CHAP. 1.

THe present State of things in the Christian world, will on a slight consideration yeeld this account of controversies in Re­ligion; that when they are driven to such an issue, as by forraigne coincidences to be rēdered the interest of parties at variance, there is not any great successe to be ob­tained by a mannagement of thē, though with never so much evidence and convi­ction of truth. An answering of the pro­fession that is on us, by a good and law­full meanes, the paying of that homage and tribute we owe to the truth, the ten­dring [Page 2] of assistance to the safe-guarding of some weaker professours thereof, from the sophismes and violence of adversa­ries, is the most that in such a posture of things, the most sober writers of Con­troversies can well aime at.

The winning over of men to the truth we seeke to maintaine, where they have beene preingaged in an opposition unto it, without the alteration of the outward state of things, whence their engagements have insensibly sprung and risen, is not ordinarily to be expected. How farre I was from any such thoughts in the com­posing and publishing my Treatise of the nature of Schisme, I declared in sundry passages in the treatise its selfe. Though the thing contended about, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary, will not be found amongst the most important heads of our Religion, yet knowing how farre on sundry accounts the stated, fixed interest of severall sorts of men, ingageth them to abide by the principles they owne in reference thereunto▪ I was so farre from hoping to see speedily any visible fruits of [Page 3] the efficacie of the truth I had mannaged, that I promised my selfe a vigorous opposition, untill some urgent provi­dence, or time, altering the frame of mens spirits should make way for its acceptance. Freely I left it in the hand of him, whose truth, I have good security I had in weak­nesse maintained, to dispose of it with its issues and events at his pleasure. I con­fesse knowing severall parties to be con­cerned in an opposition to it, I was not well able to conjecture from what hand the first assault of it would arise. Proba­bility cast it on them, who looked on themselves in the nearest proximitie of advantage by the common notion of Schisme opposed. The truth is, I did ap­prehend my selfe not justly chargeable with want of charity, if I thought that opposition would arise from some other principles, than mere zeale for a supposed truth, and therefore tooke my aime in conjecturing at the prejudices that men might feare themselves and interests ob­noxious unto by a reception and esta­blishment of that notion of Schisme, which [Page 4] I had asserted. Mens contentednesse to make use of their quietnesse in reference to Popery, Socinianism, Arminianism, dai­ly vented amongst us, unlesse it were in some declamatory expressions against their Toleration, which cost no more than they are worth, if shaken off by a speedy en­gagement against my treatise, confirmed such thoughts in mee. After therefore it had passed in the world for some season, and had found acceptance with many learned and godly persons, reports began to be raised about a designe for the re­futation of it; that so it should be dealt withall I heard was judged necessary at sundry conventions; what particular hand it was likely the taske would fall upon, judging my selfe not concerned to know, I did not enquire. When I was informed how the disposall of the businesse did succeed, as I was not at all surprized in reference to the party in generall from which it did issue, so I did relieve my selfe under my fears, and loathing to be ingag'd in these contests by these ensu­ing considerations. 1. That I was fully [Page 5] perswaded that what I had written was for the substance of it the truth of God, and being concern'd in it only on truths account, If it could be demonstrated that the sentence I had asserted, was an unlaw­full pretender thereunto, I should be de­livered from paying any further respect or service to that, whereunto none at all was due. 2. That in the treatise its selfe so threatned, I had laid in provision against all contending about Words, Ex­pressions, collaterall Assertions, deducti­ons, positions, all and every thing, though true, that might be separated from the life or substance of the notion, or truth pleaded for. 3. That whereas the whole weight of the little pile turned on one single hing, and that visible & cōspicuous, capable of an ocular demonstration, as to its confirmation or refutation, I promi­sed my selfe that any man who should undertake the demolishing of it, would be so farre from passing that by, and setting himselfe to the superstruction, that sub­sists in its single strength and vigour, that indeed finding that one thing neces­sary [Page 6] for him, he would solely attempt that, and therein rest. This I knew was evident to any considering person that should but view the treatise, that if that foundation were cast downe, the whole superstructure would fall with its owne weight: but if left standing, an hundred thousand volumes against the rest of the treatise could not in the least prejudice the cause undertaken to be mannaged in it. Men might indeed by such attempts manifest my weaknesse and want of skill, in making inferences and deductions from principles of Truth, wherein I am not concern'd, but the truth its selfe con­tended for, would still abide untouched.

4. Having expresly waved mans day, and judgement, I promised my selfe secu­rity from a disturbance by urging against me the authority of any, of old or late; supposing that from the eviction of their severall interests, I had emancipated my my selfe from all subjection to their bare judgements in this cause. 5. Whereas I had confin'd my selfe to a bare defensative of some, not intending to cast others [Page 7] from the place, which in their owne ap­prehensions they do enjoy, (unlesse it was the Roman party) I had some ex­pectations that peace-loving godly men, would not be troubled that an apparent immunity from a crime was without their prejudice or disadvantage manifest­ed in behalfe of their brethren, nor much paine themselves to reinforce the charge accounted for. So that the bare notion of Schisme, and the nature of it abstracted from the consideration of persons, would come under debate. Indeed I questioned whether in that friendly composure of affections, which for sundry yeares hath been carrying on betweene sober and god­ly men of the Presbyterian and Congrega­tionall judgement, any person of reall godlinesse would interest himselfe to blow the coale of dissension, and engage in new exasperations. I confesse I alwaies thought the plea of Cicero for Ligarius against Tubero most unreasonable; namely, that if he had told (as he calls it) an ho­nest and mercifull lye in his behalfe, yet it was not the part of a man to refell it, e­specially [Page 8] of one who was accused of the same crime: but yet I must needs say, a prompt readinesse to follow most que­stionable accusations against honest defē ­satives, frō good men unjustly accused by others of the same crime, I did not expect. I added this also in my thoughts, that the facility of tendring a discourse to the purpose, on the businesse under conside­ration, was obviated by its being led out of the common rode, wherin common place supplies would be of litle use to any that should undertake it: not once sus­pecting that any man of learning and judgment would make a returne unto it out of vulgar discourses about ministers calling, Church government or the like. How farre these and the like considerati­ons might be a releife unto my thoughts, in my feares of further controversiall in­gagements, having the pressure of more business upō me than any one mā I know of my Calling in the whole nation, I leave it to the judgment of them who love truth and peace. But what litle confidence I ought in the present posture of the [Page 9] minds of men, to have placed in any or all of them, the discourse vnder Consider­ation hath instructed me: That any one thing hath fallen out according to my ex­pectations and conjectures, but only its being a product of the men, of the perswa­sion owned therin, I am yet to seeke. The truth is I cannot blame my Adversary viis et modis to make good the opposi­tion he is ingaged in; it concernes him and his advisers beyond their interest in the appearing skirts of this Controversy. Perhaps also an adjudged necessity of in­deavoring a disreputation to my person and writings, was one ingredient in the undertaking. If so, the whole frame was to be carried on by correspondent me­dium's. But let the principles and motives to this discourse be what they will, it is now made publick, there being a warmer zeale acting therin, then in carrying on some other thinges, expected from the same hand.

To what may seeme of importance in it, I shall with all▪ possible plainesse give a returne. Had the Reverend Author of it [Page 10] thought good, to have kept within the bounds, by me fixed, and candidly debated the notion proposed, abstracting from the provocations of particular applications, I should most willingly have taken paines for a further clearing and manifesting of the truth contended about.

But the whole discourse wherewith I have now to do, is of another complexion, and the designe of it, of another tendency; yea so mannaged sometimes, that I am ready to question whether it be the pro­duct and fruite of his spirit whose name it bears: for though he be an utter stranger to me, yet I have received such a character of him, as would raise mee to an expe­ctation of any thing from him, rather then such a discourse.

The Reader will be able to perceive an account of these thoughts in the ensuing view of his Treatise.

1. I am without any provocation in­tended, and I hope given, reviled from one end of it to the other; and called, partly in down right termes, partly by oblique intimations, whose reflections are [Page 11] not to be waved, Sathan, Atheist; Sceptick, Donatist, Heretick, Schismaticke, Sectarie, Pharisee, &c. and the closure of the Book is merely an attempt to blast my repu­tation, whereof I shall give a speedy account.

2. The professed designe of the whole is to prove Independency, as he is pleased to call it, which what it is, he declares not, nor (as he mannages the businesse) do I know, to be a great Schisme, and that In­dependents, (by whom it is full well knowne whom he intends) are Schisma­ticks, Sectaries, the troublers of England. So that it were happy for the Nation, if they were out of it; or discovering san­guinary thoughts in reference unto them; and these kinds of discourses fill up the booke, almost from one end to the other.

3. No Christian care doth seeme to have been taken, nor good conscience exercised from the beginning to the en­ding, as to imputation of any thing unto me, or upon mee, that may serve to help on the designe in hand.

[Page 12] Hence I think it is repeated neare an hun­dred times, that I deny their Ministers to be Ministers, & their Churches to be Chur­ches, that I deny all the reformed Chur­ches in the world, but onely our owne (as he calls them) to be true Churches, all which is notoriously untrue, contrary to my knowne judgement, professedly decla­red on all occasions, contrary to expresse affirmations in the booke he undertakes to confute, and the whole designe of the booke its selfe. I cannot easily declare my surprizall on this account. What am I to expect from others, when such Reverend men as this Author, shall by the power of prejudice be carried beyond all bounds of moderation, and Christian ten­dernesse in offending? I no way doubt but that Sathan hath his designe in this whole businesse. He knowes how apt we are to fixe on such provocations, and to con­tribute thereupon to the increase of our differences. Can he according to the course of things in the world, expect any other issue, but that in the necessary de­fensative I am put upon, I should not [Page 13] wave such reflexions and retortions on him, and them with whom I have to do, as present themselves with as faire pleas, and pretences unto me, as it is possible for me to judge, that the charges before mentioned (I meane of Schisme, Heresie, and the like) did unto him. For as to a returne of any thing in its owne nature false and untrue, as to matter of fact, to meet with that of the like kind wherewith I am entertained, I suppose the Divell himselfe was hopelesse to obtaine it. Is he not filled with envie to take notice in what love without dissimulation I walk with many of the Presbyterian judgment? What Christian entercourse, and commu­nion I have with them in England, Scot­land, Holland, France, fearing that it may tend to the furtherance of peace & union among the Churches of Christ? God as­sisting I shall deceive his expectations, and though I be called Schismatick, and Here­tick a thousand times, it shall not weaken my love or esteeme, of, or towards any of the godly Ministers, or people of that way and judgment with whom I am ac­quainted, [Page 14] or have occasion of converse.

And for this Reverend Author himself, I shall not faile to pray, that none of the things, whereby he hath, I feare, admini­stred advantage unto Satan to attempt the exasperations of the spirits of Bre­thren one against another, may ever be laid to his charge. For my owne part I professe in all sincerity, that such was my unhappinesse, or rather happinesse in the constant converse which in sundry places I have with Persons of the Presbyterian judgment, both of the English and Scottish Nation, utterly of another frame of spirit, then that which is now shewed, that untill I saw this treatise, I did not believe that there had remained in any one godly, sober, judicious person in England, such thoughts of heart in reference to our present dif­ferences, as are visible and legible therein:

I hope the Reverend Author will not be offended, if I make bold to tell him, that it will be no joy of heart to him one day, that he hath taken paines to cast oyle on those flames, which it is every ones [Page 15] duty to labour to extinguish.

But that the whole matter in difference may be the better stated and determined, I shall first passe through with the generall concernments of the book it selfe, and then consider the severall Chapters of it, as to any particulars in them that may seem to relate to the businesse in hand. It may possibly not a little conduce towards the removall of those obstructions unto peace and love, laid in our way by this Reve­rend Author, and to a clearer stating of the controversie▪ pretended to be ventila­ted in his discourse, to discover and lay aside those mistakes of his, which being interwoven with the main discourse from the beginning to the end, seeme as prin­ciples to animate the whole, and to give it that life of trouble, whereof it is partaker. Some of them were, as absolutely consi­dered, remarked before; I shall now re­new the mention of them, with respect to that influence which they have into the Argumentative part of the Treatise under consideration.

1. First then it is strenuously supposed [Page 16] all along, that I deny all, or any Churches in England, to be true Churches of Christ, except only the Churches gathered in the Congregationall way, and upon their principles: then that I deny all the refor­med Churches beyond the Seas to be true Churches of Christ. This supposition be­ing laid, as the foundation of the whole building, a confutation of my treatise is fixed thereon, a comparison is instituted betweene the Donatists and my selfe: Ar­guments are produced to prove their Churches to be true Churches, and their Ministers true Ministers. The charge of Schisme on this bottome is freely given out and asserted, the proofe of my Schis­maticall separation from hence deduced, and many termes of reproach are returned as a suitable reply to the provocation of this opinion. How great a portion of a small treatise may easily be taken up with discourses relating to these heads, is easie to apprehend. Now lest all this paines should be found to be uselesse, and causles­ly undergone, let us consider how the Reverend Author proves this to be my [Page 17] judgment. Doth he evince it from any thing deliver'd in that treatise he under­takes to confute? doth he produce any o­ther testimonies out of what I have spo­ken, deliver'd, or written else where, and on other occasions to make it good? This I suppose he thought not of, but took it for granted, that either I was of that judgment, or it was fit I should be so, that the difference between us might be as great, as he desired to have it appeare to be.

Well to put an end to this controver­sie, seeing he would not believe, what I told the world of my thoughts herein in my book of Schisme, I now informe him again, that all thes surmises are fond & un­true. And truly for his own sake with that respect which is due to the reputation of Religion, I here humbly intreate him not to entertain what is here affirm'd with un-Christian surmizes, which the Apostle reckons amongst the works of the fiesh, as though I were of another mind but durst not declare it, as more then on [...] in some particulars he insinuates the state of [Page 18] things with me to be. But blessed be the God of my salvation, and of all my de­liverances, I have yet liberty to declare the whole of my judgment in and about the things of his worship. Blessed be God, it is not as yet in the power of some men to bring in that their conceited happiness into England, which would in their thoughts accrew unto it, by my removall from my native soyle, with all others of my judgment and perswasion. We are yet at peace, and we trust that the Lord will deliver us from the hands of men, whose tender mercies are cruell. However be it known unto them that if it be the will of the Lord upon our manifold pro­vocations to give us up to their disposall, who are pleased to compasse us with the ornaments of reproaches before mentio­ned, that so we might fall as a sacrifice to rage or violence, we shall through his as­sistance and presence with us, dare to professe the whole of that truth, and those waies of his, which he hath been pleased to revea [...] unto us.

And if on any other account this Re­verend [Page 19] person suppose I may foster opi­nions and thoughts of mine owne and their waies which I dare not owne, let him at any time give me a command to waite upon him, and as I will freely and can­didly answer to any enquiries he shall be pleased to make after my judgment, and apprehensions of these things, so he shall find that (God assisting) I dare owne, and will be ready to maintaine what I shall so deliver to him. It is a sufficient evidence that this reverend Author is an utter stranger to me, or he would scarce enter­taine such surmizes of me as he doth. Shall I call in witnesses as to the particu­lar under consideration? one evidence by way of instance lies so neare at hand, that I cannot omit the producing of it: not above 14 daies before this treatise came to my hands, a learned Gentleman whom I had prevailed withall to answer in the Vespers of our Act, sent me his Questions by a Doctor of the Presbyterian judgment, a friend of his, and mine. The first Question was, as I remember, to this purpose: Utrū ministri Ecclesiae Anglicanae [Page 20] habeant validam ordinationem; I told the Doctor, that since the Questions were to passe under my approbation, I must needs confesse my selfe scrupled at the limitation of the subject of the Question in that terme Ecclesia Anglicana, which would be found ambiguous and aequivo­call in the disputation; and therefore de­sired that he would rather supply it with Ecclesiarum reformatarum, or some other expression of like importance, but as to the thing it selfe aimed at, namely the as­sertion of the ministry of the Godly mini­sters in England, I told him and so now do the Reverend Author of this treatise, that I shall as willingly ingage in the de­fence of it, with the lawfulnesse of their Churches, as any man what ever. I have only in my treatise questioned the insti­tution of a nationall Church, which this Author doth not undertake to maintaine, nor indeed hath the least reason so to do, for the asserting of true ministers and Churches in England; I meane those of the Presbyterian way. What satisfaction now this Reverend Author shall judge it [Page 21] necessary for him to give me, for the pub­licke injury which voluntarily he hath done me, in particular for his attempt to expose me to the censure and displeasure of so many godly ministers and Churches as I owne in England, as a person deny­ing their ministry, and Church station, I leave it to himselfe to consider. And by the declaration of this mistake how great a part of his book is waved as to my con­cernments therein, himsefe full well knows.

A second principle of like importance which he is pleased to make use of, as a thing granted by me, or at least which he assumes, as that which ought so to be, is that what ever the Presbyterian ministers and Churches be, I have separated from them, as have done all those whom he calls Independants. This is another foun­taine out of which much bitter water flows. Hence we must needs be thought to condemne their ministry and Churches. The Brownists were our fathers, and the A­nabaptists are our elder Brothers, we make an harlot of our mother, and are Schisma­ticks [Page 22] and Sectaries from one end of the book to the other. Quod erat demonstrandum. But doth not this Reverend Author know that this is wholly denyed by us? Is it not disproved sufficiently in that very Trea­tise which he undertakes to answer?

He grants, I suppose, that the separa­tion he blames, must respect some union of Christs institution: for any other, we professe our selves unconcerned in its maintenance, or dissolution, as to the bu­sinesse in hand. Now wherein have we separated from them as to the breach of a­ny such union? For an individuall per­son to change from the constant partici­pation of ordinances in one congregation, to do so in another, barely considered in its selfe, this Reverend Author holds to be no separation. However for my part, who am forced to beare all this wrath and storme, what hath he to lay to my charge? I condemne not their Churches in generall, to be no Churches, nor any one that I am acquainted withall in particular. I never disturb'd, that I know of, the peace of any one of them, nor separated from them; [Page 23] but having already received my punish­ment, I expect to heare my crime by the next returne.

3. He supposeth throughout that I deny not only the necessity of a successive ordination, but as farre as I can under­stand him, the lawfulnesse of it also. By ordination of Ministers many upon a mi­stake understand onely the imposition of hands that is used therein. Ordination of Ministers is one thing, and imposition of hands another, differing as whole and part; Ordination in Scripture compriseth the whole Authoritative translation of a man from among the number of his bre­thren into the state of an officer in the Church. I suppose he doth not thinke that this is denied by mee, though he tels me with the same Christian candor, and tendernesse, which he exerciseth in e­very passage almost of his booke, of ma­king my selfe a Minister, and I know not what; I am, I blesse the Lord, extreamly remote from returning him any of his own coyne in satisfaction for this Love. For that part of it which consists in the impo­sition [Page 24] of hands by the Presbytery, (where it may be obtained according to the mind of Christ.) I am also very remote from mannaging any opposition unto it. I thinke it necessary by vertue of precept, and that to be continued in a way of suc­cession. It is, I say, according to the mind of Christ, that he who is to be ordained unto office in any Church, receive impo­sition of hands from the Elders of that Church, if there be any therein. And this is to be done in a way of succession, that so the Churches may be perpetuated. That alone which I oppose is the denying of this successive ordination, through the Au­thority of Antichrist. Before the blessed and glorious Reformation, begun [...]nd carried on by Zuinglius, Luther, Calvin, and o­thers, there were, and had been two States of men in the world, professing the name of Christ, and the Gospell, as to the out­ward profession thereof. The one of them in glory, splendor, outward beauty, and order, calling themselves the Church, the only Church in the world, the Catholike Church; being indeed, and in truth in that [Page 25] state wherein they so prided themselves the mother of harlots, the beast, with his false Prophet. The other party poore, de­spised, persecuted, generally esteemed and called Hereticks, Schismaticks, or as occasion gave advantage for their farther reproach, Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, and the like. As to the claime of a suc­cessive ordination down from the Apostles, I made bold to affirme, that I could not understand the validity of that successive ordination, as successive, which was deri­ved downe unto us from, and by the first partie of men in the world.

This Reverend Authors reply here­unto, is like the rest of his discourse, pag. 118. He tels me, this casts dirt in the face of their Ministry, as do all their good friends the Sectaries, and that he hath much a doe to forbeare saying, The Lord rebuke thee. How he doth forbeare it, having so ex­pressed the frame of his heart towards me, others will judge: the searcher of all hearts knowes, that I had no designe to cast dirt on him, or any other godly man's ministry in England. Might not another [Page 26] answer have been returned without this wrath: This is so, or it is not so, in refe­rence to the ministry of this Nation. If it be not so, and they plead not their suc­cessive ordination from Rome, there is an end of this difference. If it be so, can Mr. C. hardly refraine from calling a man Sathan, for speaking the truth? It is well if we know of what spirit we are.

But let us a little farther consider his answer in that place. He asketh first, Why may not this be a sufficient foundation for their Ministry, as well as for their Baptisme? if it be so, & be so acknowledged, whence is that great provocation that arose from my enquiry after it: For my part I must tell him, that I judge their Baptisme good and valid, but to deale clearly with him, not on that foundation. I cannot be­lieve, that that Idolater, murtherer, man of sin, had, since the dayes of his open Idola­try, persecution, and enmity to Christ, any authority more or lesse from the Lord Jesus committed to him, in or over his Churches. But he addes, secondly, That had they received their ordination from the [Page 27] woman flying into the wildernesse, the two witnesses, or Waldenses, it had been all one to mee, and my party; for they had not their ordination from the people (except some extraordinary cases) but from a Presbyte­ry, according to the institution of Christ. So then, ordination by a Presbytery, Is it seemes opposed by me and my party; but I pray Sir, who told you so? when, where­in, by what meanes have I opposed it? I acknowledge my selfe of no party. I am sory so grave a Minister should suffer himselfe to be thus transported, that eve­ry answer, every reply, must be a reflecti­on, and that without due observation of truth and love. That-those first reformers had their Ordination from the people, is acknowledged; I have formerly evin­ced it by undeniable testimony. So that the proper succession of a Ministry a­mongst the Churches that are their off­spring, runs up no higher than that rise. Now the good Lord blesse them in their Ministry, and the successive ordination they enjoy, to bring forth more fruit in the earth to the praise of his glorious [Page 28] grace. But upon my disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting the ministry of all those, who yet hold their ordination on the accompt of its successive derivation from Rome, he cries out, egregiam verò laudem, and saies that yet I secretly derive their pedigree from Rome: well then he doth not so; why then, what need these exclamations? we are as to this matter wholly agreed; nor shall I at present far­ther pursue his discourse in that place, it is almost totally composed and made up of scornefull revilings, reflections, and such other ingredients of the whole.

He frequently & very positively affirms without the least hesitation, that I have re­nounced my own ordination, & adds hereun­to, that what ever else they pretend, unlesse they renounce their ordination, nothing will please me. that I condemn all other Churches in the world as no Churches; but who I pray told him these things? did he enquire so far after my mind in them, as without breach of charity to be able to make such positive and expresse assertions concer­ning them? A good part of his book is [Page 29] taken up in the repetition of such things as these, drawing inferences and conclusi­ons from the suppositions of them, and warming himselfe by them into a great contempt of my selfe and party, as he calls them. I am now necessitated to tell him, that all these things are false, and utterly, in part and in whole untrue, and that he is not able to prove any one of them. And whether this kind of dealing becomes a minister of the Gospell, a person professing Godlinesse, I leave it to him­selfe to judge. For my owne part I must confesse that as yet I was never so dealt withall by any man, of what party soever, although it hath been my unhappinesse to provoke many of them. I do not doubt but that he will be both troubled and a­shamed when he shall review these things. That whole Chapter, which he entitles, Independentisme is Donatisme, as to his application of it unto me, or any of my perswasion, is of the same importance, as I have sufficiently already evinced. I might instance in sundry other particu­lars, wherein he ventures without the least [Page 30] check or supposition, to charge me with what he pleaseth, that may serve the turn in hand; so that it may serve to bring in, he and his party are Schismaticks, are Secta­ries, have separated from the church of God, are the cause of all our evills and trou­bles, with the like tearmes of reproach, and hard censures, lying in a faire subser­viency to a designe of widening the diffe­rence between us, and mutually exaspe­rating the spirits of men, professing the Gospell of Jesus Christ, one against ano­ther, nothing almost comes amisse. His sticking upon by matters, diverting from the maine business in hand, answering Ar­guments by reflections, and the like, might also be remarked. One thing wherein he much rejoyceth, and fronts his book with the discovery he hath made of it, namely concerning my change of judgment as to the difference under pre­sent debate, which is the substance and de­signe of his appendix, must be particular­ly considered, and shall be, God assisting, in the next Chapter accordingly.

CHAP. 2.
An Answer to the Appendix of Mr. C [...]. Charge.

THough perhaps impartiall men will be willing to give me an acquit­ment from the charge of altering my judgment in the matters of our present difference, upon the generall account of the copartnership with me of the most inquiring men in this generation, as to things of no lesse importance; and though I might against this reverend brother and others of the same mind and perswasion with him, at present relieve my selfe suf­ficiently by a recrimination, in refe­rence to their former Episcopall engage­ments, and sundry practices in the wor­ship of God them attending, pleading in the meane time the generall issue of chan­ging from error to truth, (which that I have done as to any change I have really made, I am ready at any time to maine­taine to this Author) yet it being so [Page 32] much insisted upon by him as it is, and the charge thereof in the instance given, accompanied with so many evill surmi­sings, and uncharitable reflections, look­ing like the fruits of another principle then that whereby we ought in the man­nagement of our differences to be ruled, I shall give a more particular account of that, which hath yeilded him this great advantage. The sole instance insisted on by him, is a small treatise published long agoe by me, intitled, The duty of Pastors and People distinguished; wherein I pro­fesse my selfe to be of the Presbyterian judgment. Excerpta out of that treatise, with animadversions and comparisons thereon, make up the appendix, which was judged necessary to be added to the book, to help on with the proofe that In­dependency is a great schisme: had it not been indeed needfull to cause the person to suffer, as well as the thing, some sup­pose this paines might have been spared. But I am not to prescribe to any, what way it is meet for them to proceed in, for the compassing of their ends aimed at. [Page 33] The best is, here is no new thing produ­ced, but what the world hath long since taken notice of, and made of it the worst they can. Neither am I troubled that I have a necessity laid upon me to give an account of this whole matter. That little treatise was written by me in the yeare 1643, and then printed, however it recei­ved the addition of a yeare in the date af­fixed to it by the printers, which for their owne advantage is a thing usuall with them. I was then a young man my selfe, about the age of 26. or 27. yeares. The controversie between Independencie and Presbytery was young also; nor indeed by mee clearly understood, especially as sta­ted on the Congregationall side. The con­ceptions delivered in the treatise were not (as appeares in the issue) suited to the o­pinion of the one party, nor of the other; but were such as occurred to mine owne naked consideration of things, with rela­tion to some differences that were then upheld in the place where I lived, only being unacquainted with the Congregatio­nall way, I professed my selfe to owne the [Page 34] other party, not knowing but that my principles were suited to their judgement and profession; having looked very little further into those affaires, then I was led by an opposition to Episcopacy & Ceremo­nies. Upon a review of what I had thē asse­rted, I found that my principles were far more suited to what is the judgment and practice of the congregationall men, then those of the Presbiterian. Only whereas I had not received any farther cleare in­formation in these waies of the worship of God, which since I have been ingaged in, as was said, I professed my selfe of the Presbyterian judgment, in opposition to Democraticall confusion; and indeed so I do still; and so do all the congregationall men in England, that I am acquainted withall▪ so that when I compare what then I wrote with my present judgment, I am scarce able to find the least difference between the one and the other; only a misapplication of names and things by me, gives countenance to this charge. Indeed not long after, I set my selfe seriously to enquire into the contro­versies [Page 35] then warmly agitated in these na­tions. Of the congregationall way I was not acquainted with any one person, mi­nister or other; nor had I to my knowledg seen any more then one in my life. My acquaintance lay wholly with ministers, and people of the Presbyterian way. But sundry books being published on either side, I perused, and compared them with the Scripture, and one another, according as I received ability from God. After a generall view of them, as was my manner in other controverses, I fixed on one to take under peculiar consideration, and examination, which seemed most metho­dically, and strongly to maintaine that which was contrary as I thought to my present perswasion. This was Mr. Cotton's book of the keyes. The examination and confutation hereof, meerly for my owne particular satisfaction, with what dili­gence, and sincerity I was able, I ingag'd in. What progresse I made in that under­taking, I can manifest unto any, by the discourses on that subject, and animadver­sions on that book yet abiding by me. In [Page 36] the pursuit and management of this work, quite besides, and contrary to my expe­ctation, at a time, and season wherein I could expect nothing on that account but ruine in this world, without the know­ledge or advice of, or conference with any one person of that judgment, I was pre­vailed on to receive that and those princi­ples, which I had thought to have set my selfe in an opposition unto. And indeed this way of impartiall examining all things by the word, comparing causes with causes, and things with things, lay­ing aside all prejudicate respects unto persons, or present Traditions, is a course that I would admonish all to beware of, who would avoid the danger of being made independents. I cannot indeed deny, but that it is possible I was advantaged in the disquisition of the truth I had in hand, from my former imbracing of the princi­ples laid down in the treatise insisted on; now being by this means setled in the Truth, which I am ready to maintaine to this Reverend and learned Auhor, if he, or any other suppose they have any ad­vantage [Page 37] hereby against me, as to my re­putation, which alone is sought in such attempts as this: or if I am blameably li­able to the charge of inconstancy, and in­consistency with my owne principles, which he thought meet to front his book withall, hereupon I shall not labour to devest him of his apprehension, having abundant cause to rejoice in the rich grace of a mercifull and tender father, that men seeking occasion to speake evill of so poor a worme, tossed up and down in the midst of innumerable temptations, I should be found to fix on that, which I know will be found my rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I am necessitated to adde somewhat al­so to a surmise of this Reverend man, in reference to my Episcopall compliances in former daies, and strict observation of their canons. This indeed I should not have taken notice of, but that I find o­thers besides this Author pleasing them­selves with this apprehension, and endea­voring an advantage against the truth I professe thereby. How little some of my [Page 38] Adversaries are like to gaine, by bran­ding this as a crime is known; and I pro­fesse I know not the Conscience, that is exercised in this matter. But to deliver them once for all from involving them­selves in the like unchristian procedure hereafter, let them now know what they might easily have known before; namely, that this accusation is false, a plain calum­ny, a ly. As I was bred up from my infancy under the care of my father, who was a non-conformist all his daies, & a pain­full labourer in the vineyard of the Lord; so ever since I came to have any distinct knowledge of the things belonging to the worship of God, I have been fixed in judgment against that which I am calum­niated withall; which is notoriously known to all that have had any acquaintance with me; what advantage this kind of proceed­ing is like to bring to his owne soule, or the cause which he mannageth, I leave to himselfe to judge.

Thus in generall; to take a view of some particular passages in the Appendix destined to this good worke; the first Se­ction [Page 39] tries with much wit and Rhetorick to improve the pretended alteration of judgment to the blemishing of my Repu­tation; affirming it to be from truth to error; which as to my particular, so farre as it shall appeare I am cōcern'd, (I am lit­tle moved with the bare affirmation of men, especially if induced to it by their interest. I desire him to let me know when and where, I may personally wait upon him, to be convinced of it: in the mean time so much for that Section: in the se­cond, he declares what my judgment was in that treatise about the distance be­tween Pastors and People, and of the ex­treams that some men on each hand run into: and I now tell him, that I am of the same mind still, so that that note hath little availed him. In the third he relates what I delivered, that a man not solemnly called to the office of the Ministry by any outward call, might do as to the preaching of the Gospell in a collapsed Church-state. unto this he makes sundry objections; that my discourse is darke, not cleare, and the like; but remembring that his businesse [Page 40] was not to confute that treatise also, but to prove from it my inconstancie, and in­consistencie with my selfe: he sayes, I am changed from what I then delivered: this is denied, I am punctually of the same judgment still: but he proves the con­trary by a double argument. 1. Because I have renounced my ordination. 2. Because I thinke now, that not only in a compleat Church-state, but when no such thing can be charged, that gifts and consent of the people is enough to make a man a Preacher in office; both untrue and false in fact. I professe I am astonished, to thinke with what frame of spirit, what neglect of all rules of truth and love this businesse is mannaged. In the fourth Section, He char­geth me to have delivered somewhat in that treatise about the personall indwelling of the Holy Ghost in believers, and my words to that purpose are quoted at large. What then? am I changed in this also? no, but that is an error in the judg­ment of all that be orthodox: but that is not the businesse in hand, but the Alte­ration of my judgment; wherfore he makes [Page 41] a kind of exposition upon my words in that treatise, to shew that I was not then of the mind that I have now delivered my selfe to be of, in my book of Schisme; but I could easily answer the weakenesse of his exceptions, and pretended expositi­ons of my former assertions, and evidence my consistency in judgment with my selfe in this businesse ever since; but this he saith is an error which he gathered out of my book of Schisme; and some body hath sent him word from Oxford that I prea­ched the same doctrine at St. Maries. I wish his informer had never more deceived him; it is most true I have done so, and since printed at large what then I delive­red, with sundry additions thereunto; and if this Reverend Author shall think good to examine what I have published on that account, (not in the way in this treatise proceeded in, which in due time will be abhorred of himself & all good men, but with candor, and a spirit of Christian in­genuity and meeknesse,) I shall acknowledg my selfe obliged to him; and in the mean time I desire him to be cautious of large [Page 42] expressions, concerning all the Orthodox, to oppose that opinion, seeing evidences of the contrary lie at hand in great plenty: and let him learne from hence how little his insulting in his book on this account is to be valued. Sec. the 5. he shews that I then proved the name of priests not to be proper, or to be ascribed to the ministers of the Gospell; but that now (as is supposed in scorne) I call the ministers of their particu­lar congregations parochiall priests; un­true! In the description of the Prelaticall Church I shewed what they esteemed and called parish ministers amongst them. I never called the Presbyterian ministers of particular Congregations parochiall priests. Love truth and peace; these things ought not thus to be. Sec. the 6. He labours to find some difference in the tendency of severall expressions in that treatise, which is not at all to the purpose in hand, nor true as will appeare to any that shall read the treatise it selfe. In the 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Sec: He takes here and there a sentence out of the treatise and ex­amins it, interlacing his discourse with un­true [Page 43] reflections, surmizes and prognosti­cations: and in particular p. the 238 & 239. But what doth all this availe him in reference to his designe in hand? not on­ly before, but even since his exceptions to the things then delivered, I am of the same mind that I was, without the least alteration. And in the viewing of what I had then asserted, I find nothing strange to me, but the sad discovery of what frame of spirit the charge proceeded from. Sec. 12. doth the whole worke; there I acknowledge my selfe to be of the Pres­byterian judgment, and not of the Inde­pendent or congregationall. Had this Re­verend Author thought meet to have confined his charge to this one quotation, he had prevented much evill that spreads it selfe over the rest of his discourse, and yet have attained the utmost of what he can hope for, from the whole; and here­of I have already given an account. But he will yet proceed, and Sec. 13. informe his Reader that, in that Treatise I aver, that two things are required in a teacher, as to formall ministeriall teaching. 1. [Page 44] Gifts from God, 2 Authority frō the Church: well! what then? I am of the same mind still: but now I cry down ordination by Pres­bytery, what, & is not this a great alteration and signe of inconstancy. Truly, Sir, there is more need of humiliation in your selfe, then triumphing against me; for the as­sertion is most untrue, and your charge altogether groundlesse; which I desire you would be satisfied in, and not to be led a­ny more by evill surmises, to wrong mee, and your owne soule. He addes sect. 14. two cautions, which in that treatise I give to private Christians in the exercise of their gifts, and closeth the last of them with a Juvenile Epiphonema, divinely spoken, and like a true Presbyterian: and yet there is not one word in either of these cautions that I do not still own and allow; which confirmes the unhappinesse of the charge. Of all that is substantiall in any thing that followes, I affirme the same, as to all that which is gone before. Onely as to the liberty to be allowed unto them which meet in private, who cannot in conscience joyne in the Celebration of [Page 45] publike ordinances, as they are performed amongst us, I confesse my selfe to be o­therwise minded at present, than the words there quoted by this Author do expresse. But this is nothing to the difference be­tween Presbytery and independency: and he that can glory, that in 14. yeares, he hath not altered or improved in his concepti­on of some things, of no greater impor­tance then that mentioned, shall not have me for his rivall. And this is the summe of M [...]. C. Appendix; the discourse where­of being carried on with such a temper of spirit as it is, and suited to the advantage aimed at, by so many evill surmises, false suggestions, and uncharitable reflections, I am perswaded the taking of that paines, will one day be no joy of heart unto him.

CHAP. 3.
A Review of the chargers Preface.

HIs first chapter consists for the most part, in a repetition of my words, or so much of the discourse of my first Chap­ter as he could wrest, by cutting off one, and another parcell of it from its cohe­rence in the whole, with the interposure of glosses of his own, to serve him to make biting reflexions upō them with whom he hath to deale. How unbecoming such a course of procedure is, for a person of his worth, gravity and profession, perhaps his [...], have by this time con­vinced him. If men have a mind to per­petuate controversies unto an endlesse, fruitlesse reciprocation of words and ca­vils, if to provoke to easie and facile re­torsions, if to heighten and aggravate differences beyond any hope of reconcili­ation, they may do wel to deale after this manner with the writings of one another. M ^r. C. knowes how easie it were to make [Page 47] his owne words, dresse him up in all those ornaments wherein he labours to make me appeare in the world, by such glosses, inversions, additions, and interpositions, as heis pleased to make use of; but melio­ra speramus. Some particulars that seem to be of any importance to our businesse in hand, may be remarked as we passe through it: pag. 1. He tels us the Dona­tists had two principles: 1. that they were the onely Church of Christ in a corner of Africk, and left no Church in the world but their owne. 2. That none were truly bapti­zed, or entred members of the Church of Christ, but by some Minister of their party. These Principles, he saies, are againe im­proved by men of another party: whom though yet he name not, yet it is evident whom he intends: and pag: 3. he requires my judgement of those principles.

Because I would not willingly be wan­ting in any thing that may tend to his satisfaction, though I have some reason to conjecture at my unhappinesse in re­spect of the event: I shall with all integri­ty give him my thoughts of the principles expresséd above.

[Page 48] 1. Then, 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 everting all the rules of love, that our Lord Jesus Christ hath given to his dis­ciples, and servants to observe: if he in­tend my judgment of them in reference to the Churches of England, which he calls independent, I am sorry that he should thinke he hath any reason to make this inquiry. I know not that man in the world who is lesse concerned in obteining Countenance to those principles then I am. Let them who are so ready on all oc­casions or provocations to cast abroad the solemne formes of reproach, Schis­maticks, Sectaries, Hereticks, and the like, search their owne hearts, as to a confor­mity of spirit unto these principles. It is not what men say, but what men doe, that they shall be judged by. As the Donatists were not the first who in story were char­ged with Schisme, no more was their Schisme confined to Africk. The a­greement [Page 49] of multitudes in any principles, makes it in its selfe not one whit better, and in effect worse. For my part I ac­knowledge the Churches in England, Scotland and France, Helvetia, the nether­lands, Germany, Greece, Muscovia, &c. as far as I know of them, to be true Chur­ches; such for ought I know may be in Italy or Spaine; and what pretence or colour this Reverend person hath to fix a contrary perswasion upon me, with so many odious imputations and reflecti­ons, of being one of the Restorers of all lost Churches, and the like, I professe I know not. These things will not be peace in the latter end; shall the sword devour for ever? I dare not suppose that he will aske why then do I separate from them? he hath read my booke of Schisme, wherein I have undeniably proved, that I have separated from none of them, and I am loath to say, though I feare before the close of my discourse I shall be com­pelled to it, that this Reverend Author hath answered a matter before he under­stood it, & confuted a book, whose maine [Page 50] and chiefe designe he did not once appre­hend. The rest of this chapter is compo­sed of reflections upon me from my owne words wrested at his pleasure, and added to according to the purpose in hand, and the taking for granted unto that end that they are in the right, we in the wrong, that their Churches are true churches, and yet not esteemed so by me, that we have se­parated from those churches, with such like easie suppositions. He is troubled that I thought the mutuall chargings of each other with Schisme, between the Presby­terians, and Independents was as to its heat abated and ready to vanish: wherein he hath invincibly compelled me to acknow­ledge my mistake; and I assure him I am heartily sorry that I was mistaken, it will not be some bodies joy one day that I was so. He seems to be offended with my no­tion of Schisme, because if it be true, it will carry it almost out of the world, and blesse the churches with everlasting peace. He tells me that a learned Dr. said my book was one great Schisme, I hope that is but one Drs. opinion; because being non­sence [Page 51] it is not fit it should be entertained by many. In the processe of his discourse he culls out sundry passages deliverd by me in reference to the great divisions and differences, that are in the world among men professing the name of Christ, and applies them to the difference between the Presbyterians and Independents, with many notable lashes in his way; when they were very little in my thoughts, nor are the things spoken by me in any tolerable measure applicable to them. I suppose no rationall man will expect, that I should follow our Reverend Author in such waies and pathes as these; it were easie in so do­ing to enter into an endlesse maze of words, to little purpose, and I have no mind to deale with him as he hath done by me, I like not the copy so well as to write by it; so his first chapter is discussed, and forgiven.

CHAP. 4.
Of the nature of schisme.

THe second Chapter of my booke, whose examination this Author un­dertakes in the second of his, containing the foundation of many inferences that ensue, and in particular of that descripti­on of Schisme which he intends to op­pose, it might have been expected, that he should not have culled out passages at his pleasure to descant upon, but either have transcribed the whole, or at least under one view have laid downe clearly what I proposed to confirmation, that the state of the controversie being rightly formed, all might understand, what we say, and whereof we do affirme: but he thought better of another way of procedure, which I am now bound to allow him in; the reason whereof he knowes, and other men may conjecture.

The first words he fixes on are the first of the Chapter. The thing whereof we [Page 53] treat being a disorder in the instituted wor­ship of God; whereunto he replyes, It is an ill signe or omen, to stumble at the thre­shold in going out: these words are ambi­guous, and may have a double sence, either that schisme is to be found in matter of in­stituted worship onely, or onely in the diffe­rences made in the time of celebrating in­stituted worship, and neither of these is yet true, or yet proved, and so a mere begging of the thing in question: for saith he, Schisme may be in, and about other matter besides instituted worship.

What measure I am to expect for the future from this entrance or beginning, is not hard to conjecture. The truth is, the Reverend Author understood me not at all, in what I affirmed: I say not, that Schisme in the Church is either about insti­tuted worship, or onely in the time of wor­ship, but that the thing I treat of, is a dis­order in the instituted worship of God, and so it is, if the being, and con­stitution of any Church be a part of God's worship: but when men are given to di­sputing, they think it incumbent on them [Page 54] to question every word and expression, that may possibly give them an advan­tage: but we must, now we are engaged, take all in good part as it comes. Having nextly granted my request of standing to the sole determination of Scripture in the controversie about the nature of schisme: he insists on the Scripture use and notion of the word, according to what I had pro­posed: only in the metaphoricall sense of the word, as applyed unto civill and poli­ticall bodies, he endeavours to make it appeare, that it doth not only denote the difference and division that falls among them in judgement, but their secession al­so into parties; which though he proves not from any of the instances produced, yet because he may not trouble himselfe any further in the like kind of needlesse labour; I do here informe him that if he suppose that I deny that to be a Schisme, where there is a separation, and that be­cause there is a separation, as though schisme were in its whole nature exclusive of all separation, and lost its being when separation ensued, he hath taken [Page 55] my mind as rightly, as he hath done the whole designe of my booke, and my sense in his first animadversions on this Chapter. But yet because this is not pro­ved, I shall desire him not to make use of it for the future as though it were so. The first place urged is that of John 7. 43. There was a schisme among the people: it is not pretended that here was any separati­on: Acts 14. 4. the multitude of the city was divided, that is, in their judgment a­bout the Apostles and their doctrine: but not only so, for [...], is spoken of them, which expresses their separation into parties: what weight this new criti­cisme is like to finde with others, I know not, for my part I know the words inforce not the thing aymed at; and the utmost that seemes to be intended by that ex­pression, is the siding of the multitude, some with one, some with another, whilst they were all in a publique commotion, nor doth the context require any more. The same is the case, Acts 23. 7. where the Sadduces and Pharisees were divided about Paul, whilst abiding in the place where [Page 56] the Sanedrim sate, being divided into parties long before: and in the testimony cited in my margent for the use of the word in other Authors, the Author makes even that [...], to stand in opposition, only to [...]: nor was it any more. There was not among the people of Rome, such a separation as to break up the Corporation, or to divide the Govern­ment, as is known from the story. The place of his owne producing, Acts 19. 9. proves indeed that then and there, there was a separation, but as the Author confes­ses in the margent, the word there used to expresse it hath no relation to [...]. Ap­plied to Ecclesiasticall things, the Reve­rend Author confesses with me, that the word is onely used in the first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 19. ch. 11. 18. and therefore that from thence the proper use and importance of it is to be learned. Ha­ving laid downe the use of the word to denote difference of mind and judgment, with troubles ensuing thereupon, amongst men met in some one assembly about the compassing of a common end and designe. [Page 57] I proceed to the particular accommoda­tion of it, to Church-rents and schisme in that Solitary instance given of it in the church of Corinth: What saies our Authour hereunto? Sayes he, Pag. 26. this is a fore-stalling the readers judge­ment, by a meer begging of the thing in question: as it hath in part been proved from the Scripture its selfe, where it is used for separation into parties, in the politicall use of the word; why it may not so be used in the ecclesiasticall sense, I see no reason: but if this be the way of begging the Que­stion, I confesse I know not what course to take to prove what I intend. Such words are used sometimes in warm di­sputes causelessely; it were well they were placed where there is some pretence for them; Certainly they will not serve every turne. Before I asserted the use of the word, I instanced in all the places where it is used, and evinced the sense of it from them? if this be begging, it is not that lazy trade of begging, which some use; but such as a man had as good pro­fessedly worke as follow. How well he [Page 58] hath disproved this sense of the word from Scripture we have seen, I am not concerned in his seeing no reason why it may not be used in the ecclesiasticall sense, according to his conception, my enquiry was how it was used, not how it might be used in this Reverend Authors judgment. And this is the substance of all that is offered to overthrow that prin­ciple, which if it abide and stand, he must needs confesse all his following pains to be to no purpose. He sees no reason but it may be as he saies.

After the declaration of some such sus­pitions of his, as we are now wonted unto, and which we cannot deny him the liberty of expressing, though I professe he do it unto my injurie, he saies, this is the way on the one hand to free all church-separation from schisme, and on the other to make all particular churches more or lesse inschisma­ticall: well, the first is denyed; what is offer'd for the confirmation of the se­cond? saith he, what one congregation almost is there in the world, where there are not differences of judgment whence [Page 59] ensue many troubles about the compassing of one common end and designe; I doubt whether his owne be free therefore. If my testimony may remove his scruple, I as­sure him through the grace of God, hither­to it hath been so, and I hope it is so with multitudes of other Churches, those with whome it is otherwise, it will appear at last to be more or lesse blameable on the account of Schisme.

Omitting my farther explication of what I had proposed, he passes unto p. 27. of my book, and thence transcribes these words: they had differences among them­selves about unnecessary things, on these they engaged into disputes and sidings even in the solemne assemblies, probably much vaine janglings, alienation of affections, exasperations of spirit, with a neglect of due offices of love ensued hereupon, whereunto he subjoines, that the Apostle charges this upon them is true, but was that all? were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgments? we shall consider that ere long, But I am sorry he hath waved this proper place of the consideration of this impor­tant [Page 60] assertion; the truth is, hic pes fig [...]n­dus, if he remove not this position, he la­bours, in vain for the future. I desire also to know what he intends by divisions into parties; if he intend that some were of one party, some of another, in these divisions and differences, it is granted: there can-be no difference in judgment amongst men, but they must on that account be divided into parties: but if he intend thereby, that they divided into severall churches, assemblies, or congregations, any of them setting up new churches on a new account, or separating from the publick assemblies of the church whereof they were, and that their so doing is reproved by the A­postle under the name of Schisme; then I tell him that this is that indeed whose proofe is incumbent on him. Faile he here­in, the whole foundation of my discourse continues firme and unshaken; the truth is, I cannot meet with any one attempt to prove this, which alone was to be pro­ved, if he intended that I should be any farther concerned in his discourse, then onely to find my selfe revil'd and abu­sed.

[Page 61] Passing over what I produce to give light and evidence unto my assertion, he proceeds to the consideration of the ob­servations and inferences I make upon it. p. 29. and onward.

The first he insists upon is, that the thing mentioned is entirely in one Church, amongst the members of one particular society: no mention is made of one church divided against another, or separated from another.

To this he replies 1. that the church of Corinth, was a collective church, made up of many congregations, and that I my selfe confesse they had solemne assemhlies, not one assembly onely; that I beg the Question by taking it for one single congregation. But I suppose one particular congregation may have more then one solemne assembly, even as many, as are the times, wherein they solemnly assemble.

2. I supposed, I had proved that it was only one congregation, that used to assem­ble in one place, that the Apostle charged this crime upon; and that this Reverend Author was pleased to overlook what [Page 62] was produced to that purpose, I am not to be blamed. 3. Here is another disco­very, that this Reverend person never yet clearly understood the designe of my treatise, nor the principles I proceed u­pon. Doth he think it is any thing to my present businesse, whither the church of Corinth were such a church as Presbyteri­ans suppose it to be, or such a one as the Independents affirme it? whilst all ackow­ledge it to be one church, be that particu­lar church of what kind it will; if the Schisme rebuked by the Apostle consi­sted in division in it, and not in separation from it as such, I have evinced all that I intended by the Observation under con­sideration. Yet this he againe persues, and tells me, that there were more particular churches in and about Corinth, as that at Cenchrea, and that their differences were not confined to the verge of one church (for there were differences abroad out of the Church) and saies, that at unawares I con­fess that they disputed from house to house, and in the publick assemblies: but I will as­sure the Reverend Author I was aware of [Page 63] what I said: Is it possible he should sup­pose that by the verge of one Church I intended the meeting place, and the assem­bly therein? was it at all incumbent on me, to prove that they did not manage their differences in private, as well as in publick? is it likely any such thing should be? did I deny that they sided and made parties about their divisions and differen­ces? is it any thing to me, or to any thing I affirme, how, where, and when, they managed their disputes, and debated their controversies? it is true there is mention of a church at Cenchrea, but is there any mention that that church made any sepa­ration from the church of Corinth? or that the differences mention'd were be­tween the members of these severall chur­ches? is it any thing to my present de­signe, though there were 20 particular congregations in Corinth, supposing that on any consideration they were one Church? I assure you Sr. I am more trou­bled with your not understanding the bu­siness and designe I mannage, then I am with all your reviling termes, you have [Page 64] laden me withall.

Once for all; unlesse you prove that there was a separation frō that Church of Corinth (be it of what constitution it may by any be supposed) as such, into ano­ther church, and that this is reproved by the Apostle under the name of Schisme, you speak not one word to invalidate the principle by me laid downe: and for what he addes; that for what I say there was no one church divided against another, or separated from another, is assumed, but not proved unlesse by a negative, which is invallid; he wrests my words: I say not, there was no such thing, but that there was no mention of any such thing: for though it be as cleare as the noone day, that indeed there was no such thing, it sufficeth my purpose that there was no mention of any such thing, and therefore no such thing reproved under the name of Schisme. With this one observation, I might well dismisse the whole ensuing treatise, see­ing of how litle use it is like to prove, as to the businesse in hand, when the Author of it indeed apprehends not the principle [Page 65] which he pretends to oppose; I shall once more tell him, that he abide not in his mistake, that if he intend to evert the principle here by me insisted on, it must be by a demonstration that the Schisme char­ged on the Corinthians by Paul consisted in the separation from, and relinquish­ment of that church, whereof they were members, and congregating into another not before erected or established; for this is that which the Reformed Churches are charged to do by the Romanists, in respect of their Churches, and accused of schisme thereupon. But the differences which he thinks good to mannage and maintain, with, and against the Independents do so possesse the thoughts of this Reverend Author, that what ever occurres to him, is immediately measured by the regard which it seems to bear, or may possibly bear thereunto, though that conside­ration were least of all regarded in its pro­posall.

The next observation upon the for­mer thesis that he takes into his examina­tion, so far as he is pleased to transcribe [Page 66] it, is this; Here is no mention of any parti­cular man or number of men separating from the assembly of the whole church) or subducting of themselves from its power; only they had groundlesse causlesse differen­ces amongst themselves; Hereunto our Author variously replyes and saies, 1. was this all? were not separations made, if not from that church, yet in that church as well as divisions? Let the Scripture determine, chap. 1. 11. ch. 5. 3. I am a Disciple of Paul said one, and I a Disciple of Apollo said another: in our language; I am a member of such a ministers congregation, saies one, such a man for my money: and so a third, and hereupon they most probably separated themselves into such and such congregati­ons; ana is not separation the ordinary issue of such envyings?

I doubt not but that our Reverend Author supposeth that he hath here spo­ken to the purpose, and matter in hand; and so perhaps may some others think also. I must crave leave to enter my dissent upon the account of the insuing reasons; for, 1. It is not separation in the [Page 67] Church by mens divisions and differen­ces whilst they continue members of the same Church, that I deny to be here charged under the name of Scisme, but such a separation from the Church, as was before described; 2. The disputes amongst them about Paul and Apollos, the instruments of their conversion can­not possibly be supposed to relate unto Ministers of distinct congregations a­mong them. Paul and Apollos were not so, and could not be figures of them that were; so that those expressions do not at all answer those which he is pleased to make parallell unto them. 3. Grant all this, yet this proves nothing to the cause in hand, men may crye up some the Minister of one congregation, some of another, and yet neither of them separate from the one, or other, or the congregations themselves fall into any separation, where­fore (4) He saies, probably they separated into such and such congregations; But this is most improbable; for first, there is no mention at all of those many con­gregations that are supposed, but rather [Page 68] the contrary, as I have declared, is ex­pressly asserted: 2. There is no such thing mentioned or intimated, nor, 3. are they in the least rebuked for any such thing, though the forementioned differences which are a lesse evill are reproved again, and againe, under the name of Schisme: so that this most improbable improbabi­lity or rather vaine conjecture, is a very mean refuge and retreat from the evi­dence of expresse Scripture, which in this place is alone inquired after-Doth indeed the Reverend Author think, will he pretend so to do, that the holy Apostle should so expresly, weighti­ly, and earnestly, reprove their dissentions in the church, whereof they were mem­bers, and yet not speak one word, or give the least intimation of their separation from the church; had there indeed been any such thing? I dare leave this to the conscience of the most partially addicted person under heaven, to the Authors cause, who hath any conscience at all; nor dare I dwell longer on the confutation of this fiction, though it be upon the [Page 69] matter the whole of what I am to con­tend withall. But he farther informes us that▪ there was a separation to parties in the church of Corinth, at least as to one or­dinance of the Lords supper, as appears c. 11. v. 18, 21, 22, 23. and this was part of their Schisme. v. 16. And not long after they separated into other Churches, sleigh­ting and undervaluing the first ministers and churches, as nothing or lesse pure then their owne, which we see practised sufficient­ly at this day. A. Were not this the head & seate of the first part of the controversie insisted on, I should not be able to prevaile with my selfe, to cast away precious time in the consideration of such things as these, being tendered as suitable to the businesse in hand; It is acknowledged that there were differences amongst them, and disorders in the administration of the Lords supper, that therein they used re­spect of persons, as the place quoted in the margin by our Author, Jam. 2. 1, 2, 3. manifests that they were ready to do in other places; the disorder the Apostle blames in the administration of the ordi­nances [Page 70] was, when they came together in the Church, v. 18. when they came toge­ther in one place; v. 20. there they tarried not one for another as they ought v. 33. but coming unprepared, some having ea­ten before, some being hungry v. 21. all things were mannaged with great confu­sion amongst them v. 22. and if this prove not, that the Schisme they were charged withall consisted in a separation from that church with which they came together in one place, we are hopelesse of any farther evidence to be tendred to that purpose. That there were disorders amongst them in the celebration of the Lords supper is certain; that they separated into severall congregations on that account, or one from another, or any from all, is not in the least intimation signified; but the plaine contrary shines in the whole state of things, as there represented: had that been done, and had so to do, been such an evill, as is pleaded, (as causlesly to do it is no small evill) it had not passed unrepro­ved from him, who was resolved in the things of God, not to spare them. 2 That [Page 71] they afterwards fell into the separation aimed at to be asserted Our Reverend Au­thor affirmes, that so he may make way for a reflection on the things of his pre­sent disquietment; but as we are not as yet concerning our selves, in what they did afterwards; so when we are, we shall expect somewhat more then bare affirma­tions for the proofe of it: being more then ordinarily confident, that he is not able from the Scripture, or any other story of credit, to give the least countenance to what he here affirmes. But now as if the matter were well discharged, when there hath not one word been spoken; that in the least reaches the case in hand; he saith 3. by way of supposition that there was but one single congregation at Corinth; yet (said he) the Apostle dehorts the bre­thren from Schisme, and writes to more then the Church of Corinth, ch. 1. v. 2. A. I have told him before, that though I am full well resolved that there was but one single congregation at Corinth in those daies, yet I am not at all convinced as to the proposition under confirmatiō to assert [Page 72] any such thing, but will suppose the church to be of what kind my Author pleaseth, whilst he will acknowledge it to be the particular Church of Corinth. I confesse the Apostle dehorts the brethren from Schisme, even others as well as those at Corinth, so far as the church of God in all places, and ages, are concerned in his instructions and dehortations, when they fall under the case stated, parallel with that which is the ground of his dealing with them at Corinth; but what that Schisme was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in the instance of the Church of Corinth: and thence is the measure of it to be taken, in reference to all dehorted from it. Unto the 3d. Ob­servation added by me, he makes no re­turne, but only laies down some excepti­ons to the exemplification given of the whole matter, in another schisme that fell out in that Church about 40 yeares after the composure of this, which was the oc­casion of that excellent Epistle unto them from the Church of Rome, called the Epi­stle of Clement; disswading them from [Page 73] Persisting in that strife and contention, and pressing them to unity and agree­ment among themselves: some things our Reverend Author offers as to this instance, but so, as that I cannot but suppose, that he consulted not the Epistle on this parti­cular occasion; and therefore now I desire him that he would do so, and I am per­swaded he will not a second time give coun­tenance to any such apprehension of the then state of the Church, as though there were any separation made from it, by any of the members thereof, doeing or suffe­ring the injury there complained of, about which those differences and contentions arose. I shall not need to go over againe the severalls of that Epistle; one word mentioned by my selfe, namely [...] he insists on, and informes us, that it im­plies a separation into other assemblies; which he saies I waved to understand. I confesse I did so in this place, and so would he also, if he had once consulted it. The speech of the Church of Rome is there to the Church of Corinth, in reference to the elders whom they had deposed. the [Page 74] whole sentence is; [...]. and the words immedi­ately going before are; [...]: then follows that [...]; our Author I suppose, understands Greek, and so I shall spare my pains of transcribing Mr. Youngs latin translati­on; or adding one in English of mine own; and if he be pleased to read these words, I think we shall have no more of his [...].

If a faire opportunity call me forth to the farther mannagement of this contro­versy, I shall not doubt but from that E­pistle, and some other pieces of undoubted antiquity, as the Epistle of the Church of Vienna and Lyons, of Smyrna, with some publick records of those daies, as yet pre­served, worthy all of them to be written in letters of Gold, to evince that state of the Churches of Christ in those daies, as will give abundant light to the principles I proceed upon in this whole businesse.

[Page 75] And thus have I briefly vindicated what was proposed as the precise Scrip­ture notion of schisme, against which in­deed not any one objection hath beenrai­sed, that speaks directly to the thing in hand. Our Reverend Author being full of warme affections against the independents, and exercised greatly in disputing the common principles which either they hold, or are supposed so to do; measures every thing that is spoken, by his appre­hension of those differences, wherein as he thinks their concernment doth lie: had it not bin for some such prejudice, (for I am unwilling to ascribe it to more blame­able principles) it would have been al­most impossible that he should have once imagined that he had made the least at­tempt towards the eversion of what I had asserted; much lesse that he had made good the title of his book▪ though he scarce for­gets it, or any thing concerning it but its proofe, in any one whole leafe of his trea­tise. It remaines then that the nature and notion of Schisme as revealed and descri­bed in the Scripture, was rightly fixed in = [Page 76] my former discourse; and I must assure this Reverend Author, that I am not a­frighted from the embraceing and main­taining of it, with those scare crowes of new light; singularity, and the like, which he is pleased frequently to set up to that purpose. The discourse that ensues in our Author concerning a parity of reason, to prove that if that be schisme, then much more is separation so, shall afterwards if need be, be considered, when I proceed to shew what yet farther may be granted without the least prejudice of truth, though none can necessitate me to recede from the precise notion of the name and thing delivered in the Scripture. I confess I cannot but marvell, that any man under­taking the examination of that Treatise, and expressing so much indignation at the thoughts of my discourse, that lyeth in this businesse, should so sleightly passe o­ver that, whereon he knew that I laid the great weight of the whole. Hath he so much as indeavourd to prove, that that place to the Corinthians, is not the only place wherein there is in the Scripture [Page 77] any mention of schisme in an ecclesiasticall sense; or that the Church of Corinth was not a particular church: is any thing of importance offerd to impaire the assertion that the evill reproved was within the verge of that church, and without separa­tion from it? and do I need any more to make good to the utmost that which I have asserted; but of these things after­wards.

In all that followes to the end of this chapter, I meet with nothing of impor­tance that deserves farther notice; that which is spoken is for the most part built upon mistakes; as that when I speak of a member or the members of one particu­lar church, I intend onely one single con­gregation exclusively to any other acceptation of that expression, in refe­rence to the apprehension of others: that I denie the reformed Churches to be true churches, because I denie the Church of Rome to be so; and denie the institution of a nationall church, which yet our Author pleads not for. He would have it for granted that be­cause [Page 78] Schisme consists in a difference a­mong church members, therefore he that raises such a difference, whither he be a member of that church wherein the diffe­rence is raised, or of any other or no (suppose he be a Mahumetan or a Jew) is a Schismatick; pleads for the old defini­tion of Schisme, as suitable to the Scrip­ture, after the whole foundation of it is taken away: wrests many of my expres­sions! as that in particular, in not ma­king the matter of Schisme to be things relating to the worship of God, to needlesse discourses about Do­ctrine and Discipline, not apprehending what I intended by that expression of the worship of God; and I suppose it not advi­sable to follow him in such extravagan­cies. The usuall aggravations of Schisme he thought good to reinforce, whither he hoped that I would dispute with him a­bout them, I cannot tell. I shall now assure him that I will not, though if I may have his good leave to say so, I lay much more weight on those insisted on by my selfe, wherein I am encouraged, by his approba­tion of them.

CHAP. 5.

THe third Chapter of my Treatise consisting in the preventing and re­moving such objections as the precedent discourse might seem lyable and obnoxi­ous unto, is proposed to examination, by our Reverend Author, in the third Chap. of his Booke: and the objections mentio­ned undertaken to be managed by him, with what successe, some few considerati­ons will evince.

The first Objection by me proposed was taken from the Common Apprehen­sion of the nature of Schisme, and the issue of stateing it as by me layd down; namely hence it would follow that the separation of any man or men from a true Church, or of one Church from others is not Schisme. But now waving for the pre­sent the more large consideration of the name & thing, which yet in the processe of my discourse I do condescend upon, according to the principle layd down; I say that in the precise signification of the [Page 80] word, and description of the thing as given by the holy Ghost this is true; no such separation is in the scripture so cal­led, or so accounted, whither it may not in a large sence be esteemed as such, I do not dispute, yea I afterwards grant it so farre, as to make that concession the bot­tome and foundation of my whole plea, for the vindication of the reformed churches from that crime. Our Reverend Author reinforces the objection by sun­dry instances; As, 1. that he hath dis­proved that sence or precise signisication of the word in Scripture, how well let the Reader judge. 2. That supposing that to be the onely sence mentioned in that case of the Corinthians, yet may another sence be intimated in Scripture and deduced by regular and rationall consequence: Per­haps this will not be so easy an under­taking, this being the onely place where the name is mentioned, or thing spoken of in an Ecclesiasticall sence: but when any proofe is tendred of what is here affir­med, we shall attend unto it. It is said indeed that if separation in Judgment in [Page 81] a Church be a Schisme, much more to sepa­rate from a Church! but our question is about the precise notion of the word in Scripture, and consequences from thence, not about consequents from the nature of things, concerning which if our Author had been pleased to have staid a while, he would have found me granting as much as he could well desire. 3. 1 John 2. 19. is sacrificed [...] and inter­preted of Schisme. Where (to make one venture in imitation of our Author) All Orthodox Interpreters, and writers of controversies expound it of Apostacy; neither will the context or arguing of the Apostle admit of another exposition; mens wresting of Scripture to give countenance to inveterate errours is one of their worst concomitants; so then that seperation from Churches is oftentimes evill is rea­dily granted: of what nature that evill is, with what are the aggravations of it, a judgment is to be made, from the pleas and pretences that its circumstances afford: so farr as it proceeds from such dissensions as before were mentioned, so far it pro­ceeds [Page 82] from schisme, but in its own nature absolutely considered it is not so.

To render my former assertions the more unquestionably evident, I consider the severall accounts given of mens blameable departures' from any Church, or Churches mentioned in Scripture, and manifest that none of them come under the head of Schisme. Apostasy, irregu­larly of walking, and professed sensuality, are the heads, whereunto all blameable de­partures from the Churches in the Scrip­ture are referred.

That there are other accounts of this crime, our Author doth not assert; he onely saies, that all, or some of the places I produce, as instances of a blameable se­paration from a Church, do mind the nature of Schisme as precedaneous to the separa­tion; What ere the matter is I do not find him speaking▪ so faintly and with so much caution through his whole dis­course as in this place: all, or some do it; they mind the nature of Schisme; they mind it as precedaneous to the separation, so the summe of what he aims at in con­testing [Page 83] about the exposition of those pla­ces of Scripture is this; some of them do mind (I know not how) the nature of Schisme, which he never once named as precedaneous to separation; therefore the precise notion of Schisme in the Scrip­ture doth not denote differences and divi­sions in a Church only; Quod erat demon­strandum: That I should spend time in debating a consideration so remote from the state of the controversie in hand, I am sure will not be expected by such as understand it.

Pag. 77. Of my treatise I affirm that for a man to withdraw or withold him­selfe from the communion externall and visible of any Church or Churches, on that pretention or plea (be it true or o­therwise) that the worship, doctrine, or discipline instituted by Christ is corrup­ted among them, with which corruption he dares not defile himselfe, is no where in the Scripture called Schisme, nor is that case particularly exemplified, or expressely supposed, whereby a Judg­ment [Page 84] may be made of the fact at large, but we are left, upon the whole matter, to the guidance of such generall rules and principles as are given us for that end and purpose: Such is my meanesse of ap­prehension that I could not understand, but that either this assertion must be sub­scribed unto, as of irrefragable verity, or else that instances to the contrary must have been given out of the Scrip­ture; for on that hinge alone doth this present controversie (and that by con­sent) turne it selfe: But our Reverend Author thinks good to take another course (for which his reasons may easily be conjectured) and excepts against the assertion it selfe in Generall: first, as ambi­guous and fallacious, And then also inti­mates that he will scan the words in per­ticular; Mihi jussa capessere, &c. 1. He saies, that I tell not whither a man may separate where there is corruption in some one of these onely or in all of them, nor 2. How farre some or all of these must be corrupted before we separate. A. This is no small vanity under the sunne, that [Page 85] men will not onely measure themselves by themselves, but others also by their own measure: Our Author is still with his finger in the sore, and therefore supposes that others must needs take the same course. Is there any thing in my asser­tion whither a man may separate from any church or no? any thing upon what Corruption he may lawfully so do? any thing of stating the difference betwixt the Presbiterians and Independants? do I at all fix it on this fo [...]t of account when I come so to doe? I humbly beg of this Author, that if I have so obscurely and in­tricately delivered my selfe and meaning, that he cannot come to the understan­ding of my designe, nor import of my expressions, that he would favour me with a command to explain my selfe, before he engage into a publicke refuta­tion of what he doth not so clearly appre­hend! Alas, I do not in this place in the least intend to justify any separation, nor to shew what pleas are sufficient to justify a separation, nor what corruption in the church separated from, is necessary [Page 86] thereunto, nor at all regard the contro­versie his eye is allwaies on; but one­ly declare what is not comprised in the precise Scripture notion of Schisme, as also how a Judgment is to be made of that which is so by me excluded, whither it be good or evill. Would he have been pleased to have spoken to the businesse in hand, or any thing to the present pur­pose, it must not have been by an inquiry into the grounds & reasons of separation, how farre it may be justified by the plea mentioned, or how farre not▪ when that plea is to be allowed, and when rejected; but this only was incumbent on him to prove! namely, that such a separation upon that plea, or the like, is called Schis­me in the Scripture, and as such a thing condemned. What my concernment is in the ensuing observations; that the Ju­daicall Church was as corrupt as ours, that if a bare plea true or false will serve to justi­fie men, all separatists may be justified, he himselfe will easily perceive: But however, I cannot but tell him by the way, that he who will dogmatize, in [Page 87] this controversy from the Judaicall Church, and the course of proceedings amongw them, to the direction and li­mitation of duty, as to the churches of the Gospel, considering the vast & impor­tant differences between t he constitutions of the one & the other, with the infallible obligation to certain principles, on the account of the typicall institution in that Primitive Church, when there neither was nor could be any more in the world, must expect to bring other Arguments to compasse his designe, then the analogie pretended. For the justification of Separatists of the reason, if it will ensue, upon the examination for separation, and the circumstances of the seperating, where­unto I referre them, let it follow, and let who will complain; But to fill up the measure of the mistake he is ingaged in, he tells us pag. 75. that this is the pinch of the question, whither a man or a company of men may separate from a true Church, upon a plea of Corruptiō in it, true or false, & set up another Church, as to ordinances, renouncing that Church to be a true Church. [Page 88] This (saith he) is plainely our case at present, with the Doctor and his Asso­ciates; truly I do not know that ever I was necessitated to a more sad and fruitlesse imployment in this kind of labour and travaile. Is that the question in present agitation? is any thing, word, title, or iota spoken to it? is it my present businesse to state the di­fference between the Presbyterians and Independents? do I any where do it upon this account? do I not every where posi­tively deny that there is any such separa­tion made? nay can common honesty allow such a state of a question, if that were the businesse in hand to be put upon me? are their ordinances and churches so denied by me as is pretended? what I have often said, must again be repeated, The Reve­rend Author hath his eye so fixed on the difference between the Presbyterians and the Independants, that he is at every turn lead out of the way into such mistakes, as it was not possible he should otherwise be overtaken withall; this is perhaps men­tis gratissimus error: But I hope it would [Page 89] be no death to him to be delivered from it. When I laid downe the principles which it was his good will to oppose, I had many things under consideration, as to the settling of Conscience in respect of manifold oppositions; and to tell him the truth, least valued that which he is pleased to mannage, and to look upon as my sole intendment; if it be not possible to deliver him from this strong imagina­tion, that carries the images and species of Independency alwaies before his eies, we shall scarce speak ad idem in this whole discourse. I desire then that he would take notice, that as the state of the con­troversy he proposes, doth no more re­late to that which peculiarly is pretended to ly under his consideration, then any o­ther thing whatever that he might have mentioned; so when the peculiar diffe­rence between him and the Independents comes to be mannaged, scarce any one terme of his state will be allowed. Excep­tions are in the next place attempted to be put in to my assertion, that there is no example in the Scripture of any one [Page 90] Churches departure from the union which they ought to hold with others, unlesse it be in some of their departures from the common faith, which is not Schisme; much with the same successe as formerly: let him produce one instance, and, En Her­bam. I grant the Roman church on a supposition that it is a Church (which yet I utterly deny) to be a schismaticall Church upon the account of the intestine divisions of all sorts; or what other ac­counts other men urge them with the same guilt I suppose he knows by this, that I am not concern'd. Having finished this exploit, because I had said, if I were unwilling, I did not understand how I might be compelled to carry on the notion of Schisme any farther; he tells me, though I be unwilling, he doubts not but to be able to compell me: but who told him I was un­willing so to do? do I not immediately without any compulsion very freely fall u­pon the worke? did I say I was unwilling? Certainly it ought not to be thus; of his abilities in other things I do not doubt; in this discourse he is pleased to exercise [Page 91] more of something else.

There is but one passage more that needs to be remarked, and so this Chapter also is dismissed; He puts in a Caveat that I limit not Schisme to the worship of God, upon these words of mine; the considera­tion of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God (where he inserts in the re­petition; marke that) is instituted by Je­sus Christ, is the foundation of what I have further to offer; whereto he sub­joined the designe of this in that he may have a fair retreat, when he is charged with breach of union in other respects, and so with Schisme; to escape by this evasion: this breach of union is not in reference to the worship of God in one assembly met to that end. I wish we had once an end of these mistakes, and false uncharitable surmises. By the worship of God I intend the whole compasse of institutions, and their tenden­cy thereunto. And I know that I speak properly enough in so doing; I have no such designe as I am charged withall, nor do I need it; I walke not in feare of this Authors forces, that I should be provi­ding [Page 92] before hand to secure my retreat. I have passed the bounds of the precise noti­on of Schisme before insisted on, and yet doubt not but God assisting to make good my ground. If he judge I cannot, let him command my personall attendance on him at any time, to be driven from it by him; let him by any meanes prove against me at any time a breach of any union instituted by Jesus Christ, and I will promise him, that with all speed I will retreate from that state, or thing, whereby I have so done. I must professe to this Reverend Author, that I like not the cause he mannages one whit the bet­ter for the way whereby he mannageth it. We had need watch and pray that we be not lead into temptation: seeing we are in some measure not ignorant of the devi­ces of Sathan.

Now that he may see this door of escape shut up, that so he may not need to trouble himselfe any more in taking care, least I escape that way, when he intends to fall upon me with those blowes, which as yet I have not felt, I shall shut [Page 93] it fast my selfe, beyond all possibility of my opening againe: I here then de­clare unto him, that when ever he shall prove that I have broken any union of the institution of Jesus Christ, of what sort soever, I will not in excuse of my selfe, insist on the plea mentioned, but will submit to the discipline, which shall be thought meet by him to be exercised towards any one offending in that kind: yet truely on this en­gagement I would willingly contract with him, that in his next reply he should not deale with me, as he hath done in this, neither as to my person, nor as to the differences between us.

CHAP. 6.

HAving declared and vindicated the Scripture proper notion of Schisme, and thence discovered the nature of it with all its aggravations, with the mi­stakes that men have run into, who have suited their apprehensions concer [...]ing it, unto what was their interests to have it thought to be, and opened a way thereby for the furtherance of peace among pro­fessors of the Gospell of Jesus Christ, for the further security of the consciences of men unjustly accused and charged with the guilt of this evill, I proceeded to the consideration of it in the usuall common acceptation of the word, and things, that so I might obviate what ever with any tollerable pretence is insisted on, as deduced by a parity of reason from what is delivered in the Scripture, in re­ference to the charge managed by some or other against all sorts of Protestants. Hereupon I grant, that it may be looked on in generall as [...], a branch [Page 95] of union, so that it be granted also, that that union be an union of the institution of Jesus Christ. To find out then the na­ture of Schisme under the consideration of the condescention made: and to disco­ver wherein the guilt of it doth consist: it is necessary that we find out what that union is, and wherein it doth consist, whereof it is the brcadth and interrupti­on, or is supposed so to be over and above the breach above mentioned and described. Now this union being the union of the Church, the severall acceptations of the Church in scripture are to be investigated, that the union in­quired after, may be made known. The church in scripture being taken either for the Church Catholick or the whole number of elect beleivers in the world (for we lay aside the consideration of that part of this great family of God, which is already in heaven, from this distinction) or else for the generall visible body of those who professe the gospell of Christ, or for a particular society joining toge­ther in the celebration of the ordinances of [Page 96] the new testament, instituted by Christ to be so celebrated by thē; The union of it, with the breach of that union, in these severall respects with the application of the whole, to the businesse under con­sideration, was to be enquired after: which also was performed.

I began with the consideration of the Catholick invisible Church of Christ, and the union thereof; having declared the rise of this distinction, and the necessity of it from the nature of the things them­selves; as to the matter of this church, or the church of Christ as here militant on earth, I affirme, and evince it to be, all and only elect believers; the union of this church consists in the inhabitation of the same spirit in all the members of it, uni­ting them to the head Christ Jesus, and therein to one another. The breach of this union, I manifested to consist in the losse of that spirit, with all the pecu­liar consequences and effects of him in the hearts of them, in whom he dwels; This I manifest according to our princi­ples to be impossible, and upon a suppo­sition [Page 97] of it, how remote it would be from Schisme, under any notion or acceptation of the word; so closing that discourse with a charge on the Romanists of their distance from an interest in this church of Jesus Christ.

Our Reverend Author professes that he hath but little to say to these things, some exceptions he puts in unto some expressions used in the explication of my sense, in this particular: that which he chiefely insists upon, is the accommo­dation of that promise Matth. 16. 28. upon this rock will I build my church, to the Church in this sense, which he concludes to belong to the visible Church of professors; now as I am not at all concerned, as to the truth of what I am in confirmation of, to which of these it be applyed, so I am far from being alone in that application of it to the Catho­lick Church which I insist upon; All our Divines that from hence prove, the perse­verance of all Individuall believers, as all do that I have met withall, who write on that subject, are of the same mind with [Page 98] me. Moreover the Church is built on this rock in its Individuals; or I know not how it is so built. The building on Christ, doth not denote a meer relation of a generall body to his truth, that it shall allwaies have an existence, but the union of the Individualls with him in their being built on him, to whom the promise is made. I acknowledg it for as unque­stionable a truth as any we believe, that Christ hath had, and ever shall have to the end of the world, a visible number of those that professe his name, and subjecti­on to his kingdome; because of the ne­cessary consequence of profession upon believing; but that, that truth is inten­ded in this promise any farther but in respect of this consequence, I am not con­vinced. And I would be loath to say that this promise is not made to every particular believer, and only unto them; being willing to vindicate to the Saints of God, all those grounds of consolation which he is so willing they should be made partakers of.

As to the union of this Church and [Page 99] the breach of it, our Reverend Author, hath a little to say: because there may be some decaies in true grace in the mem­bers of this Church: he affirms that in a sort there may be said to be a breach in this union, and so consequently a schisme in this body. He seemed formerly to be affraid lest all schisme should be thrust out of the world; If he can retrive it on the account of any true believers failing in grace, or falling for a season, I suppose he needs not fear the losse of it, whilst this world continues: But it is fit, wise, and learned men should take the Liberty of calling things by what names they please; so they will be pleasd withall, not to impose their conceptions and use of tearms on them who are not able to understand the reasons of them. It is true there may be a Schisme among the members of this church, but not as members of this church, nor with reference to the union thereof. It is granted that schisme is the breach of union; but not of every union much lesse not a breach of that, which, if there were a breach of, it were not Schisme: How­ever [Page 100] by the way I am bold to tell this Reverend Author, that this Doctrine of his, concerning schisme in the Catholick invisible Church, by the failings in Grace in any of the mēbers of it for a season, is a new notion, which as he cannot justify to us, because it is false, so, I wonder how he will justify it to himselfe, because it is new. And what hath been obtained by the Author against my principles in this chap­ter. I cannot perceive. The nature of the church in the state considered, is not op­posed; The union asserted not dispro­ved; the breach of that union, is denyed (as I suppose) no lesse by him then my selfe; That the instances that sōe Saints, as mē ­bers of this Church may sometimes fail in grace more or lesse for some season; & that the members of this Church, though not as members of this Church, yet on other considerations may be guilty of Schisme, concern not the businesse under debate, himselfe I hope is satisfied.

CHAP. 7.

OUr progresse in the next place is to the consideration of the Catho­lick Church visible. Who are the members of this church, whereof it is con­stituted, what is required to make them so, on what account men visibly pro­fessing the gospell may be esteemed just­ly devested of the priviledge of being members of this church, with sundry re­spects of the church in that sense, are in my treatise discussed. The union of this church that is proper and peculiar unto it as such, I declared to be the pro­fession of the saving doctrine of the gos­pell, not everted by any of the miscarria­ges, errors, or oppositions to it, that are there recounted. The breach of this union I manifest to consist in apostasy, from the profession of the faith, and so to be no Schisme, upon whom­soever the guilt of it doth fall; pleading the immunity of the Protestants as such from the guilt of the breach of this union, [Page 102] and charging it upon the Romanists, in all the waies whereby it may be broken, an issue is put to that discourse.

What course our Reverend Author takes in the examination of this chapter, & the se­veralls of it, whereon the strength of the controversie dothly; is now to be conside­ed; doth he deny this church to be a collecti­on of all that are duly called Christians in respect of their profession? to be that great multitude who throughout the world, professe the Doctrine of the Gos­pell, and subjection to Jesus Christ? doth he denie the union of this church, or that whereby that great multitude are incorporated into one body as visible and professing, to be the profession of the sa­ving doctrines of the Gospell, & of subjecti­on to Jesus Christ according to them? Doth he denie the dissolution of this uni­on as to the interest of any member by it in the body, to be by apostasy from the profession of the Gospell? Doth he charge that apostasy upon those whom he calls Independents as such, or if he should, could he tolerably defend his [Page 103] charge? Doth he prove that the breach of this union, is under that forma­lity properly Schisme? nothing lesse! as far as I can gather: might not then the trouble of this Chapter have been spa­red? or shall I be necessitated to defend every expression in my book, though no­thing at all to the main businesse under debate, or else Independency must goe for a great Schisme. I confesse this is somewhat an hard Law, and such as I cannot proceed in obedience unto it, with­out acknowledging his ability to compell me to go on further then I am willing; yet I do it with this ingagement, that I will so looke to my selfe, that he shall never have that power over me any more; nor will I upon any compulsion of useless needlesse cavils & exceptions do so again▪ so that in his reply he now knowes how to order his affairs so, as to be freed from the trouble of a Rejoinder.

His first attempt in this chapter, is upon a short discourse of mine, in my pro­cesse, which I professe not to be needfull to the purpose in hand, relating to some [Page 104] later disputes about the nature of this Church, wherein some had affirmed it to be a Genus to particular churches, which are so many distinct species of it, and others that it was a totum made up of particular churches as its parts, both which in some sense I denyed; partly out of a desire to keep off all debates a­bout the things of God, frō being enwrap­ped and agitated in and under Philoso­phicall notions and faigned tearms of Art, which hath exceedingly multipli­ed controversies in the world and ren­dred them endlesse, and doth more or lesse streighten or oppose every truth that is so dealt withall: partly because I evi­dently saw men deducing false consequents from the supposition of such notions of this Church: for the first way, our Re­verend Author lets it passe, onely with a remarke upon my dissenting from Mr Hooker of New England, which he could not but note by the way, although he ap­proves what I affirme. A worthy note! as though all the brethren of the Presby­terian way, were agreed among them­selves [Page 105] in all things of the like importance; or that I were in my judgment enthralled to any man or men, so that it should de­serve a note when I dissent from them. Truly I blesse God, I am utterly unac­quainted with any such frame of spirit, or bondage of mind, as must be supposed to be in them whose dissent from other men is a matter of such observation. One is my Master, to whom alone my heart and judgement are in subjection: for the lat­ter I do not say absolutely that particular Churches are not the parts of the Catho­lique visible, in any sense, but that they are not so parts of it as such, so that it should be constituted & made up by thē, & of thē, for the order and purpose of an instituted Church, for the celebration of the worship of God, and institutions of Christ, according to the Gospell; which when our Author proves that it is: I shall acknowledge my selfe obliged to him. He saies indeed, that it was once possible that all the members of the Catho­lique Church, should meet together, to heare one sermon, &c. But he is to prove, that [Page 106] they were bound to do so, as that Catho­lique Church, and not that it was possible for all the members of it under any other notion, or consideration so to convene. But he saies, they are bound to do so still, but that the multitude makes it impossible: Credat Apella: that Christ hath bound his Church to that which himselfe makes impossible. Neither are they so bound: they are bound, by his own acknowledge­ment, to be members of particular Chur­ches: & in that capacity, are they bound so to convene; those churches being by the will of God, appointed for the seat of or­dinances. And so what he adds in the next place of particular Churches, being bound according to the institution of Christ to assemble for the celebration of ordinances, is absolutely destructive of the former figment. But he would know a reason why 40 or more, that are not members of one particular church, but only of the Catholick, meeting together, may not join together in all ordinances, as well as they may meet to heare the word preached, and often doe; to which I an­swer; [Page 107] that it is because Jesus Christ hath appointed particular Churches, and there is more required to them, then the occasi­onall meeting of some, any, or all, if possi­ble of the members of the Catholick church as such, will afford.

His reflexions upon my selfe, added in that place, are now growne so common, that they deserve not any notice. In his ensu­ing discourse, if I may take leave to speak freely to our Reverend Author, he wrangles about termes and expressions, adding to, and altering those by me used in this bu­sinesse at his pleasure, to make a talke to no purpose. The summe of what he pre­tends to oppose is, that this universall church, or the universality of Professors considered as such, neither formally as members of the church Catholick, mi­stically Elect, nor as any members of any Particular Church, have not as such, any Church forme of the institution of Christ, by virtue whereof, they should make up one instituted Church, for the end and purpose of the celebration of the Ordi­nances of the Gospell therein. If he sup­pose [Page 108] he can prove the contrary, let him cease from cavilling at words, and by ex­pressions, which is a facile taske for any man to engage in, and no way usefull, but to make controversies endlesse; and an­swer my Reasons against it, which here he passeth over, and produce his testimonies and arguments for that purpose. This tri­viall ventilation of particular passages cut off from their influence into the whole, is not worth a nut-shell, but is a businesse fit for them who have nothing else to em­ploy themselves about.

Coming to consider the union that I assigne to this Church, after whose breach an enquiry is to be made, which is the maine, and only thing of his concernment, as to the aime he hath proposed to him­selfe, he passeth it over very slightly: ta­king no notice at all of my whole dis­course, frō p. 116. top. 133. of my treatise; wherein I disprove the pretensions of o­ther things to be the union, or bond of union to this church; he fixes a very little while on what I assigne to be that union. This I say is profession of the faith of the [Page 109] Gospell, and subjection to Jesus Christ ac­cording to it: to which he adds, that they are bound to more then this, viz: to the ex­ercise of the same specificall Ordinances, as also to love one another, to subjection to the same discipline, and where it is possible to the exercise of the same numericall worship. All this was expresly affirm'd by me be­fore; it is all virtually contained in their profession, so far as the things mentioned are revealed in the Gospell: only as to the celebrating of the same numericall Or­dinances, I cannot grant that they are ob­liged hereunto as formally considered members of that Church, nor shall, untill our Reverend Author shall think meet to prove, that particular congregations are not the institutions of Jesus Christ. But hereupon he affirms, that that is a strange assertion used by me pa: 117. namely, that if there be not an institution of joining in the same numericall ordinances, the union of this Church is not really a Church union. This is no more but what was declared before, nor more then what I urged the testimony of a learned Presbyterian for: [Page 110] no more but this, that the universality of Christians throughout the world, are not under such an institution, as that, to as­semble together for the celebration of the same numericall Ordinances; the pre­tence of any such institution being sup­plied by Christ's acknowledged institutiō of particular Churches for that purpose.

What I have offered in my Treatise, as evidence that Protestants are not guilty of the breach of this union, and that where any are, their crime is not Schisme but A­postacy, either as to profession or conver­sation, I leave to the judgment of all can­did, sober, and ingenious Readers; for such as love strife, and debates, and disputes, whereof the world is full, I would crave of them, that if they must chuse me for their Adversary, they would allow me to answer in person, vivâ voce, to prevent this tedious trouble of writing, which for the most part is fruitlesse and needlesse. Some exceptions our Author laies in, a­gainst the Properties of the profession by me required, as necessary to the preserva­tion of this union: as to the first of pro­fessing [Page 111] all necessary saving Truths of the Gospell, he excepts that the Apostles were ignorant of many necessary truths of the Gospell for a season, and some had never heard of the holy Ghost. Act. 29. and yet they kept the union of the Catholick Church. And yet our Author before he closeth this chapter, will charge the breach of this union on some, whose errors cannot well be apprehended to lie in the deniall of any necessary truth of the Gospell, that is, indispensably necessary to salvation. As to his instance of the Apostles, he knows it is one thing not to know clearly and distinctly for some season, some truths in hypothesi, and another to deny them being sufficiently and clearly revealed in thesi; and for those in the Acts, it is probable they were ignorant of the dispensations of the holy Ghost, with his marvelous ef­fects under the Gospell, rather then of the person of the holy Ghost: for even in res­pect of the former it is absolutely said that the holy Ghost was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. I shall not pursue his other exceptions, being sorry that his [Page 112] judgment leads him to make them; that which alone beares any aspect to the busi­ness in hand, he insists on pag. 99. in these words. I have intimated and partly pro­ved, that there may be a breach of union, with respect to the Catholick Church upon other considerations (namely besides the renuntiation of the profession of the Gos­pell:) As first, there is a bond that obliges every member of this Church, to joine to­gether in exercising the same Ordinances of worship: when then any man shall refuse to joine with others, or refuse others to joine with him, here is a breach of love and uni­on among the members of the Catholick Church; and in the Particular Churches as parts of the Catholick.

The Reader must pardon me for pro­ducing and insisting on these things, seeing I do it with this profession, that I can fix on nothing else so much to the purpose in hand: and yet how little these are so, can­not but be evident upon a sleight view to the meanest capacities. For 1. he tells us there may be a breach of union with respect to the Catholick church, on other con­siderations: [Page 113] not that there may be a breach of the uniō of the Catholick Church. 2. That there is a bond binding men to the exercise of Ordinances; so there is binding man to all holinesse; and yet he denies the vilest profane persons to break that bond or this union. 3. That there may be a breach of union among the mem­bers of the Church: but who knows it not, that knows all members of Particular Churches, are also members of this church generall. Our enquiry is after the union of the Catholick-Church visible, what it is, how broken, and what the crime or evill is, whereby it is broken, what obligations lie on the members of that Church, as they stand under any other formall considera­tion; what is the evill they are any of them guiltie of, in not answering these ob­ligations, we were not at all enquiring, nor doth it in this place concerne us so to do. And in what he afterwards tells us of some proceedings contrary to the practise of the universall Church she intends I sup­pose all the Churches in the worldj where­in the members of the universall Church [Page 114] have walked or do so; for the universall Church as such, hath no practice as to ce­celebration of ordinances; & if he suppose it hath, let him tell us what it is, and when that practice was. His appeale to the pri­mitive believers, and their small number will not availe him: for although they should be granted to be the then Catholick visible Church (against which he knowes what exceptions may be laid from the believers amongst the Jewes, such as Cor­nelius, to whom Christ had not as yet been preached, as the Messiah come, and exhibited) yet as such, they joined not in the celebration of ordinances, but (as yet they were) as a particular congregation; yea though all the Apostles were amongst them, the foundation of all the Churches that afterwards were called.

He concludes this chapter with an ex­ception to my assertion, that if the Catho­lick Church be a politicall body, it must have a visible politicall head, which no­thing but the Pope claimes to be. Of this he saies, 1. There is no necessity, for saith he, he confesses the common wealth of the Jews, [Page 115] was a politicall body, and God who is invi­sible, was their politicall head: 2. Jesus Christ is a visible head, yea sometimes more, visus, seen of men whilst on earth, though now for a time in majesty (as some great Princes do,) he hath withdrawn himselfe from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of Angels and Saints in he aven. A. 1. I con­fesse God was the King and Ruler of the Jewes, but yet that they might be a visi­ble Politicall body, the invisible God, appointed to them under him, a visible head; as the Pope blasphemously pretends to be appointed under Jesus Christ. 2. Je­sus Christ is in his humane nature still vi­sible, as to his Person, wherein he is the head of his Church, he ever was, and is still invisible. His present absence, is not upon the account of Majesty, seeing in his majesty he is still present with us; and as to his bodily absence he gives other ac­counts, then that here insinuated. Now it sufficeth not to constitute a visible po­liticall body, that the head of it, in any re­spect may be seen, unlesse as that their head he is seen: Christ is visible, as this Church [Page 116] is visible; He in his lawes, in his word; that in its profession, in its obedience. But I marvell that our Reverend Author thus concluding for Christ to be the politicall head of this Church, as a Church, should at the same time contend for such sub­jects of this head as he doth, p. 96. name­ly persons, contradicting their profession of the knowledge of God, by a course of wic­kedness, manifesting principles of profane­ness, wherewith the beliefe of the truth they profess, hath an absolute inconsistency; as I expresly describe the persons, whose membership in this church, and relation thereby to Christ their head he pleads for. Are indeed these persons any better thē Mahumetans as to church priviledges? they are indeed in some places, as to pro­videntiall advantages of hearing the word preached; but woe unto them on that ac­count; it shall be more tolerable for Ma­humetans in that day of Christ, then for them: shall their Baptisme availe them? though it were valid in its administration, that is, was celebrated in obedience to the cōmād of Christ, is it not null to thē? is not [Page 117] their circumcision uncircūcision? shall such persons give their children any right to church priviledges? let them if you please be so subjects to Christ, as Rebells and Traitors are subject to their earthly prin­ces: they ought indeed to be so, but are they so? do they owne their Authority? are they obedient to them? do they enjoy any priviledge of Lawes? or doth▪ the A­postle any where call such persons as live in a course of wickednesse, manifesting principles utterly inconsistent with the profession of the Gospell, brethren? God forbid we should once imagine these things so to be! And so much for that chapter.

CHAP. VIII.
Of Independentisme and Donatisme.

THe Title of our Authors book is, In­dependency a great Schisme, of this chapter that it may be the better known what kind of schisme it is, Independentisme is Donatisme. Men may give what title they please to their books and chapters, though perhaps few books make good their titles. I am sure this doth not as yet, nisi accusasse sufficiat: Attempts of proof we have not as yet met withall: what this chapter will furnish us withall, we shall now consider. He indeed that shall weigh the title, Independentisme is Donatisme, & then casting his eye upon the first lines of the chapter it selfe, find, that the Re­verend Author saies, he cannot but acknow­ledge, that what I plead for the vindication of protestants from the charge of schisme in their separation from Rome, as the Catho­lick church, to be rationall, solid, and ju­dicious; will perhaps be at a losse in con­jecturing [Page 119] how I am like to be dealt with­all in the following discourse; a little pati­ence will let him see, that our Author laies more weight upon the Title, then the pre­face of this chapter; and that with all my fine trappings I am enrolled in the black booke of the Donatists: but 1 quod fors feret feramus aequo animo; or as ano­ther saith, debemus optare optima, cogitare difficulima, ferre quaecunque erunt; as the case is fallen out, we must deal with it as we can. 1. He saith; he is not satisfied, that he not only denies the Church of Rome (so called) to be a particular Church, pag. 154. but also affirms it to be no Church at all. That he is not satisfied, with what I affirm of that Synagogue of Sathan where he hath his throne, I cannot helpe it, though I am sorry for it:

I am not also without some trouble, that I cannot understand, what he means by placeing my words, so as to intimate, that I say, not only that the church of Rome is no particular church, but also that it is no church at all; as though it might in his judgment or mine, be any Church, [Page 120] if it be not a particular church; For I ve­rily suppose neither he nor I judg it to be that Catholick Church, whereto it pretends. But yet as I have no great reason to expect that this Reverend Au­thor should be satisfied in any thing that I affirme, so I hope that it is not impos­sible, but that without any great diffi­culty, he may be reconciled to himselfe affirming the very same thing, that I do p. 113. It is of Rome in that sence, wherein it claims it self to be a church, that I speak: & in that sence he saies it is no church of Christs institution, and so for my part, I account it no church at all; but he adds, that he is far more unsatisfied that I un­dertake the cause of the Donatists, and labour to exempt them from Schisme, though I allow them guilty of other crimes. But do I indeed undertake the cause of the Donatists? do I plead for thē? will he ma­nifest it by saying more against them in no more words, then I haved one? do I la­bour to exempt them from Schisme? are these the waies of peace, love and truth that the Reverend Author walks in? do I not condemne all their practises, and pre­tensions [Page 121] from the beginning to the end? can I not speak of their cause in Reference to the Catholick Church and its union, but it must be affirmed that I plead for them? But yet as if righteousnesse and truth had been observ'd in this criminati­on, he undertakes as of a thing granted to give my grounds of doing, what he affirms me to have done: The first is, as he saies, His singular notion of Schisme, limiting it only to differences in a particular Assembly. 2. His jealousy of the charge of Schisme to be objccted to himselfe, and party, if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truly called Schisme. A. What may I expect from others, when so grave and Reverend a person as this Author is reported to be, shall thus deal with me? S ^r I have no singular notion of Schisme, but embrace that which Paul hath long since declared, nor can you manifest any diffe­rence in my notion from what he hath delivered; nor is that notion of Schisme at all under consideration in Reference to what I affirme of the Donatists, (who in truth were concerned in it, the [Page 122] most of them to them to the utmost) but the union of the Church Catholick and the breach thereof; Neither am I jealous or fearfull of the charge' of Schis­me, from any person living on the earth, and least of all from men proceeding in church affaires upon the principles you proceed on. Had you not been pleased, to have supposed what you please, with­out the least ground, or colour, or reason, perhaps you would have as little satisfy­ed your selfe in the charge you have un­dertaken to manage against me, as you have done many good men, as the case now stands, even of your own judgment in other things.

Having made this entrance, he pro­ceeds in the same way, and pag. 164. laye's the foundation of the title of his booke & this chapter, of his charge of donatisme in these words. This lies in full force a­gainst him and his party, who have broken the union of our churches, and separated themselves from all the protestant churches in the world, not of their own constitution, and that as no true churches of Christ: [Page 123] this I say is the foundatiō of his whole en­suing discourse; all the groūd that he hath to stand upon in the defence of the Invi­dious title of this chapter; and what fruit he expects from this kind of proceeding I know not; The day will manifest of what sort this work is; Although he may have some mistaken apprehensions to coun­tenance his conscience in the first part of his assertion, or that it may be forgiven to inveterate praejudice though it be false; namely; that I and my party (that's the phraseology, this Author in his love to uni­ty delights in) have broken the union of their churches (which we have no more done, then they have broken the union of ours, for we began our reformation with them, on even tearms, and were as early at work as they) yet what coulour, what excuse can be invented to alleviate the guilt of the latter part of it, that we have separated from all the reformed chur­ches as no churches? and yet he repeats this again. pag. 106. with especiall refle­xion on my selfe: I wonder not saith he, that the Doctor hath unchurched Roome, [Page 124] for he hath done as much to England and all forraign protestant churches, and makes none to be members of the church, but such as are by covenant and consent joyned to some of their congregations. Now truly though all righteous laws of men in the world, will afford recompence and satisfaction for calumniating accusations and slaunders of much lesse importance then this here publickly ownd by our Reverend Author, yet seeing the gospell of the blessed God, requires to forgive, and passe by greater injuries, I shall labour in the strength of his grace to bring my heart unto conformity to his will therein; notwithstanding which, because by his providence I am in that place and condition, that others also that fear his name may be some way concern'd in this unjust imputatiō, I must declare that this is open unrighteousness, wherein neither love nor truth hath been observed. How little I am concernd in his following parallell of Independentisme and Donatisme, wherein he proceeds with the same truth and candor, or in all that followes there­upon, [Page 125] is easy for any one to judg. He proceeds to scan my Answers to the Ro­manists, as in reference to their charge of Schisme upon us; and saies, I do it sutable to my own principles. And truly if I had not, I think I had been much to blame. I referre the Reader to the An­swers given in my book, and if he like them not, notwithstanding this Authors exceptions, I wish he may fix on those that please him better▪ in them there gi­ven, my conscience doth acquiesce.

But he comes in the next place to Arguments, wherein if he prove more happy then he hath done in Accusations, he will have great cause to rejoyce. By a double Argument, as he saies, he will prove that there may be Schisme besides that in a particular Church. His first is this.

Schisme is a breach of Union, but there may be a breach of union in the Catholick visible church. His second this; where there are differenccs raysed in matter of faith professed, wherein the union of the Ca­tholick [Page 126] Church consists, there may be a breach of union, but there may be differences in the Catholick, or among the members of the Catholick church in matter of faith pro­fessed, Ergo. Having thus laid down his Arguments, he falls to conjecture what I will answer, and how I will evade; but it will quickly appear that he is no lesse unhappy in arguing and conjecturing, then he is, and was in accusing. For to consider his first Argument: if he will undertake to make it good as to its forme, I will by the same way of arguing, ingage my selfe to prove what he would be unwilling to find in a regular conclusion. But as to the matter of it, 1. Is Schisme every breach of union? or is every breach of Union schisme? Schisme in the Ecclesiasticall notion is granted to be in the present dis­pute, the breach of the union of a church, which it hath by the institution of Christ; and this not of any union of Christs insti­tution, but of one certaine kind of union; for as was proved, there is an union, whose breach can neither in the language of the Scripture, nor in reason, nor com­mon [Page 127] sense be called or accounted schisme, nor ever was by any man in the world, nor can be without destroying the parti­cular nature of schisme, and allowing only the generall notion of any separation, good or bad, in what kind soever. So that secondly, it is granted, not onlie that there may be a breach of union in the Ca­tholick church, but also that there may be a breach of the union of the Catholick church, by a deniall or relinquishment of the profession wherein it consists; but that this breach of union is sehisme, because sehisme is a breach of union, is as true, as that every man who hath two eyes, is every thing that hath two eyes. For his second, it is of the same importance with the first; there may be differences in the Catholick church, and breaches of union among the members of it, which are far enough from the breach of the union of that church, as such. Two professors may fall out and differ, and yet I think continue both of them professors still. Paul and Barnabas did so; Chrysostome and Epipha­nius did so; Cyrill and Theodoret did so. [Page 128] That which I denied was, that the breach of the union of the catholick church as such, is Schisme. He proves the contrary by affirming there may be differences a­mong the members of the catholick church, that do not break the union of it, as such. But he saies though there be A­postasy, or Heresy, yet there may be Schisme also; but not in respect of the breach of the same union, which only he was to prove. Besides evill surmizes, reproaches, false criminations, and undue suggestions, I find nothing wherein my discourse is con­cerned to the end of this chap. pag. 109. upon the passage of mine; we are thus come off from this part of Schisme for the relinquishment of the Catholick church, which we have not done, and so to do, is not schisme, but a sin of another nature, and importance; he adds, that the ground I goe upon why separation from a true church (he must meane the catholick church, or he speaks nothing at all the businesse in hand) is no schisme, is that afore men­tioned, that a schisme in the Scripture no­tion is onely a division of jugment in a par­ticular [Page 129] assembly. But who so blind as they that will not see? the ground I proceeded on evidently, openly, solely, was taken from the nature of the Catholick church its union, and the breach of that union, and if obiter I once mention that notion, I do it upon my confidence of its truth, which I here againe tender my selfe in a readinesse to make good to this Reverend Author, if at any time he will be pleased to com­mand my personall attendance upon him to that purpose. To repeat more of the like mistakes and surmizes, with the wran­glings that ensue on such false supposi­tions to the end of this chapter, is certain­ly needlesse; for my part, in and about this whole businesse of separation from the ca­tholick church, I had not the least respect to Presbyterians or Independents as such, nor to the differences betweē them, which alone our Author out of his zeale to truth and peace attends unto: If he will fasten the guilt of Schisme on any on the account of separation from the Catholick church, let him prove that that church is not made up of the universality of profes­sors [Page 130] of the Gospell throughout the world, under the limitations expressed; that the union of it as such, doth not con­sist in the profession of the truth; and that the breach of that union whereby a man ceases to be a member of that Church is Schismes, otherwise to tell me that I am a Sectary, a Schismatick, to fill up his pages with vaine surmizes and supposalls, to talke of a difference and schsme among the members of the catholick church, or the like impertinencies, will never far­ther his discourse among men, either ra­tionall, solid, or judicious. All that ensues to the end of this chapter is about the or­dination of ministers, wherein however he hath beē pleased to deal with me in much bitternesse of spirit, with many clamours and false Accusations; I am glad to find him (p. 120.) renouncing ordination from the Authority of the church of Rome as such, for I am assured, that by his so doing, he can claime it no waie from, by, or through Rome; for nothing came to us from thence, but what came, in and by the Authority of that Church.

CHAP. IX.

WE are now gathering towards what seems of most immediate con­cernment as to this Reverend Authors un­dertaking; namely to treate of the nature of a particular church, its union and the breach of that union; the description I give of such a church is this; It is a society of men called by the word to the obedience of the faith in Christ, and joint performance of the worship of God in the same individu­all ordinances according to the order by him prescribed. This I professe to be a ge­nerall description of its nature, waving all contests about accurate definitions, which usually tend very little to the discovery or establishment of truth: after some can­vassing of this description, our Author tells us that he grants it to be the definition of a particular church, which is more then I intended it for; only he adds that accor­ding to this description, their churches are as true as ours; which I presume by this time he knowes was not the thing in Que­stion. [Page 132] His ensuing discourse of the will of Christ, that men should joine not all in the same individuall congregation, but in this or that, is by me wholly assented ūto, and the matter of it contended for by me, as I am able; what he is pleased to adde about explicite covenanting and the like, I am not at all for the present concerned in; I purposely waved all expressions con­cerning it, one way or other, that I might not involve the businesse in hand with a­ny unnecessary contests; it is possible somewhat hereafter may be spoken to that subject, in a tendency unto the recon­ciliation of the parties at variance. His ar­gument in the close of the Section for a Presbyterian church from Acts 20. 17. be­cause there is mention of more elders then one in that Church, and therefore it was not one single congregation I do not under­stand; I think no one single congregation is wholly compleated according to the mind of Christ, unlesse there be more el­ders then one it; there should be elders in every Church; and for my part, so we could once agree practically in the matter of our [Page 133] churches, I am under some apprehension that it were no impossible thing to recon­cile the whole difference, as to a Presby­terian church, or a single congregation. And though I be reproved a new for my pains, I may offer ere long to the candid con­sideration of godly men, something that may provoke others of better abilities and more leasure, to endeavour the car­rying on of so good a work. Proceeding to the consideration of the unity of this church, he takes notice of three things laid down by me, previously to what I was farther to assert; all which he grants to be true, but yet will not let them passe without his animadversions. The two first are that 1. a man may be a member of the Catholick invisible church, and 2 of the visible Catholick church, and yet not be joy­ned to a particular Church. These, as I said, he ownes to be true, but askes how I can reconcile this with what I said before, name­ly, that the members of the Catholick vi­sible Church are initiated into the profession of the faith by Baptisme; but where lies the difference? why saith he, Baptisme accor­ding [Page 134] to his principles is an ordinance of worship only to be enjoyed in a particular Church, whilst he will grant (what yet he doth denie, but will be forced to grant) that a minister is a minister to more then his owne church, even to the Catholick Church, and may administer Baptisme out of a particular church, as Phillip did to the Eunuch. A. How well this Author is acquainted with my principles, hath been already manifested; as to his present mi­stake I shall not complaine, seeing that some occasion may be administred unto it, from an expression of mine, at least as it is printed, of which I shall speak after­wards; for the present he may be pleased to take notice, that I am so far from con­fining Baptisme subjectively to a particu­lar congregation, that I do not believe that any member of a particular church was ever regularly baptized: Baptisme precedes admission into Church mem­bership, as to a particular Church; the subject of it, is professing believers and their seed; as such they have right unto it, whither they be joined to any particular church or no; suitable to this judgment [Page 135] hath been my constant and uninterrupted practise. I desire also to know, who told him that I deny a minister to be a minister to more then his own Church, or averred that he may perform ministe­riall duty only in and towards the mem­bers of his own congregation: for so much as men are appointed the objects of the dispensation of the word I grant a man in the dispensation of it to act ministerially towards not only the mem­bers of the Catholick church, but the visi­ble members of the world also in contra­distinction thereunto:

The third thing laid down by me, where­unto also he assentes is, that every belie­ver is oblieged to join himselfe to some one of those Churches, that there he may abide in Doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayer: but my reasons where­by I prove this, he saies he likes not so well: and truly I cannot helpe it; I have little hope he should like any thing well which is done by me: Let him be pleased to furnish me with better, and I shall make use of them; but yet when he [Page 136] shall attempt so to doe, it is odds but that one or other, will find as many flawes in them as he pretends to do in mine; But this, he saith he shall make use of, and that, he shall make advantage of, and I know not what, as if he were playing a prize upon a stage. The third reason is that which he likes worst of all, and I like the businesse the better, that what he understands least, that he likes worst; it is, that Christ hath given no di­rection for any duty of worship, meerly and purely of soveraign institution, but only to them and by them who are so joined; Hereupon he askes: 1. is Baptisme a a part of worship? A: yes, and to be so per­formed by them, that is a Minister in, or of them; I fear my expression in this place lead him to his whole mistake in this matter: 2. prayer and reading of the word in private families are they no duty of worship: An: Not meerly and purely of soveraign institution. 3. Is preaching to convert heathens a duty of worship? not (as described) in all cases; when it is, it is to be performed by a mi­nister; [Page 137] and so he knowes my answer to his next invidious inquiry, relating to my own person; Against my fourth Reason taken from the Apostles care to leave none out of this order, who were converted, where it was possible: he gives in the in­stance of the Eunuch, and others conver­ted where there were not enough to ingage in such societies; that, is in them with whom it was impossible: my fift is from Christ's providing of officers for these Churches; This also he saith is weak as the rest, for first, Christ provided officers at first for the Catholick Church, that is the Apostles. 2. all ordinary officers are set first in the Catho­licke Church, and every minister is first a minister to the Catholick Church, and if (saith he) he deny this, he knowes where to find a learned Antagonist.

A. But see what it is to have a mind to dispute: will he deny that Christ ap­pointed officers for particular Churches, or if he should have a mind to do it, will his arguments evince any such thing; Christ appointed Apostles, Catholick officers, therefore he did not appoint [Page 138] officers for particular Churches; though he commanded that elders should be or­dained in every Church; Pastors and tea­chers are set first in the Catholick church, therefore Christ hath not ordained officers for particular Churches; But this is the way with our Author! if any word offers it selfe, whence it is possi­ble to draw out the mention of any thing, that is, or hath at any time been in diffe­rence between Presbiterians and Indepen­dents, that presently is run away withall; for my part I had not the least thought of the controversie which to no purpose at all he would here lead me to: but yet I must tell him that my judgment is, that ordinary officers are firstly to be ordained in particular churches: and as I know where to find a learned Antagonist as to that particular, so I do, in respect of every thing that I affirme or deny in the busi­nesse of Religion, and yet I blesse the Lord I am not in the least disquieted or shaken in my adherence to the truth I professe.

My last reason, he saith, is fallacious [Page 139] and inconsequent, and that because he hath put an inference upon it never intended in it. Now the position that these rea­sons were produced to confirm being true, and so acknowledged by himselfe, because it is a truth that indeed I lay some more then ordinary weight upon, it being of great use in the daies where­in we live: I would humbly intreat this Re­verend Author to send me his reasons whereby it may be confirmed, and I shall promise him if they be found of more validity then those which according to my best skill I have allready used, he shall obtain many thanks, and much re­spect for his favour;

What he remarks upon, or adds to my next discourse about instituted worship in generall, I shall not need to insist on: onely by the way I cannot but take notice of that which he calls a chiefe piece of In­dependencie, and that is! that those who are joined in church fellowship are so con­fined that they cannot or may not worship God in the same ordinances in other churches: how this comes to be a cheife [Page 140] peice of Independency, I know▪ not. It is contrary to the known practise of all the churches of England that I am ac­quainted with, which he calls Indepen­dents. For my part I know but one man of that mind, and he is no child in these things.

For the ensuing discourse about the in­tercision of ordinances, it being a matter of great importance, and inquired into by me meerly in reference to the Roman A­postacy, it needs a more serious disquisiti­on, then any thing at present administred by our Author will give occasion unto: possibly in convenient time I may offer somewhat farther towards the investi­gation of the mind of God therein: every thing in this present contest is so warped to the petty difference between Presby­terians and Independents, that no faire progresse nor opportunity for it can be afforded: If it may be, in my next debate of it, I shall wave al mentiō of those mea­ner differences: & as I remember I have not insisted on them in what I have all­ready proposed to this purpose, so possibly [Page 141] the next time I may utterly escape. For the present, I do not doubt but the spirit of God in the Scripture, is furni­shed with sufficient authority to erect new churches, and set up the celebration of all ordinances on supposition that there was an intercision of them. To declare the way of his exerting his Authority to this purpose, with the obviating of all objections to the contrary, is not a matter to be tossed up and down in this scam­bling chase: and I am not a litle unhappy, that this Reverend Person was in the dark to my designe and aime all along, which hath intangled this dispute with so many impertinences; But however I shall an­swer a question which he is pleased to put to me in particular: he askes me then whither I do not think in my conscience that there were no true churches in England untill the Brownists our fathers, the Ana­baptists our elder brothers, and our selves arose and gathered new Churches. With thanks for the civility of the inquiry in the manner of its expression, I answer no! I have no such thoughts, and his [Page 142] pretence of my insinuation of any such thing, is most vaine, as also is his insulta­tion thereupon; truly if men will in all things take liberty to speak what they please, they have no reason but to think that they may at one time or other heare that which will displease;

Having investigated the nature of a particular Church, I proceed in my trea­tise of Schisme, to inquire after the union of it, wherein it doth consist, and what is the breach thereof; The summe is the joint consent of the members to walke together in celebration of the same nume­ricall ordinances, according to the mind of Jesus Christ, is that wherein the union of such a Church doth consist. This is va­riously excepted against: and I know not what disputes about an implicit and explicit covenant, of Specificating forms, of the practise of new and old England, of Admission of church members, of the right of the members of the Catholick church to all ordinances, of the miscarri­age of the Independents, of church Ma­triculations and such like things, not [Page 143] once considered by me in my pro­posall of the matter in hand; are fallen upon. By the way he fals upon my judg­ment about the inhabitation of the Spirit, calls it an error, and saies so it hath been reputed by all that are orthodox; raising terrible suspitions and intimations of judgments on our way from God, by my falling into that error; when yet I say no more then the Scripture saith in expresse tearms forty times, for which I referre him to what I have written on that subject, wherein I have also the con­currence of Polanus, Bucanus, Dorchetus with sundry others Lutherans and Calvi­nists; It may be when he hath serious­ly weighed what I have offered to the clearing of that glorious truth of the Gospell, he may entertain more gen­tle thoughts both concerning it and mee.

The rest of the chapter I have passed thorow, once and againe, and cannot fix on any thing worthy of farther debate: A difference is attempted to be found in my description of the union of a particu­lar [Page 144] Church, in this and another place: be­cause in one place I require the consent of the members to walke together, in ano­ther mention only their so doing, when the mention of that only, was necessary in that place, not speaking of it absolutely, but as it is the difference of such a church from the church Catholick, some impro­priety of expression is pretended to be discovered: (id populus curat scilicet:) which yet is a pure mistake of his, not considering unto what especiall end and purpose the words are used: He repeats sundry things as in opposition to me, that are things laid down by my selfe and granted: Doth he attempt to prove that the union of a Church is not rightly stated: he confesseth the form of such a Church consists in the obscrvance and performance of the same ordinances of worship numerically: I aske, is it the com­mand of Christ that believers should so doe? is not their obedience to that command, their consent so to do? are not particular churches instituted of Christ? is it not the duty of every believer to join himselfe to some one of them? was not this acknowledged a­bove? [Page 145] can any one do so without his consenting to do so? is this consent any thing but his voluntary submission to the ordinances of worship therein? As an expresse consent and subjection to Christ in generall is required to con­stitute a man a member of the Church Catholick visible; so if the Lord Jesus hath appointed any particular church for the celebration of his ordinances; is not their consent who are to walke in them, necessary thereunto? But the Topick of an explicite covenant, presenting its selfe with an advantage, to take up some leaves, would not be waved, though nothing at all to the purpose in hand. After this, my confession made in as much condes­cension unto compliance as I could well imagine, of the use of greater assēblies, is examined, and excepted against, as being in my esteem, he saith, though it be not so indeed, a matter of prudence only: But I know full well, that he knows not what esteeme or disesteem I have of sundry things of no lesse importance. The con­sideration of my postulata, proposed in a [Page 142] preparation to what was to be insisted on, in the next Chapter, as influenced from the foregoing dissertations alone remaines, and indeed alone deserve our notice.

My first is this. The departing of any man or men from any particular Church, as to the communion peculiar to such a Church, is no where called Schisme, nor is so in the nature of the thing it selfe, but is a thing to be judged and recieve a title ac­cording to the circumstances of it; to this he adjoines; this is not the Question, a simple secessiō of a man or mē upon some just occa­sion is not called schisme, but to make causless differences in a Church, and then separa­ting from it, as no Church, denying com­munion with it, hath the nature and name of schisme in all mens judgments but his own. An. What Question doth our Re­verend Author meane? I feare he is still fancying of the difference between Pres­byterians and Independents, and squaring all things by that Imagination; whether it be a Question stated to his mind or no, I cannot tell, but it is an assertion expres­sive of mine owne, which he may do well [Page 143] to disprove if he can. Who told him that raising causlesse differences in a Church, and then separating from it, is not in my judg­ment schisme? May I possibly retaine hopes of making my selfe understood by this Reverend Author? I suppose though, that a pertinacious abiding in a mistake, is neither schisme nor heresy. And so this may be passed over.

My second is, one Church refusing to hold that communion with another, which ought to be between them, is not Schisme properly so called. The reply hereunto is twofold▪ 1. That one Church may raise dif­ferences in, and with another church, and so cause Schisme. 2 That the Independents deny any communion of churches, but what is prudentiall, and so that communion can­not be broken. To the first I have spoken sufficiently before; the latter is but an harping on the same string: I am not spea­king of Independent churches, nor upon the principles of Independents, much lesse on them, which are imposed on them; Let the Reverend Author sup­pose or aver what communion of churches [Page 148] he pleaseth, my position holds in refe­rence to it, nor can he disprove it; how­ever for my part I am not acquaintcd with those Independents, who allow no com­munion of churches, but what is prudenti­all; and yet it is thought, that I know as many, as this Reverend Author doth.

Upon the last proposall we are whol­ly agreed; so that I shall not need to re­peat it; only he gives me a sad farewell at the close of the Chapter, which must be taken notice of; is (saith he) not the design of his book to prove if he could, and con­demne us as no churches, let the world be judge; and I say let all the saints of God judge; and Jesus Christ will judge whi­ther I have not outragious injury done me in this imputation; but, saith he, un­less this be proved, he can never justify his separatiō. S ^r. when your & our brethren told the Bishops, they thanked God they were none of them, and defied the Prelaticall church, did they make a separation or no; were they guilty of Schisme? I suppose you will not say so: nor do I; yet have I done any such thing in reference to you [Page 149] or your churches; I have no more separa­ted from you, then you have done from me; and as for the distance which is be­tween us upon our disagreement about the way of reformation, let all the chur­ches of God judge, on which side it hath been managed with more breach of love, on yours or mine; Let me assure you Sir, through the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, I can freely forgive unto you all your reproaches, revilings, hard censu­rings, and endeavours to expose me to publick obloquie, and yet hope that I may have before we dy, a place in your heart and prayers.

CHAP. X.
Independency no Schisme.

WE are come now to the chapter that must do the work intended, or else operam & oleum perdidimus; In­dependentisme a great Schisme, is the title of it; what this Independentisme is, he doth neither here declare, nor in any other part of his book; nor do I know what it is that he intends by it; I heare in­deed from him that it is a schisme, a Sect, but of what peculiar import, or wherein it consists, he hath not declared; I suppose he would have it taken for separation from true Churches, but neither doth the noti­on of the name, though invidiously broa­ched and disavowed by them, to whom it is ascribed, import any such thing; nor is the thing it selfe owned by them, with whom he pretends to have to do: I find indeed that he tells us, that all Sectaries are Independents; Anabaptists, Seekers, Ranters, Quakers. Doth he expect that [Page 147] I should undertake their defence? what if it should appear, that I have done more a­gainst them then our Reverend Author, and many of his brethren joined with him; he may perhaps be willing to load my selfe and those which he is pleased to call my associats, my party, I know not what, with their evills and miscarriages. But is this done as becomes a Christian, a Minister, a Brother? what security hath he, that had he been the only judge and disposer of things in Religion in this na­tion, if I and my associats had been sent to plant Churches among the Indians, that he should have prevented the eruption of the errors and abominations which we have been exercised withall in this gene­ration, unlesse he had sent for Duke D'Al­va's instruments to work his ends by? and indeed there is scarce any Sect in the nati­on, but had they their desires, they would take that course. This may be done by any that are uppermost if they please. But how shall we know what it is he intends by Independentisme: All (it may be) that are not Presbyterians are Independents. [Page 152] Among these some professedly separate, both frō them & us, (for there are none that separate from them, but withall they separate from us that I know of) because, as they say, neither theirs nor ours are true Churches; we grant them to be true Churches, but withall denie that we sepa­rate from them; is it possible at once to defend both these sects of men? is it pos­sible at once with the same arguments to charge them? The whole discourse then of our Reverend Author being uniforme, it can concerne but one of these sects of Independents: which it is, any man may judge, that takes the least view of his trea­tise. He deals with them that unchurch their Churches, unminister their ministers, disanull their ordinances, leaving them Churchless, officerlesse, and in the like sad condition: Is this Independentisme a Schism? though that it is properly so cal­led, he cānot prove, yet I hope he did not expect, that I should plead for it; what I shall do in this case, I professe, well I know not. I here denie that I unminister their ministers, unchurch their Churches; hath [Page 153] this Author any more to say to me, or those of my perswasion? doth not this whole discourse proceed upon a supposi­tion that it is otherwise with them with whom he hath to do? only I must tell him by the way, that if he suppose by this concession, that I justifie and owne their way, wherein they differ from the congre­gationall ministers in England, to be of Christs institution, or that I grant all things to be done regularly among them, and according to the mind of Christ, therein I must professe he is mistaken. In breife by Independentisme he intends a se­paration from true Churches, with con­demning them to be no churches, and their Ministers no Ministers, and their ordinances none, or Antichristian; whatever becomes of the nature of schisme, I disavow the appearing as an ad­vocate in the behalfe of this Independen­tisme. If by Independentisme he under­stand the peaceable proceeding of any of the people of God in this nation in the severall parts of it, to joine themselves by their free consent to walk together in [Page 150] the observation and celebration of all the ordinanees of Christ appointed to be ob­served and celebrated in particular chur­ches, so to reforme themselves from the disorders wherein they were intangled, being not able in some things to joine in that way of reformation, which many godlie ministers cōmonly called Presby­terians, have ingaged in, and seek to pro­mote, without judging & condemning thē as to the whole of their station or ordi­nāces; If this I say be intended by Indepen­dentisme, when the Reverend Author shall undertake to prove it Schisme, having not in this book spoken one word or title to it, his discourse will be attended unto. This whole chapter then being spent a­gainst them, who deny them to be true Churches, and defend separation, I mar­vaile what can be said unto it by me, or how I come to be concerned in it, who grant them true Churches, and denie sepa­ration.

But our Reverend Author, knowing that if this bottome be taken from under him, he hath no foundation for any thing [Page 151] he asserts, thought it not sufficient to charg me over and over with what is here deny­ed, but at length attempts to make it good frō mine own words; which if he doth effect make & good, I confesse he changes the whole nature and state of the dispute in hand: Let ut see thenhow he answers this undertaking.

From those words of mine, the refor­mation of any church, or any thing in it, is the reducing of it to its primitive insti­tution: approving the assertion as true, he labors to evince that I deny their Churches to be true Churches; how so I pray; why we erect new churches out of no Churches; and it had been happy for Eng­land if we had all gone to do this work a­mong the Indians. What will prove Englands happinesse or unhappinesse, the day will manifest; this is but mans day and judgment. He is coming who will not judg by the seeing of the eye, nor by the hearing of the ear; In the mean time, we blesse God, & think all England hath caus to blesse God, what ever become of us, that he and our brethren of the same mind with him, in the things of God, have [Page 156] their liberty to preach the gospell, and carry on the work of reformation in their native soyle, and are not sent into the ends of the earth, as many of ours have been. But how doth our gathering of Churches denie them to be true churches? Doth our granting them to be true Churches, also grant that all the Saints in England are members of their Churches? It is notoriously known, that it is and was otherwise, and that when they, and we be­gan: to reform, thousands of the people of God in these nations, had no reason to suppose themselves to belong to one par­ticular Church rather then another. They lived in one parish, heard in another, re­moved up and down for their advantage, and were in bondage on that account all their daies.

But he saies in some words following I discover my very heart: I cannot but by the way tell him, that it is a sufficient evi­dence of his unacquaintednesse with me, that he thinks there is need of searching, and racking my words to discover my very heart, in any thing that belongs [Page 157] (though in never so remote a distance) to the worship of God. All that know me, know how open and free, I am in these things, how ready on all occasions to de­clare my whole heart; it is neither fear nor favour can influence me unto another frame: But what are the words that make this noble discovery: They are these that follow: When any Society or combination of men (what ever hither­to it hath been esteemed) is not capable of such a reduction, and revocation (that is to its primitive institution) I suppose I shall never provoke any wise or sober person, if I professe I cannot look on such a society as a church of Christ: His reply hereunto is the hinge upon which his whole dis­course turneth, and must therefore be considered. Thus then he; is not this, reader, at once to unchurch all the chur­ches of England since the reformation? for it is known, during the raign of the prelates they were not capable of that re­duction: and what capacity our Churches are now in for that reduction, partly by want of power and assistance from the magistrate, [Page 154] without which some dare not set upon a reformation, for fear of a praemunire, partly by our divisions amongst our selves, fomented by he knowes whom, he cannot but see as well as we lament. And here­upon he proceeds with sundry complaints of my dealing with them. And now Chistian Reader what shall we say to these things? A naked supposition, of no strength, nor weight, that will not hold in any thing or case, namely that a thing is not to be judged capable of that, which by some externall force it is withheld from, is the sole bottome of all this charge. The Churches of England were capable of that reduction to their primi­tive institution, under the prelates, though in some things hindred by them, from an actuall Reducement; so they are now in sundry places, where the work is not so much as attempted; the sluggards feild is capable of being weeded; the present pre­tended want of capacity from the non-as­sistance of the magistrate, whilest perfect liberty for Reformation is given, and the worke in its severall degrees incouraged, [Page 155] will be found to be a sad plea for some, when things come to be tryed out by the rule of the Gospell. And for our divisions I confesse I begin to discover somewhat more by whom they are fo­mented, then I did four daies agoe: for the matter it selfe. I desire our Reve­rend Author to take notice, that I judg every church capable of a reduction to its primitive institution, which, all out­ward hinderances being removed, and all assistances granted, that are necessary for reformation according to the Gos­pell, may be reduced into the forme and order appointed unto a particular church by Jesus Christ; and where any society is not so capable, let them call themselves what they please, I shall advise those therein, who have personally a due right to the priviledges purchased for them by Jesus Christ, in the way of their ad­ministration by him appointed, to take some other peaceable course to make themselves partakers of them; and for­giving this advise I neither dread the anger nor Indignation of any man living [Page 160] in the world: And so I suppose by this time the Author knowes what is become of his, quod erat demonstrandum; and here in room of it I desire him to accept of this return.

Those who in the judgment of chari­ty were and continue, members of the church catholick invisible by vertue of their union with Christ the head thereof; and members of the generall visible church, by their due profession of the sa­vings truths of the gospell, and subjecti­on to Christ Jesus their King and Savi­our according to them, do walke in love and concord in the particular churches, whereof by their own consent and choice they are members, not judging and con­demning other particular churches of Christ, where they are not members as they are such, as to their stationand privi­ledges, being ready for all instituted com­munion with thē, as revealed are not accor­ding to any gospell rule, nor by any prin­ciples acknowledged amongst Christians, to be judged or condemned as guilty of Schisme; but such are all they for whom, [Page 161] under any consideration what ever, I have pleaded as to their immunity from this charge, in my treatise of Schisme; therefore they are not to be judged so guilty. If you please, you may adde, Quod er at demonstratum.

I shall not digresse to a recharge upon this Reverend Author, and those of the same profession with him, as to their mi­stakes and miscarriages in the work of Reformation, nor discusse their waies and principles, wherein I am not satisfied as to their proceduce: I yet hope for bet­ter things, then to be necessitated to carry on the defensative of the way wherein I walk by opposing theirs. It is true that he who stands upon meer de­fence, is thought to stand upon none at all: but I wait for better things from men, then their hearts will yet allow them, to think of. I hope the Reverend Au­thor thinks, that as I have reasons where­with I am satisfied as to my own way, so I have those that are of the same weight with me against him. But what ever he may surmise I have no mind [Page 162] to foment the divisions that are amongst us; hence I willingly bear all his imputati­ons without retortion. I know in part how the case is in the world. The greatest chargers have not alwaies the most of truth; witnesse Papists, Lutherans, Prelutists, Anabaptists. I hope I can say in sincerity, I am for peace; though others make themselves ready for war.

But we must proceed a litle further, though as to the cause by me underta­ken to be managed, causelessely. The discourse of our Author from the place fixed on, wherein he faintly indeavoured to make good the foundation of this chap­ter, which I have allready considered, consists of two parts: 1. His Animad­versions on some principles which I lay down, as necessary to be stated aright and determined, that the question about gathering churches may be clearly and satisfactorily debated. Some of them he saies have been handled by others; which if it be a rule of silence to him, and me, it might have prevented this tedious debate: what ever his thoughts may be [Page 163] of my pamphlet, I do not fear to affirm of his Treatile, that I have found nothing in it, from the beginning to the ending, but what hath lien neglected on booksellers stalls for above these seven years. For the rest of those principles, which he ex­cepts against, as he thinks meet, I leave their consideration, to that farther enqui­ry, which the Lord assisting I have desti­ned them unto. The way of gathering churches upon a supposition of their ante­cedency to officers, he saies is very pretty, and loads it with the difficulty of mens comming to be baptized in such a case: but as I, can tell him of that which is neither true, nor pretty, in the practise of some whom he knowes, or hath reason so to do, so I can assure him that we are not concerned in his objection about baptisme, and with them who may possi­bly be so, it is a ridiculous thing, to think it an objection. And for that part of my enquiry, whether the Church be before ordinary officers, or they before it, as sleight as he is pleased to make of it, it will be found to lie very near the bot­tome [Page 164] of all our differences, and the right stating of it, to conduce to the composure and determination of them. His charges and reflexions which he casts about in his passage, are not now to be further men­tioned; we have had them over and over; indeed we have had little else: If strong, vehement, passionate affirmations, com­plaints, charges, falfe imputations, and the like, will amount to a demonstration in this businesse, he hath demonstrated Independentisme to be a great Schisme.

He shuts up his discourse as he began it; reciting my words by adding, inter­posing, perverting, commenting, enqui­ring, he makes them speak what he pleases, and compasses the ends of his delight upon them. What content­ment he hath received in his so doing, I know not; nor shall I expresse what thoughts I have, of such a course of proceedure: This only I shall say, it is a facile way of writing treatises and proving what ever men have a mind unto.

My last taske is to look back to the [Page 165] beginning of this last chapter, and to ga­ther up in our passage, what may seem to respect the businesse in hand, and so the whole matter will be dismissed. The plea insisted on for immunity from the charge of Schisme, with reference to the Episcopall Government of the Church of England, and the constitution which un­der it, it is pretended to have had, he passes over; though on sundry accounts his concernments ly as deeply in it as in any thing pleaded In that treatise. The things he is pleased to take notice of, as far as they tend in the least to the issue of the debate between us, shall be reviewed. Con­sidering the severall senses wherein that expression, the church of England, may be taken, I manifest in my treatise, in which of them, and how far, we acknowledg our selves to have been, and to continue mem­bers of the Church of England. The first is as it comprises the elect believers in England: what the unity of the Church in this sense is, was before evinced; our de­sire to be found members of this Church, with our indeavour to keep the unity of [Page 166] it in the bond of peace, was declared. I am greived to repeat our Reverend Au­thors exceptions to this declaration; saies he, unlesse he think, there are no members of this church in England, but those that are of his formed particular churches, I fear he will be found to break the union that ought to be between them: And why so I pray? The union of the members of the church in this sense, consists in their joint union to & with Christ their head by one spirit. What hath the Reverend Author to charge upon me with reference thereunto? Let him speak out to the utmost; yea I have some reason to think that he will scarce spare, where he can strike; God forbid that I should think all the members of the Catholick Church in England to be comprised either jointly or severally in their Churches or ours, see­ing it cannot be avoided but you will keep up those notes of division. I doubt not but there be many thousands of them who walk neither with you nor us. He adds, that by gathering saints of the first magnitude we do what lies in us, to make [Page 167] the Invisible Church visible: It is con­fessed, we do so; yea we know that that church which is invisible in some respect, and under one formall consideration, is visible as to its profession, which it makes unto salvation. This, with all that lies in us, we draw them out unto: what he addes about the churches being elect, and the uncomely parts of it, which they may be for a season who are elect believers, because it must be spoken; are uselesse cavills. For the scornfull rejection of what I affirm concerning our love to all the members of this church, and readi­nesse to tender them satisfaction in case of offence, with his insinuatiō of my want of modesty and truth in asserting these thoughts, because he will one day know, that the words he so despises, were spoken in sincerity, and with the reverence of the great God, & out of love to all his Saints, I shall not farther vindicate them; such hay and stubble must needs burn.

My next profession of our Relation to the Church of England, in respect of that denomination given to the body of pro­fessours [Page 168] in this Nation, cleaving to the Doctrine of the Gospell, here preached and established by Law, as the publike pro­fession of this Nation. But he tels me first: 1. That many Independent Churches in this Nation, are grosly apostatized from that doctrine, and so are hereticall. 2. That the worship was professed and protested, and established as well as the doctrine, and that we are all departed from it, and so are schismaticall: for we hold communion with them, he sayes in the same doctrine, but not in the same worship. Answer. His first exception ariseth from the advantage he makes use of, from his large use of the word Independent, which will serve him in his sense for what end he pleaseth. In the sense before declared his charge is denyed; Let him prove it by instance if he be able: surely God hath not given or­thodox men leave to speak what they please, without due regard to love and truth. 2. As to the worship established in this nation by law, (he means the way of worship, for the substantials of it we are [Page 169] all agreed in) I suppose he will not say a relinquishment of the practice of it is schisme; if he do, I know what use some men will make of his affirmation, though I know not how he will free himselfe from being schismaticall; for his renewed charg of schisme, I cannot I confesse be moved at it, proceeding from him, who neither doth, nor will know what it is. His next indeavour is to make use of another con­cession of mine, concerning our receiving of our regeneration and new birth by the preaching of the word in England; saying, could they make use of our preaching &c. but the truth is, when the most of us by the free grace of God received our new birth through the preaching of the word, neither they, nor we, as to the practice of our waies, were in Eng­land; so that their concernment as such, in the concession is very small; and we hope since in respect of o­thers, our owne ministry hath not been altogether fruitlesse, though we make no comparison with them.

[Page 170] In rendring of the next passage which is concerning anabaptists and anabaptisme, I shall not contend with him; he hath not in the least impaired the truth of what I assert in reference to them and their way. I cannot but take notice of that passage which for the substance of it hath so often occurred, and that is this; doth not himselfe labor in this booke to prove that the administration of ordinan­ces in our assemblies is null, our ordina­tion null and antichristian. For the proofe of which suggestion he referrs his Reader to page 197 of my book. I confesse seeing this particular quotation, I was somewhat surprised, and began to feare that some expression of mine (though contrary to my professed judgment) might have given countenance to this mistake, and so be pleaded as a Justifi­cation of all the uncharitablenesse and something else, wherewith his book is replenished; but turning to the place I was quickly delivered from my trouble, though I must ingeniously confesse, I was cast into another which I shall not now mention.

[Page 171] Page 167. we arrive at that which a­lone almost I expected would have been insisted on, and quite conttary thereto, it is utterly waved; namely the wholebu­sinesse of a nationall Church, upon which account indeed all the pretence of the charge this reverend Author is pleased to mannage, doth arise. Take that out of the way, and certainly they, and we are upon even termes; and if we will be judged by them who were last in possessi­on of the Reiglement of that church, up­on supposition that there is such a church still, they are no more Interested in it then we, yea are as guilty of schisme from it as we. But that being set aside and particular churches only remaining, It will be very difficult for him to raise the least pretence of his great charge. But let us consider what he thinks meete to fasten on, in that discourse of mine about a nationall church. The first thing is my inquiry, whether the denyall of the Institution of a nationall church (which he pleads not for) doth not deny in con­sequence that we had either ordinances [Page 172] or ministry amongst us: to which I say, that though it seemes so to do, yet indeed it doth not, because there was then another church state, even that of particular churches amongst us, with many kind reflections of my renouncing my ministry and rejecting of my jejune and empty vin­dication of their ministry (which yet is the very same that himselfe fixes on) he asks me how I can in my conscience be­leive, that there were any true ministers in this church in the time of its being na­tionall, and so proceeds to inferre from hence my denying of all ministry and or­dinances among them. Truly though I were more to be despised then I am (if that be possible) yet it were not com­mon▪ prudence for any man to take so much paines to make me his enemy, whether I will or no. He cannot but know that I deny utterly, that ever we had indeed, whatever men thought, a na­tionall church; for I grant no such thing, as a nationall church in the present sense contended about. That in England under the rule of the prelates, when they look­ed [Page 173] on the church as nationall, there were true churches, and true ministers, though in much disorder as to the way of entring into the ministry and Dispensing of or­dinances, I grant freely; which is all this reverend Author, If I understand him, pleads for; and this he saies I was un­willing to acknowledge, lest I should thereby condemne my selfe as a schisma­tick. Truly, in the many sad differen­ces and divisions that are in the world a­mongst Christians, I have not been with­out sad and jealous thoughts of heart, lest by any doctrine or practise of mine I should occasionally contribute any thing unto them; If it hath been otherwise with this Author, I envy not his frame of spi­rit. But I must freely say, that having together with them, weighed the rea­sons for them; I have been very little moved with the clamorous accusations, and insinuations of this Author. In the meane time, if it be possible to give him satisfaction, I here let him know, that I assent unto that summe of all he hath to say, as to the Church of England, name­ly [Page 174] that the true and faithfull ministers, with the people in their severall congre­gations, administring the true ordinances of Jesus Christ, whereof baptisme is one, was and is the true Church state of Eng­land, from which I am not separated; nor do I think that some addition of hu­mane prudence, or Imprudence can disa­null the ordinances of Jesus Christ. upon the disavower made of any other nati­onall Church state, and the assertion of this to answer all intents and purposes, I suppose now that the Reverend Author knowes that it is incumbent on him to prove, that we have been members of some of these 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 raised causelesse dif­ferences in those particular churches whereof we were members respectively, and so separated from them, with the condemnation of them; or else accord­ing to his owne principles he failes in his brotherly conclusion: [...]. [Page 175] I suppose the reader is weary of pursuing things so little to our purpose: if he will hear any further, that Independents are schismaticks, that the setting up of their way hath opened a door to all evills and confusions, that they have separated from all churches, and condemne all churches in the world but their owne; that they have hindred Reformation and the setting up of the Presbyterian Church; that being members of our Churches, as they are members of the nation, because they are borne in it, yet they have deserted them; that they gather Churches which they pretend to be spick and span new; they have separated from us, that they coun­tenance Quakers, and all other Sectaries, that they will reforme a nationall church whether men will or no, though they say that they only desire to reforme them­selves, and plead for liberty to that end.

If any man I say have a mind to read or heare of this any more, let him read the rest of this chapter, or else converse with some persons whom I can direct him to, who talke at this wholsome rate all the day long.

[Page 176] What seems to be my particular con­cernment, I shall a little further attend un­to. Some words (for that is the manner of mannaging this controversie) are culled out from pag. 259. 260. to be made the matter of farther contest. Thus they lie in my Treatise. As the not giving a mans selfe up unto any way, and submiting to any establishment pretended or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, and which he was not by any act of his owne for­merly ingaged in, cannot with any colour or pretence of reason be reckoned to him for schisme, though he may if he persist in his refusall prejudice his owne edification; so no more can a mans peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion of one Church in all its relations be so esteemed. These words have as yet unto me a very harme­lesse aspect; but our Reverend Author is sharp-sighted, and sees I know not what monsters in them: for first (saith he) here he seems to me to be a very Sceptick in his way of independency: why so I pray? This will gratify all sects, Quakers, and all with a toleration: how I pray? it is Schisme, not [Page 177] toleration we are treating about. But this leaves them to judge of, as well as others, what is, and what is not according to the mind of Christ, why pray S ^r. who is ap­pointed to judge finally for them? why then should they be denied their liberty? but is that the thing under consideration? had you concluded that their not submit­ting to what they have not light for its institution, is not properly Schisme, you should have seen how far I had been con­cerned in the inference: but excursions unto Quakers &c. are one topick of such discourses. But now he askes me one Question, it seems to try whither I am a Sceptick or no; whether (saith he) does he believe his owne way to be the only true way of Christ, for he hath instituted but one way, having run from and renounced all other waies in this nation. I promise you this is a hard Question; and not easily answe­red. If I deny it, he will say I am a Scep­tick, and other things also will be brought in: if I affirme it, it may be he will say that I condemne their churches for no churches, and the like: it is good to be [Page 178] wary when a man hath to deale with wise men; how if I should say that our way and their way is for the substance of them, one way, and so I cannot say that my way is the only true way exclusively to theirs: I suppose this may do pretty well. But I fear this will scarce give satisfactiō, & yet I know not well how I can go any far­ther; yet this I will adde; I doindeed be­lieve, that wherein their way and our way differ, our way is according to the mind of Christ and not theirs: and this I am rea­dy at any time (God assisting) personally to maintaine to him: and as for my run­ning from waies of religion, I dare againe tell him, these reproaches and calumnies become him not at all. But he proceeds, if so, (saith he) is not every man bound to come into it, and not upon every conceived new light to relinquish it. Truly I think M ^r. C. himselfe is bound to come into it, and yet I do not think that his not so doeing makes him a Schismatick: and as for relinquishment I assert no more, then what he himselfe concludes to be law­full.

[Page 179] And thus Christian Reader I have given thee a briefe account of all things of any importance that I could meet withall in this treatise, and of many which are of very little; if thou shalt be pleased to com­pare my treatise of Schisme with the refu­tation of it, thou wilt quickly see, how short this is, of that which it pretends to: how untouched my principles do abide, and how the most materiall parts of my discourse are utterly passed by, without any notice taken of them. The truth is, in the way chosen by this Reverend Author to proceed in, men may multiply writings to the worlds end, without driving any controversy to an issue; descanting and harping on words, making exceptions to particular passages and the like, is an easy and facile, and to some men a pleasant la­bour: what small Reason our Author had to give his book the title it bears, unlesse it were to discover his designe, I hope doth by this time appeare. Much of the proofe of it lies in the repeated assevera­tions of it, it is so, and it is so. If he shall be pleased to send me word of one argument [Page 180] tending that way, that is not founded in an evident mistake, I will promise him, if I live, a reconsideration of it.

In the mean time I humbly beg of this Reverend Author, that he would review in the presence of the Lord the frame of spirit, wherein he wrote this charge; as also that he would take into his thoughts all the reproaches, and all that obloquy he hath endeavoured to load me causlesly and falsly withall. As for my selfe, my name, reputation, and esteeme with the Chur­ches of God, to whom he hath indeavou­red to render me odious, I commit the whole concernment of them to him, whose presence through grace I have hi­therto injoyed, and whose promise I leane upon, that he will never leave me nor for­sake me. I shall not complaine of my usage: but what am I? of the usage of ma­ny pretious Saints and holy Churches of Jesus Christ, to him that lives and sees, any farther then by begging that it may not be laid to his charge: and if so meane a person as I am, can in any way be service­able to him, or to any of the churches that [Page 181] he pleads for, in reference to the Gospell of Christ, I hope my life will not be deare to me that I may effect it; and I shall not cease to pray that both he and those who promoted this worke in his hand, may at length consider the many calls of God that are evident upon them, to lay aside these unseemly animosities, and to endeavour a coalition in love, with all those who in sincerity call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.

For the distances themselves that are between us, wherein we are not as yet a­greed; what is the just state of them, the truth and warrantablenesse of the princi­ples whereupon we proceed, with the ne­cessity of our practice in conformity thereunto, what we judge our Brethren to come short in, of, or wherein to go be­yond the mind of Jesus Christ, with a farther ventilation of this businesse of Schisme, I have some good grounds of expectation, that possibly ere long we may see a faire discussion of these things, in a pursuit of truth and peace.