with the obviating of all objections to the contrary, is not a matter to be tossed up and down in this scambling chase; and I am not a little unhappy, that this reverend person was in the dark 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 implicit and explicit covenant, of specificating forms, of the practice of New and Old England, of admission of church-members, of the right of the members of the catholic church to all ordinances, of the miscarriage of the Independents, of church matriculations, and such like things, not once considered by me in my proposal of the matter in hand, are fallen upon. By the way he falls upon my judgment about the inhabitation of the Spirit, calls it an error, and says, so it hath been reputed by all that are orthodox; raising terrible suspicions and intimations of judgments on our way from God, by my falling into that error; when yet I say no more than the Scripture saith in express terms forty times, for which I refer him to what I have written on that subject, wherein I have also the concurrence of Polanus, Bucanus, Dorchetus, with sundry others Lutherans and Calvinists. It may be when he hath seriously weighed

1

what I have offered to the clearing of that glorious truth of the gospel, he may entertain more gentle thoughts both concerning it and me.

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 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, would not be waved, though nothing at all to the purpose in hand. After this, my confession made in as much condescension unto compliance as I could well imagine, of the use of greater assemblies, is examined, and excepted against, as being in my esteem,' he saith, though it be not so indeed, a matter of prudence only.' But I know full well, that he knows not

what esteem or disesteem I have of sundry things of no less importance. The consideration of my postulata,' proposed in a preparation to what was to be insisted on, in the next chapter, as influenced from the foregoing dissertations, alone remains, and indeed alone deserves our notice.

My first is this: "The departing of any man or men from any particular church, as to the communion peculiar to such a church, is 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 position holds in reference to it, nor can he disprove it; however, for my part, I am not ac

quainted 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.

Upon the last proposal we are wholly agreed, so that I shall not need to repeat it; only he gives me a sad farewell at the close of the chapter, which must be taken notice of: 'Is,' saith he, not the design of his book to prove, if he could, and condemn us as no churches? let the world be judge;' and I say, let all the saints of God judge; and Jesus Christ will judge whether I have not outrageous injury done me in this imputation: but,' saith he, unless this be proved, he can never justify his separation.' Sir, when your and our brethren told the bishops, they thanked God they were none of them, and defied the prelatical church, did they make a separation or no; were they guilty of schism? I suppose you will not say so; nor do I; yet have I done any such thing in reference to you or your churches? I have no more separated from you, than you have done from me; and as for the distance which is between us upon our disagreement about the way of reformation, let all the churches of God judge, on which side it hath been managed with more breach of love, on yours or mine. Let me assure you, sir, through the mercy of God in Jesus Christ, I can freely forgive unto you all your reproaches, revilings, hard censurings, and endeavours to expose me to public obliquy, and yet hope that I may have, before we die, a place in your heart and prayers.

CHAP. X.

Independency no schism.

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 Christian, a minister, a brother? what security hath he, that had he been the only judge and disposer of things in religion in this nation, if I and my associates had been sent to plant churches among the Indians, that he should have prevented eruption of the errors and abominations which we have been exercised withal in this generation, unless he had sent for duke D'Alva's instruments to work his ends by? and indeed there is scarce any sect in the nation, but had they their desires, they would take that course. This may be done by any that are uppermost if they please. But how shall we know what it is he intends by Independentism? All, it may be, that are not Presbyterians are Independents. Among these some professedly separate, both from them and us (for there are none that separate from them but withal they separate from us, that I know of), because, as they say, neither theirs nor ours are true churches; we grant them to be true churches, but withal deny that we separate from them; is it possible at once to defend both these sects of men? Is it possible at once with the same arguments to charge them? The whole discourse, then, of our reverend author being uniform, it can concern but one of these sects of Independents; which it is, any man may judge that takes the least view of his treatise. He deals with them that unchurch their churches, unminister their ministers, disannul their ordinances, leaving them churchless, officerless, and in the like sad condition. Is this Independentism a schism? though that it is properly so called, he cannot prove, yet I hope he did not expect that I should plead for