OF SCHISM. PAROCHIAL CONGREGATIONS IN ENGLAND, AND Ordination by Impoſition of Hands.
Wherein Dr. Owen's Diſcovery of the True Nature of Schiſm is briefly and friendly examined, together with Mr. Noyes of New England his Arguments againſt Impoſition of hands in Ordination.
By GILES FIRMIN, Sometime of New England, now Paſtor of the Church at Shalford in Eſſex.
LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Nathanael Webb, and William Grantham, at the Bear in Paul's Church-yard, neer the little North door of Pauls, 1658.
EIther we have dealt hypocritically with God and man, or elſe the Diviſions in theſe poore Churches have lain upon the hearts of the godly in England as an afflicting evil. The Civil Power have ſeemed to be ſo ſenſible of this evil, that more then once it hath been numbred amongst the cauſes in their Orders for our Solemn and Publike Humiliations; if our Faſt-days, Prayers, Sermons, Books, &c. may be believed, then the breaches in our Churches have broken our comforts. For my part I have cauſe to take ſhame, and to ask pardon of God that this ſin which hath wrought ſo much evil, and brought ſuch diſhonour to Chriſt, have no more affected me; it is for them whoſe hearts are moſt divided from ſelf, and united to God, to be indeed affected and afflicted with Diviſions in the Church. I look on it as an act of a grown Chriſtian, whoſe Intereſt in Chriſt is well cleared, and his heart walking cloſe with God, to be really taken up with the publike Intereſt of Chriſt. I will not meaſure other mens hearts by my own, but I muſt ſay for my ſelf, the good Lord pardon my hypocriſie in this point, for to be affected as become Chriſtians for Diviſions among Chriſtians, I find it a hard matter, whatever words ſeem to affirm.
Could I joy in my ſelf, I ſhould be glad that I lived to ſee the day when the Lord put it into two or three of your hearts to try what might be done for the healing of our breaches, and thereupon to call ſome of your Brethren together to ſee if we could agree ſo far that we might Aſſociate together, as ſome of our Brethren in other Countries have done: and let me leave this upon record, ſo long as this poor Script ſhall laſt, for the honour of the Presbyterial Brethren, as they were the firſt movers for peace, ſo they have bidden fair for peace; had our Congregational Brethren [whoſe perſons, gifts, and graces I deſire to honour and love] been but anſwerable, we might have had cauſe to have joyned together in praiſes for our healing, as we have had, and ſtill have cauſe to mourn for our breaches.
It is not to be forgotten how the good hand of God went along with us; for though we were men of different principles who were choſen to draw up the agreement, and we met neer twenty times before we could finiſh, yet no unbrotherly claſhing was heard amongst us; but ſo ſoon as we ſaw each others principles to be fixed, preſently we were called off from Diſputing, and the next words were, Come, let us ſee how we can Accommodate; let the bleſſing of Matth. 5.9. fall upon ſuch hearts.
Were it true that uniting with our Brethren in this Aſſociation, were a dividing of our hearts from God, as one of our Congregational Brethren did intimate in a Sermon of his upon Hoſ. 10.2. then I wonder not though he ſo ſoon deſerted us, and that others ſtand off from us. For this he ſaid was one note of the heart divided from God, when the heart did not fully come up to God: and under this head brought in ſuch who did faſhion and mould themſelves in State and Church according to the Mode of the Times, though contrary to their own principles and light, croſs to [or laying by] the Inſtitutions of Chriſt, when as the Text ſaith, Jer. 15.19. If thou ſeparate the precious from the vile, &c. our Brothers aim was underſtood by divers in the Congregation, and unto him I ſhall return this anſwer.
If he means I have gone contrary to my own principles and light, he is miſtaken extreamly. If he meant he and other Congregational men muſt do ſo if they Aſſociate, how can this poſſibly be, when it was one of our foundations we laid for agreement, and it was profeſſed again and again, that we went not about to take any man off from his Principles? I wiſh our Brother had inſtanced what Inſtitution of Chriſt we croſſed or laid by.
For the Scripture he alledged, let us ſee how this ſuits our caſe; the Presbyterial Brethren do not indeed ſeparate as do he and others, but doth he therefore upon this Text ſtand off? I finde five ſeveral expoſitions of the words, and very few who take the word Precious for to relate to Perſons. But I will give my Brother that ſenſe, Let it be meant of Perſons,The Arabick word which the Tranſlator render Honeſtus Golius renders generoſus, nobilis. And the other (Dalilon) abjectus, vllis contemptus. as Piſcator thinks it moſt proper, becauſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉alibi de perſona tantùm dicitur. And ſo the Interlineary gloſs. Now the queſtion is, 1. Who are meant by Precious? 2. How Jeremiah was to ſeparate theſe Precious from the Vile.
For the firſt, thoſe who do Interpret it of Perſons do all underſtand real Saints; and here ſtanding ſo in oppoſition to others it muſt needs be meant ſo. Obj. If he will ſay, that doth not follow; for all Iſrael were called holy, and that in as high a word as precious. I anſwer, The Lord ſpeaks of theſe who were called holy, and yet here commands the ſeparation of the Precious from the Vile; therefore it muſt be meant of real Saints. I could ſay more but ſpare.
2. For the ſecond, How did he ſeparate, either by Doctrine, or Diſcipline. Not by Diſcipline [which muſt ſerve my Brothers purpoſe.] For
Firſt, To ſeparate real Saints from vile by Diſcipline is a hard work indeed, and ſuch a task as the Lord never put his Miniſters to; who knew mens hearts? then the Congregational Brethren muſt look to it that all their members are real Saints.
1. But if my Brother ſaith, by precious real Saints are not meant but viſible, though not ſo really. [Beſides that all were called holy.] This my Brother muſt prove, and then tell us what he means by a viſible Saint. But however ſeparation by Diſcipline cannot be meant. For
2. Jeremiah then had a ſtrange task, for he had no particular Church as we; and for him to ſeparate all viſible Saints from the vile in the Jewiſh Church by Diſcipline were a ſtrange and impoſſible work.
3. Jeremiah a ſingle Prieſt could not do it; as all that know the Jewiſh governments will confeſs.
4. But put caſe it were ſo, yet this hinders not his Aſſociating with our Brethren, who deſire him but to Aſſociate, where they do ſeparate the precious from the vile by Diſcipline.
Since then this ſeparation was Doctrinal, as all Divines upon the Text acknowledge, then whether the Prebyterial Brethren [very many of them at leaſt] do not ſeparate as well as himſelf, I deſire my Brother to conſider. For the laſt words which he alſo uſed, Let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them. Doth my Brother indeed parallel our Aſſociated Brethren with thoſe who are meant by them? Let the Presbyterial Brethren return to the Congregational, not they to them: I ſhould not have dared to have made ſuch a parallel.
I ſhall only put this Brother in mind what he then ſaid againſt thoſe who dare depart from ſtanding Commandments, and deſire him to conſider whether he never read of a ſtanding (to uſe his own words). Commandment, repeated again and again, that we ſhould follow the things which make for peace, and whether he, with our Brethren who ſtand off, have anſwered that Commandment, ſober Congregational men ſhall judge.
Let me leave with our Brethren a few lines which I received a few weaks ſince from that learned and godly Divine Mr. Norton, [Teacher of the Church in Boſton in N. England] in a Letter to me. The Aſſociation you mention amongſt the Miniſters we much rejoyce in, I never thought it better then human, but oftentimes worſe, that the Presbyterian and Congregational men cannot cloſe together in Brotherly Communion. The power of godlineſs intereſt us in the affections of the godly, above the notions of either of them conſidered apart therefrom. I believe the Congregational way to be the truth: yet I think better of many Presbyterians then of many Congregational men. 'Tis no wonder if Independents are unruly, for I diſtinguiſh between Independents and Congregational men; or rather ſuch [call themſelves as they pleaſe] that will not acknowledge the rule of the Presbytery, and the order of Councils Thus far this reverend and great Divine. I am ſure our Aſſociation reaches no higher then a Council.
As for our Brethren who will not Aſſociate till they ſee the Civil Magiſtrate ſet his ſtamp of Authority upon this way of Aſſociation, whatever the late Inſtrument made by the Parliament allows us, though they ſee Anabaptiſts and Congregational Churches, and other Aſſociated Counties to exerciſe Diſcipline without any ſcruple, though they would quarrel with an Eraſtian Magiſtrate, that ſhould deny any ſuch power to belong to Churches, yea, though ſome of theſe can ſuſpend from the Lord's Supper whom they pleaſe, we muſt leave theſe to their own wiſedom, and deſire them to convince the Magiſtrate ſo that he may be able to ſee clearly that the government of the Church is either Epiſcopal, Claſſical, or Congregational, and ſo ſtabliſh one; or if the Magiſtrate be not ſo clear in either, but yet willing to favour any of theſe, the perſons being godly and peaceable, [as he doth] then let theſe Brethren conſider whether the want of Church-Diſcipline be a fault to be charged moſt upon the Magiſtrate or upon themſelves.
To return to you then [Fathers and Brethren] in a few words. Hitherto God hath brought us; the worke we have engaged in is to moſt [if not all of us] new, and ſuch a work as many of thoſe who have been exerciſed in it, have ſo often miſcarried in, that the Ordinance of Diſcipline hath ſuffered much diſhonour: and that which adds to the difficulty, we ſet to it in ſuch times wherein the Miniſtry is ſo much reviled by Sectaries, and as to this work much contemned by the Gentry, and our Epiſcopal Divines; one of which [and whom I honour] ſaid to me, That we were no more fit to manage the government of the Church of England then David Saul's Armour. We boaſt not of our fitneſs, but for the government of the Church by ſuch Biſhops [though I highly reverence ſome of them] they have no ſuch cauſe to boaſt, as witneſs the Churches they have left us miſerably overgrown with ignorance and profanneſs; had we ſo many hundreds [or thouſands] of pounds per annum, ſuch honour and regal power to ſtick to us as had they, I hope the Churches might be governed as well as they were before, and be purged a little from that ignorance and profaneneſs which now we find them in.
But we muſt go to our work without Saul's Armour. I am ſenſible how much wiſedom and prudence this work calls for; all my comfort is, Chriſt of God is made to us wiſedom, &c. 1 Cor. 1. I take care for nothing but for Faith, Humility, and Prayer, to fetch this wiſedom from our King and Head, and leave the ſucceſs to him who did inſtitute this Ordinance.
Mr. Giles Firmin. Viz. 1. Stabliſhing againſt Shaking, being a diſcovery of the Quakers.
2. The Power of the Civil Magiſtrate in matters of Religion vindicated, and the extent of it determined. By Mr. Stephen Marſhall, publiſhed by his own Copy ſince his death, with notes upon it.
SEveral definitions of Schiſm both ancient and modern the Doctor recites, none of which give him content. Auſtin [he ſaith] ſuited his definition directly to the cauſe he had in hand againſt the Donatiſts: for the reſt they do not ſatisfie him; then offers his definition, being the definition which agrees with Scripture, to which he appeals, and eſteems this appeal to be neceſſary and reaſonable. I am of the Doctor's mind, and wiſh we had kept there all this time; for while ſome men made Providence their Bible, others make Antiquity theirs, they have made us by woful experience know the evil effects of walking by ſuch Canons. Providences & antiquity are excellent things to confirm us when they have clear Scriptures ſtand before them as Figures before Cyphers; and if men would redu•e their2 actions and diſputes to this Head, by which one day we ſhal be judged, Rom. 2. [and not by Providences or Antiquity] as we might have ſpared many of our troubles, ſo we might ſooner come to the cloſing up of our breaches, which I perceive is one part of the Doctors aim, but I can hardly believe will ever effect the Cure: For ſuppoſe he can convince men that this ſeparation from Churches is not Schiſm in the preciſe notion [as he often mentions] of Scripture; yet if they apprehend it to be ſomething elſe as bad, and it may be worſe, his book will prove ineffectual to the healing of our wounds.
Thus then he defines Schiſin, p. 51, 52. It is a cauſeleſſe difference or diviſion amongſt the members of any particular Church that meet together, or ought ſo to do, for the worſhip of God and celebration of the ſame numerical ordinances to the diſturbance of the order appointed by Jeſus Chriſt, and contrary to that exerciſe of love in wiſedom and mutual forbearance which is required of them.
Two things I gather from this definition, and the Doctors diſcourſe in his Books.
1. That he confines Schiſm to a particular Church onely.
2. If Diviſions in a particular Church grow ſo high that divers of the members doe cauſeleſly make a Separation from the Church, holding Communion with themſelves apart, that this is not Schiſm in the preciſe notion, however for diſputation-ſake againſt the Romaniſts and the Epiſcopal-men he may yield it to be ſo. The withdrawing from any Church or Society whatever3 upon the plea of its corruption, be it true of falſe, with a mind and reſolution to ſerve God in the due obſervation of Church Inſtitutions, according to that light which men have received, is no where called Schiſm, p. 46, & 77. And Rev. p. 83.
It is not called Schiſm, ergo it is not Schiſm. Will the conſequence hold, if the plea be falſe? What is it called? I pray. Welfare an erroneous conſcience; but ſuppoſe upon a falſe plea ſuch a conſcience ſhould raiſe diviſions in a Church, according to the definition, without ſeparating from the Church; were it Schiſm or not?
I thought by one paſſage in the Doctor's Pre-view, p. 54. I had miſtaken him; for thus he ſpeaks to Mr. C. If he ſuppoſe that I deny that to be Schiſm where there is a ſeparation, and that becauſe there is a ſeparation, as though Schiſm were in its whole nature excluſive of all ſeparation, and loſt its being when ſeparation enſued; he hath taken my mind as rightly as he hath done the whole deſign of my book. But adds withall, Becauſe this is not proved, I ſhall deſire him not to make uſe of it for the future, as though it were ſo. Theſe words I did not obſerve till I had done.
1. If Schiſm in its whole nature will include cauſeleſs ſeparation from a particular Church, and this according to Scripture warrant, then the falſe plea of an erroneous conſcience for cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, upon pretence of ſerving God in his Inſtitutions, according to its light, muſt be Schiſm whether it4 be called ſo or not, unleſs you can tell us how elſe it is called.
2. Why then doth the Doctor paſs by the definition of Schiſm ſo generally received? for he knows this is the thing which hath given that great offence, ſeparation from true Churches; and that which muſt ſatisfie here muſt be to prove that all this ſeparation is juſt and warrantable by Scripture; and if ſo, I know not who can charge theſe men with Schiſm, nor any thing elſe in ſo ſeparating: ſo that there was no need of departing from the definition generally received, and giving a new one, of which I know no uſe: unleſs, Firſt, To ſhew there can be no Schiſm in the Catholick Church: And ſecondly, To ſhew that Church-Members may be guilty of Schiſm, though they do not ſeparate into parties, and ſo ſhew that our Churches are more guilty of Schiſm then we are aware of, which I believe to be true; but this will bring no honour I doubt to ſome Congregational Churches. Alas, what Schiſms have we known? this is ſo common a thing that a Divine whom I know, [and ſo doth the Doctor] once a high Congregational man, ſuffered much under that name, for whom my principles were not ſtrait enough, [but now he looks on me as erroneous, and too ſtrait, though I am the ſame I was then] being now turned about, and againſt all Congregational Churches, ſaith this of them, they will all break in pieces and come to nothing.
3. Let the Reader be pleaſed to obſerve theſe paſſages in his books, then judge if I miſtake him.
51. In the ſame book where he ſpeaks ſo to Mr. C. who had ſaid there was a ſeparation into parties in the Church of Corinth; this the Doctor ſtifly denies, p. 70. and in p. 62. ſaith, The Schiſm the Apoſtle rebuked conſiſted in Diviſion in it, and not in ſeparation from it. Then in p. 72. What that Schiſm 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.
Hence then we muſt dehort men from diviſions in the Church, as being Schiſm, the meaſure allows it; but we muſt not dehort them from cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church as being Schiſm, becauſe that only inſtance, which is the meaſure, doth not call it Schiſm. If that inſtance be the meaſure, what then doth not punctually agree with it is not Schiſm.
2. In his book of Schiſm, p. 42. To this Q. [If any one now ſhall ſay, will you conclude becauſe this evil mentioned by the Apoſtle is Schiſm, therefore nothing elſe is ſo?] he ſaith, I anſwer, that having before aſſerted this to be the chiefe and only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, I am inclinable ſo to do. This inſtance is the only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm; but this inſtance ſpeaketh only of diviſion in the Church, not of ſeparation from it, ſaith he.
3. P. 193. Ib. Take it for a particular Church of Chriſt, I deny that ſeparation from a particular Church, as ſuch, as meerly ſeparation, is Schiſm, or ought to be ſo eſteemed; though perhaps ſuch ſeparation may proceed from Schiſm, and be alſo attended with other evils.
6Who ever ſaid that meer ſeparation, ſeparating all moral conſiderations from it, juſt or unjuſt, was Schiſm? we are ſpeaking of an unjuſt or cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, is that Schiſm? No, it ſeems.
Before this cauſeleſs ſeparation, there was diviſion moſt likely in the Church, and this is allowed to be Schiſm; this Schiſm at laſt produces ſeparation cauſeleſly, but this ſeparation is not Schiſm, nor muſt be ſo eſteemed, he ſaith. Compare this with his ſpeech to Mr. C.
4. The Doctor ſeems to define the whole nature of Schiſm, It is a cauſeleſs diviſion among members, &c. meeting together for the celebration of the ſame numerical ordinances, &c.
Had he thought there might be ſchiſmatical acts beſides this Act in Corinth. viz. Cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church which was not here, (he ſaith) then his work was only to deſcribe what was this Schiſm the Apoſtle reproves, and ſo ſhould have ſaid, This Schiſm was a cauſeleſs diviſion, &c.
But he defines, Schiſm is, &c. And this agreeth with the Title of his Book, which promiſeth to ſhew us the True nature of Schiſm, [hitherto miſtaken it ſeems by all Divines] and that definition the Doctor only embraceth; and for others he can own them againſt the Romaniſts ex abundanti•but no definition hath given the true nature of it but his. Nor doth the Doctor find fault with other mens definitions, becauſe they miſtooke this particular act of Schiſm in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature7 of the ſin, as Logicians ſhould doe, and the true definition of the ſin will fetch in all particular Acts] but he looks upon them all as not giving the true nature of Schiſm according to the preciſe notion of Scripture.
What then the Doctor means by his words to Mr. Ca. I know not; theſe grounds I have laid down will clear that I am not miſtaken in what I gather from him.
I ſee in his Rev. p. 85. he finds fault with Mr. Ca. becauſe he had ſaid that he delivered himſelf obſcurely. But Mr. Ca. is not the firſt man whom I have heard complain of obſcurity in his book, but divers others; I could ſet down their expreſſions, but forbear. In ſeveral places I obſerve things are not clear, and ſhould have taken ſome things in the ſame ſenſe Mr. Ca. hath done, for which the Doctor blames him. The Doctor then muſt pardon us though poor country-Miniſters are not ſo quick of underſtanding to find out his meaning.
So far then as I underſtand the Doctor, I am not in divers things ſatisfied, and in particular not with his definition, which I doe not look upon as Logical. For, one rule of Definition is this. Definitio ne-ſit anguſtior, neve latior ſuo definito, but the Doctors definition is anguſtior ſuo definito. Therefore not logical.It is anguſtior in two reſpects. 1. It takes not in cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, which I doubt not may be Schiſm. 2. It takes not in the Schiſm in the Catholick Church. The Doctor ſaith there can be none. Whether there8 can be no Schiſm from the Catholick Church, is a harder queſtion, it would ſeem rather to be Apoſtacie, as ſaith the Doctor; yet I do almoſt think we may ſuppoſe Schiſm to be from the Catholick Church. But that there is Schiſm in the Catholick Church, I doubt not. Now if theſe two can be made good, then the Doctors definition is not logical. Every definition muſt exhaurire totam naturam [ſpecificam ſaltem] ſui definiti, elſe not adequate, nor reciprocal, which muſt be.
1. Then, Cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church may be Schiſm. Why I put in the word, May, I ſhall give the reaſon afterwards.
But it may be the Doctor may ſay,That definition of Schiſm which onely agreeth with Scripture, that, and that onely, is the true definition of Schiſm. But ſuch is mine. Ergo
The Minor [which I ſhall deny] he proves from this inſtance of the Church in Corinth. Where is no mention made of Separation from a Church, there was onely Diviſion in a Church.
The word Onely I put into the propoſition [and the Doctor himſelf ſpeaks as much, Here is the chief and onely ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, p. 42.] elſe though I yield ſuch a definition agrees with a particular inſtance, yet it agreeth not with the whole ſpecifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into, and therefore not logical. Doth every Scripture-inſtance give a full definition of the fin forbidden? The Command ſaith Thou ſhalt not ſteal, in Exod. 922.2. I finde mention made of a thief breaking in, &c. to which Chriſt alludes Mat. 24.43. Suppoſe there were no other inſtance of theft in all the Scripture, ſhall I now goe ſet forth a book about the true nature of theft, and goe to this Inſtance, and there ground my Definition, and ſay, Theft is an illegal and violent breaking into a mans houſe and taking away goods againſt the owners will, and ſay nothing elſe can be Theft in the preciſe notion of Scripture, becauſe the Scripture-inſtance calls nothing elſe theft? This were ſtrange. Is not robbing at Sea theft, though no ſuch inſtance is found in Scripture? That definition given, Furtum eſt ablatio injuſta rei alienae invito domino, will fetch in all theft. It is true, every particular Act of any ſin forbidden hath the ſpecifical nature of that ſin in it: If a man take my goods unjuſtly, whether it be at ſea, or on the high-way, out of my houſe openly or privately, and ſeveral other ways, all theſe have the ſpecifical nature of theft in them, and theft is predicated of them; we doe not make ſeveral definitions of theft becauſe there are ſeveral Acts: Ʋnius rei una tantum eſt definitio. There may be divers degrees of the ſame ſin [as there is of Schiſm] yet gradus non variant ſpeciem. But we do not uſe to goe to particular Acts of any ſin, and out of ſuch an Act fetch the definition of the ſin confining the ſpecifical nature [which is more large] to that individual or ſingular Act.
So here. There is a command given, 1 Cor. 12.25. There muſt be no Schiſm in the body. Now if I would define Schiſm, muſt I goe to a particular10 inſtance, and give a definition of the fi•from that, and ſay this is Schiſm, and nothing elſe, Diviſion in a Church, but no cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, becauſe there is no inſtance given where ſuch ſeparation is called Schiſm; as if we had particular inſtances in Scripture of all the acts of ſins forbidden in the ten commandements. It is true, that is Schiſm [i. e. the cauſeleffe Diviſion in the Church of Corinth, though they did not ſeparate from it into parties, whether they did or no, I paſſe not] which here the Apoſtle reproves: But is nothing elſe Schiſm? Put caſe the diviſion had riſen ſo high that Cephas and his company had ſeparated from Apollos and his company, and held communion apart by themſelves, had not this been Schiſm? give a reaſon.
Object. Such ſeparation is not called Schiſm? Anſw. It cannot be called ſo unleſſe it were; the Doctor ſays it was not; we cannot expect the Scripture to give names to Acts as done, when they are not done. But ex hypotheſi, I ask the queſtion, if it had been ſo [as it is now common with us] that Cephas had ſeparated cauſeleſly, had it not been Schiſm? Certainly if Racha and thou fool be breaches of the ſixt Command, then if one adde to his word blows and wounds unjuſtly, that man is guilty of killing alſo: So if Cephas and his company will adde Separation to Diviſion, and that unjuſtly, let Cephas pretend what he will, it is Schiſm.
There are divers profeſſors in theſe dayes, have been and would be eſteemed glorious11 ones ſtill, who are ſo ſpiritual that they live above Ordinances [a carnal and wicked ſpirituality] they have their grounds and pleas why they do ſo, but we find no ſuch Inſtance in all the Scripture, of men upon the plea of ſpiritualneſs to live above them. Now to which command ſhall we reduce this ſin, certainly a ſin it is; if I can find a command where the Lord hath inſtituted his external worſhip, and commanded all to attend upon it, thither I reduce it, to the ſecond.
So if men, though godly [for I know not but they have ſin, and the Devil may abuſe them] will cauſeleſly ſeparate, though they think not ſo, but plead this or that, becauſe I find no ſuch Inſtance in the Scripture, that men upon ſuch pleas have ſeparated, yet cauſeleſſe ſeparation is a ſin oppoſite to the Ʋnion commanded; and I think Schiſm and Ʋnion are oppoſite.
If the Doctor then will give me [a poor Countrey-Miniſter] leave, I will humbly propound the way I would take to find out the definition of Schiſm. I ſee it is a ſin, and offen-five to Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12.25. Now what is oppoſite to this, what is the affirmative precept? Ʋnion of the members amongſt themſelves. This is the thing often commanded, the thing Chriſts heart ſeemed to be fixed upon, John 17. when he was leaving the world, and that ſuch Union as thereby the world may know whoſe diſciples we are, as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schiſm may be thus defined,Schiſm defined.Schiſm is the ſolution of that Unity which Chriſt our Head requireth in his Viſible Body.12I am not in this place critical about the words Ʋnion or Ʋnity; the Reader hath my meaning. I think the Dr. will not oppoſe this, for I find him enquiring exactly into the Ʋnion of the Inviſible and Viſible Church, &c. For the Inviſible Church of Chriſt, there can be no Schiſm, ſaith the Doctor; hence I put it not in. It muſt be in his viſible body, there I take in the Catholick Church [which I look on as moſt properly his Body-viſible] and alſo particular Churches. I take this definition to be reciprocal, I do not call to mind any ſchiſmatical Act but it will comprehend it, whether it be Schiſm in a Church, or from a Church; in the Catholick or particular Churches: and yet my ground is Scriptural alſo, though I go not to a particular inſtance.
1. Hence then let us ſee whether cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church be not properly Schiſm. Let us ſee what unity the Lord required of this Church; was it onely that inward love and forbearance [which the Doctor mentions] which by their diviſions the Apoſtle ſaw they had broken? Did he not alſo require that they ſhould, as with reverence towards him, ſo with love one to another mutually and joyntly attend upon their Head in all his holy worſhip and ordiuances, Sacraments, &c. [The Doctors definition ſaith as much, Numerical Ordinances, &c.] If then Cephas and his company had cauſeleſly made the diviſion, and upon this ſeparate from the reſt, and not joyn with them in the Supper [wherein they ſhew themſelves to be One bread, Chap. 10.17. ] and other Ordinances,13 dinances, did they not manifeſtly ſhew a breach of that unity which the Lord required? muſt I not ſay, Cephas, you and your company are highly guilty of Schiſm? let the Reader judge. Thus then ſtands the argument.
If cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church be a ſolution of that unity God requireth in his body, then cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church is Schiſm.
But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, the Conſequent is true. The Conſequence is clear.
2. In caſe theſe who made the Diviſion in Corinth had ſeparated from the other members, the Doctor grants it had been a greater ſin, Rev. p. 68. Since then we muſt not call it Schiſm, let the Doctor give us another Scripture name for that ſin; let him ſet down the oppoſite affirmative precept, and ſee if Union will not be found in it. I doubt he will hardly find another Scripture-name, for I think he will hardly find in all the Bible where godly men, or ſuch as appeared ſo, dared ever to make a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church. To ſay it is Apoſtacie, no ſtay; I will ſuppoſe thoſe members who thus divide, to be perſons ſound in the main points of faith, in their converſation viſibly godly, ſuch as maintain the Ordinances of God amongſt themſelves [the very caſe of divers of ours] but corprution and errour in this point hath divided Cephas and his company; now here is no Apoſtaſie: And though it be a Church guilty of Schiſm, and ſo far a ſchiſmatical Church, yet a true Church. Hence I ſaid a cauſeleſſe ſeparation, &c may14 be Schiſm, i. e. ſuppoſing they hold to what before I mentioned, elſe it fell from the faith, &c. it had been Apoſtacy, and not properly Schiſm, unleſs you will ſay both. Hence
The conſequence is clear, becauſe it partakes of the nature of no ſin, as of Schiſm: [provided thoſe who ſeparate be ſuch as before I mentioned.]
3. Since the Doctor makes this inſtance the only ſeat of the doctrine of Schiſm, and tieth us up ſo ſtreightly to it, I was thinking whether it would not hence follow that there can be no Schiſm in any Church but onely in ſuch Churches as do exactly anſwer this inſtance; & hence Schiſm muſt be only in ſuch Churches where there are diverſity of Officers, extraordinary gifts, differences about meats, &c. thus I hope moſt Churches are uncapable of Schiſm; and that ſin will hardly be found in our days. It may be he will ſay, by conſequence it will follow where there are cauſeleſs differences, where the form of the ſin is found, there is the ſin of Schiſm, though Churches do not anſwer Corinth.
But what the Doctor ſaith, that the Scripture doth not call cauſeleſs ſeparation from a Church Schiſm. So I can ſay, this Scripture inſtance,15 calls that only Schiſm, where ſome were for Cephas, others for Apollos, &c.
But further, let us enquire into the form of the ſin where it is. In the diviſion amongst the members to the diſturbance of the order in the worſhip of God, &c. I wiſh the Doctor had told us how that order was diſturbed; ſome things he doth mention, but whether all the diſorder in the worſhip of God be recorded, I know not; and that which is recorded admits of ſome queſtions to be reſolved before we can clearly underſtand it. As for the diſturbance of the order, I ſuppoſe he doth not make that the form of the ſin of Schiſm, nor part of it; I look on it rather as a conſequent of the Schiſm, therefore not the form; neither do I look on Order and Schiſm properly as contrary, where Ʋnum uni tantum opponitur, they do not cominus inter ſe pugnare per proximas formas. Nor am I certain that there was ever Schiſm where yet ſome diſorder have been found. I cannot tell that there was Schiſm amongſt the Prophets. 1 Cor. 14. but ſome diſorder there was in the exerciſe of their gifts, as it ſhould ſeem by the laſt Verſe, the Apoſtle calls for order.
Eccleſiaſtical union cauſeleſly diſſolved, I take to be the form of Schiſm; this is it by which Schiſm is id quod eſt. If then the Doctor will allow that Schiſm may be in Churches by conſequence, though the cauſes be not ſuch as were in Corinth, northe Churches parallel to Corinth in all things, becauſe there is the form of that ſin which was in Corinth called Schiſm; then if canſeleſs ſeparation from a Church, be Eccleſiaſtical16 union cauſeleſly diſſolved, there muſt needs by conſequence be Schiſm alſo, for poſita forma ponitur formatum.
4. The Doctor tells us the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is not uſed in the Scripture for ſeceſſion, or ſeparation into parties. Diviſion it doth ſignifie, but doth the propriety of the word forbid it to ſignifie Diviſion into parties? in an Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe it is uſed only in this particular example, (he ſaith) therefore it can ſignifie no other. I ſuppoſe the Syriack Tranſlator was not of the Doctor's mind, for he uſeth that word in the 11. ch. 18. & 12. ch. 25. which comes from the ſame root with Peleg. Gen. 10.25. Whence Peleg had his name the text tells us, and I think there was diviſion into many parties: the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in its primitive ſignification will carry a diviſion into parts. Matth. 27.51. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I grant the Septuagint**Other Greek Verſions I have not to ſee. do not uſe the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in 1 Kin. 11.11, 31. yet why the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉might not be tranſlated by〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉and ſignifie what〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth, I know not. I conceive〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is of a larger ſignification then〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉but comprehends what〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉doth. This appears,
1. By the Learned, who as they render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉by findo, ſcindo, ſo they render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉findere, ſcindere, qui pannum aut aliquod ejuſmodi continuum dirumpit, &c. Buxt. Schind. Pagn. Merc. hence as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is rendered ſciſſura, ſo the 70. in v. 30, & 31, render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſciſſurae. So the vulgar render〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉31. Nor doth〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉always ſignifie the rending of a thing into parts [in oppoſition to the Doctor's notion]17 more then〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For among the Phyſitians a rupture in a membrane, the rending of a Muſcle, they call〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though the part be not ſeparated from the body; ſo Gorraeus.
2. Becauſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the Old Teſtament is uſed and applied to ſuch things as〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in the New Teſtament, as to the rending of cloaths here, and in divers other Texts. So is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉John 19.24. Matth. 27.51. Luke 5.36. John 21.11. ſo that though the Hebrews have two other words which the learned render ſcindere, findere, yet none [I conceive] anſwer〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉as this doth.
There may be ſomething in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. uſe that Verb,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence the Noune in 1 Cor. 12.25. comes. Whence I think we may properly ſay there was a great Schiſm in the Church and Commonwealth of Iſrael, and here was ſeparation with a witneſs.
To ſearch over other Divines to ſee what they had ſaid about Schiſm I thought it in vain, becauſe the Doctor had laid a bar againſt them all, they are all miſtaken, and ſo their authority is worth nothing; but when I had done, two men came into my mind, who were neer to the Doctor's principles, being Congregational men, and therefore had need to look to themſelves in their definition of Schiſm, men of great renown for learning and piety, Dr. Ames, and our Mr. Norton in N. E. in anſwer to the Q. Quid eſt ſchiſma? I find Ames thus anſwers, Schiſma dicitur a ſcindendo, & eſt ſciſſio, ſeparatio, disjunctio, aut diſſolutio Ʋnionis illius quae debet inter Chriſtianos obſervari. I was18 neerer to the Doctor's definition then I was aware of; but then he adds, Quia autem haec ſciſſio maxime perficitur, & apparet in debita Communione Eccleſiaſtica recuſanda, idcirco illa ſeparatio per appropriationem ſingularem, recte vocatur Schiſma; thus he.
Mr. Norton thus, Schiſma eſt illicita ſeparatio a Communione Eccleſiae; ſemper grande malum. I will look no further, theſe are ſufficient.
Now for the Catholick-Church, I am to prove there may be Schiſm in it. For my groundwork I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25. That there ſhould be no Schiſm in the body.
The Antecedent is to be proved. That by the body is meant the Church, the Doctor yields, Schiſ. p. 147. but what Church he ſpeaks of is not evident; the difference he ſpeaks of in the individual perſons of the Church, is not in reſpect of office, power, and Authority, but gifts and graces, and uſefulneſs on that account; thus he. But I had thought that by Apoſtles, Prophets, Teachers, Helps, Governments, v. 28. he had properly ſpoken of office, power, and authority: are gifts and graces meant by theſe words? very ſtrange. But to come to our Text.
If the Church be here meant, then it is either the Church inviſible or viſible. But not the inviſible, that the Chapter clears; and the Doctor ſaith, It's impoſſible Schiſm ſhould be in the inviſible Church.
19If viſible, then either the Catholick, or a particular Church; but not a particular: Ergo
This I grant, that by body in one Text, v. 27. a particular Church is mentioned, becauſe the Apoſtle applies what he had been ſpeaking of before to this particular Church, being a ſimilar part of the Church-Catholick, as our Mr. Norton, and other Divines in the definition of a particular Church; [though ſome Phyſitians make different definitions, as we reſpect the matter or form of a ſimilar part, yet I content my ſelf with that definition which is commonly given.] What duties are enjoyned the Catholick-Church, or what ſins are forbidden, theſe concern every particular Church; for Chriſt giveth his Laws to the Catholick-Church primarily, no particular Church hath a ſpecial law given to it as ſuch: whence well may the Apoſtle apply his ſpeech to this particular Church; but that the Apoſtle was not diſcourſing of a particular Church, in viewing over the Chapter theſe arguments perſwade me.
1. It is ſuch a body into which we are all baptized, v. 13. but are we baptized into a particular Church? is that the one body the Apoſtle means? Let the Doctor ſpeak, Rev. p. 134. I am ſo far from confining Baptiſm ſubjectively to a particular Congregation, that I do not believe that any member of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized. As much he ſeems to intimate, Schiſ. p. 133. in his anſwer to this queſtion, wherein conſiſts the unity of the Catholick-Church? 20A. It is ſummoned up in Eph. 4.5. one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm. It is the unity of the doctrine of faith which men profeſs, in ſubjection to one Lord, Jeſus Chriſt, being initiated into that profeſſion [and ſo that body] by Baptiſm.
2. It is ſuch a body as with its head makes up Chriſt, v. 12. But if one particular Church related to its head be Chriſt, what are all the other? how many Chriſts ſhall we have? For my part I conceive, as all true believers make up but one ſpiritual body, to which Chriſt is a ſaving and ſpiritual head; ſo all the particular Churches in the world are but one body viſible, of which Chriſt is the Political Head. Every true believer is ſaid to be married to Chriſt, and of this Church, Paul ſaith, he had eſpouſed them to Chriſt, and are not thouſands more? but we do not read Rev. 22.17. Brides ſay Come; nor of the Lambs wives, ch. 21.9. but the Lambs Bride and Wife: thus the Catholick viſible body is called the Kingdom of Chriſt, not Kingdoms; though by reaſon of the numberleſs number, the Lord bids one Paſtour, feed you my flock there, and another, feed you my flock there, &c. yet but one flock, one body; theſe meetings of this great body being in a manner accidental to the Church-Catholick, by reaſon of the numeroſity of its members, for could we conceive that all the members of this Church could meet in one place, and partake of the ſame numerical ordinances orderly, this meeting in ſeveral places ſhould ceaſe.
213. It is ſuch a body as hath Apoſtles ſet in it, v. 28. but though the Apoſtles were officers to this particular Church, yet not to this only, but to the Catholick.
4. It is ſuch a body that the members of it ſuffer together, and rejoyce together, v. 26. but this mutual rejoycing and ſympathy, is not confined to the members of that particular Church, I hope? the ſame ſpecifical care, though not the ſame gradual care, I think ſuch a diſtinction may help to underſtand the 25. v. for I conceive there is ſome neerer tie to my own members in particular, as to my own family, and yet to have no care of other members of another Church, though I ſee them in danger of ſin, or require of me the diſpenſing of an rdinance, (regularly) &c. I think this is not right. Then 27. v. what I have ſaid of the great body, I ſay to you who are a ſimilar part of this great body, and ſo called the body of Chriſt, Do ye take heed there be no Schiſm amongſt you.
Thus that parallel Text, Rom. 12.4, 5. ſeems to be meant not of the particular Church of Rome, but the Catholick; many members, but one body.
When I can ſee better reaſons given me to prove he is diſcourſing of a particular Church, I ſhall yield to them.
Q. But how can Schiſm be in the Catholick-Church viſible? this muſt be enquired into, though I fail in the opening of it, yet what I have ſaid to the Text before will ſave me.
22A. I muſt premiſe ſome things, then come to the anſwer. The Doctor p. 133. Schiſ. ſpeaking of the Catholick-Church, ſaith, The ſaving doctrine of ſalvation by Jeſus Chriſt, and obedience through him to God, as profeſſed by them, is the bond of that union whereby they are made one body. But [under favour] I conceive the Doctor hath expreſſed only that bond which is between the body and the head; but are there no ligaments whereby the joynts of this great body are knit to each other? ſurely if a body, there are ſuch; the Apoſtle Eph. 4.16. I think ſpeaks of a bond among the members; and by the 11. v. he ſeems to me to ſpeak of the Catholick-Church-viſible, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt ſupplieth, according to the effectual working in the meaſure of every part maketh increaſe of the body unto the edifying of it ſelf in love. Upon which words Zanchy thus, Concludere vult Apoſtolus quod initio propoſuerat, fovendam eſſe unitatem hujus corporis myſtici per vinculum pacis: Ratio, quia ita ſe habet hoc corpus, ut niſi quis per fidem vivam amoriſque plenam cum Chriſto conjunctus, & per fraternam caritatem cum fratribus totaque eccleſia congruenter coagmentatus permàneat, is non poſſit a Chriſto vel vitam vel alimentum & incrementum accipere. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chryſoſt. Maſculus thus, Dilectio conglutinat membra Chriſti; and a little before Nihil igitur hic loci eſt ſeparatis ac divulſis, quales quales tandem eſſe videantur. With theſe agree Beza. 23Charity is the knitting of the limbs together. Faith and Love uſe to be joyned together; if the Apoſtle doth expreſs it as the bond, ſurely we may call it ſo; and thus we have the body united to the head, and each member one to another.
To the preſervation of this union [ſaith the Doctor] it is required that all thoſe grand and neceſſary truths of the Goſpel, without the knowledge where of no man can be ſaved by Jeſus Chriſt, be ſo far believed, as to be outwardly and viſibly profeſſed, in that variety of ways wherein they are, or may be called out thereunto, p. 134. To which I add; and unto the preſervation of that bond of union among the members, it's required that all ſuch Acts which do externally declare this bond of love whereby theſe members are joyned together, as ſuch a body, ought carefully and Chriſtianly to be performed, when we are regularly called thereunto; this bond of Love ſo much commanded and prayed for by our Head, being not confined to a particular Church, but extended to the whole Catholick Church his body, by which men ſhew whoſe Diſciples they are.
Hence then as all ſuch errors which ſubvert thoſe grand and neceſſary Truths, being received and believed, do diſſolve the bond of union between the head and the members, and declare men to be Apoſtates; So all ſuch Acts as do openly manifeſt the cauſeleſs breach of Love, by which the members are united each to other, do declare ſuch perſons guilty of Schiſm. Apoſtaſie [as I conceive] properly24 reſpecting the Head, but Schiſm the Body. Now in reference to this I lay down theſe Concluſions.
1. The members of this great Body in attending upon thoſe ordinances of worſhip inſtituted by their Head, eſpecially the two Sacraments, doe declare that faith in their Head which they profeſſe. Open Baptiſm, we finde nothing there but Chriſt; open the Lords Supper, we have nothing there but Chriſt our Head, and the grand and neceſſary Truths which concerne our ſalvation: As the Martyrs ſealed up their Confeſſions by their blood, we doe, as it were, ſeal up our Profeſſion in partaking of our Lords blood.
2. The members of the Church in partaking of the Sacraments doe profeſſedly declare that Union which they have among themſelues by love, as ſuch a body. It is one reaſon why the Lords Supper is called a Communion, and it is one of the ends of the Sacrament, Ʋnio fidelium inter ſe, as Divines doe unanimouſly acknowledge upon that, 1 Cor. 10.17. Fractio panis eſt unitatis & dilectionis Symbolum, ſaith Pareus. Much might be here ſpoken. I know there are other wayes by which Chriſtians manifeſt their love, and ſo did Heathens in ſuch manner as now is ſcarcely found amongſt Chriſtians; but for the manifeſtation of their love to each other as ſuch a body, there is no way that I know of, nor no ordinance in which they do ſo declare it as in this ordinance, wherein they, though many, are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.
3. The Sacraments were not given to a particular25 Church primarily, but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them; and ſo are the external pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body. That the Sacraments come to be adminiſtred in ſeveral particular ſocieties, I gave the reaſon before, ſeeming rather to be accidental to the Catholick Church, by reaſon of the numeroſity of its members. That body which the bread ſignifies in the Supper is but one body, and the members of the Catholick body make but one bread. Jeſus Chriſt with his body make one Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12.12. The Sacraments doe ſhew our union with our Head Chriſt primarily, and the union of the members amongſt themſelves. I know a perſon who had received wrong from another who lived 40. miles diſtant: this wrong cauſed a diviſion between this perſon and the other, upon which this perſon durſt not venture to the Supper, but kept off till reconciliation was made, knowing what the Supper did call for, then came to me and joyned in the ordinance; I knew not the reaſon of this perſon's holding off ſo long before. If the Sacraments were pledges only of that Love or Communion which is between the members of a particular Church, what needed the conſcience of this perſon to have been troubled, ſince the other perſon had no relation to our Church. This was one bred up in the Epiſcopal way, but it were well if others made ſo much conſcience as this perſon did in this reſpect.
4. Hence then that Church which ſhall deny to the members of other Churches [qualified26 as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be, and walking orderly in their particular Churches] occaſionally deſiring communion with the Church, fellowſhip with them in the Sacraments, becauſe they are not of their judgments as to Congregational, Claſſical, or Epiſcopal principles, and will hold fellowſhip onely with thoſe who are of their principles, I charge that Church with Schiſm in reſpect of the Catholick Church, by this Act declaring a breach of that bond of union which Chriſt requires in his Church.
Object. But we may love them, and ſhew our love in other wayes, though we doe not this way.
Anſw. So doe the Heathen ſhew love to Heathen, and ſo doe we to Heathen, though we will not admit them to communion in a Church-ordinance; but that Symbol of your loue to him or them as Chriſtians, as members of ſuch a body having union with your Head, and union with you alſo who are of the ſame body making up one Chriſt, 1 Cor. 12. you deny. And whereas one while you dare not deny them to be viſible members of Chriſt, being qualified according to the rules for Catholick members, and having all the Ordinances and Officers of Chriſt according to their light in their particular Churches; yet now as much as in you lies you declare them to have no union with the Head, nor to be parts of the Catholick Body, neither the members refuſed, nor conſequently the Churches to which they belong being of the ſame judgment. So that while you talk of Love, I ſay as the Apoſtle, Shew me thy27 faith by thy works; ſo ſhew me your Eccleſiaſtical love by Church-fellowſhip. To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quoted agreeth fully. Haec ſciſſio maxime perficitur & apparet in debita communione Eccleſiaſtica recuſanda, &c.
Thus I conceive Congregational, Claſſical, or Epiſcopal Churches may be guilty of Schiſm, and cauſe Schiſm in the Catholick-Church-Viſible.
As for that Doctrine, That an Officer of a particular Church muſt adminiſter an Ordinance to none but his own members. This is confuted in the practice of all Churches that I know of, and I ſuppoſe will not be defended.
To this I add: Suppoſe there be divers members of ſeveral particular Churches, who are very zealous for Propheſying, and they muſt have their liberty to propheſie, whether they have abilities or not; the Churches conceive that the gift of Propheſying, being extraordinary, is ceaſed, therefore will allow no ſuch liberty. Theſe are ſo ſet for their Propheſying, that they make Diviſions in the Churches, and at laſt ſeparate from them all, and make up one Church by themſelves; they are qualified as the Doctor requires Catholick members; they have all the ordinances and officers of Chriſt among them; whence I cannot deny but here is a Church, but yet they refuſe communion with all other Churches in the world, unleſs of their opinion, neither give nor take, though deſired; and there are no other Churches in the world28 of their opinion or practice. Now this Church I cannot charge with Apoſtaſie from the Head, but with ſeparation from the Catholick Church, and ſo is guilty of Schiſm. If it be ſaid this Church is a part of the Catholick Church, how then ſeparate from it? It's true, elſe it were not Schiſm, but Apoſtaſie; but as it ſeparates from all other Churches cauſeleſly, in that ſenſe I ſpeak.
Hitherto of the Doctors Definition. As for his Deſign to free All the Congregational Churches from the imputation of Schiſm, though we ſuppoſe Schiſm to be a cauſeleſſe ſeparation from a Church, I had rather wave that then goe about to prove the contrary, and that partly becauſe of the honour which I bear to many of theſe brethren; partly becauſe I know not the practices of all Congregational Churches: I cannot be of Mr. Ca. mind, if by the title of his book [as I find it quoted by the Doctor, for I never ſaw Mr. Cawdrey] Independencie is great Schiſm, he means that congregational principles will neceſſarily conclude a man a Schiſmatick. Certainly from the principles as our Divines in New-England hold them forth, ſuch a neceſſity of Schiſm will not be forced; but whether all in England can quit themſelves I doubt it. What ſome may think of me who find me in Mr. Edwards gang amongſt the Independents, and now read this, I know not. Poſſibly they wil ſay either Mr. Edwards wrote what was falſe, or that I am changed from my principles [as ſome have ſaid] but I aſſure the Reader, I am not gone back, nor advanced one ſtep29 in theſe controverſies, from what I ever manifeſted in thoſe times when thoſe letters were ſent to Mr. Edwards.
I intend not to follow the Dr. in all that he hath written, but to come to the point preſently. In p. 263. the Dr. tells us He dare boldly ſay, the holy Ghoſt hath commanded a Schiſm from a congregation that is not reformed, will not, nor cannot reform it ſelf. with p. 262. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Tim. 3.5. Hoſ. 4.12. If the Dr. apply theſe Texts to our ſeparations which ſome congregational Churches make, I queſtion whether they will carry the thing he produces them for. But to be ſhort: I will not ſay the Holy Ghoſt commands Schiſm, but Separation in ſome caſes he doth; therein I agree with the Doctor, and accordingly practice [different from my brethren] but it is onely within my own congregation, denying to admit thoſe who are, as Mr. Vines calls the generality of the people in this Land, Bruits for their knowledge, and beaſts for their lives, and ſo will be unto the ſeals of the covenant of grace. Sacram. p. 152.So I have made a ſeparation in the congregation, but not from the congregation. Had I read that the Apoſtles had ſtood upon the reality of grace in their admiſſion into Church-fellowſhip, I would have been as ſtrict as ſome brethren ſay they are; but becauſe I find it not in their practice, I look on it as mens adding to the Word, and ſo let it alone.
But our queſtion is not whether any Separation, but whether ſuch a Separation be commanded as thus. Here is a Church where are30 many corrupt members, that is true; but withall here are 1. many real and viſible Saints. 2. A Paſtor godly, ſound in doctrine, and able for his work, preaching Chriſt ſoundly. 3. The Ordinances in themſelves clear from humane mixtures. 4. Though here are corrupt members, yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated, they are ſeparated, not admitted, but there is a pure lump. 5. The Church is not puffed up, but rather grieved that there are ſo many corrupt members amongſt them, but according to their light, they being ſo many, know not how to caſt them out, left there by other mens ſins, but bear this evil with complaint and prayer to God for healing.
Yet notwithſtanding a few of theſe Viſible Saints, the minor part be ſure [we obſerve] ſhall make ſeparation, not onely from the corrupt members, but from the major part of the godly and viſible Saints, from that godly Paſtor, having no communion with theſe, no not in the Supper where they are a pure lump; and yet this minor part have not done their part to reform theſe corrupt members. If the Holy Ghoſt hath commanded ſuch a Separation, I pray Doctor quote the texts where we may find it. I fear he will hardly find three texts for ſuch a Separation; yet I know where ſuch Separations are, and of theſe men complain. If he cannot produce Scriptures, he hath ſaid nothing to many of our Separations.
The Dr. I perceive ſpeaks much of original Inſtitution and primitive Conſtitution of Churches; but I ſhall deſire him to ſhew us the Scriptures where the Apoſtles did uſe to goe to ſeveral31 Congregations where indeed were divers corrupt members, but withal many godly, at leaſt viſible Saints, who had walked before with their godly Paſtors in conſtant attendance upon and ſubjection to the Ordinances of Chriſt; and there the Apoſtles did pick out ſome of the beſt of the members, and leaving the Paſtor and others grieved, weakened, and thus did conſtitute Churches: I cannot remember any Scripture which ſhews this was their practice, whence I doubt this kind of conſtitution is not ſo old, but rather had its original ſince 1640. As for Parochial Precincis, I ſhall ſpeak to them hereafter.
Object. But why then doe not theſe godly Paſtors and viſible Saints you ſpeak of, ſeparate the profane and groſſely ignorant from their Congregations, but ſinfully retain them, or at leaſt ſuffer them to abide with them? If they did ſo, they ſhould not be troubled with godly mens ſeparating from them; they ſweep not the Lords houſe.
Anſw. Whether godly men would not ſeparate then I cannot tell: If the Apoſtles rules of admiſſion were ſufficient to guide us, there might be more hopes they would not. But when men ſet up rules themſelves, and all men muſt come to their rules and wayes, they would be as apt to ſeparate from thoſe whom the Apoſtles would admit, I think they would be almoſt as eager for ſeparation as now.
Whether thoſe Paſtors and Saints viſible doe ſinfully ſuffer ſuch in their Churches, and ſo are blame-worthy, I diſpute not; but as to the32 preſent ſtate of theſe Churches left ſuch by the negligence & ſin of thoſe who uſurped the power over them, whence ſome will ſcarce own them for Churches, and others plead ſo much for ſeparation from them, ſomething may be fairly offered, which may plead for them. True it is, men of great grace, great gifts, great purſes, great courage, great favour with great men, having the chiefeſt perſons in a Town on their ſides [which laſt was my advantage in this ſmall village] may doe more towards the reformation of their particular congregations, then other men can doe who are not ſo advantaged. Magiſterial and Curſt Divines, who being aloft every way, conſider not the tentations of men below them, are not ſuch honourable men with me as ſome others are. Thoſe men who have lien in pickle in the brine of varieties of tentations twenty years, have known by experience the evils of debts, poverty joyned to great family-charges, low gifts, deſperate workings of ſpiritual and fleſhly corruptions, ſenſe of guilt; theſe are the men who ſhall write practical books for me; theſe, I doubt not, will write low, and ſpeak low; theſe will feel their brethrens temptations. But to the point.
1. Theſe men doe ſeparate at the Lords Supper, and there allow them no communion. This is attained with much difficulty in our dayes; we know they contend much for it.
2. The moſt they doe is, they admit their children to Baptiſm, which conſidered in themſelves are not profane; and were Baptiſm adminiſtred by that latitude which the Apoſtles33 did adminiſter it, I doubt not but many may be admitted to it.
Now in that this is all the priviledge they have, more then theſe men who ſeparate will allow them, the queſtion is, whether there be nothing conſiderable to ſway men to this practice.
1. It is a queſtion diſputable, whether the immediate Parents onely can give title; whether the Grandfather, or Grandmother, being in covenant, may not help to give title to a grandchild. Upon this account divers adminiſter Baptiſm.
2. There is a queſtion, whether if others under the covenant will undertake the education of ſuch children, may they not be baptized? [as our Mr. Norton conceives they may.]
3. There are eminent Divines who maintain, that though the Parents be excommunicated, yet the child of ſuch ought to be baptized, Zanch. Perkins, and divers whom I could name. Now if this be true, then though all theſe were excommunicated, which is the moſt thoſe who ſeparate can deſire, yet their children ſhould be baptized, which is all the priviledge theſe men have though not excommunicated, and which thoſe who ſeparate can ſtumble at. For the reſt of the Ordinances we admit Indians to, I hope they will not deny them admiſſion to thoſe.
I omit that great queſtion, whether Baptiſm be not a Regenerating Ordinance, which divers Learned men abroad and at home doe maintain, and have Scriptures which ſpeak very fairly34 for them, ſo much, as I can ſcarcely be ſatisfied with the anſwers our Divines have given to thoſe texts they bring.
Now though I have not ſo much light to carry me in any of theſe opinions, and convince me fully of their truth; yet I ſee ſo much argument for them, that I am very tender towards thoſe who goe upon theſe grounds, whatever arguments I have againſt them which carry me another way; and were I a private member of one of thoſe Churches where there were ſo many thoſe viſible Saints, an able godly Paſtor, and the Supper kept as I ſaid, I ſhould not dare to ſeparate from it as others doe.
I might adde to this how ſome Miniſters, though they doe baptize, yet they deal roundly firſt with the Parents, and ſo as ſome will come no more at them for Baptiſm. And one, an Epiſcopal Divine of eminent note, hath refuſed to adminiſter Baptiſm to the children of ſuch parents as he found ſottiſhly ignorant, but ſent them back firſt to learn the principles of Religion, and aſſent to them.
So that had theſe who ſeparate ſtuck cloſe to their Miniſters, and encouraged them in thus dealing with thoſe ſcandalous perſons in private, they might have done more towards reformation then now they have done.
3. There were divers corrupt members in Corinth, and their children baptized; for ought I know a fault might be in the Officers, and better part, but no command to ſeparate from the Officers.
4. Should all the godly Miniſters in England35 ſeparate, as theſe men would have us, and goe by their rules in admiſſion of Church-members, I queſtion whether there would be a godly Miniſter left in England, the common people would not bear it. And verily for godly Miniſters to ſuffer death in things ſo diſputable, wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any ſcruple, having ſo much probability from Scripture [as that argument of Circumciſion, with the reſt before mentioned] but yet more, to ſuffer for rules which themſelves made, & not the Apoſtles, this is a hard chapter; thoſe who are ſo free of their lives may take their courſe. I will bleſſe the Lord if he ſhall pleaſe to aſſiſt me with grace to lay down my life for him [if he ſhall call me to it] in things where I am confident I know his mind, and the Scriptures are ſo clear that I need not doubt, and in the mean time thank God I meet with ſuch as will bear with me in things wherein I differ from them of leſſe concernment, arguments caſting me on that ſide, but not without great ſcruples on the other ſide. I hear great words from ſome of theſe, they will not practice any thing but what they are ready to lay down their lives for. I dare not ſpeak ſuch great words.
5. Theſe men who thus ſeparate, when as yet there is nothing but the baptizing of their Infants they can object againſt, yet allow in their Churches, and think we are bound to allow ſuch who deny all Infant-Baptiſm, and will call the Anabaptiſtical Churches true Churches. Theſe who caſt off all the Infant-poſterity of36 Abraham from Church-memberſhip: theſe men muſt be admitted to the Supper, and what not: the others are debarred from the Supper, but their Infants baptized, which of theſe two is the worſt I wonder? for my part I would rather baptize the child of a wicked man, profeſſing Chriſt in words, then not baptize the child of a godly man; more reaſon and Scripture may be alledged for it. Whence me thinks the Doctor, being ſuch a ſtrong Champion for Toleration, may allow unto the Presbyterial Brethren ſome benefit of his opinion: for Toleration is Malorum, and if this be evil, I preſume he looks on the Anabaptiſtical opinion as evil alſo; and if this muſt be tolerated in Churches, and doth not weaken the purity of the Church, why the other ſhould not have ſome allowance I know not.
I know no underſtanding man that is againſt Toleration ſimply, he that will allow none is not fit to live in theſe times; but how far we are bound to Tolerate, is a hard queſtion.
To conclude,Reſpon. ad Apol. 168. I ſhall only ſee what our Mr. Norton, a man who in ſome caſes allows ſeparation from a true Church, and one that in the Congregational way is Theologus cum primis nobilis, to that queſtion how is ſeceſſion to be made from a true Church? anſwers thus.
1. Not without due vſe of all means to remove the impurities. I am ſure amongſt thoſe means this is one, for theſe to bear witneſs againſt the ſcandalous members, and labour in their places to get them removed regularly; thoſe then who never deal with any of theſe in a37 Church-way, who will not bear witneſs againſt them to the Elderſhip, but when their Paſtor have asked them, Will you prove againſt theſe. &c. anſwer, No, not they. Theſe uſe means well, yet ſuch ſeparate.
Alſo how ſome of the Congregational Miniſters, who have had their hands in theſe ſeparations, have uſed all means, when as they never went to the Miniſters; when they encouraged the people in their ſeparation to ſpeak with them, I know not. I have heard two Miniſters of note complain of this unkind dealing.
2. Not preſently, but they muſt uſe prudence, patience, and long-ſuffering. Thoſe Miniſters and Churches who have found theſe in thoſe who ſeparated from them, may teſtifie for them if they can.
3. Without condemning of the Ch••ch, but acknowledging it from whence this ſeceſſion is made. It were well if we could get ſo much from many of theſe, to acknowledge any to be true Churches but ſuch as are in their gathered [as they call it] way.
4. Communion ſtill continued with ſuch a Church in things lawful. [Separation from the Lutheran**Yet Calovius in his anſwer to Jo. Crocius, tells us we differ from them in ten Articles, and above thirty Controverſies. p. 33. Churches he will not allow, though we ought not to communicate with them in the Supper.]
But our men, 1. will not communicate with the Church from which they have ſeparated at the Lords Supper where the doctrine is ſound, and the perſons admitted as pure as any Congregational Church that I know of.
2. No, nor will ſome of them ſo much as38 hear the officer from whom they have ſeparated, though ſound and godly, but rather ſet up a Tradeſman to propheſie in the abſence of their own Miniſter, and before they had a Miniſter, exerciſe their gifts amongſt themſelves, rather then hear their former Miniſter.
Certainly if ſome Congregational Churches in England be not guilty of Schiſm, there was never any Schiſm in this world.
Thus I have given my reaſons why I am not ſatisfied with all which the Doctor hath delivered concerning Schiſm, though with a great part of it I am abundantly; men of more learning then I am may give more, only this I I may and do add: it is a trouble to me that I have cauſe in any point to appear croſs to the Doctor, with whom I have had ſo much inward familiarity, whom I have ſo entirely loved and honoured, and do ſtill both honour and love.
I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congregations where they came, and have gathered Churches as true Churches before they came there, and ſo did not lay new foundations, or gather Churches where there were none before, only the Congregations being over-grown with perſons groſly ignorant and ſcandalous for want of Catechizing and Diſcipline, they did ſegregate ſuch perſons from Church-Communion, till they got ſo much as might declare them to be viſible Saints. But one of theſe Miniſters tell me I am miſtaken: if I be, then I underſtand not our brethren all this while, nor do I know when I ſhall: for my part I have ever profeſſed, I looked on the Parochial Congregations as a true Church before I came to it, though over-grown [as before I ſaid:] Thoſe who were here and elected me to be their officer, I look on my ſelf as having ſufficient authority over them by their election; thoſe who have come into Town ſince, I do require their owning of me for their officer [knowing that government here is founded upon conſent] and ſubjection to all ordinances, if they demand the ordinances of me; ſo far I go along with our brethren. That many Parochial40 Congregations are true Churches, I doubt not, though the Presbyterial brethren have not proceeded ſo far as others have done, and therefore the Congregational Brethren may ſafely have communion with them. Some things let me premiſe, and then I will give one argument or two.
1. The want of ſome ordinances in a Church deſtroys not the truth of the Church. Then there can be no homogeneal Church; our brethren I hope will not allow the Fraternity being deſtitute of officers to baptize, &c. but yet a homogeneal Church they maintain; much might be ſpoken here, but I forbear. Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline which ſome alledge, as being wanting in theſe Parochial Churches, do not therefore deny them to be true Churches, [which yet in part they had, for ſuſpenſion it is well known.] The Rod is not of the eſſence of the family, though the children may do ill where it is wanting. Feaſt of Tabernacles, Neh. 8.17. was long wanting.
2. An officer uſurping power in a Church, doth not deſtroy the truth of the Church. Diotrephes took more then was due. The Biſhops were but Miniſters, and did miniſterial work, if they took more power then the Lord gave them, yet that doth not hinder the truth of the Churches. What ſhall be ſaid then to the Biſhops in the primitve Churches; I wiſh I had as much zeal and love to Chriſt as they had.
3. Though many members be corrupt in doctrine and manners, yet they do not take away the truth of a Church. Corinth had too41 many of theſe, and the officers might be faulty in tolerating of them, but yet a true Church; and I hardly think that Paul would have refuſed communion with the Church. I doubt not but other Churches alſo had bad members. The Churches which lived under Heatheniſh perſecution were true Churches; yet there are foul ſcandalous ſins reported of ſome of the members.
4. Reality of grace, though deſireable, O very deſireable, yet is not abſolutely requiſite to the making of a viſible Church; though I think it is hard to find ſuch a Church, yet I know not but according to the rules we muſt go by in admitting of Church-members, there may be a true viſible Church where there is not one real true Saint. Dare any Congregational Miniſter avouch the true grace of all the members of his Church? will any Church excommunicate a perſon for want of true grace? Did the Apoſtles when they admitted members ſearch narrowly for the truth of grace?
5. I had almoſt ſaid, It is as great a fault to keep out viſible repenting believers willing to ſubject to all ordinances, as it is to tolerate wicked perſons in a Church. If the Presbyterial brethren are guilty of the latter, the Congregational are guilty of the former. I think it as great a faultto ſin againſt the lenity of Chriſt, as againſt the ſeverity of Chriſt. It is true, theſe wicked ones are a diſhonour to Chriſt, leaven to the lump, [but yet ſuſpended from the Lord's Supper] and they have not that means applied which might help to their ſouls ſalvation; but it is42 that which theſe Miniſters would gladly reach if they could, they alledge the words of the Apoſtle, their authority is for edification, not deſtruction. On the other ſide, to keep out thoſe who viſibly appear like Chriſtians, when men have power to take in, is to hinder theſe from being levened with true grace, a great offence to the godly, diſcouragement of ſouls, and Magiſterially to ſet up Rules which the Lord never appointed. Who blame Biſhops for ſetting up their poſts by God's poſts? I know the word viſible Believer is a contentious word, but I underſtand one plainly thus; Here is one that hath a competent knowledg of thoſe grounds which are eſſential to ſalvation, and believes them. His eſtate by nature he underſtandeth, and profeſſeth he believeth in the Lord Jeſus for life and ſalvation; his converſation doth not confute his profeſſion; worſhips God in his family, and ſubjects to all Chriſt's Ordinances; [for the private conferences of Chriſtians and private faſtings, which ſometimes they have, though this were deſireable to have them frequent them, yet theſe [in ſuch a manner] being free-will offerings, I dare not tie up men to theſe, or elſe debar them] if he hath been ſcandalous, he declareth his repentance, cordially ſo far as charity can judge, and proves it by ſome time, would the Apoſtles have debarred ſuch a perſon from the Church? but [I ſpeak what I know] perſons who go thus far, and further, cannot yet be admitted to Church-fellowſhip.
Some would have us go to Rev. 21.15. and43 Rev. 11.2. to ſee the rules for Churches. What they have drawn from hence I know not; I have beſtowed ſo much pains in reading of men upon the Revelation, and find ſo little content in all that I read [great Hooker of N.E. would ſay, he would never forfeit his credit in undertaking thoſe Scriptures where he could not make Demonſtration] that now I regard nothing which is ſaid upon it. One Text which I obſerved as I was reading through it in my courſe, gave me more ſettlement then all I had read. But alas good men, do they carry us to their Symbolical Divinity to prove what they would have? this will not prevail with judicious men. I think the Apoſtolical practices muſt be our Reed to meaſure by; if you have precepts given where the qualification of perſons admitable to Church-fellowſhip are ſet down higher then I have ſet them down, I would be thankful if any one would ſhew me them. As for Rev. 21. I confeſs there is a golden Text, but I think they draw a leaden argument from it to our Church-fellowſhip. The fift Monarchy dreams have not as yet infatuated us; that time is not yet come.
6. Parochial bounding of Churches doth not detract from the truth of Churches; it doth not hinder the purity, much leſs the entity of a Church.
Vicinity of members is requiſite for mutual inſpection, convenient meeting for celebration of ordinances, but it adds nothing to the eſſence of a Church; particular Churches muſt be bounded ſomewhere.
44When the Law enjoyned men to keep their own pariſh Churches, it was but to prevent diſorder, that people ſhould be bound to attend ordinarily at that place, and not run up and down where they liſted. If the Miniſter were godly the Law helped him, and it is likely that this hath turned as well to the good of that people, which elſe would not have ſo attended upon that Miniſtery which was powerful and ſearching; if the Miniſter were ungodly, it was but the denying of ſome outward accommodation in that pariſh, and ſo remove to a godly Miniſter. By vertue of the Law then every one did implicitely chooſe that Miniſter to be his where he came, which as I ſaid, was as well for the good as the hurt of people; if men had no mind to the Miniſter, they might chooſe whither they would go into that Pariſh or not: thoſe who were godly in the Pariſh, and had a good Miniſter, they were not offended at the Law: whence this Parochial bounding ſhould be looked upon as ſuch an Antichriſtian buſineſs I cannot imagine.
The chiefeſt inconveniency is by reaſon of the building of the place for Aſſembling in divers places upon the skirts of Towns; yet in N. E. perſons who live at farms three miles or more from the place of their Aſſembling in their own pariſh, go conſtantly to that place, when as they might joyn to another Church much neerer in another Town.
But let us ſee what we ſhall do when Pariſh bounds are broken down: Vicinity is requiſite, this is agreed upon by all, how then ſhall45 we agree upon Vicinity? what will this Church call Vicinity? I doubt if there be a rich perſon who would joyn, and the Officer with members have a mind to him, they will ſtretch vicinity very largely to fetch him in. Some of our brethren oppoſe Parochial boundings, becauſe they are ſo great, I doubt our brethren will not bring their Vicinity into a narrower compaſs; nay, we ſee how far they go for members: ſhould we go about to alter Pariſhes, I think few would be pleaſed in the manner of doing it, nor will agree upon Vicinity: wherefore I think we had better bear with ſome inconveniences, then while we ſeek to mend them create worſe.
7. In reducing of Churches to purity the Miniſter cannot do it alone; he muſt know the members impurity, it muſt be proved to him by witneſſes; let Churches be gathered, or whatever you call them, this muſt be done before perſons can be excommunicated. But how do theſe members who find fault with Miniſters do this? One who came to his Miniſter and was very urgent to have him thus ſeclude wicked perſons from the Sacraments, when the Miniſter asked him whether he would come and bear witneſs againſt them, anſwered, ſo he might leave himſelf not worth a groat; but yet could ſeparate from his Miniſter: is this right? Theſe things premiſed, now to an Argument.
Arg. 1. Where there are the eſſential cauſes of a Church [matter and form] there is a true Church.
But in many Parochial Congregations of46 England, there are the eſſential cauſes of a Church.
Ergo many Parochial congregations in England are true Churches.
The Major deny who can. Poſitis cauſis eſſentialibus ponitur effectus. For the Minor, I prove that thus.
Where there are perſons ſound in the faith, and viſibly conformable to the rules of the Goſpel in their practice, there is the matter of a Church.
Where theſe perſons doe conſent together to worſhip God in all his ordinances [Mr. Burroughs ſaith, all the ordinances ſo far as they know] with Officers duely qualified, and for ſubſtance orderly called, there is the form of a Church.
But thus it is in many Parochial congregations in England.
For the matter I ſuppoſe we will not deny it, there are ſuch for viſible appearance as true as thoſe that are in congregational Churches. If it be asked, How many Pariſhes are there that have ſuch perſons, ſufficient in number to make a Church? That is none of my queſtion to anſwer; but this I can ſay according to our brethrens practice, who make eight [or fewer] to be ſufficient to the firſt founding of a Church; there will be divers Pariſhes found to have that number without queſtion.
For the form, I have put in enough; the covenanting or conſenting, our brethren make the form: But I have put in the Officer, and ſo make it an Organical Church.
47For the Officer, if the quarrel be with his qualification, I think none dare deny but for perſonal graces, and Miniſterial abilities, there are abundance ſuch Miniſters in ſeveral Pariſhes.
For their call, elected by the people, and ordained by a Presbyterie very ſolemnly. If the Epiſcopal ordination be queſtioned, I have anſwered to it before [as alſo in my Book againſt the Separation] however I think there is as much cauſe to queſtion their ordination who are ordained by the people when Elders were preſent, or with others, onely praying after election, as there is to queſtion Ordination by a Biſhop and his Clergy. But what doe our brethren cavilling againſt that, when they have Election, which is the eſſence of the call, as themſelves affirm? I think God hath witneſſed for them that they were true Miniſters, in going forth with them, and giving ſuch ſucceſſe to their Miniſtry, as I think our congregational brethren have not found ſince they came to queſtion and caſt off Epiſcopal Ordination [if any doe ſo.] I doubt if the congregational Miniſters had no more members of their Churches then they have converted ſince they have ſo much cried down Pariſhes and Epiſcopal Ordination, they would have very thin Churches. I doe not think the Lord did it therefore, becauſe of their Epiſcopal Ordination; yet I think the Lords appearing ſo much in thoſe days over now he doth in converting-work, ſhould teach us much tenderneſs in theſe dayes, and not to walk ſo highly as ſome doe.
If the objection be about the conſenting, the48 election of the people declare it explicitely, and their conſtant attendance upon ſuch a Miniſter in all the ordinances of God, declares their conſent implicitely. No Congregational Divine makes the form of a Church to conſiſt in the expliciteneſs of a covenant, but affirm that an implicite covenant preſerves the true nature of the Church. So Mr. Hooker Sur. Ch. Diſ. part. 1. pag. 47, 48. So Mr. Norton Reſp. ad Apol. p. 22, 28. So the Synod of New-England, Cap. 4. S. 4.
Arg. 2. If there be as much for ſubſtance in many Parochial congregations as there was in Corinth, to make it a true Church, then many Parochial congregations are true Churches.
But the Antecedent is true; Ergo the Conſequent is true.
The Conſequence is clear; for the Church of Corinth was a true Church I hope. For the Antecedent, 1. It's true, we have not many preaching officers in one Pariſh, as had that Church [which I conceive did not all meet in the ſame place for Church-worſhip, but in divers.] 2. Nor have we extraordinary Prophets, as were in that Church [though our brethren ſtrangely make thoſe a proof for their private members Propheſying [as they call it] yea and are ſo highly carried in their notions, that if their Paſtor be abſent, though there be another Miniſter preach in the Town, they will not go to hear him, but a Tradeſman muſt Propheſie [what this implies who ſeeth not] if a Paſtor be dead, and the people goe to another congregation, the Paſtor whereof is of their own principles,49 theſe have been charged by one of our Eſſex Independent Miniſters with irregular walking, for not ſtaying at home and Propheſying [a ſin certainly againſt the eleventh commandement.] 3. Nor have we other extraordinary gifts, as that Church had. 4. Nor have we men ordained by the Apoſtles. 5. Nor called by the Apoſtles; for if theſe things doe weaken my argument, then they doe as well cut off the congregational Churches to be true Churches.
But if the Church of Corinth had perſons called by the Word, ſome whereof were real Saints, and ſome onely viſible; ſo have we. If they had perſons Officers, who held out the faith of the Goſpel in their teaching ſoundly; ſo have we, as ſound as they did or could doe, if not ſounder, ſuch as build not hay nor ſtubble, &c. If they had the Ordinances of Chriſt; ſo have we. If they conſented to worſhip God, &c. ſo doe ours. Theſe are the Eſſentials of that Church. The Eſſence is perpetually the ſame, but Ʋnaquaequeres vera dicitur a ſua naturâ & eſſentiâ. If we have corrupt and erroneous members, ſo had they: Ours debarr'd, ſuſpended from the Lords Table [a great part of Church-diſcipline] but that their corrupt members were ſo, I think will not eaſily be proved; a great fault in the Officers, who it ſeemes did not regard diſcipline ſcarce at all, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. & 13.2. Paul threatens, that he will not ſpare. Our Churches come to this by the oppreſſion of the Hierarchy, the Miniſters elſe would have exerciſed Diſcipline; but thoſe had50 none to overtop them, and yet were negligent. How to get their Churches purer the Miniſtry find it hard; to excommunicate a multitude our congregational brethren ſay, no; to ſeparate from the reſt our claſſical brethren are not clear, they quote the Text, 2 Cor. 10.8. Their authority is given for edification, not deſtruction. They muſt doe what they can by degrees, which they are reſolved upon, and deſerve to be encouraged by all.
More Arguments I could give [as from the nullity of all the Ordinances which elſe muſt follow. Alſo, I wonder whether our congregational Miniſters were converted in Parochial, or congregational Churches.] But I forbear.
Hence then that congregational brethren may aſſociate with the claſſical, to me there is no queſtion, though my practice is ſomething different from the claſſical brethren; yet what they allow is ſo candid, that I am rather thankful to them that they are ſo willing to aſſociate with me.
That we way hold communion with a Church ſo far as we are intangled in no ſin, I think was never denied; but ſo may we with the claſſical brethren: For what though they baptize all, and all of them do not [though ſome do, and more endeavour it] bring their people to an explicite engagement; yet they deſire us not to have communion with all their members, but with their compleat members, i. e. thoſe whom they admit to all Ordinances; and I am ſure thoſe, according to the rules drawn up, would have gone for good Church-members in the Apoſtles51 days, and, I think, ſhould now; ſo that we are called to aſſociate onely with thoſe who are as good members as our own.
As for their Baptizing of the Infants of ſuch whom they debar from the Lords table; though their arguments doe not convince men [no not good Mr. Blake, that man who now I hear is with God; if he had, I would have poofeſſed it to the world. I doe more admire to ſee what anſwers ſo learned a man gives; but that I have profeſſed in my Epiſtle to the Reader that I would meddle no more with the queſtion, I find it very eaſie to take off [at leaſt in my apprehenſion] what he hath ſaid, had but he caſt the major propoſition in p. 97. thus [which he knew was my Scope.] Such as for manifeſt unworthineſs de jure ought, and de facto are debarr'd from the Lords Table, &c. To this I have ſpoken before.Then ſee how his anſwer from Infants takes me off; but I ſhall adde no more. Now though he hath not ſatisfied me] yet I look on the Arguments as more valid to prove the Infants of thoſe ſcandalous perſons ſhould be baptized, then are their arguments who caſt out the Infants of repenting and believing parents from Baptiſm and the Church; yet theſe our congregational brethren make no ſcruple to communicate with, and to have ſuch members in their Churches.
Are all the members of congregational Churches ſuch as they ought to be viſibly? I doubt it. Some are as offenſive as many in Parochial Churches. Should we therefore refuſe communion one with another becauſe of52 ſuch? Would Paul have done it at Corinth?
As for taking members out of other Pariſhes, which our brethren ſtand upon ſo ſtiffely, and without which there will be no Aſſociation, this hath been the old breaking principle, and reſolved it ſeems they are to hold it.
In what caſes, and upon what conditions it ſhall be allowed, our claſſical brethren have declared, and I think ſufficiently to give a heart that loves peace, ſatisfaction. For my own part I care not if the thing be yielded; I think I might make as good a ſhift as another, and have had tentations ſtrong this way: but I did never yet take up ſuch a practice, not out of any conſcience to the Pariſh bounds, but becauſe I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chiefly kindled the fire in this poor Church. Should I have done it, becauſe I looked on my way more pure then my neighbour-Miniſters? I knew the impurity of my own heart, and looked on my Neighbour-Miniſter as more godly; if I ſhould think more highly of my own parts, I knew my own weakneſſe, and might juſtly fear leſt God ſhould blaſt the little I had. But
1. I hope our brethren doe not think it a ſin for a Miniſter to keep to his own Pariſh, if they doe, let us hear them prove it. I have heard it reported by a very ſerious Chriſtian, that one of our brethren ſhould affirm that Chriſtians were bound to come out of their Parochial wayes, and to joyn in Church-fellowſhip after the congregating manner, elſe they did partake of the mark of the Beaſt. I write it as well as I can remember it, but becauſe I heard it not with my own ears,53 firſt I doe not ſo fully believe the truth of it; yet there are good reaſons why I ſhould believe it: I had ſomething to ſay, but at preſent let it alone.
2. I am ſure Paul ſaid, All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient, 1 Cor. 6.12. Is not this a rule for us? grant the thing to be lawful, that is, it might be done without any breach of Gods Law [though not commanded to doe it] yet I am ſure it is not expedient for us to doe it, becauſe we ſee it is that which hath broken and doth break the peace of our Churches; but the peace of Churches ought to be very precious to us. If we be commanded to follow peace with all men, then I hope to follow after, and endeavour the peace of the Churches, is a duty of great weight.
But this is looked upon as the Miniſters weakneſs, that this ſhould break peace.
1. Be it ſo that it is their weakneſſe, then let others ſhew their ſtrength in bearing with their weakneſſe, ſince they have no command to take people from other good Miniſters. Thoſe who are ſtrong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.
2. But I doubt there is ſtrong reaſon for this weakneſſe. For 1. This grieves the heart of a godly brother, to have thoſe in whom lies his chiefeſt comfort taken from him; if you take away my comfort, there is reaſon why I ſhould be grieved: would you not have a godly perſon to be a comfort to the Miniſter?
2. It weakens the hands of that good Miniſter in endeavours to reform. Who will ſtand54 by him if the godly be gone from him? Thoſe commonly who are taken out of other Pariſhes are not of the pooreſt ſort.
3. When a place hath wanted a Miniſter, it hath been a cauſe of ſuch diſcouragement to godly Miniſters, that a godly man will not readily come into ſuch a Pariſh, becauſe the congregational men have taken out the good people, or ſome of them, it may be the chief out of the Pariſh, and ſo the Pariſh lie deſtitute of a Miniſter a long time, and at laſt muſt get ſuch as they can; and thus the ſouls of others are endangered. As for their returning of ſuch to that Miniſter in caſe he will come, we know their judgment by their practiſes. When Pariſhes have had good Miniſters, this hath helped to remove them. That practice then which ſo diſcourageth good Miniſters, as it cauſeth their removal, and hinders others from coming into place, I doe not look at this as a light matter, but a practice intolerable in the Churches. Though this be not ſo bad as is the practice of ſome by me, yet in effect it comes to the ſame. Two ſmall Pariſhes lying ſo as they may eaſily joyn, and would; but thoſe in them who had a ſhew of Religion turn'd to the Separation, whence no godly Miniſter cares for coming among them, but there the people lie year after year, no Miniſter to regard them, no Ordinances: who knowes what God might have done for the ſouls of ſome of them, had the profeſſing party held cloſe, and encouraged a godly Miniſter to come amongſt them, whereas now for divers years they have had none, nor are like55 to have. This practice of our brethren comes to the ſame in concluſion, if they thus take away the good people out of other Pariſhes.
4. What weakneſſe ſoever this is in them, I doubt our ſtrong men would not take it well, to have another come and take away their people from them. Something I heard hiſce auribus what one ſaid when a Miniſter would have come into another Pariſh by, and took away ſome of his people. Thoſe who are eminent in parts, and have their people ſure to them, may ſay Let them goe; but what they would doe if the thing ſhould be practiſed, I know not: But however 'tis good to weigh things in the ſcales of reaſon; and if ſo, I think it a juſt matter of grief, and ſo of offence to good Miniſters, againſt their free conſent to take away any of their people. So much for weakneſs.
3. The congregational brethren being leſſe in number by ten, if not twenty parts, compared with the number of other Miniſters, and thoſe godly, one would think it ſhould be a mercy ſufficient that they live in ſuch a Nation as this quietly; having the freedome of their conſciences, let them reform what they can in their own places. The Magiſtrate doth countenance the Miniſters, though of different judgments, and ſo numerous, yet willing to aſſociate, and ſhew brotherly communion. For my part, I look on it as a great mercy [had I a heart to anſwer it] though I doe not goe and fleet the cream of my neighbours congregations becauſe they are not of my judgment.
This is ſpoken in reference to our Aſſociating,56 which if it were but yielded, there were hopes of cloſure: Nor do I ſee any reaſon why our brethren ſhould ſo much ſtand upon it; for I think their gathering of one Church out of divers true Churches is almoſt at an end; for thoſe who have a mind to ſeparate, affect no Churches rather then Congregational Churches.
As for ſuch to whom the brethren have offered the Agreement for peace, and they refuſe to aſſociate with their brethren without any Scriptural reaſon given why they ſo refuſe [a great care having been taken of croſſing of mens principles which were not plainly againſt Scripture, and might ſtand with peace and ſobriety] but rather affect to ſtand alone: if any in their Pariſhes ſhall deſire to joyn with any of the Aſſociated Churches, I know no reaſon why our hands ſhould be ſo bound up that we ſhould not receive them; but others muſt take from us, eſpecially if they be ſuch who have a right to the Lords Supper, but did not, nor will communicate with ſuch a congregation, becauſe they require that of them which the Word doth not, before they will admit them. This I conceive were great bondage, that a Miniſter with three or four men ſhall ſet up a way of admiſſion to the Lords Supper, which all muſt come to; the thing it ſelf may be good, but not required to a Church-ſtate, nor the receiving of the Supper; and that all muſt ſtoop to this, or have no Supper there; and becauſe of Parochial bounds they muſt have it no where elſe. Men may be of different judgments from mine, but that57 ſhall never hinder communion, if they be otherwiſe qualified, and yield but to what is neceſſary to a Church-ſtate, in which men, though of different perſwaſions other wayes, yet all agree, be they Epiſcopal, Claſſical, or Congregational, unleſſe ſome of theſe laſt make an explicite covenant the form of the Church, which I ſee ſome of our brethren do here in England: Elſe what means that paſſage of a brother, But it will by us be expected [ſatis pro imperio] that you leave the brethren and godly (yet ungathered) free who have voluntarily come under no engagement explicitely with your Pariſh ways ſince the fall of Prelacie. I could quote another who carries it more cloſely. Then it ſeems all thoſe Chriſtians who before this walked with their godly Paſtors in conſtant attendance upon, and ſubjection to all Ordinances, muſt now come under an explicite covenant, or what?
For my part, I ſaid before, it was not any conſcience to Pariſh bounds which hath kept me from receiving of perſons from other Pariſhes, but deſire of peace: But if men will refuſe terms of peace ſo drawn up with ſo much tenderneſs, as I think can well be deſired, I ſhall receive thoſe who ſhall deſire to joyn with me, and reſign them up again when there comes a man who will embrace peace with his brethren: I do not look upon our rules binding me further then our Aſſociations.
OUr Brethren in Cumberland [with whom our Brethren in Eſſex agree] conceive That in the exerciſe of Diſcipline,Aſſoc. Cumb. p. 3. it is not only the moſt ſafe courſe, but alſo moſt conducing to brotherly union and ſatisfaction, that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual aſſiſtance as they can with conveniencie and edification, and as little as may be to ſtand diſtinctly by themſelves, and apart from each other.
This ſome of our congregational brethren look upon, as cutting off congregational liberty by the middle. But I conceive not ſo, they put in the words Conveniencie and Edification; nor is their intent [ſo far as I apprehend] to null the power of particular Churches, but onely to be aſſiſtant to each other in the wiſe managing of ſo great an Ordinance: and Bleſſed be God [ſay I.] that ſuch Aſſiſtance may be had.
That Church-Diſcipline is an Inſtitution of Chriſt, I doe not at all queſtion. That the cutting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight, I do not alſo queſtion. [Chirurgeons, though able, when they come to the Amputation of a natural member, love to call in all the help they can.] And as certain I am that through the abuſe and ill maniging of this Solemn Ordinance, it hath almoſt loſt its glory. This hath not been the fault of the Pope and the Hierarchy; but I wiſh I could ſay that ſome59 congregational Churches had not expoſed it to contempt through their indiſcreet carriages in this Ordinance; I know of more then two or three of theſe Churches in which this fault will be found. In Ipſwich in N. E. where thoſe two worthy men Mr. Nathaniel Rogers [Paſtor] and Mr. Norton [Teacher] had the managing of this Ordinance, they carried on the work with ſo much prudence and long-ſuffering [the cauſe did permit it] before they came to the execution of it, and with ſo much Majeſty and Terrour when they came to the Sentence, that the hearts of all the members [I think] were ſtruck with fear, and many eyes could not but let drop tears; the Ordinance had ſomething of the majeſty of the Ordainer in it. If we could carry on this Ordinance thus, we might recover the glory of it.
What particular Churches may do when no Aſſiſtance can be had, is one thing; what they ought to doe when it may be had, is another. Doctor Ames is a man who favours particular Churches enough, yet ſaith,Medul. C. 39. S. 27. Eccleſiae tamen particulares, ut earum communio poſtulat, naturae lumen, & aequitas regularum, & exemplorum Scripturae docent, poſſunt, ac ſaepiſſimè etiam debent Confaederationem, aut Conſociationem mutuam inter ſe inire, in Claſſibus & Synodis, ut communi conſenſu & ſubſidio mutuo utantur, quantum commodè fieri poteſt, in iis praeſertim quae ſunt majoris momenti, &c.
Furthermore, becauſe the brethren ſtand ſo much upon the power of particular Churches, I deſire [as I have divers years profeſſed my diſſatisfaction60 ſatisfaction in this point] they would pleaſe to clear it from the N. T. where they find ſuch particular Churches as ours are in theſe ſmall Villages, conſiſting of one Paſtor, and a few members, being ſo near to other Churches as ours are, and might unite if they would; yet that ſuch particular Churches kept themſelves diſtinct, and exerciſed all power within themſelves, without any dependance upon, or conſociation with other Churches. If Scriptureexamples be any thing to us, I think they will not prove it. I could never yet underſtand the reaſon of this conſequence. The Churches in Jeruſalem, in Rome, in Corinth, in Epheſus, &c. were independent for the execution of their power; Ergo, every particular Church in a ſmall Village with one Paſtor, and a few members, is independent for the execution of all Church-power.
I pray let us conſider whether it will not more anſwer the Scripture-patterns, to have divers of our ſmaller Villages to unite, and make up but One Church, though every Miniſter continue in his ſtation, taking care eſpecially [though not onely] of thoſe who live within his own Pariſh, and to preach to theſe, adminiſter Sacraments, exhort, rebuke, &c. as he findeth cauſe. But yet as to the exerciſe of all Churchpower, they are but One Church. I dare ſay it will come neerer to the Scripture, then doth the practice of the Churches as now they ſtand. Our brethren yield the Church at Jeruſalem to be but One Church; but that this Church met alwaies for all Ordinances in one place, who61 can imagine? Though the Apoſtles went up to the Temple to Preach, yet that was as well for the ſake of others who came to the Temple, and not yet converted; the Apoſtles went to meet with them, they did not goe to meet with the Apoſtles. But we doe not read that they went thither to adminiſter the Lords Supper. Where they could find a room for five thouſand perſons to receive the Supper together, I cannot tell; to throw away ones reaſon in matters of practice is hard: what a long time muſt they be adminiſtring? though others did help, yet they muſt have room to paſſe to and fro to carry the elements, that at laſt we muſt have a vaſt place.
Moſt Divines that I read agree, that by breaking of bread, Acts 2.42. is meant the Lords Supper: I doe not ſee that Beza hath many followers. Why then by breaking of bread, v. 46. ſhould not be meant the Lords Supper alſo, and their eating meat with gladneſs their Lovefeaſts which attended the Supper, I ſee no reaſon, though I know many Divines doe not underſtand it as in 42.
That it is the phraſe whereby the Lords Supper is ſet forth in the New Teſtament, is yielded, Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. & Cap. 11. and ſo in the 42. v. of this Chap. Once in Luke 24.30, 35. we find it meant of an ordinary ſupper, the text doth clear it, though ſome Papiſts would draw it to the Sacrament under one