CHAP. I.

IT is very true, which the reverend Do­ctor saies; ‘That considering the various interests of Parties at dif­ference, there is no great successe 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 errours, by the clearest demonstrations of truth, but rather ‘growing worse and worse, de­ceiving and being deceived, as the [Page 2] Apostle did foretell us.’ There are there­fore other ends propounded to them­selves, by those that undertake them, ‘As the rendring an homage to the truth, the safegarding of some weaker professors, from the sophisms and violence of adversaries, &c.’ Which its well, if they can & do attain. How little successe 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; onely, he was not able to conjecture, from what hand the first assault of it would arise:’ That is, Whether from Papists, Episcopall, 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. [Page 3] 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 rent, and hang together by some threads; it is a Schism; but if a piece be quite torn off, it is none.’ And indeed, if Schism be onely 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 generall 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 Schismaticall, in re­nouncing of communion with them, and separating from them all; for they all concur, in the antient and received notion of Schism, viz. ‘A breach of union, or a causlesse separation, from a truly stated Church.’ The dif­ference between them is onely this, which of them hath the true Church state; which if it be determined, they all agree in the conclusion: ‘A breach of union with, or a causelesse separation from such a Church so stated, is a Schism.’ [Page 4] Thus the Romanists argued, as himself propounded their argument of Schism, pag. 189. thus the Episcopall 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 stablishment of that his notion of Schism:’ Which what they could be, I cannot conje­cture. If his notion were true, it might be as usefull 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 Ecclesiasti­call 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 your selves to be the Catho­lick the other a Nationall Church), [Page 5] Ergo, We are no Schismaticks:’ They would quickly deny his major propo­sition, (for which he offers no proof) Schism, in proper notion of the word, and intention of the Scripture, is of larger, and more generall extent; for any breach of union with a true Church, of any degree. And if the proposition be not generall, the Syllogism is peccant in the very form, and so a Sophism.

But not content with that former reason, Page. 4. he ( sleightingly enough) gives another: ‘Mens contentednesse, to make use of their quietnesse, 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 Academicall opportunities) have done, and do as much contest against those, and other errours, 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 quietnesse, to propogate their own designe of Independentism; not so much as caring to answer, or take notice, of what hath been written [Page 6] 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 professe, that I expected and hearkned, 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 onely freed his party from the charge of Schism; but also unchurcht our Churches, and unministred our Ministers, and de­nyed our Ordination.’ And every one wished, that some body would undertake it, as injurious to our Chur­ches; [Page 7] but none would interest himself therein. I must confesse my own pre­sumption, in what I have done, as ta­king the work out of some learneder hands, whom it more concern'd to an­swer it. The originall charge of Schism upon our Church, (which the reverend Doctor took upon him to answer) be­ing directed onely to the two Univer­sities, whose cause the reverend Doctor hath I think betrayed, by his new no­tion of Schism, as if that were the judgment 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 waies 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 ge­nerall, 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 [Page 8] loathing to be engaged in those con­tests, by these ensuing considerations which I shall briefly consider.’

Page 5.1. ‘He was fully perswaded, that what he had written, was, for the substance of it, the truth of God, which he had good security he had in weaknesse maintained, page 3.’ 1. No doubt, but he might fully so perswade himself; and what Heretick, learned or unlearned, does not so believe? But what was my designe, but to undeceive him in this perswasion, as to many things by him asserted? 2. What was that truth, he was so fully perswaded of? That Schism, in the places of the Corinthians, where the word is onely found, was a difference or division in a particular Church, who ever denyed it? or what is this to the generall nature of Schism? Is that all that Schism imports? Or, proves it, that breach of the union of Churches, or causlesse separation from true Churches, is no Schism? What force is there (I appeal to his Lo­gick 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, [Page 9] [...]he reverend Doctor oft makes use of, [...]o avoid the charge of Schism, upon [...]imself and party, as I have else-where [...]hewed.

2. ‘He had (he saies) laid in provi­sion, against all contending about words, expressions, &c. 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 politick 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. ‘Un­lesse men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendred, I shall not hope to prevail much, in the processe of this discourse:’ And such I think hath been the successe. Can any rationall man be taken with this inference? ‘This evill 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 continue; for so he said, ‘Having before asserted this to be the [Page 10] chief and onely 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, &c. I will be at liberty, fro [...] admitting it so to be.’ Somethin [...] was said to this in my former Tract page 39. I add a little more; 1. His assertion, that this was the chief and onely place of the word Schism, in the Ec­clesiasticall sense, was granted him; bu [...] that it was the chief and onely place of the Doctrine of Schism, is now deny­ed 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 [Page 11] schism; "That that alone shalbe esteemed Schism, which is in scrip­ture so called; or (marke that) which hath the entire nature of that, which [...]s there so called. But (say I) other [...]ords in other places, have the entire [...]ture of Schism, viz division in a [...]hurch, & 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 [...]octor sayes nothing.

3. "The whole weight of the little pile, turning on one single hinge and that visible and conspicuous, &c. he promised himselfe, that he who un­dertook it, would be farre from passing it by, and set himselfe to the superstructure, &c. This he repeats gaine 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 Ecclesiasti­call sense. &c.’ 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 [Page 12] be evident.’ And that he should so o [...] ten charge me ‘with ignorance of h [...] designe; of which anon.’ 2. I was [...] farre from passing it by, that I grant [...] them this to be the onely 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 O [...] dinances; which how he hath taken away we shall heare anone, 3. Granting hi [...] his sense in that place, I proved his co [...] sequence to be naught ‘The Schis [...] amongst the Corinthians, was a div [...] sion in a particular Church; Fro [...] nothing else is schim, in the scriptu [...] sense.’ Which consequence, all cons [...] dering and rationall men, that I speak with; do wonder to fall from so grea [...] a Logitian and Divine. 4. This Notion [...] his, I knew well, was the Hinge or Ce [...] tre of the whole superstructure; b [...] the Circumference or lines, by way [...] consectaries, He sayes 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 onely Difference in a particular Church, th [...] his party are no Schismaticks; in sep [...] rating from, 1. The Church of Rom [...] 2. From our Nationall, 3. Or Presb [...] terian Churches. Now the Anteced [...] [Page 13] being by me demolished, as the hinge such consequences; the whole super­ [...]ucture is fallen with its owne weight, [...]d his whole Treatise with it; As wiser [...]en then my selfe do think.

4. "He expresly waved mens Judg­ment, and Authority, old or late; and so promised himself, security from such disturbance, &c. To which I [...]swered, The Concurring iudgment of all [...]en, in all ages, of all perswasions, Page. 4. [...]rryes weight with it, especially when [...] agrees with expresse Scripture; or re­ [...]ular and rationall deduction: to which [...]e professed to stand or fall, Cap. 1.5.3. To which he sayes just nothing.

5. ‘Whereas he had confin'd him­selfe to a bare defensative of some, Page. 6. not intending to cast others from their places, (unlesse 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 behalfe of their brethren, &c.’ But he must know that his defence of some from the crime of Schism, as it was too weak to bear it off, by the bare Notion of Schism by him inverted; so it did cast an aspersion [Page 14] upon others of a false Ac [...]usation, charging them with Schisme; and b [...] sides, 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 a [...] peare ere long: but I appeal any of rea [...] godlinesse, and indifferent judgmen [...] to determine whether he himselfe 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 addes this more to hi [...] thoughts, pag. 8. ‘That he obviated the facility of tendring a discourse to th [...] purpose; by its being led out of th [...] common rode, 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 rode, (where was no 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 onely except another Notionist, Lud. Molin, in another controversie in his Corolla­rium, p. 100. Who in approbation of this new notion, tells us; ‘The whole Christian world, from the Apostles [Page 15] times, never knew of such a notion of the nature of Schism, till the Reve­rend Doctor taught it them.’ And I rea­ly believe him; onely 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 appeare.

Whether the Reverend Doctor, hath [...]ven a plaine and full returne to what [...]ay seeme of importance in my Book, pag. 9. [...]thers 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 princi­ [...]all 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 [...]eview of them.

1. He sayes, ‘I am without any provocation intended or given, revi­led from one end of it to the other; and called partly in downe-right [Page 16] termes, partly by oblique intimatio [...] Sathan, Atheist, Sceptick, Donatis [...] Heretick, &c.’ I must professe, 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 weaknesse or guilt [...] nesse in my self; and fearing my ow [...] partiality, I consulted with other lea [...] ned and godly persons, who had rea [...] it, who professed, they found nothin [...] in it, but words of truth and sobernesse 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 least misery in Con­troversies, that what is intended against the way, is applyed to the person, and so provokes by accident to further strife. But for those particulars, by him called revilings, I give him this account: 1. If I at any time call him personally schismatick, which I think I do not, but onely his way and party to be schis­maticall, he knowes I cannot avoid it, if I make good the Title of my Book, supposing him to be an Independent, [Page 17] as he is generally taken to be. And why nay not a good man be a schismatick, 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, Schismaticall. 2. For [...]he word Sectary, that followes 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 He­retick, 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 Hereticall. 4. For Donatists, I one­ly charged their principles upon his way, which if they be acknowledged to be schismaticall, (as they are, by all that are Orthodox, and by himself confessed to be criminall at least) the parallel will fall upon them, whether I will or no; as it doth upon the Romanists, embra­cing and maintaining the same princi­ples. 5. For the word Pharisee, when he spake, as I thought, too contemptibly of Christians, the multitude, the wicked, [Page 18] and profane, I onely said, ‘This sound [...] too much of the Pharisee.’ But its 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 Sceptick, the first is but once used, page 15. in these words: ‘He that denyes, that professed Christians may be compelled to the externall pro­fession of the onely way of worship, seems to me to be, if not an Atheist, a Sceptick in Religion.’ What's this to the reve­rend Doctor, or any man living, that does not deny that my assertion? The word Sceptick is once more used, upon the like supposition, page 187. 7. Last­ly, the worst is, that I call him Sathan; which I no where do, in downright tearms, nor necessarily, in an oblick in­timation or reflection: For 1. A man that saies 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 Devill or Sathan. 2. The cause of using those words, was very urgent and [Page 19] provoking, as I thought, in his charging our Ordination to come from Antichrist the Beast; which was in effect to deny or annull our Ministry and Churches: As our blessed Saviour did obliquely, yea directly, call a man as good as him­self, Sathan, when he would have hin­dred him from suffering: ‘Get thee be­hind me, Sathan, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, &c.’ 3. And what is that lesse, (if not more direct) then calling me Sathan, page 22? when speaking of me, as carried beyond all bounds of moderation, and Christian ten­dernesse in offending; he adds, ‘I no way doubt, but that Sathan hath his designe in this whole businesse.’ 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 complemental; 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 no lesse bitter; ‘The professed designe of the whole, is to prove Independency to be a great schism, and [Page 20] that Independents are schismaticall se­ctaries, the troublers of England. That it were happy for the Nation, they were out of it. Or discove [...]ing 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 de­signe was, to prove Independency to be a great schism, and consequently Inde­pendents (whom I mean, we shall hea [...] anon) to be schismaticall, 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 schismaticall? 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 novell 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 confesse it, and, with me, wish them any where, rather then in England, and think the [Page 21] Nation happy in their avoidance. Paul said of such, ‘I would they were cut off that troub [...]e 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 my self, 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 builders will gather a Church out of no Chur­ches, and begin a new one: It had been happy for Old England, if they had all gone into New England, and laid the foundation of their Churches amongst the Indians, and not to build upon other mens foundations; and then tell us, They are building spick and span new Chur­ches. This was the worst I said, and but once onely; 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 designe in hand.’ The designe he told us, was, to prove In­dependency to be a great schism; and, I must confesse, my care was, to make [Page 22] that way to appeare 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 farre from wrong­ing him, by false or strained imputations, that I gave him his due commendations, where I could; as appeares 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 sayes) I think it is repeated an hundred times, that I deny their Ministers, pag. 12. Churches, and all Reformed, but our owne; which is notoriously untrue, contrary to my knowne judgment, to expresse affirmati­ons in my book, &c.’ But 1. the Re­verend Doctor speaks Hyperbolically enough, when he sayes it is repeated, an 100 times, that he denyes our Ministers, &c. He may do well to number them, and see how farre short the reckoning comes, 2. I confesse, I took it for gran­ted; that the Reverend Doctor was a thorough Independent, in the voice of all men; and I knew that Independents do deny our Ministers and Churches, &c. If the judgment of the reverend Doctor [Page 23] be now altered, I shall rejoyce much, in the successe 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 lyar; I shall not doubt if need be, to say a thousand times, he does at least by consequence deny our Ministry, and Churches; our Ordination and all, even our Church-membership. But of that more fully anone.

I cannot here but observe one piece of policy, the Reverend Doctor hath made use of (observed also by others) beyond his Praedecess [...]urs, in this contro­versie, to ingratiate himselfe, 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 Complements, 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 poore country Presby­ter; such as these, ‘Let him at any time [Page 24] 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 begg of this Author, that h [...] would favour me with a command, &c p. 85.’ See also. p. 92.129.139.180 All most as oft repeated, as those charged upon me afore; all which some would interprete for so many jeares, 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 forgivenesse of my miscarriages, and his owne forgivenesse; which is repeated in my observation, 5. Times, p. 14. 51. 124. 149. 180. As if he would by such Charity, perswade 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 least) that I wrong him notoriously; and frequent charges of me, with untruth, wrongs, lyes, &c. 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 ‘Untill I saw this Treatise, pag. 14. I did [Page 25] 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 paines to cast oyle on those flames, which it is every ones 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 M [...]stakes 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 (sayes he) strenuously supposed all along, pag. 16. that I deny all Churches in England to be true churches of Christ except onely the Churches gathered in the congregationall 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 generall vote of all men, and I knew it to be the judg­ment of many; and the That this is the con­sequence of their ex­plicite Covenant, see what is the judg­ment 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, &c. Et ne­gat omnes in Ecclesiis islis baptiza­tos, ritè & verè baptizatos este, &c. Apollon. Consid. quarundam Controv. &c. pag. 23. consequent of their declared principle, that no [Page 26] Churches are tru­ly constituted, bu [...] such as are gathered in the Congregationall 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, &c.) 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 then his person; all along my Treatise. What then? does the reverend Doctor in his judgment, 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. [Page 27] But hear what he saies, " 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, lest he charge me with [...]ew surmises: What then doth he scru­ [...]e at? ‘I onely in my Treatise have questioned, the institution of a Nationall Church.’ A Nationall Church hath (as [...]e was told) a double notion; it im­ [...]orts either an Hierarchicall Church, with subordination of Officers, (which [...]e saies, I do not maintain) or a Church, where all the Churches of a Nation [...]gree in Doctrine and Worship, and [...]elebrate it accordingly, in the Presby­ [...]erian 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 judgment of Independents, Brownists, Anabaptists, no true Chur­ches, yea, Antichristian? Do not his [Page 28] own principles infer this conclusio [...] ‘If any man hath nothing to shew, but [...] successive Ordination, through, or fr [...] Rome, he looks not on him, as a Mi [...] ster of Christ.’ But all our Minister have nothing else to shew, (as valid) [...] make them Ministers, but their succe [...] sive 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 sayes) 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 denyed by us? Is it nos sufficiently dispro­ved, in that very Treatise which he un­dertakes to answer?’ However, the re­verend Doctor himself, might not to­tally [Page 29] separate from us, holding compli­ [...]ce in preaching or hearing, in our [...]hurches, to what ends, he knowes. [...]et surely, those Independents whom [...] names, Brownists, Anabaptists, &c. [...] 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 lesse re­ [...]eive the Sacrament) in our Churches, [...]nlesse some of theirs preach. And may [...]hey not justifie it upon his own prin­ [...]ples? Does he not confidently deny, [...]ny separation from a Church to be [...]chism? And in this place, does he not [...]losely justifie their separation; ‘The blameable separation must respect some union of Christs 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 Christs 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 followes hence, but [Page 30] this, We are no true Churches, and their separation is just. Thus he plead for all, Independents, Brownists, Anab [...] tists; for the plea is theirs, to justifie th [...] separation. Some of them can com [...] and hear in our Churches, but up [...] Robinsons latter principles, not as Chu [...] ches, or Ministers, but as gifted brethre [...] But hear him plead for himself: ‘p [...] my part, what hath he to lay to my charg [...] 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 dresse; [...] least, 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 Colledge, if report fail not? In his former book, and present defence, doth [Page 31] he not advise others, to come out of our [...]hurches? 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 onely the necessity of a successive Ordination; but, the lawfulnesse of it also.’ No, I supposed (and proved) at he denies the lawfulnesse of our [...]ccessive Ordination; by which I under­ [...]ood, not onely imposition of hands, [...]t the whole authoritative translation of man, into the state of an Officer of the [...]hurch. Now, does not the reverend [...]octor 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 plead for his Ministry, Of schism. p. 196. but meerly 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 [...]ratifie us with another plea, page 197. [...]f schism; ‘that he disclaims all thoughts [Page 32] of rejecting those Ministers, as Papa [...] and Antichristian, who yet adhere [...] that Ordination, being many of the [...] eminently gifted of God, &c. and submitted to by the people, &c.’ This is s [...] far from justifying our Ordination, [...] our being Ministers by vertue thereof that it doth the clean contrary: It tel [...] us onely, That though indeed our Ordination do not make us Ministers, y [...] we are not by our Ordination so inc [...] pacitated, but that, notwithstanding it we may by somewhat else be made M [...] nisters; viz. our gifts, and the people submission. And if (when he saies, [...] 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 [...] turn'd 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 imp [...] sition of hands from the Elders of th [...] [Page 33] 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 then. Besides, he [...]peaks onely 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; then 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 advise with him, about their Ordination, dis­waded 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 Ordinati­ [...]n? Was it not he, that when it was ob­ [...]ected to him, desiring to be a Parlia­ment-Man, that he was incapable of it, [Page 34] 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 then 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 truely 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 saies; Before the blessed Reformation begun, pag. 24. and carried on by Zuinglius, Luther, &c. there were, and had been, two states of men in the world, professing the name of Christ and the Gospell, as to the outward prof [...]ssi [...]n thereof; the one in glory, &c. the other poor, &c.’ Consi­der now, whether the reverend Doctor do not acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Church, professing the name of [Page 35] Christ and the Gospell, 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 plead, and not from Rome. And if it was our unhappinesse, to have our successive Or­dination through fouler hands, (if at least fouler then some of the Greek Chur­ches) yet truely 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. [Page 36] that he cast dirt in the face of our Mi­nistry, and to be ready to say, The Lord rebuke thee. Dare he appeal the Search [...]r of all hearts, he had no designe 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 call'd for satisfaction, for supposed wrongs; but what satisfaction will he give, to all the Ministers of England, and other Nati­ons, for thus revileing of them, to say, ‘They derived their successive Ordination, through the authority of Antichrist.’ But (saies 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 plead 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 [Page 37] Papall or Antichristian, but from Rome, so far as Christian, the Papacy being but the Leprosie of that Church. Must he needs take the worser 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 scornfull 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 plead our Ordination from Rome, (and have no other to plead) we have none at all, and so no Min [...]sters, no Chur­ches, that way. If it be so, that we say, we have our Ordination from Rome, then 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 ped [...]gree 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 [Page 38] from Rome, and he sayes so too, and so the vulgar must believe, we are agreed. Dolosus versatur in universalibus and hates Distinctions as evill 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 askes 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 owne 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 then? Might not the men that received their Baptism and power to Baptize from that successive ordination, receive also power to or­daine? or does he so far joyn with the Anapaptists, that any disciple, no-Mini­ster, may baptize; or does he renounce his successive baptisme, as some (if not him­selfe) have done their Ordination from Rome? Heare his answer; ‘I cannot be­lieve, [Page 39] that that Idolater, murtherer, man of sinne, had, since the dayes of his open Idolatry persecution and enmity to Christ, any authority more or lesse 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, its o­therwise with Ministers, I put him the case of the Idolatrous persecuting high Priests among the Jewes; 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 Gospell, 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 glosse or interpretation of St. Austins 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, [Page 40] 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 controversie of Anti-Christ, ‘He must not be looked for, with­out the Church, but within the bosome of the Church; Beza in locum.’ Yea if the Reverend Doctor had consulted the text; he had found Austins glosse 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 himselfe against the Temple of God?’ Besides that this would be a kind of Tautology, having before called him [...] &c. And did he not tell us, that such Churches as ours, may for ought he knowes, be in Italy. p. 49? Lastly, Said he not also, ‘Grant the usually received sense, it im­ports no more, but that the man of sinne, 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 Gospell; rightly called a Church though corrupt [Page 41] and wicked.’ Did not Satan dwell 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 askes me angerly; ‘I pray, who told you so? when, wherein, and by what meanes have I opposed it? I acknowledge my selfe of no party.’ I have told him [...]fore, when and wherein and by what meanes he hath opposed it; if he please [...]o look back. I onely add, he opposed it, by assigning Imposition of hands onely 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, its 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 &c. had not their ordi­nation from the people, but from Rome, p. 116. et alibi. I onely excepted some Extraordinary easie, where no Ministers were to be had for Ordinatjon, [Page 42] and that onely for the first turne.

But he is as much displeased for m [...] affirming, that he hath renounced hi [...] owne Ordination. pag. 29. He askes ‘Who tol [...] him these things? I am now necessitate [...] 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 judgment, that our ord [...] ­nation is Antichristian; and if so, its time for him to renounce it. 2. I know, from good hand, that some of the Brethren 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 M ^r. Ward was chosen pastor, and M ^r. Bridges Teacher at Roterdam, first M ^r. Bridges or­dained M ^r. Ward, and then immedi­ately M ^r. Ward againe ordained M ^r. 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 disswaded our or­dination; and I thought it not probable [Page 43] he would still retein it. 4. I concluded [...]m his owne principles in his book of [...]hism, 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 downe, p. 198. of Schism. And [...]ould he keep it up in himselfe? If I [...]ere so perswaded; I should renounce [...]y Ordination to night, before to mor­ [...]ow. 5. If this be not sufficient, let him re­ [...]ember what he said in the presence of [...]l or most of his owne Canons, at a pub­ [...]ck meeting, speaking of his Ordination [...]y the Bishop of Oxford, in that place; ‘That he valued it no more, then that crum upon his trencher or neere 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 owne conscience, Does he believe his former Ordination valid? Does he do any Ministeriall act now, by vertue of his former ordination? if not, what's that but a renouncing of his ordination? If he do, [Page 44] he contradicts or condemnes himself, reserving an Ordination, which he a [...] counts Antichristian. And then, wh [...] meanes those outcryes, ‘I was nev [...] yet so dealt withall, by any man [...] what party soever: pag. 29. Does this dealing b [...] come a Minister of the gospells &c.’ B [...] whether those Recharges upon me, [...] 30. be not utterly untrue, and unb [...] coming his Reverence and piety, I lea [...] to all indifferent Readers to judge, b [...] what hath been the Language and ca [...] riage of my former discourse; and wh [...] hath here been returned. This Chapte [...] 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 meere [...], 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 [Page 45] Chapter: but I must confesse, I did not [...]t expect it; nor will I conjecture at [...]s preproperous vindication of his [...]putation, as he calls it.’ Had not his [...]ter book of Schism recanted, if I may [...]t say, contradicted his former judg­ [...]ent, I had not medled with it; I can [...]cerely professe, 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 Author [...]ty of his person; to the draw­ [...]g off of some well meaning people, Rom. 16.8. [...]ho are easily deceived by fair words, [...]nd personall respects; this I thought [...]ight the better be done, by presenting [...]o them the errors and Inconstancy of [...]e men, that endeavour their seduce­ [...]ent. The Apostle Jude describes Sedu­ [...]ers, by such a Character; they are [...]andring Stars, as in places, so in judg­ment Inconsistent with themselves, and [...]heir owne opinions. But if he marke [...]t, I did first in my precedent Chapters; [...]ndeavour (with little successe, I con­fesse) to shew those persons, the errours of that way, before I discovered the in­constancy of the person; and Inconsistency [Page 46] of his former and present thoughts: A [...] sure we may have reason to suspe [...] their judgment, who are so changea [...] in their opinions; having instances [...] nough of men, that have run from o [...] sect to another, till they have lost the [...] selves, and all Religion. But to retu [...] to the businesse in hand, the revere [...] Doctor, after the proposition of oth [...] waies of excusing himself, for his inco [...] stancy, at length confesses the fact, wi [...] the ground and means of that alteratio [...] of his judgment.

1. The ground was this, the suitabl [...] nesse of his former principles to the I [...] dependent way; pag. 34. for so he saies: ‘Upon review of what I had then asserted, (i [...] his former Treatise) I found, that [...] principles were far more suited, to wh [...] is the judgment and practise 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 princ [...]ples of his, the laid, might mislead others and himself &c. pag. 237.’ Those principles were that gifts and submission of the people were sufficient in some cases, to make [...] Preacher of the Gospell; not having di­stinguished between a Preacher in a lar­ge, [Page 47] and in a stricter sense, that is, be­ [...]een an Instructer (common to men [...]d women,) and a preacher in Office [...]culiar to some. For neglect of which [...]tinction, how easie was it for men [...]upposing 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 [...]ple, thirsting after novelties, willing [...] be taught by such teachers, to take [...]on them the Office of Preachers? [...]his is so visibly the Doctrine and Prac­ [...]ce of all the Sects, that he that runns [...]ay read it. But the Reverend Doctor [...]d there laid down other Presbyterian [...]rinciples, which are irreconcilable [...]ith his new congregationall way; as shal [...]ppear.

2. The meanes 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 me­thodicall, pag. 3 and strongly to maintain that which was contrary to his present per­swasion: that was Mr. Cottons Book of the Keyes; intending the confutation of it. But contrary to his many Interests, [Page 48] 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 [...] &c. laying aside all prejudicate respect [...] unto persons or present traditions, an [...] considered the books written again [...] that very Treatise, and no more; h [...] might perhaps have been confirmed i [...] his Presby [...]erian way, as many learne [...] and pious men have been.’ Wherea [...] now there is little hope of recoverin [...] him back to his first Principles, for h [...] tells me ‘That being by that means set­led in the Truth, pag. 37. he is ready to maintai [...] it to me and others, and finds cause to rejoyce 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 threatn'd me with, in his Epistle: which if [Page 49] 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 [...]ppendix, 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 disco­ [...]er some weaknesses in it): but ‘to prove from it, his inconstancy and inconsisten­cie with himselfe, 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 then de­ [...]vered, and say ‘ I am punctually of the same judgment still, page. 40. when as he cleerly [...]rofesses his change in one particular, [...]. 44. and that a materiall one;’ And for [...]he rest, there needs nothing to con­ [...]ince him of a great change, but onely [...] Scheme of his differences in judgment [...]ow, from what he asserted then; which [...] shall exhibite to him, at the end of his Chapter.

But before I do that, I shall onely, b [...] way of short strictures, animadvert som few things. 1. That his judgment w [...] altered, I proved thus: 1. He had, as thought, upon the reasons afore give [...] renounced his ordination; at which ‘ [...] professes himselfe astonished to thin [...] with what frame of Spirit, what negle [...] of all truth and love, this businesse mannaged.’ 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 confesse, as he carries it, I cannot tell, whether ever he was ordained or no, by [...] or Presbytery, (for he discovers it not and then 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 Ministeri [...] acts, his tract, I now consider, will condemne him: If he was, I think he hat [...] done and said enough to argue his renuntiation of it. 2. My second proofe [...] 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 compleat Church-state, but when no suc [...] thing can be charged, that gifts & conse [...] of the people, is enough to make a man [...] [Page 51] 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, &c. 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 appeare. To [...]y third observation, he sayes nothing; Whether such a man, as he speaks of, so qualified, be a compleat Minister, to preach the Gospell 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 wor­ [...]hy of an answer; but he is not pleased [...]o take notice of them.

In the next place, he comes to his [...]pinion ‘ of the personall in-dwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers, and will [...]either admit of my explication of his [...]ormer words, nor acknowledge any [...]ifference of his judgment now and [...]hen.’ I have not yet had leisure to [...]onsider what he hath published upon [Page 52] this head (not having his book), but [...] cannot yet be convinced, to be of h [...] judgment, nor many others more jud [...] cious: I thought I had assigned som [...] cleer differences in the words compare together; but he will not accept m [...] paines. I shall now tell him of one o [...] two; 1. His judgment 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 then, I said the union of Christ and believers mu [...] be personall; for so is the union of Sou [...] and body in man, So is the Union o [...] the Divine and humane 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 [...] fulnesse of it; when it is bestowed on u [...] only by measure: but in his latter, o [...] Schisme, he saies the Spirit dwells per­sonally in believers; but then (say I) we have the fulness of the Spirit, as well a [...] Christ; his person and fulness being in­separable.’ I might add, that the fulnes [...] of the Spirit, when ascribed to Christ a [...] man, was not the person of the Spirit, (for then the person of the Spirit also was interessed in the Mediatorship) but [Page 53] the fulness 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 Parochiall Priests, it is not [...]orth contending: he puts it off, neat­ [...], " By what the Prelates esteemed and call'd parish. Ministers which might [...]ss very easily for an excuse, were it [...]ot, 1. that many of the same reverend pi­ [...]s men, were then Parochiall 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 [...]mbiguously, when he saies, " I never called the Presbyterian Ministers of par­ticular congregations Parochiall Priests. He may, or some may interprete it, [...]hat he meanes, there were no Presby­ [...]erian Ministers in Parishes, under the [...]relates; and then indeed he did not [Page 54] call them Priests: but enough [...] that.

For the remaining section of my Appe [...] dix, though there are many things, th [...] deserved a better account from th [...] Reverend Doctor; as charging hi [...] with cleer alterat [...]ons of his [...]udgmen [...] and some contradictions to himself; [...] passes them over, page. 42 [...] &c. ‘some as untrue some as full of refl [...]ctions, s rmizes, a [...] prognostications,’ And be [...]ides, professes himself, since my exceptions, ‘ [...] be of the same mind, that he was, witho [...] the least 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 joyne in the celebratio [...] of publick Ordinances, as they are performed amongst us, I confesse 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 joyne in pub­lick 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 [Page 55] pleads for himself and party? And is not this obliquely to brand publicke worship, as faulty? But this is more than he pleaded for, in his book of Schisme: 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 continue 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 abhominable profanenesse. Let him answer his own cautions and objections, with his judgment formerly upon them; with his own Latine discourse, against such liberty pleaded for, by the Remonstrants. Does he not see men pride themselves of their gifts, and create themselves Pastors in separate congre­gations? Tells us he not, that such do­ings, page. 53. ‘will help to overthrow the very constitution of any Church, by confusion; or the flourishing of it, by Ignorance; both which certainly follow such cour­ses? Sayes he not well; "This may [Page 56] be a means for men to vent their ow [...] private fancies to other; to foment an [...] cherish errors in one another; to giv [...] 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 prophesie dayly 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 Pharoah, Exod 10.7. with change of a word, ‘Knowes [...] 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 agoe; I shall now present to him and the Reader, a Scheme of his differences from himself, then and now; as followeth.

CHAP. III. A review of his and my Preface.

THe reverend Doctor begins this Chapter with a complaint, (as his Book is full of such, either causlesse or needlesse, complaints) of ‘my repetition of his words, of such as I could wrest, by cutting off one and another parcell, &c. 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 [Page 60] own sword into his own bowells, 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 applyed to his self-condemnati­on, if he be guilty of the same crime. If not guilty, it concerned him to d [...]sprove 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 "dresse 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 D [...]natists prin­ciples, improved not onely by Roma­nists, but by others, whom, I said, I yet named not; but (saies he) its evident whom he means; though hereafter he tels us, he knowes not whom I mean. What thinks he of their two principles, by me expressed, are they schismaticall or no? To give me satisfaction, (though with little hope of successe) 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, &c.’ [Page 61] But then I would say, 1. What is the di­ [...]urbance 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 Catholick. 2. If others spouse the same principles, are they [...]ot as wicked, corrupt, erroneous, and [...]hismaticall principles in them, as in [...]he Donatists? Thus they are improved [...]y Romanists, Brown [...]sts, Anabaptists, [...]nd some more strictly called Indepen­ [...]ents. 3. And then 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 Catholick Church: What saies 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 schismaticks, for the like separation.’ And in delivery of his thoughts of them, charges them with [Page 62] other cr mes, but not with schism, fo [...] their separation. pag. 168. ‘To relinquish the c [...] tholick 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 him self, 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 judgment in particular Church.’ But the Donat [...]sts di­vision and separation, was in and from the catholick Church; Ergo, no schism And yet behold his unhappinesse, eithe [...] in his forgetfulnesse, or in his inconstan­cy, to his own principles! He seems to me to acknowledge their schism, and them schismaticall, 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 intend my judgment 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 lesse concerned in obtaining countenance to those principles, [Page 63] then I am.’ A fine evasion to save him­ [...]lf; let his Churches shift for them­ [...]lves. I did not ask his own particular [...]dgment, in reference to himself, (for did not yet charge him to hold those [...]rinciples) but in reference to many [...]dependent Churches in England, which one those principles, and practise ac­ [...]ordingly. And he answers for himself, [...]hat he ‘is not concerned, in obtaining countenance to those principles: obscure­ [...] enough.’ But its known too well, [...]hat many Independent Churches do af­ [...]rm themselves, to be the onely Chur­ [...]hes in England, and none to be true [...]embers of a Church, but such as are [...]oyned in membership by a Covenant; which are the same in substance with [...]hose of the Donatists, and equally now [...]ranted, I think, to be schismaticall.

But what thinks he of our Churches? ‘For my part, I acknowledge the Chur­ches in England, Scotland, and France, &c. to be true Churches: Such, for ought I know, may be in Italy or Spain.’ I must professe, that if this was sincerely spoken, I should rejoyce much in these concessions, in this vindication of him­self; but the words are so ambiguous, that I know not well, by which handle [Page 64] to take them. I ask, Do all Independe [...] Churches in England think so of them I believe they will under-write, Mag [...] ster hic non tenetur; and rather renou [...] him, then assert so much of our Chu [...] ches. Do they not many, yea most [...] them, account us Antichristian, as w [...] said above? Do not his own principl [...] 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 separat [...] from us, as no Churches, no Ministers doth not he so too? No; ‘I have und [...] niably proved in my book of Schism, [...] have separated from none of them.’ Thi [...] was spoken to above; and I shal take hi [...] for no Independent, if he do not separat [...] from our Churches. But I pray, did he not plead 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 no tru­ly constituted Churches; or, they were ne­ver members of them, and so could not separate from See pag. 252. s. 35. It is impossible a man should offend against that which is not, un­lesse they will say, We have separated from what should be. them tha [...] were not: See page 257. Or, not reformed accor­ding to the mind of Christ. This evasion he [...] [Page 67] as spoken above, in this present [...]hapter. But this will come again [...]e long, there something shall be said [...]to it.

When I said, that a learned Doctor [...]d, ‘His whole Book, or the greatest part of it, was one great schism:’ He [...]swers, ‘I hope that is but one Doctors 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 usuall Rhetorick, to Scripture, and her Authors, so to speak, to call a [...]ry schismaticall book, a schism, as to [...]ll profligate sinners, by the name of [...]ne, and the like. The rest of this [...]hapter, and the most substantial things [...]erein, wherein I required satisfa­ [...]ion, he overlooks; as those of enforcing [...]iformity on the one hand, and tole­ [...]tion of Religions on the other, which [...]e pretended to be one of them, the [...]ay to peace; and some other pra­ [...]tises of Polititians, with the successe [...]hereof, he thinks not good to take [...]otice of, or to discover which of the [...]aies he likes best. And after some [Page 68] renuall of his former complaints, o [...] suppositions, and many notable lashes &c. he concludes this Chapter thus ‘So his first Chapter is discussed an [...] forgiven.’ By which begging of th [...] question, he would perswade bot [...] himself, his Reader, and me also, tha [...] I am very guilty, and himself very charitable, to forgive me, as I note [...] above.

CHAP. IIII. Of the nature of Schism.

FOr the better finding out of the fu [...] nature of Schism in the Ecclesiastic [...] sense and use thereof, I condescende [...] to follow the Reverend Doctor to tak [...] the notion or notation of it, first in the n [...] turall and proper sense. There it is take for a division or separation of a body int [...] parts which all men know, may admit [...] degrees; and be either partiall when th [...] separation or rent is partiall, the part yet cleaving together for all that rent [Page 69] or totall, when wholly and quite divi­ [...]ed asunder. e. g. In a cloath or gar­ [...]ent cut or torne; it may be so cut or [...]orne, that it may hang together by [...]ome threeds, or else be divided into two [...]istinct parts. Now it were ridiculous [...]o say, if the cloath be rent, and hold by [...]ome threeds, it is a Schism; but if it be [...]uite torne asunder, it is no rent, but [...]ome other thing. The scripture, as well [...]s sense, intimates these degrees of [...]chism, when it sayes, the rent is made [...]orse Matth. 9.16. 2. There is a body [...]olitick, a City, or kingdome; and a [...]chism may arise in them, either in part, [...]s when their Judgments are divided, at [...]ome publick assembly as Joh. 7.43. &c. Or else when they are divided into [...]arties, and fall into a civill warre; both [...]hese met in the case of Jeroboam; first [...]here was a division in judgment, and [...]resently after a secession of parties; which divided the kingdome into two parties, and made two kingdomes of one; [...]nd the latter was far the worser schism. And it were ridiculous in politicks 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 Doctors no­tion of Schism; as well as by himselfe, [Page 70] 3. There is a body Ecclesiasticall, whethe [...] the catholick visible Church; called th [...] body of Christ: or a particular congre­gation, which is a lesser body. The sam [...] degrees of Schism may fall here, eithe [...] differences in judgment, at or withou [...] a publick Assembly; or separation into severall Churches: and it were equally ridiculous (as afore) to say, division in the assembly is a Schism; but separation into severall 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 onely in a Church.’ Whence its evident, the Reverend Doctor begged the question from the beginning when he took it, ‘To denote (onely) differences of mind and judgment, &c. amongst men met in some one assembly, about the compassing of a common designe, p. 25.’ The ground whereof was; because the word is sometimes, (not alwayes) so used in those places of Scripture by him cited. Whereas in the very originall 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 [Page 71] hath already been discovered; ‘Schism in the places cited by the Apostle, was a division onely 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, [...]lameable or unblameable, according to the Circumstances (as is confessed by himselfe, p. 218.) which may be thus considered. Schism in the Ecclesiasticall 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, &c. 2. from a true Church; which may yet be twofold; as first, a simple succes­sion of one or more, upon just occasions, to joyne 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 blameable Schism, generally by all, even separatists themselves, who [Page 72] plead, they seperate 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 joyn with, in the celebration of publick 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 causelesse separation, as to themselves, especially having done their dutie to reforme that corruption, as far as lyes in them, according to Math. 18.15. &c. Nothing but fear of sinning, justifies such a separation, as is elsewhere proved.

2. Violent or forced, and that either by the sinfull corruptions of a Church, (with which a man cannot communi­cate without partaking in their sinns) being imposed on them by a prevailing party, Church re­formation promoted on Math. 13.15. &c. to enjoy communion with them; or by opposition and persecution, when pi­ous people, are either driven out, or kept out of communion with them, un­lesse they will submit to those sinfull Impositions: And this Schism is the sin of those, that any way force it, and they [Page 73] are the Schismaticks, who caused that [...]paration. This hath often been ex­ [...]emplyfied in the Church of Rome [...] our Divines; We say, this Schism lyes at their door, who not onely have devi­ated from the com­on faith, themselves; but doe also actually cause, and attempt to destroy tem­porally and eternally, al that will not joyn with them therein: Of Schism. pag. 144. and the Schism justly [...]d at their door. Now our Reverend [...]octor: 1. Denies any thing to be [...]hism but a Division made by a mem­ [...]r in a particular Church: 2. Confi­ [...]ntly affirmes, that Separation from Church, true or false is no Schism: [...]y which means he justifies, not only [...]s own, and partie's Separation, but even [...] the Sectaries, and the Romanists also, their separation from the Primitive [...]postolicall Church, in Doctrine, worship [...]nd discipline. They may be Schisma­ [...]cks for their intestine divisions, if [...]ey will acknowledge themselves a [...]rticular Church, not otherwise; for [...]chism is only in a particular Church: [...]d thus he, who undertook to Vindi­ [...]te the Church of England, and his [...]wn party especially, from the charge [...]nd crime of Schism, by the Romanists, [...]ath justified them from being Schis­ [...]aticall, because they are no Church. [...]ut now upon the former grounds, we [...]ay prove themselves to Schismaticall; [...]. By a voluntary separation from true Churches, (with whom, we dare say, [Page 74] 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 truely constituted Churches 3. By keeping out fit members fro [...] their communion, unlesse 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 cruell mockings, and ungodly railings and reviling [...] and by their hereticall Doctrines, an [...] blasphemous errors, they keep us ou [...] of their communion; and by perswasion sollicite strongly, to make proselytes and draw them into separation from tru [...] Churches, which sure in Scripturall an [...] right reason, amount to an heinou [...] 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 [...] [Page 75] that of Diotrephes, in Scripture, which [...]he Reverend D [...]ctor sayes, p. 79. of [...]chism, ‘makes the neerest 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 brethren (whom he knew to be fit members) which he sent unto that Church to be adm [...]tted: 4. forbad and hindred those that would receive them: 5. and cast them out of the Church.’ As proper [...] Schismatick as the Pope himself. For (as we proved) they are Schismaticks, 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 wel as thos who voluntary separate themselves from a true Church. Next I shall suppose a cast (which lately fell out in NEW [Page 76] ENGLAND, and may do in OLD ENGLAND) If the Officers of [...] Church, or the people (if the power b [...] in them) shall raise causelesse difference with some one or more members of Church, and unjustly excommunicat [...] them and cast them out of the Church would not this Church be twice Schismaticall? once in raising causelesse dif­ferences in that Church, and then 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 then 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 publick Ordinances of God, unlesse 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, &c.

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; [Page 77] ‘The reverend Author understood me not at all, in what I affirmed.’ Truly I thought I had understood him, and [...]thers 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 [...]thers with me, either in the matter of [...]stituted worship onely, (and in no­ [...]hing else) or onely in the time of cele­ [...]rating instituted worship.’ Both these [...]enses of his words were given me by [...]imself; 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, &c.’ And page 25. in generall, ‘It denotes differences of mind and judgment amongst men, met in some one Assembly, &c.’ Which he repeats again in his Review, pag. 56. ‘Differences amongst men, met in some one Assembly, &c. and gives it for the importance of the word.’ Let's now hear his own sense; ‘I say not, that schism [Page 78] in the Church, is either about institute Worship, See pag. 91. By the Worship of God I intend, the whole compasse of Institutions, and their tendency there­to, &c. If he speak properly now, I am sure he spake obscurely before. or onely in the time of Worship but the thing I treat of, is a d [...]sorde [...] in the institutes Worship of God and so it is, [...] the beeing an [...] constitution o [...] any Church, be a part of Gods Worship’ Had he thus exprest it at first, I professe (and so do others) I should lesse hav [...] understood him; for what means he That schism is onely a disorder in th [...] divisions of mind and judgment, abou [...] the beeing 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 onely a difference in one Assembly, and do not imply also, a separation into parties, up­on those divisions. pag. 54. Hear what he saies; ‘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 [Page 79] 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 designe of my book:’ That is, I understood him [...]ot at all. I must confesse, I did so sup­ [...]ose, that he did deny separation to be schism, restraining it (as he did oft) to [...]ivisions in a Church, not allowing se­ [...]aration from a Church, true, or false, [...]o be a schism. Well then, he grants [...]ome separation, and because there is a [...]eparation, is a schism; and so we are [...]greed. No, 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 onely in two, the first, Act. 14.4. ‘The multitude was divided, and some were with the Apostles, and some with the Jewes:’ 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 publick commotion.’ Let the Con­text be consulted. I said something to it, in page 40. and now I add; It seems [Page 80] to me to be meant of schism, in an Ec­clesiasticall sense, (though by him brought as a politicall schism, page 24. for thus it stands: The Apostles entre [...] into the Synagogue of the Jewes, vers. 1 [...] (which was a Church-Assembly) the [...] a commotion or dissention was made, b [...] the unbelieving Jewes, against the brethren, vers. 2. whereupon the multitud [...] was divided; first, in minds and judgments, [...]; then into part or companies, and some were with th [...] Apostles, some with the Jewes; whic [...] cannot wel be meant of, being or sidein [...] with the Apostles, in judgment onely 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, &c.’ Clav [...] unto him, not onely in their judg­ments, but in their company, following him upon his departure. This will be more evident in the next Text. Act. 19.8, 9. ‘Paul entring into the Synagogue, spake boldly for three months, &c. But some being hardned, and unbelieving, speaking evill of that way before the peo­ple; Paul departing from them, separa­ted [Page 81] the d [...]sciples, teaching daily in the school of one Tyrannus.’ Which schism [...]r separation was violently forced by the [...]urbulent Jewes, 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 [...]orcing that separation. All that the re­ [...]erend Doctor saies to this instance, is, [...]hat I confesse in the margine, that ‘the word there used, is [...], Both the words sig­nifie 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 Jewes, who enforced him to make that separa­ [...]ion, as I said above. The Romanists are [...]udged schismaticks by ours, because [...]hey drove and cast us out of communi­on, by such like dealing with us.

I confessed indeed, that in the Eccle­siasticall sense, the word is onely used in [...]he, 1 Cor. 1.9. &c. (I except now the places newly mannaged, where the one hath the word and the other the mat­ter of Schism) but I do not confesse 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, [Page 82] signifies a breach of union, or a se­paration into parts; in what degree so ever. And that the Reverend Docto [...] beggs the question is evident, because he inferrs, ‘That Schism being so ta­ken in those places, Ergo it signifies n [...] more in the nature of the word, or thing▪’ He knowes, I denyed both the Antece­dent and the consequence; the Antecedent by manifesting that there was more in their Schism, than onely a D [...]vision o [...] minds: there was division into parties a separation with respect to severall Mi­nisters, I am of Paul &c. and to one Or­dinance at least, the Lords supper: the Consequence, because the word signifies besides, any sinfull 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 mens divisions, continuing members of that Church, that he denyes to be charged with Schism.’ But if there was any separa [...]ion in the church, thats more than he did grant at first; and made Schism onely a division of mind in that Church; and if he grant any separation in that Church, its as much as I desire; for I undertook to prove, there was more [Page 83] among them, than a bare division of [...]inds, a degree of separation, which the [...]postle there charges, as part of their [...]chism; and this the Reverend Doctor [...] a manner yeelds, p. 58. For when I [...]id, granting him his speciall notion, this [...] the way on one hand to free all [...]hurch-separation from Schism &c. He [...]nsweres " This is denyed: which to me [...]ports, that some separation from a [...]hurch is Schism; which is contrary to [...]s notion, that Schism is nothing but a [...]vision in a church, 2. ‘The disputes amongst them (sayes 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 theres litle weight [...]n this, when as the Apostle first sayes [...]xpresly; ‘He had in a figure transferred these things to himselfe and to Apollos for their sakes &c. 1 Cor. 4.6’ And then the [...]ifference of gifts, that was in Paul and Apollos might suffice to make up that [...]gure, as the Apostle addes; ‘That yee might learne 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.’ [Page 84] 3. He addes ‘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 its very rare to find 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 chuse thei [...] owne Teachers, with neglect, and sleighting of others: sure we are, we find it [...] now; many by having mens persons in admiration, have separated from on [...] Churches, by crying up some one Minister, some another, and renounce communion with us. Its very probabl [...] it was so then; men that had itching eares, heaped to themselves Teachers after their owne lusts, 2 Tim. 4.3, 4 This breeds envyings and strife amongs [...] Ministers, when others steale 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 sayes against that probability of separation, i [...] little worth; for I did not unde [...]take (as I said) to prove a separation from [Page 85] 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 least 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 least 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 onely 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 knowes whom I mean.

That in the Church of Corinth, [...] thereabouts, there was more then on single Congregation; I proved, first, fro [...] himselfe, 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; then were there at least two distinct Assemblies. To which he saies onely this; ‘Is there any mention, that that Church made any se­paration from that of Corinth?’ &c. 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 [Page 87] 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 re­ [...]pect to the several times, not the several [...]laces of their meetings: But that is pre­ [...]ented, by that which I newly said. For sure, it might be applyed 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 find none, but what I also suppose I had disproved, page 30. To some things whereof, he saies nothing: But he is so liberall, as to forego that proof. pag. 63. ‘Is it any thing to my present designe, 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 businesse, and designe he ma­nages, then with all my reviling [...] The like he redoubles, page 7 [...]. ‘And will suppose the Church to be of what [Page 88] kind I please, if I will acknowledge it [...] be the particular Church of Corinth▪’ As for my revilings, 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 causlesse difference, amongst the mem­bers of any particular Church, that meet together, or ought so to do, for the worship of God, and celebration of the same numericall Ordinances, &c. Of Schism, pag. 52. Can a particular Church, of many Churches, so meet to­gether, to the same numericall Ordi­nances? when he granted these things? For 1. Supposing there were many Chur­ches in Corinth, and that but one Church, it would plead strongly for a Presbyterian, no­thing for an Inde­pendent Church: That one Church was governed in common, by the seve­rall Elders, the Apostle writing to them all. 2. Then it were easie 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, then there may be separations of one Church from ano­ther, as well as divisions in a particular Congregation; and so schism will ex­tend further, then he would have it. e. g. Supposing the Church of England to [Page 89] be Nationall in a right sense, and so [...]lled a particular Church, with re­ [...]pect either to other Nationall, or the [...]niversall Church; can there be no [...]hismaticall separation made, from the Nationall Church of England, in the fal­ [...]ng off of one or more Churches, to A­ [...]abaptism, or the like? but they must se­ [...]arate 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, &c.’ No, that which I was to manifest, was, 1. That schism is more then a division in a Church; Even separation from a Church, is schism. 2. That there was more in that schism at Corinth, then a bare division of minds; there was, if not [Page 90] a separation from it, into anothe [...] 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 followes 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 onely, 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 generall, he calls it, "That abhominable 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 disorderlinesse of their [Page 91] spirit; whom those Corinthians fol­ [...]owed.’ And afterwards more particular­ [...]y shewes, wherein that schism consi­ [...]ed; 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, &c. that the most stayed and an­tient 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 off those, who have unblameably and holily, undergone the duties of their Episcopacy.’ Then (a few lines be­tween) follow those words, cited by the reverend Doctor, [...], &c. ‘For we perceive, [...], ye have removed some, who performed their Of­fice well, &c.’ 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 [Page 92] 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 [...] &c. 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 [Page 93] deposed such from their Ministry, &c.’ This was their charge, this was part at [...]east of their schism, and the chiefest part thereof. There was not indeed (for ought 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 madnesse, in casting out, and depo­sing of their Elders; and they were the schismaticks, (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 passe un­touched, by some of his ordinary lan­guage; ‘of my prejudices, mistakes, ex­travagances, reflections, mean affecti­ons to Independents; that I have not made the least attempt, towards the eversion of what he had asserted, &c. 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 leafe of my Treatise.’ Which imputati­ons, how false and sleighting they are, above all in my whole book, others must judge. Could I avoid reflections upon Independents, when I had to dea [...] with him, who is an Independent, and [Page 94] pleads their cause? Did I onely intend to deal with him, and not rather with the whole party, whose persons he su­stains, and interests himself in thei [...] judgment, when he commonly speak [...] in the plurall number, ‘We have se­parated from none of their Churches?’ and many the like. And could I prove their way to be schismaticall, 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 sleightly passe 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 onely place, where there is any mention of schism in the ecclesiasticall 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 implyed in the other, Act. 19.8, 9. in an ecclesiasticall sense? Have I not clearly proved, that there were more Churches then one, in and about Corinth, to which that Epistle was written? And considering the mul­titude [Page 95] 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 evill reproved, was se­paration from it?’ No, but that there as more then a division of minds in that [...]hism, even a separation in it, as to some [...]rdinances; 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 no, pag. 43. (suppose he be a Mahume­tan, or a Jew) is a schismatick.’ 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 pa­ [...]enthesis, is it not otherwise professed [Page 96] by me, pag. 55. An Heathen cannot b [...] a schismatick? 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 plead for t [...] old defin [...]tion of schism, as suitable to t [...] Scripture, after the whole foundation [...] it is taken away.’ How is the foundat [...] on of it taken away? not by his noti [...] of schism; for though that schism ha [...] been onely a division in a particul [...] Church, with respect to their mind and judgments; yet it followes 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 signifie 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 severall sects; [Page 97] not divided onely 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 sinfull schismaticall 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 our selves together.’ And [...]hat, Jud. v. 19. [...], separating [...]hemselves. All which imply a sinful [...]reach of union, and a causelesse separation from a true Church; which is the old definition of schism.

There are many things more of great [...]mportance in this Chapter, which I [...]annot but think it hard measure, to be [...]o sleighted and despised, as to an an­ [...]wer. But the reverend Doctor is so [...]namoured with his new notion, and so over-joyed with his [...] of inventi­on, that if you will not grant him that, [...]e professes, to look for no successe 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 [Page 98] notice of, in the conclusion of this Chap­ter, that is, about the aggravations of schism: First, those that are given by others, which I re-enforced; 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. Then for his own, he may, without any leave from me, lay what weight he will upon them; ‘encouraged (he saies) by my approbation of them.’ Truly, all the approbation I gave, was, that I could agree 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 competible to the aggravation of any other sin almost, as well as schism? The same aggravations may be applyed to our civill dissentions: The last indeed is the most proper, viz. ‘Its constant growing to farther evill, in some, to Apostacy it self; its usuall and certain [Page 99] ending in strife, variance, debate, evill surmisings, wrath, confusion, distur­bances, publick and private, are also to be laid all at its door.’ And that's my [...]dgment, 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 [...]hism; 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 [...]hurch, for he hath granted some such be schism, as I shewed above, from [...]s 58 page, where he saies, "It is de­nyed, Who told him, that raising causlesse dif­ferences in a Church and then separating from it, is not in my judgment 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 100] page 81. he saies, ‘That separation fro [...] Churches is oft-times evill, is readil [...] granted.’ And before, he said, ‘Caus [...] lessely to separate, is no small evill, p. 70’ Then a causlesse separation from [...] Church is evill; and why? but becaus [...] 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 separatio [...] from a true Church is not schism? Fo [...] no body saies absolutely, that all separation is schism; but a causlesse separation is schism; upon this reason, becaus [...] 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 [...] onely a division in the Church, an [...] therefore separation from the Churc [...] 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 Christs appointment, who requires members of Church to be all of one mind. And is i [...] not an appointment of Christ, that th [...] [Page 101] members of a Church be united, as to [...]he performance of the same numericall Worship? Then by parity of reason, it [...]ollowes, that to break that union caus­ [...]essely, is also a schism. Is not this a [...]auslesse and worthlesse vitilitigation of [...]he learned Doctor?

I brought 1 Joh. 2.19. for a blameable [...]eparation from the Church; They went [...]ut from us, as (said I) is the manner of [...]chismaticall 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 apostacy: They may do so, but not excluding [...]chism or heresie; [...]. 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 blameable 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 rectifie a mistake in the reve­ [...]end Doctor, which he pleases himself with; viz. That he (not consulting the [Page 102] Errata's) reads mind for include. I said Some of them included the nature [...] schism, at least, as precedaneous to th [...] separation. Upon which mistake, h [...] sports himself, and adds; ‘Whatev [...] the matter is, pag. 82. I do not find h [...]m speaking so faintly, and with such caution through his whole discourse, as in th [...] place.’ Truly I spake so cautiously, fo [...] his reputation, not any end of my own because some, one at least, 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 apostacy; I proved his mistake from the Context clea [...] red, from others, and from himself who formerly glossed it, neglecting th [...] publick Assemblies; and also becaus [...] apostates may be schismaticks, and some­thing more. For the third, Jude vers. 19 I proved the separation to be schismati­call, from the nature of the word [...], and the judgment 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 [Page 103] 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 proposall; 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, &c.’ He cries out, ‘I do not know, that I was ever necessitated, to a more sad and fruit­less employment, &c. Is that the question in present agitation? &c.’ Was not this scruple started by himself? 1. In giving his definition of schism, to be onely 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 with-hold himself, from the externall communion of any Church, upon plea of its corruption in Worship, Doctrine, or Discipline, &c. is not called schism, &c.’ Did it not now come to be the cause of my question, which I rightly stated, as [Page 104] 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 spake not onely 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, &c. and set up another Church, &c. 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, &c. which have [Page 105] [...]een once at least fully answered. I shall [...]nely lay hold of his promise, twice [...]ade; ‘That if I can prove aga [...]nst 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, &c.’ 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, ac­ [...]nowledge us true Churches) they have made a breach, upon an union of Christs 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 adjoyned, ‘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 find, 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 [Page 106] uncivilly with me in this, I shall no [...] retaliate, but onely vindicate the truth as a friendly and christian adversary.

CHAP. VI, VII.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page. 120. ‘Do I undertake the cause of the Donatists? do I labour to exempt them from Schism? are these the wayes of peace, love, and truth, he walkes in?’ [...] appeal all Readers, whether he did not [...]abour to exempt the Donatists, from [...]chism, p. 164. though he condemned [...]ll their practises as other crimes? And did he not undertake to exempt some others from Schism, (he knowes whom) ‘that suffer with them, in former and af­ter ages, under the same imputation?’ And was it not upon his own new no­tion; because Schism is only a division [...]n, not from, a particular Church? Yea was it not Schismaticall for them, to cast Cecilianus out of the Church, re­nouncing communion with him, and the Church of Carthage also? ibid. p. 17. 18. The World hath hitherto judged it so; and the Reverend Doctor is now come off to that opinion, when he sayes "Do I labour to exempt them from Schism? [Page 114] which (the Rhetoricall Interrogation affirmative, being resolved) is negative I do not labour to exempt them from Schism; Ergo they were Schismaticks in that separation. And once more, A sep [...] ­ration from a true Church, is sometim [...] Schism, as well as division in it; But h [...] sayes, angerly it seems; ‘Sir, I have no sin­gular notion of Schism, but that wch Pau [...] long since declared, I pray, what was Pauls notion of the Schism amongst the Corinthians?’ was it, that (which is yours) that Schism was onely a division in a particular Church? no; but that their Schism was a division in, that Church (with a degree of separation in it, as to some Ordinances as I have proved) not, that that comprehended the full nature of Schism; and if ‘ the notion of Schism was not at all under considera­tion in reference to the Donatists, I de­sire him to look back to the objection which he undertooke to answer; was it not the charge of Schism?’ if not that, what else? ‘Not Schism, but the union of the Church Catholick, and the breach thereof.’ And what is the breach of the union of that Church, (in his notion) but Apostacy from the truth of the Gospell? [Page 115] 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 lesse: but renouncing communion with the catho­lick Cuhrch, and making themselves the only Churches in the world, they were by all men in all ages till now, accoun­ted not Apostates, but Schismaticks: But too much of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pag. 140. If the discourse about the intercision of Ordinances, and all Church-state, was an impertinency, it [Page 134] was his own fault, to start it thrice pag. 85. and 211. and 271. and a greate fault to wave it here: Onely, 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. Onely I take notice, of his introduction to his answer, ‘with thanks for the civility of the enquiry, in the manner of its expression. My words were these, Whether our reverend Author do not in his conscience think, there were no true Churches in England, till, &c.’ which puts me into a suspicion, that the re­verend Doctor was offended, that I did [Page 135] not alwaies (for oft I do) give him that [...]tle, of the reverend Author, or reverend Doctor; which made him so cry out, ‘ He was never so dealt with, by any par­ty, as by me; though upon review, I do not find, that I gave him any uncivill [...]anguage, unbeseeming me to give, or [...]im to receive:’ And I hear, that some body hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very [...]ill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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