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.

CHAP. I. A brief and friendly examination of Dr. Owen's discovery of the Nature of Schism.

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 ap∣peals, 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 walk∣ing 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 their

actions and disputes to this Head, by which one day we shal be judged, Rom. 2. [and not by Pro∣vidences 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 per∣ceive 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 separati∣on 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 to∣gether, or ought so to do, for the worship of God and celebration of the same numerical ordinan∣ces to the disturbance of the order appointed by Jesus Christ, and contrary to that exercise of love in wisedom and mutual forbearance which is re∣quired 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 cause∣lesly make a Separation from the Church, hold∣ing 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 whate∣ver

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, ac∣cording 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 er∣roneous conscience; but suppose upon a false plea such a conscience should raise divisions in a Church, according to the definition, with∣out 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 ob∣serve 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 pre∣tence of serving God in his Institutions, ac∣cording to its light, must be Schism whether it

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 war∣rantable 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-Mem∣bers 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.

1. 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 Divi∣sion 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 divisi∣ons 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 in∣stance 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 be∣cause 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 parti∣cular Church, as such, as meerly separation, is Schism, or ought to be so esteemed; though per∣haps such separation may proceed from Schism, and be also attended with other evils.

Who ever said that meer separation, separa∣ting 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 separa∣tion 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 celebra∣tion 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 pro∣miseth 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 defini∣tions, because they mistooke this particular act of Schism in Corinth, [which it may be they never intended, but to give the whole nature

of the sin, as Logicians should doe, and the true definition of the sin will fetch in all parti∣cular 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 pla∣ces 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 un∣derstanding 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 de∣finito, but the Doctors definition is angusti∣or 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 there

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 al∣most 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 Do∣ctors definition is not logical. Every definiti∣on must exhaurire totam naturam [specificam saltem] sui definiti, else not adequate, nor reci∣procal, 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 a∣greeth with Scripture, that, and that one∣ly, 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 defi∣nition agrees with a particular instance, yet it agreeth not with the whole specifical nature of the fin which we are enquiring into, and there∣fore not logical. Doth every Scripture-instance give a full definition of the fin forbidden? The Command saith Thou shalt not steal, in Exod.

22.2. I finde mention made of a thief breaking in, &c. to which Christ alludes Mat. 24.43. Sup∣pose 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 in∣to 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 inju∣sta 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 o∣ther 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 de∣grees 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 parti∣cular

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 se∣paration 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 sepa∣rate 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 divi∣sion had risen so high that Cephas and his com∣pany had separated from Apollos and his com∣pany, and held communion apart by them∣selves, had not this been Schism? give a rea∣son.

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 kil∣ling 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 glorious

ones still, who are so spiritual that they live a∣bove Ordinances [a carnal and wicked spiritu∣ality] 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 spiritu∣alness to live above them. Now to which com∣mand 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 com∣manded 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 pro∣pound the way I would take to find out the de∣finition of Schism. I see it is a sin, and offen-five to Christ, 1 Cor. 12.25. Now what is oppo∣site to this, what is the affirmative precept? Ʋ∣nion 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 Uni∣on as thereby the world may know whose dis∣ciples we are, as the Dr. p. 54. then I conceive Schism may be thus defined,

Schism is the solution of that Unity which Christ our Head requireth in his Visible Body.

I 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 In∣visible 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 Catho∣lick Church [which I look on as most pro∣perly his Body-visible] and also particular Churches. I take this definition to be recipro∣cal, 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 Catho∣lick or particular Churches: and yet my ground is Scriptural also, though I go not to a particu∣lar instance.

1. Hence then let us see whether causelesse separation from a Church be not properly Schism. Let us see what unity the Lord requi∣red of this Church; was it onely that inward love and forbearance [which the Doctor men∣tions] 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 Do∣ctors definition saith as much, Numerical Or∣dinances, &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 Or∣dinances,

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 Con∣sequent 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 Scrip∣ture 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 hard∣ly 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 con∣versation 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 may

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

• If causeless separation from a Church hath no other name given it in Scripture, nor can rationally be referred to any other head then. Schism, then causeless separation from a Church is Schism.
• But the Antecedent is true:
• ergo the Consequent is true.

The consequence is clear, because it partakes of the nature of no sin, as of Schism: [pro∣vided 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, extraor∣dinary 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,

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 comi∣nus 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 con∣sequence, 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 Eccle∣siastical

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 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not used in the Scripture for secession, or separa∣tion 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 sup∣pose the Syriack Translator was not of the Do∣ctor'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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in its primitive signification will carry a division into parts. Matth. 27.51. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I grant the Septuagint do not use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 1 Kin. 11.11, 31. yet why the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might not be translated by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and signifie what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, I know not. I conceive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is of a larger signification then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but comprehends what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth. This appears,

1. By the Learned, who as they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by findo, scindo, so they render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 findere, scindere, qui pannum aut aliquod ejusmodi con∣tinuum dirumpit, &c. Buxt. Schind. Pagn. Merc. hence as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is rendered scissura, so the 70. in v. 30, & 31, render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 scissurae. So the vulgar render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 31. Nor doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 always signifie the rending of a thing into parts [in opposition to the Doctor's notion]

more then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For among the Physitians a rupture in a membrane, the rending of a Muscle, they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though the part be not separated from the body; so Gorraeus.

2. Because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Old Testament is used and applied to such things as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 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 〉〈 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, fin∣dere, yet none [I conceive] answer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as this doth.

There may be something in this that the Arabick in the 11. v. use that Verb, 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 them∣selves 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, sepa∣ratio, disjunctio, aut dissolutio Ʋnionis illius quae debet inter Christianos observari. I was

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 ground∣work I lay that Text 1 Cor. 12.25. That there should be no Schism in the body.

• If by the body in this text be meant the Catholick-Church visible, then Schism may be in the Catholick-Church visible.
• But the Antecedent is true:
• ergo the Consequence cannot be denied.

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 pro∣perly 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 Do∣ctor saith, It's impossible Schism should be in the invisible Church.

If visible, then either the Catholick, or a particular Church; but not a par∣ticular: 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 Phy∣sitians make different definitions, as we re∣spect the matter or form of a similar part, yet I content my self with that definition which is commonly given.] What duties are en∣joyned 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 Apo∣stle 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 Catho∣lick-Church?

A. 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 ini∣tiated 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 parti∣cular 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 Catho∣lick 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 or∣dinances orderly, this meeting in several places should cease.

3. 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 fa∣mily, 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 Catho∣lick-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.

A. I must premise some things, then come to the answer. The Doctor p. 133. Schis. speaking of the Catholick-Church, saith, The saving do∣ctrine 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 edi∣fying 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 conjun∣ctus, & 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 〉〈 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.

Charity 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 know∣ledge 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 exter∣nally declare this bond of love whereby these members are joyned together, as such a body, ought carefully and Christianly to be per∣formed, when we are regularly called there∣unto; this bond of Love so much commanded and prayed for by our Head, being not con∣fined 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 re∣ceived 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] properly

respecting the Head, but Schism the Body. Now in reference to this I lay down these Conclu∣sions.

1. The members of this great Body in atten∣ding upon those ordinances of worship institu∣ted by their Head, especially the two Sacra∣ments, doe declare that faith in their Head which they professe. Open Baptism, we finde nothing there but Christ; open the Lords Sup∣per, we have nothing there but Christ our Head, and the grand and necessary Truths which con∣cerne 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 acknow∣ledge 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 ma∣ny, are one bread, 1 Cor. 10.17.

3. The Sacraments were not given to a par∣ticular

Church primarily, but to his Catholick-Body the Lord gave them; and so are the ex∣ternal pledges of the bond of union between the members of this great body. That the Sacra∣ments come to be administred in several particu∣lar societies, I gave the reason before, seeming ra∣ther 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. Je∣sus 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 Sup∣per, 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 be∣tween the members of a particular Church, what needed the conscience of this person to have been troubled, since the other person had no re∣lation 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 [qualified

as the Doctor requires Catholick members to be, and walking orderly in their particular Chur∣ches] occasionally desiring communion with the Church, fellowship with them in the Sacra∣ments, 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 Hea∣then, 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 de∣ny. And whereas one while you dare not de∣ny 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 conse∣quently the Churches to which they belong be∣ing of the same judgment. So that while you talk of Love, I say as the Apostle, Shew me thy

faith by thy works; so shew me your Ecclesiasti∣cal love by Church-fellowship. To this opinion of mine Doctor Ames in the place before quo∣ted 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-Vi∣sible.

As for that Doctrine, That an Officer of a particular Church must administer an Ordi∣nance 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 de∣fended.

To this I add: Suppose there be divers mem∣bers 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 extraordina∣ry, is ceased, therefore will allow no such li∣berty. 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 a∣mong 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 world

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 sup∣pose 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 pra∣ctices of all Congregational Churches: I can∣not 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 princi∣ples will necessarily conclude a man a Schisma∣tick. Certainly from the principles as our Di∣vines 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 Inde∣pendents, and now read this, I know not. Possi∣bly they wil say either Mr. Edwards wrote what was false, or that I am changed from my prin∣ciples [as some have said] but I assure the Rea∣der, I am not gone back, nor advanced one step

in these controversies, from what I ever mani∣fested 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 present∣ly. 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 com∣mands Schism, but Separation in some cases he doth; therein I agree with the Doctor, and ac∣cordingly practice [different from my bre∣thren] but it is onely within my own congre∣gation, 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. So I have made a separa∣tion in the congregation, but not from the con∣gregation. Had I read that the Apostles had stood upon the reality of grace in their admissi∣on into Church-fellowship, I would have been as strict as some brethren say they are; but be∣cause I find it not in their practice, I look on it as mens adding to the Word, and so let it a∣lone.

But our question is not whether any Separa∣tion, but whether such a Separation be com∣manded as thus. Here is a Church where are

many corrupt members, that is true; but with∣all 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 Or∣dinances in themselves clear from humane mix∣tures. 4. Though here are corrupt members, yet when the Lords Supper is celebrated, they are se∣parated, not admitted, but there is a pure lump. 5. The Church is not puffed up, but rather grie∣ved that there are so many corrupt members a∣mongst them, but according to their light, they be∣ing 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 god∣ly 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 Separati∣ons are, and of these men complain. If he can∣not produce Scriptures, he hath said nothing to many of our Separations.

The Dr. I perceive speaks much of original Institution and primitive Constitution of Church∣es; but I shall desire him to shew us the Scrip∣tures where the Apostles did use to goe to seve∣ral

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 o∣thers grieved, weakened, and thus did consti∣tute Churches: I cannot remember any Scrip∣ture 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 here∣after.

Object. But why then doe not these godly Pa∣stors and visible Saints you speak of, separate the profane and grossely ignorant from their Congre∣gations, 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 sepa∣rate 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 the

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 se∣paration 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, ha∣ving the chiefest persons in a Town on their sides [which last was my advantage in this small village] may doe more towards the reformati∣on of their particular congregations, then other men can doe who are not so advantaged. Ma∣gisterial and Curst Divines, who being aloft eve∣ry way, consider not the tentations of men be∣low 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 tenta∣tions twenty years, have known by experience the evils of debts, poverty joyned to great fa∣mily-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 bre∣threns temptations. But to the point.

1. These men doe separate at the Lords Sup∣per, 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 them∣selves are not profane; and were Baptism ad∣ministred by that latitude which the Apostles

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 al∣low them, the question is, whether there be nothing considerable to sway men to this pra∣ctice.

1. It is a question disputable, whether the immediate Parents onely can give title; whe∣ther the Grandfather, or Grandmother, being in covenant, may not help to give title to a grandchild. Upon this account divers admi∣nister Baptism.

2. There is a question, whether if others un∣der 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 main∣tain, that though the Parents be excommunica∣ted, 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 main∣tain, and have Scriptures which speak very fair∣ly

for them, so much, as I can scarcely be satis∣fied with the answers our Divines have given to those texts they bring.

Now though I have not so much light to car∣ry me in any of these opinions, and convince me fully of their truth; yet I see so much argu∣ment 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 ma∣ny 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 round∣ly 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 re∣fused 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 reformati∣on 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 England

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 Mi∣nister left in England, the common people would not bear it. And verily for godly Mini∣sters to suffer death in things so disputable, wherein holy men and Martyrs before did walk without any scruple, having so much probabi∣lity from Scripture [as that argument of Cir∣cumcision, 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, argu∣ments 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 pra∣ctice 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 al∣low such who deny all Infant-Baptism, and will call the Anabaptistical Churches true Church∣es. These who cast off all the Infant-posterity of

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 Do∣ctor, being such a strong Champion for Tole∣ration, may allow unto the Presbyterial Bre∣thren some benefit of his opinion: for Tole∣ration is Malorum, and if this be evil, I pre∣sume 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, I shall only see what our Mr. Norton, a man who in some cases allows sepa∣ration 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 a

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 Mini∣sters, who have had their hands in these sepa∣rations, 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 gathe∣red [as they call it] way.

4. Communion still continued with such a Church in things lawful. [Separation from the Luthe∣ran 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 Con∣gregational Church that I know of.

2. No, nor will some of them so much as

hear the officer from whom they have separa∣ted, 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 deli∣vered 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.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Parochial Congregations in England.

I took it for granted that our Congregational brethren did look on the Parochial Congre∣gations 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-Com∣munion, 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 Con∣gregations 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 con∣sent] and subjection to all ordinances, if they demand the ordinances of me; so far I go along with our brethren. That many Parochial

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. Dio∣trephes 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 too

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 re∣fused 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 mem∣bers of his Church? will any Church excom∣municate 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 sub∣ject 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 is

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 under∣standeth, and professeth he believeth in the Lord Jesus for life and salvation; his conver∣sation doth not confute his profession; wor∣ships God in his family, and subjects to all Christ's Ordinances; [for the private confe∣rences of Christians and private fastings, which sometimes they have, though this were desire∣able 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. and

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 under∣taking those Scriptures where he could not make Demonstration] that now I regard no∣thing 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 pra∣ctices 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 in∣fatuated 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.

When the Law enjoyned men to keep their own parish Churches, it was but to prevent disorder, that people should be bound to at∣tend 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 pow∣erful and searching; if the Minister were un∣godly, 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 Paro∣chial 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 requi∣site, this is agreed upon by all, how then shall

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 mem∣bers have a mind to him, they will stretch vicinity very largely to fetch him in. Some of our brethren oppose Parochial boundings, be∣cause 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 Pa∣rishes, I think few would be pleased in the manner of doing it, nor will agree upon Vi∣cinity: 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 be∣fore 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 of

England, there are the essential causes of a Church.

Ergo many Parochial congregations in Eng∣land are true Churches.

The Major deny who can. Positis causis es∣sentialibus 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. Bur∣roughs 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 congregati∣ons 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 an∣swer; but this I can say according to our bre∣threns 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 co∣venanting or consenting, our brethren make the form: But I have put in the Officer, and so make it an Organical Church.

For the Officer, if the quarrel be with his qua∣lification, I think none dare deny but for per∣sonal graces, and Ministerial abilities, there are abundance such Ministers in several Parishes.

For their call, elected by the people, and or∣dained by a Presbyterie very solemnly. If the Episcopal ordination be questioned, I have an∣swered 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 ele∣ction, as there is to question Ordination by a Bishop and his Clergy. But what doe our bre∣thren cavilling against that, when they have E∣lection, which is the essence of the call, as them∣selves 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 Mi∣nisters had no more members of their Churches then they have converted since they have so much cried down Parishes and Episcopal Ordi∣nation, they would have very thin Churches. I doe not think the Lord did it therefore, be∣cause 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, the

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 Con∣sequent 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 di∣vers.] 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 congre∣gation, the Pastor whereof is of their own prin∣ciples,

these have been charged by one of our Essex Independent Ministers with irregular walking, for not staying at home and Prophesy∣ing [a sin certainly against the eleventh com∣mandement.] 3. Nor have we other extraor∣dinary 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 cal∣led 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 stub∣ble, &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 Ʋnaquae{que} res vera dicitur a sua naturâ & essentiâ. If we have corrupt and erroneous members, so had they: Ours debarr'd, suspen∣ded from the Lords Table [a great part of Church-discipline] but that their corrupt mem∣bers 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 op∣pression of the Hierarchy, the Ministers else would have exercised Discipline; but those had

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 Mi∣nisters were converted in Parochial, or congrega∣tional Churches.] But I forbear.

Hence then that congregational brethren may associate with the classical, to me there is no que∣stion, though my practice is something different from the classical brethren; yet what they al∣low 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 ne∣ver denied; but so may we with the classical bre∣thren: For what though they baptize all, and all of them do not [though some do, and more en∣deavour 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 Apostles

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 ap∣prehension] 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 un∣worthiness de jure ought, and de facto are de∣barr'd from the Lords Table, &c. 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 scan∣dalous persons should be baptized, then are their arguments who cast out the Infants of re∣penting 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 re∣fuse communion one with another because of

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 re∣solved 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 con∣science to the Parish bounds, but because I have to be that unworthy principle which hath chief∣ly 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 look∣ed 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 congre∣gating 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,

first I doe not so fully believe the truth of it; yet there are good reasons why I should be∣lieve 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 com∣manded to doe it] yet I am sure it is not expe∣dient 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 com∣manded 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 per∣son to be a comfort to the Minister?

2. It weakens the hands of that good Mini∣ster in endeavours to reform. Who will stand

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 Pa∣rishes 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 a∣mong them, but there the people lie year after year, no Minister to regard them, no Ordinan∣ces: who knowes what God might have done for the souls of some of them, had the professing party held close, and encouraged a godly Mini∣ster to come amongst them, whereas now for divers years they have had none, nor are like

to have. This practice of our brethren comes to the same in conclusion, if they thus take a∣way 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 peo∣ple from them. Something I heard hisce auri∣bus 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, a∣gainst 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, compa∣red 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 con∣sciences, 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 Associa∣ting,

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 Chur∣ches.

As for such to whom the brethren have offer∣ed the Agreement for peace, and they refuse to associate with their brethren without any Scri∣ptural reason given why they so refuse [a great care having been taken of crossing of mens prin∣ciples which were not plainly against Scripture, and might stand with peace and sobriety] but rather affect to stand alone: if any in their Pa∣rishes shall desire to joyn with any of the Asso∣ciated 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, es∣pecially if they be such who have a right to the Lords Supper, but did not, nor will communi∣cate with such a congregation, because they re∣quire 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 Sup∣per; 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 that

shall never hinder communion, if they be o∣therwise qualified, and yield but to what is ne∣cessary to a Church-state, in which men, though of different perswasions other wayes, yet all a∣gree, be they Episcopal, Classical, or Congre∣gational, unlesse some of these last make an ex∣plicite 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 ungather∣ed) free who have voluntarily come under no en∣gagement 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 Pari∣shes, but desire of peace: But if men will re∣fuse 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 fur∣ther then our Associations.

CHAP. III. Of Association of Churches.

OUr Brethren in Cumberland [with whom our Brethren in Essex agree] conceive That in the exercise of Discipline, it is not only the most safe course, but also most conducing to brotherly uni∣on and satisfaction, that particular Churches carry on as much of their work with joynt and mutual assistance as they can with conveniencie and edifi∣cation, 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 mana∣ging 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 cut∣ting off a member from a Church is a thing of great weight, I do not also question. [Chirur∣geons, 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 some

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, Ecclesiae tamen par∣ticulares, ut earum communio postulat, naturae lumen, & aequitas regularum, & exemplorum Scripturae docent, possunt, ac saepissimè etiam de∣bent Confaederationem, aut Consociationem mutu∣am inter se inire, in Classibus & Synodis, ut com∣muni consensu & subsidio mutuo utantur, quantum commodè fieri potest, in iis praesertim quae sunt ma∣joris momenti, &c.

Furthermore, because the brethren stand so much upon the power of particular Churches, I desire [as I have divers years professed my dis∣satisfaction

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 them∣selves, without any dependance upon, or con∣sociation with other Churches. If Scripture∣examples 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 mem∣bers, 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 di∣vers of our smaller Villages to unite, and make up but One Church, though every Minister con∣tinue 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 Church∣power, 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, who

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 car∣ry the elements, that at last we must have a vast place.

Most Divines that I read agree, that by brea∣king 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 Love∣feasts which attended the Supper, I see no rea∣son, though I know many Divines doe not un∣derstand it as in 42.

That it is the phrase whereby the Lords Sup∣per is set forth in the New Testament, is yield∣ed, 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 element, yet other Papists deny it here.

It's true, we find this phrase once in the Old Testament, Isa. 58.7. to be understood of the

giving of Alms to the poor; but there is diffe∣rence between these phrases, Breaking bread to the hungry, and this Breaking bread: we doe not find the words to the hungry, or such like, added in the New Testament. If this be yield∣ed, then they did break bread Domatim, as Beza.

Corn. a Lap. thus interprets the Text of the Eucharist, and saith that doth not hinder that they did break Domatim, quia cre∣scoute numero fidelium, per varias domos eos distribuere, in iisque Eucharistiam celebrare oportebat. In this sense also Chemnitius takes the words, not troubling himself with that que∣stion, an ad veritatem Eucharistiae requiratur pe∣culiaris qualitas loci? He draws his answer from the example of Christ and the Apostles: Nec Apostoli peculiares habuerunt Basilicas; sed sicut perseverabant in doctrina Apostolorum, & orati∣one, quando in privatis domibus colligebantur, ita etiam per domos frangebant panem. Although Lormus be against this interpretation himself [his reason insufficient;] yet he acknowledges Antoninus to understand it of the Lords Supper, qui ait esse communem opinionem; so Gagneius, Baronius, Boderianus, &c. as Lorinus quotes. Thus I doubt not but it was in Rome, Ephesus, and Corinth, where were many Officers, and much people, Acts 18.10. They met in several places for Preaching and Sacraments; yet these were but one Church. That Text 1 Cor. 14.34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. seems to carry it fairly: There were divers of these As∣semblies in Corinth which he calls Churches;

and yet in another sense it is the Church of Co∣rinth. As for the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, how Cal∣vin and others interpret them is well known, with whom agree the Arab. Version, Acts 2.44. so that I say no more to them.

Now if these did thus meet as before, why may not we as well meet in our several Parish∣es, and yet be but one Church, and the Mini∣sters Elders in common to that One Church? so may we have divers Elders in One Church, as had these Churches. Our Parishes lie so, that those who dwell in the next Parishes are as well known to Ministers as many of their own; they dwell much neerer to places of As∣sembling for the worship of God, then doe ma∣ny in our own Parishes; and for number, we may joyn divers of our Parishes together before we shall have so many compleat members to all Ordinances as were in Jerusalem, Rome, or Co∣rinth. Such a Church as this I could willingly call (in one sense) an Independent Church. Dr. Owen (a congregational Divine) was once very near this opinion in his Country Essay for the practice of Church-government. He would have the extreams of the Division not be above 8, or 10 miles, so the center not more then 4, or 5 miles from any part of it, &c. though in some things we shall differ, yet not in what I aim at. For ought I can see this would come neerest to Scripture, and for the benefits of it.

1. If any Minister die, here are Ministers still left in the same Church to ordain another in his room [the people electing] and to try him before election.

2. The matters of Jurisdiction are carried on with the counsel and assistance of divers; where is hoped to be more safety, and the Or∣dinance of Excommunication more solemn.

3. If any Minister be scandalous, here is a way for his Excommunication. Things now may be carried on as they were in those Chur∣ches which we finde in the New Testament, where there were many Elders; and divers questions which have troubled the Churches, about the peoples ordaining of a Minister, Ex∣communication of their Minister, &c. avoided. And thus our brethrens trouble about Parish∣bounds is also avoided in great part. The great∣est difficulty I find is this, that we are divided about the qualification, of Church-members, which they in Jerusalem, Corinth, &c. were not. Certainly there were and are common rules for all Churches to goe by, or else they could not have agreed more then we. If the Lord had left it to the liberty of every Minister to require what qualifications he pleased, then confusion and division must necessarily have been always in the Church. Is it so hard then to find out these Rules? Were we to Preach to Heathen, and they understanding the doctrines of salva∣tion, did professe their assents unto those Do∣ctrines, their consent to take Christ for their Saviour and Lord, their sorrow for and re∣nouncing of their former wicked ways, giving up themselves to Christ, his ways and ordinan∣ces, surely such as these we must admit and bap∣tize; if not, give us a Text where the Apostles refused such. If after Baptism they visibly an∣swered

their profession then made, they were continued members, and had fellowship in all Church-priviledges, I think so. Let us come thus far, and we shall agree for many; those a∣mong us who apparently bely the profession made at Baptism, let them either be brought to repentance, or secluded. [That is my opini∣on, and I think all would have it so, who would reform the Church.]

2. However the congregational brethren, who doe agree in qualifications, and dwell thus neer, may unite into one Church; and so may others.

3. Since our brethren who look on all their Parishes as Church-members, doe not yet re∣quire of us so to judge of them, and desire us onely to Associate with them in giving commu∣nion to such as are qualified according as they have set down [the qualifications certainly be∣ing strict enough for Church-members, if not too strict, if we goe to the rigour of them, so as congregational Churches will not answer in all points] why may we not unite with them so far? These things I propound willing to re∣ceive some light; but as to what the Classical brethren require, it is no more then N. E. Di∣vines doe allow and practice in their Councils. Certainly since we know our selves to be men subject to infirmities, corruptions, tentations, many, if not most now unacquainted with the exercise of Church-Discipline, a weighty Or∣dinance, the glory of it almost lost, one would think no Christian Minister should desire to stand alone, but be most willing to take in all

assistance he could, and not esteem it a needless troubling of himself [as say some of our bre∣thren] but rather a mercie that he may have help from his neighbouring Ministers.

If any man will go further with me, and say, if you will mould your Churches according to those in the Scripture, and have divers Elders to carry on the Affaires of the Church, why then may we not have one Elder among these, who may be a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, suppose a standing Mo∣derator? For in those Churches we find men∣tion made of an Angel in Ephesus and the o∣ther Churches, which seem to imply as much.

I answer. If you doe not make this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 primus Presbyter, standing Moderator [or what other name you will give him] a distinct Scri∣ptural Officer from other Presbyters, giving to him a power distinct from and superiour to the power of other Preaching Presbyters, whence he shall perform some Church-Acts which other preaching Presbyters shall not or cannot perform, so that it be no distinct or superiour power, but onely order which is contended for, I am well content to yield it, being ready to goe with others for peace and unities sake, till they come to constitute Officers which Christ never did, then I say Hold. But for a standing Moderator, one that Durante vitâ modo bene se gesserit, shall keep that place, let him, per me licet. For,

1. In the meetings of Councils there must be one who must rule and order the affairs at those times; a President, a Moderator must be, reason leads us to it to avoid confusion: and this is seen in the synodical meetings of Congregati∣onal Elders.

2. He who is chosen President or Moderator this Session may be the next, and the next; we may choose him for one year, or two years, what Scripture text forbids it? why may we not twenty?

3. I am so far from thinking it is contrary to Scripture, that I think it comes neerest to Scripture. [I may declare my opinion with submission to better judgements] for as for the word Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the seven Churches, though I cannot agree to that which that ever honoured and learned Dave∣nant doth gather from it, namely, the superi∣ority of the Bishop above other Presbyters, because here was one in the Church of Ephesus, &c. which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For what Isidore saith of created Angels, Angelus est nomen officii non naturae, semper sunt spiritus sed cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli, I may apply to this, if all true preaching Ministers are sent, as they are, Rom. 10. then they also are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I think our Divines have spoken suffici∣ently to take off this; yet [with favour] I conceive that Christ mentioning an Angel in the singular number, and reason telling us what must be in all orderly Meetings & Coun∣cils to avoid confusion, there being divers Elders in one Church, who had the care, in∣spection, and government of it; I conceive those Elders had one who for order sake was a President, Moderator, [though he had not power above them, as may be proved by other Scriptures] that ordered the transactions when they met; nor can I conceive it was so,

for one Session or two, but for his life for ought I can learn, he that can, let him prove the contrary? in that he is taken notice of so in a special manner, it should seem he was one that was so more then one or two Sessions.

4. I verily conceive that error [be not offen∣ded, I pray, if I call it so, for I humbly con∣ceive it to be so] which so soon crept in, of one assuming power above other Presbyters, took its first rise upon occasion of this Order. God's providence so ordering it to leave his own Servants to their wisedom and wills, who freely acting made way at last for his Decrees: for if the President or Moderator had shifted and changed every Session, I cannot tell which way it was possible a Pope should have risen.

Obj. Therefore away with your standing Moderator, you have spoken enough against it.

Ans. Stay, not too fast; must I throw away every thing that may be or is abused? occasio and causa differ much. Diotrephes, and so other Ministers may abuse their power; shall then a Minister have no power over his people? Tollatur abusus, maneat usus.

Obj. But for Ministers power we have Scri∣pture for it plainly, so we have not for a con∣stant standing Moderator.

Ans. By Scripture Authority we make Officers, who have power from Christ immediately. I am not discoursing of the making of a Church-Officer, and what power such an Officer should have, I disclaim this; power and order are two things.

2. That Text which before I produced, I know not what fairer Interpretation can be given of it. I can exclude superiority of power by other Scriptures, but why an Interpre∣tation of Scripture which crosses no other Scripture, nor sound reason, and hath such fair probability from the practise of the most ancient, should not be admitted [especially when a fairer Interpretation cannot be given [for my part I know none] I know no reason.

The most that can be objected against me is matter of Prudence. But I conceive 1. that which comes neerest to make peace in the Church, and doth not cross the Scripture, that is prudence. 2. That which comes neerest to Scripture Interpretation, having the practice of so many ancient holy Men and Martyrs [though I know they went higher] to give light to it, this I call prudence. 3. Time will discover which will have most prudence in it, whether a Moderator or President changed every Session, or a standing Moderator. I think now we are out of danger of making a Pope, if his time of ruine be so neer as some think.

Thus I have delivered my thoughts, humbly conceiving that a Church so moulded as there may be divers elders in it, and amongst these one chosen for a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 president, [or what you will call him] for order sake, to abide so con∣stantly, come neerest to the plat-form of the Churches in the Scripture; and in this there is something of the Congregational, something of the Classical, and something like the Epis∣copal way; such a Church for the exercise of its

power, being independent, as was the Church in Ephesus. But to have one Pastor, and it may be twelve men to stand alone, and to exercise all Church-power when they may associate, I desire to see such a Church in Scripture.

Notes

• Schism de∣fined.
• Other Greek Versions I have not to see.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Sacram. p. 152.
• Respon. ad Apol. 168.
• Yet Ca∣lovius in his an∣swer to Jo. Cro∣cius, tells us we differ from them in ten Arti∣cles, and above thirty Contro∣versies. p. 33.
• To this I have spo∣ken be∣fore.
• Assoc. Cumb. p. 3.
• Medul. C. 39. S. 27.
• Exam. Conc. Trid. p. 95.
• P. 59.
• Determ. 42.