Of schism:
the true nature of it discovered and considered
with reference to the present differences in religion.
By John Owen, D.D.,
Oxford.
Anno Dom. M.DC.LVII.
Unlike most of
As the nature of the sin itself was left undefined, and the term, as borrowed from Scripture, was employed with much laxity of application, the religions party to which Owen belonged stood especially obnoxious to the reproach of following a divisive and schismatic course. If not a new denomination, they had only of late risen to such strength as to exert an influence on the national movements; and their first appearance in public affairs had traversed the designs of the Presbyterians, by first thwarting and latterly superseding them in the enjoyment of political supremacy. The latter were thus tempted to resort to the accusation of schism against the Independents, while the acrimony with which the accusation was made could not fail to be enhanced by the circumstance that Independency, as new to its opponents, would be in some measure misunderstood. Its theory of particular churches, united under no bond of common jurisdiction, seemed to involve the essence of schism and a palpable breach of Christian unity; and its practice of “gathering churches out of churches” wore an aspect too aggressive to meet with silent connivance on the part of other Christian bodies. Our author, in defence of his party, refrains from all recrimination, and, instead of bandying with their opponents the charge of schismatic views and tendencies, in one of those bread, masterly, and comprehensive statements which shed such light upon a complex question as effectually redeems it from a world of error and confusion, examines the scriptural import of the term “schism,”and proves that it denotes, not a rupture in ecclesiastical communion, but causes less divisions within the pale of a church. This argument was obviously not the less effective that it was of equal avail to the Anglican church against the Romanist, and to the Presbyterian against the former, while it was of peculiar service to the Independent against them all. The questions on which they differed came to be adjusted on their proper merits, and not under the perverting influence of the magic and mystery of an ambiguous word.
Thus far the discussion has been brought in the course of the first three chapters. The task, however, was but half done, if, whatever might be the scriptural usage of the term “schism,” a breach of Christian unity were still a sin, and Independents, from their views of the nature of a church, were involved in it. That they were not justly open to this charge, he proves in reference to the different meanings of the word “church.” If it be taken to denote the body of the elect. Independents, though separate from other religious bodies, and contending for a certain isolation among their churches, so far as jurisdiction was concerned, might still be saints of God, and in the church of the elect, chap. iv. If by the “church” is meant the universal body of Christian professors, the bond that connects them is not subjection to the authority of rulers or to the decrees of councils, but the maintenance of the common faith, so that deviation from it, not merely a separate fellowship, must constitute the evidence and measure of the guilt of schism, chap. v.; and our author links in connection with this argument a reply to the Romish charge of schism, which is met on the principle just stated, chap. vi. Finally, he makes reference to particular churches, and after showing in what their unity consists, — submission to the authority of Christ, and the exercise of Christian love among the brethren, — he claims it for his own denomination, and falls back on his original argument, as to the meaning of schism in Scripture, affirming it to be inapplicable “to the secession of any man or men from any particular church,” or to the refusal of one church to hold communion with another, or, lastly, to the departure of any man quietly, and under the dictates of conscience, from the communion of any church whatever, chap. vii. In the last chapter he meets the charge of schism as urged by the church of England against all Christians who cannot acquiesce in an episcopal polity.
Much of all this discussion may now be superseded and out of date by the prevalence of sounder views and a spirit more benign and charitable among evangelical churches, since the time when a vague charge of schism helped a limping argument and heightened the zeal of partisanship; this treatise of Owen, however, is a model, for the Christian temper with which the reasoning is prosecuted, and a master-piece of controversial tact, even though we may demur to some of his most important conclusions. It should be added, that he guards himself against any disparagement of the obligation to unity, and deplores in strong terms the divisions that rend the church of Christ. — Ed.
Of Schism.
It is the manner of men of all persuasions who undertake to treat of schism, to make their entrance with invectives against the evils thereof, with aggravations of its heinousness. All men, whether intending the charge of others or their own acquitment, esteem themselves concerned so to do. Sentences out of the fathers, and determinations of schoolmen, making it the greatest sin imaginable, are usually produced to this purpose. A course this is which men’s apprehensions have rendered useful, and the state of things in former days easy. Indeed, whole volumes of the ancients, written when they were actors in this cause, charging others with the guilt of it, and, consequently, with the vehemency of men contending for that wherein their own interest lay, might (if it were to our purpose) be transcribed to this end. But as they had the happiness to deal with men evidently guilty of many miscarriages, and, for the most part, absurd and foolish, so many of them having fallen upon such a notion of the catholic church and schism as hath given occasion to many woeful mistakes and much darkness in the following ages, I cannot so easily give up the nature of this evil to their determination and judgment. About the aggravations of its sinfulness I shall not contend.
The evidence which remains of an indulgence in the best of
them τῇ ἀμετρίᾳ τῆς ἀνθολκῆς, in this
business especially, deters from that procedure. From what other principle
were these words of
Besides, the age wherein we live having, by virtue of that precept of our Saviour, “Call no man master,” in a good measure freed itself from the bondage of subjection to the dictates of men (and the innumerable evils, with endless entanglements, thence ensuing), because they lived so many hundreds of years before us, that course of procedure, though retaining its facility, hath lost its usefulness, and is confessedly impertinent. What the Scripture expressly saith of this sin, and what from that it saith may regularly and rationally be deduced (whereunto we stand and fall), shall be afterward declared; and what is spoken sensibly thereunto by any, of old or of late, shall be cheerfully also received. But it may not be expected that I should build upon their authority whose principles I shall be necessitated to examine; and I am therefore contented to lie low as to any expectation of success in my present undertaking, because I have the prejudice of many ages, the interest of most Christians, and the mutual consent of parties at variance (which commonly is taken for an unquestionable evidence of truth), to contend withal. But my endeavours being to go “non quà itur, sed quà eundum est,” I am not solicitous about the event.
In the meantime, it cannot be denied but that their
vigorous adhering to the advantage which they have made to themselves (a
thing to be expected from men wise in their generation), hath exposed some
of them whom they have wrongfully accused to a contrary
And I would beg of men fearing God that they would not think that the iniquity of their accusers doth in the least extenuate the crime whereof they are accused. Schism is schism still, though they may be unjustly charged with it; and he that will defend and satisfy himself by prejudices against them with whom he hath to do, though he may be no schismatic, yet, if he were so, it is certain he would justify himself in his state and condition. Seeing men, on false grounds and self-interest, may yet sometimes manage a good cause, which perhaps they have embraced upon better principles, a conscientious tenderness and fear of being mistaken will drive this business to another issue. “Blessed is he who feareth alway.”
It is well known how things stand with us in this world. As we are Protestants, we are accused by the Papists to be schismatics; and all other pleas and disputes are neglected. This is that which at present (as is evident from their many late treatises on this subject, full of their wonted confidence, contempt, reviling, and scurrility) is chiefly insisted on by them.
Farther; among Protestants, as being Reformatists, or as they call us, Calvinists, we are condemned for schismatics by the Lutherans, and for sacramentarian sectaries, for no other crime in the world but because we submit not to all they teach, for in no instituted church relation would they ever admit us to stand with them; which is as considerable an instance of the power of prejudice as this age can give. We are condemned for separation by them who refuse to admit us into union! But what hath not an irrational attempt of enthroning opinions put men upon?
The differences nearer home about episcopal government,
with the matter of fact in the rejecting of it, and somewhat of the
external way of the worship of God formerly used amongst us, hath given
occasion to a new charge of the guilt of the same crime on some; as it is
not to be supposed that wise and able men, suffering to a great
This being the state of things, the concernment of some of us lying in all the particulars mentioned, of all Protestants in some, it may be worth while to consider whether there be not general principles, of irrefragable evidence, whereon both all and some may be acquitted from their several concernments in this charge, and the whole guilt of this crime put into the ephah, and carried to build it a house in the land of Shinar, to establish it upon its own base.
I confess I would rather, much rather, spend all my time and days in making up and healing the breaches and schisms that are amongst Christians than one hour in justifying our divisions, even therein wherein, on the one side, they are capable of a fair defence. But who is sufficient for such an attempt? The closing of differences amongst Christians is like opening the book in the Revelation, — there is none able or worthy to do it, in heaven or in earth, but the Lamb: when he will put forth the greatness of his power for it, it shall be accomplished, and not before. In the meantime, a reconciliation amongst all Protestants is our duty, and practicable, and had perhaps ere this been in some forwardness of accomplishment had men rightly understood wherein such a reconciliation, according to the mind of God, doth consist. When men have laboured as much in the improvement of the principle of forbearance as they have done to subdue other men to their opinions, religion will have another appearance in the world.
I have considered and endeavoured to search into the bottom
of the two general ways fixed on respectively by sundry persons for the
This I shall only add as to the former of these, — of enforcing uniformity: As it hath lost its reputation of giving temporal tranquillity to states, kingdoms, and commonwealths (which with some is only valuable, whatever became of the souls of men, forced to the profession of that which they did not believe), [and is] the readiest means in the world to root out all religion from the hearts of men, — the letters of which plea are, in most nations in Europe, washed out with rivers of blood (and the residue wait their season for the same issue); so it continues in the possession of this advantage against the other, that it sees and openly complains of the evil and dangerous consequences of it, when against its own, where it prevails, it suffers no complaints to lie. As it is ludicrously said of physicians, the effects of their skill lie in the sun, but their mistakes are covered in the churchyard; so is it with this persuasion: what it doth well, whilst it prevails, is evident; the anxiety of conscience in some, hypocrisy, formality, no better than atheism, in others, wherewith it is attended, are buried out of sight.
But as I have some while since ceased to be moved by the
clamours of men concerning “bloody persecution” on the one hand,
and “cursed, intolerable toleration” on the other, by finding, all
the world over, that events and executions follow not the conscientious
embracing of the one or other of these decried principles and persuasions,
but are suited to the providence of God, stating the civil interests of the
nations: so I am persuaded that a general alteration of the state of the
churches of Christ in this world must determine that controversy; which
when the light of it appears, we shall easily see the vanity of those
reasonings wherewith men are entangled, and [which]
Farther; let any man consider the proposals and attempts that have been made for ecclesiastical peace in the world, both of old and in these latter days; let him consult the rescripts of princes, the edicts of nations, advices of politicians, that would have the world in quietness on any terms, consultations, conferences, debates, assemblies; councils of the clergy, who are commonly zealots in their several ways, and are by many thought to be willing rather to hurl the whole world into confusion than to abate any thing of the rigour of their opinions, — and he will quickly assume the liberty of affirming concerning them all, that as wise men might easily see flaws in all of them, and an unsuitableness to the end proposed; and as good men might see so much of carnal interest, self, and hypocrisy in them, as might discourage them from any great expectations; so, upon many other accounts, a better issue was not to be looked for from them than hath been actually obtained: which hath, for the most part, been this, that those that could dissemble most deeply have been thought to have the greatest advantage. In disputations, indeed, the truth, for the most part, hath been a gainer; but in attempts for reconciliation, those who have come with the least candour, most fraud, hypocrisy, secular baits for the subverting of others, have, in appearance, for a season seemed to obtain success. And in this spirit of craft and contention are things yet carried on in the world.
Yea, I suppose the parties at variance are so well
acquainted at length with each other’s principles, arguments, interests,
prejudices, and real distance of their causes, that none of them expect any
reconciliation, but merely by one party keeping its station and the other
coming over wholly thereunto. And therefore a Romanist, in his preface to
a late pamphlet about schism, to the two universities, tells us plainly,
“That if we will have any peace, we must, without limitation, submit to and
receive those κυρίας δόξας, those
commanding oracles which God by his holy spouse propoundeth to our
obedience:” the sense of which expressions we are full well acquainted
with. And in pursuit of that principle, he tells us again, p. 238, “That
suppose the church should in necessary points teach error, yet even in that
case every child of the church must exteriorly carry himself quiet, and not
make commotions” (that is, declare against her); “for that were to seek a
cure worse than the disease.” Now, if it seem reasonable to these
gentlemen that we should renounce our sense and reason, with all that
understanding which we have, or at least are fully convinced that we have,
of the mind of God in the Scripture, and submit blindly to the commands and
guidance of their church, that we may have peace and union with them,
because of their huge
As to attempts, then, for reconciliation between parties at variance about the things of God, and the removal of schism by that means, they are come to this issue among them by whom they have been usually managed, — namely, politicians and divines, — that the former, perceiving the tenaciousness in all things of the latter, their promptness and readiness to dispute, and to continue in so doing with confidence of success (a frame of spirit that indeed will never praise God, nor be useful to bring forth truth in the world), do judge them at length not to have that prudence which is requisite to advise in matters diffused into such variety of concernments as these are, or not able to break through their unspeakable prejudices and interests to the due improvement of that wisdom they seem to have; and the latter, observing the facile condescension of the former in all things that may have a consistency with that peace and secular advantage they aim at, do conclude that, notwithstanding all their pretences, they have indeed in such consultations little, or no regard to the truth. Whereupon, having a mutual diffidence in each other, they grow weary of all endeavours to be carried on jointly in this kind; — the one betaking themselves wholly to keep things in as good state in the world as they can, let what will become of religion; the other, to labour for success against their adversaries, let what will become of the world or the peace thereof. And this is like to be the state of things until another spirit be poured out on the professors of Christianity than that wherewith at present they seem mostly to be acted.
The only course, then, remaining to be fixed on, whilst our divisions continue, is to inquire wherein the guilt of them doth consist, and who is justly charged therewith; in especial, what is and who is guilty of the sin of schism. And this shall we do, if God permit.
It may, I confess, seem superfluous to add any thing more on this subject, which hath been so fully already handled by others. But, as I said, the present concernment of some fearing God lying beyond what they have undertaken, and their endeavours, for the most part, having tended rather to convince their adversaries of the insufficiency of their charge and accusation than rightly and dearly to state the thing or matter contended about, something may be farther added as to the satisfaction of the consciences of men unjustly accused of this crime; which is my aim, and which I shall now fall upon.
The thing whereof we treat being a disorder in the instituted worship of God, and that which is of pure revelation, I suppose it a modest request, to desire that we may abide solely by that discovery and description which is made of it in Scripture, — that that alone shall be esteemed schism which is there so called, or which hath the entire nature of that which is there so called. Other things may be other crimes; schism they are not, if in the Scripture they have neither the name nor nature of it attributed to them.
He that shall consider the irreconcilable differences that
are among Christians all the world over about this matter, as also what
hath passed concerning it in former ages, and shall weigh what prejudices
the several parties at variance are entangled with in reference hereunto,
will be ready to think that this naked appeal to the only common principle
amongst us all is so just, necessary, and reasonable, that it will be
readily on all hands condescended unto. But as this is openly opposed by
the Papists, as a most destructive way of procedure, so I fear that when
the tendency of it is discovered, it will meet with reluctancy from others.
But let the reader know that as I have determined προτιμᾷν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, so to take the measure of it
from the Scripture only. “Consuetudo sine
veritate est vetustas erroris,” Cyp. Ep. ad Pomp.; and the sole measure of
evangelical truth is His word of whom it was said, Ὁ λόγος ὁ σὸς ἀλήθειά ἐστι. “Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio
quod ab apostolis,” says We have not been able to discover the passage quoted in
the homily referred to. We have ventured on some slight corrections from
conjecture. — Ed.
But yet, lest this should seem too strait, as being, at first view, exclusive of the learned debates and disputes which we have had about this matter, I shall, after the consideration of the precise Scripture notion of the name and thing, wherein the conscience of a believer is alone concerned, — propose and argue also what by a parity of reason may thence be deduced as to the ecclesiastical common use of them, and our concernment in the one and the other.
The word, which is metaphorical, as to the business we have
in hand, is used in the Scripture both in its primitive native sense, in
reference to things natural, as also in the tralatitious use of it, about
things politic and spiritual, or moral. In its first sense we have the
noun, Οἱ τὴν Ῥώμην οἰκοῦντες
διεμερίσθησαν εἰς τὰ μέρη, καὶ οὐκέτι ὡμονόησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· καὶ ἐγένετο
μέγα σχίσμα. — Chronic.
Antioch Joh. Male. p. 98, A. MS. Bib. Bod.
In the sense contended about it is used only by Paul in his
First Epistle to the Corinthians, and therein frequently:
Here, then, being the principal foundation, if it hath any,
of that great fabric about schism which in latter ages hath been set up, it
must be duly considered, that, if it be possible, we may discover by what
secret engines or artifices the discourses about it, which fill the world,
have been hence deduced, — being, for the most part, universally unlike the
thing here mentioned, — or find out that they are built on certain
prejudices and presumptions nothing relating thereto. The church of
Corinth was founded by Paul,
This being, as I said, the principal seat of all that is
taught in the Scripture about schism, we are here, or hardly at all, to
learn what it is and wherein it doth consist. The arbitrary definitions of
men, with their superstructions and inferences upon them, we are not
concerned in: at least, I hope I shall have leave from hence to state the
true nature of the thing, before it be judged necessary to take into
consideration what, by parity of reason, may be deduced from it. In things
purely moral and of natural equity, the most general notion of them is to
be the rule, whereby all particulars claiming an interest in their nature
are to be measured and regulated. In things of institution, the particular
instituted is first and principally to be regarded; how far the general
reason of it may be extended is of after-consideration. And as is the case
in respect of duty, so it is in respect of the evils that are contrary
thereto.
1. That the thing mentioned is entirely in one church, amongst the members of one particular society. No mention is there in the least of one church divided against another, or separated from another or others, — whether all true or some true, some false or but pretended. Whatever the crime be, it lies wholly within the verge of one church, that met together for the worship of God and administration of the ordinances of the gospel; and unless men will condescend so to state it upon the evidence tendered, I shall not hope to prevail much in the process of this discourse.
2. Here is no mention of any particular man’s, or
any number of men’s, separation from the holy assemblies of the
whole church, or of subduction of themselves from its power: nor doth the
apostle lay any such thing to their charge, but plainly declares that they
continued all in the joint celebration of that worship and performance
together of those duties which were required of them in their assemblies;
only, they had groundless, causeless differences amongst themselves, as I
shall show afterward. All the divisions of one church from another, or
others, the separation of any one or more persons from any church or
churches, are things of another nature, made good or evil by their
circumstances, and not that at all which the Scripture knows and calls by
the name of schism; and therefore there was no such thing or name as
schism, in such a sense, known in the Judaical church, though in the former
it abounded. All the different sects to the last still communicated in the
same carnal ordinances; and those who utterly deserted them were apostates,
not schismatics. So were the body of the Samaritans; they worshipped they
knew not what, nor was salvation among them,
3. Here is no mention of any subtraction of obedience from bishops or rulers, in what degree soever, no exhortation to regular submission unto them, — much leas from the pope or church of Rome. Nor doth the apostle thunder out against them, “You are departed from the unity of the catholic church, have rent Christ’s seamless coat, set up ‘altare contra altare,’ have forsaken the visible head of the church, the fountain of all unity; you refuse due subjection to the prince of the apostles;” nor, “You are schismatics from the national church of Achaia, or have cast off the rule of your governors;’’ with the like language of after days; — but, “When ye come together, ye have divisions amongst you.” “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”
A condition not unlike to this befalling this very church
of Corinth, sundry years after the strifes now mentioned were allayed by
the
It is alleged, indeed, that it is not the single church of Corinth that is here intended, but all the churches of Achaia, whereof that was the metropolis; which though, as to the nature of schism, it be not at all prejudiced to what hath been asserted, supposing such a church to be, yet, because it sets up in opposition to some principles of truth that must afterward be improved, I shall briefly review the arguments whereby it is attempted to be made good.
The title of the epistle, in the first place, is pretended
to this purpose. It is: Ἡ ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ἡ
παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον· “wherein”
(as it is said) “on each part the παροικία, or whole province, as of Rome, so of
Corinth, the region and territory that belonged to those metropolises is
intended.” But, as I have formerly elsewhere said, we are beholden to the
frame and fabric of church affairs in after ages for such interpretations
as these. The simplicity of the first knew them not. They who talked of
the
But it is said that this epistle of Clement was written to
them whom Paul’s epistles were written; which appears, as from the common
title, so also from hence, that
Ans. It is confessed that the epistles of Paul and
It is, indeed, said that at this time there were many
other episcopal sees in Achaia; which, until it is attempted to be put
upon some kind of proof, may be passed by. It is granted that Paul speaks
of that which was done at Corinth to be done in Achaia,
This, then, is added by the same author, “That the
ecclesiastical estate was then conformed to the civil. Wherever there was
a metropolis in a civil-political sense, there was seated also a
metropolitical church. Now, that Corinth was a metropolis, the proconsul
of Achaia keeping his residence there, in the first sense is confessed.”
And besides what follows from thence, by virtue of the principle now
The plea about metropolitical churches, I suppose, will be
thought very impertinent to what I have now in hand, so it shall not at
present be insisted on. That the state of churches in after ages was
moulded and framed after the pattern of the civil government of the Roman
empire is granted; and that conformity (without offence to any be it
spoken) we take to be a fruit of the working of “the mystery of iniquity.”
But that there was any such order instituted in the churches of Christ by
the apostles, or any intrusted with authority from their Lord and Ruler, is
utterly denied; nor is any thing but very uncertain conjectures from the
sayings of men of after ages produced to attest any such order or
constitution. When the order, spirituality, beauty, and glory of the
church of Christ shall return, and men obtain a light whereby they are able
to discern a beauty and excellency in the inward, more noble, spiritual
part, indeed life and soul, of the worship of God, these disputes will have
an issue.
If any one now shall say, “Will you conclude, because this evil mentioned by the apostle is schism, therefore nothing else is so?”
I answer, that having before asserted this to be the chief and only seat of the doctrine of schism, I am inclinable so to do. And this I am resolved of, that unless any man can prove that something else is termed schism by some divine writer, or blamed on that head of account by the Holy Ghost elsewhere, and is not expressly reproved as another crime, I will be at liberty from admitting it so to be.
But yet for what may hence by a parity of reason be deduced, I shall close with and debate at large, as I have professed.
The schism, then, here described by the apostle, and blamed
by him, consists in causeless differences and contentions amongst the
members of a particular church, contrary to that [exercise] of love,
prudence, and forbearance, which are required of them to be exercised
amongst themselves, and towards one another; which is also termed
στάσις,
That any men may fall under this guilt, it is required, —
1. That they be members of or belong to some
one church, which is so by the institution and appointment of
Jesus Christ. And we
2. That they either raise or entertain, and
persist in, causeless differences with others of that church, more or less,
to the interruption of that exercise of love, in all the fruits of it,
which ought to be amongst them, and the disturbance of the due performance
of the duties required of the church in the worship of God; as
3. That these differences be occasioned by and do
belong to some things, in a remoter or nearer distance, appertaining to
the worship of God, Their differences on a civil account are elsewhere
mentioned and reproved,
This is that crime which the apostle rebukes, blames, condemns, under the name of schism, and tells them that were guilty of it that they showed themselves to be carnal, or to have indulged to the flesh, and the corrupt principle of self, and their own wills, which should have been subdued to the obedience of the gospel. Men’s definitions of things are for the most part arbitrary and loose, fitted and suited to their several apprehensions of principles and conclusions, so that thing clear or fixed is generally to be expected from them; from the Romanists’ description of schism, who violently, without the least colour or pretence, thrust in the pope and his headship into all that they affirm in church matters, least of all. I can allow men that they may extend their definitions of things unto what they apprehend of an alike nature to that which gives rise to the whole disquisition, and is the first thing defined; but at this I must profess myself to be somewhat entangled, that I could never yet meet with a definition of schism that did comprise, that was not exclusive of, that which alone in the Scripture is affirmed so to be.
As for them who suppose all church power to be invested in some certain church officers originally (I mean that which they call of jurisdiction), who on that account are “eminenter” the church, the union of the whole consisting in a subjection to those officers, according to rules, orders, and canons of their appointment, whereby they are necessitated to state the business of schism on the rejection of their power and authority, I shall speak to them afterward at large. For the present, I must take leave to say, that I look upon the whole of such a fabric as a product of prudence and necessity.
I cannot but fear lest some men’s surmisings may prompt them to say that the evil of schism is thus stated in a compliance with that and them which before we blamed, and seems to serve to raise slight and contemptible thoughts of it, so that men need not be shaken though justly charged with it. But besides that sufficient testimony which I have to the contrary, that will abundantly shelter me from this accusation, by an assurance that I have not the least aim δουλεύειν ὑποθέσει, I shall farther add my apprehension of the greatness of the evil of this sin, if I may first be borne with a little in declaring what usual aggravations of it I do either not understand or else cannot assent unto.
Those who say it is a rending of the seamless coat of
Christ (in which metaphorical expression men have wonderfully pleased
themselves) seem to have mistaken their aim, and, instead of an aggravation
of its evil, by that figure of speech, to have extenuated it. A rent of
the body well compacted is not heightened to any one’s apprehension in its
being called the rending of a seamless coat. But men may be indulged the
use of the most improper and groundless
It is most usually said to be a sin against charity, as heresy is against faith. Heresy is a sin against faith, if I may so speak, both as it is taken for the doctrine of faith which is to be believed, and the assent of the mind whereby we do believe. He that is a heretic (I speak of him in the usual acceptation of the word, and the sense of them who make this comparison, in neither of which I am satisfied) rejects the doctrine of faith, and denies all assent unto it. Indeed, he doth the former by doing the latter. But is schism so a sin against charity? Doth it supplant and root love out of the heart? Is it an affection of the mind attended with an inconsistency therewith? I much question it.
The apostle tells us that “love is the bond of
perfectness,”
Those who have seemed to aim nearest the apprehension of the nature of it in these days have described it to be an open breach of love, or charity. That that expression is warily to be understood is evident in the light of this single consideration: It is possible for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the apostle judges for schismatics, under the power of some violent temptation, and yet have his heart full of love to the saints of the communion disturbed by him. It is thus far, then, in its own nature a breach of love, in that in such men love cannot exert itself in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of the perfect order instituted by Christ in his church. However, I shall freely say that the schoolmen’s notion of it, who insist on this as its nature, that it is a sin against charity, as heresy is against faith, is fond and becoming them; and so will others also that shall be pleased to consider what they intend by charity.
Some say it is a rebellion against the church, —
that is, the rulers
Add unto these those who dispute whether schismatics do belong to the church or no, and conclude in the negative, seeing, according to the discovery already made, it is impossible a man should be a schismatic unless he be a church member. Other crimes a man may be guilty of on other accounts; of schism, only in a church, What is the formal reason of any man’s relation to a church, in what sense soever that word is used, must be afterward at large discussed.
But now this foundation being laid, that schism is a causeless difference or division amongst the members of any particular church that meet together, or ought so to do, for the worship of God and celebration of the same numerical ordinances, to the disturbance of the order appointed by Jesus Christ, and contrary to that exercise of love in wisdom and mutual forbearance which is required of them, it will be easy to see wherein the iniquity of it doth consist, and upon what considerations its aggravations do arise.
It is evidently a despising of the authority of Jesus
Christ, the great sovereign Lord and Head of the church. How often
hath he commanded us to forbear one another, to forgive one another, to
have peace among ourselves, that we may be known to be his disciples, to
bear with them that are in any thing contrary-minded to ourselves! To give
light to this consideration, let that which at any time is the cause of
such hateful divisions, rendered as considerable as the prejudices and most
importune affections of men can represent it to be, be brought to the rule
of love and forbearance in the latitude of it, as prescribed to us by
Christ, and it will evidently bear no proportion thereunto; so that such
differences, though arising on real miscarriages and faults of some,
because they might otherwise be handled and healed, and ought to be so,
cannot be persisted in without the contempt of the immediate authority of
Jesus Christ, If it were considered that he “standeth in the congregation
of the mighty,”
Again; His wisdom, whereby he hath ordered all
things in his church on set purpose that schism and divisions may be
prevented, is no less despised. Christ, who is the wisdom of the
Father,
The grace and goodness of Christ, whence he hath
promised to give us one heart and one way, to leave us peace such as the
world cannot give, with innumerable other promises of the like importance,
are disregarded thereby. So also is his prayer for us. With what
affection and zeal did he pour out his soul to his Father for our union in
love! That seems to be the thing his heart was chiefly fixed on when he
was leaving this world,
How far the exercise of love and charity is obstructed by it hath been declared. The consideration of the nature, excellency, property, effects, usefulness of this grace in all the saints in all their ways, its especial designation by our Lord and Master to be the bond of union and perfection, in the way and order instituted for the comely celebration of the ordinances of the gospel, will add weight to this aggravation.
Its constant growing to farther evil, in some to apostasy
itself, — its usual and certain ending in strife, variance, debate, evil
surmisings, wrath, confusion, disturbances public and private, — are also
to be laid all at its door. What farther of this nature and kind may be
added (as much may be added) to evince the heinousness of this sin of
schism, I shall willingly subscribe unto; so that I shall
It is incumbent upon him who would have me to go farther in the description of this evil than as formerly stated, to evince from Scripture another notion of the name or thing than that given; which when he hath done, he shall not find me refractory. In the meantime, I shall both consider what may be objected against that which hath been delivered, and also discuss the present state of our divisions on the usual principles and common acceptation of schism, if, first, I may have leave to make some few inferences or deductions from what hath already been spoken, and, as I hope, evinced.
On supposition that the church of Rome is a church of
Christ, it will appear to be the most schismatical church in the world. I
say on supposition that it is a church, and that there is such a thing as a
schismatical church (as perhaps a church may from its intestine differences
be not unfitly so denominated), that is the state and condition thereof.
The pope is the head of their church; several nations of Europe are members
of it. Have we not seen that head taking his flesh in his teeth, tearing
his body and his limbs to pieces? Have some of them thought on any thing
else but, “Arise, Peter, kill and eat,” all their days? Have we not seen
this goodly head, in disputes about Peter’s patrimony and his own
jurisdiction, wage war, fight, and shed blood, — the blood of his own
members? Must we believe armies raised, and battles fought, towns fired,
all in pure love and perfect church order? not to mention their old “altare contra altare,” anti-popes,
anti-councils. Look all over their church, on their potentates, bishops,
friars, — there is no end of their variances. What do the chiefest,
choicest pillars, eldest sons, and I know not what, of their church at this
day? Do they not kill, destroy, and ruin each other, as they are able?
Let them not say these are the divisions of the nations that are in their
church, not of the church; for all these nations, on their hypothesis, are
members of that one church. And that church which hath no means to prevent
its members from designed, resolved on, and continued murdering one of
another, nor can remove them from its society, shall never have me in its
communion, as being bloodily schismatical. Nor is there any necessity that
men should forego their respective civil interests by being members of one
church. Prejudicate apprehensions of the nature of a church and its
authority lie at the bottom of that difficulty. Christ hath ordained no
church that inwraps such interests as on the account whereof the members of
it may murder one another. Whatever, then, they pretend of unity, and
however they make it a note of the true church (as it is a property of it),
that which is like it amongst them is made up of these two
But what need I insist upon this supposition, when I am not more certain that there is any instituted church in the world, owned by Christ as such, than I am that the church of Rome is none, properly so called? Nor shall I be thought singular in this persuasion, if it be duly considered what this amounts unto. Some learned men of latter days in this nation, pleading in the justification of the church of England as to her departure from Rome, did grant that the church of Rome doth not err in fundamentals, or maintained no errors remedilessly pernicious and destructive of salvation. How far they entangled themselves by this concession I argue not. The foundation of it lies in this clear truth, that no church whatever, universal or particular, can possibly err in fundamentals; for by so doing it would cease to be a church. My denying, then, the synagogue of Rome to be a church, according to their principles, amounts to no more than this, — the Papists maintain, in their public confessions, fundamental errors; in which assertion it is known I am not alone.
But this is not the principle, at least not the sole or
main principle, whereon I ground my judgment in this case; but this, that
there was never any such thing, in any tolerable likeness or similitude, as
that which is called the church of Rome, allowing the most
The exactness of this correspondency in all things, both in respect of those who claim to be the stated body of his ecclesiastical commonwealth, and those who are merely dependent on his will, bound unto him professedly by a military sacrament, exempted from the ordinary rules and government of his fixed rulers in their several subordinations, under officers of their own, immediately commissionated by him, with his management of both these parties to balance and keep them mutually in quiet and in order for his service (especially confiding in his men of war, like the emperors of old), may elsewhere be farther manifested.
I suppose it will not be needful to add any thing to evince
the vanity of the pretensions of the Romanists or others against all or any
of us on the account of schism, upon a grant of the principles laid down,
it lies so clear in them without need of farther deduction; and I speak
with some confidence that I am not in expectation of any hasty confutation
of them, — I mean, that which is so indeed. [As for] the earnestness of
their clamours, importuning us to take notice
Upon the same principle, a plea for freedom from the charge
of any church, real or pretended, as national, may be founded and
confirmed. Either we are of the national church of England (to give that
instance) or we are not; — if we are not, and are exempted by our
protestation as before, whatever we are, we are not schismatics;
But this pretence shall afterward be sifted to the utmost. In the meantime, let any one inform me what duty I ought to perform towards a national church, on supposition there is any such thing by virtue of an institution of Jesus Christ, that is possible for me to perform, and I shall, σὺν Θεῷ, address myself unto it.
To close these considerations with things of more immediate
concernment: Of the divisions that have fallen out amongst us in things of
religion since the last revolutions of this nation, there is no one thing
hath been so effectual a promotion (such is the power of tradition and
prejudice, which even bear all before them in human affairs) as the mutual
charging one another with the guilt of schism. That the notion of schism
whereon this charge is built by the most, if not all, was invented by some
of the ancients, to promote their plea and advantage with them with whom
they had to do, without due regard to the simplicity of the gospel, at
least in a suitableness to the present state of the church in those days,
is too evident; for on very small foundations have mighty fabrics and μορμωλυκεῖα in religion been raised. As an
ability to judge of the present posture and condition of affairs, with
counsel to give direction for their order and management towards any end
proposed, — not an ability to contrive for events, and to knit on one thing
upon another, according to a probability of success, for continuance, which
is almost constantly disturbed by unexpected providential interveniences,
leaving the contrivers at a perplexing loss, — will be found to be the sum
of human wisdom; so it will be our wisdom, in the things of God, not to
judge according to what by any means is made present to us, and its
principles on that account rendered ready to exert themselves, but ever to
recoil to the original and first institution. When a man first falls into
some current, he finds it strong and almost impassable; trace it to its
fountain, and it is but a dribbling gutter. Paul tells the members
I wish that those who are indeed really concerned in this
business, — namely, the members of particular churches who have voluntarily
given up themselves to walk in them according to the appointment of Christ,
— would seriously consider what evil lies at the door if they give place to
causeless differences and divisions amongst themselves. Had this sin of
schism been rightly stated, as it ought, and the guilt of it charged in its
proper place, perhaps some would have been more careful in their
deportment, in their relations. At present the dispute in the world
relating hereunto is about subjection to the pope and the church
of Rome, as it is called; and this managed on the principles of edicts and
of councils, with the practices of princes and nations, in the days long
ago past, with the like considerations, wherein the concernment of
Christians is doubtless very small; or of obedience and conformity to
metropolitan and diocesan bishops in their constitutions and ways of
worship, jointly or severally prescribed by them. In more ancient times,
that which was agitated under the same name was about persons or churches
renouncing the communion and society of saints with all other churches in
the world, yet consenting with them in the same confession of faith, for
the substance of it. And these differences respectively are handled in
reference to what the state of things was and is grown unto in the days
wherein they are managed. When Paul wrote his epistle, there was no
occasion given to any such controversies, nor foundation laid making them
possible. That the disciples of Christ ought everywhere to abound in love
and forbearance towards one another, especially to carry all things in
union and peace in those societies wherein they were joined for the worship
of God, were his endeavours and exhortations: of these things he is utterly
silent. Let them who aim to recover themselves into the like state and
condition consider his commands, exhortations, and reproofs. Things are
now generally
“That which lies obvious to every man against what hath been delivered, and which is comprehensive of what particular objections it seems liable and obnoxious to, is, that according to this description of schism, separation of any man or men from a true church, or of one church from others, is not schism, seeing that is an evil only amongst the members of one church, whilst they continue so to be; which is so contrary to the judgment of the generality of Christians in this business that it ought to be rejected as fond and absurd.”
Of what hath been the judgment of most men in former ages, what it is in this, what strength there is in an argument deduced from the consent pretended, I am not as yet arrived to the consideration. Nor have I yet manifested what I grant of the general notion of schism, as it may be drawn, by way of analogy or proportion of reason, from what is delivered in the Scriptures concerning it.
I am upon the precise signification of the word and description of the thing, as used and given by the Holy Ghost. In this sense I deny that there is any relinquishment, departure, or separation from any church or churches mentioned or intimated in the Scriptures, which is or is called schism, or agreeth with the description by them given us of that term. Let them that are contrary minded attempt the proof of what they affirm. As far as a negative proposition is capable of evidence from any thing but the weakness of the opposition made unto it, that laid down will receive it by the ensuing considerations:—
All blamable departure from any church or churches, or relinquishment of them mentioned in the gospel, may be reduced to one of these three heads or causes:— 1. Apostasy; 2. Irregularity of walking; 3. Professed sensuality.
1. Apostasy or falling away from the faith of the gospel,
and
Of some who withdraw themselves from church communion, at
least for a season, by their disorderly and irregular walking, we have also
mention. The apostle calls them, ἄτακτοι,
Men also separated themselves from the churches of Christ
upon the account of sensuality, that they might freely indulge to their
lusts, and live in all manner of pleasure all their days:
That there is any blamable separation from or relinquishment of any church or churches of Christ mentioned in the Scripture, but what may be referred to one of those heads, I am yet to learn. Now, whether the men of these abominations are to be accounted schismatics, or their crime in separating themselves to be esteemed schism, it is not hard to judge. If, on any of these accounts, any persons have withdrawn themselves from the communion of any church of Christ; if they have on any motives of fear or love apostatized from the faith of the gospel; if they do it by walking disorderly and loosely in their conversations; if they give themselves up to sensuality and uncleanness, and so be no more able to bear the society of them whom God hath called to holiness and purity of life and worship, — they shall assuredly bear their own burden.
But none of these instances are comprehensive of the case inquired after; so that, for a close of them, I say, for a man to withdraw or withhold himself from the communion external and visible of any church or churches, on the pretension and plea, be it true or otherwise, that the worship, doctrine, or discipline, instituted by Christ is corrupted among them, with which corruption he dares not defile himself, it is nowhere in the Scripture called schism. Nor is that case particularly exemplified or expressly supposed whereby a judgment may be made of the fact at large; but we are left upon the whole matter to the guidance of such general principles and rules as are given us for that end and purpose.
What may regularly, on the other hand, be deduced from the
commands given to “turn away from them who have only a form of godliness,”
Of one particular church departing from that communion with
another or others, be it what it will, which it ought to hold, unless in
the departing of some of them in some things from the common faith, which
is supposed not to relate to schism, in the Scripture we have no example.
Diotrephes, assuming an authority over that church wherein he was placed,
But I shall, for the sake of some, carry on this discourse to a fuller issue. There is another common notion of schism, which pleads for an original from that spoken expressly of it by a parity of reason; which, tolerable in itself, hath been, and is, injuriously applied and used, according as it hath fallen into the hands of men who needed it as an engine to fix or improve them in the station wherein they are or were, and wherewith they are pleased. Indeed, being invented for several purposes, there is nothing more frequent than for men who are scarce able to keep off the force of it from their own heads, whilst managed against them by them above, at the same time vigorously to apply it for the oppression of all under them. What is on all hands consented unto as its general nature I shall freely grant, that I might have liberty and advantage thence to debate the restriction and application of it to the several purposes of men prevailing themselves thereon.
Let, then, the general demand be granted, that schism is
διαίρεσις τῆς ἑνότητος, “the breach of
union,” which I shall attend with one reasonable postulatum, — namely, that this union be a union of
the appointment of Jesus Christ. The consideration, then of what or what
sort of union in reference to the worship of God, according to the gospel,
is instituted and appointed by Jesus Christ, is the proper foundation of
what I have farther to offer in this business. Let, the breach of this, if
you please, be accounted schism; for being an evil,
Now, this union being instituted in the church, according to the various acceptations of that word, so is it distinguished. Therefore, for a discovery of the nature of that which is particularly to be spoken to, and also its contrary, I must show, —
1. The several considerations of the church wherein and with which union is to be preserved.
2. What that union is, and wherein it doth consist, which, according to the mind of Christ, we are to keep and observe with the church, under the several notions of it respectively.
3. And how that union is broken, and what is that sin whereby it is done.
In handling this triple proposal, I desire that it may not be expected that I should much insist on any thing that falls in my way, though never so useful to my end and purpose, which hath been already proved and confirmed by others beyond all possibility of control; and such will many, if not most, of the principles that I proceed upon appear to be.
To begin with the first thing proposed: The church of Christ living in this world, as to our present concernment, is taken in Scripture three ways:—
1. For the mystical body of Christ, his elect, redeemed, justified, and sanctified ones throughout the world; commonly called the church catholic militant.
2. For the universality of men throughout the world called by the preaching of the word, visibly professing and yielding obedience to the gospel; called by some the church catholic visible.
From the rise and nature of the things themselves doth this
distinction of the signification of the word “church” arise: for whereas
the church is a society of men called out of the world, it is evident there
is mention of a twofold call in Scripture; — one effectual,
according to the purpose of God,
In the first sense the church hath, as such, the properties of perpetuity, invisibility, infallibility, as to all necessary means of salvation, attending of it; not as notes whereby it may be known, either in the whole or any considerable part of it, but as certain adjuncts of its nature and existence. Neither are there any signs of less or more certainty whereby the whole may be discerned or known as such, though there are of the individuals whereof it doth consist.
In the second, the church hath perpetuity, visibility, and infallibility, as qualified above, in a secondary sense, — namely, not as such, not as visible and confessing, but as comprising the individuals whereof the catholic church doth consist; for all that truly believe profess, though, all that profess do not truly believe.
Whether Christ hath had always a church, in the last sense
and acceptation of the word, in the world, is a most needless inquiry; nor
are we concerned in it any farther than in other matters of fact that are
recorded in story: though I am apt to believe that although very many, in
all ages, kept up their station in and relation to the church in the two
former acceptations, yet there was in some of them scarce any visible
society of worshippers, so far answering the institution of Christ as to
render them fit to be owned and joined withal as a visible particular
church of Christ. But yet, though the notions of men were generally
corrupt, the practice of all professors throughout the world, whereof so
little is recorded, and least of them that did best, is not rashly to be
determined of. Nor can our judgment be censured in this by them who think
that when Christ lay in the grave there was no believer left but his
mother, and that the church was preserved in that one person. So was
I cannot but by the way remind a learned person,
I. In the first sense the word is used
That the asserting the catholic church in this sense is no
new apprehension is known to them who have at all looked backward to what
was past before us. “Omnibus
consideratis,” saith
It remaineth, then, that we inquire what is the union which
the church in this sense hath from the wisdom of its head, Jesus Christ.
That it is one, that it hath a union with its head and in itself, is not
questioned. It is one sheepfold, one body, one spouse of Christ, his
Now, in the union of the church, in every sense, there is
considerable both the “formalis
ratio” of it, whence it is, what it is, and the way and means
whereby it exerts itself and is useful and active in communion. The first,
in the church as now stated, consists in its joint holding the Head, and
growing up into him by virtue of the communication of supplies unto it
therefrom for that end and purpose. That which is the formal reason and
cause of the union of the members with the head is the formal reason and
cause of the union of the members with themselves. The original union of
the members is in and with the head; and by the same have they union with
themselves as one body. Now, the inhabitation of the same Spirit in him
and them is that which makes Christ personal and his church to be one
Christ mystical,
The unity of members in the body natural with one head is
often
Hence flows a double consequential union that it hath also:—
1. Of faith, All men united to Christ by the
inhabitation of the same Spirit in him and them, are by it, from and
according to the word, “taught of God,”
2. With peculiar reference to the members themselves, there
is another necessary consequence of the union mentioned, and that is
What hath been spoken concerning the union and communion of this church will not, I suppose, meet with any contradiction. Granting that there is such a church as that we speak of, “cœtus prædestinatorum credentium,” the Papists themselves will grant that Christ alone is its head, and that its union ariseth from its subjection to him and dependence on him. Their modesty makes them contented with constituting the pope in the room of Christ, as he is, as it were, a political head for government. They have not as yet directly put in their claim to his office as a mystical head, influencing the body with life and motion; though by their figment of the sacraments communicating grace, “ex opere operato,” and investing the original power of dispensing them in the pope only, they have contended fair for it. But if any one can inform me of any other union or communion of the church, described as above, than these laid down, I shall willingly attend unto his instructions. In the meantime, to carry on the present discourse unto that which is aimed at, it is manifest that the breach of this union must consist in these two things:—
1. The casting out, expelling, and losing that Spirit which, abiding in us, gives us this union.
2. The loss of that love which thence flows into the body of Christ, and believers as parts and members thereof.
This being the state of the church under the first
consideration of it, certainly it would be an extravagancy scarcely to he
paralleled for any one to affirm a breach of this union, as such, to be
schism, under that notion of it which we are inquiring after. But because
there is very little security to be enjoyed in an expectation of the
sobriety of men in things wherein they are, or suppose they may be,
But yet this persuasion being not common to us with them with whom we have to do in this matter, I shall not farther make use of it as to our present defence. That any other union of the catholic church, as such, can possibly be fancied or imagined by any (as to the substance of what hath been pleaded), leaving him a plea for the ordinary soundness of his intellectuals, is denied.
Let us see now, then, what is our concernment in this
discourse: Unless men can prove that we have not the Spirit of God, that we
do not savingly believe in Jesus Christ, that we do not sincerely love all
the saints, his whole body, and every member of it, they cannot disprove
our interest in the catholic church. It is true, indeed, men that have so
great a confidence of their own abilities, and such a contempt of the
world, as to undertake to dispute men out of conclusions from their natural
senses about their proper objects, in what they see, feel, and handle, and
will not be satisfied that they have not proved there is no motion, whilst
a man walks for a conviction under their eye, may probably venture to
disprove us in our spiritual sense and experience also, and to give us
arguments to persuade us that we have not that communion with Christ which
we know we have every day. Although I have a very mean persuasion of my
own abilities, yet I must needs say I cannot think that any man in the
world can convince me that I do not love Jesus Christ in sincerity, because
I do not love the pope, as he is so. Spiritual experience is a security
against a more cunning sophister than any Jesuit in the world, with whom
the saints of God have to deal all their lives,
But as we daily put our consciences upon trial as to this
thing,
“But you will say, this you will allow to them also with
whom you have to do, that they may be members of the catholic church?” I
leave other men to stand or fall to their own master. Only, as to the
papal multitude, on the account of several inconsistencies between them and
the members of this church, I shall place some swords in the way, which
will reduce their number to an invisible scantling. I might content myself
by affirming at once, that, upon what hath been spoken, I must exclude from
the catholic church all and every one whom
1. All wicked and profane persons, of whom the
Scripture speaks expressly that they shall not enter into the kingdom of
God, are indisputably
How great a proportion of that synagogue whereof we are
speaking will be taken off by this sword, — of their popes, princes,
prelates, clergy, votaries, and people, — and that not by a rule of private
surmises, but upon the visible issue of their being servants to sin, haters
of God and good men, is obvious to all. Persons of really so much as
reformed lives amongst them are like the berries after the shaking of an
olive tree,
I find some persons of late appropriating holiness and
regeneration “Ille cœtus Christianorum
qui solus in orbe claret regeneratis est ecclesia; solus cœtus
Christianorum papæ subditorum claret regeneratis; apud illos solos sunt qui
miracula faciunt. ergo.” — Val.
Mag.
2. All ignorant persons, into whose hearts God
hath not shined, “to give them the knowledge of his glory in the face of
Jesus Christ,” are to be added to the former account. There is a measure
of knowledge of absolute and indispensable necessity to salvation, whereof
how short the most of them are is evident. Among the open abominations of
the papal combination, for which they ought to be an abhorrency to mankind,
their professed design of keeping the people in ignorance is not the least,
3. Add to these all hypocritical
self-justiciaries, who seek for a righteousness as it were by the
works of the law, which they never attain to,
4. The first of these is idolatry: “Be not
deceived; no idolaters shall inherit the kingdom of God,”
A man may say, What is there almost that they have not
committed lewdness in this kind withal? On every hill, and under every
green tree, is the filth of their abomination found. Saints and angels in
heaven, images of some that never were, of others that had been better they
never had been, bread and wine, cross and nails, altars, wood, and iron,
and the pope on earth, are by them adored. The truth is, if we have any
assurance left us of any thing in the world, that we either see or hear,
feel or taste, and so, consequently, that we
5. All that worship the beast set up by the
dragon, all that receive his mark in their hand or forehead, are said
not to have their names written in the book of life of the Lamb,
All these sorts of persons we except against, as those that have no interest in the union of the catholic church, — all profane, ignorant, self-justiciaries, all idolaters, worshippers, or adorers of the papal power. If any remain among them, not one way or other visibly separated from them, who fall not under some one or more of these exceptions, as we grant they may be members of the catholic church, so we deny that they are of that which is called the Roman. And I must needs inform others by the way, that whilst the course of their conversation, ignorance of the mystery of the gospel, hatred of good men, contempt of the Spirit of God, his gifts and graces, do testify to the consciences of them that fear the Lord that they belong not to the church catholic, it renders their rebuking of others for separating from any instituted church, national (as is pretended), or more restrained, very weak and contemptible. All discourses about motes have a worm at the root, whilst there is a beam lies in the eye. Do men suppose that a man who hath tasted how gracious the Lord is, and hath by grace obtained communion with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, walking at peace with God, and in a sense of his love all his days, filled with the Holy Ghost, and by him with joy unspeakable and glorious in believing, is not strengthened against the rebukes and disputes of men whom he sees and knows by their fruits to be destitute of the Spirit of God, uninterested in the fellowship of the gospel and communion thereof?
II. The second general notion of
the church, as it is usually taken,
That all professors of the gospel throughout the world, called to the knowledge of Christ by the word, do make up and constitute his visible kingdom, by their professed subjection to him, and so may be called his church, I grant. That they are precisely so called in Scripture is not unquestionable. What relation it stands in to all particular churches, whether as a genus to its species, or as a totum to its parts, hath lately by many been discussed. I must crave leave to deny that it is capable of filling up or of being included in any of these denominations and relations. The universal church we are speaking of is not a thing that hath, as such, a specificative form, from which it should be called a universal church, as a particular hath for its ground of being so called. It is but a collection of all that are duly called Christians in respect of their profession. Nor are the several particular churches of Christ in the world so parts and members of any catholic church as that it should be constituted or made up by them and of them for the order and purpose of an instituted church, — that is, the celebration of the worship of God and institutions of Jesus Christ according to the gospel; which to assert were to overthrow a remarkable difference between the economy of the Old Testament and the New. Nor do I think that particular congregations do stand unto it in the relation of species unto a genus, in which the whole nature of it should be preserved and comprised; which would deprive every one of membership in this universal church which is not joined actually to some particular church or congregation, than which nothing can be more devoid of truth. To debate the thing in particular is not my present intention, nor is needful to the purpose in hand.
The sum is, The universal church is not so called
upon the same account that a particular church is so called. The
formal reason constituting a particular church to be a particular church
is, that those of whom it doth consist do join together, according to the
mind of Christ, in the exercise of the same numerical ordinances for his
worship. And in this sense the universal church cannot be said to be a
church, as though it had such a particular form of its own; which that it
hath, or should have, is not only false but impossible. But it is so
called because all Christians throughout the world (excepting some
individual persons, providentially excluded) do, upon the enjoyment of the
same preaching of the world, the same sacraments administered in
specie, profess one common faith and hope.
There being, then, in the world a great multitude, which no
man can number, of all nations, kindreds, people, and language, professing
the doctrine of the gospel, not tied to mountains or hills,
1. I suppose this will be granted, that only elect believers belong to the church, in this sense considered, is a chimera feigned in the brains of the Romanists, and fastened on the reformed divines. I wholly assent to Austin’s dispute on this head against the Donatists. And the whole entanglement that hath been about this matter hath arisen from obstinacy in the Papists in not receiving the catholic church in the sense mentioned before; which to do they know would be injurious to their interest, This church being visible and professing, and being now considered under that constituting difference, that the union of it cannot be the same with that of the catholic church before mentioned, it is clear from hence that multitudes of men belong unto it who have not the relation mentioned before to Christ and his body, which is required in all comprehended in that union, seeing “many are called, but few are chosen.”
2. Nor can it consist in a joint assembly, either ordinary
or extraordinary, for the celebration of the ordinances of the gospel, or
any one of them, as was the case of the church of the Jews, which met
I shall only add, that if there be not an institution for the joining in the same numerical ordinances, the union of this church is not really a church-union, — I mean of an instituted church, which consists therein, — but something of another nature. Neither can that have the formal reason of an instituted church as such, which as such can join in no one act of the worship of God instituted to be performed in such societies. So that he that shall take into his thoughts the condition of all the Christians in the world, their present state, what it hath been for fifteen hundred years, and what it is like to be ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, will easily understand what church-state they stand in and relate unto.
3. It cannot Possibly have its union by a relation to
any one officer given to the whole, such a one as the Papists pretend
the pope to be; for though it be possible that one officer may have
relation to all the churches in the world, as the apostles severally had
(when Paul said the care of all the churches lay on him), who, by virtue of
their apostolical commission, were to be received and submitted to in all
the churches in the world, being antecedent in office to them, yet this
neither did nor could make all the churches one church, no more than if one
man were an officer or magistrate in every corporation in England, this
would make all those corporations to be one corporation. I do not suppose
the pope to be an officer to the whole church visible as such, which I deny
to have a union or order capable of any such thing. But suppose him an
officer to every particular church, no union of the whole would thence
ensue. That which is one church must join at least in some one church act,
numerically one. So that though it should be granted that the pope were a
general officer unto all and every church in the world, yet this would not
prove that they all made one church, and had their church-union in
subjection to him who was so an officer to them all; because to the
constitution of such a union, as hath been showed, there is that required
which, in reference to the universal society of Christians, is utterly and
absolutely impossible. But the non-institution of any such officer
ordinarily to bear rule in and over
There is, indeed, by some pleaded a subordination of officers in this church, tending towards a union on that account; as that ordinary ministers should be subjected to diocesan bishops, they to archbishops or metropolitans, they again to patriarchs, where some would bound the process, though a parity of reason would call for a pope: nor will the arguments pleaded for such a subordination rest until they come to be centred in some such thing.
But, first, before this plea be admitted, it must be proved that all these officers are appointed by Jesus Christ, or it will not concern us, who are inquiring solely after his will, and the settling of conscience therein. To do this with such an evidence [as] that the consciences of all those who are bound to yield obedience to Jesus Christ may appear to be therein concerned, will be a difficult task, as I suppose. And, to settle this once for all, I am not dealing with the men of that lazy persuasion, that church affairs are to be ordered by the prudence of our civil superiors and governors; and so seeking to justify a non-submission to any of their constitutions in the things of this nature, or to evidence that the so doing is not schism. Nor do I concern myself in the order and appointment of ancient times, by men assembled in synods and councils; wherein, whatever was the force of their determinations in their own seasons, we are not at all concerned, knowing of nothing that is obligatory to us, not pleading from sovereign authority or our own consent: but it is after things of pure institution that I am inquiring. With them who say there is no such thing in these matters, we must proceed to other principles than any yet laid down.
Also, it must be proved that all these officers are given
and do belong to the catholic church as such, and not to the particular
churches of several measures and dimensions to which they relate; which is
not as yet, that I know of, so much as pretended by them that plead for
this order. They tell us, indeed, of various arbitrary distributions of
the world, or rather of the Roman empire, into patriarchates, with the
dependent jurisdictions mentioned, and that all within the precincts of
those patriarchates must fall within the lines of the subordination,
subjection, and communication before described; but as there is no
subordination between the officers of one denomination in the inferior
parts, no more is there any between the superior themselves, but they are
independent of each other. Now, it is easily
Supposing this assertion to the purpose in hand, which it is not at all, it would prove only a combination of all the officers of several churches, consisting in the subordination and dependence mentioned, not of the whole church itself, though all the members of it should be at once imagined or fancied (as what shall hinder men from fancying what they please?) to be comprised within the limits of those distributions, unless it be also proved that Christ hath instituted several sorts of particular churches, parochial, diocesan, metropolitical, patriarchal (I use the words in the present vulgar acceptation, their signification having been somewhat otherwise formerly; “parœcia” being the care of a private bishop, “provincia” of a metropolitan, and “diœcesis” of a patriarch), in the order mentioned, and hath pointed out which of his churches shall be of those several kinds throughout the world; which that it will not be done to the disturbance of my principles whilst I live, I have some present good security.
And because I take the men of this persuasion to be charitable men, that will not think much of taking a little pains for the reducing any person whatever from the error of his way, I would entreat them that they would inform me what patriarchate, according to the institution of Christ, I (who by the providence of God live here at Oxon) do “de jure” belong unto; that so I may know how to preserve the union of that church, and to behave myself therein. And this I shall promise them, that if I were singly, or in conjunction with any others, so considerable, that those great officers should contend about whose subjects we should be (as was done heretofore about the Bulgarians), that it should not at all startle me about the truth and excellency of Christian religion, as it did those poor creatures; who, being newly converted to the faith, knew nothing of it but what they received from men of such principles.
But that this constitution is human, and the distributions
of Christians, in subjection unto church-officers, into such and such
divisions of nations and countries, prudential and arbitrary, I suppose
will not be denied. The τὰ ἀρχαῖα of
the Nicene synod intend no more; nor is in any thing of institution, nor so
much as of apostolical tradition, pleaded therein. The following ages were
of the same persuasion. Hence in the council of Chalcedon, the
archiepiscopacy of Constantinople was advanced into a patriarchate, and
many provinces cast in subjection thereunto; wherein the primates of
Ephesus and Thrace were cut short of what they might plead τὰ ἀρχαῖα for,
4. I would know of them who desire to be under this law,
whether the power with which Jesus Christ hath furnished the officers of
his church come forth from the supreme mentioned patriarchs and
archbishops, and is by them communicated to the inferiors, or “vice versa;”
or whether all have their power in an equal immediation from Christ? If
the latter be granted, there will be a greater independency established
than most men are aware of (though the Papalins See
5. The truth is, the whole subordination of this kind,
which “de facto” hath been in the
world, was so clearly a human invention or a prudential constitution, as
hath been showed (which being done by men professing authority in the
church, gave it, as it was called “vim
ecclesiasticam”), that nothing else, in the issue, is pleaded for
it. And now, though I shall, if called thereunto, manifest both the
unreasonableness and unsuitableness to the design of Christ for his worship
under the gospel, and the comparative novelty and mischievous issue, of
that constitution, yet, at the present, being no farther concerned but only
to evince that the union of the general visible church doth
The Nicene council, which first made towards the
confirmation of something like somewhat of what was afterward introduced in
some places, pleaded only, as I said before, the τὰ ἀρχαῖα, old usage for it; which it would not have
done could it have given a better original thereunto. And whatever the
antiquities then pretended might be, we know that ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς οὐ γέγονεν οὕτω. And I do not fear to say,
what others have done before me, concerning the canons of that first and
best general council, as it is called, they are all hay and stubble. Nor
yet doth the laying this custom on τὰ
ἀρχαῖα, in my apprehension, evince their judgment of any long
prescription. Peter, speaking of a thing that was done a few years before,
says that it was done ἀφ’ ἡμερῶν
ἀρχαίων,
But a general council is pleaded with the best colour and pretence for a bond of union to this general and visible church. In consideration hereof I shall not divert to the handling of the rise, right use, authority, necessity, of such councils; about all which somewhat in due time towards satisfaction may be offered to those who are not in bondage to names and traditions; — nor shall I remark what hath been the management of the things of God in all ages in those assemblies; many of which have been the stains and ulcers of Christian religion; — nor yet shall I say with what little disadvantage to the religion of Jesus Christ I suppose a loss of all the canons, of all councils that ever were in the world since the apostles’ days, with their acts and contests (considering what use is made of them), might be undergone; — nor yet shall I digress to the usefulness of the assemblies of several churches in their representatives, to consider and determine about things of common concernment to them, with their tendency to the preservation of that communion which ought to be amongst them; — but as to the present instance only offer, —
1. That such general councils, being things purely
extraordinary and occasional, as is confessed, cannot be an ordinary
standing bond of union to the catholic church. And if any one shall
reply, that though in themselves and in their own continuance they cannot
be so, yet in their authority, laws, and canons they may; I must say, that
besides the very many reasons I have to call into question the power of
law-making for the whole society of Christians in the world, in all the
general councils that have been or possibly can be on the earth, the
disputes about the title of those assemblies which pretend to this honour,
which are to be admitted, which excluded, are so endless; the rules of
judging them so dark, lubricous, and uncertain,
That it hath been of advantage to the truth of the gospel, that godly learned men, bishops of churches, have convened and witnessed a good confession in reference to the doctrine thereof, and declared their abhorrence of the errors that are contrary thereunto, is confessed. That any man or men is, are, or ever were, intrusted by Christ with authority so to convene them, as that thereupon and by virtue thereof they should be invested with a new authority, power, and jurisdiction, at such a convention, and thence should take upon them to make laws and canons that should be ecclesiastically binding to any persons or churches, as theirs, is not as yet, to me, attended with any convincing evidence of truth. And seeing at length it must be spoken, I shall do it with submission to the thoughts of good men that are any way acquainted with these things, and in sincerity therein commend my conscience to God, that I do not know any thing that is extant bearing clearer witness to the sad degeneracy of Christian religion in the profession thereof, nor more evidently discovering the efficacy of another spirit than what was poured out by Christ at his ascension, nor containing more hay and stubble, that is to be burned and consumed, than the stories of the acts and laws of the councils and synods that have been in the world.
2. But, to take them as they are, as to that alone wherein the first councils had any evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with them, — namely, in the declaring the doctrine of the gospel, — it falls in with that which I shall give in for the bend of union unto the church in the sense pleaded about.
3. Such an assembly arising cumulative out of particular churches, as it is evident that it doth, it cannot first and properly belong to the church generally as such; but it is only a means of communion between those particular churches as such, of whose representatives (I mean virtually, for formally the persons convening for many years ceased to be so) it doth consist.
4. There is nothing more ridiculous than to imagine a
general council that should represent the whole catholic church, or so much
as all the particular churches that are in the world. And let him that
5. Indeed, I know not how any council, that hath been in the world these thirteen hundred years and somewhat upwards, could be said to represent the church in any sense, or any churches whatever. Their convention, as is known, hath been always by imperial or papal authority, the persons convened such, and only they who, as was pretended and pleaded, had right of suffrage, with all necessary authority, in such conventions, from the order, degree, and office which personally they held in their several churches. Indeed, a pope or bishop sent his legate or proxy to represent, or rather personate, him and his authority. But that any of them were sent or delegated by the church wherein they did preside is not so evident.
I desire, then, that some man more skilled in laws and common usages than myself would inform me on what account such a convention could come to be a church-representative, or the persons of it to be representatives of any churches. General grounds of reason and equity, I am persuaded, cannot be pleaded for it. The lords in parliament in this nation, who, being summoned by regal authority, sat there in their own personal right, were never esteemed to represent the body of the people. Supposing, indeed, all church power in any particular church, of whatever extract or composition, to be solely vested in one single person, a collection of those persons, if instituted, would bring together the authority of the whole; but yet this would not make that assembly to be a church-representative, if you will allow the name of the church to any but that single person. But for men who have but a partial power and authority in the church, and perhaps, separated from it, none at all, without any delegation from the churches, to convene, and in their own authority to take upon them to represent these churches, is absolute presumption.
These several pretensions being excluded, let us see
wherein the unity of this church, — namely, of the great society of men
professing the gospel, and obedience to Christ according to it, throughout
the world, — doth consist. This is summed up by the apostle,
1. Now, that this union be preserved, it is required that
all those grand and necessary truths of the gospel, without the
knowledge whereof 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. There is a “proportion of faith,”
2. That no other internal principle of the mind,
that hath an utter inconsistency with the real belief of the truths
necessary to be professed, be manifested by professors. Paul tells us of
some who, though they would be called Christians, yet they so walked as
that they manifested themselves to be “enemies of the cross of Christ,”
3. That no thing, opinion, error, or false doctrine,
everting or overthrowing any of the necessary saving truths professed
as above, be added in and with that profession, or deliberately be
professed also. This principle the apostle lays down and proves,
We are at length, then, arrived at this issue: The belief and profession of all the necessary saving truths of the gospel, without the manifestation of an internal principle of the mind inconsistent with the belief of them, or adding of other things in profession that are destructive to the truths so professed, is the bond of the unity of the visible professing church of Christ. Where this is found in any man, or number of men, though otherwise accompanied with many failings, sins, and errors, the unity of the faith is by him or them so far preserved as that they are thereby rendered members of the visible church of Christ, and are by him so esteemed.
Let us suppose a man, by a bare reading of the Scriptures, brought to him by some providence of God (as finding the Bible on the highway), and evidencing their authority by their own light, instructed in the knowledge of the truths of the gospel, who shall thereupon make profession of them amongst them with whom he lives, although he be thousands of miles distant from any particular church wherein the ordinances of Christ are administered, nor perhaps knows there is any such church in the world, much less hath ever heard of the pope of Rome (which is utterly impossible he should, supposing him instructed only by reading of the Scriptures); — I ask whether this man, making open profession of Christ according to the gospel, shall be esteemed a member of the visible church in the sense insisted on, or no?
That this may not seem to be such a fiction of a case as may involve in it any impossible supposition, which, being granted, will hold a door open for other absurdities, I shall exemplify it, in its most material “postulata,” by a story of unquestionable truth.
“Laus ei qui manifestavit humilitatem suam, celavit inter nos divinitatem suam permeantem donec cœpit in creatura sua apparere sub specie edentis et bibentis.
“Jamque aspexit eum creatura ejus, sicuti supercilium obliquum respiciat spercilium.”
From which remnant of his work it is easy to perceive that the crime whereof he was accused, and for which he was condemned and crucified, was the confession of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As he went to the cross he added, says the same author, these that follow:
“Compotor meus nihil plane habet in se iniquitatis, bibendum mihi dedit simile ejus quod bibit, fecit hospitem in hospite.”
And so he died constantly (as it appears) in the profession of the Lord Jesus.
Bagdad was a city built not long before by the Saracens,
wherein, it is probable, there were not at that time any Christians
abiding. Add now to this story what our Saviour speaks,
Let us now recall to mind what we have in design. Granting, for our process’ sake, that schism is the breach of any unity instituted and appointed by Christ, in what sense soever it is spoken of, our inquiry is, whether we are guilty in any kind of such a breach, or the breach of such a unity. This, then, now insisted on being the union of the church of Christ, as visibly professing the Word, according to his own mind, when I have laid down some general foundations of what is to ensue, I shall consider whether we are guilty of the breach of this union, and argue the several pretensions of men against us, especially of the Romanists, on this account.
1. I confess that this union of the general visible church
was once comprehensive of all the churches in the world, the faith once
delivered to the saints being received amongst them. From this unity it is
taken also for granted that a separation is made, and it continues not as
it was at the first institution of the churches of Christ, though some
small breaches were made upon it immediately after their
I know who hath endeavoured to elude the sense of this
complaint, as though it concerned not any thing in the church, but the
despisers and persecutors of it, the Gnostics: but yet I know,
also, that no man would so do but such a one as hath a just confidence of
his own ability to make passable at least any thing that he shall venture
to say or utter; for why should that be referred by
The process made in after ages in a deviation from the
unity of
2. As to our concernment in this business, they that will make good a charge against us, that we are departed from the unity of the church catholic, it is incumbent on them to evidence, — (l.) That we either do not believe and make profession of all the truths of the gospel indispensably necessary to be known, that a man may have a communion with God in Christ and be saved; or, —
(2.) That doing so, in the course of our lives we manifest and declare a principle that is utterly inconsistent with the belief of those truths which outwardly we profess; or, —
(3.) That we add unto them, in opinion or worship, that or those things which are in very deed destructive of them, or do any way render them insufficient to be saving unto us.
If neither of these three can be proved against a man, he may justly claim the privilege of being a member of the visible church of Christ in the world, though he never in all his life be a member of a particular church; which yet, if he have fitting opportunity and advantage for it, is his duty to be.
And thus much be spoken as to the state and condition of
the visible catholic church, and in this sense we grant it to be, and the
unity thereof. In the late practice of men, that expression of the
“catholic church hath been an “individuum
vagum,” few knowing what to make of it; a “cothurnus,” that every one accommodated at pleasure
to his own principles and pretensions. I have no otherwise described it
than did
In the sense insisted on was it so frequently described by the ancients.
So again
The generality of all sorts of men worshipping God in Jesus
Christ is the church we speak of whose extent in his days
Some have said, and do yet say, that the church in this sense is a visible, organic, political body. That it is visible is confessed; both its mater and form bespeak visibility, as an inseparable adjunct of is subsisting. That it is a body also in the general sense wherein that word the same faith, is ambiguous term; the use of it is plainly metaphorical, taken from the members, instruments, and organs of a natural body. Because Paul hath said that in “one body there are many members, as eyes, feet, hands, yet the body is but one, so is the church,” it hath been usually said that the church is an organical body. What church Paul speaks of in that place is not evident, but what he alludes unto is. The difference he speaks of in the individual persons of the church is not in respect of office, power, and authority, but gifts or graces, and usefulness on that account. Such an organical body we confess the church catholic visible to be. In it are persons endued with variety of gifts and graces for the benefit and ornament of the whole.
An organical political body is a thing of another nature.
A politic body or commonwealth united under some form of rule or
government, whose supreme and subordinate administration is committed to
several persons, according to the tenor of such laws and customs as that
society hath or doth consent unto. This also is said to be organical on a
metaphorical account, — because the officers and members that are in it and
over it hold proportion to the more noble parts of the body. Kings are
said to be heads; counsellors, ὀφθαλμοὶ
βασιλέων. To the constitution of
Let it be evidenced that the universal church whereof we
speak hath any law or rule of order and government, as such, given unto it;
or that it is in possibility, as such, to put any such law or rule
Let us see now what as to conscience can be charged on us, Protestants I mean, who are all concerned herein as to the breach of this union. The Papists are the persons that undertake to manage this charge against us. To lay aside the whole plea “subesse Romano pontifici,” and all those fears wherewith they juggled when the whole world sat in darkness, which they do now use at the entrance of their charge, the sum of what they insist upon, firstly, is: The catholic church is intrusted with the interpretation of the Scripture, and declaration of the truths therein contained; which being by it so declared, the not receiving of them implicitly or explicitly, — that is, the disbelieving of them as so proposed and declared, — cuts off any man from being a member of the church, Christ himself having said that he that hears not the church is to be as a heathen man and a publican; which church they are, that is certain. It is all one, then, what we believe or do not believe, seeing that we believe not all that the catholic church proposeth to be believed, and what we do believe we believe not on that account.
1. We deny their church, as it is styled, to be the catholic church, or as such any part of it, as particular churches are called or esteemed; so that, of all men in the world, they are least concerned in this assertion. Nay, I shall go farther. Suppose all the members of the Roman church to be sound in the faith as to all necessary truths, and no way to prejudice the advantages and privileges which accrue to them by the profession thereof, whereby the several individuals of it would be true members of the catholic church, yet I should not only deny it to be the catholic church, but also, — abiding in its present order and constitution, being that which by themselves it is supposed to be, — to be any particular church of Christ at all, as wanting many things necessary to constitute them so, and having many things destructive utterly to the very essence and being of that order that Christ hath appointed in his churches.
The best plea that I know for their church-state is, that Antichrist sits in the temple of God. Now, although we might justly omit the examination of this pretence until those who are concerned in it will professedly own it as their plea, yet as it lies in our way in the thoughts of some, I say to it that I am not so certain that καθίσαι εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, signifies “to sit in the temple of God;” seeing a learned man long ago thought it rather to be a “setting up against the temple of God,” Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. x. cap. 59. But grant the sense of the expression to be as it is usually received, it imports no more but that the man of sin shall set up his power against God in the midst of them who, by their outward visible profession, have right to be called his temple; which entitles him and his copartners in apostasy to the name of the church as much as changing of money and selling of cattle were ordinances of God under the old temple, when, by some men’s practising of them in it, it was made a den of thieves.
2. Though as to the plea of them and their interest with
whom we have to do, we have nothing requiring our judgments in the case,
yet, “ex abundanti,” we add, that
we deny that, by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, the catholic
church visible is in any sense intrusted with such an interpretation of
Scripture as that
But is not the Scripture to be interpreted according to the tradition of the catholic church? and are not those interpretations so made to be received?
I say, among all the figments that these latter ages have
invented, — I shall add, amongst the true stories of
It being, then, the work of the Scripture to propose the saving truths of Christ (the belief and profession whereof are necessary to make a man a member of the church) so as to make them of indispensable necessity to be received, if they can from them convince us that we do not believe and profess all and every one of the truths or articles of faith so necessary as expressed, we shall fall down under the authority of such conviction; if not, we profess our consciences to be no more concerned in the authority of their church than we judge their church to be in the privileges of the church catholic.
But, secondly, it may be we are chargeable with manifesting
some principles of profaneness, wherewith the belief of the truth
we profess hath an absolute inconsistency. For those who are liable and
obnoxious to this charge, I say, let them plead for themselves; for let
them profess what they will, and cry out ten thousand times that they are
Christians, I shall never acknowledge them for other than visible enemies
of the cross, kingdom, and church of Christ. Traitors and rebels are not,
“de facto,” subjects of that king or
ruler in reference to whom they are so. Of some, who said they were Jews,
Christ said they lied, and were not, but “the synagogue of Satan,”
That we have added any thing of our own, making profession of any thing in religion absolutely destructive to the fundamentals we profess, I know not that we are accused, seeing our crime is asserted to consist in detracting, not adding. Now, unless we are convinced of failing on one of these three accounts, we shall not at all question but that we abide in the unity of the visible catholic church.
It is the common cry of the Romanists that we are
schismatics. Why so? Because we have separated ourselves from
the communion of the catholic church. What this catholic church is, and
how little they are concerned in it, hath been declared. How much they
have prevailed themselves with ignorant souls by this plea, we know. Nor
was any other success to be expected in respect of many whom
Take a little view of their late proselytes, and it will quickly appear what little cause they have to boast in them. With some, by the craft and folly of some relations, they are admitted to treat, when they are drawing to their dissolution. These, for the most part, having been persons of dissolute and profligate lives, never having tasted the power of any religion, whatever they have professed, in their weakness and disturbed dying thoughts, may be apt to receive any impression that with confidence and violence is imposed upon them. Besides, it is a far easier proposal to be reconciled to the church of Rome, and so by purgatory to get to heaven, than to be told of regeneration, repentance, faith, and the covenant of grace, things of difficulty to such poor creatures. Others that have been cast down from their hopes and expectations, or out from their enjoyments, by the late revolution in these nations, have by their discontent or necessity made themselves an easy prey to their zeal. What hath been the residue of their proselytes? What one who hath ever manifested himself to share in the power of our religion, or was not prepared by principles of superstition almost as deep as their own, have they prevailed on? But I shall not farther insist on these things. To return:—
Our communion with the visible catholic church is in the unity of the faith only. The breach of this union, and therein a relinquishment of the communion of the church, lies in a relinquishment of, or some opposition to, some or all of the saving, necessary truths of the gospel; now, this is not schism, but heresy or apostasy; — or it is done by an open profligateness of life: so that, indeed, this charge is nothing at all to the purpose in hand; though, through grace, in a confidence of our own innocency, we are willing to debate the guilt of the crime under any name or title whatever.
Unto what hath been spoken, I shall only add the removal of
some common objections, with a recharge on them with whom principally we
have as yet had to do, and come to the last thing proposed. The case of
some of old, who were charged with schism for separating from the catholic
church on an account wholly and clearly distinct from that of a departure
from the faith, is an instance of the judgment of antiquity lying in an
opposition to the notion of departure from the church now delivered. “Doth
not
The reader knows sufficiently, if he hath at all taken notice of these things, where to find this cloud scattered, without the least annoyance or detriment to the Protestant cause, or of any concerned in that name, however by lesser differences diversified among themselves. I shall not repeat what by others hath been at large insisted on. In brief, put the whole church of God into that condition of liberty and soundness of doctrine which it was in when the great uproar was made by the Donatists, and we shall be concerned to give in our judgments concerning them.
To press an example of former days, as binding unto duty or convincing of evil, in respect of any now, without stating the whole “substratum” of the business and complete cause, as it was in the days and seasons wherein the example was given, we judge it not equal. Yet, although none can with ingenuity press me with the crime they were guilty of, unless they can prove themselves to be instated in the very same condition as they were against whom that crime was committed, — which I am fully assured none in the world can, the communion of the catholic church then pleaded for being, in the judgment of all, an effect of men’s free liberty and choice, now pressed as an issue of the tyranny of some few, — I shall freely deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists; which will be comprehensive also of those others that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation.
1. Then, I am persuaded that in the matter of fact the
Donatists
2. On supposition that he was so, and they that ordained him were known to him to have been so, yet he being not guilty of the crime, renouncing communion with them therein, and themselves repenting of their sin, as did Peter, whose sin exceeded theirs, this was no just cause of casting him out of communion, he walking and acting in all other things suitably to principles by themselves acknowledged.
3. That on supposition they had just cause hereupon to
renounce
4. Yet grant, farther, that men of tender consciences,
regulated by the principle then generally received, might be startled at
the communion of that church wherein
5. Though men, out of such pride and folly, might judge all the residue of Christians to be faulty and guilty in this particular, of not condemning and separating from the church of Carthage, yet to proceed to cast them out from the very name of Christians, and so disannul their privileges and ordinances that they had been made partakers of, as manifestly they did, by rebaptizing all that entered into their communion, was such unparalleled Pharisaism and tyranny as was wholly to be condemned and intolerable.
6. The divisions, outrages, and enthusiastical furies and riots that befell them, or they fell into, in their way, were, in my judgment, tokens of the hand of God against them; so that, upon the whole matter, their undertaking and enterprise was utterly undue and unlawful.
I shall farther add, as to the management of the cause by
their adversaries, that there is in their writings, especially those of
How little we are at this day, in any contests that are
managed amongst us about the things of God, concerned in those differences
of theirs, these few considerations will evince; yet, notwithstanding all
this, I must take liberty to profess, that although the fathers justly
charged the Donatists with disclaiming of all the churches of Christ as a
thing wicked and unjust, yet many of the principles whereon they did it
were such as I cannot assent to. Yea, I shall
Being, then, thus come off from this part of our charge and accusation of schism, for the relinquishment of the catholic visible church, — which as we have not done, so to do is not schism, but a sin of another nature and importance, — according to the method proposed, a recharge on the Romanists in reference to their present condition, and its unsuitableness to the unity of the church evinced, must briefly ensue.
Their claim is known to be no less than that they are this catholic church, out of whose communion there is no salvation (as the Donatists’ was of old); also, that the union of this church consists in its subjection to its head, the pope, and worshipping of God according to his appointment, in and with his several qualifications and attendancies. Now, this claim of theirs, to our apprehension and consciences, is, —
1. Cruel and sanguinary, condemning
millions to hell that invocate and call on the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, believing all things that are written in the Old and New
Testaments; for no other cause in the world but because they are not
convinced that it is their duty to give up reason, faith, soul, and all, to
him and his disposal whom they have not only unconquerable presumptions
against as an evil and wicked person, but are also resolved and fully
persuaded in their consciences that he is an enemy to their dear Lord Jesus
Christ, out of love to whom they cannot bear him. Especially will this
appear to be so if we consider their farther improvement of this principle
to the killing, hanging, torturing to death, burning of all that they are
able, who are in the condition before mentioned. This, upon the matter, is
the great principle of their religion. All persons that will not be
subject (at least in spiritual things) to the pope are to be hanged or
burned in this world, or by other means destroyed, and damned for ever
hereafter. This is the substance of the gospel they preach, the centre
wherein all the lines of their writings do meet; and to this must the holy,
pure word of God be wrested to give countenance. Blessed be the God of our
salvation! who as he never gave merciless men power over the souls and
eternal condition of his saints, so he hath begun to work a deliverance of
the outward condition of his people from their rage and
2. Most false, and such as nothing but either judiciary hardness from God, sending men strong delusions that they might believe a lie, or the dominion of cursed lusts, pride, ambition, covetousness, desire of rule, can lie at the bottom of; for, —
(1.) It is false that the union of the catholic church, in the notion now under consideration, consists in subjection to any officer or officers; or that it hath any peculiar form, constituting one church in relation to them, or in joint participation of the same individual ordinances whatever, by all the members of it; or that any such oneness is at all possible, or any unity whatever, but that of the faith which by it is believed, and of the truth professed.
(2.) It is most ridiculous that they are this catholic church, or that their communion is comprehensive of it in its latitude. He must be blind, uncharitable, a judge of what he cannot see or know, who can once entertain a thought of any such thing. Let us run a little over the foundations of this assertion.
First, “Peter was the prince of the apostles.” It
is denied; arguments lie clear against it. The Gospel, the Acts of the
Apostles, all confute it. The express testimony of Paul lies against it;
our Saviour denies that it was so, gives order that it should not be so.
The name and thing are foreign to the times of the apostles. It was a
ministry, not a principality, they had committed to them; therein they were
all equal. It is from that spirit whence they inquired after a kingdom and
dominion, before they had received the Spirit of the gospel, as it was
dispensed after Christ’s ascension, that such assertions are now insisted
on. But let that be supposed, what is next? “He had a universal
monarchical jurisdiction committed to him over all Christians; for
Christ said, ‘Tu es Petrus, tibi dabo
claves, et pasce oves meas.’” But these terms are barbarous to the
Scripture. Monarchy is not the English of, “Vos autem non sic.” Jurisdiction is a name of a
right, for the exercise of civil power. Christ hath left no such
thing as jurisdiction, in the sense wherein it is now used, to Peter or his
church. Men do but make sport, and expose
But they say, “Peter had not only an apostolical power
with the rest of the apostles, but also an ordinary power, that was to be
continued in the church.” But the Scripture being confessedly silent
of any such thing, let us hear what proof is tendered for the establishment
of this uncouth assertion. Herein, then, thus they proceed: “It will be
confessed that Jesus Christ ordained his church wisely, according to his
infinite wisdom, which he exercised about his body. Now, to this wisdom of
his, for the prevention of innumerable evils, it is agreeable that he
should appoint some one person with that power of declaring truth, and of
jurisdiction to enforce the receiving of it, which we plead for; for this
was in Peter, as is proved from the texts of Scripture before mentioned:
therefore, it is continued in them that succeed him.” And here lies the
great stress of their cause, — that, to prevent evils and inconveniencies,
it became the wisdom of Jesus Christ to appoint a person with all that
authority, power, and infallibility, to continue in his church to the end
of the world. And this plea they manage variously, with much sophistry,
rhetoric, and testimonies of antiquity. But suppose all this should be
granted, yet I am full well assured that they can never bring it home to
their concernment by any argument, but only the actual claim of the pope,
wherein he stands singly now in the world; which that it is satisfactory,
to make it good “de fide” that he is
so, will not easily be granted. The truth is, of all the attempts they
make against the Lord Jesus Christ, this is one of the greatest, wherein
they will assert that it became his wisdom to do that which by no means
they can prove that he hath done; which is plainly to tell us what in their
judgment he ought to have done, though he hath not, and that, therefore, it
is incumbent on them to supply what he hath been defective in. Had he
taken the care he should of them and their master, that he and they might
have ruled and revelled over and in the house of God, he would have
appointed things as now they are; which they affirm to have become his
wisdom. He was a king that once cried, “Si
Deo in creatione adfuissem, mundum melius
The management of this plea by some of late is very
considerable. Say they, “Quia non de
verbis solum Scripturæ, sed etiam de sensu plurima controversia est, si
ecclesiæ interpretatio non est certa intelligendi norma, ecquis erit
istiusmodi controversiæ judex? Sensum enim suum pro sua virili quisque
defendet; quod si in explorandâ verbi Dei intelligentiâ nullus est certus
judex, audemus dicere nullam rempublicam fuisse stultius constitutam. Sin
autem apostoli tradiderunt ecclesiis verbum Dei sine intelligentia verbi
Dei, quomodo prædicârunt evangelium omni creaturæ? quomodo docuerunt omnes
gentes servare quæcunque illis fuerunt a Christo commendata. Non est
puerorum aut psittacorum prædicatio, qui sine mente dant, accipiuntque
sonum,” Walemburg, Con. 4,
It is well that at length these men speak out plainly. If the pope be not a visible supreme judge in and over the church, Christ hath, in the constitution of his church, dealt more foolishly than ever any did in the constitution of a commonwealth! If he have not an infallible power of determining the sense of the Scripture, the Scripture is but an empty, insignificant word, like the speech of parrots or popinjays! Though Christ hath, by his apostles, given the Scripture to make the man of God wise unto salvation, and promised his Spirit unto them that believe, by whose assistance the Scripture gives out its own sense to them, yet all is folly if the pope be not supreme and infallible! The Lord rebuke them who thus boldly blaspheme his word and wisdom! But let us proceed.
“This Peter, thus invested in power that was to be
traduced to others, went to Rome, and preached the gospel there.” It
is most certain, nor will themselves deny it, that if this be not so, and
believed, their whole fabric will fall to the ground. But can this be
necessary for all sorts of Christians, and every individual of men among
them, to believe, when there is not the least insinuation of any such thing
in the Scripture? Certainly, though it be only a matter of fact, yet being
of such huge importance and consequence, and such a doctrine of absolute
and indispensable necessity to be believed, as is
But that we may proceed, grant this also, that Peter was at Rome, which they shall never be able to prove, and that he did preach the gospel there, — yet so he did, by their own confession, at other places, making his residence at Antioch for some years, — what will this avail towards the settling of the matter under consideration? “There Christ appointed him to fix his chair, and make that church the place of his residence,” — λῆροι!
Of his meeting
But what is next to this? “The bishop of Rome succeeds
Peter in all that power, jurisdiction, infallibility, with whatsoever else
was fancied before in him, as the ordinary lord of the church; and
therefore the Roman church is the catholic,” “quod erat demonstrandum.” Now, though this
inference will no way follow upon these principles, though they should all
be supposed to be true, whereof not one is so much as probable, and though
this last assertion be vain and ridiculous, nothing at all being pleaded to
ground this succession, no institution of Christ, no act of any council of
the church, no will or testament of Peter, but only it is so fallen out, as
the world was composed of a casual concurrence of atoms; yet seeing they
will have it so, I desire a little farther information in one thing that
yet remains, and that is this: The charter, patents, and grant of all this
power, and right of succession unto Peter, in all the advantages,
privileges, and jurisdiction before mentioned, being wholly in their own
keeping,
And whereas it may be supposed that the great condition of such a grant would consist in his diligent attendance to the Scriptures, the word of God, herein doth the filth of their abominations appear above all other things. The guilt that is in that society or combination of men in locking up the Scripture in an unknown tongue; forbidding the people to read it; burning some men to death for the studying of it, and no more; disputing against its power to make good its own authority; charging it with obscurity, imperfection, insufficiency; frightening men from the perusal of it, with the danger of being seduced and made heretics by so doing; setting up their own traditions in an equality with it, if not exalting them above it; studying by all means to decry it as useless and contemptible, at least comparatively with themselves; will not be purged from them for ever.
But you will say, “This is a simple question, for the pope
of Rome hath a promise that he shall still be such a one as is fit to be
trusted with the power mentioned, and not one that shall defend
Upon the credit and strength of these sandy foundations and principles, which neither severally nor jointly will bear the weight of a feather, in a long-continued course of apostasy, have men conquered all policy, religion, and honesty, and built up that stupendous fabric, coupled together with subtle and scarce discernible joints and ligaments, which they call the catholic church.
(1.) In despite of policy, they have not only enslaved
kings, kingdoms, commonwealths, nations, and people to be their vassals and
at their disposal; but also, contrary to all rules of government, beyond
the thoughts and conjectures of all or any that ever wrote of or instituted
a government in the world, they have in most nations of Europe set up a
government, authority, and jurisdiction, within another government
and authority, settled on other accounts, the one independent of the other,
and have brought these things to some kind of consistency: which that it
might be accomplished never entered into the heart of any wise man once to
imagine, nor had ever been by them effected without such advantages as none
in the world ever had in such a continuance but themselves, unless the
Druids of old in some nations obtained some such thing. “Si quis, aut privatus aut publicus, eorum decreto non
stetit, sacrificiis interdicunt. Hæc pœna apud eos est gravissima. Quibus
ira est interdictum, ii numero impiorum et sceleratorum habentur: iis omnes
decedunt, aditum eorum sermonemque defugiunt, ne quid ex contagione
incommodi accipiant; neque iis petentibus jus redditur, neque honos ullus
communicatur. His autem omnibus Druidibus præest unus, qui summam inter
eos habet authoritatem. Hoc mortuo, si quis ex reliquis excellit
dignitate, succedit: at si sunt plures pares, suffragio Druidum allegitur,
nonnunquam etiam armis de principatu contendunt.” — Cæs. lib. vi. 13, de Bell.
Gall.
(2.) In despite of religion itself, they have made a new creed, invented new ways of worship, given a whole sum and system of their own, altogether alien from the word of God, without an open disclaiming of that word, which in innumerable places bears testimony to its own perfection and fulness.
(3.) Contrary to common honesty, the first principles of
reason, with
3. That their plea is so far from truth, that they are, and they only, the catholic church, that indeed they belong not to it, because they keep not the unity of the faith, which is required to constitute any person whatever a member of that church, but fail in all the conditions of it; for, —
(1.) To proceed, by way of instance, they do not profess nor believe a justification distinct from sanctification, and acceptance thereof; the doctrine whereof is of absolute and indispensable necessity to the preservation of the unity of the faith; and so fail in the first condition of professing all necessary truths. I know what they say of justification, what they have determined concerning it in the council of Trent, what they dispute about it in their books of controversies; but I deny that which they contend for to be a justification. So that they do not deny only justification by faith, but positively, over and above, the infusion of grace, and the acceptance of the obedience thence arising; — that there is any justification at all, consisting in the free and full absolution of a sinner, on the account of Christ.
(2.) They discover principles corrupt and depraved, utterly inconsistent with those truths and the receiving of them which in general, by owning the Scriptures, they do profess. Herein, to pass by the principles of atheism, wickedness, and profaneness, that effectually work and manifest themselves in the generality of their priests and people, that of self-righteousness, that is in the best of their devotionists, is utterly inconsistent with the whole doctrine of the gospel, and all saving truths concerning the mediation of Jesus Christ therein contained.
(3.) That in their doctrine of the pope’s supremacy, of merits, satisfaction, the mass, the worshipping of images, they add such things to their profession as enervate the efficacy of all the saving truths they do profess, and so fail in the third condition. This hath so abundantly been manifested by others, that I shall not need to add any thing to give the charge of it upon them any farther evidence or demonstration.
Thus it is unhappily fallen out with these men, that what
of all men they most pretend unto, that of all men they have the least
interest in.
To close this whole discourse, I shall bring the grand argument of the Romanists (with whom I shall now, in this treatise, have little more to do), wherewith they make such a noise in the world, to an issue. Of the many forms and shapes whereinto by them it is cast, this seems to be the most perspicuously expressive of their intention:—
“Voluntarily to forsake the communion of the church of Christ is schism, and they that do so are guilty of it;
“You have voluntarily forsaken the communion of the church of Christ:
“Therefore, you are guilty of the sin of schism.”
I have purposely omitted the interposing of the term catholic, that the reason of the argument might run to its length: for upon the taking in of that term we have nothing to do but only to deny the minor proposition, seeing the Roman church, be it what it will, is not the church catholic; but as it is without that limitation called the church of Christ indefinitely, it leaves place for a farther and fuller answer.
To this, by way of inference, they add, “That schism, as it
is declared by
Now, as for the fore-mentioned argument, some of our divines answer to the minor proposition, and that both as to the terms of “voluntary forsaking,” and that also of the “communion of the church.” For the first, they say they did not voluntarily forsake the communion of the church that then was, but being necessitated by the command of God to reform themselves in sundry things, they were driven out by bell, book, and candle, cursed out, killed out, driven out by all manner of violence, ecclesiastical and civil; which is a strange way of men’s becoming schismatic.
Secondly, That they forsook not the communion of the church, but the corruptions of it, or the communion of it in its corruption, not in other things wherein it was lawful to continue communion with it.
To give strength to this answer they farther add, that
though they grant the church of Rome to have been at the time of the first
separation a true church of Christ, yet they deny it to be the catholic
church,
For them who have found out new ways of justifying our separation from Rome, on principles of limiting the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome to a peculiar patriarchate, and granting a power to kings or nations to erect patriarchs or metropolitans within their own territories, and the like, the protestant cause is not concerned in their plea; the whole of it on both hands being foreign to the Scripture, relating mostly to human constitutions, wherein they may have liberty to exercise their wits and abilities.
Not receding from what hath by others solidly been pleaded on the answers above mentioned, in answer to the principles I have hitherto evinced, I shall proceed to give my account of the argument proposed.
That we mistake not, I only premise that I take schism in this argument in the notion and sense of the Scripture precisely, wherein alone it will reach the conscience, and bear the weight of inferring damnation from it.
1. Then, I wholly deny the major proposition as utterly false, in what sense soever that expression,” True church of Christ,” is taken. Take it for the catholic church of Christ, I deny that any one who is once a true member of it can utterly forsake its communion. No living member of that body of Christ can perish; and on supposition it could do so, it would be madness to call that crime schism. Nor is this a mere denial of the assertion, but such as is attended with an invincible truth for its maintenance.
Take it for the general visible church of Christ; the voluntary forsaking of its communion, which consists in the profession of the same faith, is not schism but apostasy, and the thing itself is to be removed from the question in hand. And as for apostates from the faith of the gospel, we question not their damnation; it sleepeth not. Who ever called a Christian that turned Jew or Mohammedan a schismatic?
Take it for a particular church of Christ, I deny, —
(2.) That, however, separation upon just cause and ground from any church is no schism, this is granted by all persons living. Schism is causeless, say all men, however concerned. And herein is a truth uncontrollable: Separation upon just cause is a duty, and therefore cannot be schism, which is always a sin. Now, there are five hundred things in the church of Rome, whereof every one, grafted as they are there into the stock and principle of imposition on the practice and confession of men, is a sufficient cause of separation from any particular church in the world, yea, from all of them, one after another, should they all consent unto the same thing, and impose it in the same manner, if there be any truth in that maxim, “It is better to obey God than man.”
2. I wholly deny the minor proposition also, if spoken in reference to the church of Rome, though I willingly acknowledge our separation to be voluntary from them, no more being done than I would do over again this day, God assisting me, were I called unto it. But separation, in the sense contended about, must be from some state and condition of Christ’s institution, from communion with a church which we held by his appointment; otherwise it will not be pleaded that it is a schism, at least not in a gospel sense. Now, though our forefathers, in the faith we profess, lived in subjection to the pope of Rome, or his subordinate engines, yet they were not so subject to them in any way or state instituted by Christ; so that the relinquishment of that state can possibly be no such separation as to be termed schism: for I wholly deny that the Papacy, exercising its power in its supreme and subordinate officers, which with them is their church, is a church at all of Christ’s appointment, or any such thing; and when they prove it is so, I will be of it. So that when our forefathers withdrew their neck from his tyrannical yoke, and forsook the practice of his abominations in the worship of God, they forsook no church of Christ’s institution, they relinquished no communion of Christ’s appointment. A man may possibly forsake Babylon, and yet not forsake Zion.
[As] for the aggravations of the sin of schism from some
ancient writers, —
The consequence of this divesting the Roman synagogue of the privileges of a true church in any sense, arising in the thoughts of some to a denial of that ministry which we have at this day in England, must, by the way, a little be considered. For my part (be it spoken without offence), if any man hath nothing to plead for his ministry but merely that successive ordination which he hath received through the church of Rome, I cannot see a stable bottom of owning him so to be; I do not say, if he will plead nothing else, but if he hath nothing else to plead. He may have that which indeed constitutes him a minister, though he will not own that so it doth. Nor doth it come here into inquiry, whether there were not a true ministry in some all along under the Papacy, distinct from it, as were the thousands in Israel in the days of Elijah, when in the ten tribes, as to the public worship, there was no true ministry at all. Nor is it said that any have their ministry from Rome; as though the office, which is an ordinance of Christ, were instituted by Antichrist. But the question is, Whether this be a sufficient and good basis and foundation of any man’s interest in the office of the ministry, that he hath received ordination in a succession, through the administration of, not the woman flying into the wilderness under the persecution of Antichrist, not of the two witnesses prophesying all along under the Roman apostasy, not from them to whom we succeed in doctrine, as the Waldenses, but the beast itself, the persecuting church of Rome, the pope and his adherents, who were certainly administrators of the ordination pleaded for; so that in doctrine we should succeed the persecuted woman, and in office the persecuting beast. I shall not plead this at large, professedly disclaiming all thoughts of rejecting those ministers as papal and antichristian who yet adhere to this ordination, being many of them eminently gifted of God to dispense the word, and submitted unto by his people in the administration of the ordinances, and are right worthy ministers of the gospel of Christ; but, —
I shall only remark something on the plea that is insisted
on by them who would (if I mistake not) keep up in this particular what God
would have pulled down. They ask us, “Why not ordination from the church
of Rome as well as the Scripture?” in which inquiry I am sorry that some do
still continue. We are so far from having the Scriptures from the church
of Rome, by any authority of it as such, that it is one cause of daily
praising God, that by his providence he kept them from being either
corrupted or destroyed by them. It is true, the Bible was kept among the
people that lived
It is also pleaded that the granting true ordination to the church of Rome doth not prove that to be a true church. This I profess I understand not. They who ordained had no power so to do but as they were officers of that church. As such they did it; and if others had ordained who were not officers of that church, all would confess that action to be null. But they who will not be contented that Christ hath appointed the office of the ministry to be continued in his churches; that he continues to dispense the gifts of his Spirit for the execution of that office when men are called thereunto; that he prepares the hearts of his people to desire and submit unto them in the Lord; that as to the manner of entrance upon the work, they may have it according to the mind of Christ to the utmost, in all circumstances, so soon as his churches are shaken out of the dust of Babylon with his glory shining on them, and the tabernacle of God is thereby once more placed with men, — shall have leave, for me, to derive their interest in the ministry through that dark passage, wherein I cannot see one step before me. If they are otherwise qualified and accepted as above, I shall ever pay them that honour which is due to elders labouring in the word and doctrine.
III. I now descend to the last
consideration of a church, in the
I suppose that, in this description of a particular church,
I have not only the consent of them of all sorts with whom I have now to do
as to what remains of this discourse, but also their acknowledgment that
these were the only kinds of churches of the first institution. The
reverend authors of the Jus Divinum Ministerii [Evangelici] Anglicani, p. 2, cap.
vi., A work published by the Provincial Assembly of London, in
4to, 1654. — Ed.
And this is the state of a particular instituted church which we plead for. Whether in process of time, believers multiplying, those who had been of one church met in several assemblies, by a settled distribution of them, to celebrate the same ordinances specifically, and so made many churches, or met in several places in parties, still continuing one body, and were governed in common by the elders, whom they increased and multiplied in proportion to the increase of believers; or whether that one or more officers, elders, or bishops, of that first single congregation, taking on him or them the care of those inhabiting the city wherein the church was first planted, designed and sent some fitted for that purpose, upon their desire and choice, or otherwise, to the several lesser companies of the region adjacent, which, in process of time, became dependent on and subject to the officer or officers of that first church from whence they came forth, — I dispute not. I am satisfied that the first plantation of churches was as hath been pleaded; and I know what was done afterward, on the one hand or the other, must be examined, as to our concernment, by what ought to have been done. But of those things afterward.
Now, according to the course of procedure hitherto insisted on, a declaration of the unity of the church in this sense, what it is, wherein it doth consist, with what it is to be guilty of the breach of that unity, must ensue; and this shall be done after I have premised some few things previously necessary thereunto.
I say, then, —
1. A man may be a member of the catholic church of Christ, be united to him by the inhabitation of his Spirit, and participation of life from him, who, upon the account of some providential hinderance, is never joined to any particular congregation, for the participation of ordinances, all his days.
2. In like manner may he be a member of the church
considered as professing visibly, seeing that he may do all that is of him
required
3. I willingly grant that every believer is obliged, as in a part of his duty, to join himself to some one of those churches of Christ, that therein he may abide, in “doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers,” according to the order of the gospel, if he have advantage and opportunity so to do; for,
(1.) There are some duties incumbent on us which cannot
possibly be performed but on a supposition of this duty being previously
required and submittal unto,
(2.) There are some ordinances of Christ, appointed for the good and benefit of those that believe, which they can never be made partakers of if not related to some such society; as public admonition, excommunication, participation of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.
(3.) The care that Jesus Christ hath taken that all things
be well ordered in these churches, — giving no direction for the
performance of any duty of worship merely and purely of sovereign
institution, but only in them and by them who are so joined, — sufficiently
evinces his mind and our duty herein,
(4.) The gathering, planting, and settling of such churches
by the apostles, with the care they took in bringing them to perfection,
leaving none whom they converted out of that order, where it was possible
for them to be reduced unto it, is of the same importance,
(5.) Christ’s institution of officers for them,
(6.) The judging and condemning them by the Holy Ghost as disorderly, blamable persons, who are to be avoided, who walk not according to the rules and order appointed in these churches; his care that those churches be not scandalized or offended; with innumerable other considerations, — evince their institution to be from heaven, not of men, or any prudential considerations of them whatever.
That there is an instituted worship of God, to be continued
under the New Testament until the second coming of Christ, I suppose needs
not much proof. With those with whom it doth so I am not now treating, and
must not make it my business to give it evidence by the innumerable
testimonies which might be alleged to that purpose. That for the whole of
his worship, matter, or manner, or any
1. That either he did not originally appoint these things, or he did not give out the gifts of his Spirit in reference to the right ordering of them, and exalting of his glory in them; or that having done so then, yet that his institutions have an end, being only for a season, and that it may be known when the efficacy of any of his institutions ceaseth; or that he doth not now dispense the gifts and graces of his Spirit to render them useful, — is a difficult task for any man to undertake to evince.
There is, indeed, in the institutions of Christ, much that
answers a natural principle in men, who are on many accounts
formed and fitted for society. A confederation and consultation to carry
on any design wherein the concernment of the individuals doth lie, within
such bounds and in such order as lie in a ready way to the end aimed at, is
exceeding suitable to the principles whereby we are acted and guided as
men. But he that would hence conclude that there is no more but this, and
the acting of these principles, in this church-constitution whereof we
speak, and that therefore men may be cast into any prudential form, or
appoint other ways and forms of it than those mentioned in the Scripture as
appointed and owned, takes on himself the demonstrating that all things
necessarily required to the constitution of such a church-society are
commanded by the law of nature, and therefore allowed of and approved only
by Christ, and so to be wholly moral, and to have nothing of instituted
worship in them. And also, he must know that when, on that supposition, he
hath given a probable reason why never any persons in the world fixed on
such societies in all essential things as those, seeing they are natural,
that he leaves less to the prudence of men, and to the ordering
2. Nor shall I consider whether perpetuity be a
property of the church of Christ in this sense; that is, not whether a
church that was once so may cease to be so, — which it is known I plead for
in the instance of the church of Rome, not to mention others, but whether,
by virtue of any promise of Christ, there shall always be somewhere in the
world a visible church, visibly celebrating his ordinances.
It is said that true churches were at first planted in England. How, then, or by what means, did they cease so to be? how, or by what act, did God unchurch them? They did it themselves meritoriously, by apostasy and idolatry; God legally, by his institution of a law of rejection of such churches. If any shall ask, “How, then, is it possible that any such churches should be raised anew?” I say, that the catholic church mystical and that visibly professing being preserved entire, he that thinketh there needs a miracle for those who are members of them to join in such a society as those now spoken of, according to the institution of Christ, is a person delighting in needless scruples.
Christ hath promised that where two or three are gathered
together in his name, he will be in the midst of them,
3. Upon this supposition, that particular churches are institutions of Jesus Christ, which is granted by all with whom I have to do, I proceed to make inquiry into their union and communion, that so we may know wherein the bonds of them do consist.
There is a double foundation, fountain, or cause
of the union of such a church, — the one external, procuring,
commanding; the other internal, inciting, directing, assisting.
The first is the institution of Jesus Christ, before mentioned, requiring
peace and order, union, consent, and agreement, in and among all the
members of such a church; all to be regulated, ordered, and bounded by the
rules, laws, and prescripts, which from him they have received for their
walking in those societies. The latter is that love without dissimulation
which always is, or which always ought to be, between all the members of
such a church, exerting itself in their respective duties one towards
another in that holy combination whereunto they are called and entered for
the worship of God, whether they are those which lie in the level of the
equality of their common interest of being church-members, or those which
are required of them in the several differences whereby, on any account
whatever, they are distinguished one from another amongst themselves; for
“love is the bond of perfectness,”
Hence, then, it appears what is the union of such a church,
and what is the communion to be observed therein, by the appointment of
Jesus Christ. The joint consent of all the members of it, in obedience to
the command of Christ, from a principle of love, to walk together in the
universal celebration of all the ordinances of the
Whereas there are in these churches some rulers, some ruled; some eyes, some hands in this body; some parts visibly comely, some uncomely, upon the account of that variety of gifts and graces which are distributed to them, — in the performance of duties, a regard is to be had to all the particular rules that are given with respect to men in their several places and distributions. Herein doth the union of a particular church consist; herein have the members of it communion among themselves, and with the whole.
4. I shall farther grant and add hereunto, that, over and above the union that is between the members of several particular churches, by virtue of their interest in the church catholic, which draws after it a necessity for the occasional exercise of duties of love one towards another; and that communion they have, as members of the general church visible, in the profession of the faith once delivered unto the saints; there is a communion also to be observed between these churches, as such, which is sometimes, or may be, exerted in their assemblies by their delegates, for declaring their sense and determining things of joint concernment unto them. Whether there ought to be an ordinary combination of the officers of these churches, invested with power for the disposal of things and persons that concern one or more of them, in several subordinations, by the institution of Christ; as it is not my judgment that so there is, so it belongs not unto my present undertaking at all to debate.
That which alone remains to be done, is to consider what is our concernment as to the breach of this union, which we profess to be appointed by Jesus Christ; and that both as we are Protestants and as also farther differenced, according to the intimations given at the entrance of this discourse. What hath already been delivered about the nature of schism and the Scripture notion of it might well suffice as to our vindication in this business from any charge that we are or seem obnoxious unto; but because I have no reason to suppose that some men will be so favourable unto us as to take pains for the improvement of principles, though in themselves clearly evinced, on our behalf, the application of them to some present cases, with the removal of objections that lie against my intendment, must be farther added.
Some things there are which, upon what hath been spoken, I shall assume and suppose as granted “in thesi,” until I see them otherwise disproved than as yet I have done.
Secondly, One church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them is not schism, properly so called.
Thirdly, The departure of any man or men from the society or communion of any church whatever, — so it be done without strife, variance, judging, and condemning of others, — because, according the light of their consciences, they cannot in all things in them worship God according to his mind, cannot be rendered evil but from circumstances taken from the persons so doing, or the way and manner whereby and wherein they do it.
Unto these I add, that if any one can show and evince that we have departed from and left the communion of any particular church of Christ, with which we ought to walk according to the order above mentioned, or have disturbed and broken the order and union of Christ’s institution, wherein we are or were inwrapped, we put ourselves on the mercy of our judges.
The consideration of what is the charge on any of us on this account was the first thing aimed at in this discourse; and, as it was necessary from the rules of the method wherein I have proceeded, comes now, in the last place, to be put to the issue and trial; which it shall in the next chapter.
That which first presents itself is
a plea against us, in the name
“You were some time members and children of the church of England, and lived in the communion thereof, professing obedience thereunto, according to its rules and canons. You were in an orderly subjection to the archbishops, bishops, and those acting under them in the hierarchy, who were officers of that church. In that church you were baptized, and joined in the outward worship celebrated therein. But you have now voluntarily, and of your own accord, forsaken and renounced the communion of this church; cast off your subjection to the bishops and rulers; rejected the form of worship appointed in that church, that great bond of its communion; and set up separate churches of your own, according to your pleasures: and so you are properly schismatics.”
This I say, if I mistake not, is the sum of the charge against us, on the account of our late attempt for reformation, and reducing of the church of Christ to its primitive institution; which we profess our aim in singleness of heart to have been, and leave the judgment of it unto God.
To acquit ourselves of this imputation, I shall declare, —
1. How far we own ourselves to have been, or to be, members or “children” (as they speak) “of the church of England,” as it is called or esteemed.
2. What was the subjection wherein we or any of us stood, or might be supposed to have stood, to the prelates or bishops of that church. And then I shall, —
3. Put the whole to the issue and inquiry, whether we have broken any bond or order which, by the institution and appointment of Jesus Christ, we ought to have preserved entire and unviolated; not doubting but that, on the whole matter in difference, we shall find the charge managed against us to be resolved wholly into the prudence and interest of some men, wherein our consciences are not concerned.
As to the first proposal, the several considerations that the church of England may fall under will make way for the determination of our relation thereunto.
1. There being in this country of England much people of
God, many of his elect, called and sanctified by and through the Spirit and
blood of Christ, with the “washing of water by the word,” so made true
living members of the mystical body or catholic church of Christ, holding
him as a spiritual head, receiving influences of life and grace from him
continually, they may be called, though improperly, the church of England;
that is, that part of Christ’s catholic church militant which lives in
England. In this sense it is the desire
2. The rulers, governors, teachers, and body of the people
of this nation of England, having, by laws, professions, and public
protestations, cast off the tyranny, authority, and doctrine of the church
of Rome, with its head the pope, and jointly assented unto and publicly
professed the doctrine of the gospel, as expressed in their public
confession, variously attested and confirmed, declaring their profession by
that public confession, preaching, laws, and writings suitable thereunto,
may also be called on good account the church of England. In this sense we
profess ourselves members of the church of England, and professing and
adhering to that doctrine of faith, in the unity of it, which was here
established and declared, as was before spoken. As to the attempt of some,
who accuse us for everting of fundamentals by our doctrine of election by
the free grace of God, of effectual redemption of the elect only,
conversion by the irresistible efficacy of grace, and the associate
doctrines, which are commonly known, we suppose the more sober part of our
adversaries will give them little thanks for their pains therein; if for no
other reason, yet at least because they know the cause they have to manage
against us is weakened thereby. Indeed, it seems strange to us that we
should be charged with schism from the church of England, for endeavouring
to reform ourselves as to something relating to the worship of God, by men
everting and denying so considerable a
3. Though I know not how proper that expression of “children of the church” may be under the New Testament, nor can by any means consent unto it, to be the urging of any obedience to any church or churches whatsoever on that account, no such use being made of that consideration by the Holy Ghost, nor any parallel unto it insisted on by him; yet, in a general sense, so far as our receiving our regeneration and new birth, through the grace of God, by the preaching of the word and the saving truths thereof here professed, with the seal of it in our baptism, may be signified by that expression, we own ourselves to have been, and to be, children of the church of England, because we have received all this by the administration of the gospel here in England, as dispensed in several assemblies therein, and are contented that this concession be improved to the utmost.
Here, indeed, we are left by them who renounce the baptism they have received in their infancy, and repeat it again amongst themselves. Yet I suppose that he who, upon that single account, will undertake to prove them schismatical may find himself entangled. Nor is the case with them exactly as it was with the Donatists. They do the same thing with them, but not on the same principles. The Donatists rebaptized those who came to their societies, because they professed themselves to believe that all administration of ordinances not in their assemblies was null, and that they were to be looked on as no such thing. Our Anabaptists do the same thing, but on this plea, that though baptism be, yet infant baptism is not, an institution of Christ, and so is null from the nature of the thing itself, not the way of its administration. But this falls not within the verge of my defence.
In these several considerations we were, and do continue, members of the church of God in England; and as to our failing herein, who is it that convinces us of sin?
The second thing inquired after is, what subjection we stood in, or were supposed to have stood in, to the bishops? Our subjection being regulated by their power, the consideration of this discovers the true state of that.
They had and exercised in this nation a twofold power, and consequently the subjection required of us was twofold:—
1. A power delegated from the supreme magistrate of the
nation,
“But this,” they reply, “is the state of the business in hand: The parliament, as much as in them lay, did so, indeed, as is confessed, and by so doing made the schism; which you by adhering to them, and joining with them in your several places, have made yourselves also guilty of.”
2. “Bishops had here a power, as ministers of the gospel, to preach, administer the sacraments, to join in the ordination of ministers, and the like duties of church-officers.” To this we say, Let the individuals of them acquit themselves, by the qualifications mentioned in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, with a sedulous exercise of their duty in a due manner, according to the mind of Christ, to be such indeed, and we will still pay them all the respect, reverence, duty, and obedience, which as such, by virtue of any law or institution of Christ, they can claim. Let them come forth with weapons that are not carnal, evidencing their ministry to the consciences of believers, acting in a spirit and power received from Christ, and who are they that will harm them?
I had once formerly said thus much: “Let the bishops attend
the particular flocks over which they are appointed, preaching the word,
administering the holy ordinances of the gospel in and to their own flock,
there will not be contending about them.” It was thought meet to return,
by one concerned: “I shall willingly grant herein my suffrage, let them
discharge them (and I beseech all who have any way hindered them at length
to let and quietly permit them), on condition he will do this as carefully
as I. I shall not contend with him concerning the nature of their task. Be
it, as he saith, ‘the attending to the particular churches over which they
are appointed’ (the bishop of Oxford over that flock or portion to which he
was and is appointed, and so all others in like manner); be it their
‘preaching
Though I was not then speaking of the bishops of England,
yet I am contented with the application to them, there being amongst them
men of piety and learning, whom I exceedingly honour and reverence.
Amongst all the bishops, he of Oxford is, I suppose, peculiarly instanced
in, because it may be thought that, living in this place, I may belong to
his jurisdiction. But in the condition wherein I now am, by the providence
of God, I can plead an exemption on the same foot of account as he can his
jurisdiction; so that I am not much concerned in his exercise of it as to
my own person. If he have a particular flock at Oxon, which he will attend
according to what before I required, he shall have no let or hinderance
from me; but seeing he is, as I hear he is, a reverend and learned person,
I shall be glad of his neighborhood and acquaintance. But to suppose that
the diocese of Oxon, as legally constituted and bounded, is his particular
flock or church; that such a church was instituted by Christ, or hath been
in being ever since the apostles’ times; that, in his presidency in this
church, he is to set up courts and exercise a jurisdiction in them, and
therewith a power over all the inhabitants of this diocese or shire
(excepting the exempt peculiar jurisdiction), although gathered into
particular congregations, and united by a participation of the same
ordinances; and all this by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, — is
to suppose what will not be granted. I confess, as before, there was once
such an order in this place, and that it is now removed by laws, on which
foundation alone it stood before; and this is that wherein I am not
concerned. Whether we have causelessly and inexcusably departed from the
unity of the church is the matter now in inquiry. I am sure, unless the
unity can be fixed, our departure will not be proved. A law unity
I confess; an evangelical I am yet in the disquisition of. But I
confess it will be to the prejudice of the cause in hand, if it shall be
thought that the determination of it depends on the controversy about
episcopacy; for if so, it might be righteously expected that the arguments
produced in the behalf and defence thereof should be particularly
discussed. But the truth is, I shall easily acknowledge all my labour to
no purpose, if I have to deal only with men who suppose that if it be
granted that bishops, as commonly esteemed in this nation, are of the
appointment of Christ, it will thence follow that we have a
What, then, it is which is called the church of England, in respect whereto we are charged with schism, is nextly to be considered.
Now, there are two ways whereby we may come to the discovery of what is intended by the church of England, or there are two ways whereby such a thing doth arise:—
1. “Descendendo;” which is the way of the Prelates.
2. “Ascendendo;” which is the way of the Presbyterians.
For the first, to constitute a national church by descent, it must be supposed that all church power is vested in national officers, namely, archbishops, and from them derived to several diocesans by a distribution of power, limited in its exercise, to a certain portion of the nation, and by them communicated by several engines to parochial priests in their several places. A man with half an eye may see that here are many things to be proved.
Thus, their first church is national, which is distributed
into several greater portions, termed provinces; those again into others,
now called dioceses; and those again subdivided into parochial
or particular congregations. Now, the union of this church consisteth
in the due observance of the same worship specifically by all the members
of it, and subjection, according to rules of their own appointment (which
were called commonly canons, by way of distinction), unto the
rulers before mentioned, in their several capacities. And this is that
which is the peculiar form of this church. That of the church
catholic, absolutely so called, is its unity with Christ and in
itself, by the one Spirit whereby it is animated; that of the church
catholic visibly professing, the unity of the faith which they do
profess, as being by them professed; that of a particular church,
as such, its observance and performance of the same ordinances of worship
numerically, in the confession of the same faith, and subjection to the
same rules of love for edification of the whole. Of this national
[church], as it is called, the unity consists in the subjection of one sort
of officers unto another, within a precinct limited, originally, wholly on
an account foreign to any church-state whatever. So that it is not called
the church of England from its participation of the nature of the catholic
church, on the account of its most noble members; nor yet from
In this description given of their church-state with whom we have now to do, I have purposely avoided the mention of things odious and exposed to common obloquy, which yet were the very ties and ligaments of their order, because the thing, as it is in itself, being nakedly represented, we may not be prejudiced in judging of the strength and utmost of the charge that lies against any of us on the account of a departure from it.
The communion of this church, they say, we have forsaken, and broken its unity; and therefore are schismatics.
I answer in a word: Laying aside so much of the jurisdiction of it [as was] mentioned before, and the several ways of its administration for which there is no colour or pretence that it should relate to any gospel institution; passing by, also, the consideration of all those things which the men enjoying authority in, or exercising the pretended power of, this church, did use all their authority and power to enjoin and establish, which we judge evil; — let them prove that such a national church as would remain with these things pared off, that is in its best estate imaginable, was ever instituted by Christ, or the apostles in his name, in all the things of absolute necessity to its being and existence, and I will confess myself to be what they please to say of me.
That there was such an order in things relating to the
worship of God established by the law of the land, in and over the people
thereof; that the worship pleaded for was confirmed by the same law; that
the rulers mentioned had power, being by the magistrates assembled, to make
rules and canons to become binding to the good people of the commonwealth,
when confirmed by the supreme authority of the nation, and not else; that
penalties were appointed to the disturbers of this order by the same law, —
I grant: but that any thing of all this, as such, — that is, as a part of
this whole, or the whole itself, — was instituted by the will and
appointment of Jesus Christ, that is denied. Let not any one
think that because we deny the constitution pleaded about to have had the
stamp of the authority of Jesus Christ, that therefore we pulled it down
and destroyed it by violence. It was set up before we were born, by them
who had power to make laws to bind the people of this nation, and we found
men in an orderly legal possession of that power, which, exerting itself
several ways, maintained and preserved that constitution, which we had no
call to eradicate. Only, whereas they took upon them to act in the name of
Christ also, and to interpose their orders and
Now, it is not to any purpose to plead the authority of the church for many of the institutions mentioned; for neither hath any church power, or can have, to institute and appoint the things whereby it is made to be so, — as these things are the very form of the church that we plead about, — nor hath any church any authority but what is answerable to its nature. If itself be of a civil prudential constitution, its authority also is civil, and no more. Denying their church, in that form of it which makes it such, to be of the institution of Christ, it cannot be expected that we should grant that it is, as such, invested with any authority from Christ; so that the dissolution of the unity of this church, as it had its rise on such an account, proceeded from an alteration of the human constitution whereon it was built; and how that was done was before declared. Then let them prove, —
1. That ordinary officers are before the church,
and that in “ecclesia
instituta,” as well as “instituenda;” which must be the foundation of their
work. (We confess extraordinary officers were before the church, nor,
considering the way of men’s coming to be joined in such societies, was it
possible it should be otherwise; but as for ordinary officers, they were an
exurgency from a church, and serve to the completion of it,
2. That Christ hath appointed any national officers, with a plenitude of ordinary power, to be imparted, communicated, and distributed to other recipient subjects, in several degrees, within one nation, and not elsewhere; I mean, such an officer or officers who, in the first instance of their power, should, on their own single account, relate unto a whole nation.
3. That he hath instituted any national church as
the proper correlatum of such an officer. Concerning which, also, I desire
to be informed, whether a catalogue of those he hath so instituted be to be
obtained, or their number be left indefinite? whether they have limits and
bounds prescribed to them by him, or are left to be commensurate to the
civil dominion of any potentate, and so to enjoy or suffer the providential
enlargements or straits that such dominions are continually subject unto?
whether we had seven churches here in England during the heptarchy of the
Saxons, and one in Wales, or but one in the whole? if seven, how came they
to be one? if but
Briefly; when they have proved metropolitan, diocesan bishops in a firstness of power by the institution of Christ; a national church by the same institution, in the sense pleaded for; a firstness of power in the national officers of that national church to impose a form of worship upon all being within that nation, by the same institution, which should contain the bond of the union of that church; also, that every man who is born, and in his infancy baptized, in that nation, is a member of that national church, by the same institution; and shall have distinguished clearly in and about their administrations, and have told us what they counted to be of ecclesiastical power, and what they grant to be a mere emanation of the civil government of the nation, — we will then treat with them about the business of schism. Until then, if they tell us that we have forsaken the church of England in the sense pleaded for by them, I must answer, “That which is wanting cannot be numbered.” It is no crime to depart from nothing. We have not left to be that which we never were. Which may suffice both us and them as to our several respective concernments of conscience and power. It hath been from the darkness of men, and ignorance of the Scriptures, that some have taken advantage to set up a product of the prudence of nations in the name of Jesus Christ; and on that account to require the acceptance of it. When the tabernacle of God is again well fixed amongst men, these shadows will flee away. In the meantime, we owe all these disputes, with innumerable other evils, to the apostasy of the Roman combination; from which we are far, as yet, from being clearly delivered.
I have one thing more to add upon the whole matter, and I shall proceed to what is lastly to be considered.
The church of England, as it is called (that is, the people thereof), separated herself from the church of Rome. To free herself from the imputation of schism in so doing, as she (that is, the learned men of the nation) pleaded the errors and corruptions of that church, under this especial consideration of their being imposed by tyrants; so also by professing her design to do nothing but to reduce religion and the worship of God to its original purity, from which it was fallen. And we all jointly justify both her and all other reformed churches in this plea.
In her design to reduce religion to its primitive purity,
she always professed that she did not take her direction from the Scripture
only,
Before we part with this consideration, I must needs prevent one mistake, which perhaps, in the mind of some, may arise upon the preceding discourse; for whereas sundry ordinances of the worship of God are rightly to be administered only in a church, and ministers do evidently relate thereunto, the denying of a national church-state seems to deny that we had either ministers or ordinances here in England. The truth is, it seems so to do, but it doth not; unless you will say, that unless there be a national church-state there is no other, which is too absurd for any one to imagine. It follows, indeed, that there were no national church-officers, that there were no ordinances numerically the same, to be administered in and to the nation at once; but that there was not another church-state in England, and on the account thereof ordinances truly administered by lawful ministers, doth not follow. And now, if by this discourse I only call this business to a review by them who are concerned to assert this national church, I am satisfied. That the church of England is a true church of Christ, they have hitherto maintained against the Romanists, on the account of the doctrine taught in it, and the successive ordination of its officers, through the church of Rome itself, from the primitive times. About the constitution and nature of a national church they have had with them no contention; therein the parties at variance were agreed. The same grounds and principles, improved with a defence of the external worship and ceremonies established on the authority of the church, they managed against the Nonconformists and Separatists at home. But their chief strength against them lay in arguments more forcible, which need not be repeated. The constitution of the church now impleaded deserves, as I said, the review; hitherto it hath been unfurnished of any considerable defensative.
Secondly, There is another way of constituting a national
church,
“In this sense,” say some, “a church may be called national, when all the particular congregations of one nation, living under one civil government, agreeing in doctrine and worship, are governed by their greater and lesser assemblies” (Jus Divinum Minist. Anglic., p. 12). But I would be loath to exclude every man from being a member of the church in England, — that is, from a share in the profession of the faith which is owned and professed by the people of God in England, — who is not a member of a particular congregation. Nor does subjection to one civil government, and agreement in the same doctrine and worship specifically, either jointly or severally, constitute one church, as is known even in the judgment of these brethren. It is the last expression, of “greater and lesser assemblies,” that must do it. But as to any such institution of Christ, as a standing ordinance, sufficient to give unity, yea, or denomination to a church, this is the τὸ κρινόμενον. And yet this alone is to be insisted on; for, as was showed before, the other things mentioned contribute nothing to the form nor union of such a church.
It is pleaded that there are prophecies and promises of a
national church that should be under the New Testament: as
But of what there is, or seems to be, of divine institution in this order and fabric, what of human prudent creation, what in the matter or manner of it I cannot assent unto, I shall not at present enter into the consideration; but shall only, as to my purpose in hand, take up some principles which lie in common between the men of this persuasion and myself, with some others otherwise minded. Now, of these are the ensuing assertions:—
1. No man can possibly be a member of a national church in
this sense, but by virtue of his being a member of some particular church
in the nation, which concurs to the making up of the national church; as a
man doth not legally belong to any county in the nation, unless he
belong to some hundred or parish in that county. This is evident
2. No man can recede from this church, or depart from it, but by departing from some particular church therein. At the same door that a man comes in, he must go out. If I cease to be a member of a national church, it is by the ceasing or abolishing of that which gave me original right thereunto; which was my relation to the particular church whereof I am.
3. To make men members of any particular church or churches, their own consent is required. All men must admit of this who allow it is free for a man to choose where he will fix his habitation.
4. That as yet, at least since possibly we could be personally concerned who are now alive, no such church in this nation hath been formed. It is impossible that a man should be guilty of offending against that which is not. We have not separated from a national church in the presbyterian sense, as never having seen any such thing, unless they will say we have separated from what should be.
5. As to the state of such a church as this, I shall only
add to what hath been spoken before the judgment of a very learned and
famous man in this case, whom I the rather name, because professedly
engaged on the Presbyterians’ side. It is
These being, if I mistake not, things of mutual acknowledgment (for I have not laid down any principles peculiar to myself and those with whom I consent in the way of the worship of God, which yet we can justly plead in our own defence), this whole business will be brought to a speedy issue. Only, I desire the reader to observe that I am not pleading the right, liberty, and duty of gathering churches in such a state of professors as that of late, and still amongst us, — which is built on other principles and hypotheses than any as yet I have had occasion to mention, — but am only, in general, considering the true notion of schism, and the charge managed against us on that single account, which relates not to gathering of churches, as simply considered. I say, then, —
First, either we have been members by our own voluntary consent, according to the mind of Christ, of some particular congregations in such a national church, and that as “de facto” part of such a church, or we have not. If we have not been so (as it is most certain we have not), then we have not as yet broken any bond, or violated any unity, or disturbed any peace or order, of the appointment of Jesus Christ; so that whatever of trouble or division hath followed on our way and walking is to be charged on them who have turned every stone to hinder us [in] our liberty. And I humbly beg of them who, acting on principles of reformation according to the (commonly called) presbyterian platform, do accuse us for separation from the church of England, that they would seriously consider what they intend thereby. Is it that we are departed from the faith of the people of God in England? They will not sustain any such crimination. Is it that we have forsaken the church of England as under its episcopal constitution? Have they not done the same? Have they not rejected their national officers, with all the bonds, ties, and ligaments of the union of that pretended church? Have they not renounced the way of worship established by the law of the land? Do they not disavow all obedience to them who were their legal superiors in that constitution? Do they retain either matter or form, or any thing but the naked name of that church? And will they condemn others in what they practice themselves? As for a church of England in their new sense (which yet in some respects is not new, but old), for what is beyond a voluntary consociation of particular churches, we have not as yet had experience of it.
That we shall be accused of schism for not esteeming
ourselves made members of a particular church, against our wills, by buying
or
If we have been so members by our own voluntary consent, and do not continue so to be, then this congregation wherein we are so members was reformed according to the mind of Christ (for I speak now to them that own reformation, as to their light) or it was not. If it were reformed, and a man were a member of it so reformed by his own voluntary consent, I confess it may be difficult to see how a man can leave such a congregation without their consent in whose power it is to give it him, without giving offence to the church of God. Only, I say, let all by respects be laid aside on the one hand, and on the other all regard to repute and advantage, let love have its perfect work, and no church, knowing the end of its being and constitution to be the edification of believers, will be difficult and tenacious as to the granting a dismission to any member whatever that shall humbly desire it, on the account of applying himself to some other congregation, wherein he supposes and is persuaded that he may be more effectually built up in his most holy faith.
I confess this to be a case of the greatest difficulty that
presents itself to my thoughts, in this business: Suppose a man to be a
member of a particular church, and that church to be a true church of
Christ, and granted so by this person, and yet, upon the account of some
defect which is in, or at least he is convinced and persuaded to be in,
that church, whose reformation he cannot obtain, he cannot abide in that
church to his spiritual advantage and edification; suppose the church, on
the other side, cannot be induced to consent to his secession and
relinquishment of its ordinary external communion, and that that person is
hereby entangled; — what course is to be taken? I
As, then, the not giving a man’s self up unto any way, and submitting to any establishment, pretended or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, and which he was not by any act of his own formerly engaged in, cannot, with any colour or pretence of reason, be reckoned unto him for schism, though he may, if he persist in his refusal, prejudice his own edification; so no more can a man’s peaceable relinquishment of the ordinary communion of one church, in all its relations, to join with another, be so esteemed.
For instance of the first case: Suppose, by the law of this
nation, the several parochial churches of the land, according to arbitrary
distributions made of them, should be joined in classical associations; and
those again, in the like arbitrary disposal, into provincial; and so onward
(which cannot be done without such interveniences as will exonerate
conscience from the weight of pure institution); — or suppose this not to
be done by the law of the land, but by the voluntary consent of the
officers of the parochial churches, and others joining with them: the
saints of God in this nation who have not formerly been given up unto or
disposed of in this order by their own voluntary consent; nor are concerned
in it any farther than by their habitation being within some of these
different precincts that, by public authority or consent of some amongst
them, are combined as above; nor do believe such associations to be the
institutions of Christ, whatever they prove to be in the issue, — I say,
they are, by their dissent
For the latter: Suppose a man stated in a particular church, wherewith he hath walked for a season; he discovers that some, perhaps, of the principles of its constitution are not according to the mind of Christ, something is wanting or redundant, and imposed in practice on the members of it, which renders the communion of it, by reason of his doubts and scruples, or, it may be, clear convictions, not so useful to him as he might rationally expect it would be, were all things done according to the mind of Christ; that also he hath declared his judgment as he is able, and dissatisfaction; — if no reformation do ensue, this person, I say, is doubtless at liberty to dispose of himself, as to particular church-communion, to his own best advantage.
But now suppose this congregation, whereof a man is
supposed to be a member, is not reformed, will not nor cannot reform itself
(I desire that it may be minded with whom I have to do, — namely, those who
own a necessity of reformation as to the administration of ordinances, in
respect to what hath been hitherto observed in most parochial assemblies.
Those I have formerly dealt withal are not to be imposed on with this
principle of reformation; they acknowledge none to be needful. But they
are not concerned in our present inquiry. Their charge lies all in the
behalf of the church of England, not of particular assemblies or parishes;
which it is not possible that, according to their principle, they should
own for churches, or account any separation from any of them to be
blameworthy, but only as it respecteth the constitutions of the church
national in them to be observed. If any claim arise on that hand as to
parochial assemblies, I should take liberty to examine the foundation of
the plea, and doubt not but that I may easily frustrate their attempts.
But this is not my present business. I deal, as I said, with them who own
reformation; and I now suppose the congregation, whereof a man is supposed
to be a member on any account whatever, not to be reformed); — In this
case, I ask whether it be schism or no for any number of men to reform
themselves, by reducing the practice of worship to its original
institution, though they be the minor part lying within the parochial
precincts, or for any of them to join themselves
I suppose nothing can be more unreasonable than once to imagine any such thing.
However, not to drive this business any farther, but to put it to its proper issue: When it is proved that this is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, that every believer who liveth within such a precinct allotted by civil constitutions, wherein the people or inhabitants do, or may usually, meet for the celebration of the worship of God, or which they have light for, or on any account whatever do make profession of, how profane soever that part of them be from whom the whole is denominated, how corrupt soever in their worship, how dead soever as to the power of godliness, must abide with them and join with them in their administrations and worship, and that indispensably, this business may come again under debate. In the meantime, I suppose the people of God are not in any such subjection. I speak not this as laying down this for a principle, that it is the duty of every man to separate from that church wherein evil and wicked men are tolerated (though that opinion must have many other attendancies before it can contract the least affinity with that of the same sound, which was condemned in the Donatists); but this only I say, that where any church is overborne by a multitude of men wicked and profane, so that it cannot reform itself, or will not, according to the mind of Christ, a believer is so far at liberty that he may desert the communion of that society without the least guilt of schism. But this state of things is now little pleaded for.
It is usually objected about the church of Corinth, that there was in it many disorders and enormous miscarriages, divisions, and breaches of love; miscarriages through drink at their meetings, gross sins, the incestuous person tolerated, false doctrine broached, the resurrection denied; — and yet Paul advises no man to separate from it, but all to perform their duty in it.
But how little our present plea and defensative is concerned in this instance, supposed to lie against it, very few considerations will evince:—
First, the church of Corinth was undoubtedly a true
church, lately All and some, a corruption of
an Anglo-Saxon phrase, meaning all together, one and all. — Ed.
I confess
Let us now see the sum of the whole matter, and what it is
that we plead for our discharge as to this crime of schism, allowing the
term to pass in its large and usual acceptation, receding, for the sake of
the truth’s farther ventilation, from the precise propriety of the word
annexed to it in the Scripture. The sum is, We have broken no bond
And thus, from what hath been said, it appears in what a fair capacity, notwithstanding any principle or practice owned by us, we are in to live peaceably, and to exercise all fruits of love towards those who are otherwise minded.
There is not the least necessity on us, may we be permitted to serve God according to our light, for the acquitting ourselves from the charge which hath made such a noise in the world, to charge other men with their failings, great or small, in or about the ways and worship of God. This only is incumbent on us, that we manifest that we have broken no bond, no obligation or tie to communion, which lay upon us by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master. What is prudentially to be done in such a nation as this, in such a time as this, as to the worship of God, we will treat with men at farther leisure, and when we are lawfully called thereto.
It may be some will yet say (because it hath been often said), “There is a difference between reforming of churches already gathered and raised, and raising of churches out of mere materials. The first may be allowed, but the latter tends to all manner of confusion.”
I have at present not much to say to this objection, because, as I conceive, it concerns not the business we have in hand; nor would I have mentioned it at all, but that it is insisted on by some on every turn, whether suited for the particular cause for which it is produced or no. In brief, then, —
1. I know no other reformation of any church, or any thing in a church, but the reducing of it to its primitive institution, and the order allotted to it by Jesus Christ. If any plead for any other reformation of churches, they are, in my judgment, to blame.
And when any society or combination of men (whatever hitherto it hath been esteemed) is not capable of such a reduction and renovation, I suppose I shall not provoke any wise and sober person if I profess I cannot look on such a society as a church of Christ, and thereupon advise those therein who have a due right to the privileges purchased for them by Christ, as to gospel administrations, to take some other peaceable course to make themselves partakers of them.
2. Were I fully to handle the things pointed to in this
objection, I must manage principles which, in this discourse, I have not
been occasioned to draw forth at all or to improve. Many things of great
weight and importance must come under debate and consideration
(1.) The true nature of an instituted church under the gospel, as to the matter, form, and all other necessary constitutive causes, is to be investigated and found out.
(2.) The nature and form of such a church is to be exemplified from the Scripture and the stories of the first churches, before sensibly infected with the poison of that apostasy which ensued.
(3.) The extent of the apostasy under Antichrist, as to the ruining of instituted churches, making them to be Babylon, and their worship fornication, is duly and carefully to be examined.
Here lie our disorder and division; hence is our darkness and pollution of our garments, which is not an easy thing to free ourselves of: though we may arise, yet we shall not speedily shake ourselves out of the dust.
(4.) By what way and means God begat anew and kept alive his elect in their several generations, when antichristian darkness covered the earth and thick darkness the nations, supposing an intercision of instituted ordinances, so far as to make a nullity in them as to what was of simple and pure institution; what way might be used for the fixing the tabernacle of God again with men, and the setting up of church-worship according to his mind and will. And here the famous case of the United Brethren of Bohemia would come under consideration; who, concluding the whole Papacy to be purely antichristian, could not allow of the ordination of their ministers by any in communion with it, and yet, being persuaded of a necessity of continuing that ordinance in a way of succession, sent some to the Greek and Armenian churches; who, observing their ways, returned with little satisfaction; so that at last, committing themselves and their cause to God, they chose them elders from among themselves, and set them apart by fasting and prayer: which was the foundation of all those churches, which, for piety, zeal, and suffering for Christ, have given place to none in Europe.
(5.) What was the way of the first Reformation in
this nation, and what principles the godly learned men of those
days proceeded on; how far what they did may be satisfactory to our
consciences at the present, as to our concurrence in them, who from thence
have the truth of the gospel derived down to us; whether ordinary officers
be before or after the church, and so whether a church-state is preserved
in the preservation of officers, by a power foreign to that church whereof
they are so, or the office he preserved, and consequently the officers
inclusively, in the preservation and constitution of a church; — these, I
say, with sundry other things of the like importance, with inferences from
them, are to be considered to the
This task, then, is at its issue and close. Some considerations of the manifold miscarriages that have ensued for want of a due and right apprehension of the thing we have now been exercised in the consideration of shall shut it up:—
1. It is not impossible that some may, from what hath been spoken, begin to apprehend that they have been too hasty in judging other men. Indeed, none are more ready to charge highly than those who, when they have so done, are most unable to make good their charge. “Si accusâsse sufficiat, quis erit innocens?” What real schisms in a moral sense have ensued among brethren, by their causeless mutual imputation of schism in things of institution, is known. And when men are in one fault, and are charged with another wherein they are not, it is a ready way to confirm them in that wherein they are. There is more darkness and difficulty in the whole matter of instituted worship than some men are aware of; not that it was so from the beginning, whilst Christianity continued in its naked simplicity, but it is come occasionally upon us by the customs, darkness, and invincible prejudices that have taken hold on the minds of men by a secret diffusion of the poison of that grand apostasy. It were well, then, that men would not be so confident, nor easily persuaded that they presently know how all things ought to be, because they know how they would have some things to be, which suit their temper and interest. Men may easily perhaps see, or think they see, what they do not like, and cry out schism! and separation! but if they would a little consider what aught to be in this whole matter, according to the mind of God, and what evidences they have of the grounds and principles whereon they condemn others, it might make them yet swift to hear, but slow to speak, and take off from the number of teachers among us. Some are ready to think that all that join not with them are schismatics, and they are so because they go not with them; and other reason they have none, being unable to give any solid foundation of what they profess. What the cause of unity among the people of God hath suffered from this sort of men is not easily to be expressed.
2. In all differences about religion, to drive them to
their rise and spring, and to consider them as stated originally, will ease
us of much trouble and labour. Perhaps many of them will not appear so
formidable as they are represented. He that sees a great river is not
instantly to conclude that all the water in it comes from its first rise
and spring; the addition of many brooks, showers, and land-floods, have
perhaps swelled it to the condition wherein it is. Every difference in
religion is not to be thought to be as big at its rise as it appears to be
when it hath passed through many generations, and hath
The great maxim, “To the law and to the testimony,” truly improved, would quickly cure all our distempers. In the meantime, let us bless God that though our outward man may possibly be disposed of according to the apprehension that others have of what we do or are, our consciences are concerned only in what he hath appointed. How some men may prevail against us, before whom we must stand or fall according to their corrupt notion of schism, we know not. The rule of our consciences in this, as in all other things, is eternal and unchangeable. Whilst I have an uncontrollable faithful witness that I transgress no limits prescribed to me in the word, that I do not willingly break or dissolve any unity of the institution of Jesus Christ, my mind as to this thing is filled with perfect peace. Blessed be God, that hath reserved the sole sovereignty of our consciences in his hand, and not in the least parcelled it out to any of the sons of men, whose tender mercies being oftentimes cruelty itself, they would perhaps destroy the soul also, when they do so to the body, seeing they stay there, as our Saviour witnesseth, because they can proceed no farther! Here, then, I profess to rest, in this doth my conscience acquiesce: Whilst I have any comfortable persuasion, on grounds infallible, that I hold the head, and that I am by faith a member of the mystical body of Christ; whilst I make profession of all the necessary saving truths of the gospel; whilst I disturb not the peace of that particular church whereof by my own consent I am a member, nor do raise up nor continue in any causeless differences with them, or any of them, with whom I walk in the fellowship and order of the gospel; whilst I labour to exercise faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and love towards all the saints, — I do keep the unity which is of the appointment of Christ, And let men say, from principles utterly foreign to the gospel, what they please or can to the contrary, I am no schismatic.
3. Perhaps the discovery which hath been made, how little
we are many of us concerned in that which, having mutually charged it on
one another, hath been the greatest ball of strife and most effectual
engine of difference and distance between us, may be a means to reconcile
in love them that truly fear God, though engaged in several ways, as to
some particulars. I confess I have not any great hope of
4. To conclude; what vain janglings men are endlessly engaged in, who will lay their own false hypotheses and preconceptions as a ground of farther procedure, is also in part evident by what hath been delivered. Hence, for instance, is that doughty dispute in the world, whether a schismatic doth belong to the church or no? which for the most part is determined in the negative; when it is impossible a man should be so, but by virtue of his being a church-member. A church is that “alienum solum,” wherein that evil dwelleth. The most of the inquiries that are made and disputed on, whether this or that sort of men belong to the church or no, are of the same value and import. He belongs to the church catholic who is united to Christ by the Spirit, and none other. And he belongs to the church general visible who makes profession of the faith of the gospel, and destroys it not by any thing of a just inconsistency with the belief of it. And he belongs to a particular church who, having been in due order joined thereunto, hath neither voluntarily deserted it nor been judicially ejected out of it. Thus, one may be a member of the church catholic who is no member of the general visible church nor of a particular church; as an elect infant, sanctified from the womb, dying before baptism. And one may be a member of the church general visible who is no member of the church catholic nor of a particular church; as a man making profession of the true faith, yet not united to Christ by the Spirit, nor joined to any particular visible church; — or he may be also of the catholic church, and not of a particular, as also of a particular church, and not of the catholic. And a man may be, — every true believer walking orderly ordinarily is, — a member of the church of Christ in every sense insisted on; — of the catholic church, by a union with Christ, the head; of the visible general church, by his profession, of the faith; and of a particular congregation, by his voluntarily associating himself therewith, according to the will and appointment of our Lord Jesus Christ.
A
review of the true nature of schism,
with
a vindication of the Congregational churches in England from the imputation thereof,
unjustly charged on them by Mr D. Cawdrey,
preacher of the word at Billing, in Northamptonshire.
Δοῦλον Κυρίου οὐ δεῖ
μάχεσθαι. —
Δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον
ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ
πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ. —
Oxford: 1657.
The preceding treatise was too
important to pass without a reply.
In the beginning of the second chapter there will be found,
what
In all his treatises on schism,
Christian Reader,
It is now about three weeks since that there was sent unto me a book entitled, “Independency a Great Schism;” as the frontispiece farther promiseth, undertaken to be managed against something written by me in a treatise about the true nature of schism, published about a year ago; with an addition of a charge of inconstancy in opinion upon myself. Of the one and the other the ensuing discourse will give a farther and full account. Coming unto my hands at such a season, wherein, as it is known, I was pressed with more than ordinary occasions of sundry sorts, I thought to have deferred the examination of it until farther leisure might be obtained, supposing that some fair advantage would be administered by it to a farther Christian debate of that discovery of truth and tender of peace which in my treatise I had made. Engaging into a cursory perusal of it, I found the reverend author’s design and discourse to be of that tendency and nature as did not require nor would admit of any such delay. His manifold mistakes in apprehending the intention of my treatise and of the severals of it; his open presumption of his own principles as the source and spring of what pretends to be argumentative in his discourse, arbitrarily inferring from them, without the least attempt of proof, whatever tenders its assistance, to cast reproach on them with whom he hath to do; his neglect in providing a defence for himself, by any principles not easily turned upon him, against the same charge which he is pleased to manage against me; his avowed laying the foundation of his whole fabric in the sand of notoriously false suppositions, — quickly delivered me from the thoughts of any necessity to delay the consideration of what he tendered to make good the title of his discourse. The open and manifest injury done not only to myself, — in laying things to my charge which I know not, lading me with reproaches, tending to a rendering of me odious to all the ministers and churches in the world not agreeing with me in some few things concerning gospel administrations, — but also to all other churches and persons of the same judgment with myself, called for a speedy account of true state of the things contended about.
Thou hast therefore here, Christian reader, the product
(through the grace of Him who supplieth seed to the sower) of the spare
hours of four or five days; in which space of time this ensuing discourse
was begun and finished. Expect not, therefore, anything from it but what
is necessary for the refutaton of the book whereunto it is opposed; and as
to that end and purpose, I leave it to thy strictest judgment. Only, I
shall desire thee to take notice that having kept myself to a bare defence,
I have resolvedly forborne all re-charge on the presbyterian way, either as
to the whole of it (whence, by way of distinction, it is so called), or as
to the differences in judgment and practice of them who profess that way
among themselves;
Farewell, and love, truth, and peace.
Christ Church College, Oxon,
July 9, 1657.
A Vindication of the Treatise about the True Nature of Schism, etc.
The present state of things in the Christian world will, on a slight consideration, yield this account of controversies in religion, that when they are driven to such an issue as, by foreign coincidences, to be rendered the interest of parties at variance, there is not any great success to be obtained by a management of them, though with never so much evidence, and conviction of truth. An answering of the profession that is on us, by a good and lawful means, the paying of that homage and tribute we owe to the truth, the tendering of assistance to the safeguarding of some weaker professors thereof from the sophisms and violence of adversaries, is the most that, in such a posture of things, the most sober writers of controversies can well aim at.
The winning over of men to the truth we seek to maintain,
where they have been pre-engaged in an opposition unto it, without the
alteration of the outward state of things whence their engagements have
insensibly sprung and risen, is not ordinarily to be expected. How far I
was from any such thoughts in the composing and publishing my treatise of
the nature of schism, I declared in sundry passages in the treatise itself.
Though the thing contended about, whatsoever is pretended to the contrary,
will not be found amongst the most important heads of our religion, yet
knowing how far, on sundry accounts, the stated fixed interest of several
sorts of men engageth them to abide by the principles they own in reference
thereunto, I was so far from hoping to see speedily any visible fruits of
the efficacy of the truth I had managed, that I promised myself a vigorous
opposition, until some urgent providence or time, altering the frame of
men’s spirits, should make way for its acceptance. Freely I left in the
hand of Him, whose truth I have good security
To what may seem of importance in it, I shall with all possible plainness give a return. Had the reverend author of it thought good to have kept within the bounds by me fixed, and candidly debated the notion proposed, abstracting from the provocations of particular applications, I should most willingly have taken pains for a farther clearing and manifesting of the truth contended about.
But the whole discourse wherewith I have now to do is of another complexion, and the design of it of another tendency, yea, so managed sometimes, that I am ready to question whether it be the product and fruit of his spirit whose name it bears; for though he be an utter stranger to me, yet I have received such a character of him as would raise me to an expectation of any thing from him rather than such a discourse.
The reader will be able to perceive an account of these thoughts in the ensuing view of his treatise.
1. I am, without any provocation intended, and I hope given, reviled from one end of it to the other, and called, partly in downright terms, partly by oblique intimations, whose reflections are not to be waived, Satan, atheist, sceptic, Donatist, heretic, schismatic, sectary, Pharisee, etc.; and the closure of the book is merely an attempt to blast my reputation, whereof I shall give a speedy account.
2. The professed design of the whole is to prove “Independency,” as he is pleased to call it, — which what it is he declares not, nor (as he manages the business) do I know, — to be a “great schism,” and that Independents, (by whom it is full well known whom he intends) are “schismatics,” “sectaries, the “troublers of England,” so that it were happy for the nation if they were out of it; or discovering sanguinary thoughts in reference unto them. And these kinds of discourses fill up the book, almost from one end to the other.
3. No Christian care doth seem to have been taken, nor good
Hence, I think, it is repeated near a hundred times, that I
deny their ministers to be ministers, and their churches to be churches, —
that I deny all the reformed churches in the world but only “our own” (as
he calls them) to be true churches; all which is notoriously untrue,
contrary to my known judgment, professedly declared on all occasions,
contrary to express affirmations in the book he undertakes to confute, and
the whole design of the book itself. I cannot easily declare my surprisal
on this account. What am I to expect from others, when such reverend men
as this author shall, by the power of prejudice, be carried beyond all
bounds of moderation and Christian tenderness in offending? I no way doubt
but that Satan hath his design in this whole business. He knows how apt we
are to fix on such provocations, and to contribute thereupon to the
increase of our differences. Can he, according to the course of things in
the world, expect any other issue, but that, in the necessary defensative I
am put upon, I should not waive such reflections and retortions on him and
them with whom I have to do, as present themselves with as fair pleas and
pretences unto me as it is possible for me to judge that the charges before
mentioned (I mean of schism, heresy, and the like) did unto him? for as to
a return of any thing, in its own nature false and untrue as to matter of
fact, to meet with that of the like kind wherewith I am entertained, I
suppose the devil himself was hopeless to obtain it. Is he not filled with
envy to take notice in what love without dissimulation I walk with many of
the presbyterian judgment; what Christian intercourse and communion I have
with them in England, Scotland, Holland, France; fearing that it may tend
to the furtherance of peace and union among the churches of Christ? God
assisting, I shall deceive his expectations; and though I be called
schismatic and heretic a thousand times, it shall not weaken my love or
esteem of or towards any of the godly ministers or people of that way and
judgment with whom I am acquainted, or have occasion of converse. And as
for this reverend author himself, I shall not fail to pray that none of the
things whereby he hath, I fear, administered advantage unto Satan to
attempt the exasperations of the spirits of brethren one against another,
may ever be laid to his charge. For my own part, I profess in all
sincerity that such was my unhappiness, or rather happiness, in the
constant converse which, in sundry places, I have with persons of the
presbyterian judgment, both of the English and Scottish nation, utterly of
another frame of spirit than that which is now showed, that until I saw
this treatise, I did not
I hope the reverend author will not be offended if I make bold to tell him that it will be no joy of heart to him one day, that he hath taken pains to cast oil on those flames, which it is every one’s duty to labour to extinguish.
But that the whole matter in difference may be the better stated and determined, I shall first pass through with the general concernments of the book itself, and then consider the several chapters of it, as to any particulars in them that may seem to relate to the business in hand. It may possibly not a little conduce towards the removal of those obstructions unto peace and love, laid in our way by this reverend author, and to a clearer stating of the controversy pretended to be ventilated in his discourse, to discover and lay aside those mistakes of his, which, being interwoven with the main discourse from the beginning to the end, seem as principles to animate the whole, and to give it that life of trouble whereof it is partaker. Some of them were, as absolutely considered, remarked before. I shall now renew the mention of them, with respect to that influence which they have into the argumentative part of the treatise under consideration.
1. First, then, it is strenuously supposed all along,
that I deny all or any churches in England to be true churches of
Christ, except only the churches gathered in the congregational way
and upon their principles; then, that I deny all the reformed churches
beyond the seas to be true churches of Christ. This supposition being laid
as the foundation of the whole building, a confutation of my treatise is
fixed thereon; a comparison is instituted between the Donatists and myself;
arguments are produced to prove their churches to be true churches, and
their ministers true ministers; the charge of schism on this bottom is
freely given out and asserted; the proof of my schismatical separation from
hence deduced; and many terms of reproach are returned as a suitable reply
to the provocation of this opinion. How great a portion of a small
treatise may easily be taken up with discourses relating to these heads is
easy to apprehend. Now, lest all this pains should be found to be useless
and causelessly undergone, let us consider how the reverend author proves
this to be my judgment. Doth he evince it from any thing delivered in that
treatise he undertakes to confute? doth he produce any other testimonies
out of what I have spoken, delivered, or written elsewhere, and on other
occasions, to make it good? This, I suppose, he thought not of, but took
it for granted that either I was of that judgment, or it was fit
Well, to put an end to this controversy, seeing he would not believe what I told the world of my thoughts herein in my book of schism, I now inform him again that all these surmises are fond and untrue. And truly, for his own sake, with that respect which is due to the reputation of religion, I here humbly entreat him not to entertain what is here affirmed with unchristian surmises, which the apostle reckons amongst the works of the flesh, as though I were of another mind, but durst not declare it; as more than once, in some particulars, he insinuates the state of things with me to be. But blessed be the God of my salvation and of all my deliverances, I have yet liberty to declare the whole of my judgment in and about the things of his worship! Blessed be God, it is not as yet in the power of some men to bring in that their conceited happiness into England, which would, in their thoughts, accrue unto it by my removal from my native soil, with all others of my judgment and persuasion! We are yet at peace, and we trust that the Lord will deliver us from the hands of men whose tender mercies are cruel. However, be it known unto them, that if it be the will of the Lord, upon our manifold provocations, to give us up to their disposal, who are pleased to compass us with the ornaments of reproaches before mentioned, that so we might fall as a sacrifice to rage or violence, we shall, through his assistance and presence with us, dare to profess the whole of that truth and those ways of his which he hath been pleased to reveal unto us.
And if, on any other account, this reverend person suppose
I may foster opinions and thoughts of mine own and their ways which I dare
not own, let him at any time give me a command to wait upon him, and as I
will freely and candidly answer to any inquiries he shall be pleased to
make, after my judgment and apprehensions of these things, so he shall find
that (God assisting) I dare own, and will be ready to maintain, what I
shall so deliver to him. It is a sufficient evidence that this reverend
author is an utter stranger to me, or he would scarce entertain such
surmises of me as he doth. Shall I call in witnesses as to the particular
under consideration? One evidence, by way of instance, lies so near at
hand that I cannot omit the producing of it. Not above fourteen days
before this treatise came to my hands, a learned gentleman, whom I had
prevailed withal to answer in the Vespers of our Act, sent me his questions
by a doctor of the presbyterian judgment, a friend of his and mine. The
first question was, as I remember, to this purpose: “Utrum ministri ecclesiæ Anglicanæ habeant validam
ordinationem?” I told the doctor, that since the questions were to
pass under my approbation, I must needs confess myself scrupled at the
2. A second principle of like importance which he is pleased to make use of as a thing granted by me, or at least which he assumes as that which ought so to be, is, that whatever the presbyterian ministers and churches be, I have separated from them, as have done all those whom he calls Independents. This is another fountain out of which much bitter water flows. Hence we must needs be thought to condemn their ministry and churches. The Brownists were our fathers, and the Anabaptists are our elder brothers; we make a harlot of our mother, and are schismatics and sectaries from one end of the book to the other: “quod erat demonstrandum.” But doth not this reverend author know that this is wholly denied by us? Is it not disproved sufficiently in that very treatise which he undertakes to answer?
He grants, I suppose, that the separation he blames must
respect some union of Christ’s institution: for any other, we profess
ourselves unconcerned in its maintenance or dissolution, as to the business
in hand. Now, wherein have we separated from them as to the breach of any
such union? For an individual person to change from the constant
participation of ordinances in one congregation, to do so in another,
barely considered in itself, this reverend author holds to be no
separation. However, for my part, who am forced to bear all this wrath and
storm, what hath he to lay to my charge? I condemn not their churches in
general to be no churches, nor any one that I am acquainted withal in
particular; I never disturbed, that
3. He supposeth throughout that I deny not only the
necessity of a successive ordination, but, as far as I can
understand him, the lawfulness of it also. By ordination of
ministers, many, upon a mistake, understand only the imposition of hands
that is used therein. Ordination of ministers is one thing, and imposition
of hands another, differing as whole and part. Ordination in Scripture
compriseth the whole authoritative translation of a man from among the
number of his brethren into the state of an officer in the church. I
suppose he doth not think that this is denied by me, though he tells me,
with the same Christian candour and tenderness which he exerciseth in every
passage almost of his book, of making myself a minister, and I know not
what. I am, I bless the Lord, extremely remote from returning him any of
his own coin in satisfaction for this love. For that part of it which
consists in the imposition of hands by the presbytery (where it may be
obtained according to the mind of Christ), I am also very remote from
managing any opposition unto it. I think it necessary by virtue of
precept, and that [it ought] to be continued in a way of
succession. It, is, I say, according to the mind of Christ, that
he who is to be ordained unto office in any church receive imposition of
hands from the elders of that church, if there be any therein; and this is
to be done in a way of succession, that so the churches may be perpetuated.
That alone which I oppose is the denying of this successive ordination
through the authority of Antichrist. Before the blessed and glorious
Reformation, begun and carried on by
This reverend author’s reply hereunto is like the rest of
his discourse. Page 118, he tells me, “This casts dirt in the face of
their
But let us a little farther consider his answer in that
place. He asketh first, “Why may not this be a sufficient foundation for
their ministry as well as for their baptism?” If it be so, and be so
acknowledged, whence is that great provocation that arose from my inquiry
after it? For my part, I must tell him that I judge their baptism good and
valid, but, to deal clearly with him, not on that foundation. I cannot
believe that that idolater, murderer, man of sin, has had, since the days
of his open idolatry, persecution, and enmity to Christ, any authority,
more or less, from the Lord Jesus committed to him in or over his churches.
But he adds, secondly, that “had they received their ordination from the
woman flying into the wilderness, the two witnesses, or Waldenses, it had
been all one to me and my party; for they had not their ordination from the
people (except some extraordinary cases), but from a presbytery, according
to the institution of Christ.” So, then, ordination by a presbytery is, it
seems, opposed by me and my party. But I pray, sir, who told you so?
When, wherein, by what means, have I opposed it? I acknowledge myself of
no party. I am sorry so grave a minister should suffer himself to be thus
transported, that every answer, every reply, must be a reflection, and that
without due observation of truth and love. That those first reformers had
their ordination from the people is acknowledged; I have formerly evinced
it by undeniable testimony: so that the proper succession of a ministry
amongst the churches that are their offspring runs up no higher than that
rise. Now, the good Lord bless them in their ministry, and the successive
ordination they enjoy, to bring forth more fruit in the earth, to the
praise of his glorious grace! But upon my disclaiming all thoughts of
rejecting the ministry of all those who yet hold their ordination on the
account of its successive derivation from Rome, he cries out, “Egregiam veto laudem!” and says, “that yet
I secretly derive their pedigree from Rome.” Well, then, he doth not so.
Why, then, what need these exclamations? We are as to this matter wholly
agreed. Nor shall I at present farther pursue his discourse in that
He frequently and very positively affirms, without the least hesitation, that I have “renounced my own ordination;” and adds hereunto, that “whatever else they pretend, unless they renounce their ordination, nothing will please me;” and that “I condemn all other churches in the world as no churches.” But who, I pray, told him these things? Did he inquire so far after my mind in them as, without breach of charity, to be able to make such positive and express assertions concerning them? A good part of his book is taken up in the repetition of such things as these, drawing inferences and conclusions from the suppositions of them, and warming himself by them into a great contempt of myself and “party,” as he calls them. I am now necessitated to tell him that all these things are false, and utterly, in part and in whole, untrue, and that he is not able to prove any one of them. And whether this kind of dealing becomes a minister of the gospel, a person professing godliness, I leave it to himself to judge. For my own part, I must confess that as yet I was never so dealt withal by any man, of what party soever, although it hath been my unhappiness to provoke many of them. I do not doubt but that he will be both troubled and ashamed when he shall review these things. That whole chapter which he entitles, “Independentism is Donatism,” as to his application of it unto me or any of my persuasion, is of the same importance, as I have sufficiently already evinced. I might instance in sundry other particulars, wherein he ventures, without the least check or supposition, to charge me with what he pleaseth that may serve the turn in hand. So that it may serve to bring in, “He and his party are schismatics, are sectaries, have separated from the church of God, are the cause of all our evils and troubles,” with the like terms of reproach and hard censures, lying in a fair subserviency to a design of widening the difference between us, and mutually exasperating the spirits of men professing the gospel of Jesus Christ one against another, nothing almost comes amiss. His sticking upon by-matters, diverting from the main business in hand, answering arguments by reflections, and the like, might also be remarked. One thing wherein he much rejoiceth, and fronts his book with the discovery he hath made of it, — namely, concerning my change of judgment as to the difference under present debate, which is the substance and design of his appendix, — must be particularly considered, and shall be, God assisting, in the next chapter accordingly.
Though, perhaps, impartial men will
be willing to give me an acquitment from the charge of altering my judgment
in the matters of our present difference, upon the general account of the
co-partnership with me of the most inquiring men in this generation, as to
things of no less importance; and though I might, against this reverend
brother, and others of the same mind and persuasion with him, at present
relieve myself sufficiently by a recrimination in reference to their former
episcopal engagements, and sundry practices in the worship of God them
attending; pleading in the meantime the general issue of changing from
error to truth (which that I have done as to any change I have really made,
I am ready at any time to maintain to this author): yet it being so much
insisted upon by him as it is, and the charge thereof, in the instance
given, accompanied with so many evil surmisings and uncharitable
reflections, looking like the fruits of another principle than that whereby
we ought in the management of our differences to be ruled, I shall give a
more particular account of that which hath yielded him this great
advantage. The sole instance insisted on by him is a small treatise,
published long ago by me, entitled, “The Duty of Pastors and People
Distinguished,” wherein I profess myself to be of the presbyterian
judgment. “Excerpta” out of that
treatise, with animadversions and comparisons thereon, make up the
appendix, which was judged necessary to be added to the book, to help on
with the proof that Independency is a great schism. Had it not been,
indeed, needful to cause the person to suffer as well as the thing, some
suppose this pains might have been spared. But I am not to prescribe to
any what way it is meet for them to proceed in for the compassing of their
ends aimed at. The best is, here is no new thing produced, but what the
world hath long since taken notice of, and made of it the worst they can.
Neither am I troubled that I have a necessity laid upon me to give an
account of this whole matter. That little treatise was written by me in
the year 1643, and then printed: however, it received the addition of a
year in the date affixed to it by the printers; which, for their own
advantage, is a thing usual with them. I was then a young man myself,
about the age of twenty-six or twenty- seven years. The controversy
between Independency and Presbytery was young also, nor, indeed, by me
clearly understood, especially as stated on the congregational side. The
conceptions delivered in the treatise were not (as appears in the issue)
suited to the opinion of
I am necessitated to add somewhat also to a surmise of this reverend man, in reference to my episcopal compliances in former days, and strict observation of their canons. This, indeed, I should not have taken notice of, but that I find others besides this author pleasing themselves with this apprehension, and endeavouring an advantage against the truth I profess thereby. How little some of my adversaries are like to gain by branding this as a crime is known; and I profess I know not the conscience that is exercised in this matter. But to deliver them once for all from involving themselves in the like unchristian procedure hereafter, let them now know, what they might easily have known before, namely, that this accusation is false, a plain calumny, — a lie. As I was bred up from my infancy under the care of my father, who was a Nonconformist all his days, and a painful labourer in the vineyard of the Lord, so ever since I came to have any distinct knowledge of the things belonging to the worship of God, I have been fixed in judgment against that which I am calumniated withal; which is notoriously known to all that have had any acquaintance with me. What advantage this kind of proceeding is like to bring to his own soul or the cause which he manageth, I leave to himself to judge.
Thus, in general, to take a view of some particular
passages in the appendix destined to this good work: The first section
tries, with much wit and rhetoric, to improve the pretended alteration of
judgment to the blemishing of my reputation, affirming it to be from truth
to error; which, as to my particular, so far as it shall appear I am
concerned (I am little moved with the bare affirmation of men, especially
if induced to it by their interest), I desire him to let me
His first chapter consists, for the most part, in a
repetition of my words, or so much of the discourse of my first chapter as
he could wrest, by cutting off one and another parcel of it from its
coherence in the whole, with the interposure of glosses of his own, to
serve him to make biting reflections upon them with whom he hath to deal.
How unbecoming such a course of procedure is for a person of his worth,
gravity, and profession, perhaps his δεύτεραι
φροντίδες have by this time convinced him. If men have a mind to
perpetuate controversies unto an endless, fruitless reciprocation of words
and cavils; if to provoke to easy and facile retortions, if to heighten and
aggravate differences beyond any hope of reconciliation, — they may do well
to deal after this manner with the writings of one another.
Then, if they were considered in reference to the
Donatists, who owned them, I say they were wicked, corrupt, erroneous
principles, tending to the disturbance of the communion of saints, and
everting all the rules of love that our Lord Jesus Christ hath given to his
disciples and servants to observe. If he intend my judgment of them in
reference to the churches of England which he calls Independent, I am sorry
that he should think he hath any reason to make this inquiry. I know not
that man in the world who is less concerned in obtaining countenance to
those principles than I am. Let them who are so ready, on all occasions or
provocations, to cast abroad the solemn forms of reproach, “schismatics,”
“sectaries,” “heretics,” and the like, search their own hearts as to a
conformity of spirit unto these principles. It is not what men say, but
what men do, that they shall be judged by. As the Donatists were not the
first who in story were charged with schism, no more was their schism
confined to Africa. The agreement of multitudes in any [evil] principles
makes it in itself not one whit better, and in effect worse. For my part,
I acknowledge the churches in England, Scotland, and France, Helvetia, the
Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Muscovia, etc., as far as I know of them, to
be true churches. Such, for aught I know, may be in Italy or Spain; and
what pretence or colour this reverend person hath to fix a contrary
persuasion upon me, with so many odious imputations and reflections of
being “one of the restorers of all lost churches,” and the like, I profess
I know not. These things will not be peace in the latter end. “Shall the
sword devour for ever?” I dare not suppose that he will ask, Why then do I
separate from them? He hath read my book of schism, wherein I have
undeniably proved that I separated from none of them; and I am loath to
say, though I fear before the close of my discourse I shall be compelled to
it, that this reverend author hath answered a matter before he understood
it, and confuted a book whose main and chief design he did not once
apprehend. The rest of this chapter is composed of reflections upon me
from my own words, wrested at his pleasure, and added to according to the
purpose in hand, and the taking for granted unto that end that they are in
the right, we in the wrong; that their churches are true churches, and yet
not esteemed so by me; that we have separated from those churches; with
such like easy suppositions. He is troubled that I thought the mutual
chargings of each other with schism between the Presbyterians and
Independents was as to its heat abated, and ready to vanish; wherein he
hath invincibly compelled me to
The second chapter of my book, whose examination this author undertakes in the second of his, containing the foundation of many inferences that ensue, and in particular of that description of schism which he intends to oppose, it might have been expected that he should not have culled out passages at his pleasure to descant upon, but either have transcribed the whole, or at least under one view have laid down clearly what I proposed to confirmation, that the state of the controversy being rightly formed, all might understand what we say and whereof we do affirm. But he thought better of another way of procedure, which I am now bound to allow him in; the reason whereof he knows, and other men may conjecture.
The first words he fixes on are the first of the chapter,
“The thing whereof we treat being a disorder in the instituted worship of
God.” Whereunto he replies, “It is an ill sign or omen, to stumble at the
threshold in going out. These words are ambiguous, and may have a double
sense; either that schism is to be found in matter of instituted worship
only, or only in the differences made in the time of celebrating instituted
worship; and neither of these is yet true or yet proved, and so a mere
begging of the thing in question: for,” saith
What measure I am to expect for the future from this entrance or beginning is not hard to conjecture. The truth is, the reverend author understood me not at all in what I affirmed. I say not that schism in the church is either about instituted worship or only in the time of worship, but that the thing I treat of is a disorder in the instituted worship of God; and so it is, if the being and constitution of any church be a part of God’s worship. But when men are given to disputing, they think it incumbent on them to question every word and expression that may possibly give them an advantage. But we must, now we are engaged, take all in good part as it comes.
Having, nextly, granted my request of standing to the sole
determination of Scripture in the controversy about the nature of schism,
he insists on the Scripture use and notion of the word, according to what I
had proposed: only, in the metaphorical sense of the word, as applied unto
civil and political bodies, he endeavours to make it appear that it doth
not only denote the difference and division that falls among them in
judgment, but their secession also into parties; which though he proves not
from any of the instances produced, yet that he may not trouble himself any
farther in the like kind of needless labour, I do here inform him, that if
he suppose that I deny that to be a schism where there is a separation,
anal 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 has done the
whole design of my book, and my sense in his first animadversions on this
chapter. But yet, because this is not proved, I shall desire him not to
make use of it for the future, as though it were so. The first place urged
is that of
After the declaration of some such suspicions of his as we
are now wonted unto, and which we cannot deny him the liberty of
expressing, though I profess he does it unto my injury, he says, “This is
the way, on the one hand, to free all church-separation from schism; and,
on the other, to make all particular churches more or less inschismatical.”
Well, the first is denied; what is offered for the confirmation of the
second? Saith he, “What one congregation almost is there in the world
where there are not differences of judgment, whence ensue many troubles,
about the compassing of one common end and
Omitting my farther explication of what I had proposed, he passes unto p. 27 [102] of my book, and thence transcribes these words: “They had differences among themselves about unnecessary things. On these they engaged in disputes and sidings even in their solemn assemblies. Probably much vain jangling, alienation of affections, exasperation of spirit, with a neglect of due offices of love, ensued hereupon.” Whereunto he subjoins, “That the apostle charges this upon them is true, but was that all? were there not divisions into parties as well as in judgments? We shall consider that ere long.” But I am sorry he hath waived this proper place for the consideration of this important assertion. The truth is, “hic pes figendus,” if he remove not this position, he labours in vain for the future. I desire also to know what he intends by “divisions into parties.” If he intend that some were of one party, some of another, in these divisions and differences, it is granted; there can be no difference in judgment amongst men, but they must on that account be divided into parties. But if he intend thereby that they divided into several churches, assemblies, or congregations, any of them setting up new churches on a new account, or separating from the public assemblies of the church whereof they were, and that their so doing is reproved by the apostle under the name of schism, then I tell him that this is that indeed whose proof is incumbent on him. Fail he herein, the whole foundation of my discourse continues firm and unshaken. The truth is, I cannot meet with any one attempt to prove this, which alone was to be proved, if he intended that I should be any farther concerned in his discourse than only to find myself reviled and abused.
Passing over what I produce to give light and evidence unto my assertion, he proceeds to the consideration of the observations and inferences I make upon it, p. 29 [103] and onward.
The first he insists upon is, “That the thing mentioned is entirely in one church, amongst the members of one particular society. No mention is there in the least of one church divided against another, or separated from another.”
1. To this he replies, — “That the church of Corinth was a
collective church, made up of many congregations, and that I myself confess
they had solemn assemblies, not one assembly only; that I beg the question,
by taking it for one single congregation.” But I suppose one particular
congregation may have more than one solemn assembly,
2. I supposed I had proved that it was “only one congregation,” that used to assemble in one place, that the apostle charged this crime upon; and that this reverend author was pleased to overlook what was produced to that purpose, I am not to be blamed.
3. Here is another discovery that this reverend person never yet clearly understood the design of my treatise nor the principles I proceed upon. Doth he think it is any thing to my present business whether the church of Corinth were such a church as Presbyterians suppose it to be, or such a one as the Indedendents affirm it? Whilst all acknowledge it to be one church, be that particular church of what kind it will, if the schism rebuked by the apostle consisted in division in it, and not in separation from it, as such, I have evinced all that I intended by the observation under consideration. Yet this he again pursues, and tells me, that “there were more particular churches in and about Corinth, as that at Cenchrea; and that their differences were not confined to the verge of one church (for there were differences abroad out of the church) and says, that at unawares I confess that they disputed from house to house, and in the public assemblies.” But I will assure the reverend author I was aware of what I said. Is it possible he should suppose that by the “verge of one church” I intended the meeting-place, and the assembly therein? Was it at all incumbent on me to prove that they did not manage their differences in private as well as in public? Is it likely any such thing should be? Did I deny that they sided and made parties about their divisions and differences? Is it any thing to me, or to any thing I affirm, how, where, and when, they managed their disputes and debated their controversies? It is true, there is mention of a church at Cenchrea, but is there any mention that that church made any separation from the church of Corinth, or that the differences mentioned were between the members of these several churches? Is it any thing to my present design though there were twenty particular congregations in Corinth, supposing that, on any consideration, they were one church? I assure you, sir, I am more troubled with your not understanding the business and design I manage, than I am with all your reviling terms you have laden me withal.
Once for all, unless you prove that there was a separation
from that church of Corinth (be it of what constitution it may by any be
supposed), as such, into another church, and that this is reproved by the
apostle under the name of schism, you speak not one word to invalidate the
principle by me laid down. And for what he adds, “That for what I say, ‘
There was no one church divided against another, or separated from
another,’ it is assumed, but not proved, unless by a negative, which is
invalid,” he wrests my words. I say
The next observation upon the former thesis that he takes
into his examination, so far as he is pleased to transcribe it, is this:
“Here is no mention of any particular man or number of men separating from
the assembly of the whole church, or subducting of themselves from its
power; only, they had groundless, causeless differences amongst
themselves.” If the reader turn to p. 103, he will find slight
differences between the sentence as originally given and as it stands here.
It is given, however, in both instances, according to the original
editions of the treatises; and the difference, therefore, does not arise
from inaccuracy in the subsequent printing of them. — Ed.
I doubt not but that our reverend author supposeth that he
hath here spoken to the purpose and matter in hand; and so, perhaps, may
some others think also. I must crave leave to enter my dissent upon the
account of the ensuing reasons; for, — 1. It is not separation in
the church, by men’s divisions and differences, whilst they continue
members of the same church, that I deny to be here charged under
If a fair opportunity call me forth to the farther management of this controversy, I shall not doubt but from that epistle and some other pieces of undoubted antiquity, as the epistles of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, of Smyrna, with some public records of those days, as yet preserved (worthy all of them to be written in letters of gold), to evince that state of the churches of Christ in those days, as will give abundant light to the principles I proceed upon in this whole business.
And thus have I briefly vindicated what was proposed as the
precise Scripture notion of schism; against which, indeed, not any one
objection hath been raised that speaks directly to the thing in hand. Our
reverend author being full of warm affections against the Independents, and
exercised greatly in disputing the common principles which either they hold
or are supposed so to do, measures every thing that is spoken by his
apprehension of those differences wherein,
In all that follows to the end of this chapter, I meet with
nothing of importance that deserves farther notice. That which is spoken
is for the most part built upon mistakes; as, that when I speak of a member
or the members of one particular Church, I intend only one single
congregation, exclusively to any other acceptation of that expression, in
reference to the apprehension of others; that I deny the reformed churches
to be true churches, because I deny the church of Rome to be so, and deny
the institution of a national church, which yet our author pleads not for.
He would have it for granted that because schism consists in a difference
among church-members, therefore he that raises such a difference, whether
he be a member of that church wherein the difference is raised, or of any
other, or no (suppose he be a Mohammedan or a Jew), is a schismatic; pleads
for the old definition of schism, as suitable to the Scripture, after the
The third chapter of my treatise, consisting in the preventing and removing such objections as the precedent discourse might seem liable and obnoxious unto, is proposed to examination by our reverend author in the third chapter of his book, and the objections mentioned undertaken to be managed by him; with what success, some few considerations will evince.
The first objection by me proposed was taken from the
common apprehension of the nature of schism, and the issue of stating it as
by me laid down, — namely, hence it would follow that the “separation of
any man or men from a true church, or of one church from others, is not
schism.” But now waiving, for the present, the more large consideration of
the name and thing, — which yet in the process of my discourse I do
condescend upon, according to the principle laid down, — I say that, in the
precise signification of the word, and description of the thing as given by
the Holy Ghost, this is true. No such separation is in the Scripture so
called, or so accounted: whether it may not in a large sense be esteemed as
such, I do not dispute; yea, I afterward grant it so far as to make that
concession the bottom and foundation of my whole plea for the vindication
of the reformed churches from that crime. Our reverend author re-enforces
the objection by sundry instances: as, — 1. “That he hath disproved that
sense or precise signification of the word in Scripture;’’ how well, let
the reader judge. 2. “That supposing that to be the only sense mentioned
in that case of the Corinthians, yet may another sense be intimated in
Scripture, and deduced by regular and rational consequence.” Perhaps this
will not be so easy an undertaking, this being the only place where the
name is mentioned or thing spoken of in an ecclesiastical sense; but when
any proof is tendered of what is here affirmed, we shall attend unto it.
It is said, indeed, that “if
To render my former assertions the more unquestionably evident, I consider the several accounts given of men’s blamable departures from any church or churches mentioned in Scripture, and manifest that none of them come under the head of schism. “Apostasy, irregularity of walking, and professed sensuality,” are the heads whereinto all blamable departures from the churches in the Scripture are referred.
That there are other accounts of this crime our author doth not assert; he only says, that “all or some of the places” I produce as “instances of a blamable separation from a church do mind the nature of schism as precedaneous to the separation” Whatever the matter is, I do not find him speaking so faintly and with so much caution through his whole discourse as in this place: “All or some do it; they mind the nature of schism; they mind it as precedaneous to the separation.” So the sum of what he aims at in contesting about the exposition of those places of Scripture is this: “Some of them do mind” (I know not how) “the nature of schism, which he never once named as precedaneous to separation; therefore, the precise notion of schism in the Scripture doth not denote differences and divisions in a church only.” “Quod erat demonstrandum.” That I should spend time in debating a consideration so remote from the state of the controversy in hand, I am sure will not be expected by such as understand it.
Page 77 [p. 122] of my treatise I affirm, “That for a man
to withdraw or withhold himself from the communion external and visible of
any church or churches, on the pretension or plea, be it
But to fill up the measure of the mistake he is engaged in,
he tells us, p. 75, that “this is the pinch of the question, whether a man
or a company of men may separate from a true church, upon a plea of
corruption in it, true or false, and set up another church as to
ordinances, renouncing that church to be a true church. This,” saith he,
“is plainly our case at present with the doctor and his associates.”
Truly, I do not know that ever I was necessitated to a more sad and
fruitless employment in this kind of labour and travail. Is that the
question in present agitation? is any thing, word, tittle, or iota spoken
to it? Is it my present, business to state the difference between the
Presbyterians and Independents? Do I anywhere do it upon this account? Do
I not everywhere positively deny that there is any such separation made?
Nay, can common honesty allow such a state of a question, if that were the
business in hand, to be put upon me? Are their ordinances and churches so
denied by me as is pretended? What I have often said must again be
repeated: the reverend author hath his eye so fixed on the difference
between the Presbyterians and the Independents, that he is at every turn
led out of the way, into such mistakes as it was not possible he should
otherwise be overtaken withal. This is, perhaps, “mentis gratissimus error;” but I hope it would be no
death to him to be delivered from it. When I laid down the principles
which it was his good will to oppose, I had many things under consideration
as to the settling of conscience in respect of manifold oppositions, and,
to tell him the truth, least valued that which he is pleased to manage and
to look upon as my sole intendment. If it be not possible to deliver him
from this strong imagination, that carries the images and species of
Exceptions are, in the next place, attempted to be put in
to my assertion, that there is no example in the Scripture of any one
church’s departure from the union which they ought to hold with others,
unless it be in some of their departures from the common faith, which is
not schism; much with the same success as formerly. Let him produce one
instance, and “en herbam.’’ “I am cast to
the ground, I own myself conquered.” — Ed.
There is but one passage more that needs to be remarked,
and so this chapter also is dismissed. He puts in a caveat, that I limit
not schism to the worship of God, upon these words of mine: “The
consideration of what sort of union in reference to the worship of God”
(where he inserts in the repetition, “mark that!”), “as instituted by Jesus
Christ, is the foundation of what I have farther to offer;” whereto he
subjoins, “The design of this is, that he may have a fair retreat when he
is charged with breach of union in other respects, and so with schism, to
escape by this evasion. This breach of union is not in reference to the
worship of God in one assembly met to that end.” I wish we had once an end
of these mistakes and false, uncharitable surmises. By the “worship of
God” I intend the whole compass of institutions, and their tendency
thereunto; and I know that I speak properly enough. In so doing I have no
such design as I am charged withal, nor do I need it. I walk not in fear
of this author’s forces, that I should be providing beforehand to secure my
retreat. I have passed the bounds of the precise notion of schism before
insisted on, and yet doubt not but, God assisting, to make good
Now, that he may see this door of escape shut up, that so he may not need to trouble himself any more in taking care lest I escape that way, when he intends to fall upon me with those blows, which as yet I have not felt, I shall shut it fast myself, beyond all possibility of my opening it again. I here, then, declare unto him, that whenever he shall prove that I have broken any union of the institution of Jesus Christ, of what sort soever, I will not, in excuse of myself, insist on the plea mentioned, but will submit to the discipline which shall be thought meet by him to be exercised towards any one offending in that kind. Yet truly, on this engagement, I would willingly contract with him, that in his next reply he should not deal with me as he hath done in this, neither as to my person nor as to the differences between us.
Having declared and vindicated the
Scripture proper notion of schism, and thence discovered the nature of it,
with all its aggravations, with the mistakes that men have run into who
have suited their apprehensions concerning it unto what was their interests
to have it thought to be, and opened a way thereby for the furtherance of
peace among professors of the gospel of Jesus Christ; for the farther
security of the consciences of men unjustly accused and charged with the
guilt of this evil, I proceeded to the consideration of it in the usual
common acceptation of the word and thing, that so I might obviate whatever,
with any tolerable pretence, is insisted on, as deduced by a parity of
reason from what is delivered in the Scripture, in reference to the charge
managed by some or other against all sorts of Protestants. Hereupon I
grant that it may be looked on in general as διαίρεσις ἑνότητος, “a breach of union,” so that it be
granted also that that union be a union of the institution of Jesus Christ.
To find out, then, the nature of schism under the consideration of the
condescension made, and to discover wherein the guilt of
I began with the consideration of the catholic invisible church of Christ, and the union thereof. Having declared the rise of this distinction, and the necessity of it from the nature of the things themselves, as to the matter of this church, or the church of Christ as here militant on earth, I affirm and evince it to be all and only elect believers. The union of this church consists in the inhabitation of the same Spirit in all the members of it, uniting them to the head, Christ Jesus, and therein to one another. The breach of this union I manifested to consist in the loss of that Spirit, With all the peculiar consequences and effects of him in the hearts of them in whom he dwells. This I manifest, according to our principles, to be impossible, and upon a supposition of it, how remote it would be from schism, under any notion or acceptation of the word; so closing that discourse with a charge on the Romanists of their distance from an interest in this church of Jesus Christ.
Our reverend author professes that he hath but little to
say to these things. Some exceptions he puts in unto some expressions used
in the explication of my sense in this particular. That which he chiefly
insists upon, is the accommodation of that promise,
As to the union of this church and the breach of it, our reverend author hath a little to say. Because there may be “some decays in true grace in the members of this church,” he affirms, “that in a sort there may be said to be a breach in this union; and so, consequently, a schism in this body.” He seemed formerly to be afraid lest all schism should be thrust out of the world; if he can retrieve it on the account of any true believer’s failing in grace, or falling for a season, I suppose he needs not fear the loss of it whilst this world continues. But it is fit wise and learned men should take the liberty of calling things by what names they please, so they will be pleased withal not to impose their conceptions and use of terms on them who are not able to understand the reasons of them. It is true, there may be a schism among the members of this church, but not as members of this church, nor with reference to the union thereof. It is granted that schism is the breach of union, but not of every union, much less not a breach of that, which if it were a breach of, it were not schism. However, by the way, I am bold to tell this reverend author that this doctrine of his concerning schism in the catholic invisible church, by the failing in grace in any of the members of it for a season, is a new notion; which as he cannot justify to us, because it is false, so I wonder how he will justify it to himself, because it is “new.” And what hath been obtained by the author against my principles in this chapter I cannot perceive. The nature of the church in the state considered is not opposed; the union asserted not disproved; the breach of that union is denied, as I suppose, no less by him than myself. That the instances that some saints, as members of this church, may sometimes fail in grace, more or less, for some season, and that the members of this church, though not as members of this church, yet on other considerations, may be guilty of schism, concern not the business under debate, himself I hope is satisfied.
Our progress, in the next place, is to the consideration of the catholic church visible. Who are the members of this church, whereof it is constituted, what is required to make them so, on what account men visibly professing the gospel may be esteemed justly divested of the privilege of being members of this church, with sundry respects of the church in that sense, are in my treatise discussed. The union of this church, that is proper and peculiar unto it as such, I declared to be the profession of the saving doctrines of the gospel, not everted by any of the miscarriages, errors, or oppositions to it, that are there recounted. The breach of this Union I manifest to consist in apostasy from the profession of the faith, and so to be no schism, upon whomsoever the guilt of it doth fall; pleading the immunity of the Protestants, as such, from the guilt of the breach of this union, and charging it upon the Romanists, in all the ways whereby it may be broken, an issue is put to that discourse.
What course our reverend author takes in the examination of
this chapter, and the severals of it, wherein the strength of the
controversy doth lie, is now to be considered. Doth he deny this church to
be a collection of all that are duly called Christians in respect of their
profession? to be that great multitude who, throughout the world, profess
the doctrine of the gospel and subjection to Jesus Christ? Doth he deny
the union of this church, or that whereby that great multitude are
incorporated into one body as visible and professing, to be the profession
of the saving doctrines of the gospel, and of subjection to Jesus Christ
according to them? Doth he deny the dissolution of this union, as to the
interest of any member by it in the body, to be by apostasy from the
profession of the gospel? Doth he charge that apostasy upon those whom he
calls Independents, as such? or if he should, could he tolerably defend his
charge? Doth he prove that the breach of this union is, under that
formality, properly schism? Nothing less, as far as I can gather. Might
not, then, the trouble of this chapter have been spared? Or shall I be
necessitated to defend every expression in my book, though nothing at all
to the main business under debate, or else Independency must go for “a
great schism?” I confess this is a somewhat hard law, and such as I cannot
proceed in obedience unto, without acknowledging his ability to compel me
to go on farther than I am willing; yet I do it with this engagement, that
I will so look to myself, that he shall never have that power over me any
more, nor will I, upon any compulsion of useless, needless cavils and
exceptions, do so again. So
His first attempt in this chapter is upon a short discourse
of mine in my process, which I profess not to be needful to the purpose in
hand, relating to some later disputes about the nature of this
church; wherein some had affirmed it to be a genus to particular churches, which are so
many distinct species of it;
and others, that it was a totum made up of particular churches as its
parts; — both which in some sense I denied; partly, out of a desire to keep
off all debates about the things of God from being inwrapped and agitated
in and under philosophical notions and feigned terms of art, which hath
exceedingly multiplied controversies in the world and rendered them
endless, and doth more or less straiten or oppose every truth that is so
dealt withal; partly, because I evidently saw men deducing false
consequents from the supposition of such notions of this church. For the
first way, our reverend author lets it pass, only with a remark upon my
dissenting from
His reflections upon myself added in that place are now grown so common that they deserve not any notice. In his ensuing discourse, if I may take leave to speak freely to our reverend author, he wrangles about terms and expressions, adding to and altering those by me used in this business at his pleasure, to make a talk to no purpose. The sum of what he pretends to oppose is, — That this universal church, or the universality of professors considered as such, neither formally as members of the church catholic mystically elect, nor as members of any particular church, have, as such, any church-form of the institution of Christ, by virtue whereof they should make up one instituted church, for the end and purpose of the celebration of the ordinances of the gospel therein. If he suppose he can prove the contrary, let him cease from cavilling at words and by-expressions, — which is a facile task for any man to engage in, and no way useful, but to make controversies endless, — and answer my reasons against it, which here he passeth over, and produce his testimonies and arguments for that purpose. This trivial ventilation of particular passages cut off from their influence into the whole is not worth a nut-shell, but is a business fit for them who have nothing else to employ themselves about.
Coming to consider the union that I assign to this
church, after whose breach an inquiry is to be made, — which is the main
and only thing of his concernment as to the aim he hath proposed to
himself, — he passeth it over very slightly, taking no notice at all of my
whole discourse from p. 116 to p. 133 [pp. 138–145] of my treatise, wherein
I disprove the pretensions of other things to be the union or bond of union
to this church. He fixes a very little while on what I assign to be that
union. This, I say, is “profession of the faith of the gospel, and
subjection to Jesus Christ according to it.” To which he adds, that they
are bound to more than this, namely, “to the exercise of the same
specifical ordinances, as also to love one another, to subjection to the
same discipline, and, where it is possible, to the exercise of the same
numerical worship.” All this was expressly affirmed by me before; it is
all virtually contained in their “profession,” so far as
What I have offered in my treatise as evidence that
Protestants are not guilty of the breach of this union, and that where any
are, their crime, is not schism but apostasy, either as to profession or
conversation, I leave to the judgment of all candid, sober, and ingenuous
readers. For such as love strife, and debates, and disputes, whereof the
world is full, I would crave of them, that if they must choose me for their
adversary, they would allow me to answer in person, “vivâ voce,” to prevent this tedious trouble of
writing; which, for the most part, is fruitless and needless. Some
exceptions our author lays in against the properties of the profession by
me required as necessary to the preservation of this union. As to the
first, of “professing all necessary saving truths of the gospel,” he
excepts that the apostles were ignorant of many necessary truths of the
gospel for a season, and some had never heard of the Holy Ghost,
The reader must pardon me for producing and insisting on these things, seeing I do it with this profession, that I can fix on nothing else so much to the purpose in hand; and yet how little these are so cannot but be evident, upon a slight view, to the meanest capacities: for, — 1. He tells us that “there may be a breach of union with respect to the catholic church upon other considerations;” not that there may be a breach of the union of the catholic church. 2. That there is a bond binding men to the exercise of ordinances; so there is, binding man to all holiness; —and yet he denies the vilest profane persons to break that bond or this union. 3. That there may be a breach of union among the members of the church; but who knows it not that knows all members of particular churches are also members of this church general? Our inquiry is after the union of the catholic church visible, what it is, how broken, and what the crime or evil is whereby it is broken; also, what obligations lie on the members of that church, as they stand under any other formal considerations. What is the evil they are any of them guilty of in not answering these obligations, we were not at all inquiring; nor doth it in this place concern us so to do. And in what he afterward tells us of some proceedings contrary to the practice of the universal church, he intends, I suppose, all the churches in the world wherein the members of the universal church have walked or do so: for the universal church, as such, hath no practice as to celebration of ordinances; and if he suppose it hath, let him tell us what it is, and when that practice was. His appeal to the primitive believers and their small number will not avail him: for although they should be granted to be the then catholic visible church (against which he knows what exceptions may be laid from the believers amongst the Jews, such as Cornelius, to whom Christ had not as yet been preached as the Messiah come and exhibited), yet as such they joined not in the celebration of ordinances, but (as yet they were) as a particular congregation; yea, though all the apostles were amongst them, — the foundation of all the churches that afterward were called.
He concludes this chapter with an exception to my
assertion, that
The title of our author’s book is, “Independency a Great Schism;” of this chapter, that it may be the better known what kind of schism it is, “Independentism is Donatism.” Men may give what title they please to their books and chapters, though perhaps few books make good their titles. I am sure this doth not as yet, “nisi accusâsse sufficiat.” Attempts of proof we have not as yet met withal; what this chapter will furnish us withal we shall now consider. He, indeed, that shall weigh the title, “Independentism is Donatism,” and then, casting his eye upon the first lines of the chapter itself, find that the reverend author says he cannot but “acknowledge what I plead for the vindication of Protestants from the charge of schism, in their separation from Rome, as the catholic church, to be rational, solid, and judicious,” will perhaps be at a loss in conjecturing how I am like to be dealt withal in the following discourse. A little patience will let him see that our author lays more weight upon the title than the preface of this chapter, and that, with all my fine trappings, I am enrolled in the black book of the Donatists; but, “Quod fors feret, feramus æquo animo;” or as another saith, “Debemus optare optima, cogitare difficillima, ferre quæcunque erunt.” As the case is fallen out, we must deal with it as we can. First, he saith, “he is not satisfied that he not only denies the church of Rome (so called) to be a particular church, p. 119 [p. 154], but also affirms it to be no church at all.” That he is not satisfied with what I affirm of that synagogue of Satan, where he hath his throne, I cannot help it, though I am sorry for it.
I am not, also, without some trouble that I cannot
understand what he means by placing my words so as to intimate that I say
not only that the church of Rome is no particular church, but also that it
is no church at all; as though it might, in his judgment or mine, be
any church, if it be not a particular church: for I
verily suppose neither he nor I judge it to be that catholic church whereto
it pretends. But yet, as I have no great reason to expect that this
reverend author should be satisfied in any thing that I affirm, so I hope
that it is not impossible but that, without any great difficulty, he may be
reconciled to himself, affirming the very same thing that I do, p. 113 [p.
137]. It is of Rome in that sense wherein it claims itself to be
Having made this entrance, he proceeds in the same way,
and, p. 164, lays the foundation of the title of his book and this chapter,
of his charge of Donatism, in these words: “This lies in full force against
him and his party, who have broken the union of our churches, and separated
themselves from all the protestant churches in the world not of their own
constitution, and that as no true churches of Christ.” This, I say, is the
foundation of his whole ensuing discourse, all the ground that he hath to
stand upon in the defence of the invidious title of this chapter; and what
fruit he expects
But he comes, in the next place, to arguments;
wherein if he prove more happy than he hath done in accusations,
he will have great cause to rejoice. By a double argument, as he says, he
will prove that there may be schism besides that in a particular church.
His first is this: “Schism is a
We are now gathering towards what
seems of most immediate concernment as to this reverend author’s
undertaking, — namely, to treat of the nature of a particular church, its
union, and the breach of that union. The description I give of such a
church is this: “It is a society of men called by the word to the obedience
of the faith in Christ, and joint performance of the worship of God in the
same
The first two are, that, — “1. A man may be a member of the
catholic invisible church, and, 2. Of the visible catholic church, and yet
not be joined to a particular church.” These, as I said, he owns to be
true, but asks how I can “reconcile this with what I said before, — namely,
that the members of the catholic visible church are initiated into the
profession of the faith by baptism.” But where lies the difference? Why,
saith he, “baptism, according to his principles, is an ordinance of worship
only to be enjoyed in a particular church, whilst he will grant (what yet
he doth deny, but will be forced to grant) that a minister is a minister to
more than his own church, even to the catholic
The third thing laid down by me, whereunto also he assents, is, “That every believer is obliged to join himself to some one of those churches, that therein he may abide in ‘doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers:’“but my reasons whereby I prove this he says he likes not so well; and truly I can not help it. I have little hope he should like any thing well which is done by me. Let him be pleased to furnish me with better, and I shall make use of them; but yet when he shall attempt so to do, it is odds but that one or other will find as many flaws in them as he pretends to do in mine. But this, he saith, he shall make use of, and that he shall make advantage of, and I know not what; as if he were playing a prize upon a stage. The third reason is that which he likes worst of all, and I like the business the better that what he understands least that he likes worst; it is, “That Christ hath given no direction for any duty of worship merely and purely of sovereign institution, but only to them and by them who are so joined.” Hereupon he asks:— 1. “Is baptism a part of worship?” Ans. Yes, and to be so performed by them, — that is, a minister in or of them. I fear my expression in this place led him to his whole mistake in this matter. 2. “Prayer and reading of the word in private families, are they no duty of worship?” Ans. Not merely and purely of sovereign institution. 3. “Is preaching to convert heathens a duty of worship?” Not, as described, in all cases. When it is, it is to be performed by a minister; and so he knows my answer to his next invidious inquiry, relating to my own person.
My last reason, he saith, is “fallacious and inconsequent;” and that because he hath put an inference upon it never intended in it. Now, the position that these reasons were produced to confirm being true, and so acknowledged by himself, because it is a truth that indeed I lay some more than ordinary weight, upon, it being of great use in the days wherein we live, I would humbly entreat this reverend author to send me his reasons whereby it may be confirmed; and I shall promise him, if they be found of more validity than those which, according to my best skill, I have already used, he shall obtain many thanks and much respect for his favour.
What he remarks upon or adds to my next discourse, about
instituted worship in general, I shall not need to insist on; only, by the
way, I cannot but take notice of that which he calls “a chief piece of
Independency;” and that is, “that those who are joined in church fellowship
are so confined that they cannot, or may not, worship God
For the ensuing discourse, about the intercision of ordinances, it being a matter of great importance, and inquired into by me merely in reference to the Roman apostasy, it needs a more serious disquisition than any thing at present administered by our author will give occasion unto; possibly, in convenient time, I may offer somewhat farther towards the investigation of the mind of God therein. Every thing in this present contest is so warped to the petty differences between Presbyterians and Independents, that no fair progress nor opportunity for it can be afforded. If, it may be, in my next debate of it, I shall waive all mention of those meaner differences, and as, I remember, I have not insisted on them in what I have already proposed to this purpose, so possibly the next time I may utterly escape. For the present, I do not doubt but the Spirit of God in the Scripture is furnished with sufficient authority to erect new churches, and set up the celebration of all ordinances, on supposition that there was an intercision of them. To declare the way of his exerting his authority to this purpose, with the obviating of all objections to the contrary, is not a matter to be tossed up and down in this scrambling chase; and I am not a little unhappy that this reverend person was in the dark as to my design and aim all along, which hath entangled this dispute with so many impertinences. But, however, I shall answer a question which he is pleased to put to me in particular. He asks me, then, “Whether I do not think in my conscience that there were no true churches in England until the Brownists our fathers, the Anabaptists our elder brothers, and ourselves, arose and gathered new churches?” With thanks for the civility of the inquiry in the manner of its expression, I answer, No; I have no such thoughts. And his pretence of my insinuation of any such thing is most vain, as also is his insultation thereupon. Truly, if men will, in all things, take liberty to speak what they please, they have no reason but to think that they may, at one time or other, hear that which will displease.
Having investigated the nature of a particular church, I
proceed, in my treatise of schism, to inquire after the union of it,
wherein it doth consist, and what is the breach thereof. The sum is, “The
joint consent of the members to walk together in celebration of the same
numerical ordinances, according to the mind of Jesus Christ, is that
wherein the union of such a church doth consist.” This is variously
excepted against; and I know not what disputes about an
The rest of the chapter I have passed through once and
again, and cannot fix on any thing worthy of farther debate. A difference
is attempted to be found in my description of the union of a particular
church, in this and another place. Because in one place I require the
consent of the members to walk together, in another mention only their so
doing, — when the mention of that only was necessary in that place, not
speaking of it absolutely, but as it is the difference of such a church
from the church catholic, — some impropriety of expression is pretended to
be discovered (“id populus curat
scilicet”); which yet is a pure mistake of his, not considering unto
what especial end and purpose the words are used. He repeats sundry things
as in opposition to me, that are things laid down by myself and granted!
Doth he attempt to prove that the union of a church is not rightly stated?
He confesseth the form of such a church consists in the observance and
performance of the same ordinances of worship numerically. I ask, is
it not the command of Christ that believers should so do? Is not their
obedience to that command their consent so to do? Are not particular
churches instituted of Christ? Is it not the duty of every believer to
join himself to some one of them? Was not this acknowledged above? Can
any one do so without his consenting to do so? Is this consent any thing
but his voluntary submission to the ordinances of worship therein? As an
express consent and subjection to Christ in general is required to
constitute a man a member of the church catholic visible; so if the Lord
Jesus hath appointed any particular church for the celebration of his
ordinances, is not their consent who are to walk in them necessary
thereunto? But the topic of an explicit covenant presenting itself with an
advantage to take up some leaves could not be waived, though nothing at
My first is this: “The departing of any man or men from any particular church, as to the communion peculiar to such a church, is nowhere called schism, nor is so in the nature of the thing itself; but is a thing to be judged and receive a title according to the circumstances of it.” To this he adjoins, “This is not the question. A simple secession of a man or men, upon some just occasion, is not called schism; but to make causeless differences in a church, and then separating from it as no church, denying communion with it, hath the nature and name of schism in all men’s judgments but his own.” Ans. What question doth our reverend author mean? I fear he is still fancying of the difference between Presbyterians and Independents, and squaring all things by that imagination. Whether it be a question stated to his mind or no I cannot tell; but it is an assertion expressive of mine own, which he may do well to disprove if he can. Who told him that raising causeless differences in a church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgment schism? May I possibly retain hopes of making myself understood by this reverend author? I suppose though that a pertinacious abiding in a mistake is neither schism nor heresy; and so this may be passed over.
My second is: “One church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them is not schism, properly so called.” The reply hereunto is twofold:— 1. “That one church may raise differences in and with another church, and so cause schism.” 2. “That the Independents deny any communion of churches but what is prudential; and so, that communion cannot be broken.” To the first I have spoken sufficiently before; the latter is but a harping on the same string. I am not speaking of Independent churches, nor upon the principles of Independents, much less on them which are imposed on them. Let the reverend author suppose or aver what communion of churches he pleaseth, my petition holds in reference to it; nor can he disprove it. However, for my part, I am not acquainted with those Independents who allow no communion of churches but what is prudential; and yet it is thought that I know as many as this reverend author doth.
We are come now to the chapter that
must do the work intended, or else “operam
et oleum perdidimus.” “Independentism a Great Schism,” is the title
of it. What this Independentism is he doth neither here declare, nor in
any other part of his book; nor do I know what it is that he intends by it.
I hear, indeed, from him that it is a “schism,” a “sect;” but of what
peculiar import, or wherein it consists, he hath not declared. I suppose
he would have it taken for separation from true churches; but neither doth
the notion of the name, though individiously broached, and disavowed by
them to whom it is ascribed, import any such thing, nor is the thing itself
owned by them with whom he pretends to have to do. I find, indeed, that he
tells us that all sectaries are Independents, — Anabaptists, Seekers,
Ranters, Quakers. Doth he expect that I should undertake their defence?
What if it should appear that I have done more against them than our
reverend author, and many of his brethren joined with him? He may,
perhaps, be willing to load myself and those which he is pleased to call my
“associates,” my “party,” I know not what, with their evils and
miscarriages; but is this done as becomes a
But our reverend author, knowing that if this bottom be taken from under him, he hath no foundation for any thing he asserts, thought it not sufficient to charge me over and over with what is here denied, but at length attempts to make it good from mine own words; which if he do effect and make good, I confess he changes the whole nature and state of the dispute in hand. Let us see, then, how he answers this undertaking.
From those words of mine, “The reformation of any church, or any thing in it, is the reducing of it to its primitive institution,” approving the assertion as true, he labours to evince that I deny their churches to be true churches. How so, I pray? “Why, we erect new churches out of no churches; and it had been happy for England if we had all gone to do this work among the Indians.” What will prove England’s happiness or unhappiness the day will manifest; this is but man’s day and judgment; He is coming who will not judge by the seeing of the eye, nor by the hearing of the ear. In the meantime we bless God, and think all England hath cause to bless God, whatever become of us, that he and our brethren of the same mind with him in the things of God have their liberty to preach the gospel and carry on the work of reformation in their native soil, and are not sent into the ends of the earth, as many of ours have been. But how doth our gathering of churches deny them to be true churches? Doth our granting them to be true churches also grant that all the saints in England are members of their churches? It is notoriously known that it is and was otherwise, and that when they and we began to reform, thousands of the people of God in these nations had no reason to suppose themselves to belong to one particular church rather than another. They lived in one parish, heard in another, removed up and down for their advantage, and were in bondage on that account all their days.
But he says, “In some words following I discover my very
heart.” I cannot but by the way tell him, that it is a sufficient evidence
of his unacquaintedness with me, that he thinks there is need of searching
Those who, in the judgment of charity, were and continue members of the church catholic invisible, by virtue of their union with Christ, the head thereof; and members of the general visible church, by their due profession of the saving truths of the gospel, and subjection to Christ Jesus, their King and Saviour, according to them; and do walk in love and concord in the particular churches whereof, by their own consent and choice, they are members, not judging and condemning other particular churches of Christ, where they are not members, as they are such, as to their station and privileges, being ready for all instituted communion with them as revealed; are not, according to any gospel rule, nor by any principles acknowledged amongst Christians, to be judged or condemned as guilty of schism; — but such are all they for whom, under any consideration whatever, I have pleaded as to their immunity from this charge in my treatise of schism: therefore, they are not to be judged so guilty. If you please, you may add, “Quod erat demonstratum.”
I shall not digress to a recharge upon this reverend author, and those of the same profession with him, as to their mistakes and miscarriages in the work of reformation, nor discuss their ways and principles, wherein I am not satisfied as to their procedure. I yet hope for better things than to be necessitated to carry on the defensative of the way wherein I walk by opposing theirs. It is true, that he who stands upon mere defence is thought to stand upon none at all; but I wait for better things from men than their hearts will yet allow them to think of. I hope the reverend author thinks that as I have reasons wherewith I am satisfied as to my own way, so I have those that are of the same weight with me against him. But whatever he may surmise, I have no mind to foment the divisions that are amongst us; hence I willingly bear all his imputations without retortion. I know in part how the case is in the world. The greatest chargers have not always the most of truth; witness Papists, Lutherans, Prelatists, Anabaptists. I hope I can say in sincerity I am for peace, though others make themselves ready for war.
But we must proceed a little farther, though, as to the
cause by me undertaken to be managed, causelessly. The discourse of our
author from the place fixed on, wherein he faintly endeavours to make good
the foundation of this chapter, which I have already considered, consists
He shuts up his discourse as he began it, reciting my words adding, interposing, perverting, commenting, inquiring; he makes them speak what he pleases, and compasses the ends of his delight upon them. What contentment he hath received in his so doing know not, nor shall I express what thoughts I have of such a course of procedure. This only I shall say, it is a facile way of writing treatises and proving whatever men have a mind unto.
My last task is, to look back to the beginning of this last
chapter, and to gather up in our passage what may seem to respect the
business in hand; and so the whole matter will be dismissed. The plea
insisted on for immunity from the charge of schism, with reference to the
episcopal government of the church of England, and the constitution which,
under it, it is pretended to have had, he passes over; though, on sundry
accounts, his concernments lie as deeply in it as in any thing pleaded in
that treatise. The things he is pleased to take
My next profession of our relation to the church of England
[was] in respect of that denomination given to the body of professors in
this nation cleaving to the doctrine of the gospel, here preached and
established by law as the public profession of this nation. But he tells
me, — 1. “That many independent churches of this
In rendering of the next passage, which is concerning Anabaptists and Anabaptism, I shall not contend with him; he hath not in the least impaired the truth of what I assert in reference to them and their way. I cannot but take notice of that passage, which, for the substance of it, hath so often occurred, and that is this, “Doth not himself labour in this book to prove that the administration of ordinances in our assemblies is null, our ordination null and antichristian?” for the proof of which suggestion he refers his reader to p. 197 [p. 172] of my book. I confess, seeing this particular quotation, I was somewhat surprised, and began to fear that some expression of mine (though contrary to my professed judgment) might have given countenance to this mistake, and so be pleaded as a justification of all the uncharitableness, and something else, wherewith his book is replenished; but turning to the place, I was quickly delivered from my trouble, though I must ingenuously confess I was cast into another, which I shall not now mention.
What seems to be my particular concernment I shall a little
farther attend unto. Some words (for that is the manner of managing this
controversy) are culled out from pp. 259, 260 [p. 198], to be made the
matter of farther contest. Thus they lie in my treatise: “As the not
giving a man’s self up unto any way, and submitting to any establishment,
pretended or pleaded to be of Christ, which he hath not light for, and
which he was not by any act of his own formerly engaged in, cannot, with
any colour or pretence of reason, be reckoned to him for schism, though he
may, if he persist in his refusal, prejudice his own edification; so no
more can a man’s peaceable
And thus, Christian reader, I have given thee a brief
account of all things of any importance that I could meet withal in this
treatise, and of many which are of very little. If thou shalt be pleased
to compare my treatise of schism with the refutation of it, thou wilt
quickly see how short this is of that which it, pretends to; how untouched
In the meantime, I humbly beg of this reverend author that he would review; in the presence of the Lord, the frame of spirit wherein he wrote this charge; as also, that he would take into his thoughts all the reproaches and all that obloquy he hath endeavoured to load me causelessly and falsely withal. As for myself, my name, reputation, and esteem with the churches of God, to whom he hath endeavoured to render me odious, I commit the whole concernment of them to Him whose presence, through grace, I have hitherto enjoyed, and whose promise I lean upon, that he will “never leave me nor forsake me.” I shall not complain of my usage (but what am I?) — of the usage of many precious saints and holy churches of Jesus Christ, into Him that lives and sees, any farther than by begging that it may not be laid to his charge. And if so mean a person as I am can in any way be serviceable to him, or to any of the churches that he pleads for, in reference to the gospel of Christ, I hope my life will not be dear to me that it may effect it; and I shall not cease to pray that both he and those who promoted this work in his hand may at length consider the many calls of God that are evident upon them, to lay aside these unseemly animosities, and to endeavour a coalition in love with all those who in sincerity call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.
For the distances themselves that are between us, wherein we are not as yet agreed; what is the just state of them, the truth and warrantableness of the principles whereupon we proceed, with the necessity of our practice in conformity thereunto; in what we judge our brethren to come short of, or wherein to go beyond the mind of Jesus Christ; with a farther ventilation of this business of schism, — I have some good grounds of expectation that possibly, ere long, we may see a fair discussion of these things, in a pursuit of truth and peace.
An answer
to
a late treatise of Mr Cawdrey
about
the nature of schism.
Δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον
ἀνέγλητον εἶναι, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ
πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ. —
Oxford: 1658.
The two foregoing treatises had
appeared in 1657, and in the year following our author had to reply to
another work by his opponent
An Answer to a Late Treatise about the Nature of Schism.
Christian Reader,
I have not much to say unto thee
concerning the ensuing treatise, — it will speak for itself with all
impartial men; much less shall I insist on commendation of its author, who
also being dead ἔτι λαλεῖται, and will
be so, I am persuaded whilst Christ hath a church upon the earth. The
treatise itself was written sundry years ago, immediately upon the
publishing of
But the intendment of this prefatory discourse being my own
concernment in reference to a late tract of
I shall begin with that which is least handled in the two books of this reverend author, though the sum of what was pleaded by me in my treatise of schism. For the discovery of the true nature of schism, and the vindication of them who were falsely charged with the crime thereof, I laid down two principles as the foundation of all that I asserted in the whole cause insisted on, which may briefly be reduced to these two syllogisms:—
1. If in all and every place of the New Testament where there is mention made of schism, name or thing, in an ecclesiastical sense, there is nothing intended by it but a division in a particular church, then that is the proper Scripture notion of schism in the ecclesiastical sense; but in all and every place, etc.: ergo. The proposition being clear and evident in its own light, the assumption was confirmed in my treatise by an induction of the several instances that might any way seem to belong unto it.
2. My second principle was raised upon a concession of the general nature of schism, restrained with one necessary limitation, and amounts unto this argument:— If schism in an ecclesiastical sense be the breach of a union of Christ’s institution, then they who are not guilty of the breach of a union of Christ’s institution are not guilty of schism; but so is schism: ergo.
The proposition also of this syllogism, with its inference, being unquestionable, for the confirmation of the assumption, I considered the nature of all church-union as instituted by Christ, and pleaded the innocency of those whose defence, in several degrees, I had undertaken, by their freedom from the breach of any church-union. Not finding the reverend author, in his first answer, to speak clearly and distinctly to either of those principles, but to proceed in a course of perpetual diversion from the thing in question, with reflections, charges, etc., — all rather, I hope, out of an unacquaintedness with the true nature of argumentation than any perverseness of spirit, in cavilling at what he found he could not answer, — I earnestly desired him, in my review, that we might have a fair and friendly meeting, Personally to debate those principles which he had undertaken to oppose, and so to prevent trouble to ourselves and others, in writing and reading things remote from the merit of the cause under agitation. What returns I have had hitherto the reader is now acquainted withal from his rejoinder, the particulars whereof shall be farther inquired into afterward.
The other parts of his two books consist in his charges
upon me about my judgment in sundry particulars, not relating in the least,
that I can as yet understand, unto the controversy in hand. As to his
excursions about Brownists, Anabaptists, Seekers, rending the peace of
their churches, separating from them, the errors of the Separatists, and
the like, I cannot apprehend myself concerned to take notice of them; to
the other things an answer shall be returned and a defence made, so far as
I can judge it necessary. It may be our anchor seeks a relief from the
charge of schism that lies upon him and his party (as they are called) from
others, by managing the same charge against them who, he thinks, will not
return it upon them; but for my part, I shall assure him that were he not,
in my judgment, more acquitted upon my principles than upon his own, I
should be necessitated to
In the first chapter there occurs not any thing of real
difference, as to the cause under agitation, that should require a review,
being spent wholly in things ἔξω τοῦ
παράγματος, and therefore I shall briefly animadvert on what seems
of most concernment therein, on the manner of his procedure. His former
discourse, and this also, consisting much of my words perverted by adding
in the close something that might wrest them to his own purpose, he tells
me, in the beginning of his third chapter, that “this is to turn my
testimony against myself which is,” as he saith, “an allowed way of the
clearest victory,” which it seemeth he aimeth at; but nothing can be more
remote from being defended with that pretence than this way of proceeding.
It is not of urging a testimony from me against me that I complained, but
the perverting of my words, by either heading or closing of them with his
own, quite to other purposes than those of their own intendment; — a way
whereby any man may make other men’s words to speak what he pleaseth; as
In this course he still continues, and his very entrance gives us a pledge of what we are to expect in the process of his management of the present business. Whereas I had said, that, “considering the various interests of parties at difference, there is no great success to be promised by the management of controversies, though with never so much evidence and conviction of truth;” to the repetition of my words he subjoins the instance of “sectaries, not restrained by the clearest demonstration of truth;” not weighing how facile a task it is to supply “Presbyterians” in their room; which in his account is, it seems, to turn his testimony against himself, and, as he somewhere phraseth it, “to turn the point of his sword into his own bowels.” But “nobis non tam licet esse disertis;” neither do we here either learn or teach any such way of disputation.
His following leaves are spent, for the most part, in slighting the notion of schism by me insisted on, and in reporting my arguments for it, pp. 8, 9, 12, in such a way and manner as argues that he either never understood them or is willing to pervert them. The true nature and importance of them I have before laid down, and shall not now again repeat; though I shall add, that his frequent repetition of his disproving that principle, which it appears that he never yet contended withal in its full strength, brings but little advantage to his cause with persons whose interest doth not compel them to take up things on trust. How well he clears himself from the charge of reviling and using opprobrious, reproachful terms, although he profess himself to have been astonished at the charge, may be seen in his justification of himself therein, pp. 16–19, with his re-enforcing every particular expression instanced in; and yet he tells me, for inferring that he discovered sanguinary thoughts in reference unto them whose removal from their native soil into the wilderness he affirms England’s happiness would have consisted in, that he hath “much ado to forbear once more to say, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’“For my part, I have received such a satisfactory taste of his spirit and way, that as I shall not from henceforth desire him to keep in any thing that he can hardly forbear to let out, but rather to use his utmost liberty, so I must assure him that I am very little concerned, or not at all, in what he shall be pleased to say or to forbear for the time to come; himself hath freed me from that concernment.
The first particular of value insisted on, is his charge
upon me for the denial of all the churches of England to be true
churches of Christ, except the churches gathered in a
congregational way. Having frequently, and without hesitation,
The first is this: He “supposed me to be an Independent,”
and therefore made that charge; the consequent of which supposition is much
too weak to justify this reverend author in his accusation. Doth he
suppose that he may without offence lay what he pleases to the charge of an
Independent? But he saith, secondly, that he “took the word Independent
generally, as comprehending Brownists, and Anabaptists, and other
sectaries.” But herein also he doth but delude his own conscience, seeing
he personally speaks to me and to my design in that book of schism which he
undertook to confute; which also removes his third intimation, that he
“formerly intended any kind of Independence,” etc. The rest that follow
are of the same nature, and, however compounded, will not make a salve to
heal the wound made in his reputation by his own weapon. For the learned
author called “vox populi,” which he
is pleased here to urge, I first question whether he be willing to be
produced to maintain this charge; and if he shall appear, I must needs tell
him (what he here questions whether it be so or no) that he is a very liar.
For any principles in my treatise whence a denial of their ministers and
churches may be regularly deduced, let him produce them if he can; and if
not, acknowledge that there had been a more Christian and ingenuous way of
coming off an engagement into that charge than that by him chosen to be
insisted on. “Animos et iram ex crimine
sumunt.” And again we have “vox
populi” cited on the like occasion, p. 34, about my refusal to
answer whether I were a minister or not; which as the thing itself, of such
a refusal of mine, on any occasion in the world (because it must be
spoken), is “purum putum mendacium,”
so it is no truer that that was “vox
populi” at Oxford, which is pretended. That which is “vox populi” must be public; “publicum” was once “populicum.” Now, set aside the whispers of, it may
be, two or three ardelios, Ardelio, a busy-body, a
meddler; a term borrowed from Phædrus, lib ii.
Fab. 5. — Ed. Vid. Gerard. loc. Com. de Minist. Ecclesiast. Sect. 11,
12.
“Sed præterea quænam ista
est, quæso, ordinaria vocatio, quam eos habuisse dicis, quos Deus paucis
quibusdam exceptis, excitavit? Certe papistica. Nam hæc tua verba sunt;
hodie si episcopi Gallicanarum ecclesiarum se et suas ecclesias a tyrannide
episcopi Romani vindicare velint, et eas ab omni idololatria et
superstitione repurgare, non habent opus alia vocatione ab ea quam habent.
Quid ergo? Papisticas ordinationes, — in quibus neque morum examen
præcessit, neque leges ullæ servatæ sunt inviolabiliter ex divino jure in
electionibus et ordinationibus præscriptæ, in quibus puri etiam omnes
canones impudentissime violati sunt: quæ nihil aliud sunt, quam fœdissima
Romani prostibuli nundinatio, quâvis meretricum mercede, quam Deus templo
suo inferri prohibuit, inquinatior: quibus denique alii non ad prædicandum
sed pervertendum evangelium: alii non ad docendum, sed ad rursus
sacrificandum, et ad abominandum βδέλυγμα sunt
ordinati, — usque adeo firmas tecum esse censebimus, ut quoties tali
cuipiam pseudoepiscopo Deus concesserit, ad verum Christianismum transire,
omnis ilia istiusmodi ordinationis impuritas simul expurgata censeatur?
Imo quia sic animum per Dei gratiam mutavit, quo ore, quo pudore, qua
conscientia papismum quidem detestabitur, suam autem inordinatissimam
ordinationem non ejurabit? aut si, ejuret, quomodo ex illius jure
auctoritatem dicendi habebit? Nec tamen nego quin tales, si probe
doctrinam veram tenere, si honestis moribus præditi, si ad gregem pascendum
apti comperiantur, ex pseudoepiscopis novi pastores, legitimè
designentur.” Thus he, who was thought then to speak the sense of
the churches of Geneva and France, in his book against
His plea for the church-authority of the pope, notwithstanding his being an idolater, a murderer, the man of sin, an adversary of Christ, because a civil magistrate doth not by any moral crime, or those whereof the pope is guilty, lose his jurisdiction and authority, considering the different principles, grounds, ends, laws, rules, privileges, of the authority of the one and the other, and the several tenures whereby the one doth hold and the other pretends to hold his power, is brought in to serve the turn in hand, and may be easily laid aside. And when he shall manifest that there is appointed by Christ one single high priest or prelate in the house of God, the whole church, and that office to be confined to one nation, one blood, one family, propagated by natural generation, without any provision of relief by any other way, person, or family, in case of miscarriage; and when he shall have proved that such an officer as the pope of Rome, in any one particular that constituteth him such an officer, was once instituted by Christ, — I shall farther attend unto his reason for his authority from that of the high priest’s among the Jews, which was not lost, as to its continuance in the family of Aaron, notwithstanding the miscarriage of some individual persons vested therewithal. In the close of the chapter he re-assumes his charge of my renouncing my own ordination, which, with great confidence, and without the least scruple, he had asserted in his answer. Of that assertion he now pretends to give the reasons, whereof the first is this:—
1. “The world looks on him as an Independent of the highest note; therefore, he hath renounced his ordination, and therefore I dare to say so.” So much for that reason. I understand neither the logic nor morality of this first reason.
2. He knows from good hands that some of the brethren
have renounced their
3. He hath heard that I dissuaded others from their ordination; and therefore he durst say I renounced my own. And yet I suppose he may possibly dissuade some from episcopal ordination; but I know it not, no more than he knows what he affirms of me, which is false.
4. He concludes from the principles in my book of schism, because I said that to insist upon a succession of ordination from antichrist and the beast of Rome would, if I mistake not, keep up in the this particular what God would have pulled down, therefore I renounced my ordination, when he knows that I avowed the validity of ordination on another account.
5. If all this will not do, he tells me of something that was said at a public meeting (at dinner, it seems) with the canons of Christ Church, — namely, that I valued not my ordination by the bishop of Oxford any more than a crumb upon my trencher; which words, whether ever they were spoken or no, or to what purpose, or in reference to what ordination (I mean of the two orders), or in what sense, or with what limitation, or as part of what discourse, or in comparison of what else, or whether solely in reference to the Roman succession, — in which sense I will have nothing to do with it, — I know not at all, nor will concern myself to inquire, being greatly ashamed to find men professing the religion of Jesus Christ so far forgetful of all common rules of civility and principles of of human society as to insist upon such vain, groundless reports as the foundation of accusations against their brethren. Nor do I believe that any one of the reverend persons quoted will own this information, although I shall not concern myself to make inquiry into their memories concerning any such passage or discourse.
Much relief, for future, against these and the like
mistakes may be afforded, from an easy obviation of the different senses
wherein the term of ordination is often used. It is one thing
when it is taken largely, for the whole appointment of a man to the
ministry, — in which sense I desire our author to consider what is written
by
This, I say, is the ground of this mistake: Whereas sundry
things concur to the calling of ministers, as it belongs to the
church of God, the pillar and ground of truth, the spouse of Christ
Take then, reader, the substance of this chapter in this
brief recapitulation:— 1. “He denies our churches to be true churches, and
our ministers true ministers;” 2. “He hath renounced his own ordination;”
3. “When some young men came to advise about their ordination, he dissuaded
them from it;” 4. “He saith he would maintain against all the ministers of
England there was in Scripture no such thing as ordination;” 5. “That when
he was chosen a parliament-man, he would not answer whether he was a
minister or not;” — all which are notoriously untrue, and some of them,
namely, the last two, so remote from any thing to give a pretence or colour
unto them, that I question whether Satan have impudence enough to own
himself their author. And yet, from hear-says, reports, rumours, from
table-talk, “vox populi,” and such
other grounds of reasoning, this reverend author hath made them his own;
and by such a charge he hath, I presume, in the judgment of all
unprejudiced men, discharged me from farther attending to what he shall be
prompted from the like principles to divulge, for the same ends and
purposes which hitherto he hath managed, for the future. For my judgment
about their ministry and ordination, about the nature and efficacy of
ordination, the state and power of particular churches, my own station in
the ministry, which I shall at all times, through the grace and assistance
of Our Lord Jesus Christ, freely justify against men and devils, it is so
well known that I shall not need here farther to declare it. For the true
nature and notion of schism, alone by me inquired after in this chapter, as
I said, I find nothing offered thereunto. Only, whereas I restrained the
ecclesiastical use of the word “schism” to the sense wherein it is used in
the places of Scripture that mention it with relation to church affairs, —
which that it ought not to be so, nothing but asseverations to the contrary
are produced to evince, — this is interpreted to extend to all that I would
allow as to the nature of schism itself, which is most false; though I
said, if I would proceed no farther, I might not be compelled so to do,
seeing in things of this nature we may crave allowance to think and speak
with the Holy Ghost. However, I expressly comprised in my proposition all
the places wherein the nature of schism is delivered, under what terms or
words soever. When, then, I shall be convinced that such discourses as
those of this treatise, made up of diversions into things wholly foreign to
the inquiry by me insisted on in the investigation of the
I shall farther attend unto them.
I must farther add, that I was not so happy as to foresee
that, because I granted the Roman party before the Reformation to have made
outwardly a profession of the religion of Christ, — although I expressed
them to be really a party combined together for all ends of wickedness,
and, in particular, for the extirpation of the true church of Christ in the
world, having no state of union but what the Holy Ghost calls “Babylon,” in
opposition to “Zion,” — our reverend author would conclude, as he doth, p.
34, that I allowed them to be a true church of Christ; but it is impossible
for wiser men than I to see far into the issue of such discourses, and
therefore we must take in good part what doth fall out. And if the
reverend author, instead of having his zeal warmed against me, would a
little bestir his abilities to make out to the understandings and
consciences of uninterested men, that, all ecclesiastical power being
vested in the pope and councils, by the consent of that whole combination
of men called the Church of Rome, and flowing from the pope in its
execution to all others, — who, in the derivation of it from him, owned him
as the immediate fountain of it, which they sware to maintain in him, and
this in opposition to all church-power in any other persons whatsoever, —
it was possible that any power should be derived from that combination but
what came expressly from the fountain mentioned; I desire our author would
consider the frame of spirit that was in this matter in them who first
laboured in the work of reformation, and to that end peruse the stories of
Now, because nothing doth more frequently occur than the
objection of the difficulty of placing the dispensation of baptism on a
sure foot of account, in case of the rejection of all authoritative
influence from Rome into the ministry of the reformed churches, with the
insinuation of a supposition of the non-baptization of all such as derive
not a title unto it by that means, they who do so being supposed
It is, I suppose, taken for granted that an unbaptized person can never effectually baptize, let him receive what other qualifications soever that are to be super-added as necessary thereunto. If this be not supposed, the whole weight of the objection, improved by the worst supposition that can be made, falls to the ground. I shall also desire, in the next place, that as we cannot make the popish baptism better than it is, so, that we would not plead it to be better, or any other than they profess it to be, nor pretend that though it be rotten or null in the foundation, yet by continuance and time it might obtain validity and strength. When the claim is by succession from such a stock or root, if you suppose once a total intercision in the succession from that stock or root, there is an utter end put to that claim. Let us now consider how the case is with them from whom this claim is derived.
1. It is notoriously known that, amongst them, the validity of the sacraments depends upon the intention of the administrator. It is so with them as to every thing they call a sacrament. Now, to take one step backwards, that baptism will by some of ours be scarce accounted valid which is not administered by a lawful minister. Suppose now that some pope, ordaining a bishop in his stable to satisfy a whore, had not an intention to make him a bishop (which is no remote surmise), he being no bishop rightly ordained, all the priests by him afterward consecrated were indeed no priests, and so, indeed, had no power to administer any sacraments: and so, consequently, the baptism that may lie, for aught we know, at the root of that which some of us pretend unto, was originally absolutely null and void, and could never by tract of time be made valid or effectual, for, like a muddy fountain, the farther it goes, the more filthy it is. Or, suppose that any priest, baptizing one who afterwards came to be pope, from whom all authority in that church doth flow and is derived, had no intention to baptize him, what will become of all that ensues thereon?
It is endless to pursue the uncertainties and entanglements that ensue on this head of account, and sufficiently easy to manifest that whosoever resolves his interest in gospel privileges into this foundation can have no assurance of faith, nay, nor tolerably probable conjecture that he is baptized, or was ever made partaker of any ordinance of the gospel. Let them that delight in such troubled waters sport themselves in them. For my own part, — considering the state of that church for some years if not ages, wherein the fountains of all authority amongst them were full of filth and blood, their popes, upon their own confession, being made, set up, and pulled down, at the pleasure of vile, impudent, domineering strumpets, and supplying themselves with officers all the world over of the same spirit and stamp with themselves, and that for the most part for hire, being in the meantime all idolaters to a man, — I am not willing to grant that their good and upright intention is necessary to be supposed as a thing requisite unto my interest in any privilege of the gospel of Christ.
2. It is an ecclesiastical determination, of irrefragable
authority amongst them, that whosoever he be that administers baptism, so
he use the matter and form, that baptism is good and valid, and
not to be reiterated; yea,
3. Nay, upon the general account, if this be required as necessary to the administration of that ordinance, that he that doth baptize be rightly and effectually baptized himself, who can in faith bring an infant to any to be baptized, unless he himself saw that person rightly baptized?
As to the matter of baptism, then, we are no more concerned
than as to that of ordination. By what ways or means soever any man comes
to be a minister according to the mind of Jesus Christ, by that way and
means he comes to have the power for a due administration of that
ordinance; concerning which state of things our author may do well to
consult
The business of his second chapter is, to make good his former charge of my inconstancy and inconsistency with myself as to my former and present opinions, which he had placed in the frontispiece of his other treatise. The impertinency of this chapter had been intolerable, but that the loose discourses of it are relieved by a scheme of my self-contradictions, in the close. His design, he professeth, in his former discourse, was, not to blast my reputation or to “cause my person to suffer, but to prevent the prevalency of my way by the authority of my person;” that is, it was not his intention, it was only his intention for such a purpose! I bless my God I have good security, through grace, that whether he, or others like-minded with himself, intend any such thing or no, in those proceedings of his and theirs, which seemed to have in their own nature a tendency thereunto, my reputation shall yet be preserved in that state and condition as is necessary to accompany me in the duties and works of my generation, that I shall, through the hand of God, be called out unto. And, therefore, being prepared in some measure to go through good report and bad report, I shall give him assurance that I am very little concerned in such attempts, from whatever intention they do proceed; only, I must needs tell him that he consulted not his own reputation with peaceable, godly men, whatever else he omitted, in the ensuing comparing of me to the seducers in Jude, called “wandering planets,” for their inconstancy and inconsistency with themselves, — according to the exposition that was needful for the present turn.
But seeing the scheme at the close must bear the weight of
this charge, let us
The contradictions pretended are taken out of two books, the one written in the year 1643, the other in 1657, and are as follow:—
He spake of Rome as a “collapsed, corrupted church-state,” p. 40 [p. 37.] |
He says, “Rome we account no church at all,” p. 156 [p. 155.] |
“Crimen inauditum, C. Cæsar.” “Is it meet that any one should be tolerated that is thus woefully inconsistent with himself? What! speak of Rome as a collapsed church in Italy, and within thirteen or fourteen years after to say it is no church at all.” Well! though I may say there is indeed no contradiction between these assertions, seeing in the latter place I speak of Rome as that church is stated by themselves, when yet I acknowledge there may be corrupted churches both in Rome and Italy, in the same treatise; yet I do not find that in the place directed unto, I have in terms, or in just consequence, at all granted the church of Rome to be a collapsed church; nay, the church of Rome is not once mentioned in the whole page, nor as such is spoken of. And what shall we think of this proceeding? But yet I will not so far offend against my sense of my own weakness, ignorance, and frailty, as to use any defensative against this charge. Let it pass at any rate that any sober man, freed from pride, passion, self-fullness, and prejudice, shall be pleased to put upon it:—
But the second instance will make amends, and take more of the weight of this charge upon its shoulders. Take it, then, as it lies in its triple column:—
“Gifts in the person and consent of people are warrant enough to make a man a preacher, in an extraordinary case only,” pp. 15, 40 [pp. 18, 37]. |
Denying our ordination to be sufficient, he says “he may have that which indeed constitutes him a minister, — namely, gifts and submission by the people,” p. 198 [p. 172]. |
“I am punctually of the same mind still,” p. 40 [p. 226]. Yet had said in his first book, p. 46 [p. 43], “As to formal teaching is required, 1. Gifts; 2. Authority from the church,” — if he do not equivocate. |
I must confess I am here at a stand to find out the
pretended contradiction, especially laying aside the word “only” in the
first column, which is his, and not mine. By a “preacher,” in the first
place, I intend a “minister.” Gifts, and consent or submission of the
people, I affirm in both places to be sufficient to constitute a man a
minister in extraordinary cases, — that is, when imposition of hands by a
presbytery may not be obtained in due order, according to the appointment
of Jesus Christ. That the consent and submission of the people, which
include election, have nothing of authority in them, I never said. The
superadded act of the imposition of hands by a presbytery, when it may be
regularly obtained, is also necessary. But that there is any contradiction
in my words (although, in truth, they are not my words, but an undue
collection from them), or in this author’s inference from them, or any
colour of equivocation, I profess I cannot discern. In this place
He made the union of Christ and believers to be mystical, p. 21 [p. 129]. |
He makes the union to be personal, pp. 94, 95 [p. 22]. |
See vol. xi. of
“1. The first signal issue and effect which is ascribed to this indwelling of the Spirit is union; not a personal union with himself, which is impossible. He doth not assume our nature, and so prevent our personality, which would make us one person with him; but dwells in our persons, keeping his own, and leaving us our personality infinitely distinct. But it is a spiritual union, the great union mentioned so often in the Gospel, that is the sole fountain of our blessedness, our union with the Lord Christ, which we have thereby.
“Many thoughts of heart there have been about this union; what it is, wherein it doth consist, the causes, manner, and effects of it, The Scripture expresses it to be very eminent, near, durable; setting it out for the most part by similitudes and metaphorical illustrations, to lead poor weak creatures into some useful, needful acquaintance with that mystery, whose depths, in this life, they shall never fathom. That many, in the days wherein we live, have miscarried in their conceptions of it is evident. Some, to make out their imaginary union, have destroyed the person of Christ; and, fancying a way of uniting man to God by him, have left him to be neither God nor man. Others have destroyed the person of believers; affirming that, in their union with Christ, they lose their own personality, — that is, cease to be men, or at least those are [or?] these individual men.
“I intend not now to handle it at large, but only, — and
that I hope, without offence, — to give in my thoughts concerning it, as
far as it receiveth light from, and relateth unto, what hath been before
delivered concerning the indwelling of the Spirit, and that without the
least contending about other ways of expression.” So far there, with much
more to the purpose. And in the very place of my book of schism referred
to by this author, I affirm, as the head of what I assert, that by the
indwelling of the Spirit, Christ personal and his church do become
one Christ mystical,
1. “In extraordinary cases, every one that undertakes to preach the gospel must have an immediate call from God,” p. 28 [p. 28.] |
2. Yet required no more of before but “the gifts and consent of the people, which are ordinary and mediate calls,” p. 15 [p. 18], neither is here any need or use of an immediate call, p. 53 [p. 48.] |
3. To assure a man that he is extraordinarily called, he gives three ways: “1. Immediate revelation; 2. Concurrence of Scripture rule; 3. Some outward acts of providence;” — the two last whereof are mediate calls, p. 30 [p. 29.] |
All that is here remarked and cast into three columns, I know not well why, is taken out of that one treatise of “The Duty of Pastors and People;” and could I give myself the least assurance that any one would so far concern himself in this charge as to consult the places from whence the words are pretended to be taken, to see whether there be any thing in them to answer the cry that is made, I should spare myself the labour of adding any one syllable towards their vindication, and might most safely so do, there being not the least colour of opposition between the things spoken of. In brief, extraordinary cases are not all of one sort and nature; in some an extraordinary call may be required, in some not. Extraordinary calls are not all of one kind and nature neither. Some may be immediate from God, in the ways there by me described; some calls may be said to be extraordinary, because they do in some things come short of or go beyond the ordinary rule that ought to be observed in well-constituted churches. Again concurrence of Scripture rules and acts of outward providence may be such sometimes as are suited to an ordinary, sometimes to an extraordinary call; all which are at large unfolded in the places directed unto by our author, and all laid in their own order, without the least shadow of contradiction. But it may sometimes be said of good men, as the satirist said of evil women, “Fortem animum præstant rebus quas turpiter audent?” Go we to the next:—
1. “The church government from which I desire not to wander is the presbyterial.” |
2. He now is engaged in the independent way. |
3. Is settled in that way, which he is “ready to maintain, and knows it will be found his rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus” |
“Hinc mihi sola mali
labes.” This is that inexpiable crime that I labour under. An
account of this whole business I have given in my review, so that I shall
not here trouble the reader with a repetition of what he is so little
concerned in. I shall only add, that whereas I suppose
“Men ought not to cut themselves from the communion of the church, to rend the body of Christ, and break the sacred bond of chanty,” p. 48 [p. 45.] |
He says, “separation is no schism, nor schism any breach of charity,” pp. 48, 49 [pp. 110, 111.] |
“There is not one word in either of these cautions that I do not still own and allow,” p. 44 [p. 226] sure not without equivocation. |
I have before owned this caution as consistent with my present judgment, as expressed in my book of schism, and as it is indeed; wherein lies the appearance of contradiction I am not able to discern. Do not I, in my book of schism, declare and prove that men ought not to cut themselves from the communion of the church; that they ought not to rend the body of Christ; that they ought not to break the sacred bonds of charity? Is there any word or tittle in the whole discourse deviating from these principles? How and in what sense separation is not schism, that the nature of schism doth not consist in a breach of charity, the treatise instanced will so far declare, as withal to convince those that shall consider what is spoken, that our author scarce keeps close either to truth or charity in his framing of this contradiction. The close of the scheme lies thus:—
“I conceive they ought not at all to be allowed the benefit of private meeting who wilfully abstain from the public congregations.” |
“As for liberty to be allowed to those that meet in private, I confess myself to be otherwise minded.” |
I remember that about fifteen years ago, meeting
occasionally with a learned friend, we fell into some debate about the
liberty that began then to be claimed by men, differing from what had been,
and what was then likely to be, established. Having at that time made no
farther inquiry into the grounds and reasons of such liberty than what had
occurred to me in the writings of the Remonstrants, all whose plea was
still pointed towards the advantage of their own interest, I delivered my
judgment in opposition to the liberty pleaded for, which was then defended
by my learned friend. Not many years after, discoursing the same
difference with the same person, we found immediately that we had changed
stations, — I pleading for an indulgence of liberty, he for restraint.
Whether that learned and worthy person be of the same mind still that then
he was or no, directly I know not; but this I know, that if he be not,
considering the compass of circumstances that must be taken in to settle a
right judgment in this case of liberty, and what alterations influencing
the determination of this case we have had of late in this nation, he will
not be ashamed to own his change, being a person who despises any
reputation but what arises from the embracing and pursuit of truth. My
change I here own; my judgment is not the same, in this particular, as it
was fourteen years ago: and in my change I have good company, whom I need
not to name. I shall only say, my change was at least twelve years before
the “Petition
Being sufficiently tired with the consideration of things of no relation to the cause at first proposed (but, “This saith he, this the Independents, this the Brownists and Anabaptists,” etc.), I shall now only inquire after that which is set up in opposition to any of the principles of my treatise of schism before mentioned, or any of the propositions of the syllogisms wherein they are comprised at the beginning of this discourse; remarking in our way some such particular passages as it will not be to the disadvantage of our reverend author to be reminded of. Of the nature of the thing inquired after, in the third chapter I find no mention at all; only, he tells me by the way that the doctor’s assertion that “my book about schism was one great schism,” was not nonsense, but usual rhetoric; wherein profligate sinners may be called by the name of sin, and therefore a book about schism may be called a schism. I wish our author had found some other way of excusing his doctor than by making it worse himself.
In the fourth chapter he comes to the business itself; and
if, in passing through that, with the rest that follow, I can fix on any
thing rising up with any pretence of opposition to what I have laid down,
it shall not be omitted. For things by myself asserted, or acknowledged on
all hands, or formerly ventilated to the utmost, I shall not again trouble
the reader with them. Such are the positions about the general nature of
schism in things national and political, antecedently considered to the
limitation and restriction of it to its ecclesiastical use; the departure
from churches, voluntary or compelled, etc.; — all which were stated in my
first treatise, and are not directly opposed by our author. Such, also, is
that doughty controversy he is pleased to raise and pursue about the seat
and subject of schism, with its restriction to the instituted worship of
God, pp. 18, 19; so placed by me to distinguish the schism whereof we speak
from that which is national, as also from such differences and breaches as
may fall out amongst men, few or more, upon civil and national accounts; —
all which I exclude from the enjoyment of any room or place in our
consideration of the true nature of schism, in its limited ecclesiastical
sense. The like, also, may be affirmed concerning the ensuing strife of
words about separation and schism, as though they were,
in my apprehension of them, inconsistent: which is a fancy no better
grounded than sundry others which our reverend author is pleased to make
use of. His whole passage, also, receives no other security than what is
afforded to it by turning my universal proposition into a particular. What
I say of all places in the Scripture where the name or thing of schism is
used in an ecclesiastical sense, as relating to a gospel church, he would
restrain to that one place of the Corinthians, where alone the word is used
in that sense. However, if that one place be all, my proposition is
universal. Take, then, my proposition in its extent and latitude, and let
him try once more, if he please, what he hath to object to it, for as yet I
find no instance produced to alleviate its truth. He much, also, insists
that there may be a separation in a church where there is no
separation from a church; and saith this was at first by me
denied. That it was denied by me he cannot prove; but that the
But it is incredible to think whither men will suffer themselves to be carried “studio partium,” and ἀμετρίᾳ ἀνθολκῆς. Hence have we the strange notions of this author about schism: decays in grace are schism, and errors in the faith are schism; and schism and apostasy are things of the same kind, differing only in degree, because the one leads to the other, as one sin of one kind doth often to another, — drunkenness to whoredom, and envy and malice to lying; and differences about civil matters, like that of Paul and Barnabas, are schism; and this, by one blaming me for a departure from the sense of antiquity, unto which these insinuations are so many monsters. Let us, then, proceed.
That
Of schism,
But now, by our author schism and apostasy are made things
of one kind, differing only in degrees, p. 107; so confounding schism and
heresy, contrary to the constant sense of all antiquity.
In the entrance of the fifth chapter he takes advantage
from my question, p. 147 [p. 263], “Who told him that raising causeless
differences in a church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgment
schism?” where the first part of the assertion included in that
interrogation expresseth the formal nature of schism, which is not
destroyed, nor can any man be exonerated of its guilt, by the subsequent
crime of separation, whereby it is aggravated.
In his following discourse he renews his former charges, of denying their ordinances and ministry, of separating from them, and the like. As to the former part of this charge I have spoken in the entrance of this discourse; for the latter, of separating from them, I say we have no more separated from them than they have from us. Our right to the celebration of the ordinances of God’s worship, according to the light we have received from him, is, in this nation, as good as theirs; and our plea from the gospel we are ready to maintain against them, according as we shall at any time be called thereunto. If any of our judgment deny them to be churches, I doubt not but he knows who comes not behind in returnal of charges on our churches. Doth the reverend author think or imagine that we have not, in our own judgment, more reason to deny their churches and to charge them with schism, though we do neither, than they have to charge us therewith and to deny our churches? Can any thing be more fondly pretended than that he hath proved that we have separated from them? upon which, p. 105, he requires the performance of my promise to retreat from the state wherein I stand upon the establishment of such proof. Hath he proved the due administration of ordinances amongst them whom he pleads for? Hath he proved any church-union between them as such and us? Hath he proved us to have broken that union? What will not self-fulness and prejudice put men upon!
How came they into the sole possession of all church-state
in England, so that whoever is not of them and with them must be charged to
have separated from them?
In the beginning of chapter the sixth he attempts to disprove my assertion, that the union of the church catholic visible, which consists in the “professing of the saving doctrine of the gospel,” etc., is broken only by apostasy. To this end he confounds apostasy and schism, affirming them only to differ in degrees; which is a new notion, unknown to antiquity, and contrary to all sound reason. By the instances he produceth to this purpose he endeavours to prove that there are things which break this union, whereby this union is not broken. Whilst a man continues a member of that church, which he is by virtue of the union thereof and his interest therein, by no act doth he, or can he, break that union.
The partial breach of that union, which consists in the
profession of the truth, is error and heresy, and not
schism. Our author abounds here in new notions, which might
easily be discovered to be as fond as new, were it worth while to consider
them; of which in brief before. Only, I wonder why, giving way to such
thoughts as these, he should speak of men with contempt under the name of
notionists, as he doth of
Page 110, he fixes on the examination of a particular
passage about the disciples of John, mentioned
Neither shall I at present (allotting very few hours to the
despatch of this business, which yet I judge more than it deserves)
consider the scattered ensuing passages about ordination,
church-government, number of elders, and the like; which all men know not
at all to belong unto the main controversy which was by me undertaken, and
that they were, against all laws of disputation, plucked violently into
this contest by our reverend author. One thing I cannot pass by, and it
will, upon the matter, put a close to what I shall at present offer to this
treatise. Having said that “Christ hath given no direction for the
performance of any duty of worship of sovereign institution, but only in
them and by them” (meaning particular churches), he answers, that “if he
would imply that a minister in or of a particular church may perform those
ordinances without those congregations, he contradicts himself, by saying a
particular church is the seat of all ordinances.” But why so, I pray? May
not a particular church be the seat of all ordinances subjectively, and yet
others be the object of them, or of some of them? “But,” saith he, “if he
mean those ordinances of worship are to be performed only by a minister of
a particular congregation, what shall become of the people?” I suppose
they shall be instructed and built up according to the mind of Christ; and
what would people desire more? But whereas he had before said that I
“denied a minister to be a minister to more than his own church,” and I had
asked him “who told him so,” adding that explication of my judgment, that
for “so much as men are appointed the objects of the dispensation of the
word, I grant a minister, in the dispensation of it, to act ministerially
towards not only the members of the catholic church, but the visible
members of the world also in contradistinction thereunto;” he now tells me
a story of passages between the learned
Some few observations on scattered passages will now speedily issue this discourse. Page 112, to that assertion of mine, that “if Rome be no particular church, it is no church at all, for the catholic church it is not,” he replies, that “though it be not such a particular congregation as I intend, yet it may be a particular patriarchal church.” But, — 1. Then, it seems, it is a particular church; which grants my inference. 2. It was a particular Church of Christ’s institution that I inquired after. Doth our author think that Christ hath appointed any patriarchal churches? A patriarchal church, as such, is such from its relation to a patriarch; and he can scarce be thought to judge patriarchs to be of divine institution who hath cast off and abjured episcopacy.
Nor did I, as is pretended, plead for their presbyterian way in the year [16]46; all the ministers almost in the county of Essex know the contrary, one especially, being a man of great ability and moderation of spirit, and for his knowledge in those things not behind any man I know in England of his way, with whom in that year, and the next following, I had sundry conferences at public meetings of ministers as to the several ways of reformation then under proposal. But the frivolousness of these imputations hath been spoken of before, as also the falseness of the calumny which our author is pleased to repeat again about my turning from ways in religion.
My description of a particular church he once more blames
as applicable to the catholic church invisible, and to the visible catholic
church (I suppose he means as such), when a participation in the same
ordinances numerically is assigned as its difference. He asks whether it
becomes my ingenuity to interpret the capability of a church’s reduction to
its primitive constitution by its own fitness and capacity to be so
reduced, rather than by its external hinderances or furtherances; but with
what ingenuity or modesty that question is asked, I profess I understand
Let this reverend author make what use of it he please, I
cannot but again tell him that these things become neither him nor any man
professing the religion of Jesus Christ, or that hath any respect to truth
or sobriety. Can any man think that in his conscience he gives any credit
to the insinuation which here he makes, that I should thank him for calling
me “reverend author” or “reverend doctor,” or be troubled for his not using
these expressions? Can the mind of an honest man be thought to be
conversant with such mean and low thoughts? For the title of “reverend,’ I
do give him notice that I have very little valued it ever since I have
considered the saying of
Sundry other particulars there are, partly false and calumniating, partly impertinent, partly consisting in mistakes, that I ought at the first view to have made mention of; but, on several accounts, I am rather willing here to put an end to the reader’s trouble and my own.
A
brief vindication of the nonconformists from the charge of schism,
as it was managed against them in a sermon preached before the Lord Mayor by Dr Stillingfleet, Dean of St Paul’s.
“Coitio
Christianorum merito sane illicita, si illicitis par; merito damnanda, si
quis de ea queritur eo titulo quo de factionibus querela est. In cujus
perniciem aliquando convenimus? Hoc sumus congregati quod et dispersi; hoc
universi quod et singuli; neminem lædentes, neminem contristantes; quum
probi, cum boni coeunt, cum pii, cum casti congregantur, non est factio
dicenda, sed curia.” —
In 1680, when the nation was under
strong fears lest, with the help and favour of the Court, Popery should
resume its old domination in Britain, the celebrated
Perhaps no sermon has ever given rise to a controversy in
which a greater number of writers has appeared on both sides; and among
these were names signally eminent for worth and learning. Besides the
following pamphlet by
To the rescue of the Dean from this host of opponents,
there advanced, with his vizor down and name withheld,
The sermon which embroiled so many able men in disputes that lasted for ten years may well excite curiosity; and yet it would be difficult to say why it should have roused such a storm of controversy, resounding over the breadth of a kingdom. It is calm and measured in its tone, and contains no reckless invective, no impeachment of motives, no envenomed intensity of language. Its strength lay in its calmness, and in the extreme plausibility with which the case of the Church of England is stated against Dissenters. That the latter should admit it to be a church of Christ, and yet hold themselves justified in their nonconformity; and that the common grounds of objection to the Established Church should refer to the terms on which men were admitted to office in it, and did not, as the Dean alleged, affect their admission to membership, were points which such a controversialist could handle most effectively for his own cause. That Nonconformists, who had suffered so much in resisting popish encroachment, should be exhibited as practically the friends of Popery in opposing the Church of England, reputed to be the chief defence against it; while they, on the other hand, had been warning the nation for years against the vantage-ground which Popery had in the constitution and rites of the English Church; and that all this should have been done, not in the vulgar abuse which refutes itself, but in downright and deliberate logic, was sufficiently galling, and fitted to bring upon them no small odium from the temper of the nation, roused at the time by the fear of popish aggression and ascendency. It was, in truth, an attempt not merely to spike the best guns of Dissent, but to turn them against itself.
This “Vindication” by
A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism.
It was no small surprise unto many, first to hear of, and then to see in print, the late sermon of the Rev. Dean of St Paul’s, preached at Guildhall, May 2, 1680, being the first Sunday in Easter term, before the Lord Mayor, etc.
Whatever there might be of truth in it, yet they judged the
time both of the one and the other, the preaching and printing of it, to be
somewhat unseasonable; for they say that this is a time wherein the
agreement of all Protestants, so far as they have attained, is made more
than ordinarily necessary. And whereas the Nonconformists do agree in
religion with all the sober protestant people of the nation, which is the
church of England, they do suppose that ordinary prudence would advise unto
a forbearance of them in those few things wherein they dissent, not indeed
from the body of the protestant people, but from some that would impose
them on their consciences and practices. Who knows not that the present
danger of this nation is from Popery, and the endeavours that are used both
to introduce it and enthrone it, or give it power and authority among us?
And it is no part of the popish design to take away and destroy those
things wherein the Nonconformists do dissent from the present
ecclesiastical establishment, but rather to confirm them. Their
contrivance is, to ruin and destroy the religion of the body of the
Protestants in this kingdom, wherein the Nonconformists are one with them,
and equally concerned with any of them. Wherefore it cannot but be
grievous unto them, as well as useless unto the common interest of the
protestant religion, that at such a time and season they should be
reflected on, charged, and severely treated, on the account of those lesser
differences which in no way disenable them from being useful and
serviceable unto the government and nation, in the defence and preservation
of the protestant religion. And that it is their resolution so to be, they
have given sufficient evidence, equal at least with that given by any sort
of people in the
In these circumstances, to be required severely to change their judgments and practices, as it were “momento turbinis,” immediately and in an instant, or else to be looked on and treated as adversaries, many do think as unseasonable as to command a good part of an army, when it is actually engaged against an enemy, to change all their order, postures, discipline, and advantages, or immediately to depart out of the field. And they do withal suppose that such a sudden change is least of all to be expected to be wrought by such severe charges and reflections as are made on all Nonconformists in this discourse. Such like things as these do men talk concerning the season of the preaching and publishing of this sermon; but in such things every man is to be left unto his own prudence, whereof he may not esteem himself obliged to give an account.
For my part, I judge it not so unseasonable as some others do; for it is meet that honest men should understand the state of those things wherein they are greatly and deeply concerned. Nonconformists might possibly suppose that the common danger of all Protestants had reconciled the minds of the conforming ministry unto them, so as that they were more than formerly inclined unto their forbearance; and I was really of the same judgment myself. If it be not so, it is well they are fairly warned what they have to expect, that they may prepare themselves to undergo it with patience. But we shall pass by these things, and attend a little unto the consideration of the sermon itself.
The design of this discourse seems to consider in these three things, or to aim at them:—
1. To prove all the Nonconformists to be guilty of schism and a sinful separation from the church of England.
2. To aggravate their supposed guilt and crime, both in its nature and all the pernicious consequences of it that can be imagined.
3. To charge them, especially their ministers, with want of sincerity and honesty in the management of their dissent from the church of England, with reference unto the people that hear them.
What there is of truth in these things, or what there may be of mistake in them, it is the duty of Nonconformists to try and examine. But some few things must have a previous consideration before we come to the merits of the cause itself:—
1. The reverend author of this discourse affirms, that in
the preaching of this sermon he was “far from intending to stir up the
magistrates and judges unto a persecution of dissenters, as some ill men
(1.) It was not preached unto Nonconformists, perhaps not one of them being present; so that the intention of preaching it could not be their conviction. They were not likely either to hear the charge or the reasons of it.
(2.) It was preached unto them who were no way guilty of the pretended crime reproved, but peculiarly to such as were intrusted with the execution of the penal laws against them that were supposed guilty, magistrates and judges; which in another would have but an ill aspect. If a man should go unto a justice of the peace, and complain that his neighbour is a thief, or a swearer, or a murderer, though he should give the justice never so many arguments to prove that his neighbour did very ill in being so and doing so, yet his business would seem to be the execution of the law upon him. But let the will of God be done; Nonconformists are not much concerned in these things.
We are likewise informed, in the same epistle, that there are “no sharp and provoking expressions” on the persons of any. It is, indeed, beneath the gravity and dignity of this reverend author to bring reviling or railing accusations against any; neither will he, I am sure, give countenance to such a practice in others, which is seldom used but by men of very mean consideration: but I am not satisfied that he hath not used even great severity in reflections on a whole party of men, and that unprovoked; nor do I know how persons, on a religious account, can be more severely reflected on, — and that not only as unto their opinions and practices, but also as unto the sincerity of their hearts and honesty of their designs, — than the Nonconformists are in this sermon.
I have seen a collection made of such reflections, by the hand of a person of honour, a member of the church of England, with his judgment upon them; wherein they appear to me not to be a true resemblance or representation of Christian love and charity.
2. A great part of this discourse being such as became a
popular auditory, consisting in generals on all hands acknowledged, as, the
good of union, the evil of schism and causeless separation, etc., — which
will indifferently serve any party, until it be determined where the
original fault and mistake doth lie, — I shall not at all take notice of
it, though it be so dressed as to be laid at the door of Nonconformists, in
a readiness for an application unto their disadvantage but nothing that, by
way of argument, testimony, or instance, is produced
3. Some few things may be taken notice of in the passage of
the author unto his text. Of that nature is his complaint, p. 2: “There is
just cause for many sad reflections, when neither the miseries we have felt
nor the calamities we fear, neither the terrible judgments of God upon us,
nor the unexpected deliverance vouchsafed unto us, nor the common danger we
are yet in, have abated men’s hearts, or allayed their passions, or made
them more willing to unite with our established church and religion; but,
instead of that, some stand at a greater distance, if not [in] defiance.”
It is acknowledged willingly by us that the warnings and calls of God unto
this nation have been great and marvellous, and yet continue so to be; but
it is worthy our inquiry, whether this be to be looked on as the only end
and design of them, that the Nonconformists do immediately in all things
comply with the established church and religion, and are evidences of God’s
displeasure because they do not so, when He who searcheth their hearts doth
know that they would do it were it not for fear of His displeasure? What
if it should be the design of God in them to call the nation, and so the
church of England, unto repentance and reformation? which, when all is
done, is the only way of reconciling all protestant dissenters. What if
God should in them testify against all the atheism, profaneness,
sensuality, that abound in this nation, unto the public scandal of it, with
the dread and terror of those by whom they are duly considered, the persons
guilty of them being no way proceeded against by any discipline of the
church, nor any reformation of the church itself from such horrible
pollutions once attempted? Every man who knows any thing of Christ, of his
law, gospel, rule, and discipline, — of the nature, end, and use of them,
with the worship of God to be performed in them and by them; and doth
withal consider the terror of the Lord, unto whom an account is to be given
of these things; must acknowledge that, both in persons and things, there
is a necessity of reformation among us, on the utmost peril of the
displeasure of Christ Jesus: yet no such reformation is so much as
endeavoured in a due manner. It is no encouragement unto conscientious men
to unite themselves absolutely and in all things unto such a church as doth
not, as will not, or as cannot, reform itself, in such a degenerate state
as that which many churches in the world are at this day openly and visibly
fallen into. And, to deal plainly with our brethren (if they will allow us
to call them so), — that they may know what to expect, and, if it be the
will of God, be directed unto the only true way of uniting all Protestants
in the only bands of evangelical union, order, and communion, — unless
those who are concerned will endeavour, and until they are
4. The immediate introduction unto the opening of his text is an account of the differences and divisions that were in the primitive churches, occasioned by the Judaizing Christians, who contended for the observation of the ceremonies of the law. But some things may be added unto his account, which are necessary unto the right stating of that case, as it may have any respect unto our present differences. And we may observe, —
(1.) That those with and concerning whom the apostle dealeth in his epistle were principally those of the Jewish church and nation who had owned the gospel, professed faith in Christ Jesus, had received (many of them) spiritual gifts, or “tasted of the powers of the world to come,” and did join in the worship of God in the assemblies of the Christians. I only mention this, because some places quoted usually in this matter do relate directly unto the unbelieving Jews, which went up and down to oppose the preaching of Christ and the gospel, in rage and fury, stirring up persecution everywhere against them that were employed in it.
(2.) This sort of persons were freely allowed by the
apostle to continue in the use of those rites and ceremonies which they
esteemed
(3.) Out of tenderness unto them, and to prevent all offence to be taken by them at the liberty of the Gentiles, they did order that the believers of the Gentiles should forbear for a season the use of their natural liberty in some few things, whereby the other were, in their common meetings, as in eating and drinking together, usually scandalized; giving them, also, unto the same end, direction concerning one thing evil in itself, whose long usage and practice among the Gentiles had obliterated a sense of its guilt, wherewith they could not but be much offended.
(4.) With this determination or state of things, thus settled by the apostles, no doubt but that a multitude of the Jewish believers did rest content and satisfied; but certain it is that with many of them it was otherwise: they were no way pleased that they were left unto the freedom of their own judgment and practice in the use and observance of the legal ceremonies, but they would impose the observation of them on all the churches of the Gentiles wherever they came. Nothing would serve their turn but that all other churches must observe their ceremonies, or they would not admit them unto communion with them. And, in the pursuit of this design, they prevailed for a season on whole churches to forego the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, and to take on them the yoke of bondage which they imposed on them; as it was with the churches of the Galatians.
I have mentioned these things only to show how remote we
are from any access unto those opinions and practices which caused the
first divisions in Christian churches, and among all sorts of believers.
We agree with our brethren in the faith of the gospel, as the Gentiles did
with the believing Jews; we have nothing to impose in religion on the
consciences or practices of any other churches or persons; we are not
offended that others, be they many or few, should use their own choice,
liberty, and judgment, in the government, discipline, worship, and
ceremonies, of pretended order, nor do envy them the advantages which they
have thereby; We desire nothing but what the churches of the Gentiles
desired of old, as the only means to prevent division in them, — namely,
that they might not be imposed on to observe those things which they were
not satisfied that it was the mind of Christ they should observe, for he
had taken all the churches under his own power, requiring that they should
be taught to do and observe all that he commanded them, and nothing else,
that we know of. We desire no more of our governors, rulers,
These things being premised, because I have no design to except against any thing in the discourse of the reverend author of this sermon wherein the merit of the cause is not immediately concerned, nor to seek for advantages from expressions, nor to draw a saw of contention about things not necessary unto that defence of our innocency which alone I have undertaken (as is the way of the most in the management of controversies), I shall pass on unto the charge itself, or the consideration of the arguments and reasons whereon all Nonconformists are charged with schism, etc.
But yet because there are some things insisted on by the author, in the progress of his discourse, according as he judged the method to be most convenient for the managing of his charge, which I judge not so convenient unto the present defence, I shall speak briefly unto them, or some of them, before I proceed unto what is more expressly argumentative; as, —
1. He chargeth the Nonconformist ministers for concealing their opinions and judgments from the people about the lawfulness of their communion with the church, and that for ends easily to be discerned (that is, their own advantage); that is, they do indeed judge that it is lawful for the people to hold communion with the church of England, but will not let them know so much, lest they should forsake their ministry:—
Pages 19, 20, “I do not intend to speak of the terms upon
which persons are to be admitted among us to the exercise of the function
of the ministry, but of the terms of lay-communion; that is, those which
are necessary for all persons to join in our prayers and sacraments, and
other offices of divine worship. I will not say there hath been a great
deal of art to confound these two (and it is easy to discern to what
purpose it is), but I dare say the people’s not understanding the
difference of these two cases hath been a great occasion of the present
separation; for, in the judgment of some of the most
And the same thing is yet managed with more severity, pp. 37, 38, in words that I shall at large transcribe:—
“I dare say if most of the preachers at this day, in the separate meetings, were soberly asked their judgment, whether it were lawful for the people to join with us in the public assemblies, they would not deny it: and yet the people that frequent them generally judge otherwise; for it is not to be supposed that faction among them should so commonly prevail beyond interest, and, therefore, if they thought it were lawful for them to comply with the laws, they would do it. But why, then, is this kept up as such a mighty secret in the breasts of their teachers? why do they not preach to them in their congregations? Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to? — that is not to be imagined of mortified and conscientious men. Is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves, whilst they preach against separation in a separate congregation?
“This, I confess, looks oddly, and the tenderness of a man’s mind in such a case may, out of mere shamefacedness, keep him from declaring a truth which flies in his face while he speaks it.
“Is it that they fear the reproaches of the people, which
some few of the most eminent persons among them have found they must
undergo if they touch upon this subject? (for, I know not how it comes to
pass, that the most godly people among them can the least endure to be told
of their faults;) but is it not as plainly written by St Paul, ‘If I yet
pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ,’
A crime this is which, if true, is not easily to be
expiated; nor can men give greater evidence of their own hypocrisy,
insincerity, and government by corrupt ends and designs, than by such
abominable arts and contrivances. So, if it should prove not to be true,
it cannot
This reverend author makes a distinction about communion with the church, p. 20, between what is required of ministers and that which is called “lay-communion,” which is the foundation of this charge:—
“I do not confound bare suspending communion in some particular rites, which persons do modestly scruple, and using it in what they judge to be lawful, with either total or at least ordinary forbearance of communion in what they judge to be lawful, and proceeding to the forming of separate congregations, — that is, under other teachers and by other rules than what the established religion allows. And this is the present case of separation which I intend to consider, and to make the sinfulness and mischief of it appear.”
But he knows that by the communion and uniting ourselves unto the church, which is pressed either on ministers or people, a total submission unto the rule, as established in the Book of Canons and Rubric of the Liturgy, is required of them all. When this is once engaged in, there is no suspending of communion in particular rites to be allowed; they who give up themselves hereunto must observe the whole rule to a tittle. Nor is it in the power of this reverend author, who is of great dignity in the church, and as like as any man I know to be inclined thereunto, to give indulgence unto them in their abstinence from the least ceremony enjoined. Wherefore, the question about lay-communion is concerning that which is absolute and total, according unto all that is enjoined by the laws of the land, or by the canons, constitutions, and orders of the church. Hereby are they obliged to bring their children to be baptized with the use of the aerial sign of the cross; to kneel at the communion; to the religious observation of holidays; to the constant use of the liturgy in all the public offices of the church, unto the exclusion of the exercise of those gifts which Christ continues to communicate for its edification; to forego all means of public edification besides that in their parish churches, where, to speak with modesty, it is ofttimes scanty and wanting; to renounce all other assemblies wherein they have had great experience of spiritual advantage unto their souls; to desert the observation of many useful gospel duties, in their mutual watch that believers of the same church ought to have one over another; to divest themselves of all interest of a voluntary consent in the discipline of the church and choice of their own pastors; and to submit unto an ecclesiastical rule and discipline which not one in a thousand of them can apprehend to have any thing in it of the authority of Christ or rule of the gospel: and other things of the like nature may be added.
I heartily wish these things had been omitted, that they
had not been spoken; — not to cover any guilt in the Nonconformists, whose
consciences are unto them a thousand witnesses against such imputations;
but whereas the ground of them is only surmises and suspicions, and the
evil charged of the highest nature that any men can involve themselves in
the guilt of, it argues such a frame of spirit, such a habit of mind, as
evidenceth men to be very remote from that Christian love and charity
which, on all hands, we sometimes pretend unto. Of the same nature is
another charge of the like want of sincerity, p. 46: “Those,” saith he,
“who speak now most against the magistrate’s power in matters of religion
had ten substantial reasons for it when they thought the magistrates on
their own side;” for which is quoted an “Answer unto Two Questions,” 1659; The first
edition of the Savoy Confession,
— so called from an old building in the Strand founded by an Earl of Savoy,
— was printed in 1659. In doctrine it agrees with the Westminster Confession. A chapter on “the
institution of churches” was substituted in the Savoy Declaration for those
chapters on the power of synods, church censures, marriage, divorce, and
the magistrate’s power in regard to religion, which are to be found in the
Westminster Confession. The chapter substituted details the principles of
Congregationalism. — Ed.
2. As unto the state of the question, we are told that “he speaks not of the separation or distinct communion of whole churches from each other; which, according to the Scripture, antiquity, and reason, have a just right and power to govern and reform themselves. By whole churches, I mean the churches of such nations, which, upon the decay of the Roman empire, resumed their just right of government to themselves, and, upon their owning Christianity, incorporated into one Christian society, under the same common ties and rules of order and government,” p. 16.
I do suppose that particular churches or congregations are hereby exempted from all guilt of schism in not complying with rules of communion imposed on them by other churches. I am sure, according unto the principles of Nonconformists, they are so; for they judge that particular or congregational churches, stated with their officers according to the order of the gospel, are entire churches, that have a just right and power to govern and reform themselves. Until this be disproved, — until it be proved either that they are not churches because they are congregational, or that, although they are churches, yet they have not power to govern and reform themselves, — they are free from the guilt of schism in their so doing.
But the reverend author seems, in the ensuing discourse, to
appropriate this right and power unto national churches, whose rise he
assigns unto the dissolution of the Roman empire, and the alteration of the
church government unto that of distinct kingdoms and provinces. But this
is a thing that fell out so long after the institution of churches and
propagation of Christian religion, that we are not at all concerned in it;
especially considering that the occasion and
The right and power of governing and reforming themselves here spoken of is that which is given by Christ himself unto his churches; nor do I know where else they should have it. Wherefore, those national provincial churches, which arose upon the dissolution of the Roman empire, must first be proved to be of his institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Jesus Christ. In what kings, potentates, and other supreme magistrates, might do to accommodate the outward profession of religion unto their rule and the interest thereof, we are not at all concerned, nor will give interruption unto any of them, whilst they impose not the religious observation of their constitutions unto that end upon our consciences and practice. Our sole inquiry is, what our Lord Jesus Christ hath ordained; and which, if we are compliant withal, we shall fear neither this nor any other charge of the like nature.
But to give strength hereunto it is added: “Just as several
families united make one kingdom, which at first had a distinct and
independent power; but it would make strange confusion in the world to
reduce kingdoms back again to families, because at first they were made up
of them,” p. 17; which is again, insisted on, p. 31. But the case is not
the same; for if, indeed, God had appointed no other civil government in
the world but that of families, I should not much oppose them who would
endeavour peaceably to reduce all government thereunto. But whereas we are
certain that God, by the light of the law of nature, by the ends and uses
of the creation of man, and by express revelation in his word, hath, by his
own authority, appointed and approved other sorts of civil government in
kingdoms and common-weals, we esteem it not only a madness to endeavour a
reduction of all government into families, as unto the possibility of the
thing, but a direct opposition unto the authority, command, and institution
of God. So, if these national churches were of the immediate institution
of Christ himself, we should no more plead the exemption of particular
churches from any power given them by Christ as such, than we do to exempt
private families from the lawful government of public magistrates. And we
must also add, that whatever be their original and constitution, if all
their governors were as the apostles, yet have they no power but what is
for edification, and not for destruction. If they do or shall appoint and
impose on men what tends unto the destruction of their souls, and not unto
their edification, as it is fallen out in the church of Rome, not only
particular churches, but every individual believer is warranted to withdraw
from their communion: and hereon we ground the lawfulness of our separation
from the church of Rome, without any need of
As it should seem, an opinion opposite unto this notion of
national churches is examined and confuted, p. 17: “And it is a great
mistake, to make the notion of a church barely to relate to acts of
worship, and, consequently, that the adequate notion of a church is an
assembly for divine worship, — by which means they appropriate the name of
churches to particular congregations, — whereas, if this hold true, the
church must be dissolved as soon as the congregation is broken up; but if
they retain the nature of a church when they do not meet together for
worship, then there is some other bond that unites them, and whatever that
is, it constitutes the church.” I am far from pretending to have read the
writings of all men upon this subject, nay, I can say I have read very few
of them, though I never avoided the reading of any thing written against
the way and order which I approve of; wherefore there may be some, as far
as I know, who have maintained this notion of a church, or that it is only
an assembly for divine worship; but for my part, I never read nor heard of
any who was of this judgment. Assemblies for divine worship we account
indispensably necessary for the edification of the churches; but that this
is that which gives them their constitution and formeth that which is the
bond of their union, none of the Nonconformists, as I know of, do judge;
for it will not only hence follow, as the reverend author observes, “that
the church is dissolved when the congregation is broken up” (on which
account churches at this time would be dissolved almost every week, whether
they would or no), but that any sort of persons, who have no church
relation unto one another; meeting occasionally for divine worship, do
constitute a church, which it may be within an hour they cease to be. It
is not, therefore, on this account that we appropriate the name of churches
unto particular congregations; there is quite another way and means,
another bond of union, whereby particular churches are constituted, which
hath been sufficiently declared. But if the meaning
3. Pages 23, 24, there is a distribution of all dissenters
into two parties:— (1.) Such as say, “That although they are in a state of
separation from our church, yet this separation is no sin.” (2.) Such as
say, “That a state of separation would be sin, but, notwithstanding their
meeting in different places, yet they are not in a state of separation.”
The difference of these two parties seems to me to be only in the different
ways of expressing themselves, — the one granting the use of the word
“separation” in this case, which others will not admit; for their practice,
so far as I can observe, is one and the same, and therefore their
principles must be so also, though they choose several ways of expressing
them. Both sorts intended do plead that in sundry things they have
communion with the
These things being premised, that we may not be diverted from the substance of the cause in hand, as they would otherwise occur unto us in our progress, I shall proceed unto the consideration of the charge itself laid against the Nonconformists, and the arguings whereby it is endeavoured to be confirmed.
The charge is, “That all the Nonconformists, of one sort or another, — that is, Presbyterians and Independents — are guilty of sin, of a sinful separation from the church of England;” and therefore, as they live in a known sin, so they are the cause thereby of great evils, confusion, disturbances among ourselves, and of danger unto the whole protestant religion: whence it is meet that they should, etc.
The matter of fact being thus far mutually acknowledged, that there is such a stated difference between the church of England and the Nonconformists, the next inquiry naturally should be on these two heads:—
1. Who or what is the cause of this difference or distance? without which we cannot judge aright on whom the blame of it is to be charged; for that all men are not presently to be condemned for the withdrawing from the communion of any church, because they do so, without a due examination of the causes for which they do it, will be acknowledged by all Protestants. In plain terms, our inquiry is, Whether the cause hereof be, on the one hand, the imposition of terms of communion, without any obligation in conscience to make that imposition so much as pleaded or pretended from the nature of the things imposed; or the refusal of compliance with those impositions, under a profession that such a compliance would be against the light of conscience and the best understanding in them who so refuse which they can attain of the mind and will of God in the Scripture?
2. Whereas the parties at difference do agree in all
substantial parts of religion, and in a common interest as unto the
preservation and defence of the protestant religion, living alike peaceably
under the same supreme authority and civil government, Whether the evils
and inconveniences mentioned are necessary and inseparable effects of such
a difference; or whether they do not wholly owe themselves unto passions,
corrupt affections, and carnal interests of men, which ought on all hands
to be mortified and subdued? For as, it may be, few wise men, — who know
the nature of conscience, how delicate and tender it is, what care is
required in all men to keep it as a precious
First, the foundation whereon the reverend author manageth
his charge of schism, with all its consequents, against the Nonconformists,
is taken from the words of his text, and declared, pp. 10–14 of his book.
I shall not transcribe his words, principally because I would not oblige
myself to take notice of any thing that is ἔξω τοῦ πράγματος, which, in such discourses, do
commonly administer occasion of unnecessary strife. The force of the
argument, unto the best of my understanding, consists in the things that
follow:— 1. That all churches and the members of them, by virtue of the
apostolical precept contained in the text, ought to walk according unto
rule. 2. That the rule here intended is not the rule of charity and mutual
forbearance in the things wherein they who agree in the foundation are
differently minded or otherwise than one another. But, 3. This was a
standing rule for agreement and uniformity in practice in church order and
worship, which the apostles had given and delivered unto them. 4. That this
rule they did not give only as apostles, but as governors of the
church, as appears from
Let us, therefore, hereon a little inquire whether this will bear the weight of so great a charge as that which is built upon it and resolved into it, with all the dismal consequents pretended to ensue thereon; and we shall not pass by, in so doing, any thing that is offered to give an especial enforcement unto the charge itself. But in our entrance into the consideration of these things, I must needs say it is somewhat surprising unto me to see a charge wherein the consciences, reputation, liberty, etc., of so many are concerned, founded on the exposition of a text which no sober expositor that I know of did ever find out, propose, or embrace. But if it be true and according unto the mind of the Holy Ghost, this ought to be no disparagement unto it, though it be applied unto such an end. This is that which we are to examine. I say, therefore, —
1. We no way doubt but that the apostles did give rules of
faith, obedience, and worship, not only unto private Christians, but to
whole churches also; which we find recorded in the Scripture. Unto all
these rules we do declare our assent and consent with an entire conformity;
and do hope that with indifferent, unbiassed persons this is enough to free
us from the charge of schism. 2. For the rule here intended, some take it
to be the rule of faith in general, or divine revelation; some, to
be the rule of charity and brotherly condescension; some, to be
the particular rule here laid down, of walking together in the
different measures of faith, light, and knowledge, which we do attain
unto. The apostle, in the foregoing verses, having given an account of the
glorious excellencies of the mysteries of the gospel, and of his own
endeavour after the full attainment of them, yet affirms that he had not
attained unto that perfection in the comprehension of them which he
designed and aimed at. Herein, in the instance of himself, he declares the
condition of the best believers in this life; which is not a full measure
and perfection in the comprehension of the truths of the gospel, or
enjoyment of the things themselves contained in them: but withal he
declares their duty, in pressing continually, by all means, after that
measure of attainment which is proposed unto their acquisition. Hereupon
he supposes what will certainly ensue on the common pursuit of this design:
which is, that men will come unto different attainments, have different
measures of light and knowledge, yea, and different conceptions or opinions
about these things; some will be “otherwise minded” than other some will
But “a rule,” he says, “it is limiting and determining the
practice, requiring uniformity in observing the same standing rule.” The
Nonconformists hereon do say, that if the apostles, or any one apostle, did
appoint such a rule as this intended, let it be produced with any
probability of proof to be theirs, and they are all ready to subscribe and
conform unto it. On supposition that any rule of this nature was appointed
by the apostles and declared unto the churches, as the reverend author I
suppose doth intimate that it was (though I dare not affix a determinate
sense unto his words in this place), all that can be required of us is,
that we do conform and walk according unto that rule so appointed and
declared by them. This we are always ready to do. Sundry general rules we
find in the Scripture given unto us, relating unto the constitution and
edification of churches, to their order, and worship, and government;
sundry particular rules for ministers and others, how they should behave
themselves in church societies and assemblies, are also laid down therein;
— all which we embrace, and submit unto the authority of Christ in
5. If the rule pretended to be given by the apostles be of any use in this case, or can give any force unto the argument in hand, it must be such a one as appointed and required things to be observed in the worship of God that were never divinely appointed, imposing the observation of them on the consciences and practice of all the members of the church, under penalties spiritual and temporal; a rule constituting national churches, with a government and discipline suited unto that constitution, with modes and ceremonies of worship nowhere intimated in the Scripture, nor any way necessary in the light of reason. Such a rule, I say, it must be, since, although I should grant (which yet I do not) that the consequent is good, that because the apostles made rules for the practice of the church, that believers were bound in conscience to submit unto, therefore ordinary governors of the church may do so also, yet it will by no means follow that because the apostles appointed a rule of one sort, present church governors may appoint those of another. We know full well, and it is on all hands agreed, what is the rule that our conformity is required unto. If this be done from any rule given by the apostles, it must be a rule of the same nature or to the same purpose; otherwise, by a pretence of their pattern or example, rules may be made directly contrary unto and destructive of all the rules they ever really gave; as it is actually fallen out in the church of Rome. But, —
6. We deny that the apostles made or gave any such rules to the churches present in their days, or for the use of the churches in future ages, as should appoint and determine outward modes of worship, with ceremonies in their observation, stated feasts and fasts, beyond what is of divine institution, liturgies or forms of prayer, or discipline to be exercised in law courts, subservient unto a national ecclesiastical government. What use, then, they are or may be of what benefit or advantage may come to the church by them, what is the authority of the superior magistrate about them, we do not now inquire or determine. Only we say, that no rule unto these ends was ever prescribed by the apostles; for, —
(1.) There is not the least intimation of any such rule to
be given by them in the Scripture. There are in it, as was before
observed, many express rules, both general and particular, about churches,
their faith, worship, and men’s walking in them, thoroughly sufficient to
direct the duty and practice of all believers in all cases and occurrences
relating to them: but of any such rule as that here pretended there is no
mention; which certainly, if it had been given, and of the
(2.) The first churches after their times knew nothing of any such rule given by them; and, therefore, after they began to depart from the simplicity of the gospel in any things, as unto worship, order, and rule, or discipline, they fell into a great variety of outward observances, orders, and ceremonies, every church almost differing in some thing or other from others, in some such observations, yet all “keeping the unity of the faith in the bond of peace.” This they would not have done if the apostles had prescribed any one certain rule of such things that all must conform unto, especially considering how scrupulously they did adhere unto every thing that was reported to be done or spoken by any of the apostles, were the report true or false.
(3.) In particular, when a difference fell out amongst them in a business of this nature, namely, in a thing of outward order, nowhere appointed by the authority of Christ, — namely, about the observation of Easter, — the parties at variance appealed on the one side to the practice of Peter, on the other to the practice of John (both vainly enough): yet was it never pretended by any of them on either side that the apostles had constituted any rule in the case; and therefore it is not probable that they esteemed them to have done so in things of an alike nature, seeing they laid more weight on this than on any other instance of the like kind.
(4.) It is expressly denied, by good and sufficient testimony among them, that the apostles made any law or rule about outward rites, ceremonies, times, and the like. See Socrat., lib. v. cap. 21.
However, then, the apostles might, by their epistles and
presence with the churches, reform abuses that were creeping or had crept
in among them, and set things in order among them, with renewed directions
for their walking; and though all Christians were obliged unto the
observation of those rules, as all those still are unto whom they are
applicable in their circumstances; yet all this proves nothing of their
appointing such a general rule as is pretended: and such a rule alone would
be pleadable in this case; and yet not this neither,
The truth is, if God would be pleased to help us, on all hands, to lay aside prejudices, passions, secular interests, fears, and every other distempered affection, which obstruct our minds in passing a right judgment on things of the nature treated on, we [should] find in the text and context spoken unto a sacred truth divinely directive of such a practice as would give peace and rest unto us all; for it is supposed that men, in a sincere endeavour after acquaintance with the truths and mysteries of the gospel, with an enjoyment of the good things represented and exhibited in them, may fall, in some things, into different apprehensions about what belongs unto faith and practice in religion. But whilst they are such as do not destroy or overthrow the foundation, nor hinder men from “pressing towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus,” that which the apostle directs unto them who are supposed to be ignorant of or to mistake in the things wherein they do differ from others, is only that they wait for divine instruction in the use of the means appointed for that end, practising in the meantime according to what they have received. And as unto both parties, the advice he gives them is, that “whereunto they have attained,” wherein they do agree, — which were all those principles of faith and obedience which were necessary unto their acceptance with God, — they should “walk by the same rule, and mind the same thing;” that is, “forbearing one another” in the things wherein they differ: which is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Nonconformists.
And that this is the meaning and intention of the apostle
in this place is evident from the prescription of the same rule in an alike
case,
I have treated thus far of these things, not to manage a controversy with this author or any other, but only to show that there is no ground to be taken from this text or its context to give countenance unto the severe censure of schism and all the evil consequents of it, as maintained by ill arts and practices, upon the Nonconformists.
The procedure of our author in the management of his
charge, is in a way of proving, from the assertions and concessions of the
several parties whereinto he hath distinguished Nonconformists, that they
have no just cause to withhold full communion from the church of England,
especially in its parochial assemblies. And as unto the first party, whom
he affirms to grant that they are in a state of separation, he quotes some
sayings out of a discourse of a nameless author, concerning Evangelical
Love, Church-Peace, and Unity; See a work by our author under this
title, published in 1672, vol. xv. p. 57. — Ed.
Ans. 1. We will allow at present that the parochial churches, at least some of them, in this nation are true churches; that is, that they are not guilty of any such heinous errors in doctrine or idolatrous practice in worship as should utterly deprive them of the being and nature of churches. Yet we suppose it will not be made a rule, that communion may not be withheld or withdrawn from any church in any thing, so long as it continues, as unto the essence of it, to be so. This author knows that testimonies may be produced out of very learned protestant writers to the contrary.
2. We do not say, it is not pleaded, that because “communion in ordinances must be only in such churches as Christ himself hath instituted,” etc., that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from parochial churches; but it may be pleaded thence, that if it be on other grounds necessary to so separate or withhold communion from them, it is the duty of them who do so to join themselves in or unto some other particular congregations.
The reasons why the Nonconformists cannot join in that communion with those parochial churches which were before described are quite of another nature, which are not here to be pleaded; however, some of them may be mentioned, to deliver us from this mistake, that the ground of separation from them is the institution of particular congregational churches. And they are such as these:—
(1.) There are many things in all parochial churches that openly stand in need of reformation. What these are, both with respect unto persons and things, hath been before intimated, and shall be farther declared if occasion require. But these parochial churches neither do, nor indeed can, nor have power in themselves to reform the things that ought, by the rule of the Scripture, to be reformed; for none among us will plead that they are intrusted with power for their own government and reformation. In this case we judge it lawful for any man peaceably to withdraw communion from such churches, [and] to provide for his own edification in others.
(2.) That there are many things, in the constant and total
communion of parochial churches, imposed on the consciences and practices
(3.) There is no evangelical church discipline administered in such parochial churches, which yet is a necessary means unto the edification of the churches, appointed by Christ himself, and sacredly attended unto by the primitive churches; and we dare not renounce our interest in so blessed an ordinance of Christ in the gospel.
(4.) The rule and government which such parochial churches are absolutely under, in the room of that rule and discipline which ought to be in and among themselves, — namely, that by the courts of bishops, chancellors, commissaries, etc., — is unknown to the Scriptures, and in its administration is very remote from giving a true representation of the authority, wisdom, love, and care of Christ to his church; which is the sole end of all church rules and discipline. The yoke hereof many account themselves not obliged to submit unto.
(5.) There is in such churches a total deprivation of the liberty of the people, secured unto them by the rules and practices of several ages from the beginning, of choosing their own pastors; whereby they are also deprived of all use of their light and knowledge of the gospel in providing for their own edification.
(6.) It cannot be denied but that there is want of due means of edification in many of those parochial churches, and yet provision is made by the government that those churches are under that none shall, by any way, provide themselves of better means for that great end of all church-society.
It is on these and the like reasons that the Nonconformists cannot join in total communion, such as the rule pleaded for requireth, with parochial churches. In this state, as was said, the Lord Christ having instituted particular congregations, requiring all believers to walk in them, it is the duty of those who are necessitated to decline the communion of parochial churches, as they are stated at present, to join themselves in and unto such congregations as wherein their edification and liberty may be better provided for according unto rule.
But hereon the reverend author proceeds to oppose such
particular congregations or churches, I think, as unto their original and
necessity; for so he speaks, pp. 25, 26: “But I must needs say farther, I
have never yet seen any tolerable proof that the churches planted by the
apostles were limited to congregations.” Howbeit, this seems to be so
clear and evident in matter of fact, and so necessary from the nature of
the thing itself, that many wise men, wholly unconcerned in our
controversies, do take it for a thing to be granted by all without
But let us hear the reasoning of this learned author against this apprehension; this he enters upon, p. 26: “It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one city than could meet in one assembly for worship; but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more congregations, they did make new and distinct churches, under new officers, with a separate power of government? Of this, I am well assured, there are no marks or footsteps in the New Testament nor the whole history of the primitive church. I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the five thousand Christians in the church of Jerusalem made one stated and fixed congregation for divine worship, not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired; but if this were granted, where are the unalterable rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular assembly, they must become a new church, under peculiar officers and an independent authority? It is very strange that those who contend so much for the Scripture being a perfect rule of all things pertaining to worship and discipline should be able to produce nothing in so necessary a point.”
I answer, — 1. It is possible that an impartial account
may, ere Appended to the edition of
2. The matter of fact herein seems to me evidently to be
exemplified in the Scripture; for although, it may be, there is not express
mention made that these or those particular churches did divide themselves
into more congregations with new officers, yet are there instances of the
erection of new particular congregations in the same province, as distinct
churches, with a separate power of government. So the first church in the
province of Judea was in Jerusalem; but when that church was complete, as
to the number of them who might communicate therein unto their edification,
the apostles did not add the believers of the adjacent towns and places
unto that church, but erected other particular congregations all the
country over. So there were different churches in Judea, Galilee, and
Samaria, — that is, many in each of them,
3. It is not probable that any of the first churches did,
for a long time, increase in any city unto such a number as might exceed
the bounds of a particular church or congregation; for such they might
continue to be, notwithstanding a multiplication of bishops or elders in
them, and occasional distinct assemblies for some acts of divine worship.
And it seems if they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion
for their edification, they did immediately erect other churches among them
or near them. So, whereas there was a mighty increase of believers at
Corinth,
I speak not these things in opposition unto any other
church-state which men may erect or establish out of an opinion of its
usefulness and conveniency, much less against that communion which ought to
be among those particular churches, or their associations for their common
rule and government in and by their officers; but only to manifest that
those Nonconformists who are supposed to adhere unto the institution of
particular churches in a peculiar way, do not thereby deserve the
imputation of so great and intolerable a guilt as they are here charged
withal. And whereas I have hereby discharged all that
I answer, — 1. Possibly a church may be in a family, or
consist only of the persons that belong to a family: but a family, as a
family, neither is nor can be a church; for as such it is constituted by
natural and civil relations. But a church hath its form and being from the
voluntary spiritual consent of those whereof it consists unto church-order:
“They gave,” saith the apostle, “their own selves to the Lord, and unto us
by the will of God,”
2. What is spoken of the church in the houses of Aquila, Nymphas, and Philemon, doth not at all prove that there was a particular church in each of their houses, consisting only of their own families as such; but only that there was a church which usually assembled in their respective houses. Wherefore, —
3. There is no such example given of churches in private
families in the whole Scripture as should restrain the extent of churches
from congregations of many families. And the inquiry hereon, that “if men
will extend churches to congregations of many families, why may not others
extend churches unto societies which consist of many congregations,” hath
not any force in it; for they who extended churches unto congregations of
many families were the apostles themselves, acting in the name and
authority of Jesus Christ, It cannot be proved that ever they stated,
erected, or planted any one church, but it was composed of many persons out
of many families; nor that ever they confined a church unto a family, or
taught that families, though all of them believers and baptized, were
churches on the
The remainder of this section consists in an account of the practice of the churches in some things in following ages. This though of importance in itself, and deserving a full inquiry into, yet belongeth not unto our present case, and will, it may be, in due time be more fully spoken unto.
Those supposed of the first way and judgment, who grant a separation from the established form of the church of England, are dismissed with one charge more on and plea against their practice, not without a mixture of some severity in expression p. 30: “But suppose the first churches were barely congregated, by reason of the small number of believers at that time, yet what obligation lies upon us to disturb the peace of the church we live in to reduce churches to their infant state?” which is pressed with sundry considerations in the two following pages. But we say, — 1. That the first churches were not “congregated by reason of the small number of believers,” but because the Lord Christ had limited and determined that such a state of his churches should be under the New Testament, as best suited unto all the ends of their institution. 2. That which is called the “infant state of churches” was, in truth, their sole perfect estate; — what they grew up unto afterward, most of them, we know well enough; for leaving, as it is called, their “infant state” by degrees, they brought forth at last “The man of sin.” 3. No obligation lies upon us from hence to “disturb the peace” of any church; nor do we do so, let what will be pretended to the contrary. If any such disturbance do ensue upon the differences that are between them and us, as far as I know, the blame will be found lying upon them who [are] not [only] satisfied that they may leave the first state of the churches, under a pretence of its infancy, and bring them into a greater perfection than was given them by Christ and his disciples, but compel others also to forego their primitive constitution, and comply with them in their alteration thereof.
The remainder of the discourse of this section, so far as I
can understand, proceeds on this principle, that the sole reason and cause
of our nonconformity is this persuasion of the divine institution of
particular churches; but all men know that this is otherwise. This
I shall close this part of my discourse with an observation
on that wherewith it is closed by this author, in his management of it.
Saith he, “To withdraw from each other into separate congregations tempts
some to spiritual pride, and scorn and contempt of others, as of a more
carnal and worldly church than themselves; and provokes others to lay open
the follies, and indiscretions, and immoralities of those who pretend to so
much purity and spirituality above their brethren,” pp. 32, 33. If there
be any unto whom this is such a temptation as is mentioned in the first
place, and being so, doth prevail upon them, it is their sin, arising from
their own lusts, by which every man is tempted, and is not at all
occasioned by the thing itself. And for the other part, let those who
delight in that work proceed as they shall see cause; for if they charge
upon us things that are really foolish, indiscreet, and immoral, as in many
things we sin all, we hope we shall learn what to amend, and to be diligent
therein, as for other reasons, so because of our observers. But if they do
what some have done, and others yet continue to do, — fill their discourses
with false, malicious defamations, with scorn, contempt, railing, and
revilings, scandalous unto Christian religion, like a sermon lately
preached before my Lord Mayor, and since put in print (I intend not that
under consideration), — We are no way concerned in what they do or say, nor
do, as we know of, suffer any disadvantage thereby; yea, such persons are
beneath the offence and
For what remains of this discourse, I esteem not myself concerned to insist on the examination of it; for I would not so express my judgment in these things as some are here represented to declare themselves, and I know that those who are principally reflected on are able to defend both their principles and practices. And besides, I hear (in the retirement wherein I live, and wherein I die daily) that some of those most immediately concerned have returned an answer unto this part of the discourse under consideration. I shall, therefore, only observe some few things that may abate the edge of this charge; for although we judge the defence of the truth which we profess to be necessary when we are called thereunto, yet at present, for the reasons intimated at the entrance of this discourse, we should choose that it might not be brought under debate. But the defence of our innocency, when the charge against us is such as in itself tends to our distress and ruin, is that alone which is our present design, and which wise men, no way concerned in our nonconformity, for the sake of the protestant religion and public peace of the nation, have judged necessary.
The principal strength of this part of the reverend
author’s discourse consists in his application of the reasons of the
[Westminster] Assembly against those who desired forbearance, in distinct
communion from the rule sought then to be established, unto those who now
desire the same forbearance from the church of England. I will not immerse
myself in that controversy, nor have any contention with the dead. This
only I say, that the case then between the Presbyterians and those who
dissented from them is so vastly different from that now between the church
of England and the Nonconformists, and that in so many material instances
and circumstances, that no light can be communicated unto the right
determination of the latter from what was pleaded in the former. In brief,
those who pleaded then for a kind of uniformity or agreement in total
communion did propose no one of those things, as the condition of it, which
are now pleaded as the only reasons of withholding the same kind of
conformity from the church of England, and the non-imposition of any such
things they wade the foundation of their plea for the compliance of others
with them; and those on the other side, who pleaded for liberty and
forbearance in such a case as wherein there were no such impositions, did
it mostly on the common liberty which, as they judged, they had with their
other brethren to abide by the way which they had declared and practised
long before any rule was established unto its prejudice. And these things
are sufficient to give us, as unto the present case under debate, an
The especial charge here managed against the Nonconformists is, that they allow that to “live [in] a state of separation from such churches as many at least of ours are is a sin;” yet that themselves so do, which is manifest in their practice. But it may be said, — 1. That this concession respects only parochial churches, and that some of them only; but the conformity in general required of us respects the constitution, government, discipline, worship, and communion of the national church and diocesan churches therein. 2. Persons who thus express themselves are to be allowed the interpretation of their own minds, words, and expressions; for if they do judge that such things do belong unto a state of separation from any churches, as, namely, a causeless renouncing of all communion with them, a condemnation of them as no church, and on that ground setting up churches against them, which they know themselves not to be guilty of, they may both honestly and wisely deny themselves to be in a state of separation, nor will their present practice prove them so to be. And, on the other hand, those who do acknowledge a separation as unto distinct local presential communion with the church of England, yet do all of them deny those things which, in the judgment of those now intended, are necessary to constitute a state of separation. But on this account, I cannot see the least contradiction between the principles and practice of these brethren, nor wherein they are blameworthy in their concessions, unless to be in too much earnestness to keep up all possible communion with the church of England. “Forgive them that wrong.” Yet I say not this as though those who are here supposed to own a state of separation were not as zealous also for communion in faith, love, and doctrine of truth with the body of Protestants in this nation as they are. 3. That which animates this part of the discourse, and which is the edge of this charge, is, that “the ministers do conceal from the people what their judgment is about the lawfulness of communion with the church of England.” How this can be known to be so, I cannot understand; for that it is their judgment that they may do so is proved only, so far as I know, from what they have written and published in print unto that purpose. And certainly what men so publish of their own accord, they can have no design to conceal from any, especially not from them who usually attend on their ministry, who are most likely to read their books with diligence. But this hath been spoken unto before.
In these things we seek for no shelter nor countenance from
what is pleaded by any concerning the obliging power of an “erroneous
conscience,” which the reverend author insists on, pp. 42–44; for we
I know not of any farther concern that the Nonconformists
have in the discourse of this reverend author, unless it be in the
considerations which he proposeth unto them, and the advice which he gives
them in the close of it. I shall only say, concerning the one and the
other, that having weighed them impartially, unto the best of my
understanding, I find not any thing in them that should make it the duty of
any man to invent and constitute such a rule of church communion as that
which is proposed unto the Nonconformists for their absolute compliance
withal, nor any thing that should move the Nonconformists unto such
compliance, against the light of their consciences and understanding in the
mind of Christ; which alone are the things in debate between us. But if
the design of the author, in the proposal of these considerations and the
particulars of his advice, be, that we should take heed to ourselves, that
during these differences among us we give no offence unto others, so far as
it is possible, nor entertain severe thoughts in ourselves of them from
whom we differ, we shall be glad that both he and we should be found in the
due observance of such advice. One head of his advice
Indeed, men who are encompassed with an affluence of all
earthly enjoyments, and in the secure possession of the good things of this
life, do not well understand what they say when they speak of other men’s
sufferings. This I dare undertake for all the Nonconformists: let others
leave beating them, and they shall all leave complaining. She is thought
but a curst Not our English “cursed,” but an adjective, said to be
derived from the Dutch “korst,” signifying crusty,
ill-tempered. — Ed.
I shall add no more, but that whereas the Nonconformists intended in this defence are one, or do completely agree, with the body of the people in this nation that are Protestants, Or the church of England, in the entire doctrine of faith and obedience, in all the instances whereby it hath been publicly declared or established by law, — which agreement in the unity of faith is the principal foundation of all other union and agreement among Christians, and without which every other way or means of any such union or agreement is of no worth or value, and which if it be not impeached is in itself a sufficient bond of union, whatever other differences may arise among men, and ought to be so esteemed among all Christians; — and whereas they are one with the same body of the people, that is, in its magistracy and those who are under rule, in one common interest, for the maintenance and preservation of protestant religion, whereunto they are secured by a sense of their duty and safety, and without whose orderly and regular concurrence in all lawful ways and actings unto that end it will not be so easily attained as some imagine; — and whereas also they are one with them in all due legal subjection unto the same supreme power amongst us, and are equally ready with any sort of persons of their respective qualities or condition in the nation to contribute their assistance unto the preservation of its peace and liberty; — and whereas in their several capacities they are useful unto the public faith and trust of the nation, the maintenance and increase of the wealth and prosperity of it; — considering what evidences there are of the will of God in the constitution of our natures, under the conduct of conscience, in immediate subordination unto himself; the different measures of light, knowledge, and understanding which he communicates unto men; as also of the spirit, rule, and will of Jesus Christ, with the example of the apostles and the primitive churches for mutual forbearance, in such different apprehensions of and practices about religion, as no way intrencheth on the unity of faith, or any good of public society; — I cannot but judge (in which persuasion I now live, and shall shortly die) that all writings tending to exasperate and provoke the dissenting parties one against another are at this day highly unseasonable; and all endeavours, of what sort soever, to disquiet, discourage, trouble, punish, or distress such as dissent from the public rule, in the way before described, are contrary to the will of God, obstructive of the welfare of the nation, and dangerous unto the protestant religion.
Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Judges
Psalms
30 45:9 68:12 68:17-18 72:10-12 82:1
Proverbs
Isaiah
9:6-7 49:23 54:13 59:21 59:21 60:10 60:16
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Hosea
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
7:22-23 9:16 16:18 16:18 16:18 16:18 18:15-17 18:19-20 18:20 19:6 19:28 24:24 27:51
Luke
John
4:21 4:22 4:23 6:40 6:45 6:47 6:56 6:63 7:39 7:43 7:43 9:16 10:15 10:19 10:27-29 14:16-17 15:5 17 17:17 17:19-23 17:20 17:21 17:21 17:23 17:24 21:15-17
Acts
1:15-26 2:33 6:2-6 7 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:3 9:31 9:31 12:1 12:1 12:5 13:1 13:2-3 14:4 14:4 14:4 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:27 15 15:2 15:4 15:4 15:7 15:12 15:22 15:22 16 16:4 16:5 17:2 17:8-11 17:18 18:10 18:22 19:2 19:2-3 19:9 19:9 19:9 19:18 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:27 20:28 20:30 20:30 21:20 21:20-24 21:22 22:5-6 23:7 23:7
Romans
1:16 8 8:28 9:31-32 10:2 11:16-17 12:3-9 12:6 14 15:5-6 15:26 16:1 16:4 16:5 16:16 16:17 16:17-18
1 Corinthians
1:2 1:2 1:2 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:12 1:12 1:12 1:13 1:24 1:27 3:4 3:4-5 3:5 3:6 3:22 4:1 5:1 5:4-5 5:7 6 6:4 6:7 6:7-10 6:9-10 6:17 7:17 8:4 10:32 11 11:3 11:16 11:18 11:18 11:18 11:18 11:18 11:18-19 11:20 11:20 11:20-21 11:20-22 11:21 11:22 11:33 12 12:12 12:12 12:12-13 12:13 12:25 12:26-27 12:27 12:28 12:28 14:4-5 14:12 14:19 15:12 15:45 16:19
2 Corinthians
1:1 1:1 1:24 8:1 8:1 8:5 8:18-19 8:23 8:23 8:24 9:2 13:5 13:11
Galatians
1:2 1:2 1:10 1:13 1:22 1:22-23 5:3-4
Ephesians
1:13 2:8-10 2:19 3:21 4:5 4:8-13 4:11 4:11-12 4:11-16 4:13 4:13 4:15-16 4:16 5:23 5:25-27 5:31-32 6:12
Philippians
1:1 2:1-3 3:15-16 3:16 3:18 4:1-3
Colossians
1:18 1:18 1:24 2:19 3:3 3:14 3:14
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Hebrews
10:25 10:25 10:25 10:25 10:26 10:26 10:38 10:39 11:9
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
3 John
Jude
1:4 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:16 1:19 1:19 1:19
Revelation
1:11 1:13 1:14 2:1 2:7 2:9 2:11 2:14 2:29 3:6 3:13 3:22 13:8 13:16 18:4 19:8 21:2 21:14 21:27 22:15 22:15
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342