disturbances, public and private, are also to be laid all at its door. And that's my judgment, of their present Schism.   

CHAP. V  
THe reverend Doctor is still peremptory, that the separation of any ●an or men, from a true Church, or of ●e Church from another, is not chism; he means, " In the precise signification of the word, 
pag. 80.  and description of the thing, as given by the holy Ghost. ●esides what is said, to disprove that ●se of the word, and description of ●e thing, I shall now add; 1. He can●t say this of all separation from a true church, for he hath granted some such be schism, as I shown above, from ●s 58 page, where he says, " It is denied, 
Who told him, that raising causeless differences in a Church and than separating from it, is not in my judgement schism? p. 147.  that his notion of schism is the way, to free all Church-separation from schism: Ergo, ●ome Church-separation schism, as I conceive. 2. In the next page 81. he says, That separation fro● Churches is ofttimes evil, is readily granted. And before, he said, Caus●lessely to separate, is no small evil, p. 70 Than a causeless separation from ● Church is evil; and why? but because it breaks the union of the Church, whic● is the very definition of Schism, commonly given. Which if it be true, ho● could he say indefinitely, the separation from a true Church is not schism? Fo● no body says absolutely, that all separation is schism; but a causeless separation is schism; upon this reason, because it violates and rends the union of th● Church, the body of Christ. 3. If h● shall stick to the notion of it, in th● place of the Corinthians, that there wa● only a division in the Church, an● therefore separation from the Church is no schism, it is incumbent on him t● prove that consequence, which yet h● hath not done. In a word, I ask, Wh● is division of minds in a Church a schism I believe he must answer, 
1 Cor. 1.10.  Because it i● a breach of union, of Christ's appointment, who requires members of Church to be all of one mind. And is i● not an appointment of Christ, that th● members of a Church be united, as to ●he performance of the same numerical Worship? Than by parity of reason, it ●ollowes, that to break that union caus●essely, is also a schism. Is not this a causeless and worthless vitilitigation of ●he learned Doctor?  
I brought 1 Joh. 2.19. for a  ●eparation from the Church; They went ●ut from us, as (said I) is the manner of schismatical spirits; they stay not till ●hey be cast out, but go out, and become ●he head of a faction. He ventures to ●ay, All Writers expound it of apostasy: They may do so, but not excluding schism or heresy; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for the same phrase of going out is used, Act. 15. of those that ●aised a schism at Antioch; yet were not ●hey apostates, not denying Christ, but ●oyning Moses with Him. But I contend not.  
He is as confident, that of the three places by him brought, for  departures from a Church, none of them come under the head of schism. I ●aid, All, or some of them do. Here I must first rectify a mistake in the reverend Doctor, which he pleases himself with; viz. That he (not consulting the Erratas) reads mind for include. I said Some of them included the nature 〈◊〉 schism, at lest, as precedaneous to th● separation. Upon which mistake, h● sports himself, and adds; Whatever the matter is, 
pag. 82.  I do not found h●m speaking so faintly, and with such caution through his whole discourse, as in th● place. Truly I spoke so cautiously, fo● his reputation, not any end of my own because some, one at lest, of the place speaks of no separation at all; viz. tha● from 1 Thess. 5.14. and 2 Thess. 3.2, 6 as I prove to him; but he will not see For the first, that of Heb. 10.25. whic● he takes to be meant of apostasy; I proved his mistake from the Context clea●red, from others, and from himself who formerly glossed it, neglecting th● public Assemblies; and also because apostates may be schismatics, and something more. For the third, Judas vers. 19 I proved the separation to be schismatical, from the nature of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the judgement of learned Interpreters: To all which, the reverend Doctor thinks it safest to say nothing. And I must tell him once again, 
●ag. 86.  It was not incumbent on me to prove, that such a separation is called schism in Scripture, and is as such a thing condemned. But that such a separation, hath the entire nature of schism ●n Scripture, though not the name, according to his first proposal; and that I suppose I have abundantly proved.  
When I said, the pinch of the question is this, Whether a man, or more, may separate from a true Church, upon a true or false plea, of corruption in it, and set up another Church, etc. He cries out, I do not know, that I was ever necessitated, to a more sad and fruitless employment, etc. Is that the question in present agitation? etc. Was not this scruple started by himself? 1. In giving his definition of schism, to be only a division of minds in a Church, and not any separation in or from it. 2. Did he not vigorously assert, in this very Chapter, pag. 77. Of schism; and here again, pag. 83. That for a man to withdraw, or withhold himself, from the external communion of any Church, upon plea of its corruption in Worship, Doctrine, or Discipline, etc. is not called schism, etc. Did it not now come to be the cause of my question, which I rightly stated, as I thought, and others think, between us and him, and his Independent associates? Is not their separation from us, the ground of all our differences? Can common honesty disallow this state of the question? Or can he truly deny, that they have made any separation from us, or that they do not deny our Churches? What was said afore, must be again repeated; I spoke not only of himself, but of many Independent Churches. Neither was my question propounded in Hypothesi, as respecting them; but in Thesi, of any separation from a true Church. Whether a man, or more, may separate from a true Church, etc. and set up another Church, etc. as afore. And have I not proved also before, that they and he, (if he stand to his principles) have, and do deny our Churches▪ and Ordinances? Hath any man a face or conscience to deny this charge? clamet Melicerta perîsse Frontem de rebus.  
The remainder of his Animadversions on this Chapter, is for the most part nothing, but a repetition of those things, which he hath often charged; of mistakes, and surmises, etc. which have ●een once at lest fully answered. I shall only lay hold of his promise, twice ●●ade; That if I can prove against him, he should have added, or his party) a breach of any union, instituted by Jesus Christ, that with all speed, he will retreat from that state or thing, by which he hath done so, and (in a kind of scorn) submit to the discipline thought meet by me, etc. Truly I think, I have proved, ●hat they have separated from us, and ●roke the union of our Churches; and in ●o doing, (if he will, as he doth, acknowledge us true Churches) they have made a breach, upon an union of Christ's institution, without which, we are no true Churches. And now I shall expect the performance, of so solemn a promise. But for the contract or condition adjoined, That in my next reply, I deal not with him, as I have done in my former, neither as to his person, nor as to the differences betwixt us. I shall promise', and have performed it; for upon review, of what I formerly have done, I found, that I have dealt fairly and respectfully with him, though perhaps sharply, as in a zealous defence of truth. And if he have (as he hath) dealt more uncivilly with me in this, I shall no● retaliate, but only vindicate the truth as a friendly and christian adversary.   

CHAP. VI, VII.  
THat I may not multiply or continued controversies everlastingly, (a● the reverend Doctor causlessely charge● me) though there be some things said i● this Chapter, not so accurately delivered but just acceptions might be put i● against them; yet I shall forbear to exagitate them, and proceed to the next▪ And therein, because the main substantial points of our difference are already discussed, and many things repeated, which have been spoken to, I shall only make some strictures, or animadversions, upon some passages in every Chapter, that the reverend Doctor may see▪ what might have been excepted, and jest he should think himself slighted or neglected, in my passing over the following Chapters, though he hath slighted most of the argumentative part of mine, and many things of some concernment, that required an answer.  
Pag. 101. The union of the Catholic visible Church, in the profession of the saving doctrine of the Gospel, not everted by any of the miscarriages, errors, or opposition to it, formerly recounted; the breach of this union is apostasy, and so no schism. To which many things were answered by me, to which little is said; what is, shall be presently considered. That which I now add, is this: 1. That the reverend Doctor opposes apostasy to schism, as if they might not both meet ●n one. The consequence is like the former; It is apostasy, Ergo, it is no schism; whereas they differ (at lest sometimes) only in degrees. 2. That he supposes, that there is no breach of union of the Catholic visible Church, but only apostasy, which is usually taken for a total relinquishing of the Christian faith. 3. That in giving those three properties of apostasy, he also supposes, that any one of them denominates a man apostate. Whereas I have proved, a breach of that union may be, 1. When a man believes not some one, of the saving doctrines of the Gospel, and yet be no apostate, 2. That a Christian may be scandalous, and yet a member still, and so no apostate. 3. That a man ma● err in some necessary truth of the Gospel's, and profess that error for a time and yet be Orthodox to the rest, and s● no apostate. And in all these cases of difference, with the Catholic visibl● Church, there may be a schism, o● breach of union, and no apostasy. To hi● questions than, I say; 1. I grant, tha● the Catholic visible Church, is a collection of all professing Christians▪ 2. To be of such, as profess the doctrine of the Gospel, and subjection to Jesus Christ. 3. But I do not say, that every error in doctrine, or d sobedience to some command of Christ, is apostasy, or (as he calls it) a dissolution (total) of that union, as to the interest of any member by it, in the body. 4. I have, and do charge some degree of apostasy, upon some of those Churches, which are called Independents, and shall be able to defend my charge. 5. I do prove, that the breach of that union, if partial only, is not apostasy, (which is a total forsaking of the faith of the Gospel) but rather a schism, which in his own definition, is a division in opinion and judgement. 
p. 94 & 99  Lastly, I have manifested more than so, that one of the truths of ●he Gospel, which all Christians are ●ound to, is, the joint exercise of the ●ame specifical Ordinances, to subjection ●o the same discipline; and, where it is possible, to the exercise of the same numerical Worship, which himself granted, Of Schism, p. 205. ss. 7. and again here, pag. 109. when he says, to my words afore; All this was expressly affirmed by me before; it is all 
* If every professor be virtually bound by his profession, to those duties, what needs an explicit consent to bind them again?  virtually contained in their profession, so far as the things are revealed in the Gospel. Whereupon I inferred, that the denial of the members of the Catholic Church, to join in the same numerical Ordinances, was a breach of that union, and so a schism, and not apostasy. What excepts he to his own grants? Only as to the celebrating of the same numerical Ordinances, I cannot grant, that they are obliged hereunto, as formerly considered members of that Church, nor shall, till this reverend Author shall think meet to prove, that particular Congregations, are not the institutions of Jesus Christ. If he mean by, formerly members of that Church, that professors, quà professors, of the same faith; or believers, quà believers, are formally members, and obliged thereunto, he granted before what now he denies, page. 205. ss. 7, of Schism. And what I believe concerning the Institution o● particular congregations by Jesus Christ, I gave him my thoughts in my former, page. 131. viz: the same which he granted; Every Christian is bound to be of some particular Congregation, not of this or that: this is only of Institution; the rest is prudential: to which the Reverend Doctor said nothing in its place; let him now review it.  
page. 111. He says, As for those in Act. 19 which had not heard, whether there were an Holy Ghost or not; its probable they were ignorant of the miraculous dispensations of the Holy Ghost, rather than of the person of the Holy Ghost. I shall only return, That whatever the matter is, I found him not so cautious in all his Books; its probable, rather than. etc. For the words are more plain and full, than to be so eluded; for they were baptised in John's baptism only; who did not Baptise into the name of the Holy Ghost for aught appears: and so they might not have heard at all, of the holy Ghost.  
There are other particulars in his chapter deserving some Animadversions ● but either they have been spoken to afore, or they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the business before us, and I shall not draw the ● any longer.  
page. 116. Only something may be ●●d to what he says, of the subjects of ●hrist the Head of the Church, which I ●●d, some wicked men may be; He asks. Are indeed those persons any better than Mahumetans, as to Church privileges? shall their Baptism avail them? is it not annul to them? shall such Parents give their Children any right to Church privileges? All these were prevented ●●d answered by me, p. 95. 96. of which ●e Reverend Doctor takes no notice: ●●t repeats the same objections. And ●●stly asks, Doth the Apostle any where call such persons brethrens? 
What use is there of excommunication, if wicked persons be no members of the Church, & are ipso fado unmembred, etc. as I said, page. 96.  God forbidden we should imagine these things so to be. When as the Text by me produced expressly calls such, brethrens: 1 Cor. 5. ●1. If any that is called a brother, be a fornicator, etc. If that may be eluded ●he other cannot: 2 Thes. 13.17. Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. I expect that he answer my arguments.  
p. 119. He says, I am not with● trouble that I cannot understand, w●● he means, by placing my words so, a● intimate, that I say, not only that ● Church of Rome is no particular Chur●● but also, that it is no Church at all; though it might in his judgement mine, be any Church, if it be not a particular Church: Surely the Revere●● Doctor cannot but understand the difference between saying, Rome is no particular Church, and, no Church at all▪ The mist is of his own making; th●● will not distinguish of the word particular Church; which may be taken either for a national or patriarchal Church, as b● himself it was, page. 121. of Schism; or fo● a particular Congregation, which is the●● ordinary notion. Now though ROM● may be said to be no particular Church as a Congregation; yet it may be (and is b● others) taken for a Patriarchal particular Church: which is much more than to say, it is no Church at all: But he says, I affirm the same that he does, in my page. 113. when I say the hierarchical Papal Church, is not a Church of Christ's institutions. I meant (as I explain myself elsewhere,) that the Papacy or Papal Church, and the Church of ROME, are two distinct things, differing ●s the Leprosy and the hand; yet I do not ●ay, the hand is no hand, because of that leprosy; as he says, ROME is no Church, because its Papal, etc.  
Page. 120. Do I undertake the cause of the Donatists? do I labour to exempt them from Schism? are these the ways of peace, love, and truth, he walks in? ● appeal all Readers, whether he did not ●abour to exempt the Donatists, from schism, p. 164. though he condemned ●ll their practices as other crimes? And did he not undertake to exempt some others from Schism, (he knows whom) that suffer with them, in former and after ages, under the same imputation? And was it not upon his own new notion; because Schism is only a division ●n, not from, a particular Church? Yea was it not Schismatical for them, to cast Cecilianus out of the Church, renouncing communion with him, and the Church of Carthage also? ibid. p. 17. 18. The World hath hitherto judged it so; and the Reverend Doctor is now come of to that opinion, when he says " Do I labour to exempt them from Schism? which (the Rhetorical Interrogation affirmative, being resolved) is negative I do not labour to exempt them from Schism; Ergo they were Schismatics in that separation. And once more, A separation from a true Church, is sometime Schism, as well as division in it; But h● says, angrily it seems; Sir, I have no singular notion of Schism, but that which Pau● long since declared, I pray, what was Paul's notion of the Schism amongst the Corinthians? was it, that (which is yours) that Schism was only a division in a particular Church? no; but that their Schism was a division in, that Church (with a degree of separation in it, as to some Ordinances as I have proved) not, that that comprehended the full nature of Schism; and if the notion of Schism was not at all under consideration in reference to the Donatists, I desire him to look back to the objection which he undertook to answer; was it not the charge of Schism? if not that, what else? Not Schism, but the union of the Church Catholic, and the breach thereof. And what is the breach of the union of that Church, (in his notion) but Apostasy from the truth of the Gospel? And would this be a congruous answer to the charge of Schism; to say, the Donatists were not Apostates? Did they renounce the Gospel? Nothing less: but renouncing communion with the catholic Cuhrch, and making themselves the only Churches in the world, they were by all men in all ages till now, accounted not Apostates, but Schismatics: But too much of that.  
Page. 123. I and my party, (that's the phraseology, this Author in his love to union, delights in) have broken the union of their Churches. I pray, is it not as equal for me to call them a party, as for them to separate from us, and make themselves a party, renouncing communion with us? They went out from us not we from them: But it is denied, We have not more broken the union of their Churches, than they of ours: For we began our reformation with them on even terms, and were as early at work as they. Let the READER now observe, whether the REVEREND DOCTOR do not either make, or own a p●rty; (we) which he blamed in me? But I add: 1. If he look at himself, he began not his reformation till after— 44. when his Tract of Pastor and People came forth, than he was a Presbyterian: yea till 46. when he preached before the PARLIAMENT; than he was a Presbyterian, and (as I hear) pleaded for that way: 2. If he look at the Independents that went out of ENGLAND, they at first disliked nothing but our ceremonies, and desired no Reformation, but a liberty of conscience from those snares, as the rest of the honest non-conformists did, who separated not; a Presbyterian-reformation would than have contented them: but in a little time, the seeds of Brownism were sowed amongst them; and, for that, they were charged with Schism from the beginning thereof, by moderate pious men amongst us, 3. They (nor the Reverend Doctor) have not yet demonstrated their way to be a reformation, but a deformation of our Churches; though sometimes for shame of the World, they call us true Churches; which they contradict by separating from us, and renouncing communion, as Churches, with us: 4. when we began to reform, (by authority of the Magistrate, which they did not) some of his party cast all the blocks they could in our way, and gathered Churches from us. And though he deny it, that they (he says, we) have separated from all the reformed Churches, as no Churches; and himself with them in his principles, if not in practice; is so fully demonstrated above, to all reasonable men, that I wonder that he should expect recompense and satisfaction, for calumniating-accusations and slanders, which are proved truths; and talk of his forgiveness of one, that never wronged him. For the parallel of Independentism and Donatism, how much he or his party is concerned, let others judge.  
Pag. 126. He cavils at my first proof, that there may be a b●●ach of union in the Catholic visible Church, if the form of it were faulty. But what is wanting to make up a perfect Syllogism, might easily have been supplied, from the former discourse, by himself, if he had pleased; thus: 1. Schism is the breach of union in a Church, of Christ's institution: But the Catholic Church is a Church of Christ's institution; Ergo, there may be a schism in the Catholic Church. 2. There may be differences in matter of faith professed, which is the union of the Catholic Church; Ergo, there may be schism in the Catholic Church, which not arising to apostasy, must needs be schism, as I proved above: And he must evade, by one of those answers which I presented to him, pag. 115. or else must beg the question. For a close of this; Can there be any breach of union, in the nature of the word, in the language of Scripture, or in reason or common sense, which is not a schism, more or less, according to the degree of that breach of union? But to the second, he says, Two professors may fall out, and differ, and yet continued both professors still; Paul and Barnabas did so, so Chrysostom and Epiphanius, etc. This breach of union in Paul and Barnabas, professors of no particular Church; that of Chrysostom and Epiphanius, of several Churches: 
Act. 15.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Was it not a fault in one party? both could not be in the right. What, will he call that breach of union? Surely not apostasy, (for they were, he says, professors still) they were far from renouncing the profession of the Gospel, either of them. What than was it, but a schism, and sinful separation in one party? And nothing hinders to call it so, but only the reverend Doctor's new notion of schism, to be only a division in a particular Church.  
Pag. 128. and the two following pages, are filled with little to purpose, but with charges, of evil surmises, reproaches, false criminations, wranglings, impertinencies, bitterness of spirit, etc. which are almost an hundred times repeated, but not once proved: He concludes with the guilt of one of my charges, that is, falsehood, when he says, I am glad to found him, pag. 120. renouncing Ordination, from the authority of the Church of Rome, as such: For I am assured, that in so doing, he can claim it no way from, by, or through Rome; for nothing came to us from thence, but what came in and by the authority of that Church. I might cry out of mistakes, calumniations, or equivocations, etc. for neglecting to observe my distinction, given before and after; before: They baptised and ordained, not as Antichristian, not as Bishops, or Romish Priests, but as Presbyters. After, in the next page; They did it as Officers, not as Officers of that Church, that Papal Antichristian Hierarchy. From whence I said, It is false than, that (which he had charged, pag. 199.) that Ordination is pleaded, from the authority of the Church of Rome, as such: That is, as Antichristian. And I say again, his last words are false; That nothing came to us from thence, but what came in, and by, the authority of that Church, if he mean, the Antichristian Church of Rome. To conclude, he often professes, he hath not renounced his Ordination, by an English Bishop; that Bishop had his succcessive Ordination from some that had it from Rome. Yet he could distinguish a double capacity of those Bishops, one as Lord Bishops, pag. 227. another as Ministers of the Gospel, etc. pag. 231. Now if he renounce not his Ordination, he will deny, that he received it from Bishops, as such; but from them as Ministers of the Gospel. And may not we distinguish so of the Romish Bishops? is it not ordinary for all our Divines so to distinguish? What perverseness is this! The business about Ordination of our Ministers, required his judgement and answer; but he thinks best to wave it, though it was started by himself, p. 196.  
Pag. 131. I am causlessely quarrelled 〈◊〉, for calling his description of a particular Church, a definition; and he says, He waved contests about accurate definitions, which usually tend very little, to the discovery or establishment of truth. Both which, I wonder at, in so great a Logician: For 1. Is not a description in Logic called, an imperfect definition? 〈◊〉. The contests amongst men, oftentimes grow from want of a perfect definition. The true Genus, and proper differentia, being the clearest way to discover, and establish the truth. And this is evident, by his own description of a particular Church: Is it not a definition, consisting of a Genus, a society of men called by the word; and a differentia, the joint performance of the worship of God, in the same individual Ordinances, & c? Did he not make the form of a particular Church to be, The observance and performance of the same Ordinances of Worship, numerically, etc. pag. 236. And do not both those make up a definition? Whether it be accurate or not, is now to be considered. And that it is not a perfect or full definition, or description, appears from what I said, pag. 123. because it is applicab●● to the Church invisible, and to the visib●● Catholic Church, as well as to a particular Congregation. Each, or all ●● these, may be described to be a society of men, called out of the world, by t●● Word, etc. according to all the particulars of his description, as hath bee● evidenced by me, and acknowledged b● himself above? And I added, Th● such societies are all our particular Congregations; and so, as true Church's a● theirs. To which he says but this " That was not the thing in question. If i● was not there, it is (he knows) a question between them and us; and my inference was rational, from his description, A particular Church is a society, &c But ours are such; Ergo, true Churches and consequently, not (without schism to be separated from.  
Pag. 132. Concerning the explicit covenant, so much urged by them, h● says, I am not at all concerned in it; ● purposely waved all expressions concerning it, one way or other, etc. But did he not give us the form of a particular Church, 
pag. 215.  and the union of it, to consist in a joint consent of the members, to walk together, etc. see pag. 142. of Review? ●t not by them made the very form of particular Church, without which, 
M. Hooker Surveyed  ●an can not more be a member of a par●ular Church, than a woman can be ●th a man's wife, without her explicite ●nsent? I noted the difference of his ●pression; one while he said, The form a particular Church, was the joint ●sent of the members; another while, It is the joint observance of all Ordinances of worship, numerically, etc. Now ● evident, that these are not the same ●ing; there may be a joint observance the same Ordinances numerically, by members of several Churches, mee●ng together; yea, by members of the catholic Church, yet of no particular church, by joint consent. And this latter, ●e joint performance of the same Ordinances of worship numerically, is the ●rm (if it have any) of a particular church, differencing it from the other. ●his diversity of expressions, the reverend Doctor puts of; first, with a slighting sentence, Id populus curat scilicet; ●nd than evades, by ask; 
pag. 144.  Is it the command of Christ, that believers should so do? Is not their obedience to that command, their consent so to do? Is it the duty of every one, to join himself some one of the Churches? Can any do so, without his consenting so to Is this consent any thing, but his vol●tary submission, to the Ordinances worship therein? Let me ask but so like questions; What's all this to purpose? what to an explicit covent or consent, which they require? M● not all this be done implicitly, and th● sufficient, in their own confession, make a Church? Did not he say, ● this was virtual y contained in their profession so far, 
See p. 145. As an express consent, etc.  as the things mentioned ● revealed in the Gospel, pag. 10 When a man first professes himself Christian, he virtually and implicit promises to do all those duties, whi●● concern him, in any relation to his fello● members, and Minister: What ne●● than, to lay so much weight upon an explicit Covenant, (unless sometimes in prudential way, when a Church renew the general Covenant; or to bind me faster, to what they were bound to before, but neglected) I say, what need i● there, to lay the whole weight of Church- constitution, (as no Church without it) upon an explicit covenant ●en the implicit is confessed sufficient. ●hese things should not have been pved, or slighted by him, that makes ●●e form of a particular Church, to be ●oynt consent: by which, if he mean ●t an explicit consent or covenant, speaks nothing to the difference beseen us, and ratifies the constituti●● of our Churches, as well as his ●wn.  
Ibid: " I think no one single congregation is wholly completed according to the mind of Christ, unless there be more Elders than one in it; there should be Elders in every Church. What means ●e by Elders in every Church? a Pastor ●nd a Teacher? can he prove the Apostle ●ft two such Elders in every Church? ●r are both these so necessary in every church, that without them, it is no church? Or does he mean, every Church must have, beside those two, ●uling Elders in it? Can he prove there ●ere such at EPHESUS, Act. 20.17. ●nd they sent for, by the Apostle; He speaks to them as more than one or two, ●ou all, v. 25. He may tell us in the next, ●ow many Elders, according to the mind of Christ, complete a Church; and ho● he will reconcile the whole differenc● as to their and our Churches: 
Anat of Independent page. 26.  reme●bring this, that as Mr. Simpson had ● Ruling Elders, nor did approve of the● in his Church: So I do not know wh●ther the Independent Church at Oxfor● have any such Elders, or no.  
Page. 134. I am so fare from confirming baptism subjectively to a particular Church, that I do not believe, th● any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptised: Baptis● precedes admission into Church-membership, as to a particular Church: the subject of it, is professing believers, and the● seed, whether joined to any particular Church or no. I must confess, I know not how to take these words: 1. I● seems at first sight to conclude, tha● himself and the generality of Christian in ENGLAND were never regularly baptised, being baptised all, in som● particular Church: 2. It sounds something anabaptistical, that a Church is made of baptised persons; baptism precedes admission into Church membership, (say they also) as to a particular Church; and denying Infant baptism to 〈◊〉 valid, they re-baptize men, before they ●mit them members of their Church: 
Of Schism p. 85.208. These Churches were (by Jesus Christ) made the only Seat of that worship, which in particular he expresseed his will to have continued until he came, etc.  This is contradicted by the brethrens ● NEW ENGLAND, who make a ●●rticular Church only, the Seat of all ordinances, and none to be regularly baptised, that are not baptised in a particular Church: 4. The same is asserted ● himself, page. 106. of his Review: particular Churches, being by the will of God apppointed for the Seat of Ordinances. Than, unless baptism be no Church Ordinance of God, it must be done in a particular Church. But he says, for his present mistake, I shall not complain seeing that some occasion may be administered to it, from an expression of mine; which we found to be this: Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship, but only to them and by them who are so joined, Of Schism, page. 206. ss. 10. Whereupon I asked, whether baptism was a part of worship? If so, how could he reconcile this with what he said afore, that members of the Catholic Church are initiated into that profession by Babtism: For if a professor of the catholic Church only, may be baptised, how is a particular Church, the Seat of all Ordinances? and so to be performe● by them that are so joined? To rectify not mine, but his own mistake he no● says: Baptism is so to be performed ● them, that is a Minister in or of them Page. 136. How easily might I mistake when himself mistake, and lead me ou● of the way: And will this make me ever the wiser? The thing he had to prov● was the necessity of every believer's joining to some one particular Church, ● enjoy the Ordinances of the Gospel: Thi● he proves," because Christ hath given n● direction for the performance of any duty of worship of Sovereign institution, bu● only in them (the particular Churches) and by them, who are so joined. He mends it, till it is the worse again? If he would imply, that a Minister in or of a particular Church may perform those ordinances, without those congregations (which only was to purpose) he contradicts himself for saying, A particular Church, is the seat of all Ordinances: If he mean, those Ordinances of worship, are to be performed only by a Minister of a particular Congregation, what shall become of the people? and what made the words, so joined here? Does it ●ot concern them to w●●●hip God? Or ●ay a Minister perform any acts of worship, out of a particular Church? That I ●aid, was denied by men of his way, that ● Minister is such to any more than his ●wn Church: He asks me; Who told me he denies a Minister, to be a Minister to more than his own Church, etc. page. 135. I have been told (and I presume he will not deny it) that when the Learned DOCTOR WALLIS, had brought to him as Vicechancellor, that Question to be defended negatiuè, in the ●espers of the public Act at Oxford, ●654. An potestas Ministri evangelici, ad unius tantum Ecclesiae particularis membra extendatur, this Reverend Doctor said thereupon, that Doctor Wallis had brought him a challenge, adding, that if he did dispute upon that Question, he must dispute ex animo. And if this be true, as I presume it is, what need I be further told, that he denies a Minister to be a Minister to more, than his particular congregation? I have also been told further (which I presume he will not deny neither) that when Doctor Wallis'? Thesis' on that Question, was since pri●●●d, this Revered Doctor did employ, or at lest encourage (an Amanuensis of his) Mr. Stubbs of Christ▪ Church (now advocate for Mr. Hobbs) to writ against it: Though indeed, whe● that work written, was found a Scurrilous ridiculous p●ece (for so I hear, h● is since pleased to style it) he did no● think fit to let it be made public, because (they were his own words,) h● would not have that cause suffer so much as to be defended by such a Penne. I have h●ard more, to this purpose, but I forb are: Only I shall (to show his Inconstancy to himself) let the Reader know how liberally he now grants, Ministerial Acts may be performed not only to the members of the Catholic Church, but to the visible members of the world also. I leave him and his friends to debate and reconcile themselves one to another in this.  
Page. 136. Prayer and reading the Word in private families are parts of worship, but not merely and purely of Sovereign institution: These are expressly commanded, D●ut. 6, 7, 8, & c? I shall not follow him in the rest; only whereas he compliments with me in so high a ●ode; p. 139. I would humbly entreat this reverend Author, to sand me his reasons, whereby it may be confirmed, viz. ●hat there must be particular Churches, ●or every professor to join with, one or other, for the celebrating of public Ordinances. I as humbly desire him to aview my 132, page. etc. and to consider my reasons, if they be not as good ●s his and what therein is of Institution.  
3. Preaching to convert Heathens is not (as described) a duty of worship in all cases; and when it is, it is to be performed by a Minister. What means he by those words, as described? my words were, preaching to convert Heathens and than to baptise them; is it not a duty of worship belonging to a Minister? is there any preaching properly so called, that is not a duty of worship? or may any do it but a Minister? Rom. 10.14. In his Tract of Pastor and People; he allowed, in extraordinary cases, any man that had gifts and a people willing to hear him, to be a Preacher; Is that one of the cases, when preaching to convert Heathens is not a duty of worship, and ●ot belonging to a Minister? Or is it that parenthesis of mine, (and than to baptise them, when converted) that makes it a duty of worship, and to be performed by a Minister? I humbly conceive, this answer is somewhat obscure▪ and satisfies not my fourth, concerning himself, when I asked, By what authority he himself Preaches, and Prays too? and with the Parliament, etc. Or are not those, there done, parts of worship? which he calls an invid●ous enquiry, and so passes it by. It required an answer, whether he accounts those to be particular Congregations, that are mixed and unjoined? Whether he performed those as duties of worship, as a Minister; and by virtue of what Ordination, if he have not renounced it, as, he saith, he hath not? especially, if he was not Ordained in a particular Church? Of which, in the next.  
Pag. 138. My judgement is, that ordinary Officers are firstly to be ordained, in particular Churches. I only ask, in what particular Church himself was ordained? and if he was, whether he ●id not first renounce his former Ordination by a Bishop, which he hath so often denied to have done? For I do not expect him to say, he is an extraordinary Officer. And if ordinary Officers be only ordained in a particular Church, ●t would be resolved, how he can do ●ny Ministerial act, to any other particular Church, or to the Catholic Church, or World, which he granted above? And than, how those that are members of that particular Church, are not confined to him, as well as he to them? Pastor and Flock being such Relatas, as Husband and Wife. This piece of Independency was a matter of great contest in new England, by one that was no child in those things: whether the practice of those in old England be otherwise, I know not; if it be, I doubt, it is only to such members, as are of some Church of the same constitution; which is something less, but no whit better, as to our communion with them.  
Pag. 140. If the discourse about the intercision of Ordinances, and all Church-state, was an impertinency, it was his own fault, to start it thrice pag. 85. and 211. and 271. and a great fault to wave it here: Only, we have ● promise', That in convenient time, h● may offer somewhat further, toward the investigation of the mind of Go● therein; and it becomes me to wai● his leisure:" It is not a matter to be tosse● up and down, in this scambling chase▪ Yet, as I said, he insinuated in his question, that England was unchurched, and the Churches planted here did cease to be; and tells us, by what act God did unchurch them: But now waves to answer all my seven questions, (which required an answer) but the last; to which a sufficient reply is made, (where it was unseasonably brought in) upon his first Chapter, 
Ad. p. 21.  to which I refer him. Only I take notice, of his introduction to his answer, with thanks for the civility of the enquiry, in the manner of its expression. My words were these, Whether our reverend Author do not in his conscience think, there were no true Churches in England, till, etc. which puts me into a suspicion, that the reverend Doctor was offended, that I did not always (for often I do) give him that ●●tle, of the reverend Author, or reverend Doctor; which made him so cry out, He was never so dealt with, by any party, as by me; though upon review, I do not found, that I gave him any uncivill ●anguage, unbeseeming me to give, or ●im to receive: And I hear, that some body hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very ●ill.  
Pag. 148. For my part, I am not acquainted with those Independents, which allow no communion of Churches, but what is prudential. It seems, the reverend Doctor is little acquainted with the principles of the Independents, in new and old England; yea, he considers not the very name of an Independent Church, which what doth it signify, but an Independency, or non communion of one Church with another, as Churches, as I noted, pag. 155. at lest of divine institution. The rest, what is it but prudential, or communion of members of the Catholic Church? And I shall only propound this to his consideration: 1. Whether if there be any communion of Churches, as Churches, (which he grants, or else equivocates) there be not a breach of that communion and union, (and so a schism) When one Church refuses to hold tha● communion with another, which aught to be between them; which before, and now, he denies: it is no schism, properly so called: Unless he mean, it is not properly so called, with respect to his new notion of schism. But now he is upon the common notion of schism, a breach of union or unity; and than it is a schism, to refuse that communion, which aught (by divine appointment) to be between them. 2. They having acknowledged our Churches to be true Churches, and than some communion to be due to us, as Churches; how can they separate from us, and refuse communion with us, without a breach of union, and so without schism? unless he mean, they allow communion of their own Churches, by institution of Christ, but not with ours; not not so much as prudential, as Churches. 3. Many Independents (and the reverend Doctor with them) seem to hold, that communion of Churches by Delegates, in a Council or Synod, is only prudential, and not of Christ's institution; and than he may mean, there is no breach of union, in refusing to hold that communion, because it is not an union or communion of Christ's institution. To conclude this, how little reason the reverend Doctor had, to cry out of outrageous injury done him, in those words of mine; Is not the design of his Book to prove, if he could, and condemn us as no Churches? Let the world be judge. When he hath often told us, that in separation from us, they have broken no union of Christ's institution; as I have often said. And here tells us, I have not more separated from you, than you have done from me: 
Of schism, pag. 218.  Which how unreasonably (I will not say, outrageously) falls it is, I say again, let the world, and Saints, and who will, be judge. And than consider, what need there was, of his forgiveness, of all my reproaches, revile, etc. which appear to be none. But though I am unjustly charged all along, with such miscarriages, the reverend Doctor shall have a place in my heart and prayers. And so much of his ninth Chapter.  
Pag. 146. What Independentism is, he doth neither here declare, nor do I know what it is that he intends by it; the name is invidiously broached, and disowned by them to whom it is ascribed, etc. But 1. The reverend Doctor is very forgetful, of what he says; for he told us once before, pag. 47. Though he name not that party, yet it is evident whom he intends. And once again, pag. 148. What Sect it is, any man may judge, that takes the lest view of his Treatise. My Treatise was intended against all sorts of Independents, and against himself as one of them; for they all pled their Congregations to be Independent, having all Church-power within themselves, that denominates them all Independents, 
See Anat. of Indep. p. 37, 38.  though they otherwise differ one with another. 2. That invidious name, however disowned by them, was first of their own invention, and by practice, (as well as by the former Doctrine) arrogated to themselves. 3. They all agreed also in separation from our Churches; they unchurch our Churches, unminister our Ministers, etc. pag. 148. With such I deal. He asks, Is this Independentism a schism, properly so called? I hope he did not expect, that I should pled for it. I deny that I unminister their Ministers, etc. How he can with conscience deny this, of most of the Sects of Independents, I much wonder; not only Anabaptists, but some of his own way, not yet gone so far, do separate from our Churches, unminister our Ministers, etc. And his own principles do the same, and will ere long lead him thither, as I have abundantly proved. But what means he by Independentism?  
Pag. 149. If by Independentism he understands, the peaceable proceeding of any of the people of God, in this Nation, in the several parts of it, to join themselves, by their free consent, to walk together in the observation of all the Ordinances of Christ, appointed to be observed in particular Churches, so to reform themselves from some disorders, wherein they were entangled, being not able in some things, to join in the presbyterian way of reformation, without judging and condemning them, as to the whole of their station and Ordinances; when it shall be proved schism, it shall be attended to. The like is repeated again, pag. 160. with some little difference; for such, only he pleads. Now to speak in the reverend Doctor's mode, I humbly beseech this reverend Author, seriously to consider, what he hath said, and whom he pleads for: 1. Whether he do not pled for all the Sects in the Nation, as to the whole of this, (except one particular, of which by and by)? Do they not all pled a peaceable proceeding of (themselves) the people of God, to join together by their free consent, to walk together in the observation of all the Ordinances, & c? to reform themselves from disorders, as not able to join in the way of presbyterian ●eformation? etc. 2. Will he call ●hat a peaceable proceeding, which ●s done without the authority of ●he Christian civil Magistrate, and ●o the disturbance of all the Churches of the Nation? 3. Were it granted, that in the first constitution 
* So he seems to mean, pag. 160. when he speaks of Members of the Catholic Church, both invisible and visible, to be joined in particular Churches.  of a Church, people might, by their own free consent, join to walk together, etc. Is this course tolerable in settled Churches, without confusion, and overthrowing of the very constitution of Churches, & c? as he said elsewhere, Duty of Pastor and People, pag. 53. (to which I have spoken, in the end of my second Chapter above) unless he will deny us now to be true Churches. May not the members of his own Church, upon some disorders of it, (as they can easily conceive) have the same liberty to separate from them, and join by free consent together, to set up another Church? Nay, do they not take that liberty? and notwithstanding all the bonds and fetters of free consent, and explicit covenant to continued with them, desert them upon this very principle, and join themselves with Anabaptists, and other Sects? 4. And do they not all break the last condition, judging and condemning the present way of reformation, as to the whole of their station and Ordinances? Will the reverend Doctor put out the eyes of all men, but his own? Lastly, 
Nothing but apparent sin, in the way of performance of moral duties, can excuse the withdrawing from them, when occasion of enjoying is offered. Robin's. Treat. of lawfulness of hearing English Ministers, pag. 6. See also pag. 17. and his Apol. pag. 87.  I leave it to his own consideration, whether it be lawful for people, that are members of true Churches, (as ours are acknowledged to be) upon some disorders in a Church, or pretence of reforming themselves, to separate from that Church, and to erect another; when as they have done their duty to reform it, in those disorders; notwithstanding which, they may without sin, communicate with that Church? but rather to break true Churches into pieces, than to bear with some inconveniences. And I ●esire a precedent of such a practice in scripture or story.  
Page. 156. When they and we began to reform, thousands of the people of God in this nation, had no reason to suppose themselves to belong to one particular Church rather than another; they lived in one Parish, heard in another. If they did not suppose themselves to be of some particular Church, it was their error and their fault; their error because all the people of the Nation, were confined to that Church where they lived; and liable to censure for leaving that Church, for partaking of Ordinances; and the Ministers for admitting them: Their fault, because they were bound by way of duty, both by the Laws of the Nation, and also by the Law of God, to be of one or other particular Congregation; as the Reverend Doctor hath often asserted: and this disorder to be of no one congregation, would not be endured in any of their members. The bondage only was that they are obliged to be members, where the Ordinances, were not at all or sinfully administered: In my eighth Chapter, he leaps over above twenty leaves a● once.  
Page. 154. I had said, our Churches under the Prelates, were not capable of reduction to the primitive institution; whereupon he professed he could not look upon such societies as Churches of Christ. Which (said I) was to unchurch all our Churches, since the Reformation: He answers, The Churches of ENGLAND were capable of that reduction under the Prelates, though in some things hindered by them, from an actual reducement. Doth this become the Doctor's ingenuity? So are the Churches of ROME capable▪ potentià remotá, to be reduced to the primitive institution: but so hindered by some body, that he that should go about it, would found them actually uncapable of such reducement: So are our Churches capable of such a reduction; and it is probable, had been reduced to the primitive institution ere this, but he knows we have obstructed it: as I told him before: yea that perfect liberty for reformation, or rather toleration of all Religions, is the greatest Impediment to our Reformation; and whilst it continues, will tender us more uncapable of Reduction to the primitive institution: Whilst our people have so much liberty to be of any, or no Religion, no Reformation is possible; and yet we are potentially capable of that reduction: And the Reverend Doctor's advice, given before and now again, page. 270. of Schism? that people take some other peaceable way, to make themselves partakers of those purchased privileges, etc. comes both too late, for they have done it already by separation from us; and also unreasonably, because if it be taken, it renders us more uncapable of that Reformation desired, by withdrawing the best and most reformed of our members from us, and leaves us but few beside those that hate to be reform.  
Page. 166. Beside the radical union (as he calls it, page. 96. of Schism?) of the Church Catholic: invisible in itself, and with its head; there is (as he tells us also, pag. 97.)" another consequential union, with peculiar reference to the members themselves, and that is the mutual love of all those united in the Head; towards one another, etc. Now though he cannot break the radical union with the Head; he may break the consequential union or consequence of that union, which consists in mutual love. Paul and Barnabas fell into difference, and separation one from another; yet were, no doubt, true members of the Invisible Church, (though not of any particular Church) and this was at lest some degree of breach of that mutual love and peace, that aught to have been between them; hereupon it was that I said, unless the Reverend Doctor think there are no members of this Church in ENGLAND, but these that are of his formed particular Congregations, I fear he will be found to break the union, that aught to be between them. He is grieved he says, at this my declaration; because the union of the members of this Church in this sense, consists in their joint union to, and with Christ their head, by one spirit, concealing the other, of mutual love, which I intended: Now when the Reverend Doctor or some Churches of his party, have separated from some whom they acknowledge truly godly; and keep them out of communion with themselves, in their Churches, unless they will give a consent to be members of that Church, by an explicit covenant (he knows where this was practised) I shall say again, here was a breach of union, that aught to be between the members of that catholic Church: It is not his saying, that he does not think, all the members of that Church are comprised in their Churches or ours, that will help it (who made the first division, they or we, is well known): but it is the denial of communion with such members, on the terms aforesaid, that breaks the union of mutual love, between those members.  
Page. 167. I had said; By gathering Saints of the greatest magnitude, they do what they can to make the Invisible Church visible. He answers: It is confessed we do so; This, with al● that lies in us, we draw them unto. And truly, it is our care and endeavour to make all our visible professors, invisible true believers: But this is not their way: They do not, (as we do) labour to make b●re professors (mere natural men, of their own Congregations) to be real belie- (vers for they pretend to admit none such, if they know them) but they un●easonably and unjustly gather, or rather steal, our best professors, and real believers, to make a Church visible, of invisible members, a Church of all elect ones. Which course, as it is not to be exemplified in all Scripture, or story; So it is forespoken by Christ himself, not to be accomplished; who hath told us, the Wheat and the Tares, the Goats and t●e Sheep, must be mixed together in the Church, till the great day of final separation? and we doubt not, but they found the impossibility of effecting that design, when they and the world sees, they have in their Churches some hypocrites, and some as lose, as in some of ours: And their arrogance, in presuming against the predictions and providence of Christ, to build a Church, that should reach unto Heaven on Earth, hath been fearfully blasted (as another Babel) with confusion, by their members, falling into damnable errors, and abominable profaneness, as I said elsewhere. Even some Independent Churches, which he too much countenances, if he be not a member of them, may easily be proved, in his own judgement to be heretical, if Arminianism, and some points of Popery, be with him accounted Heresies: I need not instance.  
Pag. 168. As to the worship established in this Nation, for the substantialls, we are all agreed in: I suppose, he will not say, a relinquishment of the practice of it, is a schism; if he do, I know what use some men will make of his affirmation, though I know not how he will free himself, 
See p. 171.  from being Schismatical. Truly, as easily, as the reverend Doctor can free himself from that charge of schism. We have not relinquished the Worship, established by Law, as to the substantialls of our Worship, (the Episcopal men join with us, and we with them therein) but in the external formalities, and ceremonial circumstances of that worship; which (as he says somewhere) were laid aside by other hands. But they renounce communion with us, in the substantialls of worship, and erect other Churches; and that we judge to be schismatical.  
Pag. 169. When most of us received our new birth in England, through the preaching of the Word, neither they nor we, as to the practice of our ways, were in England. For them indeed, the practice of their ways of separation, were not in England; but our way of parochial Congregations, and the substantialls of our Worship, in the Word preached, whereby they were regenerated; and the Sacraments administered, whereby they were nourished; were than in England as much as now: Yet from these they separate, and deny communion with us. For the success of their Ministry, as Independents, I see little fruit of it, but schism and separation; nor can they look for any, as Ministers; all their gathered members, being before converted, (as they suppose and desire) by our Ministry: See Anat. of Indep. p. 25 f.  
Pag. 172. That in England, under the Prelates, there were true Churches, and true Ministers, though in much disorder, as to the way of entering into the Ministry, and dispencing of Ordinances, I freely grant. Which were they? That he tells us, pag. 173. Here I let him know, that I assent unto that sum of all that he hath to say; namely, (which were my words) that the true and faithful Ministers, with the people in their several Congregations, administering the true Ordinances of Jesus Christ, whereof Baptism is one, was, and is, the true Church-state of England, from which I am not separated. Who would not think, the reverend Doctor were a Convert, from the way of Independentism, acknowledging all this, and denying separation? Will all Independents yield thus much? Can many of them say, They are not separated? What reserve the reverend Doctor hath, that he is not yet entered a member into one of their Churches, or that he hath not totally renounced his Ordination, (and that but for some disorder only, or some addition of human prudence, in his entrance into the Ministry) or last, that he sees some weakness, if not falseness, in his principles; That successive Ordination from Rome, as a Church, is Antichristian, as from the Beast, I cannot tell, nor wiser men than I; but sure we are, that most Independents are of another mind, and will not thank him for these concessions, being not able to justify their separation from our Churches, if all the reverend Doctor hath said, be true.  
Pag. 147. Yet he says, It is incumbent on this Author, to prove, that we have been members of some of those particular Churches, in due order, according to the mind of Christ, to all intents and purposes of Church-membership; and that we have in our individual persons, ra●sed causeless differences, in those particular Churches, and so separated from them, with the condemnation of them. I promise' you, this will be an hard labour, having so many things to prove at once, of the same men; when if I prove not some one particular, he will still deny the whole. But since the reverend Doctor puts himself amongst them, I doubt not, but to make all good upon his party, (they made the division into parties) if not upon himself. First, upon his acknowledgement afore, that our particular Congregations, were, and are, true Churches, it is evident, that they have been members (yea, some of them Ministers) of our particular Churches, or of none. 2. For the due order of being made so, I hope, some little disorder in the institutions of Christ, does not make a nullity in them, though he explains not what he means by due order. 3. According to the mind of Christ. As for substantialls, we can affirm it, if not in circumstantialls, wherein scarce any Church on earth, will be found faultless. 4. To all intents and purposes of Church-membership. Surely our Christianity, and covenant in Baptism, bound us to all the duties of Church-membership, though we may fail, as to performance of them. 5. That, in their individual persons, they have many of them, actually, or really, by separation, raised differences in our Churches, whereof they were members; is too evident to be denied, by conscientious men. 6. That they (many of them, whatever the reverend Doctor hath done) have separated from us, renounced communion with us, is as clearly evident. 7. And that with condemnation of our Churches, as Antichristian, etc. is also too notorious to be denied. And than the conclusion follows.  
Pag. 176. I said, the reverend Do●or, by his indulgence of liberty to all ●en, to follow their own light, in ●bmitting to any way of Religion, ●emed to me to be a Sceptic, in his ●ay of Independency. He asks; Why so? this will gratify all Sects, Quakers and all, with a toleration: How, I pray? It is schism, not toleration, we are treating about. Where the rear end Doctor confounds what I dis●oyned: He first seems to be a Sceptic, (which I prove by that which follows, Does he believe his own way to be the only true way of Christ, and yet tolerate other ways?) or he seems to gratify all Sects, Quakers, etc. with a toleration, and leaves them to judge, what is, or is not, according to the mind of Christ, etc. To which he says, Pray, Sir, who is appointed to judge finally for them? why than should they be denied their liberty? May he not say as much for Popery, Anabaptism, or any Sect, and so grant an universal toleration, (which he seems to do, in his Epistle to his Sermon, before the last Session of Parliament; Who is a pointed to judge finally for the● why than should they be deny their liberty?) He must remember we are not speaking of circumstan●alls, about the worship of God wherein several Churches may diffe● without schism; but of the substa●tialls of Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, prescribed by Christ in th● Gospel, which are of necessary observation, for all Christians. And Christ hath limited all to one Truth one way of Worship, one Discipline (as we both suppose he hath) certainly every man is bound to get into that way of Christ, and not left to his own light, to judge finally fo● himself, or to choose or refuse a wa● of Christ, by his own liberty; and may be compelled to the external profession of Christ's way, in all those particulars, which utterly destroys his tolera ion. What answers he to my question? Thus: How if I should say, that our way, and their way, for the substance of them, is one way? But so he might have said of their way, and the Episcopal way, for the substantialls of Religion, they were one way; and yet I suppose, he will not grant the members of his Church, liberty, to judge of, and to choose the Episcopal way; or if our way and theirs be nearer one another, he will hardly grant them liberty, to come into our way, because he judges their way, 
They (of N. Eng.) answered, They could not grant any form of Government, but one, seeing there is but one way laid down in the Word, and that unchangeable. Answ. to 32. Quest.  to be according to the mind of Christ, and not ours; pag. 178. And this, he says, he is ready personally to maintain to me. But why doth he not publicly discover and maintain this, to all the Churches of the Nation, before he set upon the practice of it? and puts us of with delays and designs in hand; which when we shall see, we know not. That he hath run from several ways, is not to be gainsaid, from Episcopal to Presbyterian, from that, to Independentism, etc. is no calumny, though it may be to his reproach, which I cannot help. If his way be the only way of Christ, I asked, if every man be not bound to come unto it, and not upon any conceited new light to relinquish it? He answers; Truly I think M. C. himself is bound to come into it (surely not till he give me bette● light, that it is the way of Christ) yet I do not think, that his not-so-doing makes him a schismatic. But if I were convinced, that it was the only way of Christ, I should think myself schismatical, in not submitting to it; as I do him, for renouncing the Presbyterian way, which once he was convinced of, to be the way o● Christ. However, it concerns him most, in the alteration of his judgement and practice, to demonstrate clearly, his is the way of Christ, and not ours, or else we shall judge him schismatical in that separation. This he promises again and again, pag. 163. and 181. in his conclusion of all: In expectation and earnest desire whereof, I rest.   
FINIS.