__________________________________________________________________

           Title: Of Schism
      Creator(s): Owen, John (1616-1683)
     Print Basis: The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1967.
   CCEL Subjects: All; Theology; Classic;
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Prefatory note.

   Unlike most of Owen's works, the following treatise on schism has
   neither dedication, nor preface, nor note to the reader, from which we
   might have inferred his reasons for undertaking the preparation of it.
   There is no reference to any authors of the day by whose writings he
   might have been stimulated to defend his position as an Independent.
   Perhaps the design of Owen was more effectually promoted by the care
   with which he abstains from all personal controversies. The charge of
   schism was frequently resorted to by the different ecclesiastical
   parties of that age; and so long as the term was shrouded in a certain
   vague mystery of import, it told on some minds with peculiar effect.
   Romanists were fond of it as a weapon of no mean power in their dispute
   with the Church of England, and several treatises might be named,
   written about this period, in which the latter is earnestly defended
   from the charge. The members of that church, on the other hand, used
   the same plea against the Presbyterians and Independents; while
   Presbyterians, fresh from the task of replying to the charge of schism
   preferred against themselves, delighted in urging it against their
   brethren of Congregational views.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.

   Aggravations of the evil of schism, from the authority of the ancients
   -- Their incompetency to determine in this case, instanced in the
   sayings of Austin and Jerome -- The saying of Aristides -- Judgment of
   the ancients subjected to disquisition -- Some men's advantage in
   charging others with schism -- The actors' part privileged -- The
   Romanists' interest herein -- The charge of schism not to be despised
   -- The iniquity of accusers justifies not the accused -- Several
   persons charged with schism on several accounts -- The design of this
   discourse in reference to them -- Justification of differences
   unpleasant -- Attempts for peace and reconciliation considered --
   Several persuasions hereabout, and endeavours of men to that end --
   Their issues.

   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 te
   ametria tes antholkes, in this business especially, deters from that
   procedure. From what other principle were these words of Augustine:
   "Obscurius dixerunt prophetæ de Christo quam de ecclesia: puto
   propterea quia videbant in spiritu contra ecclesiam homines facturos
   esse particulas; et de Christo non tantam litem habituros, de ecclesia
   magnas contentiones excitaturos?" Conc. 2 ad Ps. xxx. Neither the
   affirmation itself nor the reason assigned can have any better root. Is
   any thing more clearly and fully prophesied of than Christ? or was it
   possible that good men should forget with what contests the whole
   church of God, all the world over, had been exercised from its infancy
   about the person of Christ? Shall the tumultuating of a few in a corner
   of Africa blot out the remembrance of the late diffusion of Arianism
   over the world? But Jerome hath given a rule for the interpretation of
   what they delivered in their polemical engagements, telling us plainly,
   in his Apology for himself to Pammachius, that he had not so much
   regarded what was exactly to be spoken in the controversy he had in
   hand, as what was fit to lay load upon Jovinian. And if we may believe
   him, this was the manner of all men in those days. If they were
   engaged, they did not what the truth only, but what the defence of
   their cause also required! Though I believe him not as to all he
   mentions, yet, doubtless, we may say to many of them, as the apostle in
   another case, Holos hettema en humin estin. Though Aristides obtained
   the name of Just for his uprightness in the management of his own
   private affairs, yet being engaged in the administration of those of
   the commonwealth, he did many things professedly unjust, giving this
   reason, he did them pros ten hupothesin tes patridos suchnes adikias
   deomenes.

   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 dealing about this business among Christians, the advantage hath
   been extremely hitherto on their part who found it their interest to
   begin the charge; for whereas, perhaps, themselves were and are of all
   men most guilty of the crime, yet by their clamorous accusation,
   putting others upon the defence of themselves, they have in a manner
   clearly escaped from the trial of their own guilt, and cast the issue
   of the question purely on them whom they have accused. The actors' or
   complainants' part was so privileged by some laws and customs, that he
   who had desperately wounded another chose rather to enter against him
   the frivolous plea that he received not his whole sword into his body,
   than to stand to his best defence, on the complaint of the wounded man.
   An accusation managed with the craft of men guilty, and a confidence
   becoming men wronged and innocent, is not every one's work to slight
   and waive; and he is, in ordinary judgments, immediately acquitted who
   avers that his charge is but recrimination. What advantage the
   Romanists have had on this account, how they have expatiated in the
   aggravation of the sin of schism, whilst they have kept others on the
   defence, and would fain make the only thing in question to be whether
   they are guilty of it or no, is known to all; and, therefore, ever
   since they have been convinced of their disability to debate the things
   in difference between them and us unto any advantage from the
   Scripture, they have almost wholly insisted on this one business;
   wherein they would have it wisely thought that our concernment only
   comes to the trial, knowing that in these things their defence is weak
   who have nothing else. Nor do they need any other advantage; for if any
   party of men can estate themselves at large in all the privileges
   granted and promises made to the church in general, they need not be
   solicitous about dealing with them that oppose them, having at once
   rendered them no better than Jews and Mohammedans, [1] heathens or
   publicans, by appropriating the privileges mentioned unto themselves.
   And whereas the parties litigant, by all rules of law and equity, ought
   to stand under an equal regard until the severals of their differences
   have been heard and stated, one party is hereby utterly condemned
   before it is heard, and it is all one unto them whether they are in the
   right or wrong. But we may possibly, in the issue, state it upon
   another foot of account.

   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 evil, whilst, in a
   sense of their own innocency, they have insensibly slipped (as is the
   manner of men) into slight and contemptible thoughts of the thing
   itself whereof they are accused. Where the thing in question is but a
   name or term of reproach, invented amongst men, this is incomparably
   the best way of defence. But this contains a crime, and no man is to
   set light by it. To live in schism is to live in sin; which, unrepented
   of, will ruin a man's eternal condition. Every one charged with it must
   either desert his station, which gives foundation to this charge, or
   acquit himself of the crime in that station. This latter is that which,
   in reference to myself and others, I do propose, assenting in the gross
   to all the aggravations of this sin that, with any pretence from
   Scripture or reason, are heaped on it.

   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 extremity, will
   oversee or omit any thing from whence they may hope to prevail
   themselves against those by whose means they think they suffer. It
   cannot be helped (the engagement being past), but this account must be
   carried on one step farther. Amongst them who in these late days have
   engaged, as they profess, unto Reformation (and not to believe that to
   have been their intention is fit only for them who are concerned that
   it should be thought to be otherwise, whose prejudice may furnish them
   with a contrary persuasion), not walking all in the same light as to
   some few particulars, whilst each party, as the manner is, gathered
   together what they thought conduced to the furtherance and improvement
   of the way wherein they differed one from another, some, unhappily, to
   the heightening of the differences, took up this charge of schism
   against their brethren; which yet, in a small process of time, being
   almost sunk of itself, will ask the less pains utterly to remove and
   take off. In the meantime, it is, amongst other things (which is to be
   confessed), an evidence that we are not yet arrived at that inward
   frame of spirit which was aimed at, Phil. iii. 15, 16, whatever we have
   attained as to the outward administration of ordinances.

   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 compassing
   of peace and union among Christians, but in one nation, with the issue
   and success of them in several places; -- namely, that of enforcing
   uniformity by a secular power on the one side, as was the case in this
   nation not many years ago (and is yet liked by the most, being a
   suitable judgment for the most); and that of toleration on the other,
   which is our present condition. Concerning them both, I dare say that
   though men of a good zeal and small experience, or otherwise on any
   account full of their own apprehensions, may promise to themselves much
   of peace, union, and love, from the one or the other (as they may be
   severally favoured by men of different interests in this world, in
   respect of their conducingness to their ends), yet a little observation
   of events, if they are not able to consider the causes of things, with
   the light and posture of the minds of men in this generation, will
   unburden them of the trouble of their expectations. It is something
   else that must give peace unto Christians than what is a product of the
   prudential considerations of men.

   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] are perfectly
   suited to the present condition of religion. But hereof I have spoken
   elsewhere.

   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 kurias doxas, 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 interest and advantage, which lies in
   our so doing, we profess ourselves to be invincibly concluded under the
   power of a contrary persuasion, and consequently an impossibility of
   reconciliation.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1]

   "Solis nosse Deos et Coeli numina vobis ?

   ? aut solis nescire datum."
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.

   The nature of schism to be determined from Scripture only -- This
   principle by some opposed -- Necessity of abiding in it -- Parity of
   reason allowed -- Of the name of schism -- Its constant use in
   Scripture -- In things civil and religious -- The whole doctrine of
   schism in the epistles to the Corinthians -- The case of that church
   proposed to consideration -- Schism entirely in one church; not in the
   separation of any from a church; nor in subtraction of obedience from
   governors -- Of the second schism in the church of Corinth -- Of
   Clement's epistle. -- The state of the church of Corinth in those days:
   Ekklesia paroikousa Korinthon, -- Paroikos, who; paroikia, what --
   Parochos, "paroecia" -- To whom the epistle of Clement was precisely
   written -- Corinth not a metropolitical church -- Allowance of what by
   parity of reason may be deduced from what is of schism affirmed --
   Things required to make a man guilty of schism -- Arbitrary definitions
   of schism rejected -- That of Austin considered; as also that of Basil
   -- The common use and acceptation of it in these days -- Separation
   from any church in its own nature not schism -- Aggravations of the
   evil of schism ungrounded -- The evil of it from its proper nature and
   consequences evinced -- Inferences from the whole of this discourse --
   The church of Rome, if a church, the most schismatical church in the
   world -- The church of Rome no church of Christ; a complete image of
   the empire -- Final acquitment of Protestants from schism on the
   principle evinced, peculiarly of them of the late reformation in
   England -- False notions of schism the ground of sin and disorder.

   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 protiman ten aletheian, 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, Ho logos ho sos aletheia esti. "Id verius
   quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis,"
   says Tertullian. It is to me a sufficient answer to that fond question,
   "Where was your religion before Luther? where was your religion in the
   days of Christ and his apostles?" My thoughts as to this particular are
   the same with Chrysostom's on the general account of truth, Erchetai
   Hellen kai legei, hoti boulomai genesthai Christianos alla ouk oida
   tini prosthomai· mache par' humin polle kai stasis, polus thorubos,
   poion helomai dogma; ti hairesomai; hekastos legei hoti ego aletheuo,
   tini peitho meden holos eidos en tais graphais; kakeinoi to auto
   proballontai panu ge touto huper hemon, ei men gar logismois elegomen
   peithesthai eikotos ethorubou, ei de tais graphais legomen pisteuein,
   autai de aplai kai aletheis, eukolon soi to krinomenon, eitis ekeinais
   sumphonei houtos Christianos· eitis machetai houtos porrho tou kanonos
   toutou. Homil. iii. in Acta. [2]

   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,
   Matt. ix. 16, Kai cheiron schisma ginetai, "And the rent" (in the
   cloth) "is made worse;" -- and the verb, Matt. xxvii. 51, Katapetasma
   tou naou eschisthe, "The vail of the temple was rent;" Kai hai petrai
   eschisthesan, "And the rocks were rent:" both denoting an interruption
   of continuity by an external power in things merely passive. And this
   is the first sense of the word, -- a scissure or division of parts
   before continued, by force or violent dissolution. The use of the word
   in a political sense is also frequent: John vii. 43, Schisma oun en to
   ochlo, "There was a division among the people," some being of one mind,
   some of another; John ix. 16, Kai schisma en en autois, "There was a
   division among them;" and chap. x. 19 likewise. So Acts xiv. 4
   Eschisthe de to plethos tes poleos, "The multitude of the city was
   divided;" and chap. xxiii. 7, "There arose a dissension between the
   Pharisees and the Sadducees," kai eschisthe to plethos, "and the
   multitude was divided," some following one, some another of their
   leaders in that dissension. The same thing is expressed by a word
   answering unto it in Latin:-- "Scinditur incertum studia in contraria
   vulgus." And in this sense, relating things, it is often used. [3]

   This being the next posture of that word, from whence it immediately
   slips into its ecclesiastical use, expressing a thing moral or
   spiritual, there may some light be given into its importance when so
   appropriated, from its constant use in this state and condition to
   denote differences of mind and judgment, with troubles ensuing thereon,
   amongst men met in some one assembly, about the compassing of a common
   end and design.

   In the sense contended about it is used only by Paul in his First
   Epistle to the Corinthians, and therein frequently: Chap. i. 10, "I
   exhort you, me e en humin schismata," -- "that there be no schisms
   among you." Chap. xi. 18, "When ye come together in the church, akouo
   schismata en humin huparchein," -- "I hear that there be schisms among
   you." Chap. xii. 25, the word is used in reference to the natural body,
   but with an application to the ecclesiastical. Other words there are of
   the same importance, which shall also be considered, as Rom. xvi. 17,
   18. Of schism in any other place, or in reference to any other persons,
   but only to this church of Corinth, we hear nothing.

   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, Acts xvii. 8-11;
   with him there were Aquila and Priscilla, verses 2, 18. After his
   departure, Apollos came thither, and effectually watered what he had
   planted, 1 Cor. iii. 6. It is probable that either Peter had been there
   also, or at least that sundry persons converted by him were come
   thither, for he still mentions Cephas and Apollos with himself, chap.
   i. 12, iii. 22. This church, thus watered and planted, came together
   for the worship of God, epi to auto, chap. xi. 20, and for the
   administration of discipline in particular, chap. v. 4, 5. After a
   while, through the craft of Satan, various evils, in doctrine,
   conversation, and church-order crept in amongst them. As for doctrine,
   besides their mistake about eating things offered to idols, chap. viii.
   4, some of them denied the resurrection of the dead, chap. xv. 12. In
   conversation they had not only the eruption of a scandalous particular
   sin amongst them, chap. v. 1, but grievous sinful miscarriages when
   they "came together" about holy admininistrations, chap. xi. 20, 21.
   These the apostle distinctly reproves in them. Their church-order, as
   to that love, peace, and union of heart and mind wherein they ought to
   have walked, was woefully disturbed with divisions and sidings about
   their teachers, chap. i. 12. And not content to make this difference
   the matter of their debates and disputes from house to house, even when
   they met for public worship, or that which they all met in and for,
   they were divided on that account, chap. xi. 18. This was the schism
   the apostle dehorts them from, charges them with, and shows them the
   evil thereof. They had differences amongst themselves about unnecessary
   things. On these they engaged in disputes and sidings even in their
   solemn assemblies, when they came all together for the same worship,
   about which they differed not. Probably, much vain jangling, alienation
   of affections, exasperation of spirit, with a neglect of due offices of
   love, ensued hereupon. All this appears from the entrance the apostle
   gives to his discourse on this subject: 1 Cor. i. 10, Parakalo humas,
   hina to auto legete pantes, -- "I beseech you that ye all speak the
   same thing." They were of various minds and opinions about their church
   affairs; which was attended with the confusion of disputings. "Let it
   not be so," saith the apostle; kai me e en humin schismata, "and let
   there be no schisms among you," which consist in such differences and
   janglings. He adds, Ete de katertismenoi en to auto noi kai en te aute
   gnome, -- "But that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind
   and in the same judgment." They were joined together in the same
   church-order and fellowship, but he would have them so also in oneness
   of mind and judgment; which if they were not, though they continued
   together in their church-order, yet schisms would be amongst them. This
   was the state of that church, this the frame and carriage of the
   members of it, this the fault and evil whereon the apostle charges them
   with schism and the guilt thereof. The grounds whereon he manageth his
   reproof are their common interest in Christ, chap. i. 13; the
   nothingness of the instruments of preaching the gospel, about whom they
   contended, chap. i. 27, iii. 4, 5; their church-order instituted by
   God, chap. xii. 13: of which afterward.

   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. True and false are
   indicated and tried by the same rule. Here, then, our foot is to be
   fixed; what compass may be taken to fetch in things of a like kin will
   in its proper place follow. Observe, then, --

   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, John iv. 22.

   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
   epistle of the apostle, doth again exhibit to us the case and evil
   treated on. Some few unquiet persons among them drew the whole society
   (upon the matter) into division and an opposition to their elders. They
   who were the causes, miaras kai anosiou staseos, as Clement tells them
   in the name of the church at Rome, were oliga prosopa a few men acted
   by pride and madness; yet such power had those persons in the
   congregation, that they prevailed with the multitude to depose the
   elders and cast them out of office. So the same Clement tells them,
   Horomen hoti henious humeis metegagete kalos politeuomenous ek tes
   amemptos autois tetimemenes leitourgias. What he intends by his
   metegagete, etc., he declares in the words foregoing, where he calls
   the elders that were departed this life happy and blessed, as not being
   subject or liable to expulsion out of their offices: Ou gar eulabountai
   me tis autous metastese apo tou hidrumenou autois topou. Whether these
   men who caused the differences and sedition against those elders that
   were deposed were themselves by the church substituted into their room
   and place, I know not. This difference in that church the church of
   Rome, in that epistle of Clement, calls everywhere schism, as it also
   expresses the same thing, or the evil frame of their minds and their
   actings, by many other words. Zelos, eris, stasis, diogmos,
   akatastasia, alazoneia, tuphos, polemos, are laid to their charge. That
   there was any separation from the church, that the deposed elders, or
   any for their sakes, withdrew themselves from the communion of it, or
   ceased to assemble with it for the celebration of the ordinances of the
   gospel, there is not any mention; only the difference in the church is
   the schism whereof they are accused. Nor are they accused of schism for
   the deposition of the elders, but for their differences amongst
   themselves, which was the ground of their so doing.

   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: He ekklesia Theou he paroikousa Rhomen te ekklesia tou
   Theou paroikouse Korinthon· "wherein" (as it is said) "on each part the
   paroikia, 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 church of
   God that did paroikein, at Rome little then thought of province or
   region. Ekklesia paroikousa Rhomen is as much as ekklesia en
   Hierosolumois, Acts viii. 1. Paroikos is a man that dwells at such a
   place, properly one that dwells in another's house or soil, or that
   hath removed from one place and settled in another; whence it is often
   used in the same sense with metoikos. He is such a inhabitant as hath
   yet some such consideration attending him as makes him a kind of a
   foreigner to the place where he is. So, Eph. ii. 19, paroikoi and
   sumpolitai are opposed. Hence is paroikia, which, as Budæus says,
   differs from katoikia in that it denotes a temporary habitation, this a
   stable and abiding one. Paroikeo, is so to "inhabit" to dwell in a
   place, where yet something makes a man a kind of a stranger. So it is
   said of Abraham, Pistei parokesen eis ten gen tes epangelias hos
   allotrian, Heb. xi. 9; joined with parepidemos, 1 Pet. ii. 11 (hence
   this word by the learned publisher of this epistle is rendered
   "peregrinatur, diversatur"); and more clearly Luke xxiv. 18, Su monos
   paroikeis en Hierousalem; which we have rendered, "Art thou only a
   stranger in Jerusalem?" Whether paroikia and "paroecia" is from hence
   or no by some is doubted. Parochos is "convivator," and paroche
   "præbitio," Gloss. vetus; so that "parochiæ" may be called so from them
   who met together to break bread and to eat. Allow "parochia" to be
   barbarous, and our only word to be "paroecia," from paroikia then it is
   as much as the voisinage, men living near together for any end
   whatever. So says Budæus, paroikoi are prosoikoi· thence churches were
   called paroikiai, consisting of a number of them, who were paroikoi or
   prosoikoi. The saints of God, expressing the place which they
   inhabited, and the manner, as strangers said of the churches whereof
   they were, Ekklesia paroikousa Rhomen, and Ekklesia paroikousa
   Korinthon. This is now made to denote a region, a territory, the
   adjacent region to a metropolis, and suchlike things as the poor
   primitive pilgrims little thought of. This will scarcely, as I suppose,
   evince the assertion we are dealing about. There may be a church of
   dwelling at Rome or Corinth, without any adjacent region annexed to it,
   I think. Besides, those who first used the word in the sense now
   supposed did not understand a province by paroikia, which with them (as
   originally) the charge of him that was a bishop, and no more. Eparchia
   was with them a province that belonged to a metropolitan, such as the
   bishop of Corinth is supposed to be. I do not remember where a
   metropolitan's province is called his paroikia, there being many of
   these in every one of them. But at present will not herein concern
   myself.

   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 Clement advises them to whom he writes to take
   and consider that epistle which Paul had formerly wrote to them. Now,
   Paul's epistle was written to all the churches of Achaia, as it is said
   expressly in the second, "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,
   with all the saints, which are in all Achaia," chap. i. 1. And for the
   former, that also is directed pasi epikaloumenois to onoma tou Christou
   en panti topo. And the same form is used at the close of this
   [Clement's]: Kai meta panton pantache keklemenon hupo tou Theou,
   wherein all places in Achaia (and everywhere therein) not absolutely
   are intended; for if they should, then this epistle would be a catholic
   epistle, and would conclude the things mentioned in it of the letter
   received by the apostle, etc., to relate to the catholic church.

   Ans. It is confessed that the epistles of Paul and Clement have one
   common title; so that Te ekklesia paroikouse Korinthon, which is
   Clement's expression, is the same with Te ekklesia te ouse en Korintho,
   which is Paul's in both his epistles; which adds little strength to the
   former argument from the word taroikousa, ouse en Korintho, as I
   suppose, confining it thither. It is true, Paul's second epistle, after
   its inscription, Te ekklesia te ouse en Korintho, adds, sun tois
   hagiois pasi tois ousin en hole te Achaia. He mentions not anywhere any
   more churches in Achaia than that of Corinth and that at Cenchrea, nor
   doth he speak of any churches here in this salutation, but only of the
   saints; and he plainly makes Achaia and Corinth to be all one, 2 Cor.
   ix. 2: so that to me it appears that there were not as yet, any more
   churches brought into order in Achaia but that mentioned, with that
   other at Cenchrea, which, I suppose, comes under the same name with
   that of Corinth. Nor am I persuaded that it was a completed
   congregation in those days. Saints in Achaia that lived not at Corinth
   there were perhaps many, but, being scattered up and down, they were
   not formed into societies, but belonged to the church of Corinth, and
   assembled therewith, as they could, for the participation of
   ordinances. So that there is not the least evidence that this epistle
   of Paul was directed to any other church but that of Corinth. For the
   first, it can scarce be questioned. Paul writing an epistle for the
   instruction of the saints of God and disciples of Christ in all ages,
   by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, salutes in its beginning and
   ending all them that on that general account are concerned in it. In
   this sense all his epistles were catholic, even those he wrote to
   single persons. The occasion of writing this epistle was, indeed, from
   a particular church, and the chief subject-matter of it was concerning
   the affairs of that church; hence it is in the first place particularly
   directed to them. And our present inquiry is not after all that by any
   means were or might be concerned in that which was then written, as to
   their present or future direction, but after them who administered the
   occasion to what was so written, and whose particular condition was
   spoken to. This, I say, was the single church of Corinth. That pantes
   hoi epikaloumenoi to onoma tou Christou en panti topo, "all in every
   place," should be all only in Achaia, or that Clement's meta panton
   pantache ton keklemenon hupo tou Theou, should be, "with them that are
   called in Achaia," I can yet see no ground to conjecture. Paul writes
   an epistle to the church of Ephesus, and concludes it, He charis meta
   panton ton agaponton ton Kurion hemon Iesoun Christon en aphtharsia, --
   the extent of which prayer is supposed to reach farther than Ephesus
   and the region adjacent. It doth not, then, as yet appear that Paul
   wrote his epistles particularly to any other but the particular church
   at Corinth. If concerning the latter, because of that expression, "with
   all the saints which are in all Achaia," it be granted there were more
   churches than that of Corinth, with its neighbour Cenchrea (which
   whether it were a stated distinct church or no I know not), yet it will
   not at all follow, as was said before, that Clement, attending the
   particular occasion only about which he and the church of Rome were
   consulted, did so direct his epistle, seeing he makes no mention in the
   least that so he did. But yet, by the way, there is one thing more that
   I would be willingly resolved about in this discourse, and that is
   this: seeing that it is evident that the apostle by his pantes en panti
   topo, and Clement by his panton pantache keklemenon, intend an
   enlargement beyond the first and immediate direction to the church of
   Corinth, if by the church of Corinth, as it is pleaded, they intend to
   express that whole region of Achaia, what does either the apostle or
   Clement obtain by that enlargement, if restrained to that same place?

   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, Rom. xv. 26, as what is
   done in London is without doubt done in England; but that which lies in
   expectation of some light or evidence to be given unto it is, that
   there was a metropolitical see at Corinth at this time, whereunto many
   episcopal sees in Achaia were in subordination, being all the paroikia
   of Corinth, all which are called the church of Corinth, by virtue of
   their subjection thereunto. When this is proved, I shall confess some
   principles I afterward insist on will be impaired thereby.

   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 laid
   down, Chrysostom calls it a metropolis, relating to the time wherein
   Paul wrote his epistle to the church there, in the latter sense also.

   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. Chrysostom says, indeed, that
   Corinth was the metropolis of Achaia; but in what sense he says not.
   The political is granted; the ecclesiastical not proved. Nor are we
   inquiring what was the state of the churches of Christ in the days of
   Chrysostom, but of Paul. But to return.

   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 stasis, Acts
   xv. 2, and dichostasia, Rom. xvi. 17. And he is a schismatic that is
   guilty of this sin of schism, -- that is, who raiseth, or entertaineth,
   or persisteth in such differences. Nor are these terms used by the
   divine writers in any other sense.

   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 shall see that
   there is more required hereunto than the bare being a believer or a
   Christian.

   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 Clement in
   the fore-mentioned epistle, Philoneikoi este adelphoi kai zelotai peri
   me anekonton eis soterian.

   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, 1 Epist. chap. vi.; for therein, also, there was, from the
   then state of things, an hettema, verse 7.

   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.

   Austin's definition contains the sum of what hath since been insisted
   on. Saith he, "Schisma ni fallor est eadem opinantem, et eodem ritu
   utentem solo congregationis delectari dissidio," Con. Faust lib. xx.
   Cap. 3. By "dissidium congregationis" he intends separation from the
   church into a peculiar congregation; a definition directly suited to
   the cause he had in hand and was pleading against the Donatists. Basil,
   in Epist. ad Amphiloch. Con. xliv., distinguisheth between hairesis,
   schisma, and parasunagoge. And as he makes schism to be a division
   arising from some church controversies, suitable to what those days
   experienced, and in the substance true, so he tells us that
   parasunagoge is when either presbyters, or bishops, or laics hold
   unlawful meetings, assemblies, or conventicles; which was not long
   since with us the only schism.

   Since those days, schism in general hath passed for a causeless
   separation from the communion and worship of any true church of Christ
   ("The Catholic church," saith the Papist), with a relinquishment of its
   society, as to a joint celebration of the ordinances of the gospel. How
   far this may pass for schism, and what may be granted in this
   description of it, the process of our discourse will declare. In the
   meantime, I am most certain that a separation from some churches, true
   or pretended so to be, is commanded in the Scriptures; so that the
   withdrawing from or relinquishment of any church or society whatever,
   upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or false, with a mind and
   resolution to serve God in the due observation of church institutions,
   according to that light which men have received, is nowhere called
   schism, nor condemned as a thing of that nature, but is a matter that
   must be tried out, whether it be good or evil, by virtue of such
   general rules and directions as are given us in the Scriptures for our
   orderly and blameless walking with God in all his ways.

   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 douleuein
   hupothesei, 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 expressions, so they place, no
   power of argument in them, whilst they find them moving their own, and
   suppose them to have an alike efficacy upon the affections of others. I
   can scarce think that any ever supposed that the coat of Christ was a
   type of his church, his church being clothed with him, not he with it.
   And, therefore, with commendation of his success who first invented
   that illusion, I leave it in the possession of them who want better
   arguments to evince the evil of this sin.

   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," Col. iii.
   14, because, in the several and various ways whereby it exerts itself,
   it maintains and preserves, notwithstanding all hindrances and
   oppositions, that perfect and beautiful order which Christ hath pointed
   amongst his saints. When men by schism are kept off and withheld from
   the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are
   useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection,
   then is it, or may in some sense be said to be, a sin against love.

   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
   and officers of the church. I doubt not but that there must be either a
   neglect in the church in the performance of its duty, or of the
   authority of it in so doing, wherever there is any schism, though the
   discovery of this also have innumerable entanglements attending it. But
   that to refuse the authority of the church is to rebel against the
   rulers or guides of it will receive farther light than what it hath
   done, when once a pregnant instance is produced, not where the church
   signifies the officers of it, but where it doth not signify the body of
   the congregation in contradistinction from them, or comprising them
   therein.

   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," Ps. lxxxii. 1; that he dwells in the
   church in glory, "as in Sinai, in the holy place," Ps. lxviii. 17, 18,
   walking "in the midst of the candlesticks," Rev. i. 13, with his eyes
   upon us as a "flame of fire," verse 14, his presence and authority
   would, perhaps, be more prevalent with some than they seem to be.

   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, 1 Cor. i. 24, the
   stone on which are seven eyes, Zech. iii. 9, upon whose shoulder the
   government is laid, Isa. ix. 6, 7, hath, in his infinite wisdom, so
   ordered all the officers, orders, gifts, administrations of and in his
   church, as that this evil might take no place. To manifest this is the
   design of the Holy Ghost, Rom. xii. 3-9; 1 Cor. xii.; Eph. iv. 8-13.
   The consideration, in particular, of this wisdom of Christ, -- suiting
   the officers of his church, in respect of the places they hold, the
   authority wherewith from him they are invested, the way whereby they
   are entered into their functions; distributing the gifts of his Spirit
   in marvellous variety unto several kinds of usefulness, and with such
   distance and dissimilitude in the particular members, as, in a due
   correspondency and proportion, give comeliness and beauty to the whole;
   disposing of the order of his worship, and sundry ordinances in
   especial, to be expressive of the highest love and union; pointing all
   of them against such causeless divisions; -- might be of use, were that
   my present intendment.

   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, John xvii.. What weight he laid thereon, how thereby we may be
   known to be his disciples, and the world be convinced that he was sent
   of God, is there also manifested.

   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 not
   trouble the reader in abounding in what on all hands is confessed.

   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
   ingredients, -- subjection to the pope, either for fear of their lives
   or advantage to their livelihood, and a conspiracy for the destruction
   and suppression of them that oppose their interests; wherein they agree
   like those who maintained Jerusalem in its last siege by Titus, -- they
   all consented to oppose the Romans, and yet fought out all other things
   among themselves. That they are not so openly clamorous about the
   differences at present as in former ages is merely from the pressure of
   Protestants round about them. However, let them at this day silence the
   Jesuits and Dominicans, especially the Baijans and the Jansenians on
   the one part, and the Molinists on the other; -- take off the Gallican
   church from its schismatical refusal of the council of Trent; -- cause
   the king of Spain to quit his claim to Sicily, that they need not
   excommunicate him every year; -- compel the commonwealth of Venice to
   receive the Jesuits; stop the mouths of the Sorbonnists about the
   authority of a general council above the pope, and of all those whom,
   opposing the papal omnipetency, they call politicians; -- quiet the
   contest of the Franciscans and Dominicans about the blessed Virgin; --
   burn Bellarmine's books, who almost on every controversy of Christian
   religion gives an account of their intestine divisions; branding some
   of their opinions as heretical, as that of Medina about bishops and
   presbyters; some as idolatrical, as that of Thomas about the worship of
   the cross with "latria," etc.; -- and they may give a better colour to
   their pretences than any as yet they wear.

   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 skilful of its
   rabbis to give in the characters and delineations of it, instituted in
   reference to the worship of God by Jesus Christ. The truth is, the
   whole of it is but an imitation and exemplar of the old imperial
   government. One is set up in chief, and made anupeuthunos in
   spirituals, as the emperors were in several things; from him all power
   flows to others. And as there was a communication of power by the
   emperors, in the civil state to prefects, proconsuls, vicars,
   presidents, governors of the lesser and greater nations, with those
   under them, in various civil subordinations, according to the dignity
   of the places where they did bear rule and preside; and in the military
   to generals, legates, tribunes, and the inferior officers; -- so is
   there by the pope to patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, in their several
   subordinations, which are as his civil state; and to generals of
   religious orders, provincials, and their dependants, which are as his
   military. And it is by some (not in all things agreeing with them)
   confessed that the government pleaded for by them in the church was
   brought in and established in correspondency and accommodation to the
   civil government of the empire; which is undeniably evident and
   certain. Now, this being not thoroughly done till the empire had
   received an incurable wound, it seems to me to be the making of an
   image to the beast, giving life to it, and causing it to speak. So that
   the present Roman church is nothing else but an image or similitude of
   the Roman empire, set up, in its declining, among and over the same
   persons in succession, by the craft of Satan, through principles of
   deceit, subtlety, and spiritual wickedness, as the other was by force
   and violence, for the same ends of power, dominion, fleshliness, and
   persecution with the former.

   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 of them,
   by the way, before I enter upon a direct debate of the cause, as it
   stands stated in reference to them, I shall only tell them, that,
   seeking to repose our consciences on the mind of God revealed in the
   Scriptures, we are not at all concerned in the noise they make in the
   world. For what have we done? Wherein doth our guilt consist? Wherein
   lies the peculiar concernment of these allotrioepiskopoi? Let them go
   to the churches with whom we walk, of whom we are, and ask of them
   concerning our ways, our love, and the duties of it. Do we live in
   strife and variance? Do we not bear with each other? Do we not worship
   God without disputes and divisions? Have we differences and contentions
   in our assemblies? Do we break any bond of union wherein we are bound
   by the express institutions of Jesus Christ? If we have, let the
   righteous reprove us; we will own our guilt, confess we have been
   carnal, and endeavour reformation. If not, what have the Romanist,
   Italians, to do to judge us? Knew we not your design, your interest,
   your lives, your doctrines, your worship, we might possibly think that
   you might intermeddle out of love and mistaken zeal; but "ad populum
   phaleras," -- you would be making shrines, and thence is this stir and
   uproar. "But we are schismatics, in that we have departed from the
   catholic church; and for our own conventicles, they are no churches,
   but sties of beasts." But this is most false. We abide in the catholic
   church, under all the bonds wherein, by the will of Christ, we stand
   related unto it; which if we prove not with as much evidence as the
   nature of such things will bear, though you are not at all concerned in
   it, yet we will give you leave to triumph over us. And if our own
   congregations be not churches, whatsoever we are, we are not
   schismatics; for schism is an evil amongst the members of a church, if
   St Paul may be believed. "But we have forsaken the church of Rome."
   But, gentlemen, show first how we were ever of it. No man hath lost
   that which he never had, nor hath left the place or station wherein he
   never was. Tell me when or how we were members of your church? We know
   not your language; you are barbarians to us. It is impossible we should
   assemble with you. "But your forefathers left that church, and you
   persist in their evil." Prove that our forefathers were ever of your
   church in any communion instituted by Christ, and you say somewhat. To
   desert a man's station and relation, which he had on any other account,
   good or bad, is not schism, as shall farther be manifested.

   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; if we are fatally
   bound unto it, and must be members of it whether we will or no, being
   made so we know not how, and continuing so we know not why, show us,
   then, what duty or office of love is incumbent on us that we do not
   perform. Do we not join in external acts of worship in peace with the
   whole church? Call the whole church together, and try what we will do.
   Do we not join in every congregation in the nation? This is not charged
   on us, nor will any say that we have right so to do without a relation
   to some particular church in the nation. I know where the sore lies. A
   national officer or officers, with others acting under them in several
   subordinations, with various distributions of power, are the church
   intended. A non-submission to their rules and constitutions is the
   schism we are guilty of


   "Quem das finem, rex magne, laborum!"

   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, sun Theo, 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 mormolukeia 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 of
   the church of Corinth that there were divisions amongst them, breaches
   of that love and order that ought to be observed in religious
   assemblies. Hence there is a sin of schism raised; which, when
   considered as now stated, doth no more relate to that treated on by the
   apostle than "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" doth to the pope's
   supremacy; or Christ saying to Peter of John, "If I will that he tarry
   till I come, what is that to thee?" did to the report that afterward
   went abroad, "that that disciple should not die." When God shall have
   reduced his churches to their primitive purity and institution, when
   they are risen and have shaken themselves out of the dust, and things
   of religion return to their native simplicity, it is scarce possible to
   imagine what vizards will fall off, and what a contrary appearance many
   things will have to what they now walk up and down in.

   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
   otherwise stated, which furnisheth men with objections against what
   hath been spoken; to whose removal, and farther clearing of the whole
   matter, I shall now address myself.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] 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.

   [3] Hoi ten Rhomen oikountes diemeristhesan eis ta mere, kai ouketi
   homonoesan pros allelous· kai egeneto mega schisma. -- Chronic. Antioch
   Joh. Male. p. 98, A. MS. Bib. Bod.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.

   Objections against the former discourse proposed to consideration --
   Separation from any church in the Scripture not called schism --
   Grounds of such separation; apostasy, irregular walking, sensuality --
   Of separation on the account of reformation -- Of commands for
   separation -- No example of churches departing from the communion of
   one another -- Of the common notion of schism, and the use made of it
   -- Schism a breach of union -- The union instituted by Christ.

   "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 thereupon
   forsaking the congregations or assemblies for the worship of God in
   Jesus Christ, is mentioned, Heb. x. 25, Me enkataleipontes ten
   episunagogen heauton, -- "Not wholly deserting the assembling
   ourselves, as is the manner of some." A separation from and
   relinquishment of the communion of that church or those churches with
   whom men have assembled for the worship of God is the guilt here
   charged on some by the apostle. Upon what account they so separated
   themselves is declared, verse 26, They "sinned wilfully, after they had
   received the knowledge of the truth;" thereby slipping out their necks
   from the yoke of Christ, verse 38, and "drawing back unto perdition,"
   verse 39; -- that is, they departed off to Judaism. I much question
   whether any one would think fit to call these men schismatics, or
   whether we should so judge or so speak of any that in these days should
   forsake our churches and turn Mohammedans; such departure makes men
   apostates, not schismatics. Of this sort many are mentioned in the
   Scriptures. Nor are they not at all accounted schismatics because the
   lesser crime is swallowed up and drowned in the greater, but because
   their sin is wholly of another nature.

   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, ataktoi, 1 Thess. v. 14, "unruly," or
   "disorderly" persons, not abiding in obedience to the order prescribed
   by Christ in and unto his churches, and says they walked ataktos, 2
   Thess. iii. 6, out of all church order; whom he would have warned and
   avoided: so also, atopous, verse 2, persons that abide quietly in no
   place or station, but wander up and down; whom, whatever their
   profession be, he denies to have faith. That there were many of this
   sort in the primitive times, who, through a vain and slight spirit,
   neglected and fell off from church assemblies, when yet they would not
   openly renounce the faith of Christ, is known. Of such disorderly
   persons we have many in our days wherein we live, whom we charge not
   with schism, but vanity, folly, disobedience to the precepts of Christ
   in general.

   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: Jude 19, "These be
   they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." Who are
   these? They that "turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness," and
   that "deny the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ," verse 4;
   that "defile the flesh," after the manner of Sodom and Gomorrah, verses
   7, 8; that "speak evil of things they know not," and in "things they
   know naturally, as brute beasts, they corrupt themselves," verses 10,
   -- sinning openly, like beasts, against the light of nature: so verses
   12, 13, 16. "These," saith the apostle, "be they who separate
   themselves," men given over to work all uncleanness with delight and
   greediness in the face of the sun, abusing themselves, and justifying
   their abominations with a pretence of the grace of God.

   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," 2
   Tim. iii. 5; to "withdraw from them that walk disorderly," 2 Thess.
   iii. 6; not to bear nor endure in communion men of corrupt principles
   and wicked lives, Rev. ii. 14; but positively to separate from an
   apostate church, chap. xviii. 4, that in all things we may worship
   Christ according to his mind and appointment; what is the force of
   these commands Apotrepesthai, me sunanamignusthai, parapiptesthai,
   ekklinein, me koinonein, me legein chairein, pheugein, and the like, --
   is without the compass of what I am now treating about.

   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, 3 John 9, 10, and for a season hindering the brethren from
   the performance of the duty incumbent upon them toward the great
   apostle and others, makes the nearest approach to such a division, but
   yet in such a distance that it is not at all to our purpose in hand.
   When I come to consider that communion that churches have, or ought to
   have, among themselves, this will be more fully discussed. Neither is
   this my sense alone, that there is no instance of any such separation
   as that which is the matter of our debate to be found in the Scripture;
   it is confessed by others differing from me in and about church
   affairs. To "leave all ordinary communion in any church with dislike,
   where opposition or offence offers itself, is to separate from such a
   church in the Scripture sense; such separation was not in being in the
   apostles' time," say they, Pap. Accom. p. 55. But how they came to know
   exactly the sense of the Scriptures in and about things not mentioned
   in them, I know not. As I said before, were I unwilling, I do not as
   yet understand how I may be compelled to carry on the notion of schism
   any farther. Nor is there need of adding any thing to demonstrate how
   little the conscience of a godly man, walking peaceably in any
   particular church-society, is concerned in all the clamorous disputes
   of this age about it, these being built on false hypotheses,
   presumptions, and notions, no other way considerable but as received by
   tradition from our fathers.

   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 diairesis tes
   henotetos, "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,
   I shall not contend by what name or title it be distinguished. It is
   not pleaded that any kind of relinquishment or desertion of any church
   or churches is presently schism, but only such a separation as breaks
   the bond of union instituted by Christ.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.

   Several acceptations in the Scripture of the name "church" -- Of the
   church catholic, properly so called -- Of the church visible --
   Perpetuity of particular churches -- A mistake rectified -- The nature
   of the church catholic evinced -- Bellarmine's description of the
   church catholic -- Union of the church catholic, wherein it consists --
   Union by way of consequence -- Unity of faith, of love -- The communion
   of the catholic church in and with itself -- The breach of the union of
   the church catholic, wherein it consisteth -- Not morally possible --
   Protestants not guilty of it -- The papal world out of interest in the
   church catholic -- As partly profane -- Miracles no evidence of
   holiness -- Partly ignorant -- Self-justiciaries -- Idolatrous --
   Worshippers of the beast.

   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.

   3. For a particular church of some place, wherein the instituted
   worship of God in Christ is celebrated according to his mind.

   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, Rom. viii. 28; the other only external. The church
   must be distinguished according to its answer and obedience to these
   calls, which gives us the first two states and considerations of it.
   And this is confessed by the ordinary gloss, ad Rom. viii. "Vocatio
   exterior fit per prædicatores, et est communis bonorum et malorum,
   interior vero tantum est electorum." And whereas there are laws and
   external rules for joint communion given to them that are called, which
   is confessed, the necessity of churches in the last acceptation,
   wherein obedience can alone be yielded to those laws, is hereby
   established.

   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 Bernard minded, Tractat. de Pass. Dom. "Ego sum vitis,"
   cap. ii., "[B. Virgo] sola per illud triste sabbathum stetit in fide,
   et salvata fuit ecclesia in ipsâ solâ." Of the same mind is Marsilius
   in Sent., quæst. 20, art. 3; as are also others of that sort of men:
   see Bannes, in 2, 2; Thom., quæst. 1, art. 10. I no way doubt of the
   perpetual existence of innumerable believers in every age, and such as
   made the profession that is absolutely necessary to salvation, one way
   or other, though I question a regular association of men for the
   celebration of instituted worship, according to the mind of Christ. The
   seven thousand in Israel, in the days of Elijah, were members of the
   church of God, and yet did not constitute a church-state among the ten
   tribes. But these things must be farther spoken to.

   I cannot but by the way remind a learned person, [4] with whom I have
   formerly occasionally had some debate in print about episcopacy and the
   state of the first churches, of a mistake of his, which he might have
   prevented with a little inquiry into the judgment of them whom he
   undertook to confute at a venture. I have said that "there was not any
   ordinary church-officer instituted in the first times, relating to more
   churches in his office, or to any other church, than a single
   particular congregation." He replies, that "this is the very same which
   his memory suggested to him out of the Saints' Belief,' printed twelve
   or fourteen years since, where, instead of that article of the
   apostolic symbol, The holy catholic church,' this very hypothesis was
   substituted." If he really believed that, in professing I owned no
   instituted church with officers of one denomination in Scripture beyond
   a single congregation, I renounced the catholic church, or was any way
   necessitated so to do, I suppose he may, by what hath now been
   expressed, be rectified in his apprehension. If he was willing only to
   make use of the advantage, wherewith he supposed himself accommodated
   by that expression, to press the persuasion owned on the minds of
   ignorant men, who could not but startle at the noise of denying the
   catholic church, it may pass at the same rate that most of the
   repartees in such discourses are to be allowed at. But to proceed:--

   I. In the first sense the word is used Matt. xvi. 18, "Upon this rock I
   will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
   it." This is the church of the elect, redeemed, justified, sanctified
   ones, that are so built on Christ, and these only; and all these are
   interested in the promise made to the church. There is no promise made
   to the church, as such in any sense, but is peculiarly made therein to
   every one that is truly and properly a part and member of that church.
   Who, and who only, are interested in that promise Christ himself
   declares, John vi. 40, x. 27-29, xvii. 20, 24. They that will apply
   this to the church in any other sense must know that it is incumbent on
   them to establish the promise made to it unto every one that is a true
   member of the church in that sense; which, whatever be the sense of the
   promise, I suppose they will find difficult work of. Eph. v. 25-27,
   "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might
   sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he
   might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
   wrinkle, or any such thing." He speaks only of those whom Christ loved
   antecedently to his dying for them, whereof his love to them was the
   cause: who they are is manifest, John x. 15, xvii. 17, even those on
   whom, by his death, he accomplished the effects mentioned, by washing,
   cleansing, and sanctifying, bringing them into the condition promised
   to the "bride, the Lamb's wife," Rev. xix. 8, which is the "new
   Jerusalem," xxi. 2, of elected and saved ones, verse 27. Col. i. 18
   contains an expression of the same light and evidence, "Christ is the
   head of the body, the church;' not only a governing head, to give it
   rules and laws, but, as it were, a natural head unto the body, which is
   influenced by him with a new spiritual life; -- which Bellarmine
   protesteth against as any requisite condition to the members of the
   catholic church, which he pleaded for. In that same sense, verse 24,
   saith the apostle, "I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions
   of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church;" which
   assertion is exactly parallel to that of 2 Tim. ii. 10, "Therefore I
   endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may obtain
   salvation" So that the elect and the church are the same persons under
   several considerations. And therefore even a particular church, on the
   account of its participation of the nature of the catholic, is called
   "elect," 1 Pet. v. 13; and so the church, Matt. xvi. 18, is expounded
   by our Saviour himself, chap. xxiv. 24. But to prove at large, by a
   multiplication of arguments and testimonies, that the catholic church,
   or mystical body of Christ, consists of the whole number of the elect,
   as redeemed, justified, sanctified, called, believing, and yielding
   obedience to Christ throughout the world (I speak of it as militant in
   any age), and of them only, were as needlessly "actum agere" as a man
   can well devise. It is done already, and that to the purpose
   uncontrollably, "terque quaterque." And the substance of the doctrine
   is delivered by Aquinas himself, p. 3, q. 8, a 3. In brief, the sum of
   the inquiry upon this head is concerning the matter of that church
   concerning which such glorious things are spoken in Scripture, --
   namely, that it is "the spouse, the wife, the bride, the sister, the
   only one of Christ, his dove, his undefiled, his temple, elect,
   redeemed, his Zion, his body, his new Jerusalem;" concerning which
   inquiry the reader knows where he may abundantly find satisfaction.

   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 Austin, "puto me non
   temere dicere, alios ita esse in domo Dei, ut ipsi etiam sint eadem
   domus Dei, quæ dicitur ædificari supra petram, quæ unica columba
   appellatur, quæ sponsa pulchra sine macula, et ruga, et hortus
   conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquæ vivæ, paradisus cum fructu
   pomorum, alios autem ita constat esse in domo, ut non pertineant ad
   compagem domûs, sed sicut esse palea dicitur in frumentis," De Bapt.,
   lib. i. cap. 51; who is herein followed by not a few of the Papists.
   Hence saith Biel., "Accipitur etiam ecclesia pro tota multitudine
   prædestinatorum," in Canon. Miss. Lec. 22. In what sense this church is
   visible was before declared. Men elected, redeemed, justified, as such,
   are not visible, for that which makes them so is not; but this hinders
   not but they may be so upon the other consideration, sometimes to more,
   sometimes to fewer, yea, they are so always to some. Those that are may
   be seen; and when we say they are visible, we do not intend that they
   are actually seen by any that we know, but that they may be so.

   Bellarmine gives us a description of this catholic church (as the name
   hath of late been used at the pleasure of men, and wrested to serve
   every design that was needful to be carried on) to the interest which
   he was to contend for, but in itself perfectly ridiculous. He tells us,
   out of Austin, that the church is a living body, wherein is a body and
   a soul. Thence, saith he, the soul is the internal graces of the
   Spirit, faith, hope, and love; the body is the eternal profession of
   faith. Some are of the soul and body, perfectly united to Christ by
   faith and the profession of it; some are of the soul that are not of
   the body, as the catechumeni, which are not as yet admitted to be
   members of the visible church, but yet are true believers; some, saith
   he, are of the body that are not of the soul, who having no true grace,
   yet, out of hope or temporal fear, do make profession of the faith, and
   these are like the hair, nails, and ill humours in a human body. Now,
   saith Bellarmine, our definition of a church compriseth only the last
   sort, whilst they are under the head the pope; -- which is all one as
   if he had defined a man to be a dead creature, composed of hair, nails,
   and ill humours, under a hat. But of the church in this sense so far.

   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
   "only one" as unto him; and that it might have oneness in itself, with
   all the fruits of it, our Saviour prays, John xvii. 19-23. The whole of
   it is described, Eph. iv. 15, 16, "May grow up into him in all things,
   which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fifty joined
   together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according
   to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase
   of the body unto the edifying itself in love." And of the same
   importance is that of the same apostle, Col. ii. 19, "Not holding the
   Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment
   ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God."

   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, 1
   Cor. xii. 12, 13. Peter tells us that we are by the promises "made
   partakers of the divine nature," 2 Pet. i. 4. We are theias koinonoi
   phuseos, -- we have communion with it. That theia phusis is no more but
   kaine ktisis, I cannot easily consent. Now, it is in the person of the
   Spirit, whereof we are by the promise made partakers. He is the "Spirit
   of promise," Eph. i. 13; promised by God to Christ, Acts ii. 33,
   Epangelian tou hagiou Pneumatos labon para tou Patros, and by him to
   us, John xiv. 16, 17; being of old the great promise of the covenant,
   Isa. lix. 21; Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26, 27. Now, in the participation of
   the divine nature consists the union of the saints with Christ. John
   vi. 56, our Saviour tells us that it arises from eating his flesh and
   drinking his blood: "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
   dwelleth in me, and I in him" This he expounds, verse 63: "It is the
   Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." By the quickening
   Spirit, inhabitation in Christ, and Christ in it, is intended. And the
   same he manifests in his prayer, that his church may be one in the
   Father and the Son, as the Father is in him and he in the Father, John
   xvii. 21: for the Spirit being the love of the Father and of the Son,
   is "vinculum Trinitatis;" and so here of our union in some resemblance.

   The unity of members in the body natural with one head is often chosen
   to set forth the union of the church, 1 Cor. xii. 12, xi. 3; Eph. v.
   23; Col. i. 18. Now, every man can tell that union of the head and
   members whereby they become all one body, that and not another, is
   oneness of soul, whereby the whole is animated; which makes the body,
   be it less or greater, to be one body. That which answers hereunto in
   the mystical body of Christ is the animation of the whole by his
   Spirit, as the apostle fully [states], 1 Cor. xv. 45. The union between
   husband and wife is also chosen by the Holy Ghost to illustrate the
   union between Christ and his church: "For this cause shall a man leave
   his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
   shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
   Christ and the church," Eph. v. 31, 32. The union between man and wife
   we have, Gen. ii. 24; "They are no more twain, but one flesh," Matt.
   xix. 6; -- of Christ and his church, that they are one spirit, "He that
   is joined unto the Lord is one spirit," 1 Cor. vi. 17. See also another
   similitude of the same importance, John xv. 5; Rom. xi. 16, 17. This, I
   say, is the fountain-radical union of the church catholic in itself,
   with its head and formal reason of it.

   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," Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45: so taught, every one of
   them, as to come to Christ, verse 47; that is, by believing, by faith.
   They are so taught of God as that they shall certainly have that
   measure of knowledge and faith which is needful to bring them to
   Christ, and to God by him. And this they have by the unction or Spirit
   which they have received, 1 John ii. 20, 27, accompanying the word, by
   virtue of God's covenant with them, Isa. lix. 21. And hereby are all
   the members of the church catholic, however divided in their visible
   profession by any differences among themselves, or differenced by the
   several measures of gifts and graces they have received, brought to the
   perfection aimed at, to the "unity of the faith, and to the
   acknowledgment of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
   of the stature of the fulness of Christ," Eph. iv. 13. Nor was this
   hidden from some of the Papists themselves: "Ecclesia sancta corpus est
   Christi uno Spiritu vivificata, unita fide unâ, et sanctificata," saith
   Hugo de Victore, de Sacram., lib. ii., as he had said before in the
   former chapter: "Sicut scriptum est, qui non habet Spiritum Christi,
   hic non est ejus; qui non habet Spiritum Christi, non est membrum
   Christi. In corpore uno Spiritus unus, nihil in corpore mortuum, nihil
   extra corpus vivum." See to the same purpose, Enchirid. Concil. Colon.
   in Symbol.

   2. With peculiar reference to the members themselves, there is another
   necessary consequence of the union mentioned, and that is the mutual
   love of all those united in the head, as before, towards one another,
   and of every one towards the whole, as so united in the head, Christ
   Jesus. There is an "increase made of the body to the edifying itself in
   love," Eph. iv. 16; and so it becomes the bend of perfectness to this
   body of Christ, I cannot say that the members or parts of this church
   have their union in themselves by love, because they have that with and
   in Christ whereby they are one in themselves, John xvii. 21, 23; they
   are one in God, even in Christ, where their life is hid, Col. iii. 3;
   -- but it is the next and immediate principle of that communion which
   they severally have one with another, and the whole body in and with
   itself. I say, then, that the communion which the catholic church, the
   mystical body of Christ, hath with and in itself, springing from the
   union which it hath in and with Christ, and in itself thereby, consists
   in love exerting itself in inexpressible variety, according to the
   present state of the whole, its relation to Christ, to saints and
   angels, with the conditions and occasions of the members of it
   respectively, 1 Cor. xii. 26, 27.

   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, "coetus 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, concerned, that
   they may know beforehand what is farther incumbent on them if, in
   reference to us, they would prevail themselves of any such notion, I
   here inform them that our persuasion is, that this union was never
   utterly broken by any man taken into it, nor ever shall be to the end
   of the world; and I suppose they esteem it vain to dispute about the
   adjuncts of that which is denied to 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, Eph. vi. 12. And, doubtless, through the
   rich grace of our God, help will arise to us, that we shall never make
   a covenant with these men for peace, upon conditions far worse than
   those that Nahash would have exacted on the men of Jabesh-gilead; which
   were but the loss of one eye, with an abiding reproach; they requiring
   of us the deprivation of whatsoever we have to see by, whether as men
   or Christians, and that with a reproach never to be blotted out.

   But as we daily put our consciences upon trial as to this thing, 2 Cor.
   xiii. 5, and are put unto it by Satan, so are we ready at all times to
   give an account to our adversaries of the hope that is in us. Let them
   sift us to the utmost, it will be to our advantage. Only let them not
   bring frivolous objections, and such as they know are of no weight with
   us, speaking (as is their constant manner) about the pope and their
   church, -- things utterly foreign to what we are presently about,
   miserably begging the thing in question. Let them weigh, if they are
   able, the true nature of union with Christ, of faith in him, of love to
   the saints; consider them in their proper causes, adjuncts, and
   effects, with a spiritual eye, laying aside their prejudices and
   intolerable impositions; -- if we are found wanting as to the truth and
   sincerity of these things, if we cannot give some account of our
   translation from death to life, of our implantation into Christ, and
   our participation of the Spirit, we must bear our own burden. If
   otherwise, we stand fast on the most noble and best account of
   church-union whatever; and whilst this shield is safe, we are less
   anxious about the issue of the ensuing contest. Whatever may be the
   apprehensions of other men, I am not in this thing solicitous. (I speak
   not of myself, but assuming for the present the person of one
   concerning whom these things may be spoken). Whilst the efficacy of the
   gospel accomplisheth in my heart all those divine and mighty effects
   which are ascribed unto it as peculiarly its work towards them that
   believe; whilst I know this one thing, that whereas I was blind, now I
   see, -- whereas I was a servant of sin, I am now free to righteousness,
   and at liberty from bondage unto death, and instead of the fruits of
   the flesh, I find all the fruits of the Spirit brought forth in me, to
   the praise of God's glorious grace; whilst I have an experience of that
   powerful work of conversion and being born again, which I am able to
   manage against all the accusations of Satan, having peace with God upon
   justification by faith, with the love of God shed abroad in my heart by
   the Holy Ghost, investing me in the privileges of adoption, -- I shall
   not certainly be moved with the disputes of men that would persuade me
   I do not belong to the catholic church, because I do not follow this,
   or that, or any party of men in the world.

   "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 Bellarmine
   intends to include in it as such, -- namely, those who belong to the
   church as hairs and ill humours to the body of a man. But I add in
   particular, --

   1. All wicked and profane persons, of whom the Scripture speaks
   expressly that they shall not enter into the kingdom of God, are
   indisputably cut off. Whatever they pretend in show at any time, in the
   outward duties of devotion, they have neither faith in Christ nor love
   to the saints; and so have part and fellowship neither in the union nor
   communion of the catholic church.

   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, 1 Cor. vi. 7-10; Rev. xxii. 15.

   I find some persons of late appropriating holiness and regeneration [5]
   to the Roman party on this account, that among them only miracles are
   wrought; "which is," say they, "the only proof of true holiness." But
   these men err as their predecessors, "not knowing the Scriptures, nor
   the power of God." Amongst all the evidences that are given in
   Scripture of regeneration, I suppose they will scarcely find this to be
   one. And they who have no other assurance that they are themselves born
   of God, but that some of their church work miracles, had need maintain
   also that no man can be assured thereof in this life. They will find
   that a broken reed, [6] if they lean upon it. Will it evince all the
   members of their church to be regenerate, or only some? If they say
   all, I ask then what becomes of Bellarmine's church, which is made up
   of them who are not regenerate? If some only, I desire to know on what
   account the miracles of one man may be an evidence to some in his
   society that they are regenerate, and not to others? or whether the
   foundation of that distinction must not lie in themselves? But the
   truth is, the miracles now pretended are an evidence of a contrary
   condition to what these men are willing to own, 2 Thess. ii. 8-12.

   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, Hos. iv. 6. That it was devotion to themselves, and not to God,
   which they aimed to advance thereby, is by experience sufficiently
   evinced; but that whose reverence is to be preserved by its being hid
   is in itself contemptible. What other thoughts wise men could have of
   Christian religion, in their management of it, I know not. Woe to you,
   Romish clergy! "for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered
   not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." The
   people have perished under your hands, for want of knowledge: Zech. xi.
   15-17. The figment of an implicit faith, as managed by these men, to
   charm the spirits and consciences of poor perishing creatures with
   security in this life, will be found as pernicious to them in the issue
   as their purgatory, invented on the same account, will be useless.

   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, Rom. ix. 31, 32, though they take pains about it, chap. x.
   2; Eph. ii. 8-10. By this sword will fall the fattest cattle of their
   herd. How the hand of the Lord on this account sweeps away their
   devotionists, and therein takes down the pride of their glory, the day
   will discover. Yet, besides these, there are two other things that will
   cut them down as the grass falls before the scythe of the mower.

   4. The first of these is idolatry: "Be not deceived; no idolaters shall
   inherit the kingdom of God," 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; "Without are idolaters,"
   Rev. xxii. 15. This added to their lives hath made Christian religion,
   where known only as by them professed, to be an abomination to Jews and
   Gentiles. Some will one day, besides himself, answer for Averroës thus
   determining of the case as to his soul: "Quoniam Christiani adorant
   quod comedunt, anima mea sit cum philosophis." Whether they are
   idolaters or no, whether they yield the worship due to the Creator to
   the creature, hath been sifted to the utmost, and the charge of its
   evil, which the jealous God doth of all things most abhor, so fastened
   on them, beyond all possibility of escape, that one of the wisest of
   them hath at length fixed on that most desperate and profligate refuge,
   that some kind of idolatry is lawful, because Peter mentions
   "abominable idolatries," 1 Pet. iv. 3; who is therein so far from
   distinguishing of several sorts and kinds of it to any such purpose, as
   that he aggravates all sorts and kinds of it with the epithet of
   "nefarious" or "abominable."

   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 are alive,
   and not other men, the poor Indians who worship a piece of red cloth
   are not more gross idolaters than they are.

   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, Rev. xiii. 8, 16; which what
   aspect it bears towards the visible Roman church, time will manifest.

   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?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [4] Dr Hammond, with whom Owen had some controversy in regard to the
   sentiments of Grotius, and the divine authority of episcopal
   government. See Owen's preface to his work on "The Perseverance of the
   Saints," his "Vindiciæ Evangelicæ" and "Review of the Annotations of
   Grotius." -- Ed.

   [5] "Ille coetus Christianorum qui solus in orbe claret regeneratis est
   ecclesia; solus coetus Christianorum papæ subditorum claret
   regeneratis; apud illos solos sunt qui miracula faciunt. ergo." -- Val.
   Mag.

   [6] Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. vii. 22, 23; Exod. viii. 7.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.

   Of the catholic church visible -- Of the nature thereof -- In what
   sense the universality of professors is called a church -- Amyraldus'
   judgment in this business -- The union of the church in this sense,
   wherein it consists -- Not the same with the union of the church
   catholic, nor that of a particular instituted church -- Not in relation
   to any one officer, or more, in subordination to one another -- Such a
   subordination not provable -- Ta archaia of the Nicene synod -- Of
   general councils -- Union of the church visible not in a general
   council -- The true unity of the universality of professors asserted --
   Things necessary to this union -- Story of a martyr at Bagdad -- The
   apostasy of churches from the unity of the faith -- Testimony of
   Hegesippus vindicated -- Papal apostasy -- Protestants not guilty of
   the breach of this unity -- The catholic church, in the sense insisted
   on, granted by the ancients -- Not a political body.

   II. The second general notion of the church, as it is usually taken,
   signifies the universality of men professing the doctrine of the gospel
   and obedience to God in Christ, according to it, throughout the world.
   This is that which is commonly called the visible catholic church,
   which now, together with the union which it hath in itself, and how
   that unity is broken, falls under consideration.

   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. But, to the joint performance of any exercise of
   religion, that they should hear one sermon together, or partake of one
   sacrament, or have one officer for their rule and government, is
   ridiculous to imagine; nor do any profess to think so, as to any of the
   particulars mentioned, but those only who have profit by the fable. As
   to the description of this church, I shall acquiesce in that lately
   given of it by a very learned man. Saith he, "Ecclesia universalis, est
   communio, seu societas omnium coetuum" (I had rather he had said, and
   he had done it more agreeably to principles by himself laid down,
   "Omnium fidem Christianam profitentium sive illi ad ecclesias aliquas
   particulares pertineant, sive non pertineant"), "qui religionem
   Christianam profitentur, consistens in eo, quod tametsi neque exercitia
   pietatis uno numero frequentent, neque sacramenta eadem numero
   participent, neque uno eodemque omnino ordine regantur et gubernentur,
   unum tamen corpus in eo constituunt, quod eundem Christum servatorem
   habere se profitentur, uno in evangelio propositum, iisdem
   promissionibus comprehensum, quas obsignant et confirmant sacramenta,
   ex eadem institutione pendentia," Amyrald. Thes. de Eccles. Nom. et.
   Defin. Thes. 29.

   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, John iv. 21,
   23, but worshipping en panti topo, 1 Cor. i. 2, 1 Tim. ii. 8, let us
   consider what union there is amongst them as such, wrapping them all in
   the bond thereof by the will and appointment of Jesus Christ, and
   wherein the breach of that union doth consist, and how any man is or
   may be guilty thereof:

   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
   at set times in one place for the performance of that worship which was
   then required, nor could otherwise be accomplished: for as it is not at
   all possible that any such thing should ever be done, considering what
   is and shall be the estate of Christ's visible kingdom to the end of
   the world, so it is not (that I know of) pleaded that Christ hath made
   any such appointment; yea, it is on all hands confessed, at least
   cannot reasonably be denied, that there is a supersedeas granted to all
   supposals of any such duty incumbent on the whole visible church, by
   the institution of particular churches, wherein all the ordinances of
   Christ are duly to be administered.

   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 heos
   tes sunteleias tou aionos, 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
   all the churches of God hath been so abundantly proved by the divines
   of the reformed churches, and he who alone puts in his claim to that
   prerogative so clearly manifested to be quite another thing, that I
   will not needlessly go over that work again. Something, however, shall
   afterward be remarked as to his pretensions, from the principles
   whereon I proceed in the whole business.

   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 discernible that these
   patriarchates, how many or how few soever they are, are particular
   churches, not any one of them the catholic, nor altogether comprising
   all that are comprehended in the precincts of it (which none will say
   that ever they did); and, therefore, this may speak something as to a
   combination of those churches, nothing as to the union of the catholic
   as such, which they are not.

   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; "paroecia" being the care of a
   private bishop, "provincia" of a metropolitan, and "dioecesis" 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 ta archaia 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 ta archaia for, and
   sundry other alterations were likewise made in the same kind, Socrat.
   lib. v. cap. 8: the ground and reason of which procedure the fathers
   assembled sufficiently manifest in the reason assigned for the
   advancement of the bishops of Constantinople; which was for the city's
   sake: Dia to einai auten nean Romen, Can. iii., Con. Constan. And what
   was the judgment of the council of Chalcedon upon this matter may be
   seen in the composition and determination of the strife between Maximus
   bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, Ac. vii. Con. Cal., with
   translation of provinces from the jurisdiction of one to another. And
   he that shall suppose that such assemblies as these were instituted by
   the will and appointment of Christ in the gospel, with church-authority
   for such dispositions and determinations, so as to make them of
   concernment to the unity of the church, will, if I mistake not, be
   hardly bestead in giving the ground of that his supposal.

   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 [7] understood it in the council
   of Trent), and a wound given to successive episcopal ordination not
   easily to be healed. That power is communicated from the inferiors to
   the superiors will not be pleaded. And seeing the first must be
   insisted on, I beseech them not to be too hasty with men not so
   sharp-sighted as themselves, if, finding the names they speak of
   barbarous and foreign as to the Scriptures, and the things themselves
   not at all delineated therein, epechousi.

   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 not therein consist, I shall not need to add any thing to
   what hath been spoken.

   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 ta archaia, 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 ap' arches ou gegonen houto. 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 ta archaia, 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 aph'
   hemeron archaion, Acts xv. 7. Somewhat a greater antiquity than that by
   him intended, I can freely grant to the custom by the fathers
   pretended.

   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, framed to the
   interest of contenders on all hands; the laws of them, which "de facto"
   have gone under that title and name, so innumerable, burdensome,
   uncertain, and frivolous, in a great part so grossly contradictory to
   one another, -- that I cannot suppose that any man upon second thoughts
   can abide in such an assertion. If any shall, I must be bold to declare
   my affection to the doctrine of the gospel maintained in some of those
   assemblies for some hundreds of years, and then to desire him to prove
   that any general council, since the apostles fell asleep, hath been so
   convened and managed as to be enabled to claim that authority to itself
   which is or would be due to such an assembly instituted according to
   the mind of Christ.

   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 is
   otherwise minded, that there hath been such a one, or that it is
   possible there should be such a one, prove by instance that such there
   hath been since the apostles' times, or by reason that such may be in
   the present age, or be justly expected in those that are to succeed,
   and we will, as we are able, crown him for his discovery.

   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, Eph. iv. 5, "One
   Lord, one faith, one baptism." It is the unity of the doctrine of faith
   which men profess, in subjection to one Lord, Jesus Christ, being
   initiated into that profession by baptism. I say, the saving doctrine
   of the gospel of salvation by Jesus Christ, and obedience through him
   to God, as professed by them, is the bond of that union whereby they
   are made one body, are distinguished from all other societies, have one
   head, Christ Jesus, which as to profession they hold; and whilst they
   do so they are of this body, in one professed hope of their calling.

   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,"
   Rom. xii. 6; a "unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of
   God," Eph. iv. 13; a measure of saving truths, the explicit knowledge
   whereof in men, enjoying the use of reason within and the means of
   grace without, is of indispensable necessity to salvation, -- without
   which it is impossible that any soul, in an ordinary way, should have
   communion with God in Christ, having not light sufficient for converse
   with him, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace. These are
   commonly called fundamentals, or first principles; which are justly
   argued by many to be clear, perspicuous, few, lying in an evident
   tendency to obedience. Now, look what truths are savingly to be
   believed to render a man a member of the church catholic invisible, --
   that is, whatever is required in any one, unto such a receiving of
   Jesus Christ as that thereby he may have power given to him to become
   the son of God, -- the profession of those truths is required to
   instate a man in the unity of the church visible.

   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," Phil.
   iii. 18. Certainly those who on one account are open and manifest
   enemies of the cross of Christ, are not on any members of his church.
   There is "one Lord" and "one faith" required, as well as "one baptism;"
   and a protestation contrary to evidence of fact is in all law null. Let
   a man profess ten thousand times that he believes all the saving truths
   of the gospel, and, by the course of a wicked and profane conversation,
   evidence to all that he believes no one of them, shall his protestation
   be admitted? Shah he be accounted a servant in and of my family who
   will call me master, and come into my house only to do me and mine a
   mischief, not doing any thing I require of him, but openly and
   professedly the contrary? Paul says of such, Tit. i. 16, "They profess
   that they know God, but in works they deny him, being abominable, and
   disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate;" which, though
   peculiarly spoken of the Jews, yet contains a general rule, that men's
   profession of the knowledge of God, contradicted by a course of
   wickedness, is not to be admitted as a thing giving any privilege
   whatever.

   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, Gal. v. 3, 4.
   Notwithstanding the profession of the gospel, he tells the Galatians
   that if they were bewitched to profess also the necessity of
   circumcision and keeping of the law for justification, Christ or the
   profession of him would not profit them. On this account the ancients
   excluded many heretics from the name of Christians: so Justin Martyr of
   the Marcionites, and others, Hon oudeni koinonoumen hoi gnorizontes
   atheous kai asebeis, kai adikous, kai anomous autous huparchontas, kai
   anti tou ton Iesoun sebein, onomati monon homologein, kai Christianous
   heautous legousin, hon tropon hoi en tois ethnesi to honoma tou Theou
   epigraphousi tois cheiropoietois.

   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.

   Elmacinus, who wrote the story of the Saracens, being secretary to one
   of the caliphs of Bagdad, informs us that in the year 309 of their
   hegira (about the year 921 of our account), Muctadinus the caliph of
   Bagdad, by the counsel of his wise men, commanded one Huseinus, the son
   of Mansor, to be crucified for certain poems, whereof some verses are
   recited by the historian, and are thus rendered by Erpenius:--

   "Laus ei qui manifestavit humilitatem suam, celavit inter nos
   divinitatem suam permeantem donec coepit 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, Luke xii. 8, "I say unto you,
   Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also
   confess before the angels of God;' and consider the unlimitedness of
   the expression as to any outward consideration, and tell me whether
   this man, or any other in the like condition, be not to be reckoned as
   a subject of Christ's visible kingdom, a member of his church in the
   world?

   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
   first planting. The Papists say, as to the European churches (wherein
   their and our concernment principally lies), this breach was made in
   the days of our forefathers, by their departure from the common faith
   in those ages, though begun by a few some ages before. We are otherwise
   minded, and affirm that this secession was made by them and their
   predecessors in apostasy, in several generations, by several degrees;
   which we manifest by comparing the present profession and worship with
   that in each kind which we know was at first embraced, because we find
   it instituted. At once, then, we say this schism lies at their doors,
   who not only have deviated from the common faith themselves, but do
   also actually cause and attempt to destroy temporally and eternally all
   that will not join with them therein; for as the "mystery of iniquity"
   began to work in the apostles' days, so we have a testimony beyond
   exception in the complaint of those that lived in them, that not long
   after, the operation of it became more effectual, and the infection of
   it to be more diffused in the church. This is that of Hegesippus in
   Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 22; who affirms that the church
   remained a virgin (whilst the apostles lived), -- pure and uncorrupted;
   but when that sacred society had ended its pilgrimage, and the
   generation that heard and received the word from them were fallen
   asleep, many false doctrines were preached and divulged therein.

   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 Hegesippus to the ages after
   the apostles and their hearers were dead, with an exception against its
   being so in their days, when, if the person thus expounding this
   testimony may be credited, the Gnostics were never more busy nor
   prevalent than in that time which alone is excepted from the evil here
   spoken of? Nor can I understand how the opposition and persecution of
   the church should be insinuated to be the deflouring and violating of
   its chastity, which is commonly a great purifying of it. So that,
   speaking of that broaching and preaching of errors, which was not in
   the apostles' times, nor in the time of their hearers, -- the chiefest
   time of the rage and madness of the Gnostics, -- such as spotted the
   pure and uncorrupted virginity of the church, which nothing can attain
   unto that is foreign unto it, and that which gave original unto
   sedition in the church, I am of the mind, and so I conceive was
   Eusebius that recited those words, that the good man intended
   corruptions in the church, not out of it, nor oppositions to it.

   The process made in after ages in a deviation from the unity of the
   faith, till it arrived to that height wherein it is now stated in the
   papal apostasy, hath been the work of others to declare. Therein, then,
   I state the rise and progress of the present schism (if it may be so
   called) of the visible church.

   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
   Irenæus of old. Said he, "Judicabit omnes eos, qui sunt extra
   veritatem, id est, extra ecclesiam," lib. iv. cap. 62. And on the same
   account is a particular church sometimes called by some the catholic:
   "Quandoque ego Remigius episcopus de hac luce transiero, tu mihi hæres
   esto, sancta et venerabilis ecclesia catholica urbis Remorum,"
   Flodoardus, lib. i.

   In the sense insisted on was it so frequently described by the
   ancients.

   So again Irenæus: "Etsi in mundo loquelæ dissimiles sunt, sed tamen
   virtus traditionis una et eadem est, et neque hæ quæ in Germania sunt
   fundatæ ecclesiæ aliter credunt, aut aliter tradunt; neque hæ quæ in
   Hiberis sunt, neque hæ quæ in Celtis, neque hæ quæ in Oriente, neque hæ
   quæ in Ægypto, neque hæ quæ in Libya, neque hæ quæ in medio mundi
   constitutæ. Sed sicut sol, creatura Dei, in universo mundo unus et idem
   est, sic et lumen, prædicatio veritatis ubique lucet," lib. i. cap. 10.
   To the same purpose Justin Martyr: Oude hen gar holos esti to genos
   anthropon eite Barbaron, eite Hellenon, eite haplos hotinioun onomati
   prosagoreuomenon, e hamaxobion, e asikon kaloumenon, e en skenais
   ktenotrophon oikounton, en hois me dia tou onomatos tou staurothentos
   Iesou euchai kai eucharistiai to patri kai poiete ton holon ginotai.
   Dialog. cum Tryphone.

   The generality of all sorts of men worshipping God in Jesus Christ is
   the church we speak of whose extent in his days Tertullian thus
   related: "In quem alium crediderunt gentes universæ, nisi in ipsum, qui
   jam venit? Cui enim aliæ gentes crediderunt, Parthi, Medi et Elamitæ,
   et qui habitant Mesopotamiam, Armeniam, Phrygiam, et incolentes Ægyptum
   et regionem Africæ quæ est trans Cyrenem, Romani et incolæ; tunc et in
   Hierusalem Judæi, et gentes cæteræ, ut jam Gætulorum varietates, et
   Maurorum multi fines, Hispaniarum omnes termini, et Galliarum diversæ
   nationes, et Brittanorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita;
   et Sarmatarum et Dacorum et Germanorum et Scytharum et abditarum
   multarum gentium et provinciarum et insularum multarum nobis ignotarum,
   et quæ enumerare non possumus? In quibus omnibus locis Christi nomen,
   qui jam venit, regnat ad Judæos." [Adver. Jud., cap. vii.]

   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, ophthalmoi basileon. To the
   constitution of such a commonwealth distinctly, as such, it is required
   that the whole hath the same laws, but not that only. Two nations most
   distinct and different, on account of other ends and interests, may yet
   have the same individual laws and customs for the distribution of
   justice and preservation of peace among themselves. An entire form of
   regimen and government peculiar thereunto is required for the
   constitution of a distinct political body. In this sense we deny the
   church whereof we speak to be an organical, political body, as not
   having indeed any of the requisites thereunto, not one law of order.
   The same individual moral law, or law of moral duties, it hath; but a
   law given to the whole as such, for order, polity, rule, it hath not.
   All the members of it are obliged to the same law of order and polity
   in their several societies; but the whole, as such, hath no such law.
   It hath no such head or governor, as such. Nor will it suffice to say
   that Christ is its head; for if, as a visible political body, it hath a
   political head, that head also must be visible. The commonwealth of the
   Jews was a political body; of this God was the head and king; hence
   their historian saith their government was Theokratia. And when they
   would choose a king, God said they rejected him who was their political
   head, to whom a shekel was paid yearly as tribute, called the "shekel
   of the sanctuary.'' Now, they rejected him, not by asking a king
   simply, but a king after the manner of the nations. Yet, that it might
   be a visible political body, it required a visible supreme magistrate
   to the whole; which when there was none, all polity was dissolved
   amongst them, Judges xxi. 25. Christ is the head of every particular
   church, its lawgiver and ruler; but yet, to make a church a visible,
   organical, political body, it is required that it hath visible
   governors and rulers, and of the whole. Nor can it be said that it is a
   political body that hath a supreme government and order in it, as it is
   made up and constituted of particular churches, and that in the
   representatives convened doth the supreme visible power of it consist;
   for such a convention in the judgment of all ought to be extraordinary
   only, in ours is utterly impossible, and "de facto" was not among the
   churches for three hundred years, -- yea, never. Besides, the visible
   catholic church is not made up of particular churches, as such; for if
   so, then no man can be member of it but by virtue of his being a member
   of some visible church, which is false. Profession of the truth, as
   before stated, is the formal reason and cause of any person's relation
   to the church visible; which he hath thereby, whether he belong to any
   particular church or no.

   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 into execution;
   that it hath any homogeneous ruler or rulers, that have the care of the
   administration of the rule and government of the whole, as such,
   committed to him or them by Jesus Christ; that as it hath the same
   common spiritual and known orders and interest, and the same specifical
   ecclesiastical rule given to all its members, so it hath the same
   political interest, order, and conversation, as such; or that it hath
   any one cause constitutive of a political body, whereby it is such, or
   hath at all the form of an instituted church, or is capable of any such
   form, -- and they that do so shall be farther attended to.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [7] See Paul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, book vii., sect.
   xi., xii. In the course of a dispute respecting the superiority of
   bishops over priests, the Spanish bishops held the institution and
   superiority of bishops to be "de jure divino," and not merely "de jure
   pontificio." The legates and their party, -- since this implied that
   the bishops were independent of the pope, -- maintained that the pope
   only was a bishop of divine institution, and the other bishops were
   merely his delegates and vicars. The latter party bear the name of
   Panalins in Sarpi's History. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.

   Romanists' charge of schism on the account of separation from the
   church, catholic proposed to consideration -- The importance of this
   plea on both sides -- The sum of their charge -- The church of Rome not
   the church catholic; not a church in any sense -- Of antichrist in the
   temple -- The catholic church, how intrusted with interpretation of
   Scripture -- Of interpretation of Scripture by tradition -- The
   interest of the Roman church herein discharged -- All necessary truths
   believed by Protestants -- No contrary principle by them manifested --
   Profane persons no members of the church catholic -- Of the late Roman
   proselytes -- Of the Donatists -- Their business reported and case
   stated -- The present state of things unsuited to that of old --
   Apostasy from the unity of the church catholic charged on the Romanists
   -- Their claim to be that church sanguinary, false -- Their plea to
   this purpose considered -- The blasphemous management of their plea by
   some of late -- The whole dissolved -- Their inferences on their plea
   practically prodigious -- Their apostasy proved by instances -- Their
   grand argument in this cause proposed; answered -- Consequences of
   denying the Roman church to be a church of Christ weighed.

   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.

   Ans. Their insisting on this plea so much as they do is sufficient to
   evince their despair of making good by instance our failure, in respect
   of the way and principles by which the unity of the visible church may
   be lost or broken. Fail they in this, they are gone; and if they carry
   this plea, we are all at their disposal. The sum of it is, The catholic
   church is intrusted with the sole power of delivering what is truth,
   and what is necessary to be believed: this catholic church is the
   church of Rome, -- that is, the pope, or what else may in any juncture
   of time serve their interest. But, as it is known, --

   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 kathisai
   eis ton naon tou Theou, 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 her declaration of
   truth should be the measure of what should be believed; or that, as
   such, it is intrusted with any power of that nature at all, or is
   enabled to propose a rule of faith to be received, as so proposed, to
   the most contemptible individual in the world; or that it is possible
   that any voice of it should be heard or understood, but only this, "I
   believe the necessary saving truths contained in the Scripture;" or
   that it can be consulted withal, or is, as such, intrusted with any
   power, authority, or jurisdiction; nor shall we ever consent that the
   office and authority of the Scriptures be actually taken from it on any
   pretence. As to that of our Saviour, of telling the church, it is so
   evidently spoken of a particular church, that may immediately be
   consulted in case of difference between brethren, and does so no way
   relate to the business in hand, that I shall not trouble the reader
   with a debate of it. But do we not receive the Scripture itself upon
   the authority of the church? I say, if we did so, yet this concerns not
   Rome, which we account no church at all. That we have received the
   Scriptures from the church of Rome at first, -- that is, so much as the
   book itself, -- is an intolerable figment, But it is worse to say that
   we receive and own their authority from the authority of any church, or
   all the churches in the world. It is the expression of our learned
   Whitaker, "Qui Scripturam non credit esse divinam, nisi propter
   ecclesiæ vocem, Christianus non est." To deny that the Scripture hath
   immediate force and efficacy to evince its own authority is plainly to
   deny it, On that account, being brought unto us by the providence of
   God (wherein I comprise all subservient helps of human testimony), we
   receive them, and on no other.

   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 Lucian, -- there is not one
   more remote from truth than this assertion, that any one text of
   Scripture may be interpreted according to the universal tradition of
   the catholic church, and be made appear so to be; any farther than
   that, in general, the catholic church hath not believed any such sense
   to be in any portion of Scripture, which to receive were destructive of
   salvation. And, therefore, the Romanists tell us that the present
   church (that is, theirs) is the keeper and interpreter of these
   traditions; or rather, that its power, authority and infallibility,
   being the same that it hath been in former ages, what it determines is
   to be received to be the tradition of the catholic church. For the
   trial whereof, whether it be so or no, there is no rule but its own
   determination; which if they can persuade us to acquiesce in, I shall
   grant that they have acquired such an absolute dominion over us and our
   faith, that it is fit that we should be, soul and body, at their
   disposal.

   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," Rev. ii. 9. Though
   such as these say they are Christians, I will be bold to say they lie,
   "they are not, but slaves of Satan." Though they live within the pale,
   as they call it, of the church (the catholic church being an enclosure
   as to profession, not place), yet they are not within it nor of it any
   more than a Jew or Mohammedan within the same precinct. Suppose they
   have been baptized, yet if their belly be their god, and their lives
   dedicated to Satan, all the advantage they have thereby is, that they
   are apostates and renegadoes.

   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 they have won over to themselves; who,
   being persons ignorant of the righteousness of God and the power of the
   faith they have professed, not having had experience of communion with
   the Lord Jesus under the conduct of them, have been, upon every
   provocation and temptation, a ready prey to deceivers.

   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 Augustine, do not the rest of his orthodox
   contemporaries, charge the Donatists with schism because they departed
   from the catholic church? and doth not the charge rise up with equal
   efficacy against you as them? at least, doth it not give you the nature
   of schism in another sense than is by you granted?"

   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 [8]
   were some of them deceived, and others of them did deceive, in charging
   Cæcilianus to be ordained by "traditores;" which they made the main
   ground of their separation, however they took in other things (as is
   usual) into their defence afterward. Whether any of themselves were
   ordained by such persons, as they are recharged, I know not.

   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 the
   communion of Cæcilianus, which, according to the principles of those
   days, retained by themselves, was most false, -- yet they had no ground
   of separating from the church of Carthage, where were many elders not
   obnoxious to that charge. Indeed, to raise a jealousy of a fault in any
   man, which is denied by him, which we are not able to prove, which if
   it were proved were of little or no importance, and on pretence thereof
   to separate from all who will not believe what we surmise, is a wild
   and unchristian course of proceeding.

   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 Cæcilianus did preside, yet nothing but the
   height of madness, pride, and corrupt fleshly interest, could make men
   declare hostility against all the churches of Christ in the world who
   would communicate with or did not condemn that church; which were to
   regulate all the churches in the world by their own fancy and
   imagination.

   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
   Austin, for the most part, a sweet and gracious spirit breathing, full
   of zeal for the glory of God, peace, love, union among Christians: and
   as to the issue of the cause under debate, it is evident that they did
   sufficiently foil their adversaries on principles then generally
   confessed and acknowledged on all hands, though some of them seem to
   have been considering, learned, and dexterous men.

   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 say, that though Austin was
   sufficiently clear on the nature of the invisible church catholic, yet
   his frequent confounding it with a mistaken notion of the visible
   general church hath given no small occasion of stumbling and sundry
   unhappy entanglements to divers in after ages. His own book, "De
   Unitate Ecclesiæ," which contains the sum and substance of what he had
   written elsewhere, or disputed against the Donatists, would afford me
   instances enough to make good my assertion, were it now under
   consideration or proof.

   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 cruelty,
   which, in his good time, he will perfect in their irrecoverable ruin.
   In the meantime, I say, the guilt of the blood of millions of innocent
   persons, yea, saints of God, lies at their door. And although things
   are so stated in this age that in some nations they have left none to
   kill, in others are restrained, that they can kill no more, yet
   retaining the same principles with their forefathers, and justifying
   them in their paths of blood, I look upon them all as guilty of murder,
   and so not to have "eternal life abiding in them;" being of that wicked
   one, as Cain, who slew his brother. I speak not of individuals, but of
   those in general that constitute their governing church.

   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 themselves to the contempt of
   considering persons, who talk of the institutions of our Lord in the
   language of the last ages, or expressions suitable to what was in
   practice in them. He that shall compare the fraternal church admonition
   and censures of the primitive institution, with the courts, powers, and
   jurisdictions set up in pretence and colour of them in after ages, will
   admire at the likeness and correspondency of the one with the other.
   The administration of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Papacy, and
   under the Prelacy here in England, had no more relation to any
   institution of Christ (unless it be that it effectually excluded the
   exercise of his institutions) than other civil courts of justice among
   Christians have. Peter had the power and authority of an apostle in and
   over the churches of Christ, to teach, to instruct them, to ordain
   elders in them by their consent, wherever he came; so had the rest of
   the apostles. But as to this monarchy of Peter over the rest of the
   apostles, let them show what authority he ever exercised over them
   while he and they lived together. We read that he was once reproved by
   one of them, not that he ever reproved the meanest of them. If Christ
   made the grant of pre-eminency to him when he said, "Tu es Petrus," why
   did the apostles inquire afterward who among them should be greatest?
   And why did not our Saviour, on that dispute, plainly satisfy them that
   Peter was to be chief, but chose rather to so determine the question as
   to evince them of the vanity of any such inquiry? And yet the
   determination of it is that that lies at the bottom of the papal
   monarchy. And why doth Paul say that he was in nothing inferior to any
   of the apostles, when (if these gentlemen say true) he was in many
   things inferior to Peter? What special place hath the name of Peter in
   the foundation of the new Jerusalem? Rev. xxi. 14. What exaltation hath
   his throne among the twelve, whereon the apostles judge the world and
   house of Israel? Matt. xix. 28. What eminency of commission had he for
   teaching all nations or forgiving sins? What had his keys more than
   those of the rest of the apostles? What was peculiar in that triple
   command of feeding the sheep of Christ, but his triple denial that
   preceded? John xxi. 15-17. Is an injunction for the performance of duty
   a grant of new authority? But that we may make some progress, suppose
   this also," Why, this power, privilege, and jurisdiction of Peter, was
   to be transferred to his successors, when the power of all the other
   apostles, as such, died with them." But what pretence or colour of it
   is there for this assertion? What one tittle or iota is there in the
   whole book of God giving the least countenance to this imagination?
   What distinction between Peter and the rest of the apostles on this
   account is once made, or in any kind insinuated? Certainly, this was a
   thing of great importance to the churches to have been acquainted with
   it. When Paul so sadly tells the church, that after his departure
   grievous wolves would spoil the flock, and many among themselves would
   arise, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them, why did
   he not give them the least direction to make their address to him that
   should succeed Peter in his power and office, for relief and redress?
   Strange, that it should be of necessity to salvation to be subject to
   him in whom this power of Peter was to be continued; that he was to be
   one in whom the saints were to be consummated; that in relation to him
   the unity of the catholic church, to be preserved under pain of
   damnation, should consist; -- and yet not a word spoken of him in the
   whole word of God!

   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 ordinassem." But every friar or monk
   can say of Jesus Christ, had they been present at his framing the world
   to come (whereof we speak), they would have told him what had become
   his wisdom to do. Our blessed Lord hath left sufficient provision
   against all future emergencies and inconveniencies in his word and
   Spirit, given and promised to his saints. And the one remedy which
   these men have found out, with the contempt and blasphemy of him and
   them, hath proved worse than all the other evils and diseases for whose
   prevention he made provision; which he hath done also for that remedy
   of theirs, but that some are hardened through the righteous judgment of
   God and deceitfulness of sin.

   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, Num. 26.

   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 pretended,
   depending upon it, if it were true, and true in reference to such an
   end and purpose as is pleaded, it would not have been passed over in
   silence there, where so many things of inconceivably less concernment
   to the church of God (though all in their respective degrees tending to
   edification) are recorded. As to what is recorded in story, the order
   and series of things, with the discovery afforded us of Peter's course
   and place of abode in Scripture, do prevail with me to think
   steadfastly that he was never there, against the self-contradicting
   testimonies of some few, who took up vulgar reports then when the
   mystery of iniquity had so far operated, at least, that it was judged
   meet that the chief of the apostles should have lived in the chief city
   of the world.

   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," -- leroi!

   Of his meeting Simon Magus at Rome, who in all probability was never
   there (for Semo Sangus was not Simon Magus, nor Sanctus, nor Deus
   Magnus), of the conquest made of him and his devils, of his being
   instructed of Christ not to go from Rome, but tarry there and suffer,
   something may be said from old legends; but of his chair, and fixing of
   it at Rome, of his confinement, as it were, to that place, in direct
   opposition to the tenor of his apostolical commission, who first told
   the story I know not. But this I know, they will one day be ashamed of
   their chair, thrones, and sees, and jurisdictions, wherein they now so
   please themselves.

   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, whereof I never saw letter or tittle, nor ever conversed
   with any one, no not of themselves, that did, I would be gladly
   informed whether this grant be made to him absolutely, without any
   manner of condition whatever, so that whoever comes to be pope of Rome,
   and possessed of Peter's chair there, by what means soever he is
   possessed of it, whether he believe the gospel or no, or any of the
   saving truths therein contained, and so their church must be the
   catholic church, though it follow him in all abominations; or whether
   it be made on any condition to him, especially that of cleaving to the
   doctrine of Christ revealed in the gospel? If they say the first, that
   it is an absolute grant that is made to him, without any condition
   expressed or necessarily to be understood, I am at an issue, and have
   nothing to add but my desire that the grant may be produced; for whilst
   we are at this variance, it is against all law and equity that the
   parties litigant should be admitted to plead bare allegations without
   proof. If the latter, though we should grant all the former monstrous
   suppositions, yet we are perfectly secure against all their
   pretensions, knowing nothing more clearly and evidently than that he
   and they have broken all conditions that can possibly be imagined, by
   corrupting and perverting almost the whole doctrine of the gospel.

   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 Mohammed to be
   the prophet of God sent into the world, or the like abominations; at
   least, that be he what he will, placed in the chair, he shall not err
   nor mistake in what he delivereth for truth." Now, seeing themselves,
   as was said, are the sole keepers of this promise and grant also, which
   they have not as yet showed to the world, I am necessitated to ask,
   once more, whether it be made to him merely upon condition of mounting
   into his chair, or also upon this condition, that he use the means
   appointed by God to come to the knowledge of the truth? If they say the
   former, I must needs say, that it is so remote from my apprehension
   that God, who will be worshipped in spirit and in truth only, should
   now, under the gospel, promise to any persons, that be they never so
   wicked and abominable, never so openly and evidently sworn enemies of
   him and his Anointed, whether they use any means or not by him
   appointed, they shall always in all things speak the truth, which they
   hate, in love, which they have not, with that authority which all his
   saints must bow unto, especially not having intimated any one word of
   any such promise in the Scripture, that I know not whatever I heard of
   in my life that I cannot as soon believe. If they say the latter, we
   close then as we did our former inquiry.

   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. [9]

   (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
   violence to the evident dictates of the law of nature, they will, in
   confidence of these principles, have the word and sentence of a pope,
   though a beast, a witch, a conjuror (as by their own confession many of
   them have been), to be implicitly submitted to in and about things
   which he neither knoweth, nor loveth, nor careth for, being yet such in
   themselves as immediately and directly concern the everlasting
   condition of the souls of men. And this is our second return to their
   pretence of being the catholic church; to which I add, --

   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. Athenæus tells us of one Thrasilaus an Athenian, who being
   frenetically distempered, whatever ships came into the Piræus he looked
   on them and thought them his own, and rejoiced as the master of so
   great wealth, when he was not the owner of so much as a boat. Such a
   distemper of pride and folly hath in the like manner seized on these
   persons with whom we have to do, that wherever in Scripture they meet
   with the name church, presently, as though they were intended by it,
   they rejoice in the privileges of it, when their concernment lies not
   at all therein.

   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 St Austin and St Thomas of Aquin, being so great and damnable a sin,
   and whereas it is plain that out of the church, which, as Peter says,
   is as Noah's ark, 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, there is no salvation, it is
   clear you will be damned." This is the sum of their plea.

   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, or only visible church then in the world, the churches in the
   east claiming that title by as good a right as she. So they. Others
   principally answer to the major proposition, and tell you that
   separation is either causeless, or upon just ground and cause; that it
   is a causeless separation only from the church of Christ that is
   schism; that there can be no cause of schism, for if there be a cause
   of schism materially, it ceaseth to be schism formally. And so, to
   strengthen their answer "in hypothesi," they fall upon the idolatries,
   heresies, tyranny, and apostasy of the church of Rome as just causes of
   separation from her. Nor will their plea be shaken to eternity; so that
   being true and popular, understood by the meanest, though it contain
   not the whole truth, I shall not in the least impair it.

   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, --

   (1.) That separation from a particular church, as such, as merely
   separation, is schism, or ought to be so esteemed; though, perhaps,
   such separation may proceed from schism, and be also attended with
   other evils.

   (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, -- Austin and Optatus, men interested in the contests about
   it; Leo and Innocent, gaining by the notion of it then growing in the
   world; Thomas Aquinas, and such vassals of the Papacy; we are not
   concerned in them: what the Lord speaks of it, that we judge concerning
   it. It is true of the catholic church always, that out of it is no
   salvation, it being the society of them that shall be saved; and of the
   visible church in general, in some sense and cases, seeing "with the
   heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession
   is made unto salvation; but of a particular church in no sense, unless
   that of contempt of a known duty, -- and to imagine Peter to speak of
   any such thing is a fancy.

   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 in those parts of the world where the pope
   prevailed; so was the Old Testament by the Jews; the whole by the
   eastern Christians; by none so corrupted as by those of the papal
   territory. God forbid we should say we had the Scriptures from the
   church of Rome, as such! If we had, why do we not keep them as she
   delivered them to us, in the Vulgar translation, with the apocryphal
   additions? The ordination pleaded for is from the authority of the
   church of Rome, as such. The Scriptures were by the providence of God
   preserved under the Papacy for the use of his people; and had they been
   found by chance, as it were, like the law of old, they had been the
   same to us that now they are. So that of these things there is not the
   same reason.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [8] Owen had occasion afterwards to consider more fully the case of the
   Donatists, so far as it bears on the charge of schism brought against
   the Nonconformists. See his "Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches,"
   vol. xv. p. 369. -- Ed.

   [9] "Si quis, aut privatus aut publicus, eorum decreto non stetit,
   sacrificiis interdicunt. Hæc poena 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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.

   Of a particular church; its nature -- Frequently mentioned in Scripture
   -- Particular congregations acknowledged the only churches of the first
   institution -- What ensued on the multiplication of churches -- Some
   things premised to clear the unity of the church in this sense -- Every
   believer ordinarily obliged to join himself to some particular church
   -- Many things in instituted worship answering a natural principle --
   Perpetuity of the church in this sense -- True churches at first
   planted in England -- How they ceased so to be -- How churches may be
   again re-erected -- Of the union of a particular church in itself --
   Foundation of that union twofold -- The union itself -- Of the
   communion of particular churches one with another -- Our concernment in
   this union.

   III. I now descend to the last consideration of a church, in the most
   usual acceptation of that name in the New Testament, -- that is, of a
   particular instituted church. A church in this sense I take to be 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
   individual ordinates, according to the order by Christ prescribed. This
   general description of it exhibits its nature so far as is necessary to
   clear the subject of our present disquisition. A more accurate
   definition would only administer farther occasion of contesting about
   things not necessary to be determined as to the inquiry in hand. Such
   as this was the church at Jerusalem that was persecuted, Acts viii. 1,
   -- the church whereof Saul made havoc, verse 3, -- the church that was
   vexed by Herod, chap. xii. 1. Such was the church at Antioch, which
   assembled together in one place, chap. xiv. 27; wherein were sundry
   prophets, chap. xiii. 1, as that at Jerusalem consisted of elders and
   brethren, chap. xv. 22, -- the apostles, or some of them, being there
   then present, which added no other consideration to that church than
   that we are now speaking of. Such were those many churches wherein
   elders were ordained by Paul's appointment, chap. xiv. 23; as also the
   church of Cæsarea, chap. xviii. 22, and at Ephesus, chap. xx. 17, 28;
   as was that of Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 2, vi. 4, xi. 18, xiv. 4, 5, 12, 19,
   2 Cor. i. 1; and those mentioned, Rev. i., ii., iii.; -- all which Paul
   calls the "churches of the Gentiles," Rom. xvi. 4, in contradistinction
   to those of the Jews; and calls them indefinitely "the churches of
   Christ," verse 16; or "the churches of God," 2 Thess. i. 4; or "the
   churches," 1 Cor. vii. 17, 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19, 23, 24, and in sundry
   other places. Hence we have mention of many churches in one country, --
   as in Judea, Acts ix. 31; in Asia, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; in Macedonia, 2 Cor.
   viii. 1; in Galatia, Gal. i. 2; the seven churches of Asia, Rev. i. 11;
   and unto tas poleis, Acts xvi. 4, hai ekklesiai answers, verse 5, in
   the same country.

   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., [10] tell us that "in the beginning of Christianity the
   number of believers, even in the greatest cities, was so few as that
   they might all meet epi to auto, in one and the same place; and these
   are called the church of the city; and the angel of such a city was
   congregational, not diocesan;" -- which discourse exhibits that state
   of a particular church which is now pleaded for, and which shall
   afterward be evinced, allowing no other, no not in the greatest cities.
   In a rejoinder to that treatise, so far as the case of episcopacy is
   herein concerned, by a person well known by his labours in that cause,
   this is acknowledged to be so. "Believers," saith he, "in great cities
   were not at first divided into parishes, whilst the number of
   Christians was so small that they might well assemble in the same
   place," Ham. Vind., p. 16. [11] Of the believers of one city meeting in
   one place, being one church, we have the like grant, p. 18. "In this
   particular church," he says, "there was one bishop, which had the rule
   of it, and of the believers in the villages adjacent to that city;
   which as it sometimes was not so, Rom. xvi. 5, so for the most part it
   seems to have been the case: and distinct churches, upon the growth of
   the number of believers, were to be erected in several places of the
   vicinage."

   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
   thereunto without any such conjunction to a visible particular church.
   But yet, --

   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, Matt. xviii. 15-17.

   (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, Rev. ii. 7, 11, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22; 1 Cor.
   xi..

   (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,
   Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5.

   (5.) Christ's institution of officers for them, Eph. iv. 11, 1 Cor.
   xii. 28; calling such a church his "body," verse 27; exactly assigning
   to every one his duty in such societies, in respect of the place he
   holds in them; with his care for their preservation from confusion and
   for order, -- evince from whom they are, and what is our duty in
   reference unto 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 part of it, God hath changed
   his way of proceeding, and will now allow the will and prudence of man
   to be the measure and rule of his honour and glory therein, contrary to
   what he did or would allow under the law, is so prejudicial to the
   perfection of the gospel, infinite wisdom and all-sufficiency of
   Christ, and so destructive to the whole obligation of the second
   commandment, having no ground in the Scripture, but being built merely
   on the conceit of men, suited to one carnal interest or other, I shall
   unwillingly debate it. That, as to this particular under consideration,
   there were particular churches instituted by the authority of Jesus
   Christ, owned and approved by him; that officers for them were of his
   appointment, and furnished with gifts from him for the execution of
   their employment; that rules, cautions, and instructions for the due
   settlement of those churches were given by him; that those churches
   were made the only seat of that worship which in particular he
   expressed his will to have continued until he came, -- is of so much
   light in Scripture that he must wink hard that will not see it.

   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 and disposing of things concerning
   them, than these who make them of pure institution, all whose
   circumstances cannot be derived from themselves, as those of things
   purely moral may. But this is not of my present consideration.

   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. Luke i. 33, "He
   shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there
   shall be no end," is pleaded to this purpose; but that any more but the
   spiritual reign of Christ in his catholic church is there intended is
   not proved. Matt. xvi. 18, "Upon this rock will I build my church," is
   also urged; but to intend any but true believers, and that as such, in
   that promise, is wholly to enervate it, and to take away its force and
   efficacy. Matt. xviii. 19, 20, declares the presence of Christ with his
   church wherever it be, not that a church in the regard treated of shall
   be. To the same purpose are other expressions in the Scripture. As I
   will not deny this in general, so I am unsatisfied as to any particular
   instance for the making of it good.

   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, Matt. xviii. 20. It is now
   supposed, with some hope to have it granted, that the Scripture, being
   the "power of God unto salvation," Rom. i. 16, hath a sufficient
   efficacy and energy in itself, as to its own kind, for the conversion
   of souls; yea, let us, till opposition be made to it, take it for
   granted that by that force and efficacy it doth mainly and principally
   evince its own divinity, or divine original. Those who are contented,
   for the honour of that word which God delighteth to magnify, to grant
   this supposition, will not, I hope, think it impossible that though all
   church-state should cease in any place, and yet the Scripture by the
   providence of God be there in the hand of individuals preserved, two or
   three should be called, converted, and regenerated by it. For my part,
   I think he that questions it must do it on some corrupt principle of a
   secondary dependent authority in the word of God as to us; with which
   sort of men I do not now deal. I ask whether these converted persons
   may not possibly come together, or assemble themselves, in the name of
   Jesus? May they not, upon his command, and in expectation of the
   accomplishment of his promise, so come together with resolution to do
   his will, and to exhort one another thereto? Zech. iii. 10; Mal. iii.
   16. Truly, I believe they may, in what part of the world soever their
   lot is fallen. Here lie all the difficulties, whether, being come
   together in the name of Christ, they may do what he hath commanded them
   or no? whether they may exhort and stir up one another to do the will
   of Christ? Most certain it is that Christ will give them his presence,
   and therewithal his authority, for the performance of any duty that he
   requireth at their hands. Were not men angry, troubled, and
   disappointed, there would be little difficulty in this business. But of
   this elsewhere.

   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," Col. iii. 14.

   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 worship of God,
   instituted and appointed to be celebrated in such a church, and to
   perform all the duties and offices of love which, in reference to one
   another, in their respective stations and places, are by God required
   of them, and doing so accordingly, is the union inquired after. See
   Phil. ii. 1-3, iv. 1-3; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Rom. xv. 5, 6.

   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.

   Of these the first is, That the departing or secession of any man or
   men from any particular church, as to that communion which is peculiar
   to such a church, which he or they have had therewith, is nowhere
   called schism, nor is so in the nature of the thing itself (as the
   general signification of the word is restrained by its Scripture use),
   but is a thing to be judged and receive a title according to the causes
   and circumstances of it.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [10] A work published by the Provincial Assembly of London, in 4to,
   1654. -- Ed.

   [11] Dr Hammond's Vindication of the Dissertations concerning
   Episcopacy. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.

   Of the church of England -- The charge of schism in the name thereof
   proposed and considered -- Several considerations of the church of
   England -- In what sense we were members of it -- Of Anabaptism -- The
   subjection due to bishops -- Their power examined -- Its original in
   this nation -- Of the ministerial power of bishops -- Its present
   continuance -- Of the church of England, what it is -- Its description
   -- Form peculiar and constitutive -- Answer to the charge of schism, on
   separation from it in its episcopal constitution -- How and by what
   means it was taken away -- Things necessary to the constitution of such
   a church proposed and offered to proof -- The second way of
   constituting a national church considered -- Principles agreed on and
   consented unto between the parties at variance on this account --
   Judgment of Amyraldus in this case -- Inferences from the common
   principles before consented unto -- The case of schism, in reference to
   a national church in the last sense, debated -- Of particular churches,
   and separation from them -- On what accounts justifiable -- No
   necessity of joining to this or that --Separation from some so called,
   required -- Of the church of Corinth -- The duty of its members --
   Austin's judgment of the practice of Elijah -- The last objection
   waived -- Inferences upon the whole.

   That which first presents itself is a plea against us, in the name of
   the church of England, and those intrusted with the reiglement thereof,
   as it was settled and established some years since; the sum whereof, if
   I mistake not, amounts to thus much:--

   "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 of our souls to be
   found and to abide members of the church of England, to keep with it,
   whilst we live in this world, the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of
   peace." Jerusalem which is above is the mother of us all, and one is
   our Father, which is in heaven; one is our Head, Sovereign, Lord, and
   Ruler, the dearly-beloved of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ. If we
   have grieved, offended, troubled the least member of this church, so
   that he may justly take offence at any of our ways, we profess our
   readiness to lie at his or their feet for reconciliation, according to
   the mind of Christ. If we bear not love to all the members of the
   church of England in this sense, without dissimulation (yea, even to
   them amongst them who, through mistakes and darkness, have on several
   accounts designed our harm and ruin); if we rejoice not with them and
   suffer not with them, however they may be differenced in and by their
   opinions or walkings; if we desire not their good as the good of our
   own souls, and are not ready to hold any communion with them, wherein
   their and our light will give and afford unto us peace mutually; if we
   judge, condemn, despise any of them, as to their persons, spiritual
   state, and condition, because they walk not with us, let us be esteemed
   the vilest schismatics that ever lived on the face of the earth. But as
   to our membership in the church of England on this account, we stand or
   fall to our own Master.

   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 portion of the doctrine of that
   church, which we sacredly retain entire, as the most urgent of our
   present adversaries do. In this sense, I say, we still confess
   ourselves members of the church of England; nor have we made any
   separation from it, but do daily labour to improve and carry on the
   light of the gospel which shines therein, and on the account whereof it
   is renowned in the world.

   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,
   conferred on them, and invested in them, by the laws, customs, and
   usages of this commonwealth; and exercised by them on that account.
   This not only made them barons of the realm and members of parliament,
   and gave them many dignities and privileges, but also was the sole
   fountain and spring of that jurisdiction which they exercised by ways
   and means such as themselves will not plead to have been purely
   ecclesiastical and of the institution of Jesus Christ. In this respect
   we did not cast off our subjection to them, it being our duty to
   "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake."
   Only, whenever they commanded things unlawful in themselves or unto us,
   we always retreated to the old safe rule, "Whether it be right to
   hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." On this foundation, I
   say, was all the jurisdiction which they exercised among and over the
   people of this nation built. They had not leave to exercise that which
   they were invested in on another account, but received formally their
   authority thereby. The tenure whereby their predecessors held this
   power before the Reformation, the change of the tenure by the laws of
   this land, the investiture of the whole original right thereof in
   another person than formerly by the same means, the legal concession
   and delegation to them made, the enlarging or contracting of their
   jurisdiction by the same laws, the civil process of their courts in the
   exercise of their authority, sufficiently evince from whence they had
   it. Nor was any thing herein any more of the institution of Jesus
   Christ than the courts are in Westminster Hall. Sir Edward Coke, who
   knew the laws of his country, and was skilled in them to a miracle,
   will satisfy any in the rise and tenor of episcopal jurisdiction: "De
   jure regis eccles." What there is of primitive institution giving
   colour and occasion to this kind of jurisdiction, and the exercise of
   it, shall farther (God assisting) be declared, when I treat of the
   state of the first churches, and the ways of their degeneracy. Let
   them, or any for them, in the meantime, evince the jurisdiction they
   exercised, in respect whereunto our subjection in the first kind was
   required, to derive its original from the pure institution of Christ in
   the gospel, or to be any such thing as it was, in an imagined
   separation from the human laws whereby it was animated, and more will
   be asserted than I have had the happiness as yet to see. Now, I say
   that the subjection to them due on this account we did not cast off;
   but their whole authority, power, and jurisdiction was removed, taken
   away, and annulled, by the people of the land assembled in parliament.

   "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."

   But do these men know what they say, or will it ever trouble the
   conscience of a man in his right wits to be charged with schism on this
   account? The parliament made alteration of nothing but what they found
   established by the laws of this nation; pleading that they had power
   committed to them to alter, abrogate, and annul laws, for the good of
   the people of the land. If their making alterations in the civil laws
   and constitutions, in the political administrations of the nation, be
   schism, we have very little security but that we may be made new
   schismatics every third year, whilst the constitution of a triennial
   parliament doth continue. In the removal, then, of all episcopal
   jurisdiction, founded on the laws and usages of this nation, we are not
   at all concerned; for the laws enforcing it do not press it as a thing
   necessary on any other account, but as that which themselves gave rise
   and life unto. But should this be granted, that the office was
   appointed by Christ, and the jurisdiction impleaded annexed by him
   thereunto; yet this, whilst we abide at diocesans, with the several
   divisions apportioned to them in the nation, will not suffice to
   constitute a national church, unless some union of those diocesans, or
   of the churches whereunto they related, into one society and church, by
   the same appointment, be proved; which, to my present apprehension,
   will be no easy work for any one to undertake.

   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 and their
   administering the holy ordinances of the gospel in and to their own
   flock,' and whatever else of duty and ratione officii' belongs to a
   rightly-constituted bishop; and let all that have disturbed this
   course, so duly settled in this church, and in all churches of Christ
   since the apostles' planting them, discern their error, and return to
   that peace and unity of the church from whence they have causelessly
   and inexcusably departed."

   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 national church of Christ's appointment; between which,
   indeed, there is no relation or connection. Should I grant, as I said,
   diocesan bishops, with churches answerable to their supportment,
   particled into several congregations, with their inferior officers, yet
   this would be remote enough from giving subsistence and union to a
   national church.

   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
   its participation of the nature of the visible church in the world, on
   the account of its profession of the truth, -- in both which respects
   we profess our unity with it; nor yet from its participation of the
   nature of a particular church, which it did not in itself, nor as such,
   but in some of its particular congregations; but from a peculiar form
   of its own, as above described, which is to be proved to be of the
   institution of Jesus Christ.

   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 authority in the things of the worship of
   God, we entreated them that we might pass our pilgrimage quietly in our
   native country (as Israel would have gone through the land of Edom,
   without the disturbance of its inhabitants), and worship God according
   to the light which he had graciously imparted to us; but they would not
   hearken. But herein also was it our duty to keep the word of Christ's
   patience. Their removal and the dissolution, of this national church
   arose, and was carried on, as hath been declared, by other hands, on
   other accounts.

   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, Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5.)

   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 one, why those of England,
   Scotland, and Ireland were not one also, especially since they have
   been under one civil magistrate? or whether the difference of the civil
   laws of these nations be not the only cause that there are three
   churches? and if so, whether from thence any man may not discern
   whereon the unity of the church of England doth depend?

   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,
   but also from the councils and examples of the first four or five
   centuries; to which she laboured to conform her reformation. Let the
   question now be, Whether there be not corruptions in this church of
   England, supposing such a national church-state to be instituted? what,
   I beseech you, shall bind my conscience to acquiesce in what is pleaded
   from the first four or five centuries, consisting of men that could and
   did err, more than that did hers which was pleaded from the nine or ten
   centuries following? Have not I liberty to call for reformation
   according to the Scripture only? or at least to profess that my
   conscience cannot be bound to any other? The sum is, -- The business of
   schism from the church of England is a thing built purely and simply on
   political considerations, so interwoven with them, so influenced from
   them, as not to be separated. The famous advice of Mæcenas to Augustus,
   mentioned in Dio Cassius, is the best authority I know against it.

   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, which
   is insisted on by some of our brethren of the presbyterian way. This
   is, that such a thing should arise from the particular congregations
   that are in the nation, united by sundry associations and
   subordinations of assemblies in and by the representatives of those
   churches; so that though there cannot be an assembly of all the members
   of those churches in one place for the performance of any worship of
   God, nor is there any ordinance appointed by Christ to be so celebrated
   in any assembly of them (which we suppose necessary to the constitution
   of a particular church), yet there may be an assembly of the
   representatives of them all, by several elevations, for some end and
   purpose.

   "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 to
   krinomenon. 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 Ps. lxxii. 10-12;
   Isa. xlix. 23, lx. 10, 16. That it is foretold and promised that many,
   whole nations, shall be converted to the faith of the gospel, and
   thereby become the people of God, who before were no people, is
   granted; but that their way of worship shall be by national churches,
   governed by lesser and greater assemblies, doth not appear. And when
   the Jews shall be converted, they shall be a national church as England
   is; but their way of worship shall be regulated according to the
   institution of Christ in the gospel. And therefore the publishers of
   the Life of Dr Gouge have expressed his judgment, found in a paper in
   his study, that the Jews on their calling shall be gathered together
   into churches, and not be scattered, as now they are. A nation may be
   said to be converted, from the professed subjection to the gospel of so
   many in it as may give demonstration to the whole; but the way of
   worship for those so converted is peculiarly instituted. It is said,
   moreover, that [as] the several congregations in one city are called a
   "church," as in Jerusalem, Acts viii. 1, xii. 1, 5, xv. 4, 22, so also
   may all the churches in a nation be called a "national church." But
   this is to en arche· nor is that allowed to be made a medium in another
   case, which at the same time is "sub judice" in its own. The like,
   also, may be said of the church of Ephesus, Acts xx. 17; Rev. ii. 1.
   Nor is it about a mere denomination that we contend, but the union and
   form of such a church; and if more churches than one were together
   called a church, it is from their participation of the nature of the
   general visible church, not of that which is particular, and the seat
   of ordinances. So where Paul is said to "persecute the church of God,"
   Gal. i. 13, it is spoken of the professors of the faith of Christ in
   general, and not to be restrained to the churches of Judea, of whom he
   speaks, verses 22, 23, seeing his rage actually reached to Damascus, a
   city of another nation, Acts xxii. 5, 6, and his design was pros to
   genos. That by the "church," mentioned 1 Cor. xii. 28, x. 32, Eph. iii.
   21, is intended the whole visible church of Christ, as made up into one
   body or church, by a collection of all particular churches in the world
   by lesser and greater assemblies (a thing that never was in the world,
   nor ever will be), is denied, and not yet, by any that I know, proved.
   Not that I am offended at the name of the "church of England;" though I
   think all professors, as such, are rather to be called so than all the
   congregations. That all professors of the truth of the gospel,
   throughout the world, are the visible church of Christ, in the sense
   before explained, is granted. So may, on the same account, all the
   professors of that truth in England be called the church of England.
   But it is the institution of lesser and greater assemblies, comprising
   the representatives of all the churches in the world, that must give
   being and union to the visible church in the sense pleaded for,
   throughout the world, or in this nation, and that bound to this
   relation by virtue of the same institution that is to be proved.

   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 from the
   nature of the thing itself. Nor is it pleaded that we are one national
   church, because the people of the nation are generally baptized and do
   profess the true faith; but because the particular congregations in it
   are ruled, and so consequently the whole, by lesser and greater
   assemblies. I suppose it will not be, on second thoughts, insisted on
   that particular congregations, agreeing solemnly in doctrine and
   worship, under one civil government, do constitute a national church;
   for if so, its form and unity as such must be given it merely by the
   civil government.

   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 Moses Amyraldus, the present professor
   of divinity at Saumur; whose words are these that follow:-- "Scio
   nonnunquam appellari particularem ecclesiam communionem, ac veluti
   confoederationem plurium ejusmodi societatum, quas vel ejusdem linguæ
   usus, vel eadem reipublicæ forma" (the true spring of a national
   church), "una cum ejusdem disciplinæ regimine consociavit. Sic
   appellatur ecclesia Gallicana, Anglicana Germanica particularis, ut
   distinguatur ab universali illa Christianorum societate; quæ omnes
   Christiani nominis nationes complectitur. At uti supradiximus, ecclesiæ
   nomen non proprie convenire societati omnium Christianorum, eo modo quo
   convenit particularibus Christianorum coetibus; sic consequens est, ut
   dicamus, eeclesiæ nomen non competere in eam multarum ecclesiarum
   particularium consociationem eodem plane modo. Vocetur ergo certe
   ecclesiarum quæ sunt in Gallia communio inter ipsas, et ecclesia, si
   ecclesia est multarum ecclesiarum confoederatio, non si nomen ecelesiæ
   ex usu Scripturæ sacræ accipiatur. Paulus enim varias ecclesias
   particulares quæ erant in Achaia, ecclesias Achaiæ nuncupat, non
   ecclesiam Achaiæ vel ecclesiam Achaicam," Amyral. Disput. de Ecclesiæ
   Nom. et Defin. Thes. 28.

   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 hiring
   a habitation within such a precinct of ground, we expect not,
   especially considering what is delivered by the chief leaders of them
   with whom now we are treating, whose words are as followeth:-- "We
   grant that living in parishes is not sufficient to make a man a member
   of a particular church. A Turk, or pagan, or idolater, may live within
   the precincts of a parish, and yet be no member of a church. A man
   must, therefore, in order of nature, be a member of the church visible,
   and then, living in a parish and making profession of Christianity, may
   claim admission into the society of Christians within those bounds, and
   enjoy the privileges and ordinances which are there dispensed," Ans. of
   Commit., p. 105. This is also pursued by the authors of Jus Divinum
   Ministerii Anglicani, pp. 9, 10, where, after the repetition of the
   words first mentioned, they add, that "all that dwell in a parish, and
   constantly hear the word, are not yet to be admitted to the
   sacraments;" which excludes them from being "fideles," or
   church-members, and makes them at best as the catechumeni of old, who
   were never esteemed members of the church.

   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 profess, for my
   part, I never knew this case fall out wherein both parties were not
   blamable; -- the person seeking to depart, in making that to be an
   indispensable cause of departure from a church which is far short of
   it; and the church, in not condescending to the man's desire, though
   proceeding from infirmity or temptation. In general, the rule of
   forbearance and condescension in love, which should salve the
   difference, is to give place to the rule of obeying God in all things
   according to our light. And the determining in this case depending on
   circumstances in great variety, both with reference to the church
   offending and the person offended, he that can give one certain rule in
   and upon the whole shall have much praise for his invention. However, I
   am sure this cannot be rationally objected by them who, esteeming all
   parishes, as such, to be churches, do yet allow men on such occasions
   to change their habitations, and consequently their church relations.
   "Men may be relieved by change of dwelling," Subcom. of Div., p. 52.
   And when a man's leaving the ordinary external communion of any
   particular church for his own edification, to join with another whose
   administration he is persuaded, in some things more or fewer, is
   carried on more according to the mind of Christ, is, as such, proved to
   be schism, I shall acknowledge it.

   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 and refusal to subject themselves to this order, not in
   the least liable to the charge of schism, whatever they are who,
   neglecting the great duty of love and forbearance, would by any means
   whatever impose upon them a necessity of so doing; for, besides what
   they have to plead as to the non-institution of any such ordinary
   associations, and investiture of them with power and authority in and
   over the churches, they are not guilty of the disturbance of any order
   wherein they were stated according to the mind of Christ, nor of the
   neglect of any duty of love that was incumbent on them.

   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 with others for that
   end and purpose not living within those precincts? I shall boldly say
   this schism is commanded by the Holy Ghost, 1 Tim. vi. 5; 2 Tim. iii.
   5; Hos. iv. 15. Is this yoke laid upon me by Christ, that, to go along
   with the multitude where I live, that hate to be reformed, I must
   forsake my duty and despise the privileges that he hath purchased for
   me with his own precious blood? Is this a unity of Christ's
   institution, that I must for ever associate myself with wicked and
   profane men in the worship of God, to the unspeakable detriment and
   disadvantage of my own soul?

   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
   instituted according to the mind of Christ, and was not fallen from
   that privilege by any miscarriage, nor had suffered any thing
   destructive to its being; which wholly differences between the case
   proposed, in respect of many particulars, and the instance produced. We
   confess the abuses and evils mentioned had crept into the church; and
   do thence grant that many abuses may do so into any of the best of the
   churches of God. Nor did it ever enter into the heart of any man to
   think that so soon as any disorders fall out or abuses creep into it,
   it is instantly the duty of any to fly out of it, like Paul's mariners
   out of the ship when the storm grew hazardous; it being the duty of all
   the members of such a church, untainted with the evils and corruptions
   of it, upon many accounts, to attempt and labour the remedy of those
   disorders, and rejection of those abuses to the uttermost; which was
   that which Paul advised the Corinthians all and some [12] unto; in
   obedience whereunto they were recovered. But yet this I say, had the
   church of Corinth continued in the condition before described, -- that
   notorious, scandalous sins had gone unpunished, unreproved, drunkenness
   continued and practised in the assemblies, men abiding by the denial of
   the resurrection, so overturning the whole gospel, and the church
   refusing to do her duty, and exercise her authority to cast all those
   disorderly persons, upon their obstinacy, out of her communion, -- it
   had been the duty of every saint of God in that church to have
   withdrawn from it, to come out from among them, and not to have been
   partaker of their sins, unless they were willing to partake of their
   plague also, which on such an apostasy would certainly ensue.

   I confess Austin, in his single book against the Donatists, Post
   Collationem, cap. xx., affirms that Elijah and Elisha communicated with
   the Israelites in their worship, when they were so corrupted as in
   their days, and separated not from their sacraments (as he calls them),
   but only withdrew sometimes for fear of persecution; -- a mistake
   unworthy so great and wise a person as he was. The public worship of
   those ten tribes, in the days of those prophets, was idolatrous,
   erected by Jeroboam, confirmed by a law by Omri, and continued by Ahab.
   That the prophets joined with them in it is not to be imagined. But
   earnestness of desire for the attaining of any end sometimes leaves no
   room for the examination of the mediums, offering their service to that
   purpose.

   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 of
   unity, no order instituted or appointed by Jesus Christ, -- have
   causelessly deserted no station that ever we were in, according to his
   mind; which alone can give countenance to an accusation of this nature.
   That on pure grounds of conscience we have withdrawn, or do withhold
   ourselves from partaking in some ways, engaged into upon mere grounds
   of prudence, we acknowledge.

   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 before a
   clear account can be given of the case stated in this objection; as, --

   (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.


   "Hic labor, hoc opus."

   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 bottom before a full
   resolution can be given to the inquiry couched in this objection,
   which, as I said, to do is not my present business.

   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 received additions
   and aggravations from the disputings and contendings of men, on the one
   hand and the other engaged. What a flood of abominations doth this
   business of schism seem to be, as rolling down to us through the
   writings of Cyprian, Austin, and Optatus, of old, the schoolmen,
   decrees of popish councils, with the contrivances of some among
   ourselves, concerned to keep up the swelled notion of it! Go to its
   rise, and you will find it to be, though bad enough, yet quite another
   thing than what, by the prejudices accruing by the addition of so many
   generations, it is now generally represented to be.

   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
   much success on this account; for let principles and ways be made as
   evident as if he that wrote them carried the sun in his hand, yet
   whilst men are forestalled by prejudices, and have their affections and
   spirits engaged suitably thereunto, no great alteration in their minds
   and ways, on the clearest conviction whatever, is to be expected. All
   our hearts are in the hand of God; and our expectations of what he hath
   promised are to be proportioned to what he can effect, not to what of
   outward means we see to be used.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [12] All and some, a corruption of an Anglo-Saxon phrase, meaning all
   together, one and all. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Doulon Kuriou ou dei machesthai. -- 2 Tim. ii. 24
   Dei ton episkopon anenkleton einai, hos Theou oikonomon, me authade, me
   orgilon, me paroinon, me plekten, me aischrokerde. -- Tit. i. 7

   Oxford: 1657.
     __________________________________________________________________

Prefatory note.

   The preceding treatise was too important to pass without a reply. Dr
   Hammond, engaged at the time in another controversy with Owen,
   respecting the orthodoxy of Grotius, appended to one of his pamphlets
   "A Reply to some Passages of the Reviewer," (Owen), "in his late Book
   on Schism." Giles Firmin, a Nonconformist divine and physician, much
   respected for his personal worth and attainments, published, in 1658, a
   work entitled, "Of Schism, Parochial Congregations, and Ordination by
   Imposition of Hands; wherein Dr Owen's Discovery of the True Nature of
   Schism is briefly and friendly examined." Dr Owen did not feel it
   necessary to offer any reply to these reviews of his work. Mr Daniel
   Cawdrey, however, a Presbyterian minister at Great Billing, in
   Northamptonshire, in a pamphlet entitled "Independency a Great Schism,"
   assailed both the principles and the character of Dr Owen in no very
   measured terms. Much would not have been lost to the world if Cawdrey
   also had been left without an answer; for he does not seem to have
   managed the discussion to any good purpose. Owen very conclusively
   repels the charge of inconsistency with which Cawdrey had reproached
   him, and urges some additional considerations in support of the general
   argument contained in his first treatise on schism. He earnestly
   disclaims the sentiment imputed to him, that he held no church except
   his own to be a true church of Christ, and closes in a strain of calm
   and dignified rebuke to the petty and offensive spirit in which his
   opponent had discussed his statements.

   In the beginning of the second chapter there will be found, what Owen
   very rarely gives us, -- an allusion to his personal history. So far as
   it goes, it is a piece of autobiography replete with interest; for it
   narrates the circumstances in which he was led to embrace
   Congregational views. In the midst of a keen dispute and the heavy
   cares of public life, the heart of our author seems to open to us under
   the remembrances of his youth, and there is some tenderness of feeling
   in the allusion to his father, whom he describes as "a Nonconformist
   all his days, and a painful labourer in the vineyard of the Lord."

   In all his treatises on schism, Owen adheres with steadiness and
   decision to his profession as an Independent. He makes, however, in the
   beginning of the ninth chapter, a statement that deserves some
   attention: "For my part, so we could once agree in the matter of our
   churches, I am under some apprehension that it were no impossible thing
   to reconcile the whole difference as to a Presbyterian church or a
   single congregation,'' p. 258. He intimates that he would "offer, ere
   long, to the consideration of godly men, something that may provoke
   others of better abilities and more leisure to endeavour to carry on so
   good a work." A purpose announced in these terms can hardly be
   restricted to the mere difference in regard to the eldership, of which
   he has been speaking, but must include the whole difference between
   Presbytery and Independency. To have reconciled these two systems, or
   rather the Christians respectively attached to them, would certainly
   have been "a good work," though many will doubt its practicability. The
   sentiment shows, at least, the generous and catholic spirit Owen
   breathed, so superior to the tendency with which weak minds, on such a
   change as he made, are apt to adopt the extreme position in their new
   views. Are those works he published long afterwards, "The Inquiry into
   Evangelical Churches," and "The True Nature of a Gospel Church," in
   which Presbyterians think they find a confirmation of their views on
   some points, a fulfillment of the promise quoted above? Some
   difficulties in understanding them would be explained if they were. --
   Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

To the reader.

   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; which at this day, both in this
   and the neighbour nation, are more and greater than any that our author
   hath as yet been able to find amongst them whom he doth principally
   oppose. As the ensuing sheets were almost wrought off at the press,
   there came to my hand a vindication of that eminent servant of God, Mr
   John Cotton, from the unjust imputations and charge of the reverend
   person with whom I have now to do, written by himself not long before
   his death. The opportunity of publishing that discourse with the
   ensuing being then lost, I thought meet to let the reader know that a
   short season will furnish him with it.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.

   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 I had in weakness maintained, to dispose of
   it, with its issues and events, at his pleasure. I confess, knowing
   several parties to be concerned in an opposition to it, I was not well
   able to conjecture from what hand the first assault of it would arise.
   Probability cast it on them who looked on themselves [as] in the
   nearest proximity of advantage by the common notion of schism opposed.
   The truth is, I did apprehend myself not justly chargeable with want of
   charity, if I thought that opposition would arise from some other
   principles than mere zeal for a supposed truth; and, therefore, took my
   aim in conjecturing at the prejudices that men might fear themselves
   and interests obnoxious unto by a reception and establishment of that
   notion of schism which I had asserted. Men's contentedness to make use
   of their quietness in reference to Popery, Socinianism, Arminianism,
   daily vented amongst us, unless it were in some declamatory expressions
   against their toleration, which cost no more than they are worth,
   shaken off by a speedy engagement against my treatise, confirmed such
   thoughts in me. After, therefore, it had passed in the world for some
   season, and had found acceptance with many learned and godly persons,
   reports began to be raised about a design for a refutation of it. That
   so it should be dealt withal I heard was judged necessary at sundry
   conventions; what particular hand it was likely the task would fall
   upon, judging myself not concerned to know, I did not inquire. When I
   was informed how the disposal of the business did succeed, as I was not
   at all surprised in reference to the party in general from which it did
   issue, so I did relieve myself, under my fears and loathing to be
   engaged in these contests, by these ensuing considerations:-- 1. That I
   was fully persuaded that what I had written was, for the substance of
   it, the truth of God; and being concerned in it only on truth's
   account, if it could be demonstrated that the sentence I had asserted
   was an unlawful pretender thereunto, I should be delivered from paying
   any farther respect or service to that whereunto none at all was due.
   2. That in the treatise itself so threatened, I had laid in provision
   against all contending about words, expressions, collateral assertions,
   deductions, positions, all and every thing, though true, that might be
   separated from the life or substance of the notion or truth pleaded
   for. 3. That whereas the whole weight of the little pile turned on one
   single hinge, and that visible and conspicuous, capable of an ocular
   demonstration as to its confirmation or refutation, I promised myself
   that any man who should undertake the demolishing of it would be so far
   from passing that by, and setting himself to the superstruction, that
   subsists on its single strength and vigour, that indeed finding that
   one thing necessary for him, he would solely attempt that, and therein
   rest. This I knew was evident to any considering person that should but
   view the treatise, that if that foundation were cast down, the whole
   superstructure would fall with its own weight; but if left standing, a
   hundred thousand volumes against the rest of the treatise could not in
   the least prejudice the cause undertaken to be managed in it. Men
   might, indeed, by such attempts, manifest my weakness and want of
   skill, in making inferences and deductions from principles of truth
   wherein I am not concerned, but the truth itself contended for would
   still abide untouched. 4. Having expressly waived man's day and
   judgment, I promised myself security from a disturbance by urging
   against me the authority of any of old or late; supposing that, from
   the eviction of their several interests, I had emancipated myself from
   all subjection to their bare judgments in this cause. 5. Whereas I had
   confined myself to a bare defensative of some, not intending to cast
   others from the place which, in their own apprehensions, they do enjoy
   (unless it was the Roman party), I had some expectations that
   peace-loving, godly men would not be troubled that an apparent immunity
   from a crime was, without their prejudice or disadvantage, manifested
   in behalf of their brethren, nor much pain themselves to re-enforce the
   charge accounted for; so that the bare notion of schism, and the nature
   of it, abstracted from the consideration of persons, would come under
   debate. Indeed, I questioned whether, in that friendly composure of
   affections which, for sundry years, hath been carrying on between sober
   and godly men of the presbyterian and congregational judgment, any
   person of real godliness would interest himself to blow the coal of
   dissension and engage in new exasperations. I confess, I always thought
   the plea of Cicero for Ligarius against Tubero most unreasonable, --
   namely, that if he had told (as he calls it) "an honest and merciful
   lie" in his behalf, yet it was not the part of a man to refel it,
   especially of one who was accused of the same crime; but yet I must
   needs say, a prompt readiness to follow most questionable accusations
   against honest defensatives from good men, unjustly accused by others
   of the same crime, I did not expect. I added this also in my thoughts
   that the facility of rendering a discourse to the purpose on the
   business under consideration was obviated by its being led out of the
   common road, wherein commonplace supplies would be of little use to any
   that should undertake it; not once suspecting that any man of learning
   and judgment would make a return unto it out of vulgar discourses about
   ministers' calling, church-government, or the like. How far these and
   the like considerations might be a relief unto my thoughts, in my fears
   of farther controversial engagements, having the pressure of more
   business upon me than any one man I know of my calling in the whole
   nation, I leave it to the judgment of them who love truth and peace.
   But what little confidence I ought, in the present posture of the minds
   of men, to have placed in any or all of them, the discourse under
   consideration hath instructed me. That any one thing hath fallen out
   according to my expectations and conjectures, but only its being a
   product of the men of the persuasions owned therein, I am yet to seek.
   The truth is, I cannot blame my adversary, "viis et modis," to make
   good the opposition he is engaged in. It concerns him and his advisers
   beyond their interest in the appearing skirts of this controversy.
   Perhaps, also, an adjudged necessity of endeavouring a disreputation to
   my person and writings was one ingredient in the undertaking; if so,
   the whole frame was to be carried on by correspondent mediums. But let
   the principles and motives to this discourse be what they will, it is
   now made public, there being a warmer zeal acting therein than in
   carrying on some other things expected from the same hand.

   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 conscience
   exercised, from the beginning to the ending, as to imputation of any
   thing unto me or upon me, that may serve to help on the design in hand.

   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 believe that there had remained in any one
   godly, sober, judicious person in England, such thoughts of heart in
   reference to our present differences as are visible and legible
   therein.


   "Tantæne animis coelestibus iræ?"

   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 I should be so, that the difference
   between us might be as great as he desired to have it appear to be.

   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 limitation of the subject of the question in that term, "Ecclesia
   Anglicana," which would be found ambiguous and equivocal in the
   disputation, and therefore desired that he would rather supply it with
   "Ecclesiarum Reformatarum," or some other expression of like
   importance; but as to the thing itself aimed at, -- namely, the
   assertion of the ministry of the godly ministers in England, -- I told
   him, and so now do the reverend author of this treatise, that I shall
   as willingly engage in the defence of it, with the lawfulness of their
   churches, as any man whatever. I have only in my treatise questioned
   the institution of a national church, which this author doth not
   undertake to maintain, nor hath the least reason so to do, for the
   asserting of true ministers and churches in England; I mean those of
   the presbyterian way. What satisfaction now this reverend author shall
   judge it necessary for him to give me for the public injury which
   voluntarily he hath done me, in particular for his attempt to expose me
   to the censure and displeasure of so many godly ministers and churches
   as I own in England, as a person denying their ministry and church
   station, I leave it to himself to consider. And by the declaration of
   this mistake, how great a part of his book is waived, as to my
   concernments therein, himself full well knows.

   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 I know of, the peace of
   any one of them, nor separated from them: but having already received
   my punishment, I expect to hear my crime by the next return.

   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 Zuinglius, Luther, Calvin, and
   others, there were, and had been, two estates of men in the world
   professing the name of Christ and the gospel, as to the outward
   profession thereof; -- the one of them in glory, splendour, outward
   beauty, and order, calling themselves the church, the only church in
   the world, the catholic church, -- being in deed and in truth, in that
   state wherein they so prided themselves, the mother of harlots, the
   beast, with his false prophet; the other party, poor, despised,
   persecuted, generally esteemed and called heretics, schismatics, or, as
   occasion gave advantage for their farther reproach, Waldenses,
   Albigenses, Lollards, and the like. As to the claim of a successive
   ordination drawn from the apostles, I made bold to affirm that I could
   not understand the validity of that successive ordination, as
   successive, which was derived down unto us from and by the first party
   of men in the world.

   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
   ministry, as do all their good friends the sectaries;" and that he hath
   much ado to forbear saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." How he doth forbear
   it, having so expressed the frame of his heart towards me, others will
   judge. The Searcher of all hearts knows that I had no design to cast
   dirt on him, or any other godly man's ministry in England. Might not
   another answer have been returned without this wrath? This is so, or it
   is not so, in reference to the ministry of this nation. If it be not
   so, and they plead not their successive ordination from Rome, there is
   an end of this difference. If it be so, can Mr C. hardly refrain from
   calling a man Satan for speaking the truth? It is well if we know of
   what Spirit we are.

   But let us a little farther consider his answer in that place. He
   asketh first, "Why may not this be a sufficient foundation for their
   ministry as well as for their 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 place; it is almost totally composed and made up of
   scornful revilings, reflections, and such other ingredients of the
   whole.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.

   An answer to the appendix of Mr C.'s charge.

   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 the one party nor of
   the other, but were such as occurred to mine own naked consideration of
   things, with relation to some differences that were then upheld in the
   place where I lived. Only, being unacquainted with the congregational
   way, I professed myself to own the other party, not knowing but that my
   principles were suited to their judgment and profession, having looked
   very little farther into those affairs than I was led by an opposition
   to Episcopacy and ceremonies. Upon a review of what I had there
   asserted, I found that my principles were far more suited to what is
   the judgment and practice of the congregational men than those of the
   presbyterian. Only, whereas I had not received any farther clear
   information in these ways of the worship of God, which since I have
   been engaged in, as was said, I professed myself of the presbyterian
   judgment, in opposition to democratical confusion; and, indeed, so I do
   still, and so do all the congregational men in England that I am
   acquainted withal. So that when I compare what then I wrote with my
   present judgment, I am scarce able to find the least difference between
   the one and the other; only, a misapplication of names and things by me
   gives countenance to this charge. Indeed, not long after, I set myself
   seriously to inquire into the controversies then warmly agitated in
   these nations. Of the congregational way I was not acquainted with any
   one person, minister or other; nor had I, to my knowledge, seen any
   more than one in my life. My acquaintance lay wholly with ministers and
   people of the presbyterian way. But sundry books being published on
   either side, I perused and compared them with the Scripture and one
   another, according as I received ability from God. After a general view
   of them, as was my manner in other controversies, I fixed on one to
   take under peculiar consideration and examination, which seemed most
   methodically and strongly to maintain that which was contrary, as I
   thought, to my present persuasion. This was Mr Cotton's book of the
   Keys. The examination and confutation hereof, merely for my own
   particular satisfaction, with what diligence and sincerity I was able,
   I engaged in. What progress I made in that undertaking I can manifest
   unto any by the discourses on that subject and animadversions on that
   book, yet abiding by me. In the pursuit and management of this work,
   quite beside and contrary to my expectation, at a time and season
   wherein I could expect nothing on that account but ruin in this world,
   without the knowledge or advice of, or conference with, any one person
   of that judgment, I was prevailed on to receive that and those
   principles which I had thought to have set myself in an opposition
   unto. And, indeed, this way of impartial examining all things by the
   word, comparing causes with causes and things with things, laying aside
   all prejudicate respects unto persons or present traditions, is a
   course that I would admonish all to beware of who would avoid the
   danger of being made Independents. I cannot, indeed, deny but that it
   was possible I was advantaged in the disquisition of the truth I had in
   hand from my former embracing of the principles laid down in the
   treatise insisted on. Now, being by this means settled in the truth,
   which I am ready to maintain to this reverend and learned author, if he
   or any other suppose they have any advantage hereby against me as to my
   reputation, -- which alone is sought in such attempts as this, -- or if
   I am blamably liable to the charge of inconstancy and inconsistency
   with my own principles, which he thought meet to front his book withal,
   hereupon I shall not labour to divest him of his apprehension, having
   abundant cause to rejoice in the rich grace of a merciful and tender
   Father, that, men seeking occasion to speak evil of so poor a worm,
   tossed up and down in the midst of innumerable temptations, I should be
   found to fix on that which I know will be found my rejoicing in the day
   of the Lord Jesus.

   I am necessitated to 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
   know when and where I may personally wait upon him to be convinced of
   it. In the meantime, so much for that section. In the second, he
   declares what my judgment was in that treatise about the distance
   between pastors and people, and of the extremes that some men on each
   hand run into; and I now tell him that I am of the same mind still, so
   that that note hath little availed him. In the third, he relates what I
   delivered, "That a man not solemnly called to the office of the
   ministry, by any outward call, might do, as to the preaching of the
   gospel in a collapsed church-state." Unto this he makes sundry
   objections, -- that my discourse is dark, not clear, and the like; but
   remembering that his business was not to confute that treatise only,
   but to prove from it my inconstancy and inconsistency with myself, he
   says I am changed from what I then delivered. This is denied; I am
   punctually of the same judgment still. But he proves the contrary by a
   double argument:-- 1. "Because I have renounced my ordination;" 2.
   "Because I think now, that not only in a complete church-state, but
   when no such thing can be charged, gifts and consent of the people are
   enough to make a man a preacher in office;" -- both untrue and false in
   fact. I profess I am astonished to think with what frame of spirit,
   what neglect of all rules of truth and love, this business is managed.
   In the fourth section, he chargeth me to have delivered somewhat in
   that treatise about the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in
   believers; and my words to that purpose are quoted at large. What then?
   am I changed in this also? No; but "that is an error, in the judgment
   of all that be orthodox." But that is not the business in hand, but the
   alteration of my judgment; wherefore he makes a kind of exposition upon
   my words in that treatise, to show that I was not then of the mind that
   I have now delivered myself to be of in my book of schism. But I could
   easily answer the weakness of his exceptions and pretended expositions
   of my former assertions, and evidence my consistency in judgment with
   myself in this business ever since. But this, he saith, is an error
   which he gathered out of my book of schism; and somebody hath sent him
   word from Oxford that I preached the same doctrine at St Mary's. I wish
   his informer had never more deceived him. It is most true I have done
   so, and since printed at large what then I delivered, with sundry
   additions thereunto; and if this reverend author shall think good to
   examine what I have published on that account (not in the way in this
   treatise proceeded in, which in due time will be abhorred of himself
   and all good men, but with candour, and a spirit of Christian ingenuity
   and meekness), I shall acknowledge myself obliged to him. And, in the
   meantime, I desire him to be cautious of large expressions concerning
   all the orthodox, to oppose that opinion, seeing evidences of the
   contrary lie at hand in great plenty; and let him learn from hence how
   little his insulting in his book on this account is to be valued. Sect.
   5, he shows that I then proved "the name of priests not to be proper,
   or to be ascribed to the ministers of the gospel; but that now" (as is
   supposed in scorn) "I call the ministers of their particular
   congregations parochial priests." Untrue! In the description of the
   prelatical church, I showed what they esteemed and called "parish
   ministers" amongst them. I never called the presbyterian ministers of
   particular congregations "parochial priests." Love, truth, and peace;
   these things ought not thus to be. Sect. 6, he labours to find some
   difference in the tendency of several expressions in that treatise;
   which is not at all to the purpose in hand, nor true, as will appear to
   any that shall read the treatise itself. In sect. 7-11, he takes here
   and there a sentence out of the treatise and examines it, interlacing
   his discourse with untrue reflections, surmises, and prognostications,
   and in particular, pp. 238, 239. But what doth all this avail him in
   reference to his design in hand? Not only before, but even since his
   exceptions to the things then delivered, I am of the same mind that I
   was, without the least alteration; and in the reviewing of what I had
   then asserted, I find nothing strange to me but the sad discovery of
   what frame of spirit the charge proceeded from. Sect. doth the whole
   work; there I acknowledge myself to be of the presbyterian judgment,
   and not of the independent or congregational! Had this reverend author
   thought meet to have confined his charge to this one quotation, he had
   prevented much evil that spreads itself over the rest of his discourse,
   and yet have attained the utmost of what he can hope for from the
   whole; and hereof I have already given an account. But he will yet
   proceed, and, sect. 13, inform his reader that in that treatise I aver
   that two things are required in a teacher, as to formal ministerial
   teaching, -- 1. Gifts from God; 2. Authority from the church. Well!
   what then? I am of the same mind still. But now "I cry down ordination
   by presbytery." "What! and is not this a great alteration and sign of
   inconstancy?" Truly, sir, there is more need of humiliation in yourself
   than triumphing against me, for the assertion is most untrue, and your
   charge altogether groundless; which I desire you would be satisfied in,
   and not be led any more, by evil surmises, to wrong me and your own
   soul. He adds, sect. 14, two cautions, which in that treatise I give to
   private Christians in the exercise of their gifts; and closeth the last
   of them with a juvenile epiphonema, divinely spoken, and like a true
   Presbyterian. And yet there is not one word in either of these cautions
   that I do not still own and allow; which confirms the unhappiness of
   the charge. Of all that is substantial in any thing that follows, I
   affirm the same as to all that which is gone before. Only, as to the
   liberty to be allowed unto them which meet in private, who cannot in
   conscience join in the celebration of public ordinances as they are
   performed amongst us, I confess myself to be otherwise minded at
   present than the words there quoted by this author do express. But this
   is nothing to the difference between Presbytery and Independency. And
   he that can glory that in fourteen years he hath not altered or
   improved in his conception of some things of no greater importance than
   that mentioned shall not have me for his rival. And this is the sum of
   Mr C.'s appendix; the discourse whereof being carried on with such a
   temper of spirit as it is, and suited to the advantage aimed at by so
   many evil surmises, false suggestions, and uncharitable reflections, I
   am persuaded the taking of that pains will one day be no joy of heart
   unto him.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.

   A review of the charger's preface.

   His first chapter consists, for the most part, in a repetition of my
   words, or so much of the discourse of my first chapter as he could
   wrest, by cutting off one and another 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 deuterai phrontides 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. Mr C. knows how easy it
   were to make his own words dress him up in all those ornaments wherein
   he labours to make me appear in the world, by such glosses, inversions,
   additions, and interpositions, as he is pleased to make use of; but
   "meliora speramus." Such particulars as seem to be of any importance to
   our business in hand may be remarked as we pass through it. Page 1, he
   tells us the Donatists had two principles, -- "l. That they were the
   only church of Christ, in a corner of Africa; and left no church in the
   world but their own. 2. That none were truly baptized, or entered
   members of the church of Christ, but by some minister of their party."
   These principles, he says, are again improved by men of another party,
   whom, though yet he name not, it is evident whom he intends; and, p. 3,
   he requires my judgment of those principles.

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

   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 acknowledge my mistake: and I assure
   him I am heartily sorry that I was mistaken; it will not be somebody's
   joy one day that I was so. He seems to be offended with my notion of
   schism, because, if it be true, it will carry it almost out of the
   world, and bless the churches with everlasting peace. He tells me that
   a learned doctor said "my book was one great schism." I hope that is
   but one doctor's opinion, because, being nonsense, it is not fit it
   should be entertained by many. In the process of his discourse he culls
   out sundry passages, delivered by me in reference to the great
   divisions and differences that are in the world among men professing
   the name of Christ, and applies them to the difference between the
   Presbyterians and Independents, with many notable lashes in his way,
   when they were very little in my thoughts; nor are the things spoken by
   me in any tolerable measure applicable to them. I suppose no rational
   man will expect that I should follow our reverend author in such ways
   and paths as these; it were easy, in so doing, to enter into an endless
   maze of words to little purpose, and I have no mind to deal with him as
   he hath done by me. I like not the copy so well as to write by it. So
   his first chapter is discussed and forgiven.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.

   Of the nature of schism.

   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 he,
   "schism may be in and about other matter besides instituted worship."

   What measure I am to expect for the future from this entrance or
   beginning is not hard to conjecture. The truth is, the reverend author
   understood me not at all in what I affirmed. I say not that 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 John vii. 43, "There was a schism among the people." It is not
   pretended that here was any separation. Acts xiv. 4, "The multitude of
   the city was divided," -- that is, in their judgment about the apostles
   and their doctrine; but not only so, for hoi men esan is spoken of
   them, which expresses their separation into parties. What weight this
   new criticism is like to find with others, I know not: for my part, I
   know the words enforce not the thing aimed at, and the utmost that
   seems to be intended by that expression is the siding of the multitude,
   some with one, some with another, whilst they were all in a public
   commotion; nor doth the context require any more. The same is the case,
   Acts xxiii. 7, where the Pharisees and Sadducees were divided about
   Paul, whilst abiding in the place where the sanhedrim sat, being
   divided into parties long before. And in the testimony cited in my
   margin for the use of the word in other authors, the author makes even
   that diemeristhesan eis ta mere to stand in opposition only to
   homonoesan, -- nor was it any more. There was not among the people of
   Rome such a separation as to break up the corporation or to divide the
   government, as is known from the story. The place of his own producing,
   Acts xix. 9, proves, indeed, that then and there there was a
   separation; but, as the author confesses in the margin, the word there
   used to express it hath no relation to schisma. Applied to
   ecclesiastical things, the reverend author confesses with me that the
   word is only used in 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19; and, therefore, that from
   thence the proper use and importance of it is to be learned. Having
   laid down the use of the word, to denote difference of mind and
   judgment, with troubles ensuing thereupon, amongst men met in some one
   assembly, about the compassing of a common end and design, I proceed to
   the particular accommodation of it to church-rents and schism, in that
   solitary instance given of it in the church of Corinth. What says our
   author hereunto? Says he, p. 26, "This is a forestalling the reader's
   judgment by a mere begging of the thing in question. As it hath in part
   been proved from the Scripture itself, where it is used for separation
   into parties in the political use of the word, why it may not so be
   used in the ecclesiastical sense, I see no reason." But if this be the
   way of begging the question, I confess I know not what course to take
   to prove what I intend. Such words are used sometimes in warm disputes
   causelessly; it were well they were placed where there is some pretence
   for them. Certainly they will not serve every turn. Before I asserted
   the use of the word, I instanced in all the places where it is used,
   and evinced the sense of it from them. If this be begging, it is not
   that lazy trade of begging which some use, but such as a man had as
   good professedly work as follow. How well he hath disproved this sense
   of the word from Scripture we have seen. I am not concerned in his
   seeing no reason why it may not be used in the ecclesiastical sense,
   according to his conception; my inquiry was how it was used, not how it
   might be used in this reverend author's judgment. And this is the
   substance of all that is offered to overthrow that principle, which, if
   it abide and stand, he must needs confess all his following pains to be
   to no purpose, "He sees no reason but it may be as he says!"

   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 design? I doubt
   whether his own be free therefrom." If any testimony may remove his
   scruple, I assure him, through the grace of God, hitherto it hath been
   so, and I hope it is so with multitudes of other churches; those with
   whom it is otherwise, it will appear at last to be more or less
   blamable on the account of schism.

   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, even as many as
   are the times wherein they solemnly assemble.

   2. I supposed I had proved that it was "only one congregation," that
   used to assemble in one place, that the apostle charged this crime
   upon; and that this reverend author was pleased to overlook what 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 not there was no
   such thing, but that there was no mention of any such thing; for though
   it be as clear as the noonday that indeed there was no such thing, it
   sufficeth my purpose that there was no mention of any such thing, and
   therefore no such thing reproved under the name of schism. With this
   one observation I might well dismiss the whole ensuing treatise, seeing
   of how little use it is like to prove as to the business in hand, when
   the author of it indeed apprehends not the principle which he pretends
   to oppose. I shall once more tell him, that he abide not in his
   mistake, that if he intend to evert the principle here by me insisted
   on, it must be by a demonstration that the schism charged on the
   Corinthians by Paul consisted in the separation from, and
   relinquishment of, that church whereof they were members, and
   congregating into another not before erected or established; for this
   is that which the reformed churches are charged to do by the Romanists
   in respect of their churches, and accused of schism thereupon. But the
   differences which he thinks good to manage and maintain with and
   against the Independents do so possess the thoughts of this reverend
   author, that whatever occurs to him is immediately measured by the
   regard which it seems to bear, or may possibly bear, thereunto, though
   that consideration were least of all regarded in its proposal.

   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." [13] Hereunto our author variously replies, and says,
   first, "Was this all? were not separations made, if not from that
   church, yet in that church, as well as divisions? Let the Scripture
   determine. 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4, I am a disciple of Paul,' said one,
   And I a disciple of Apollos,' said another. In our language, I am a
   member of such a minister's congregation,' says one; Such a man for my
   money;' and so a third. And hereupon they most probably separated
   themselves into such and such congregations; and is not separation the
   ordinary issue of such envyings?"

   I doubt not but that our reverend author supposeth that he hath here
   spoken to the purpose and matter in hand; and so, perhaps, may some
   others think also. I must crave leave to enter my dissent upon the
   account of the 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 the
   name of schism, but such a separation from the church as was before
   described. 2. The disputes amongst them about Paul and Apollos, the
   instruments of their conversion, cannot possibly be supposed to relate
   unto ministers of distinct congregations among them. Paul and Apollos
   were not so, and could not be figures of them that were; so that those
   expressions do not at all answer those which he is pleased to make
   parallel unto them. 3. Grant all this, yet this proves nothing to the
   cause in hand. Men may cry up, some the minister of one congregation,
   some of another, and yet neither of them separate from the one or
   other, or the congregations themselves fall into any separation.
   Wherefore, 4. He says, "Probably they separated into such and such
   congregations." But this is most improbable; for -- (1.) There is no
   mention at all of those many congregations that are supposed; but
   rather the contrary, as I have declared, is expressly asserted. (2.)
   There is no such thing mentioned or intimated; nor, (3.) Are they in
   the least rebuked for any such thing, though the forementioned
   differences, which are a less evil, are reproved again and again under
   the name of schism. So that this most improbable improbability, or
   rather vain conjecture, is a very mean refuge and retreat from the
   evidence of express Scripture; which in this place is alone inquired
   after. Doth, indeed, the reverend author think, will he pretend so to
   do, that the holy apostle should so expressly, weightily, and earnestly
   reprove their dissensions in the church whereof they were members, and
   yet not speak one word or give the least intimation of their separation
   from the church, had there indeed been any such thing? I dare leave
   this to the conscience of the most partially addicted person under
   heaven to the author's cause, who hath any conscience at all; nor dare
   I dwell longer on the confutation of this fiction, though it be, upon
   the matter, the whole of what I am to contend withal. But he farther
   informs us that "there was a separation to parties in the church of
   Corinth, at least as to one ordinance of the Lord's supper, as appears
   chap. xi. 18, 20-22; and this was part of their schism, verse 16. And
   not long after they separated into other churches, slighting and
   undervaluing the first ministers and churches as nothing, or less pure
   than their own; which we see practised sufficiently at this day." Ans.
   Were not this the head and seat of the first part of the controversy
   insisted on, I should not be able to prevail with myself to cast away
   precious time in the consideration of such things as these, being
   tendered as suitable to the business in hand. It is acknowledged that
   there were differences amongst them, and disorders in the
   administration of the Lord's supper; that therein they used "respect of
   persons," -- as the place quoted in the margin by our author, James ii.
   1-4, manifests that they were ready to do in other places. The disorder
   the apostle blames in the administration of the ordinance was, "when
   they came together in the church," 1 Cor. xi. 18, when they "came
   together in one place," verse 20, there they "tarried not one for
   another," as they ought, verse 33, but coming unprepared, some having
   eaten before, some being hungry, verse 21, all things were managed with
   great confusion amongst them, verse 22. And if this prove not that the
   schism they were charged withal consisted in a separation from that
   church with which they came together in one place, we are hopeless of
   any farther evidence to be tendered to that purpose. That there were
   disorders amongst them in the celebration of the Lord's supper is
   certain; that they separated into several congregations on that
   account, or one from another, or any from all, is not, in the least
   intimation, signified; but the plain contrary shines in the whole state
   of things, as there represented. Had that been done, and had so to do
   been such an evil as is pleaded (as causelessly to do it is no small
   evil), it had not passed unreproved from him who was resolved, in the
   things of God, not to "spare" them. 2. That they afterward fell into
   the separation aimed at to be asserted our reverend author affirms,
   that so he may make way for a reflection on the things of his present
   disquietment. But as we are not as yet concerning ourselves in what
   they did afterward, so when we are, we shall expect somewhat more than
   bare affirmations for the proof of it, being more than ordinarily
   confident that he is not able, from the Scripture, nor any other story
   of credit, to give the least countenance to what he here affirms. But
   now, as if the matter were well discharged, when there hath not one
   word been spoken that in the least reaches the case in hand, he saith,
   -- 3. "By way of supposition that there was but one single congregation
   at Corinth, yet," saith he, "the apostle dehorts the brethren from
   schism, and writes to more than the church of Corinth, chap. i. 2."
   Ans. I have told him before, that though I am full well resolved that
   there was but one single congregation at Corinth in those days, yet I
   am not at all convinced, as to the proposition under confirmation, to
   assert any such thing, but will suppose the church to be of what kind
   my author pleaseth, whilst he will acknowledge it to be the particular
   church of Corinth. I confess the apostle dehorts the brethren from
   schism, even others as well as those at Corinth, -- so far as the
   church of God, in all places and ages, is concerned in his instructions
   and dehortations, -- when they fall under the case stated, parallel
   with that which is the ground of his dealing with them at Corinth. But
   what that schism was from which he dehorts them, he declares only in
   the instance of the church of Corinth; and thence is the measure of it
   to be taken in reference to all dehorted from it. Unto the third
   observation added by me he makes no return, but only lays down some
   exceptions to the exemplification given of the whole matter, in another
   schism that fell out in that church about forty years after the
   composure of this, which was the occasion of that excellent epistle
   unto them from the church of Rome, called the epistle of Clement,
   dissuading them from persisting in that strife and contention, and
   pressing them to unity and agreement among themselves. Some things our
   reverend author offers as to this instance, but so as that I cannot but
   suppose that he consulted not the epistle on this particular occasion;
   and therefore now I desire him that he would do so, and I am persuaded
   he will not a second time give countenance to any such apprehension of
   the then state of the church, as though there were any separation made
   from it by any of the members thereof doing or suffering the injury
   there complained of, about which those differences and contentions
   arose. I shall not need to go over again the severals of that epistle.
   One word mentioned by myself, namely, metegagete, he insists on, and
   informs us that it implies a separation into other assemblies; which,
   he says, I waived to understand. I confess I did so in this place; and
   so would he also, if he had once consulted it. The speech of the church
   of Rome is there to the church of Corinth, in reference to the elders
   whom they had deposed. The whole sentence is, Horomen gar hoti henious
   humeis metegagete kalos politeuomenous ek tes amemptos autois
   tetimemenes leitourgias· and the words immediately going before are,
   Makarioi hoi proodoiporesantes presbuteroi hoitines enkarpon kai
   teleian eschon ten analusin, ou gar eulabountai me tis autous metastese
   apo tou hidrumenou autois topou· then follows that horomen gar. Our
   author, I suppose, understands Greek, and so I shall spare my pains of
   transcribing Mr Young's Latin translation, or adding one in English of
   mine own; and if he be pleased to read these words, I think we shall
   have no more of his metegagete.

   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, as he
   thinks, their concernment doth lie. Had it not been for some such
   prejudice (for I am unwilling to ascribe it to more blamable
   principles), it would have been almost impossible that he should have
   once imagined that he had made the least attempt towards the eversion
   of what I had asserted, much less that he had made good the title of
   his book, though he scarce forgets it, or any thing concerning it but
   its proof, in any one whole leaf of his treatise. It remains, then,
   that the nature and notion of schism, as revealed and described in the
   Scripture, was rightly fixed in my former discourse; and I must assure
   this reverend author that I am not affrighted from the embracing and
   maintaining of it with those scare-crows of "new light," "singularity,"
   and the like, which he is pleased frequently to set up to that purpose.
   The discourse that ensues in our author concerning a parity of reason,
   to prove that if that be schism, then much more is separation so, shall
   afterward, if need be, be considered, when I proceed to show what yet
   farther may be granted without the least prejudice of truth, though
   none can necessitate me to recede from the precise notion of the name
   and thing delivered in the Scripture. I confess I cannot but marvel
   that any man undertaking the examination of that treatise, and
   expressing so much indignation at the thoughts of my discourse that
   lieth in this business, should so slightly pass over that whereon he
   knew I laid the great weight of the whole. Hath he so much as
   endeavoured to prove that that place to the Corinthians is not the only
   place wherein there is, in the Scripture, any mention of schism in an
   ecclesiastical sense, or that the church of Corinth was not a
   particular church? Is any thing of importance offered to impair the
   assertion, that the evil reproved was within the verge of that church,
   and without separation from it? And do I need any more to make good to
   the utmost that which I have asserted? But of these things afterward.

   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 whole foundation of it
   is taken away; wrests many of my expressions, -- as that in particular,
   in not making the matter of schism to be things relating to the worship
   of God, -- to needless discourses about doctrine and discipline, not
   apprehending what I intended by that expression, of "the worship of
   God;" and I suppose it not advisable to follow him in such
   extravagancies. The usual aggravations of schism he thought good to
   re-enforce; whether he hoped that I would dispute with him about them I
   cannot tell. I shall now assure him that I will not, though, if I may
   have his good leave to say so, I lay much more weight on those insisted
   on by myself, wherein I am encouraged by his approbation of them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [13] 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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.

   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 separation in judgment in a church be a schism, much
   more to separate from a church." But our question is about the precise
   notion of the word in Scripture, and consequences from thence, not
   about consequents from the nature of things; concerning which, if our
   author had been pleased to have stayed a while, he would have found me
   granting as much as he could well desire. 3. 1 John ii. 19 is
   sacrificed, ametria tes antholkes, and interpreted of schism; where (to
   make one venture in imitation of our author) all orthodox interpreters
   and writers of controversies expound it of apostasy, neither will the
   context or arguing of the apostle admit of another exposition. Men's
   wresting of Scripture to give countenance to inveterate errors is one
   of their worst concomitants. So, then, that separation from churches is
   oftentimes evil is readily granted. Of what nature that evil is, with
   what are the aggravations of it, a judgment is to be made from the
   pleas and pretences that its circumstances afford. So far as it
   proceeds from such dissensions as before were mentioned, so far it
   proceeds from schism; but in its own nature, absolutely considered, it
   is not so.

   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 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 rules and principles as are given us for
   that end and purpose." Such is my meanness of apprehension, that I
   could not understand but that either this assertion must be subscribed
   unto as of irrefragable verity, or else that instances to the contrary
   must have been given out of the Scripture; for on that hinge alone doth
   this present controversy (and that by consent) turn itself. But our
   reverend author thinks good to take another course (for which his
   reasons may easily be conjectured), and excepts against the assertion
   itself in general, first, as "ambiguous and fallacious," and then also
   intimates that he will scan the words in particular. "Mihi jussa
   capessere [fas est]." 1. He says that, "I tell not whether a man may
   separate where there is corruption in some one of these only, or in all
   of them; nor, 2. How far some or all of these must be corrupted before
   we separate." Ans. This is no small vanity under the sun, that men will
   not only measure themselves by themselves, but others also by their own
   measure. Our author is still with his finger in the sore, and therefore
   supposes that others must needs take the same course. Is there any
   thing in my assertion whether a man may separate from any church or no?
   any thing upon what corruption he may lawfully so do? any thing of
   stating the difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Independents? do I
   at all fix it on this foot of account when I come so to do? I humbly
   beg of this author, that if I have so obscurely and intricately
   delivered myself and meaning that he cannot come to the understanding
   of my design nor import of my expressions, he would favour me with a
   command to explain myself before he engage into a public refutation of
   what he doth not so clearly apprehend. Alas! I do not in this place in
   the least intend to justify any separation, nor to show what pleas are
   sufficient to justify a separation, nor what corruption in the church
   separated from is necessary thereunto, nor at all regard the
   controversy his eye is always on; but only declare what is not
   comprised in the precise Scripture notion of schism, as also how a
   judgment is to be made of that which is so by me excluded, whether it
   be good or evil. Would he have been pleased to have spoken to the
   business in hand, or any thing to the present purpose, it must not have
   been by an inquiry into the grounds and reasons of separation, how far
   it may be justified by the plea mentioned, or how far not; when that
   plea is to be allowed, and when rejected; but this only was incumbent
   on him to prove, -- namely, that such a separation upon that plea, or
   the like, is called schism in the Scripture, and as such a thing
   condemned. What my concernment is in the ensuing observations, that
   "the Judaical church was as corrupt as ours, -- that if a bare plea,
   true or false, will serve to justify men, all separatists may be
   justified," he himself will easily perceive. But, however, I cannot but
   tell him by the way, that he who will dogmatize in this controversy
   from the Judaical church, and the course of proceedings amongst them,
   to the direction and limitation of duty as to the churches of the
   gospel, -- considering the vast and important differences between the
   constitutions of the one and the other, with the infallible obligation
   to certain principles, on the account of the typical institution in
   that primitive church, when there neither was nor could be any more in
   the world, -- must expect to bring other arguments to compass his
   design than the analogy pretended. [As] for the justification of
   separatists of the reason, if it will ensue upon the examination for
   separation, and the circumstances of the separating, whereunto I refer
   them, let it follow, and let who will complain.

   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 Independency always before his eyes,
   we shall scarce speak "ad idem" in this whole discourse. I desire,
   then, that he would take notice, that as the state of the controversy
   he proposes doth no more relate to that which peculiarly is pretended
   to lie under his consideration than any other thing whatever that he
   might have mentioned; so when the peculiar difference between him and
   the Independents comes to be managed, scarce any one term of his state
   will be allowed.

   Exceptions are, in the next place, attempted to be put in to my
   assertion, that there is no example in the Scripture of any one
   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.'' [14] I grant the Roman church, on a
   supposition that it is a church (which yet I utterly deny), to be a
   schismatical church, upon the account of the intestine divisions of all
   sorts; on what other accounts other men urge them with the same guilt,
   I suppose he knows by this that I am not concerned. Having finished
   this exploit, because I had said "if I were unwilling I did not
   understand how I might be compelled to carry on the notion of schism
   any farther," he tells me, "though I be unwilling, he doubts not but to
   be able to compel me." But who told him I was unwilling so to do? Do I
   not immediately, without any compulsion, very freely fall upon the
   work? Did I say I was unwilling? Certainly it ought not to be thus. Of
   his abilities in other things I do not doubt; in this discourse he is
   pleased to exercise more of something else.

   There is but one passage more that needs to be remarked, and so this
   chapter also is dismissed. He puts in a caveat, that I limit not 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 my ground. If he
   judge I cannot, let him command my personal attendance on him at any
   time, to be driven from it by him. Let him by any means prove against
   me, at any time, a breach of any union instituted by Jesus Christ, and
   I will promise him that with all speed I will retreat from that state
   or thing whereby I have so done. I must profess to this reverend author
   that I like not the cause he manages one whit the better for the way
   whereby he manageth it. We had need watch and pray that we be not led
   into temptation, seeing we are in some measure not ignorant of the
   vices of Satan.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [14] "I am cast to the ground, I own myself conquered." -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.

   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 diairesis
   henotetos, "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 it doth consist, it is necessary
   that we find out what that union is, and wherein it doth consist,
   whereof it is the breach and interruption, or is supposed so to be,
   over and above the breach above mentioned and described. Now, this
   union being the union of the church, the several acceptations of the
   "church" in Scripture are to be investigated, that the union inquired
   after may be made known. The "church" in Scripture being taken either
   for the church catholic, or the whole number of elect believers in the
   world (for we lay aside the consideration of that part of this great
   family of God which is already in heaven from this distinction), or
   else for the general visible body of those who profess the gospel of
   Christ, or for a particular society joining together in the celebration
   of the ordinances of the New Testament instituted by Christ, to be so
   celebrated by them, the union of it, with the breach of that union in
   these several respects, with the application of the whole to the
   business under consideration, was to be inquired after; which also was
   performed.

   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, Matt. xvi. 18,
   "Upon this rock I will build my church," to the church in this sense;
   which he concludes to belong to the visible church of professors. Now,
   as I am not at all concerned, as to the truth of what I am in
   confirmation of, to which of these it be applied, so I am far from
   being alone in that application of it to the catholic church which I
   insist upon. All our divines that from hence prove the perseverance of
   all individual believers, -- as all do that I have met withal who write
   on that subject, -- are of the same mind with me. Moreover, the church
   is built on this rock in its individuals, or I know not how it is so
   built. The building on Christ doth not denote a mere relation of a
   general body to his truth, that it shall always have an existence, but
   the union of the individuals with him, in their being built on him, to
   whom the promise is made. I acknowledge it for as unquestionable a
   truth as any we believe, that Christ hath had, and ever shall have, to
   the end of the world; a visible number of those that profess his name
   and subjection to his kingdom, because of the necessary consequence of
   profession upon believing; but that that truth is intended in this
   promise, any farther but in respect of this consequence, I am not
   convinced. And I would be loath to say that this promise is not made to
   every particular believer, and only unto them, being willing to
   vindicate to the saints of God all those grounds of consolation which
   he is so willing they should be made partakers of.

   As to the union of this church and 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.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.

   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 that in his reply he now knows how to order
   his affairs, so as to be freed from the trouble of a rejoinder.

   His first attempt in this chapter is upon a short discourse of mine in
   my 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 Mr Hooker of New England, which he could not but note by the way,
   although he approves what I affirm. A worthy note! as though all the
   brethren of the presbyterian way were agreed among themselves in all
   things of the like importance, or that I were in my judgment inthralled
   to any man or men, so that it should deserve a note when I dissent from
   them. Truly, I bless God I am utterly unacquainted with any such frame
   of spirit or bondage of mind as must be supposed to be in them whose
   dissent from other men is a matter of such observation. One is my
   Master, to whom alone my heart and judgment are in subjection. For the
   latter, I do not say absolutely that particular churches are not the
   parts of the catholic visible [church] in any sense, but that they are
   not so parts of it as such, so that it should be constituted and made
   up by them and of them, for the order and purpose of an instituted
   church, for the celebration of the worship of God and institutions of
   Christ, according to the gospel; which when our author proves that it
   is, I shall acknowledge myself obliged to him. He says, indeed, that
   "it was once possible that all the members of the catholic church
   should meet together to hear one sermon," etc. But he is to prove that
   they were bound to do so as that catholic church, and not that it was
   possible for all the members of it under any other notion or
   consideration so to convene. But he says they are bound to do so still,
   but that the multitude makes it impossible. "Credat Apella," that
   Christ hath bound his church to that which himself makes impossible!
   Neither are they so bound. They are bound, by his own acknowledgment,
   to be members of particular churches; and in that capacity are they
   bound so to convene, those churches being, by the will of God,
   appointed for the seat of ordinances. And so what he adds in the next
   place, of particular churches being bound, according to the institution
   of Christ, to assemble for the celebration of ordinances, is absolutely
   destructive of the former figment. But he would know a reason why forty
   or more, that are not members of one particular church, but only of the
   catholic, meeting together, may not join together in all ordinances, as
   well as they may meet to hear the word preached, and often do. To which
   I answer, that it is because Jesus Christ hath appointed particular
   churches, and there is more required to them than the occasional
   meeting of some, any, or all if possible, of the members of the
   catholic church, as such, will afford.

   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 the
   things mentioned are revealed in the gospel. Only, as to the
   celebrating of the same numerical ordinances, I cannot grant that they
   are obliged hereunto, as formally considered members of that church;
   nor shall, until our reverend author shall think meet to prove that
   particular congregations are not the institutions of Jesus Christ. But
   hereupon he affirms that that is a strange assertion used by me, p. 117
   [p. 139], namely, "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." This is no more but what was declared before,
   nor more than what I urged the testimony of a learned Presbyterian for;
   no more but this, that the universality of Christians throughout the
   world are not, under such an institution as that, to assemble together
   for the celebration of the same numerical ordinances, the pretence of
   any such institution being supplied by Christ's acknowledged
   institution of particular churches for that purpose.

   What I have offered in my treatise as evidence that Protestants are not
   guilty of the breach of this union, and that where any are, their
   crime, is not 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, Acts xix. 2, and yet they kept
   the union of the catholic church. And yet our author, before he closeth
   this chapter, will charge the breach of this union on some whose errors
   cannot well be apprehended to lie in the denial of any necessary truth
   of the gospel that is indispensably necessary to salvation! As to his
   instance of the apostles, he knows it is one thing not to know clearly
   and distinctly for some season some truths "in hypothesi," and another
   to deny them, being sufficiently; and clearly revealed "in thesi." And
   for those in the Acts, it is probable they were ignorant of the
   dispensations of the Holy Ghost, with his marvellous effects under the
   gospel, rather than of the person of the Holy Ghost; for even in
   respect of the former, it is absolutely said that "the Holy Ghost was
   not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." I shall not pursue
   his other exceptions, being sorry that his judgment leads him to make
   them; that which alone bears any aspect to the business in hand, he
   insists on, p. 99, in these words: "I have intimated, and partly
   proved, that there may be a breach of union with respect to the
   catholic church upon other considerations" (namely, besides the
   renunciation of the profession of the gospel); "as, first, There is a
   bond that obliges every member of this church to join together in
   exercising the same ordinances of worship. When, then, any man shall
   refuse to join with others, or refuse others to join with him, here is
   a breach of love and union among the members of the catholic church,
   and in the particular churches, as parts of the catholic."

   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 "if
   the catholic church be a political body, it must have a visible
   political head," which nothing but the pope claims to be. Of this he
   says, -- "1. There is no necessity; for," saith he, "he confesses the
   commonwealth of the Jews was a political body, and God, who is
   invisible, was their political head. 2. Jesus Christ is a visible head,
   yea, sometimes more, visus,' seen of men whilst on earth; though now
   for a time, in majesty (as some great princes do), he hath withdrawn
   himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of angels and
   saints in heaven." Ans. 1. I confess God was the king and ruler of the
   Jews; but yet, that they might be a visible political body, the
   invisible God appointed to them, under him, a visible head; as the pope
   blasphemously pretends to be appointed under Jesus Christ. 2. Jesus
   Christ is in his human nature still visible; as to his person, wherein
   he is the head of his church, he ever was, and is still, invisible. His
   present absence, is not upon the account of majesty, seeing in his
   majesty he is still present with us; and as to his bodily absence, he
   gives other accounts than that here insinuated. Now, it sufficeth not
   to constitute a visible political body, that the head of it in any
   respect may be seen, unless as their head he is seen. Christ is
   visible, as this church is visible; -- he in his laws, in his word;
   that in its profession, in its obedience. But I marvel that our
   reverend author, thus concluding for Christ to be the political head of
   this church, as a church, should at the same time contend for such
   subjects of this head as he doth, p. 96, -- namely, persons
   "contradicting their profession of the knowledge of God by a course of
   wickedness, manifesting principles of profaneness, wherewith the belief
   of the truth they profess hath an absolute inconsistency," as I
   expressly describe the persons whose membership in this church, and
   relation thereby to Christ their head, he pleads for. Are, indeed,
   these persons any better than Mohammedans as to church privileges? They
   are, indeed, in some places, as to providential advantages of hearing
   the word preached; but woe unto them on that account! it shall be more
   tolerable for Mohammedans in the day of Christ than for them. Shall
   their baptism avail them? Though it were valid in its administration,
   -- that is, was celebrated in obedience to the command of Christ, -- is
   it not null to them? Is not their circumcision uncircumcision? Shall
   such persons give their children any right to church privileges? Let
   them, if you please, be so subject to Christ as rebels and traitors are
   subject to their earthly princes. They ought, indeed, to be so, but are
   they so? Do they own their authority? are they obedient to them? do
   they enjoy any privilege of laws? or doth the apostle anywhere call
   such persons as live in a course of wickedness, manifesting principles
   utterly inconsistent with the profession of the gospel, "Brethren?" God
   forbid we should once imagine these things so to be! And so much for
   that chapter.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.

   Of Independentism and Donatism.

   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 a
   church that I speak: and in that sense he says it is no church of
   Christ's institution; and so, for my part, I account it no church at
   all. But he adds, that he is "far more unsatisfied that I undertake the
   cause of the Donatists, and labour to exempt them from schism, though I
   allow them guilty of other crimes." But do I indeed undertake the cause
   of the Donatists? do I plead for them? Will he manifest it by saying
   more against them in no more words than I have done? Do I labour to
   exempt them from schism? Are these the ways of peace, love, and truth,
   that the reverend author walks in? Do I not condemn all their practices
   and pretensions from the beginning to the end? Can I not speak of their
   cause in reference to the catholic church and its union, but it must be
   affirmed that I plead for them? But yet, as if righteousness and truth
   had been observed in this crimination, he undertakes, as of a thing
   granted, to give my grounds of doing what he affirms me to have done.
   "The first is," as he says, "his singular notion of schism, limiting it
   only to differences in a particular assembly. Secondly, his jealousy of
   the charge of schism to be objected to himself and party, if separating
   from the true churches of Christ be truly called schism." Ans. What may
   I expect from others, when so grave and reverend a person as this
   author is reported to be shall thus deal with me? Sir, I have no
   singular notion of schism, but embrace that which Paul hath long since
   declared; nor can you manifest any difference in my notion from what he
   hath delivered. Nor is that notion of schism at all under consideration
   in reference to what I affirm of the Donatists (who, in truth, were
   concerned in it, the most of them to the utmost), but the union of the
   church catholic and the breach thereof. Neither am I jealous or fearful
   of the charge of schism from any person living on the earth, and least
   of all from men proceeding in church affairs upon the principles you
   proceed on. Had you not been pleased to have supposed what you please,
   without the least ground, or colour, or reason, perhaps you would have
   as little satisfied yourself in the charge you have undertaken to
   manage against me, as you have done many good men, as the case now
   stands, even of your own judgment in other things.

   Having made this entrance, he proceeds in the same way, and, 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 from this kind of proceeding
   I know not. The day will manifest of what sort this work is. Although
   he may have some mistaken apprehensions to countenance his conscience
   in the first part of his assertion, as that it may be forgiven to
   inveterate prejudice, though it be false, -- namely, that I and my
   party (that is the phraseology this author, in his love to unity,
   delights in) have broken the union of their churches (which we have no
   more done than they have broken the union of ours, for we began our
   reformation with them on even terms, and were as early at work as
   they), -- yet what colour, what excuse can be invented to alleviate the
   guilt of the latter part of it, that we have separated from all the
   reformed churches, as no churches? And yet he repeats this again, p.
   106, with especial reflection on myself. "I wonder not," saith he,
   "that the doctor hath unchurched Rome, for he hath done as much to
   England and all foreign protestant churches, and makes none to be
   members of the church but such as are, by covenant and consent, joined
   to some of their congregations." Now, truly, though all righteous laws
   of men in the world will afford recompense and satisfaction for
   calumniating accusations and slanders of much less importance than this
   here publicly owned by our reverend author, yet, seeing the gospel of
   the blessed God requires to forgive and pass by greater injuries, I
   shall labour, in the strength of his grace, to bring my heart unto
   conformity to his will therein; notwithstanding which, because by his
   providence I am in that place and condition that others also that fear
   his name may be some way concerned in this unjust imputation, I must
   declare that this is open unrighteousness, wherein neither love nor
   truth hath been observed. How little I am concerned in his following
   parallel of Independentism and Donatism, -- wherein he proceeds with
   the same truth and candour, -- or in all that follows thereupon, is
   easy for any one to judge. He proceeds to scan my answers to the
   Romanists, as in reference to their charge of schism upon us, and says,
   "I do it suitably to my own principles;" and truly if I had not, I
   think I had been much to blame. I refer the reader to the answers given
   in my book; and if he like them not, notwithstanding this author's
   exceptions, I wish he may fix on those that please him better; in them
   there given my conscience doth acquiesce.

   But he comes, in the next place, to arguments; wherein if he prove more
   happy 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 breach of union; but there may be a breach of union in the
   catholic visible church." His second this: "Where there are differences
   raised in matter of faith professed, wherein the union of the catholic
   church consists, there may be a breach of union; but there may be
   differences in the catholic, or among the members of the catholic
   church in matter of faith professed: ergo." Having thus laid down his
   arguments, he falls to conjecture what I will answer, and how I will
   evade. But it will quickly appear that he is no less unhappy in arguing
   and conjecturing than he is and was in accusing. For, to consider his
   first argument, if he will undertake to make it good as to its form, I
   will, by the same way of arguing, engage myself to prove what he would
   be unwilling to find in a regular conclusion. But as to the matter of
   it, -- First, Is schism every breach of union? or is every breach of
   union schism? Schism, in the ecclesiastical notion, is granted to be,
   in the present dispute, the breach of the union of a church, which it
   hath by the institution of Christ, and this not of any union of
   Christ's institution, but of one certain kind of union; for, as was
   proved, there is a union whose breach can neither, in the language of
   the Scripture, nor in reason, nor common sense, be called or accounted
   schism, nor ever was by any man in the world, nor can be, without
   destroying the particular nature of schism, and allowing only the
   general notion of any separation, good or bad, in what kind soever. So
   that, secondly, It is granted not only that there may be a breach of
   union in the catholic church, but also that there may be a breach of
   the union of the catholic church by a denial or relinquishment of the
   profession wherein it consists; but that this breach of union is
   schism, because schism is a breach of union, is as true as that every
   man who hath two eyes is every thing that hath two eyes. For his
   second, it is of the same importance with the first. There may be
   differences in the catholic church, and breaches of union among the
   members of it, which are far enough from the breach of the union of
   that church as such. Two professors may fall out and differ, and yet, I
   think, continue both of them professors still. Paul and Barnabas did
   so; Chrysostom and Epiphanius did so; Cyril and Theodoret did so. That
   which I denied was, that the breach of the union of the catholic church
   as such is schism. He proves the contrary, by affirming there may be
   differences among the members of the catholic church, that do not break
   the union of it as such. "But," he says, "though there be apostasy or
   heresy, yet there may be schism also;" but not in respect of the breach
   of the same union, which only he was to prove. Besides evil surmises,
   reproaches, false criminations, and undue suggestions, I find nothing
   wherein my discourse is concerned to the end of this chapter. Page 109,
   upon the passage of mine, "We are thus come off from this part of
   schism, for the relinquishment of the catholic church, which we have
   not done, and so to do is not schism, but a sin of other nature and
   importance," he adds, that "the ground I go upon why separation from a
   true church" (he must mean the catholic church, or he speaks nothing at
   all to the business in hand) "is no schism is that aforementioned, that
   a schism in the Scripture notion is only a division of judgment in a
   particular assembly." But who so blind as they that will not see? The
   ground I proceeded on evidently, openly, solely, was taken from the
   nature of the catholic church, its union, and the breach of that union;
   and if "obiter" I once mention that notion, I do it upon my confidence
   of its truth, which I here again tender myself in a readiness to make
   good to this reverend author, if at any time he will be pleased to
   command my personal attendance upon him to that purpose. To repeat more
   of the like mistakes and surmises, with the wranglings that ensue on
   such false suppositions, to the end of this chapter, is certainly
   needless. For my part, in and about this whole business of separation
   from the catholic church, I had not the least respect to Presbyterians
   or Independents, as such, nor to the differences between them; which
   alone our author, out of his zeal to the truth and peace, attends unto.
   If he will fasten the guilt of schism on any on the account of
   separation from the catholic church, let him prove that that church is
   not made up of the universality of professors of the gospel throughout
   the world, under the limitations expressed; that the union of it as
   such doth not consist in the profession of the truth; and that the
   breach of that union, whereby a man ceases to be a member of that
   church, is schism. Otherwise, to tell me that I am a "sectary," a
   "schismatic," to fill up his pages with vain surmises and supposals, to
   talk of a difference and schism among the members of the catholic
   church, or the like impertinences, will never farther his discourse
   among men, either rational, solid, or judicious. All that ensues, to
   the end of this chapter, is about the ordination of ministers; wherein,
   however, he hath been pleased to deal with me in much bitterness of
   spirit, with many clamours and false accusations. I am glad to find
   him, p. 120, renouncing ordination from the authority of the church of
   Rome as such, for I am assured that by so doing he can claim it no way
   from, by, or through Rome; for nothing came to us from thence but what
   came in and by the authority of that church.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.

   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 individual
   ordinances, according to the order by Christ prescribed." This I
   profess to be a general description of its nature, waiving all contests
   about accurate definitions, which usually tend very little to the
   discovery or establishment of truth. After some canvassing of this
   description, our author tells us that he grants it to be the definition
   of a particular church, which is more than I intended it for; only he
   adds, that according to this description, their churches are as true as
   ours; which, I presume, by this time he knows was not the thing in
   question. His ensuing discourse of the will of Christ that men should
   join not all in the same individual congregation, but in this or that,
   is by me wholly assented unto, and the matter of it contended for by me
   as I am able. What he is pleased to add about explicit covenanting, and
   the like, I am not at all, for the present, concerned in. I purposely
   waived all expressions concerning it, one way or other, that I might
   not involve the business in hand with any unnecessary contests; it is
   possible somewhat hereafter may be spoken to that subject, in a
   tendency unto the reconciliation of the parties at variance. His
   argument, in the close of the section, for a presbyterian church, from
   Acts xx. 17, "because there is mention of more elders than one in that
   church, and therefore it was not one single congregation," I do not
   understand. I think no one single congregation is wholly completed
   according to the mind of Christ unless there be more elders than one in
   it. There should be "elders in every church;" and, for my part, so we
   could once agree practically in the matter of our churches, I am under
   some apprehension that it were no impossible thing to reconcile the
   whole difference as to a presbyterian church or a single congregation.
   And though I be reproved anew for my pains, I may offer, ere long, to
   the candid consideration of godly men, something that may provoke
   others of better abilities and more leisure to endeavour the carrying
   on of so good a work. Proceeding to the consideration of the unity of
   this church, he takes notice of three things laid down by me,
   previously to what I was farther to assert; all which he grants to be
   true, but yet will not let them pass without his animadversions.

   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 church, and may administer baptism out of a particular church,
   as Philip did to the eunuch." Ans. How well this author is acquainted
   with my principles hath been already manifested; as to his present
   mistake I shall not complain, seeing that some occasion may be
   administered unto it from an expression of mine, at least as it is
   printed, of which I shall speak afterward. For the present, he may be
   pleased to take notice that I am so far from confining baptism
   subjectively to a particular congregation, that I do not believe that
   any member of a particular church was ever regularly baptized. Baptism
   precedes admission into church membership, as to a particular church;
   the subjects of it are professing believers and their seed; as such
   they have right unto it, whether they be joined to any particular
   church or no. Suitable to this judgment hath been my constant and
   uninterrupted practice. I desire also to know who told him that I deny
   a minister to be a minister to more than his own church, or averred
   that he may perform ministerial duty only in and towards the members of
   his own congregation; for so much as men are appointed the objects of
   the dispensation of the word, I grant a man, in the dispensations 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.

   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.

   Against my fourth reason, taken from the apostle's care to leave none
   out of this order who were converted, where it was possible, he gives
   in the instance of the eunuch, and others converted where there were
   not enough to engage in such societies, -- that is, in them with whom
   it was impossible. My fifth is from Christ's providing of officers for
   these churches. This also, he saith, is "weak as the rest: for, first,
   Christ provided officers at first for the catholic church, -- that is,
   the apostles; secondly, All ordinary officers are set first in the
   catholic church, and every minister is first a minister to the catholic
   church; and if," saith he, "he deny this, he knows where to find a
   learned antagonist." Ans. But see what it is to have a mind to dispute.
   Will he deny that Christ appointed officers for particular churches? or
   if he should have a mind to do it, will his arguments evince any such
   thing? Christ appointed apostles, catholic officers; therefore, he did
   not appoint officers for particular churches though he commanded that
   "elders should be ordained in every, church"! Pastors and teachers are
   set first in the catholic church; therefore, Christ hath not ordained
   officers for particular churches! But this is the way with our author.
   If any word offer itself, whence it is possible to draw out the mention
   of any thing that is, or hath at any time been, in difference between
   Presbyterians and Independents, that presently is run away withal. For
   my part, I had not the least thought of the controversy which, to no
   purpose at all, he would here lead me to. But yet I must tell him that
   my judgment is, that ordinary officers are firstly to be ordained in
   particular churches; and as I know where to find a "learned antagonist"
   as to that particular, so I do in respect of every thing that I affirm
   or deny in the business of religion; and yet I bless the Lord I am not
   in the least disquieted or shaken in my adherence to the truth I
   profess.

   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 in
   the same ordinances in other churches." How this comes to be "a chief
   piece of Independency," I know not. It is contrary to the known
   practice of all the churches of England that I am acquainted with which
   he calls Independents. For my part, I know but one man of that mind,
   and he is no child in these things.

   For the ensuing discourse, about the intercision of ordinances, it
   being a matter of great importance, and inquired into by me 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 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
   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
   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 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 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.

   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 not," saith he, "the design
   of this 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 obloquy, and yet hope that I may have, before we
   die, a place in your heart and prayers.
     __________________________________________________________________

Chapter 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, 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 it. What I shall do in this case, I profess, well I
   know not. I here deny that I unminister their ministers, unchurch their
   churches. Hath this author any more to say to me or those of my
   persuasion? Doth not this whole discourse proceed upon a supposition
   that it is otherwise with them with whom he hath to do? Only, I must
   tell him by the way, that if he suppose by this concession that I
   justify and own their way, wherein they differ from the congregational
   ministers in England, to be of Christ's institution, or that I grant
   all things to be done regularly among them and according to the mind of
   Christ, therein I must profess he is mistaken. In brief, by
   Independentism he intends a separation from true churches, with
   condemning them to be no churches, and their ministers no ministers,
   and their ordinances none or antichristian. Whatever becomes of the
   nature of schism, I disavow the appearing as an advocate in the behalf
   of this Independentism. If by Independentism he understand the
   peaceable proceeding of any of the people of God in this nation, in the
   several parts of it, to join themselves, by their free consent, to walk
   together in the observation and celebration of all the ordinances of
   Christ appointed to be observed and celebrated in particular churches,
   so to reform themselves from the disorders wherein they were entangled,
   -- being not able in some things to join in that way of reformation
   which many godly ministers, commonly called Presbyterians, have engaged
   in and seek to promote, without judging and condemning them as to the
   whole of their station or ordinances; -- if this, I say, be intended by
   Independentism, when the reverend author shall undertake to prove it
   schism, having not in this book spoken one word or tittle to it, his
   discourse will be attended unto. This whole chapter, then, being spent
   against them who deny them to be true churches and defend separation, I
   marvel what can be said unto it by me, or how I come to be concerned in
   it, who grant them true churches and deny separation.

   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 and
   raking my words to discover my very heart in any thing that belongs
   (though in never so remote a distance) to the worship of God. All that
   know me, know how open and free I am in these things, how ready on all
   occasions to declare my whole heart; it is neither fear nor favour can
   influence me unto another frame. But what are the words that make this
   noble discovery? They are these that follow: "When any society or
   combination of men (whatever hitherto it hath been esteemed) is not
   capable of such a reduction and revocation" (that is, to its primitive
   institution), "I suppose I shall never provoke any wise or sober person
   if I profess I cannot look on such a society as a church of Christ."
   His reply hereunto is the hinge upon which his whole discourse turneth,
   and must therefore be considered. Thus then he: "Is not this, reader,
   at once to unchurch all the churches of England since the Reformation?
   for it is known during the reign of the prelates they were not capable
   of that reduction; and what capacity our churches are now in for that
   reduction, partly by want of power and assistance from the magistrate,
   without which some dare not set upon a reformation, for fear of a
   premunire, partly by our divisions amongst ourselves, fomented by he
   knows whom, he cannot but see as well as we lament." And hereupon he
   proceeds with sundry complaints of my dealing with them. And now,
   Christian reader, what shall we say to these things? A naked
   supposition, of no strength nor weight, that will not hold in any thing
   or case, -- namely, that a thing is not to be judged capable of that
   which by some external force it is withheld from, -- is the sole bottom
   of all this charge! The churches of England were capable of that
   reduction to their primitive institution under the prelates, though in
   some things hindered by them from an actual reducement; so they are
   now, in sundry places where the work is not so much as attempted. The
   sluggard's field is capable of being weeded. The present pretended want
   of capacity from the non-assistance of the magistrate, whilst perfect
   liberty for reformation is given, and the work in its several degrees
   encouraged, will be found to be a sad plea for some when things come to
   be tried out by the rule of the gospel. And for our divisions, I
   confess I begin to discover somewhat more by whom they are fomented
   than I did four days ago. For the matter itself, I desire our reverend
   author to take notice that I judge every church capable of a reduction
   to its primitive institution; which, all outward hinderances being
   removed, and all assistances granted that are necessary for reformation
   according to the gospel, may be reduced into the form and order
   appointed unto a particular church by Jesus Christ. And where any
   society is not so capable, let them call themselves what they please, I
   shall advise those therein who have personally a due right to the
   privileges purchased for them by Jesus Christ, in the way of their
   administration by him appointed, to take some other peaceable course to
   make themselves partakers of them; and for giving this advice, I
   neither dread the anger nor indignation of any man living in the world.
   And so I suppose by this time the author knows what has become of his
   "quod erat demonstrandum;" and here, in room of it, I desire him to
   accept of this return.

   Those who, in the judgment of charity, were and continue members of the
   church 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
   of two parts:-- 1. His animadversions on some principles which I lay
   down, as necessary to be stated aright and determined, that the
   question about gathering churches may be clearly and satisfactorily
   debated. Some of them, he says, have been handled by others; which if
   it be a rule of silence to him and me, it might have prevented this
   tedious debate. Whatever his thoughts may be of my pamphlet, I do not
   fear to affirm of his treatise that I have found nothing in it, from
   the beginning to the ending, but what hath lien neglected on
   booksellers' stalls for above these seven years. For the rest of those
   principles which he excepts against as he thinks meet, I leave their
   consideration to that farther inquiry which, the Lord assisting, I have
   destined them unto. The way of gathering churches upon a supposition of
   their antecedency to officers, he says, is very pretty; and he loads it
   with the difficulty of men's coming to be baptized in such a case. But
   as I can tell him of that which is neither true nor pretty in the
   practice of some whom he knows, or hath reason so to do, so I can
   assure him that we are not concerned in his objection about baptism;
   and with them who may possibly be so, it is a ridiculous thing to think
   it an objection. And for that part of my inquiry, whether the church be
   before ordinary officers, or they before it, as light as he is pleased
   to make of it, it will be found to lie very near the bottom of all our
   differences, and the right stating of it to conduce to the composure
   and determination of them. His charges and reflections, which he casts
   about in his passage, are not now to be farther mentioned; we have had
   them over and over, -- indeed we have had little else. If strong,
   vehement, passionate affirmations, complaints, charges, false
   imputations, and the like, will amount to a demonstration in this
   business, he hath demonstrated Independentism to be a great schism.

   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 notice
   of, as far as they tend in the least to the issue of the debate between
   us, shall be reviewed. Considering the several senses wherein that
   expression, "The church of England," may be taken, I manifest in my
   treatise in which of them, and how far, we acknowledge ourselves to
   have been, and to continue, members of the church of England. The first
   is as it comprises the elect believers in England. What the unity of
   the church in this sense is was before evinced. Our desire to be found
   members of this church, with our endeavour to keep the unity of it in
   the bond of peace, was declared. I am grieved to repeat our reverend
   author's exceptions to this declaration. Says he, "Unless he think
   there are no members of this church in England but those that are of
   his formed particular churches, I fear he will be found to break the
   union that ought to be between them." And why so, I pray? The union of
   the members of the church in this sense consists in their joint union
   to and with Christ, their head, by one Spirit. What hath the reverend
   author to charge upon me with reference thereunto? Let him speak out to
   the utmost. Yea, I have some reason to think that he will scarce spare
   where he can strike. God forbid that I should think all the members of
   the catholic church in England to be comprised, either jointly or
   severally, in their churches or ours, seeing it cannot be avoided; but
   you will keep up those notes of division. I doubt not but there be many
   thousands of them who walk neither with you nor us. He adds, that "by
   gathering saints of the first magnitude, we do what lies in us to make
   the invisible church visible." It is confessed we do so; yea, we know
   that that church which is invisible in some respects, and under one
   formal consideration, is visible as to its profession which it makes
   unto salvation. This, with all that lies in us, we draw them out unto.
   What he adds about the churches being elect, and the uncomely parts of
   it, which they may be for a season who are elect believers (because it
   must be spoken), are useless cavils. For the scornful rejection of what
   I affirm concerning our love to all the members of this church, and
   readiness to tender them satisfaction in case of offence, with his
   insinuation of my want of modesty and truth in asserting these
   thoughts, because he will one day know that the words he so despises
   were spoken in sincerity, and with reverence of the great God, and out
   of love to all his saints, I shall not farther vindicate them. Such hay
   and stubble must needs burn.

   My next profession of our relation to the church of England [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 nation are
   grossly apostatized from that doctrine, and so are heretical." 2. "That
   the worship was professed, and protested, and established, as well as
   the doctrine, and that we are all departed from it, and so are
   schismatical; for we hold communion with them," he says, "in the same
   doctrine, but not in the same worship." Ans. 1. His first exception
   ariseth from the advantage he makes use of from his large use of the
   word "Independent;" which will serve him, in his sense, for what end he
   pleaseth. In the sense before declared his charge is denied. Let him
   prove it by instance, if he be able. Surely God hath not given orthodox
   men leave to speak what they please, without due regard to love and
   truth. 2. As to the worship established in this nation by law (he means
   the way of worship, for the substantials of it we are all agreed in), I
   suppose he will not say a relinquishment of the practice of it is
   schism. If he do, I know what use some men will make of his
   affirmation, though I know not how he will free himself from being
   schismatical. For his renewed charge of schism, I cannot, I confess, be
   moved at it, proceeding from him who neither doth nor will know what it
   is. His next endeavour is, to make use of another concession of mine,
   concerning our receiving of our regeneration and new birth by the
   preaching of the word in England, saying, "Could they make use of our
   preaching,'' etc. But the truth is, when the most of us, by the free
   grace of God, received our new birth through the preaching of the word,
   neither they nor we, as to the practice of our ways, were in England;
   so that their concernment, as such, in the concession is very small:
   and we hope, since, in respect of others, our own ministry hath not
   been altogether fruitless, though we make no comparison with them.

   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.

   Page 167, we arrive at that which alone almost I expected would have
   been insisted on, and, quite contrary thereto, it is utterly waived, --
   namely, the whole business of a national church; upon which account,
   indeed, all the pretence of the charge this reverend author is pleased
   to manage doth arise. Take that out of the way, and certainly they and
   we are upon even terms; and if we will be judged by them who were last
   in possession of the reiglement of that church, upon supposition that
   there is such a church still, they are no more interested in it than
   we, yea, are as guilty of schism from it as we. But that being set
   aside, and particular churches only remaining, it will be very
   difficult for him to raise the least pretence of his great charge. But
   let us consider what he thinks meet to fasten on in that discourse of
   mine about a national Church. The first thing is, my inquiry whether
   the denial of the institution of a national church (which he pleads not
   for) doth not deny, in consequence, that we had either ordinances or
   ministry amongst us? to which I say, that though it seems so to do, yet
   indeed it doth not, because there was then another church-state, even
   that of particular churches, amongst us. With many kind reflections of
   "my renouncing my ministry, and rejecting of my jejune and empty
   vindication of their ministry" (which yet is the very same that himself
   fixes on), he asks me "how I can in my conscience believe that there
   were any true ministers in this church in the time of its being
   national?" and so proceeds to infer from hence my denying of all
   ministry and ordinances among them. Truly, though I were more to be
   despised than I am (if that be possible), yet it were not common
   prudence for any man to take so much pains to make me his enemy whether
   I will or no. He cannot but know that I deny utterly that ever we had
   indeed, whatever men thought, a national church; for I grant no such
   thing as a national church, in the present sense contended about. That
   in England, under the rule of the prelates, when they looked on the
   church as national, there were true churches and true ministers, though
   in much disorder, as to the way of entering into the ministry and
   dispensing of ordinances, I grant freely: which is all this reverend
   author, if I understand him, pleads for; and this, he says, I was
   unwilling to acknowledge, lest I should thereby condemn myself as a
   schismatic. Truly, in the many sad differences and divisions that are
   in the world amongst Christians, I have not been without sad and
   jealous thoughts of heart, lest, by any doctrine or practice of mine, I
   should occasionally contribute any thing unto them; if it hath been
   otherwise with this author, I envy not his frame of spirit. But I must
   freely say, that having together with them weighed the reasons for
   them, I have been very little moved with the clamorous accusations and
   insinuations of this author. In the meantime, if it be possible to give
   him satisfaction, I here let him know that I assent unto that sum of
   all he hath to say as to the church of England, -- namely, "That the
   true and faithful ministers, with the people in their several
   congregations, administering the true ordinances of Jesus Christ,
   whereof baptism is one, was and is the true church-state of England;"
   from which I am not separated. Nor do I think that some addition of
   human prudence, or imprudence, can disannul the ordinances of Jesus
   Christ, upon the disavower made of any other national church-state, and
   the assertion of this, to answer all intents and purposes. I suppose
   now that the reverend author knows that it is incumbent on him to prove
   that we have been members of some of these particular churches in due
   order, according to the mind of Christ, to all intents and purposes of
   church membership, and that we have, in our individual persons, raised
   causeless differences in those particular churches whereof we were
   members respectively, and so separated from them with the condemnation
   of them; or else, according to his own principles, he fails in his
   brotherly conclusion, idou Rodos, idou pedema. I suppose the reader is
   weary of pursuing things so little to our purpose. If he will hear any
   farther that Independents are schismatics; that the setting up of their
   way hath opened a door to all evils and confusions; that they have
   separated from all churches, and condemn all churches in the world but
   their own; that they have hindered reformation and the setting up of
   the presbyterian church; that being members of our churches, as they
   are members of the nation, because they are born in it, yet they have
   deserted them; that they gather churches, which they pretend to be
   "spick and span new," they have separated from us; that they
   countenance Quakers and all other sectaries; that they will reform a
   national church whether men will or no, though they say that they only
   desire to reform themselves, and plead for liberty to that end; -- if
   any man, I say, have a mind to read or hear of this any more, let him
   read the rest of this chapter, or else converse with some persons whom
   I can direct him to, who talk at this wholesome rate all the day long.

   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 relinquishment of the
   ordinary communion of one church, in all its relations, be so
   esteemed." These words have as yet, unto me, a very harmless aspect; --
   but our reverend author is sharp-sighted, and sees I know not what
   monsters in them; for, first, saith he, "Here he seems to me to be a
   very sceptic in his way of Independency." Why so, I pray? "This will
   gratify all sects, Quakers and all, with a toleration." How, I pray? It
   is schism, not toleration, we are treating about. "But this leaves them
   to judge, as well as others, of what is and what is not according to
   the mind of Christ." Why, pray, sir, who is appointed to judge finally
   for them? "Why, then, should they be denied their liberty?" But is that
   the thing under consideration? Had you concluded that their not
   submitting to what they have not light for its institution is not
   properly schism, you should have seen how far I had been concerned in
   the inference; (but excursions unto Quakers, etc., are one topic of
   such discourses.) But now he asks me one question, it seems, to try
   whether I am a sceptic or no. "Whether," saith he, "does he believe his
   own way to be the only true way of Christ (for he hath instituted but
   one way), having run from and renounced all other ways in this nation?"
   I promise you this is a hard question, and not easily answered. If I
   deny it, he will say I am a sceptic, and other things also will be
   brought in. If I affirm it, it may be he will say that I condemn their
   churches for no churches, and the like. It is good to be wary when a
   man hath to deal with wise men. How if I should say that our way and
   their way is, for the substance of them, one way, and so I cannot say
   that my way is the only true way exclusively to theirs? I suppose this
   may do pretty well. But I fear this will scarce give satisfaction, and
   yet I know not well how I can go any farther. Yet this I will add: I do
   indeed believe that wherein their way and our way differ, our way is
   according to the mind of Christ, and not theirs; and this I am ready at
   any time (God assisting) personally to maintain to him. And as for my
   running from ways of religion, I dare again tell him these reproaches
   and calumnies become him not at all. But he proceeds. "If so," saith
   he, "is not every man bound to come into it, and not upon every
   conceived new light to relinquish it?" Truly, I think Mr C. himself is
   bound to come into it, and yet I do not think that his not so doing
   makes him a schismatic; and as for relinquishment, I assert no more
   than what he himself concludes to be lawful.

   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 my
   principles do abide; and how the most material parts of my discourse
   are utterly passed by, without any notice taken of them. The truth is,
   in the way chosen by this reverend author to proceed in, men may
   multiply writings to the world's end without driving any controversy to
   an issue. Descanting and harping on words, making exceptions to
   particular passages, and the like, is an easy and facile, and, to some
   men, a pleasant labour. What small reason our author had to give his
   book the title it bears, unless it were to discover his design, I hope
   doth by this time appear. Much of the proof of it lies in the repeated
   asseverations of it," It is so, and it is so." If he shall be pleased
   to send me word of one argument tending that way that is not founded in
   an evident mistake, I will promise him, if I live, a reconsideration of
   it.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Dei ton episkopon anegleton einai, hos Theou oikonomon, me authade, me
   orgilon, me paroinon, me plekten, me aischrokerde. -- Tit. i. 7

   Oxford: 1658.
     __________________________________________________________________

Prefatory note.

   The two foregoing treatises had appeared in 1657, and in the year
   following our author had to reply to another work by his opponent
   Cawdrey, "Independency further Proved to be a Schism." The latter had
   been previously engaged in a controversy on the subject of church
   government with Mr John Cotton, an eminent Congregationalist of New
   England, to whose work on "The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," Cawdrey
   had replied in his "Vindiciæ Clavium," and in another work, "The
   Inconsistency of the Independent Way with Scripture and Itself." A
   manuscript by Cotton in defence of his book had been committed to Owen,
   who cherished a respect for his memory, as it was the perusal of his
   work, "The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," which led our author to
   reconsider and modify his views respecting the nature and polity of the
   church. To meet the last assault of Cawdrey he gave the manuscript of
   Cotton to the press, and accompanied it with a lengthy preface in
   vindication of himself from the charges of his opponent. The disproof
   of the alleged contradictions with which he was reproached is complete,
   but it cannot be said that there is much of novelty or importance in
   the statements contained in this treatise. After a lapse of twenty-two
   years, Dr Owen had again to vindicate his denomination from the same
   charge of schism, in very different circumstances, and against a more
   adroit and accomplished adversary. Accordingly, with the different
   works of Owen on the subject of schism, we have connected his pamphlet
   on the same subject in reply to Stillingfleet, though the interval just
   specified ensued before he broke a lance in controversy with the
   learned Dean of St Paul's. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   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 eti laleitai, 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 Mr Cawdrey's accusation against him. I shall not need to
   give an account whence it hath been that it saw the light no sooner; it
   may suffice that, in mine own behalf and that of others, I do
   acknowledge that, in the doing of sundry things seeming of more
   importance, this ought not to have been omitted. The judgment of the
   author approving of this vindication of himself as necessary,
   considering the place he held in the church of God, should have been a
   rule unto us for the performance of that duty, which is owing to his
   worth and piety in doing and suffering for the truth of God. It is now
   about seven months ago since it came into my hands; and since I engaged
   myself unto the publication of it, my not immediate proceeding therein
   being sharply rebuked by a fresh charge upon myself from that hand
   under which this worthy person so far suffered as to be necessitated to
   the ensuing defensative, I have here discharged that engagement. The
   author of the charge against him, in his epistle to that against me,
   tells his reader that "it is thought that it was intended by another
   (and now promised by myself) to be published, to cast a slur upon him."
   So are our intentions judged, so our ways, by thoughts and reports! Why
   a vindication of Mr Cotton should cast a slur upon Mr Cawdrey, I know
   not. Is he concerned in spirit or reputation in the acquitment of a
   holy, reverend person, now at rest with Christ, from imputations of
   inconstancy and self-contradiction? Is there not room enough in the
   world to bear the good names of Mr Cotton and Mr Cawdrey, but that if
   one be vindicated the other must be slurred? He shall find now, by
   experience, what assistance he found from Him who loved him to bear his
   charge and to repel it, without any such reflection on his accuser as
   might savour of an intention to slur him. "Mala mens, malus animus."
   The measure that men fear from others they have commonly meted out unto
   them beforehand. He wishes those "that intend to rake in the ashes of
   the dead to consider whether they shall deserve any thanks for their
   labour." How the covering of the dead with their own comely garments
   comes to be a raking into their ashes, I know not. His name is alive,
   though he be dead. It was that, not his person, that was attempted to
   be wounded by the charge against him. To pour forth that balm for its
   healing, now he is dead, which himself provided whilst he was alive,
   without adding or diminishing one syllable, is no raking into his
   ashes; and I hope the deuterai throntides of the reverend author will
   not allow him to be offended that this friendly office is performed to
   a dead brother, to publish this his defence of his own innocency,
   written in obedience to a prime dictate of the law of nature, against
   the wrong which was not done him in secret.

   But the intendment of this prefatory discourse being my own concernment
   in reference to a late tract of Mr Cawdrey's, bearing on its title and
   superscription a vindication from my "unjust clamours and false
   aspersions," I shall not detain the reader with any farther discourse
   of that which he will find fully debated in the ensuing treatise
   itself, but immediately address myself to that which is my present
   peculiar design. By what ways and means the difference betwixt us is
   come to that issue wherein now it stands stated in the expressions
   before mentioned, I shall not need to repeat. Who first let out those
   waters of strife, who hath filled their streams with bitterness,
   clamour, and false aspersions, is left to the judgment of all that fear
   the Lord, who shall have occasion at any time to reflect upon those
   discourses. However, it is come to pass, I must acknowledge, that the
   state of the controversy between us is now degenerated into such a
   useless strife of words as that I dare publicly own engagements into
   studies of so much more importance unto the interest of truth, piety,
   and literature, as that I cannot, with peace in my own retirement, be
   much farther conversant therein. Only, whereas I am not in the least
   convinced that Mr Cawdrey hath given satisfaction to my former
   expostulations about the injuries done me in his other treatise, and
   hath evidently added to the number and weight of them in this, I could
   not but lay hold of this opportunity, given by my discharging a former
   promise, once more to remind him of some miscarriages, exceedingly
   unbecoming his profession and calling, which I shall do in a brief
   review of his epistle and treatise: upon the consideration whereof,
   without charging him or his way with schism in great letters on the
   title-page of this book, I doubt not but it will appear that the guilt
   of the crime he falsely, unjustly, and uncharitably chargeth upon
   others, may be laid more equitably at his own door; and that the
   shortness of the covering used by him and others to hide themselves
   from the inquisition made after them for schism, upon their own
   principles, will not be supplied by such outcries as those he is
   pleased to use after them who are least of all men concerned in the
   matter under contest, there being no solid medium whereby they may be
   impleaded. And in this discourse I shall, as I suppose, put an end to
   my engagement in this controversy. I know no man whose patience will
   enable him to abide always in the consideration of things to so little
   purpose. Were it not that men bear themselves on high by resting on the
   partial adherence of many to their dictates, it were impossible they
   should reap any contentment in their retirements from such a management
   of controversies as this: "Independency is a great schism, it hath made
   all the divisions amongst us." "Brownists, Anabaptists, and all
   sectaries, are Independents." "They deny our ministers and churches;
   they separate from us; all errors come from among them." "This I have
   been told," and, "That I have heard;" -- [which] is the sum of this
   treatise. Who they are of whom he speaks; how they came into such a
   possession of all church-state in England, that all that are not with
   them are schismatics; how, "de jure" or "de facto," they came to be so
   instated; what claim they can make to their present stations without
   schism, on their own principles; whether, granting the church of
   England, as constituted when they and we began that which we call
   Reformation, to have been a true instituted church, they have any power
   of rule in it but what hath been got by violence; what that is purely
   theirs hath any pretence of establishment from the Scripture,
   antiquity, and the laws of this land; -- I say, with these and the like
   things, which are incumbent on him to clear up before his charges with
   us will be of any value, our author troubleth not himself. But to
   proceed to the particulars by him insisted on.

   1. He tells the reader in his epistle that his unwillingness to this
   rejoinder was heightened by the necessity he found of discovering some
   personal weaknesses and forgetfulnesses in me, upon my denial of some
   things which were known to be true if he should proceed therein. For
   what he intimates of the unpleasantness that it is to him to discover
   things of that importance in me, when he professeth his design to be to
   impair my authority so far that the cause I own may receive no
   countenance thereby, I leave it to Him who will one day reveal the
   secrets of all hearts, which at present are open and naked unto Him.
   But how, I pray, are the things by me denied known to be true? Seeing
   it was unpleasant and distasteful to him to insist upon them, men might
   expect that his evidence of them was not only open, clear, undeniable,
   and manifest as to its truth, but cogent as to their publication. The
   whole insisted on is, "If there be any truth in reports," "hic nigræ
   succus loliginis, hæc est ærugo mera." Is this a bottom for a minister
   of the gospel to proceed upon to such charges as those insinuated? Is
   not the course of nature set on fire at this day by reports? Is any
   thing more contrary to the royal law of charity than to take up reports
   as the ground of charges and accusations? Is there any thing more
   unbecoming a man, -- laying aside all considerations of Christianity,
   -- than to suffer his judgment to be tainted, much more his words and
   public expressions in charging and accusing others to be regulated, by
   reports? And whereas we are commanded to speak evil of no man, may we
   not on this ground speak evil of all men, and justify ourselves by
   saying, "It is so, if reports be true?" The prophet tells us that a
   combination for his defaming and reproach was managed among his
   adversaries: Jer. xx. 10, "I heard the defaming of many, fear on every
   side. Report, say they, and we will report it." If they can have any to
   go before them in the transgression of that law, which He who knows how
   the tongues of men are "set on fire of hell" gave out to lay a
   restraint upon them, "Thou shalt not raise a false report," Exod.
   xxiii. 1, they will second it, and spread it abroad to the utmost, for
   his disadvantage and trouble. Whether this procedure of our reverend
   author come not up to the practice of their design, I leave to his own
   conscience to judge. Should men suffer their spirits to be heightened
   by provocations of this nature, unto a recharge from the same offensive
   dunghill of reports, what monsters should we speedily be transformed
   into! But this being far from being the only place wherein appeal is
   made to reports and hear-says by our author, I shall have occasion, in
   the consideration of the severals of them, to reassume this discourse.
   For what he adds about the space of time wherein my former reply was
   drawn up, because I know not whether he had heard any report insinuated
   to the contrary to what I affirmed, I shall not trouble him with giving
   evidence thereunto, but only add, that here he hath the product of half
   that time, which I now interpose upon the review of my transcribed
   papers; only, whereas it is said that Mr Cawdrey is an ancient man, I
   cannot but wonder he should be so easy of belief. Aristotle, Rhetor.
   lib. ii. cap. 18, tells us, Hoi presbuteroi, apistoi di' empeirian, and
   not apt to believe, whence on all occasions of discourse prostitheasin
   aei to isos kai tacha? but he believes all that comes to hand with an
   easy faith, which he hath totally in his own power to dispose of at
   pleasure. That I was in passion when I wrote my review is his judgment;
   but this is but man's day; we are in expectation of that wherein "the
   world shall be judged in righteousness." It is too possible that my
   spirit was not in that frame, in all things, wherein it ought to have
   been; but that the reverend author knows not. I have nothing to say to
   this but that of the philosopher, Ean tis soi apangeile hoti ho deina
   se kakos legei, me apologou pros ta lechthenta, all' apokrinou hoti
   agnoei, ta gar alla prosionta moi kaka epei ouk an tauta mona elegen,
   Epic., cap. 48. Much, I confess, was not spoken by me (which he
   afterward insisteth on) to the argumentative part of his book; which as
   in an answer I was not to look for, so to find had been a difficult
   task. As he hath nothing to say unto the differences among themselves,
   both in judgment and practice, so how little there is in his
   recrimination of the differences among us, -- as, that one and the same
   man differeth from himself, which charge he casts upon Mr Cotton and
   myself, -- will speedily be manifested to all impartial men. For the
   treatise itself, whose consideration I now proceed unto, that I may
   reduce what I have to say unto it into the bounds intended, in
   confining my defensative unto this preface to the treatise of another,
   I shall refer it unto certain heads, that will be comprehensive of the
   whole, and give the reader a clear and distinct view thereof.

   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 stand upon
   even terms with him herein. But to have advantages from want of
   charity, as the Donatists had against the Catholics, is no argument of
   a good cause.

   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 exo tou paragmatos, 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 Mr Biddle,
   by his leading questions, and knitting of scriptures to his expressions
   in them, makes an appearance of constraining the word of God to speak
   out all his Socinian blasphemies.

   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, charged this opinion upon me in his
   first answer, knowing it to be very false, I expostulated with him
   about it in my review. Instead of accepting the satisfaction tendered
   in my express denial of any such thought or persuasion, or tendering
   any satisfaction as to the wrong done me, he seeks to justify himself
   in his charge, and so persisteth therein. The reasons he gives for his
   so doing are not unworthy a little to be remarked.

   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, [15]
   notorious triflers, whose lavish impertinency will deliver any man from
   the danger of being slandered by their tongues, and there will be
   little ground left for the report that is fathered on "vox populi." And
   I tell him here once again, -- which is a sufficient answer, indeed, to
   his whole first chapter, -- that I do not deny presbyterian churches to
   be true churches of Jesus Christ, nor the ministers of them to be true
   ministers, nor do maintain a nullity in their ordination, as to what is
   the proper use and end of salvation [16] (taking it in the sense
   wherein by them it is taken), though I think it neither administered by
   them in due order, nor to have in itself that force and efficacy,
   singly considered, which by many of them is ascribed unto it. Thus much
   of my judgment I have publicly declared long ago; and I thought I might
   have expected, from persons professing Christianity, that they would
   not voluntarily engage themselves into an opposition against me, and,
   waiving my judgment, which I had constantly published and preached,
   have gathered up reports from private and table discourses, most of
   them false and untrue, all of them uncertain, the occasions and
   coherences of those discourses from whence they have been raised and
   taken being utterly lost, or at present by him wholly omitted. His
   following excursions, about a successive ordination from Rome, wherein
   he runs cross to the most eminent lights of all the reformed churches,
   and their declared judgments, with practice, in re-ordaining those who
   come unto them with that Roman stamp upon them, I shall not farther
   interest myself in, nor think myself concerned so to do, until I see a
   satisfactory answer given unto Beza and others on this very point. And
   yet I must here again profess that I cannot understand that
   distinction, of deriving ordination from the church of Rome, but not
   from the Roman church. Let him but seriously peruse these ensuing words
   of Beza, and tell me whether he have any ground of a particular quarrel
   against me upon this account:--

   "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 foedissima
   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 bdelugma 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 Saravia about the
   divers orders of ministers in the church.

   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 ordination; therefore, he durst say positively that I have
   renounced mine, Prov. xii. 18.

   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 Beza
   among the Reformed, and Gerhard among the Lutheran divines, to omit
   innumerable others, -- another thing when taken for the imposition of
   hands, whether by bishops or presbyters; concerning which single act,
   both as to its order and efficacy, I have sufficiently delivered my
   judgment, if he be pleased to take notice of it. I fear, indeed, that
   when men speak of an "ordained ministry,' -- which, in its true and
   proper sense, I shall with them contend for, -- they often relate only
   to that solemnity, restraining the authoritative making of ministers
   singly thereunto, contrary to the intention and meaning of that
   expression in Scripture, antiquity, and the best reformed divines, both
   Calvinists and Lutherans; and yet it is not imaginable how some men
   prevail, by the noise and sound of that word, upon the prejudiced minds
   of partial, unstudied men. A little time may farther manifest, if it be
   not sufficiently done already, that another account is given of this
   matter by Clemens, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Justin Martyr, and
   generally all the first writers of the Christians, besides the councils
   of old and late, with innumerable protestant authors of the best note,
   to the same purpose.

   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 Ps. xlv. 9, and
   mother of the family, or her that tarrieth at home, Ps. lxviii. 12,
   unto whom all ministers are stewards, 1 Cor. iv. 1, even in the house
   of God, 1 Tim. iii. 15; and sundry qualifications are indispensably
   previously required in the persons to be called; overlooking the
   necessity of the qualifications required and omitting the duty an
   authority of the church, Acts i. 15-26, vi. 2-6, xiii. 2, 3, xiv. 23,
   the act of them who are not the whole church, Eph. iv. 11, 12, but only
   a part of it, 1 Cor. iii. 5, 2 Cor. i. 24, 1 Pet. v. 3, as to ministry,
   consisting in the approbation and solemn confirmation of what is
   supposed to go before, hath in some men's language gotten the name of
   "ordination,'' and an interpretation of that name, to such an extent as
   to inwrap in it all that is indispensably necessary to the constitution
   or making of ministers: so that where that is obtained, in what order
   soever, or by whomsoever administered, who have first obtained it
   themselves, there is a lawful and sufficient calling to the ministry!
   Indeed, I know no error about the institutions of Christ attended with
   more pernicious consequences to the church of God than this, should it
   be practised according to the force of the principle itself. Suppose
   six, eight, or ten men, who have themselves been formerly ordained, but
   now perhaps, not by any ecclesiastical censure, but by an act of the
   civil magistrate, are put out of their places for notorious ignorance
   and scandal, should concur and ordain a hundred ignorant and wicked
   persons like themselves to be ministers, must they not, on this
   principle, be all accounted ministers of Christ, and to be invested
   with all ministerial power, and so be enabled to propagate their kind
   to the end of the world? And, indeed, why should not this be granted,
   seeing the whole bulk of the papal ordination is contended for as
   valid? whereas it is notoriously known that sundry bishops among them
   (who perhaps received their own ordination as the reward of a whore),
   being persons of vicious lives, and utterly ignorant of the gospel, did
   sustain their pomp and sloth by selling "holy orders," as they called
   them, to the scum and refuse of men. But of these things more in their
   proper place.

   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 true notion and nature of schism, with long
   talks about Anabaptists, Brownists, Sectaries, Independents,
   Presbyterians, ordination, with charges and reflections grounded on
   this presumption, [prove] that this author and his party (for we will
   no more contend about that expression) are "in solidum" possessed of
   all true and orderly church-state in England, so that whosoever are not
   of them are "schismatics," and I know not what besides, he being


   ? "gallinæ filius albæ,

   Nos viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis," Juv., xiii. 141,

   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 Lasitius [17] and Regenuolscius [18] about the churches of Bohemia,
   Poland, and those parts of the world, especially the latter, from pp.
   29, 30, and forward. And as to the distinction used by some between the
   Papacy and the church of Rome, which our author makes use of to another
   purpose than those did who first invented it (extending it only to the
   consideration of the possibility of salvation for individual persons
   living in that communion before the Reformation), I hope he will not be
   angry if I profess my disability to understand it. All men cannot be
   wise alike. If the Papacy comprise the pope, and all papal jurisdiction
   and power, with the subjection of men thereunto; if it denote all the
   idolatries, false worship, and heresies of that society of men, -- I do
   know that all those are confirmed by church-acts of that church, and
   that, in the church-public sense of that church, no man was a member of
   it but by virtue of the union that consisted in that Papacy, it being
   placed always by them in all their definitions of their church; as
   also, that there was neither church-order, nor church-power, nor
   church-act, nor church-confession, nor church-worship amongst them, but
   what consisted in that Papacy.

   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 to stand
   upon an unquestionable foundation, I shall a little examine the grounds
   of their security, and then compare them with what they have to plead
   who refuse to acknowledge the deriving any sap or nourishment from that
   rotten corrupt stock.

   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, Pope Nicholas, in his resolutions and determinations
   upon the inquiry of the Bulgarians (whose decrees are authentic and
   recorded in their councils, tom. 2. Crab. p. 144), declares the
   judgment of that church to the full. They tell him that many in their
   nation were baptized by an unknown person, a Jew or a Pagan, they knew
   not whether, and inquire of him whether they were to be rebaptized or
   no; whereunto he answers: "Si in nomine S. S. Trinitatis, vel tantum in
   Christi nomine, sicut in Actis apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt,
   unum quippe idemque est, ut S. Ambrosius expressit, constat eos denuo
   non esse baptizandos." If they were baptized in the name of the
   Trinity, or of Christ, they are not to be baptized again. Let a
   blasphemous Jew or Pagan do it, so it be done, the work is wrought,
   grace conveyed, and baptism valid! The constant practice of women
   baptizing amongst them is of the same import. And what doth Mr Cawdrey
   think of this kind of baptism? Is it not worth the contending about, to
   place it in the derived succession of ours? Who knows but that some of
   these persons, baptized by a counterfeit impostor, on purpose to abuse
   and defile the institutions of our blessed Saviour, might come to be
   baptizers themselves, yea, bishops or popes, from whom all
   ecclesiastical authority was to be derived? and what evidence or
   certainty can any man have that his baptism doth not flow from this
   fountain.

   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 Beza
   in the place mentioned. Many other passages there are in this chapter
   that might be remarked, and a return easily made according to their
   desert of untruth and impertinency; but the insisting on such things
   looks more like children's playing at push-pin than the management of a
   serious disputation. Take an instance. Page 23, he seems to be much
   offended with my commending him, and tells me, as Jerome said of
   Rufinus, "I wrong him with praises;" when yet the utmost I say of him
   is, that "I had received a better character of him than he had given of
   himself in his book," p. 10 [214]; and that "his proceeding was
   unbecoming his worth, gravity, and profession," p. 46 [227], or "so
   grave and reverend a person as he is reported to be;" p. 121 [234];
   wherein, it seems, I have transgressed the rule, Mepot' eu erdein
   geronta.

   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 briefly see what it amounts unto, and whether it be a sufficient
   basis of the superstruction that is raised upon it. Hence it is that my
   inconsistency with myself must be remarked in the title page of his
   first treatise; from hence must my authority (which what it is I know
   not) be impaired, and myself be compared to cursed apostates and
   seducers, and great triumph be made upon my self-inconsistency.

   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:--


   ? hode horon tous nomous

   Lian akribos, sukophantes phainetai.

   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 Mr Cawdrey, ouk all' edokesen idein dia
   nukta silenen. Pass we to the third:--

   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].

   I wish our reverend author, for his own sake, had omitted this
   instance, because I am enforced, in my own necessary defence, to let
   him know that what he assigns to me in his second column is notoriously
   false, denied and disproved by me in the very place and treatise
   wherein I have handled the doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit;
   and whether he will hear or forbear, I cannot but tell him that this
   kind of dealing is unworthy his calling and profession. His following
   deductions and inferences, whereby he endeavours to give countenance to
   this false and calumnious charge, arise from ignorance of the doctrine
   that he seeks to blemish and oppose. Though the same Spirit dwell in
   Christ and us, yet he may have him in fulness, we in measure; --
   fulness and measure relating to his communication of graces and gifts,
   which are arbitrary to him; indwelling, to his person. That the Spirit
   animates the catholic church, and is the author of its spiritual life
   by a voluntary act of his power, as the soul gives life to the body by
   a necessary act, by virtue of its union, -- for [that] life is "actus
   vivificantis in vivificatum per unionem utriusque," -- is the common
   doctrine of divines. But yet the soul being united to the body as "pars
   essentialis suppositi," and the Spirit dwelling in the person as a free
   inhabitant, the union between Christ and the person is not of the same
   kind with the union of soul and body. Let our author consult Zanchy on
   the second of the Ephesians, and he will not repent him of his labour;
   or, if he please, an author whom I find him often citing, namely,
   Bishop Hall, about union with Christ. And for my concernment in this
   charge, I shall subjoin the words from whence it must be taken, p. 133
   of my book of Perseverance. [19]

   "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 Cor. xii. 12; the very expression
   insisted on by him in my former treatise. And so you have an issue of
   this self-contradiction; concerning which, though reports be urged for
   some other things, Mr Cawdrey might have said what Lucian doth of his
   true history, Grapho toinun peri hon met' eidon, met' epathon, mete
   par' allon eputhomen.

   Let us, then, consider the fourth, which is thus placed:--

   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 Mr Cawdrey did subscribe unto the three articles at his
   ordination, were it of any concernment to the church of God or the
   interest of truth, or were it a comely and a Christian part to engage
   in such a work, I could manifest contradictions between what he then
   solemnly subscribed to and what he hath since written and preached,
   manifold above what he is able to draw out of this alteration of my
   judgment. Be it here, then, declared, that whereas I some time
   apprehended the presbyterial, synodical government of churches to have
   been fit to be received and walked in (then when I knew not but that it
   answered those principles which I had taken up, upon my best inquiry
   into the word of God), I now profess myself to be satisfied that I was
   then under a mistake, and that I do now own, and have for many years
   lived in, the way and practice of that called congregational. And for
   this alteration of judgment, of all men I fear least a charge from
   them, or any of them, whom within a few years we saw reading the
   service-book in their surplices, etc.; against which things they do now
   inveigh and declaim. What influence the perusal of Mr Cotton's book of
   the Keys had on my thoughts in this business I have formerly declared.
   The answer to it (I suppose that written by himself) is now recommended
   to me by this author, as that which would have perhaps prevented my
   change; but I must needs tell him, that as I have perused that book,
   many years ago, without the effect intimated, so they must be things
   written with another frame of spirit, evidence of truth, and manner of
   reasoning, than any I can find in that book, that are likely for the
   future to lay hold upon my reason and understanding. Of my settlement
   in my present persuasion I have not only given him an account formerly,
   but, with all Christian courtesy, tendered myself in a readiness
   personally to meet him, to give him the proofs and reasons of my
   persuasions; which he is pleased to decline, and return, in way of
   answer, that "I complimented him after the mode of the times," when no
   such thing was intended; and thereupon my words of desiring liberty to
   wait upon him are expressed, but the end and purpose for which it was
   desired are concealed in an "etc." But he adds another instance:--

   "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 and Advice,"
   wherein the parliament of the three nations is come up to my judgment.
   And if Mr Cawdrey hath any thing to object to my present judgment, let
   him, at his next leisure, consider the treatise that I wrote in the
   year about toleration, where he will find the whole of it expressed. I
   suppose he will be doing, and that I may almost say of him, as
   Polyeuctus did of Spensippus, To me dunasthai hesuchian agein hupo tes
   tuches en pentasuringo noso dedemenon. And now, Christian reader, I
   leave it to thy judgment whether our author had any just cause of all
   his outcries of my inconstancy and self-contradiction, and whether it
   had not been advisable for him to have passed by this seeming advantage
   for the design he professed to manage, rather than to have injured his
   own conscience and reputation to so little purpose.

   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 contrary was
   proved by me is evident to all impartial men that have considered my
   treatise, although I cannot allow that the separation in the church of
   Corinth was carried to that height as is by him pretended, -- namely,
   as to separate from the ordinance of the Lord's supper. Their disorder
   and division about and in its administration are reproved, not their
   separation from it. Only, on that supposition made, I confess I was
   somewhat surprised with the delivery of his judgment in reference to
   many of his own party, whom he condemns of schism for not administering
   the Lord's supper to all the congregation with whom they pray and
   preach. I suppose the greatest part of the most godly and able
   ministers of the presbyterian way in England and Scotland are here cast
   into the same condition of schismatics with the Independents; and the
   truth, is, I am not yet without hopes of seeing a fair coalescency in
   love and church-communion between the reforming Presbyterians and
   Independents, though for it they shall with some suffer under the
   unjust imputation of schism.

   But it is incredible to think whither men will suffer themselves to be
   carried "studio partium," and ametria antholkes. 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 Acts xiv. 4, xix. 9, 18, are pertinently used to discover and
   prove the nature of schism in an evangelically-ecclesiastical sense, or
   were ever cited by any of the ancients to that purpose, I suppose our
   author, on second consideration, will not affirm. I understand not the
   sense of this argument: "The multitude of the city was divided, and
   part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles;' therefore, schism
   in a gospel church-state is not only a division in a church," or that
   it is a separation into new churches, or that it is something more than
   the breach of the union appointed by Christ in an instituted church.
   Much less doth any thing of this nature appear from Paul's separating
   the disciples whom he had converted to the faith from the unbelieving,
   hardened Jews; an account whereof is given us, Acts xix. 9. So, then,
   that in this chapter there is any thing produced "de novo" to prove
   that the precise Scripture notion of schism, in its ecclesiastical
   sense, extends itself any farther than differences, divisions,
   separations in a church, and that a particular church, I find not; and
   do once more desire our author, that if he be otherwise minded, to
   spare such another trouble to ourselves and others as that wherein we
   are now engaged, he would assign me some time and place to attend him
   for the clearing of the truth between us.

   Of schism, Acts xx. 30, Heb. x. 25, Jude 19, there is no mention; nor
   are those places interpreted of any such thing by any expositors, new
   or old, that ever I yet saw; nor can any sense be imposed on them
   inwrapping the nature of schism with the least colour or pretence of
   reason.

   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. Acts xx. 30, the
   apostle speaks of men "speaking perverse things, to draw away
   disciples," -- that is, teaching them false doctrines, contrary to the
   truths wherein they had been by him instructed, in his revealing unto
   them "the whole counsel of God," verse 27. This by the ancients is
   called heresy, and is contradistinguished from schism by them
   constantly; so Austin a hundred times. To draw men from the church by
   drawing them into pernicious errors, false doctrine being the cause of
   their falling off, is not schism, nor so called in Scripture, nor by
   any of the ancients that ever yet I observed. That the design of the
   apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is to preserve and keep them
   from apostasy unto Judaism, besides that it is attested by a cloud of
   witnesses, is too evident from the thing itself to be denied. Chap. x.
   25, he warns them of a common entrance into that fearful condition
   which he describes, verse 26. Their neglect of the Christian assemblies
   was the door of their apostasy to Judaism. What is this to schism?
   Would we charge a man with that crime whom we saw neglecting our
   assemblies, and likely to fall into Judaism? Are there not more
   forcible considerations to deal with him upon? and doth not the apostle
   make use of them? Jude 19 hath been so far spoken unto already that it
   may not fairly be insisted on again. "Parvas habet spes Troja, si tales
   habet."

   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. 1 John ii. 19
   is again mentioned to this purpose of schism, to as little purpose; so
   also is Heb. x. 25. Both places treat of apostates, who are charged and
   blamed under other terms than that of schism. There is in such
   departures, as in every division whatever of that which was in union,
   somewhat of the general nature of schism; but that particular crime and
   guilt of schism, in its restrained, ecclesiastical sense, is not
   included in them.

   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? Mr Cawdrey says, indeed, that the episcopal men
   and they agree in substantials, and differ only in circumstantials, but
   that they and we differ in substantials. But let him know they admit
   not of his compliances; they say he is a schismatic, and that all his
   party are so also. Let him answer their charge solidly upon his own
   principles, and not think to own that which he hath the weakest claim
   imaginable unto, and was never yet in possession of. We deny that,
   since the gospel came into England, the presbyterian government, as by
   them stated was ever set up in England, but in the wills of a party of
   men; so that here, as yet, unless as it lies in particular
   congregations, where our right is as good as theirs, none have
   separated from it that I know of, though many cannot consent unto it.
   The first ages we plead ours, the following were unquestionably
   episcopal.

   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 Dr Du
   Moulin; but the truth is, the doctor hath provoked him. And were it not
   for some considerations that are obvious to me, I should almost wonder
   why this author should sharpen his leisure and zeal against me, who
   scarce ever publicly touched the grounds and foundations of that cause
   which he hath so passionately espoused, and pass by him who, both in
   Latin and English, hath laid his axe to the very root of it, upon
   principles sufficiently destructive to it, and so apprehended by the
   best learned in our author's way that ever these nations brought forth.
   But, as I said, reasons lie at hand why it was more necessary to give
   me this opposition; which yet hath not altered my resolution of
   handling this controversy in another manner, when I meet with another
   manner of adversary.

   Page 110, he fixes on the examination of a particular passage about the
   disciples of John, mentioned Acts xix. 2, 3, of whom I affirmed that it
   is probable they were rather ignorant of the miraculous dispensations
   of the Holy Ghost than of the person of the Holy Ghost; alleging to the
   contrary, that the words are "more plain and full than to be so eluded,
   and, for aught appears, John did not baptize into the name of the Holy
   Ghost." I hope the author doth not so much dwell at home as to suppose
   this to be a new notion of mine. Who almost of late, in their critical
   notes, have not either (at least) considered it or confirmed it?
   Neither is the question into whose name they were expressly baptized,
   but in what doctrine they were instructed. He knows who denies that
   they were at all actually baptized, before they were baptized by Paul.
   Nor ought it to be granted, without better proof than any which as yet
   hath been produced, that any of the saints under the Old Testament were
   ignorant of the being of the Holy Ghost; neither do the words require
   the sense by him insisted on. All' oude ei Pneuma hagion estin,
   ekousamen, do no more evince the person of the Holy Ghost to be
   included in them than in those other, John vii. 39, Oupo en Pneuma
   hagion. The latter, in the proper sense, he will not contend for; nor
   can, therefore, the expression being uniform, reasonably for the
   former. Speaking of men openly and notoriously wicked, and denying them
   to be members of any church whatever, he bids me answer his arguments
   to the contrary from 1 Cor. v. 7, 2 Thess. iii. 14; and I cannot but
   desire him that he would impose that task on them that have nothing
   else to do: for my own part, I shall not entangle myself with things to
   so little purpose. Having promised my reader to attend only to that
   which looks toward the merit of the case, I must crave his pardon that
   I have not been able to make good my resolution. Meeting with so
   little, or nothing at all, which is to that purpose, I find myself
   entangled in the old diversions that we are now plentifully accustomed
   unto; but yet I shall endeavour to recompense this loss by putting a
   speedy period to this whole trouble, despairing of being able to tender
   him any other satisfaction whilst I dwell on this discourse. In the
   meantime, to obviate all strife of words, if it be possible, for the
   future, I shall grant this reverend author that, in the general large
   notion of schism, which his opposition to that insisted on by me hath
   put him upon, I will not deny but that he and I are both schismatics,
   and any thing else shall be so that he would have to be so, rather than
   to be engaged in this contest any farther. In this sense he affirms
   that there was a schism between Paul and Barnabas, and so one of them
   at least was a schismatic; as also, he affirms the same of two lesser
   men, though great in their generation, Chrysostom and Epiphanius. So
   error and heresy, if he please, shall be schism from the catholic
   church; and scandal of life shall be schism. And his argument shall be
   true, that schism is a breach of union in a church of Christ's
   institution; therefore, in that which is so only by call, not to any
   end of joint worship as such; -- of any union, that which consists in
   the profession of the saving truths of the gospel; and so there may be
   a schism in the catholic church. And so those Presbyterians that reform
   their congregations, and do not administer the sacraments to all
   promiscuously, shall be guilty of schism; and, indeed, as to me, what
   else he pleaseth, for my inquiry concerns only the precise limited
   nature of schism, in its evangelically-ecclesiastical sense.

   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 Dr Wallis and myself, about his question
   in the Vespers, 1654, -- namely, that as to that question, "An potestas
   ministri evangelici ad unius tantum ecclesiæ particuiaris membra
   extendatur?" I said that Dr Wallis had brought me a challenge, and
   that, if I did dispute on that question, I must dispute "ex animo."
   Although I grant that a minister, as a minister, may preach the word to
   more than those of his own congregation, yet knowing the sense wherein
   the learned Dr Wallis maintained that question, it is not impossible
   but I might say, if I did dispute I must do it "ex animo." For his
   bringing me a challenge, I do not know that either he did so or that I
   put that interpretation on what he did; but I shall crave leave to say,
   that if the learned Dr Wallis do find any ground or occasion to bring a
   challenge unto me, to debate any point of difference between us, I
   shall not waive answering his desire, although he should bring Mr
   Cawdrey for his second. For the present I shall only say, that as it is
   no commendation to the moderation or ingenuity of any one whatever thus
   to publish to the world private hear-says, and what he hath been told
   of private conferences; so if I would insist on the same course, to
   make publication of what I have been told hath been the private
   discourse of some men, it is not unlikely that I should occasion their
   shame and trouble. Yet in this course of proceeding a progress is made
   out in the ensuing words, and Mr Stubbes (who is now called my
   "amanuensis;" who some five years ago transcribed about a sheet of
   paper for me, and not one line before or since) is said to be employed,
   or at least encouraged, by me to write against the learned Dr Wallis,
   his Thesis being published. This is as true as much of that that went
   before, and as somewhat of that that follows after; and whereas it is
   added, that I said what he had written on that subject was "a
   scurrilous, ridiculous piece," it is of the same nature with the rest
   of the like reports. I knew that Mr Stubbes was writing on that
   subject, but not until he had proceeded far in it. I neither employed
   him nor encouraged him in it, any otherwise than the consideration of
   his papers, after he had written them, may be so interpreted; and the
   reason why I was not willing he should proceed, next to my desire of
   continuance of peace in this place, was, his using such expressions of
   me, and some things of mine, in sundry places of his discourse, as I
   could not modestly allow to be divulged. The following words to the
   same purpose with them before mentioned, I remember not, nor did ever
   think to be engaged in the consideration of such transgressions of the
   common rules of human society as those now passed through. Reports,
   hear-says, talks, private discourse between friends, allegations
   countenanced by none of these, nor any thing else, are the weapons
   wherewith I am assaulted! "I have heard," "I am told," "if reports be
   true," "it was vox populi' at Oxford," "is it not so?" "I presume he
   will not deny it," are the ornaments of this discourse! Strange! that
   men of experience and gravity should be carried, by the power of these
   temptations, not only to the forgetfulness of the royal law of Christ,
   and all gospel rules of deportment towards his professed disciples, but
   also be engaged into ways and practices contrary to the dictates of the
   law of nature, and such as sundry heathens would have abhorred. For my
   own part, had not God by his providence placed me in that station
   wherein others also that fear him are concerned in me, I should not
   once turn aside to look upon such heaps as that which I have now passed
   over. My judgment on most heads and articles of Christian religion is
   long since published to the world, and I continue, through the grace
   and patience of God, preaching in public answerably to the principles I
   do profess; and if any man shall oppose what I have delivered, or shall
   so deliver, in print, or the pulpit, or in divinity lectures, as my
   judgment, I shall consider his opposition, and do therein as God shall
   guide. With evil surmises, charges upon hear-says and reports, attended
   with perpetual excursions from the argument in hand, I shall no more
   contend.

   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.

   The Donatists are mentioned again, p. 113; and I am again charged with
   an attempt to vindicate them from schism. My thoughts of them I have
   before declared to the full, and have no reason to retract any thing
   from what was then spoken, or to add any thing thereunto. If it may
   satisfy our author, I here grant they were schismatics, with what
   aggravations he pleaseth; and wherein their schism consisted I have
   also declared. But he says, I undertake to exempt some others from
   schism (I know whom), that suffer with them, in former and after ages,
   under the same imputation. I do so, indeed; and I suppose our author
   may guess at whom I intend, -- himself, amongst others! I hope he is
   not so taken up in his thoughts with charging schism on others as to
   forget that many, the greatest part and number of the true churches of
   Christ, do condemn him for a schismatic, a Donatistical schismatic. I
   suppose he acknowledges the church of Rome to be a true church; the
   Lutheran I am persuaded he will not deny, nor perhaps the Grecian, to
   be so; the Episcopal church of England he contends for; -- and yet all
   these, with one voice, cry out upon him for a schismatic. And as to the
   plea of the last, how he can satisfy his conscience as to the rejection
   of his lawful superiors, upon his own principles, without pretending
   any such crime against them as the Donatists did against Cæcilianus, I
   profess I do not understand. New mention is made of episcopal
   ordination, p. 120, and they are said to have had their successive
   ordination from Rome who ordained therein. So, indeed, some say, and
   some otherwise. Whether they had or no is nothing to me; I lay no
   weight upon it. They held, I am sure, that place in England, that
   without their approbation no man could publicly preach the gospel. To
   say they were presbyters, and ordained as presbyters, I know not what
   satisfaction can arise unto conscience thereby. Party and argument may
   be countenanced by it. They profess they ordained as bishops; that for
   their lives and souls they durst not ordain but as such. So they told
   those whom they ordained, and affirm they have open injury done them by
   any one's denial of it. As it was, the best is to be made of it. This
   shift is not handsome. Nor is it ingenuous, for any one that hath
   looked into antiquity, to charge me with departing from their sense in
   the notion of schism, declared about the third and fourth ages, and at
   the same time to maintain an equality between bishops and presbyters,
   or to say that bishops ordained as presbyters, not as bishops. Nor do I
   understand the excellency of that order which we see in some churches,
   where they have two sorts of elders, the one made so by ordination
   without election, and the other by election without ordination; those
   who are ordained casting off all power and authority of them that
   ordained them, and those who are elected immediately rejecting the
   greatest part of those that chose them.

   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 not. And, p. 134, he hath this passage (only I take notice
   of his introduction to his answer, with thanks for the civility of the
   inquiry in the manner of its expression):-- "My words were these:
   Whether our reverend author do not in his conscience think there was no
   true church in England till;' etc.; which puts me into suspicion that
   the reverend doctor was offended that I did not always (for oft I do)
   give him that title of the reverend author,' or the doctor,' which made
   him cry out he was never so dealt withal by any party as by me; though,
   upon review, I do not find that I gave him any uncivil language,
   unbeseeming me to give or him to receive; and I hear that somebody hath
   dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very ill."

   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 Luther, "Nunquam
   periclitatur religio nisi inter reverendissimos;" so that he may, as to
   me, forbear it for the future, and call me as the Quakers do, and it
   shall suffice. And for that of "doctor," it was conferred on me by the
   university in my absence, and against my consent, as they have
   expressed it under their public seal, nor doth any thing but gratitude
   and respect unto them make me once own it; and freed from that
   obligation, I should never use it more, nor did I use it until some
   were offended with me, and blamed me for my neglect of them. And for
   that other whom he mentions, who before this gave so far place to
   indignation as to insinuate some such thing, I doubt not but by this
   time he hath been convinced of his mistake therein, being a person of
   another manner of ability and worth than some others with whom I have
   to do; and the truth is, my manner of dealing with him in my last
   reply, which I have since myself not so well approved of, requires the
   passing by such returns. But you will say, then, why do I preface this
   discourse with that expression, "With thanks for the civility of the
   inquiry in the manner of its expression?" I say, this will discover the
   iniquity of this author's procedure in this particular. His inquiry
   was, "Whether I did not in my conscience think 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?"
   Without once taking notice or mentioning his titles that he says he
   gave me, I used the words in a sense obvious to every man's first
   consideration, as a reproof of the expressions mentioned,. That which
   was the true cause of my words our author hides in an "etc.;" that
   which was not by me once taken notice of is by him expressed to serve
   an end of drawing forth an evil surmise and suspicion, that hath not
   the least colour to give it countenance. Passing by all indifferent
   readers, I refer the honesty of this dealing with me to the judgment of
   his own conscience. Setting down what I neither expressed nor took
   notice of, nor had any singular occasion in that place so to do, the
   words being often used by him, hiding and concealing what I did take
   notice of and express, and which to every man's view was the occasion
   of that passage, that conclusion or unworthy insinuation is made, which
   a good man ought to have abhorred.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [15] Ardelio, a busy-body, a meddler; a term borrowed from Phædrus, lib
   ii. Fab. 5. -- Ed.

   [16] Vid. Gerard. loc. Com. de Minist. Ecclesiast. Sect. 11, 12.

   [17] Joannes Lasitius wrote a large work on the Bohemian Brethren. The
   eighth book of this work under the title, "Historiæ de Origine et Rebus
   Gestis Fratrum Bohemorum;" etc., was published by Comenis in 1649. --
   Ed.

   [18] Regenuolscius, or rather, according to his true name, Wingerscius,
   was the author of "Systema Historico-Chronologicum Ecclesiarum
   Slavonicarum." -- Ed.

   [19] See vol. xi. of Owen's works, chap. viii.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   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." -- Tertul.
     __________________________________________________________________

Prefatory note.

   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 Stillingfleet, at that time Dean of St Paul's,
   preached a sermon on the 2d of May before the Lord Mayor of London. It
   was published under the title, "On the Mischief of Separation." His
   object was to prove the Nonconformists guilty of schism, on the ground
   that they admitted the Church of England to be a true church of Christ,
   and yet lived in a state of dissent and separation from it. His text
   was Phil. iii. 16.

   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 Owen, Baxter published his "Answer to Dr
   Stillingfleet's Charge of Separation," in terms of vehement invective
   against the injustice with which he had treated Dissent. John Howe
   addressed to the offending Dean "A Letter written from the Country to a
   Person of Quality in the City," protesting with all his characteristic
   mildness and candour, but most firmly, against the insinuations of
   Stillingfleet. Vincent Alsop also took the field, in a work brimful of
   wit and humour to the very title-page, "The Mischief of Impositions."
   Mr Barret of Nottingham, in allusion to the "Irenicum," written by
   Stillingfleet when rector of Sutton, to reconcile conflicting sects by
   proving that no form of church-government could plead divine authority
   in its favour, published, "The Rector of Sutton Committed with the Dean
   of St Paul's," etc. Besides these authors, to whom Stillingfleet
   replies in his "Unreasonableness of Separation," Mr John Troughton of
   Bicester published "An Apology for the Nonconformists; showing their
   reasons both for their not conforming and for their preaching publicly,
   though forbidden by law: with an Answer to Dr Stillingfleet's Sermon
   and his Defense of it, 1681." An account of the work in which
   Stillingfleet replied to the first five of these antagonists will be
   found in a prefatory note to Owen's answer to it, vol. xv. p. 183, of
   Owen's works. But Stillingfleet had to encounter fresh attacks:-- "More
   Work for the Dean," by Mr Thomas Wall; Mr Barret's second "Attempt to
   Vindicate the Principles of the Nonconformists, not only by Scripture,
   but by Dr Stillingfleet's Rational Account;" the "Modest and Peaceable
   Inquiry," by Mr Lob; Baxter's "Second True Defence of the mere
   Nonconformists;" Humphrey's "Answer to Dr Stillingfleet's Book, as far
   as it concerned the Peaceable Design;" and "The Rational Defense of
   Nonconformity," in 1689, by Mr Gilbert Rule.

   To the rescue of the Dean from this host of opponents, there advanced,
   with his vizor down and name withheld, Dr Sherlock, in his "Discourse
   about Church Unity, being a Defence of Dr Stillingfleet's
   Unreasonableness of Separation,' in answer to several late pamphlets,
   but principally to Dr Owen and Mr Baxter, 1681." This work was followed
   up by "A Continuation and Vindication of the Defense of Dr
   Stillingfleet, in answer to Mr Baxter, Mr Lob, and others." Mr Long of
   Exeter, wandering from the points in debate into most offensive
   personalities against Baxter, published "The Unreasonableness of
   Separation, the Second Part; or, a farther impartial account of the
   history, nature, and pleas, of the present separation from the Church
   of England, with special remarks on the life and actions of Richard
   Baxter, 1682." Richard Hook, D.D., vicar of Halifax, was the author of
   the "Nonconformist Champion, his Challenge Accepted; or, an answer to
   Mr Baxter's Petition for Peace, with remarks on his Holy Commonwealth,
   his Sermon to the House of Commons, his Nonconformist's Plea, and his
   Answer to Dr Stillingfleet, 1682." The famous Sir Roger L'Estrange
   could not refrain from taking part in this curious mêlée with all his
   coarse but clever wit, of which the title of his work is a specimen,
   "The Casuist Uncased, in a Dialogue betwixt Richard and Baxter, with a
   moderator between them for quietness' sake."

   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 Owen in reply is all that could be wished, in
   strength of reasoning, civility of language, and crushing effect. There
   is a passage of eloquent pathos at the close, in allusion to the long
   sufferings of the Nonconformists. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   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 nation. Yea, of
   their diligence in opposition unto Popery, and their readiness to
   observe the direction of the magistrates therein, whilst the plot hath
   been in agitation, they suppose the honourable person unto whom this
   sermon is dedicated can and will bear them witness.

   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 have
   reported," Epist. Ded. Without this information, I confess I could not
   but judge it would have been as liable unto a supposition of such a
   design as the actings of the Nonconformists, in the management of their
   cause, are unto that of insincerity in the judgment of this reverend
   author; for, --

   (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 to prove the charge mentioned, and the
   consequents of it, shall be omitted.

   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 enabled in
   some measure to effect, a reformation in the ministry and people, as
   unto their relation to the church, as also in some things in the
   worship of God itself, it is vain to expect that the Nonconformists
   should unite with the church, however established. And may we not think
   that those many warnings and calls of God may have some respect unto
   those abominations that are found in the nation, yea, such as, without
   a due reformation of them, will issue in our desolation? I do know that
   with the Nonconformists also there are "sins against the Lord their
   God;" and it will be a great addition unto their sins, as also an
   aggravation of their guilt, if they comply not with the "warnings of
   God," as they are here expressed by this reverend author, so as to
   reform whatever is amiss in them, and return wholly unto God from all
   their wanderings. But as unto those things which are usually charged on
   them, they are such as interest, hatred, and the desire of their ruin,
   suggest unto the minds of their adversaries, or are used by some
   against their science and conscience to further that end, without the
   least pretence to be raised from any thing in them, -- their opinions,
   practices, or conversation in the world. Doth atheism abound among us?
   -- it is from the differences in religion made by Nonconformists! Is
   there danger of Popery? -- it is because of the Nonconformists! Are the
   judgments of God coming on the nation? -- it is for Nonconformity! So
   was it of old with the Christians: "Si Tybris ascendit in mænia, si
   Nilus non ascendit in arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames,
   si lues, statim, Christianos ad leonem!'"

   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
   themselves obliged unto by virtue of Moses' law, granting them in all
   other things the privilege of believers, and such as whom they would
   not in any thing offend. So do James and the elders of the church
   declare themselves, Acts xxi. 20, etc. Yea, --

   (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, brethren (if they think so) in the ministry, but
   that we be not, with outward force and destructive penalties, compelled
   to comply with and practice in the worship of God such things as, for
   our lives, and to save ourselves from the greatest ruin, we cannot
   conceive that it is the mind of Christ that we should do and observe;
   -- that, whilst we are peaceable and useful in our places, firmly
   united unto the body of the Protestants in this nation (which, as this
   author tells us, is the church of England), in confession of the same
   faith and common interest, for the maintenance and preservation of that
   one religion which we profess, we be not deprived of that liberty which
   God and nature, Christ and the gospel, the example of the primitive
   churches, and the present protestant interest of this nation, do
   testify to be our due.

   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 impartial men of
   the dissenters at this day, although they think the case of the
   ministers very hard, on account of subscriptions and declarations
   required of them, yet they confess very little is to be said on the
   behalf of the people, from whom none of those things are required. So
   that the people are condemned in their separation by their own
   teachers; but how they can preach lawfully to a people who commit a
   fault in hearing them I do not understand."

   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,' [20] as, Woe be
   unto me if I preach not the gospel?' If they, therefore, would acquit
   themselves like honest and conscientious men, let them tell the people
   plainly that they look on our churches as true churches, and that they
   may lawfully communicate with us in prayers and sacraments; and I do
   not question but in time, if they find it lawful, they will judge it to
   be their duty: for it is the apostle's command here, Whereto we have
   already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same
   thing.'"

   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 but
   be looked on as animated by such an evil surmise as is of no small
   provocation in the sight of God and men.

   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.

   This being the true state of lay-communion, which will admit of no
   indulgence if the rule be observed, I must say that I do not believe
   that there are six nonconformist ministers in England that do believe
   this communion to be lawful for the people to embrace; and, on the
   other hand, they cease not to instruct them wherein their true
   communion with the church of England doth consist, -- namely, in faith
   and love, and all the fruits of them, unto the glory of God.

   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; [21] -- that is, they
   change their opinions according to their interest. I know not directly
   whom he intends. Those who are commonly called Independents expressed
   their apprehension of the magistrate's power in and about religion in
   their Confession, made 1659. [22] That any of them have, on what hath
   ensued, changed their opinion therein I know not. And, for my part, I
   have on this occasion perused the answer unto the two questions
   directed unto, and do profess myself at this day to be of the same
   judgment with the author of them, as it is expressed in that paper.
   There are things, not easily to be numbered, wherein we acknowledge the
   magistrate's power and duty in matters of religion, as much as ever was
   in the godly kings of Judah of old, or was at first claimed by the
   first Christian emperors. Yet there are some who, although they are fed
   and warmed, promoted and dignified, by the effects of the magistrate's
   power in and about religion, will not allow that any thing is ascribed
   unto him, unless we grant that it is in his rightful power, and his
   duty, to coerce and punish with all sorts of mulcts, spoiling of goods,
   imprisonments, banishments, and in some cases death itself, such
   persons as hold the Head and all the fundamental principles of
   Christian religion entire, whose worship is free from idolatry, whose
   conversations are peaceable and useful, unless in all things they
   comply with themselves, when possibly some of them may be as useful in
   and unto the church of God as those that would have them so dealt
   withal. And it may be, common prudence would advise a forbearance of
   too much severity in charges on others for changing their opinions,
   lest a provocation unto a recrimination on them that make them should
   arise of changing their opinions also, not without an appearing aspect
   to their own interests; but we have some among the Nonconformists who
   are so accustomed, not only unto such undue charges as that here
   insisted on, but unto such unjust accusations, false reports, malicious
   untruths, concerning them, their words, doctrines, and practices, --
   which, being invented by a few ill men, are trumpeted abroad with
   triumph by many, -- as that they are come to a resolution never to
   concern themselves in them any more.

   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 means of the
   constitution of such churches was wholly foreign unto religion and the
   concerns of it.

   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 a retreat unto the late device of the power of
   provincial churches to reform themselves. Let none mistake themselves
   herein; believers are not made for churches, but churches are appointed
   for believers. Their edification, their guidance and direction in the
   profession of the faith and performance of divine worship in
   assemblies, according to the mind of God, is their use and end; without
   which they are of no signification. The end of Christ in the
   constitution of his churches was, not the moulding of his disciples
   into such ecclesiastical shapes as might be subservient unto the power,
   interest, advantage, and dignity, of them that may in any season come
   to be over them, but to constitute a way and order of giving such
   officers unto them as might be in all things useful and subservient
   unto their edification; as is expressly affirmed, Eph. iv. 11-16.

   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 of the "appropriating the name of churches unto particular
   congregations" be, that those societies which have not, or which cannot
   have, assemblies for divine worship, are not churches properly so
   called, it is a thing of another consideration, that need not here be
   insisted on. But when such societies as whose bounds and limits are not
   of divine institution, as were those of the national church of the
   Jews; no, nor yet of the prudence and wisdom of men, as were the
   distribution of the ancient church into patriarchates and dioceses; but
   a mere natural and necessary consequent of that prevailing sword which,
   on the dissolution of the Roman empire, erected distinct kingdoms and
   dominions, as men were able, -- such societies as are not capable of
   any religious assemblies for divine worship, and the ministration of
   Christian discipline in them, -- such as are forced to invent and
   maintain a union by ways and means, and officers and orders, which the
   Scripture knows nothing of, -- are proved to be churches of Christ's
   institution, I shall embrace them as such. In the meantime, let them
   pass at their own proper rate and value, which the stamp of civil
   authority hath put upon them. What is farther discoursed by the author
   on this subject, proceeding no farther but why may it not be so and so,
   we are not concerned in.

   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 church of England; and in some
   things they have not, nor can have it so. Some knowing the word
   "separation" to be of an indifferent signification, and to be
   determined as unto its sense by what it is applied unto, do not contend
   but that, if any will have it so, the state wherein they are should be
   denominated from their dissent unto those things wherein they cannot
   hold communion with the church of England, and so are not offended if
   you call it a state of separation; howbeit this hinders not but that
   they continue their communion with the church of England, as was before
   mentioned. Others seem to take "separation" in the same sense with
   "schism," which is always evil, or at least they pretend it is their
   right to have the denomination of their state taken from what they
   agree in with the church of England, and not from their dissent in
   other things from it; and therefore they continue in a practice
   suitable unto that dissent. Wherefore, I judge that there is no need of
   this distinction, but both parties intended are equally concerned in
   the charge that is laid against them for their dissent in some things
   from the church.

   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 jewel,
   whose preservation from defilements and affronts God hath committed
   unto us, under the pain of his eternal displeasure; how unable honest
   men are to contravene the light of their own minds, in things of the
   smallest importance, for any outward advantages whatever; how great
   care, diligence, and accuracy ought to be used in all things relating
   unto the worship of God, about which he so frequently declares his
   jealousy, and displeasure against those who in any thing corrupt or
   debase it, with sundry other things of the like nature, -- will admire
   that these differences are not ended among us by an absolute
   acquiescency of the one party in the judgments, dictates, and
   impositions of the other: so, upon the supposition before mentioned, --
   of an agreement in all the foundations of religion, in all things, from
   themselves and God's appointment, necessary unto salvation; of that
   union of affections which our joint interest in the unity of the faith
   doth require; and of that union of interest which both parties have in
   the preservation of the protestant religion, and that of obedience and
   subjection unto the same civil government; and on the satisfaction
   which the dissenting parties have in that the others do enjoy all those
   great advantages which the public profession of religion in this
   kingdom is accompanied withal, not in the least pretending to or
   contending for any share therein, -- many wise men do and cannot but
   admire that the inconveniences and evils pretended should ensue on this
   difference as it is stated among us, and that the dissenters should be
   pursued with so much vehemency as they have been, even unto their ruin.
   But we must proceed in the way and method here proposed unto us.

   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 exo tou pragmatos,
   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 Acts xv.. 5. Wherefore, what the apostles so did, that any
   church hath power to do, and ought to do, namely, to establish a rule
   of all practice in their communion. 6. That not to comply with this
   rule in all things is schism, the schism whereof Nonconformists are
   guilty. This, to the best of my understanding, is the entire force of
   the argument insisted on, and that proposed unto the best advantage for
   the apprehension of its force and strength, etc.

   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 be, in some things
   only. 3. Hereupon he, gives direction how they should walk and behave
   themselves in this state and condition; and unto those who have
   attained that measure whence, in comparison of others, they may be
   styled "perfect," that they press on unanimously towards the end
   proposed; and as for those who in any things differed from others, he
   encourageth them to wait on the teachings of God, in that use of the
   means of instruction which they enjoyed. And having prescribed to each
   supposed party their especial duties as such, he lays down the duty of
   them both in common; which is, that in and with respect unto what they
   had attained, they should "walk by the same rule," namely, which he had
   now laid down, and "mind the same thing," as he had before enjoined
   them. Wherefore, these words of the apostle are so far from being a
   foundation to charge them with schism who, agreeing in the substance of
   the doctrine of the gospel, do yet dissent from others (probably the
   greater part of the church are intended) in some things, that they
   enjoin a mutual forbearance among those who are so differently minded.
   4. But our author affirms that it cannot be a rule of charity and
   mutual forbearance that is intended, because the apostle had spoken of
   that just before. But it is apparent that he speaks these words with
   reference unto what he had said just before; and if this be that which
   those who are "otherwise minded" are not obliged unto, then are they
   not obliged at all to "walk by the rule" intended; which is not the
   mind of the apostle. So himself declares out of Cajetan, that "the
   apostle subjoins the last words to the former, lest the persons he
   there speaks unto should think themselves excused from going as far as
   they can in the same rule," p. 37.

   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 them. And if any other
   government or particular rule can be produced given by them, which is
   not recorded in the Scripture, so it can be proved to be theirs, we
   will engage to conform unto it.

   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 importance which now it is pleaded to be of, -- such as that
   without it neither peace, nor unity, nor order, can be preserved in
   churches, -- some intimation at least would have been made of it
   therein. Especially, we may judge it would have been so, seeing sundry
   things (every thing, so far as we can understand) wherein the
   edification of the church is any way concerned are recorded in it,
   though of little or no use in comparison of what so great and general a
   rule would be of. Besides, there is that doctrine delivered, and those
   directions given by them, in the Scripture, concerning the liberty of
   believers and forbearance of dissenters, as is inconsistent with such a
   rule and the imposition of it.

   (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, until either
   it were produced in a scheme of canons, or it were proved that because
   they had power to make such a rule, so others may do the like, adding
   unto what they prescribed, leaving place unto others to add to their
   rule by the same right, and so endlessly.

   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,
   Rom. xiv.. This the reverend author saw, -- namely, that the rule there
   laid down is such as expressly requires mutual forbearance in such
   cases, where men are unsatisfied in conscience about any practice in
   religion; which seems, in the same case, to be quite another rule than
   that which he supposeth to be intended in this place to the
   Philippians. But hereunto he answers, that "the apostle did act like a
   prudent governor, and in such a manner as he thought did most tend to
   the propagation of the gospel and the good of particular churches. In
   some churches that consisted mostly of Jews, as the church of Rome at
   this time did, and where they did not impose the necessity of keeping
   the law on the Gentile Christians (as we do not find they did at Rome),
   the apostle was willing to have the law buried as decently and with as
   little noise as might be; and, therefore, in this case he persuades
   both parties to forbearance and charity in avoiding the judging and
   censuring of one another, since they had an equal regard unto the
   honour of God in what they did. But in those churches where the false
   apostles made use of this pretence of the Levitical law being still in
   force, to divide the churches and to separate the communion of
   Christians, the apostle bids them beware of them and their practices,
   as being of a dangerous and pernicious consequence," pp. 14, 15. First,
   No man ever doubted of the prudence of the apostle as a governor,
   though in this place he acts only as a teacher divinely inspired,
   instructing the churches in the mind of God as unto the differences
   that were among them. Secondly, The difference then among the Romans
   was about the observation of the Mosaical ceremonies and worship; that
   is, so far as they might be observed in the countries of the Gentiles,
   out of the limits of the church, the land of Canaan. It could not be,
   therefore, concerning such things as whose discharge and practice was
   confined unto the temple or that land, which yet the Jews of Jerusalem
   adhered unto, Acts xxi. 20-24. Their controversy, therefore, was
   principally about meats and drinks, days of feasting or fasting, and
   the like, all founded on a supposed necessity of circumcision. Thirdly,
   It is well observed by our author, that the Judaizing Christians
   (which, in all probability, at this time were the greatest number at
   Rome, the Gentile church not making any great increase before the
   coming of the apostle thither) did not impose the necessity of keeping
   the law on the Gentile Christians; at least not in that manner as was
   done by the false teachers who troubled the churches of the Galatians
   and others, so as to eject them who complied not with them out of
   church-communion, and from all hopes of salvation: but yet both parties
   continued in their different practices; which, through want of
   instruction what was their duty in such cases, produced many
   inconveniences among them, as judging or despising one another,
   contrary to the rule of Christian love and charity. In this state the
   apostle prescribes unto them the rule of their duty; which is, plainly,
   to bear with one another, to love one another, and, according to the
   nature of charity, to believe all things, -- to believe that each party
   was accepted with God, whilst they served him according unto the light
   which they had received. And as it is to be thought that, upon the
   giving of this rule and direction, they utterly laid aside all the
   animosities in judging and despising one another which they had been
   guilty of; so it is certain that they continued in their different
   practice a long time after without any rebuke or reproof; yea, some
   learned men do judge, and that not on grounds to be despised, that the
   parties who differed were gathered into distinct churches, and so
   continued to walk, even to the days of Adrian the emperor, when the
   last and final destruction of the whole nation of the Jews did befall
   them; after which those who were not hardened to the utmost gave off
   all expectation of any respect to be had with God of their old
   institution. I do not know how the present case between the church of
   England and the Nonconformists could have possibly been more plainly
   and distinctly stated and exemplified, in any thing that the churches
   were capable of or liable unto in those days, than it is in this case
   here stated and determined by the apostle; in whose direction, rule,
   and determination we do fully acquiesce. But, Fourthly, It is true also
   which this reverend author observes, that when the false apostles, or
   any other Judaizing teachers pretending to authority, did impose the
   observation of the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical law on any
   churches, unto their disturbance and division, the apostle looks hereon
   as that which so far altered the case that he gives other rules and
   directions about it. And if such impositions might be yet forborne in
   the like case, especially as accompanied with the severe supplement and
   addition of all sorts of outward penalties, to be inflicted on them who
   cannot comply with them, an open door would appear into all that
   agreement, peace, and quietness among us which are desired.

   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; [23] and together with some
   concessions of his, he adds his judgment, that communion in ordinances
   must be only in such churches as Christ himself instituted by
   unalterable rules, which were only particular and congregational
   churches. As I remember, that author hath at large declared in his
   discourse what communion believers ought to have with the church, or
   all churches, -- the church in every sense wherein that name is used in
   the Scripture. But I shall not trouble myself to inquire into his
   assertions or concessions; nor at present can I do so, not having that
   book with me where I now am. My business is only to examine, on this
   occasion, what this reverend author excepteth against or opposeth unto
   his assertion about congregational churches, and the answering his
   charge of schism, notwithstanding this plea of the institution of
   particular churches for the celebration of divine ordinances. This he
   doth p. 25: "Granting this to be true, how doth it hence appear not to
   be a sin to separate from our parochial churches, which, according to
   their own concessions, have all the essentials of true churches? And
   what ground can they have to separate and divide those churches, which,
   for all that we can see, are of the same nature with the churches
   planted by the apostles at Corinth, Philippi, or Thessalonica?"

   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 of men,
   which are not according to the mind of Christ. The things of this
   nature I shall not here mention in particular.

   (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
   dispute. So speaks Chief-Justice Hobart, [24] p. 149, in the case of
   Colt and Glover cont. Bishop Coventry and Litchfield: "And we know well
   that the primitive church, in its greatest purity, was but voluntary
   congregations of believers, submitting themselves to the apostles, and
   after to other pastors; to whom they did minister of their temporals as
   God did move them." Of the same judgment are those who esteem the first
   government of the church to be democratical. So speaks Paulus Sarpius:
   "In the beginning, the government of the holy church had altogether a
   democratical form, all the faithful intervening in the chiefest
   deliberations. Thus we see that all did intervene at the election of
   Matthias unto the apostleship, and in the election of the six deacons;
   and when St Peter received Cornelius, a heathen centurion, unto the
   faith, he gave an account of it to all the church; likewise in the
   council celebrated in Jerusalem, the apostles, the priests, and the
   other faithful brethren did intervene, and the letters were written in
   the name of all these three orders. In success of time, when the church
   increased in number, the faithful retiring themselves to the affairs of
   their families, and having left those of the congregation, the
   government retained only in the ministers, and became aristocratical,
   saving the election, which was popular." And others also of the same
   judgment may be added.

   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 long,
   be given of the state and ways of the first churches after the decease
   of the apostles; wherein it will be made to appear how they did
   insensibly deviate in many things from the rule of their first
   institution, so as that, though their mistakes were of small moment,
   and not prejudicial unto their faith and order, yet occasion was
   administered to succeeding ages to increase those deviations, until
   they issued in a fatal apostasy. An eminent instance hereof is given us
   in the discourse of Paulus Sarpius about matters beneficiary, lately
   made public in our own language. [25]

   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, Acts ix. 31. So the apostle mentions the churches of God that
   were in Judea, 1 Thess. ii. 14, and nowhere speaks of them as one
   church, for worship, order, and government. So he speaks again, that is
   constantly, Gal. i. 22, "I was unknown by face unto the churches of
   Judea" And that these churches were neither national nor diocesan, but
   particular congregations, is, as I suppose, sufficiently evident. So
   was it in the province of Galatia. There is no mention of any church
   therein that should be comprehensive of all the believers in that
   province; but many particular churches there were, as it is testified
   chap. i. 2. So was it also in Macedonia. The first church planted in
   that province was at Philippi, as it is declared Acts xvi.; and it was
   quickly brought into complete order, so as that when the apostle wrote
   unto it, there were in it the "saints" whereof it was constituted, with
   "bishops and deacons," Phil. i. 1. But that church being so complete,
   the apostle appointed other particular congregational churches in the
   same province, which had officers of their own, with a power of
   government; these he mentions and calls "The churches of Macedonia," 2
   Cor. viii. 1, 23. Wherefore we need no more directions in this matter
   than what are given us by the apostle's authority, in the name and
   authority of Jesus Christ, nor are concerned in the practice of those
   who afterward took another course, of adding believers from other
   places unto the church first planted, unless it were in case of a
   disability to enjoy church-communion among themselves elsewhere.
   Whatever, therefore, is pretended unto the contrary, we have plain
   Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct
   congregations, with power for their own rule and edification, in the
   same province, be it as small as those that were of Samaria or Galilee.
   It cannot, surely, be said that these churches were national, whereof
   there were many in one small province of a small nation, nor yet
   metropolitical or diocesan; nor, I suppose, will it be denied but that
   they were intrusted with power to rule and govern themselves in all
   ordinary cases, especially when in every one of them elders were
   ordained; which the apostles were careful to see done, Acts xiv. 23.
   This is the substance of what we plead as unto particular
   congregations.

   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, Acts xviii. 10, there was quickly
   planted a distinct church at Cenchrea, which was the port of the city,
   Rom. xvi. 1. And notwithstanding the great number of five thousand that
   were converted at Jerusalem upon the first preaching of the gospel, yet
   were they so disposed of or so dispersed, that some years after this
   there was such a church only there as did meet together in one place as
   occasion did require, even the whole multitude of the brethren, who are
   called the "church" in distinction from the "apostles and elders," who
   were their governors, Acts xv. 4, 12, xxi. 22. Nor was that church of
   any greater number when they all departed afterward and went out into
   Pella, a village beyond Jordan, before the destruction of the people,
   city, and temple. And though many alterations were before that time
   introduced into the order and rule of the churches, yet it appears that
   when Cyprian was bishop of the church at Carthage, the whole community
   of the members of that church did meet together to determine of things
   that were for their common interests, according unto what was judged to
   be their right and liberty in those days; which they could not have
   done had they not all of them belonged unto the same particular church
   and congregation. But these things may be pleaded elsewhere if occasion
   be given thereunto. But yet, --

   4. I must say that I cannot discern the least necessity of any positive
   rule or direction in this matter, nor is any such thing required by us
   on the like occasion; for this distribution of believers into
   particular congregations is that which the nature of the thing itself,
   and the duty of men with respect unto the end of such churches, do
   indispensably require. For what is the end of all churches, for which
   they are instituted? is it not the edification of them that do believe?
   They will find themselves mistaken who suppose that they were designed
   to be subservient unto the secular interest of any sort of men. What
   are the means appointed of Christ in such churches for that end? Are
   they not "doctrine and fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers," --
   that is, the joint celebration of the ordinances of Christ in the
   gospel, in preaching the word, administering the sacraments, mutual
   watchfulness over one another, and the exercise of that discipline
   which he hath appointed unto his disciples? I desire to know whether
   there be any need of a new revelation to direct men who are obliged to
   preserve churches in their use unto their proper end, to take care of
   such things as would obstruct and hinder them in the use of means unto
   the end of their edification? Whereas, therefore, it is manifest that,
   ordinarily, these means cannot be used in a due manner but in such
   churches as wherein all may be acquainted with what all are concerned
   in, the very institution itself is a plain command to plant, erect, and
   keep all churches in such a state as wherein this end may be attained.
   And, therefore, if believers in any place are so few, or so destitute
   of spiritual gifts, as not to be able of themselves jointly to observe
   these means for their edification, it is their duty not to join by
   themselves in a church-state, but to add themselves as members unto
   other churches; and so when they are so many as that they cannot
   orderly communicate together in all these ordinances, in the way of
   their administration appointed in the Scripture, unto the edification
   of them, it is their duty, by virtue of the divine institution of
   churches, to dispose of their church-state and relation into that way
   which will answer the ends of it, -- that is, into more particular
   churches or congregations.

   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 designed with
   respect unto the first sort of Noncomformists, as they are here
   distinguished, I might here give over the pursuit of this argument; but
   because I seek after truth and satisfaction also in these things, I
   shall a little farther consider what is offered by this reverend author
   unto the same purpose with what we have passed through. So, therefore,
   he proceeds, pp. 26, 27, "If that of which we read the clearest
   instance in Scripture must be the standard of all future ages, much
   more might be said for limiting churches to private families than to
   particular congregations; for do we not read of the church that was in
   the house of Priscilla and Aquila at Rome, of the church that was in
   the house of Nymphas at Colosse, and in the house of Philemon at
   Laodicea? Why, then, should not churches be reduced to particular
   families, when by that means they may fully enjoy the liberty of their
   consciences and avoid the scandal of breaking the laws? But if,
   notwithstanding such plain examples, men will extend churches to
   congregations of many families, why may not others extend churches to
   those societies which consist of many congregations?"

   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 Cor. viii. 5. Neither is there
   any mention at all in the Scripture of the constitution of churches in
   private families, so as that they should be limited thereunto.

   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 account of
   their being families. "So others may extend churches unto those
   societies which consist of many congregations;" -- yet not so as those
   who cannot comply or join with them should thereon be esteemed
   schismatics, seeing such societies were not appointed by Christ and his
   apostles. If such societies be so constituted as that there is but a
   probable plea that they are ordained by Christ, there may be danger in
   a dissent from them merely on this account, that they consist of many
   congregations; but this is not our case, as hath been before declared.

   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 of
   all things is least pleaded, and commonly in the last place, and but by
   some, among the causes and reasons of our withholding communion, so far
   as we do so, from the church of England, as unto the way and manner
   wherein it is required of us. Those reasons have been pleaded already,
   and may yet be so farther in due time. For the rest of the discourse,
   we do not, we cannot, believe that the due and peaceable observation of
   the institutions of Christ doth of itself give any disturbance unto any
   churches or persons whatever, nor that a peaceable endeavour to
   practice ourselves according unto those institutions, without imposing
   that practice on them, can be justly blamable. We do not, we cannot,
   believe that our refusal of a total compliance with a rule for order,
   discipline, worship, and ceremonies in the church, not given by Christ
   and his apostles, but requiring of us sundry things either in
   themselves or as required of us directly contrary unto, or inconsistent
   with, the rules and directions given us by them unto those ends (as, in
   our judgment and light of our consciences, is done in and by this
   rule), is either schism or blamable separation. We do judge ourselves
   obliged to preserve peace and unity among Christians by all the means
   that Christ hath appointed for that end, -- by the exercise of all
   graces, the performance of all duties, the observation of all rules and
   directions given us for that end; but we do not, we cannot, believe
   that to neglect the means of our own edification, appointed unto us by
   Christ himself, to cast away the liberty wherewith he hath made us
   free, and to destroy our own souls for ever by acting against his
   authority in his word, and our own consciences guided thereby, in a
   total complying with the rule proposed unto us, is a way or means for
   the attaining of that end. And we do believe that, in the present state
   of the differences among us, an issue whereof is not suddenly to be
   expected in an absolute agreement in opinion and judgment about them,
   the rule of the Scripture, the example of the first churches, the
   nature of Christian religion, and the present interest of the
   protestant religion among us, do call for mutual forbearance, with
   mutual love, and peaceable walking therein. And we begin to hope, that
   whereas it is confessed that the foundations of Christian religion are
   preserved entire among us all, and it is evident that those who dissent
   from the present ecclesiastical establishments, or any of them, are as
   ready to do and suffer what they shall be lawfully called unto in the
   defence and for the preservation of the protestant religion, wise men
   will begin to think that it is better for them to take up quietly in
   what the law hath provided for them, and not turmoil themselves and
   others in seeking to put an end unto these differences by force and
   compulsion; which by these ways they will never whilst they live attain
   unto. And we do suppose that many of them who do cordially own and seek
   the preservation of the protestant religion in this nation, -- men, I
   mean, of authority, power, and interest, -- will be no more
   instrumental to help one part [to] ruin and destroy another, unduly
   weakening the whole interest of Protestantism thereby; but, considering
   how little the concern of themselves or their posterity can be in these
   lesser differences, in comparison of what it is in the whole protestant
   cause, will endeavour their utmost to procure an equal liberty (though
   not equal outward advantages) for all that are firm and stable in their
   profession of that protestant religion which is established by law in
   this kingdom. I know that learned and eloquent men, such as this author
   is, are able to declaim against mutual forbearance in these things,
   with probable pleas and pretences of evil consequents which will ensue
   thereon; and I do know that others, though not with equal learning or
   eloquence, do declare and set forth the inequality, unrighteousness,
   and destructive events of a contrary course, or the use of force and
   compulsion in this cause; -- but it must be granted that the evil
   consequences pretended on a mutual forbearance do follow from the
   corrupt affections and passions of men, and not from the thing itself;
   but all the evils which will follow on force and compulsion do
   naturally arise from the thing itself.

   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 contempt of all men pretending unto the
   least wisdom and sobriety.

   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 absolute unconcernment in
   what was then pleaded on the one side or the other, and so it shall be
   here dismissed.

   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
   acknowledge no rule of conscience in those things which concern
   churches, their state, power, order, and worship, but divine revelation
   only, -- that is, the Scripture, the written word of God, -- and sure
   enough we are not deceived in the choice of our rule, so as that we
   desire no greater assurance in any concerns of religion. And by the
   Scripture as our rule, we understand both the express words of it, and
   whatever may, by just and lawful consequence, be educed from them. This
   rule we attend unto, and inquire into the mind of God in it, with all
   the diligence we are able, and in the use of all the means that are
   usually and truly pleaded as necessary unto the attainment of a right
   understanding thereof; and if any one can inform us of any thing
   required of us thereby which yet we have not received, we shall with
   all readiness comply therewithal. We have no prejudices, no outward
   temptations, that should bias our minds and inclinations unto those
   principles, and practices on them, which we judge ourselves guided and
   directed unto by this rule; but all such considerations as might be
   taken from the most moderate desires, even of food and raiment, do lie
   against us. We are hereon fully satisfied that we have attained that
   knowledge in the mind of God about these things as will preserve us
   from evil or sin against him, from being hurtful or useless unto the
   rest of mankind, if we submit unto the light and conduct of it.
   Wherefore, we seek no relief in, we plead no excuse from, the
   obligation of an erroneous conscience, but do abide by it that our
   consciences are rightly informed in these things; and then it is
   confessed on all hands what is their power, and what their force to
   oblige us, with respect unto all human commands.

   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 I
   confess might be, if I am not mistaken, more acceptable with some of
   the Nonconformists, if it had not come in the close of such a discourse
   as this is; and it is, that "they should not be always complaining of
   their hardships and persecution," p. 54: for they say, after so many of
   them have died in common jails; so many have endured long
   imprisonments, not a few being at this day in the same durance; so many
   have been driven from their habitations into a wandering condition, to
   preserve for a while the liberty of their persons; so many have been
   reduced unto want and penury by the taking away of their goods, and
   from some the very instruments of their livelihood; after the
   prosecutions which have been against them in all courts of justice in
   this nation, on informations, indictments, and suits, to the great
   charge of all of them who are so persecuted, and ruin of some; after so
   many ministers and their families have been brought into the utmost
   outward straits which nature can subsist under; after all their
   perpetual fears and dangers wherewith they have been exercised and
   disquieted, -- they think it hard they should be complained of for
   complaining by them who are at ease. It may be remembered what one
   speaks very gravely in the Comedian, --


   "Sed, Demea, hoc tu facito cure animo cogites,

   Quàm vos facillime agitis, quàm estis maxume

   Potentes, dites, fortunati, nobiles;

   Tam maxume vos æquo animo æqua noscere

   Oportet, si vos voltis perhiberi probos." ?

   [Ter. Ad. iii., iv., 54.]

   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 [26] mother who beats her child for crying, and
   will not cease beating until the child leave crying; which it cannot do
   whilst it is continually beaten. Neither do I know that the
   Nonconformists are "always complaining of their sufferings," nor what
   are their complaints that they make, nor to whom; yea, I do suppose
   that all impartial men will judge that they have borne their sufferings
   with as much patience and silence as any who have gone before them in
   the like state and condition. And they do hope that men will not be
   angry with them if they cry unto God for deliverance from those
   troubles which they judge they undergo for his sake. Thankful, also,
   they are unto God and men for any release they have received from their
   sufferings; wherein their chief respect amongst men hitherto is unto
   the king himself. But that they should be very thankful to those who
   esteem all their past and present sufferings to be light, and do really
   endeavour to have them continued and increased (among whom I do not
   reckon this reverend author, for I do not know that I can truly do so),
   is not to be expected.

   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.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [20] Gal. i. 10.

   [21] Stillingfleet alludes to one of Owen's tracts under this title.
   See this vol., p. 507. -- Ed.

   [22] 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.

   [23] See a work by our author under this title, published in 1672, vol.
   xv. p. 57. -- Ed.

   [24] Sir Henry Hobart, Lord Chief-Justice of the Court of Common Pleas,
   published, in 1650, a work under the title of "Reports in the Reign of
   King James I., with some few Cases in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth."
   The fifth edition was revised and corrected by Lord Ch. Nottingham,
   1724. -- Ed.

   [25] Appended to the edition of Paul Sarpi's "History of the Council of
   Trent," published in 1676, will be found also his "Treatise of
   Beneficiary Matters." -- Ed.

   [26] Not our English "cursed," but an adjective, said to be derived
   from the Dutch "korst," signifying crusty, ill-tempered. -- Ed.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

   Genesis

   [1]2:24

   Exodus

   [2]8:7   [3]23:1

   Numbers

   [4]26

   Deuteronomy

   [5]13:1-3

   Judges

   [6]21:25

   Psalms

   [7]30   [8]45:9   [9]68:12   [10]68:17-18   [11]72:10-12   [12]82:1

   Proverbs

   [13]12:18

   Isaiah

   [14]9:6-7   [15]49:23   [16]54:13   [17]59:21   [18]59:21   [19]60:10
   [20]60:16

   Jeremiah

   [21]20:10

   Ezekiel

   [22]11:19   [23]36:26-27

   Hosea

   [24]4:6   [25]4:15

   Zechariah

   [26]3:9   [27]3:10   [28]11:15-17

   Malachi

   [29]3:16

   Matthew

   [30]7:22-23   [31]9:16   [32]16:18   [33]16:18   [34]16:18
   [35]16:18   [36]18:15-17   [37]18:19-20   [38]18:20   [39]19:6
   [40]19:28   [41]24:24   [42]27:51

   Luke

   [43]1:33   [44]12:8   [45]24:18

   John

   [46]4:21   [47]4:22   [48]4:23   [49]6:40   [50]6:45   [51]6:47
   [52]6:56   [53]6:63   [54]7:39   [55]7:43   [56]7:43   [57]9:16
   [58]10:15   [59]10:19   [60]10:27-29   [61]14:16-17   [62]15:5
   [63]17   [64]17:17   [65]17:19-23   [66]17:20   [67]17:21   [68]17:21
   [69]17:23   [70]17:24   [71]21:15-17

   Acts

   [72]1:15-26   [73]2:33   [74]6:2-6   [75]7   [76]8:1   [77]8:1
   [78]8:1   [79]8:3   [80]9:31   [81]9:31   [82]12:1   [83]12:1
   [84]12:5   [85]13:1   [86]13:2-3   [87]14:4   [88]14:4   [89]14:4
   [90]14:23   [91]14:23   [92]14:23   [93]14:23   [94]14:23   [95]14:27
   [96]15   [97]15:2   [98]15:4   [99]15:4   [100]15:7   [101]15:12
   [102]15:22   [103]15:22   [104]16   [105]16:4   [106]16:5   [107]17:2
   [108]17:8-11   [109]17:18   [110]18:10   [111]18:22   [112]19:2
   [113]19:2-3   [114]19:9   [115]19:9   [116]19:9   [117]19:18
   [118]20:17   [119]20:17   [120]20:17   [121]20:27   [122]20:28
   [123]20:30   [124]20:30   [125]21:20   [126]21:20-24   [127]21:22
   [128]22:5-6   [129]23:7   [130]23:7

   Romans

   [131]1:16   [132]8   [133]8:28   [134]9:31-32   [135]10:2
   [136]11:16-17   [137]12:3-9   [138]12:6   [139]14   [140]15:5-6
   [141]15:26   [142]16:1   [143]16:4   [144]16:5   [145]16:16
   [146]16:17   [147]16:17-18

   1 Corinthians

   [148]1:2   [149]1:2   [150]1:2   [151]1:10   [152]1:10   [153]1:10
   [154]1:12   [155]1:12   [156]1:12   [157]1:13   [158]1:24   [159]1:27
   [160]3:4   [161]3:4-5   [162]3:5   [163]3:6   [164]3:22   [165]4:1
   [166]5:1   [167]5:4-5   [168]5:7   [169]6   [170]6:4   [171]6:7
   [172]6:7-10   [173]6:9-10   [174]6:17   [175]7:17   [176]8:4
   [177]10:32   [178]11   [179]11:3   [180]11:16   [181]11:18
   [182]11:18   [183]11:18   [184]11:18   [185]11:18   [186]11:18-19
   [187]11:20   [188]11:20   [189]11:20-21   [190]11:20-22   [191]11:21
   [192]11:22   [193]11:33   [194]12   [195]12:12   [196]12:12
   [197]12:12-13   [198]12:13   [199]12:25   [200]12:26-27   [201]12:27
   [202]12:28   [203]12:28   [204]14:4-5   [205]14:12   [206]14:19
   [207]15:12   [208]15:45   [209]16:19

   2 Corinthians

   [210]1:1   [211]1:1   [212]1:24   [213]8:1   [214]8:1   [215]8:5
   [216]8:18-19   [217]8:23   [218]8:23   [219]8:24   [220]9:2
   [221]13:5   [222]13:11

   Galatians

   [223]1:2   [224]1:2   [225]1:10   [226]1:13   [227]1:22
   [228]1:22-23   [229]5:3-4

   Ephesians

   [230]1:13   [231]2:8-10   [232]2:19   [233]3:21   [234]4:5
   [235]4:8-13   [236]4:11   [237]4:11-12   [238]4:11-16   [239]4:13
   [240]4:13   [241]4:15-16   [242]4:16   [243]5:23   [244]5:25-27
   [245]5:31-32   [246]6:12

   Philippians

   [247]1:1   [248]2:1-3   [249]3:15-16   [250]3:16   [251]3:18
   [252]4:1-3

   Colossians

   [253]1:18   [254]1:18   [255]1:24   [256]2:19   [257]3:3   [258]3:14
   [259]3:14

   1 Thessalonians

   [260]2:14   [261]5:14

   2 Thessalonians

   [262]1:4   [263]2:8-12   [264]3:2   [265]3:6   [266]3:6   [267]3:14

   1 Timothy

   [268]2:8   [269]3:15   [270]6:5

   2 Timothy

   [271]2:10   [272]2:24   [273]3:5   [274]3:5

   Titus

   [275]1:5   [276]1:5   [277]1:7   [278]1:7   [279]1:16

   Hebrews

   [280]10:25   [281]10:25   [282]10:25   [283]10:25   [284]10:26
   [285]10:26   [286]10:38   [287]10:39   [288]11:9

   James

   [289]2:1-4

   1 Peter

   [290]2:11   [291]3:20-21   [292]4:3   [293]5:3   [294]5:13

   2 Peter

   [295]1:4

   1 John

   [296]2:19   [297]2:19   [298]2:20   [299]2:27

   3 John

   [300]1:9   [301]1:10

   Jude

   [302]1:4   [303]1:7   [304]1:8   [305]1:10   [306]1:12   [307]1:13
   [308]1:16   [309]1:19   [310]1:19   [311]1:19

   Revelation

   [312]1:11   [313]1:13   [314]1:14   [315]2:1   [316]2:7   [317]2:9
   [318]2:11   [319]2:14   [320]2:29   [321]3:6   [322]3:13   [323]3:22
   [324]13:8   [325]13:16   [326]18:4   [327]19:8   [328]21:2
   [329]21:14   [330]21:27   [331]22:15   [332]22:15
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Citations

     * Alsop, Vincent: The Mischief of Impositions: [333]1
     * Amyraut, Moïse: Thesibus de Ecclesiæ Nomine et Defin.: [334]1
       [335]2
     * Ans. of Commit.: [336]1
     * Aquinas, Thomas: Summa Theologica: [337]1
     * Aristotle: Rhetoric: [338]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: Ad Donatistas post collationem: [339]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: Conc. 2 ad Ps. xxx.: [340]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: Contra Faustum Manichæum: [341]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: De Baptismo: [342]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: De Civitate Dei: [343]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: De Unitate Ecclesiæ: [344]1
     * Bannes: ?: [345]1
     * Barret, John: Attempt to Vindicate the Principles of the
       Nonconformists: [346]1
     * Barret, John: The Rector of Sutton Committed with the Dean of St
       Paul's: [347]1
     * Basil: Epistula ad Amphilochium: [348]1
     * Baxter, Richard: Answer to Dr Stillingfleet's Charge of Separation:
       [349]1
     * Baxter, Richard: Second True Defence of the mere Nonconformists:
       [350]1
     * Bernard: Tractat. De Pass. Dom.: [351]1
     * Biel, Gabriel: Sacri canonis Missæ: [352]1
     * Book of Canons and Rubric of the Liturgy: [353]1
     * Cawdrey, Daniel: Independency a Great Schism: [354]1 [355]2
     * Cawdrey, Daniel: Independency further Proved to be a Schism: [356]1
     * Cawdrey, Daniel: The Inconsistency of the Independent Way with
       Scripture and Itself: [357]1
     * Cawdrey, Daniel: Vindiciæ Clavium: [358]1
     * Clement of Rome: First Epistle to the Corinthians: [359]1 [360]2
       [361]3 [362]4
     * Coke, Sir Edward: Reports: [363]1
     * Cotton, John: The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: [364]1 [365]2
       [366]3 [367]4
     * Council of Chalcedon: [368]1
     * Council of Colon.: [369]1
     * Council of Constantinople: [370]1
     * Crab.: [371]1
     * Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage: Epistles: [372]1
     * Dio Cassius: Historia Romana: [373]1
     * Epictetus: Enchiridion: [374]1
     * Eusebius Pamphilus: Ecclesiastical History: [375]1
     * Firmin, Giles: Of Schism, Parochial Congregations, and Ordination
       by Imposition of Hands: [376]1
     * Flodoardus: Historia Remensis Ecclesiæ: [377]1
     * Gerard.: loc. Com. de Minist. Ecclesiast.: [378]1
     * Hammond, Dr Henry: A Reply to some Passages of the Reviewer in his
       late Book on Schism: [379]1 [380]2
     * Hammond, Dr Henry: Vindication of the Dissertations concerning
       Episcopacy: [381]1 [382]2
     * Hobart, Chief Justice, Sir Henry: Reports in the Reign of King
       James I, with some few Cases in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth:
       [383]1
     * Hook, Richard: Nonconformist Champion, his Challenge Accepted:
       [384]1
     * Howe, John: A Letter written from the Country to a Person of
       Quality in the City: [385]1
     * Hugo of Saint Victor: De sacramentis christianæ fidei: [386]1
     * Humfrey, John: Answer to Dr Stillingfleet's Book, as far as it
       concerned the Peaceable Design: [387]1
     * Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons: Contra Hæreses: [388]1 [389]2
     * Jerome: Apology for himself to Pammachius: [390]1
     * John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: Homilies: [391]1
     * Julius Cæsar: Gallic Wars: [392]1
     * Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici Anglicani: [393]1 [394]2 [395]3
     * Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho: [396]1
     * Juvenal: Satires: [397]1
     * Lasitius, Joannes: Historiæ de Origine et Rebus Gestis Fratrum
       Bohemorum: [398]1
     * Life of Dr Gouge: [399]1
     * Lob: Modest and Peaceable Inquiry: [400]1
     * Long, Thomas: The Unreasonableness of Separation, the Second Part:
       [401]1
     * L'Estrange, Sir Roger: The Casuist Uncased: [402]1
     * Magnus, Valerianus: Judicium de catholicorum et acatholicorum
       regula credendi: [403]1
     * Malalas, John: Chronographia: [404]1
     * Marsilius of Inghen: Quæstiones super quattuor libros Sententiarum:
       [405]1
     * Owen, John: A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the
       Charge of Schism: [406]1
     * Owen, John: Answer unto Two Questions: [407]1
     * Owen, John: Evangelical Love, Church-Peace, and Unity: [408]1
     * Owen, John: Inquiry concerning Evangelical Churches: [409]1
     * Owen, John: Perseverance of the Saints: [410]1
     * Owen, John: Review of the Annotations of Grotius: [411]1
     * Owen, John: The Duty of Pastors and People: [412]1
     * Owen, John: The Duty of Pastors and People Distinguished: [413]1
     * Owen, John: The Inquiry into Evangelical Churches: [414]1
     * Owen, John: The True Nature of a Gospel Church: [415]1
     * Owen, John: Vindiciæ Evangelicæ: [416]1
     * Pap. Accom.: [417]1
     * Plato: Phædrus: [418]1
     * Rule, Gilbert: The Rational Defense of Nonconformity: [419]1
     * Sarpi, Paul: History of the Council of Trent: [420]1 [421]2
     * Sarpi, Paul: Treatise of Beneficiary Matters: [422]1
     * Sherlock, William: A Continuation and Vindication of the Defense of
       Dr Stillingfleet: [423]1
     * Sherlock, William: Discourse about Church Unity: [424]1
     * Socrates Scholasticus: Ecclesiastical History: [425]1
     * Socrates: Ecclesiastical History: [426]1
     * Stillingfleet, Edward: On the Mischief of Separation: [427]1
     * Stillingfleet, Edward: The Irenicum: [428]1
     * Stillingfleet, Edward: Unreasonableness of Separation: [429]1
     * Subcom. of Div.: [430]1
     * Terence: Adelphoe: [431]1
     * Tertullian: Adversus Judæos: [432]1
     * The Savoy Confession: [433]1 [434]2
     * The Westminster Confession: [435]1
     * Troughton, John: An Apology for the Nonconformists: [436]1
     * Wall, Thomas: More Work for the Dean: [437]1
     * Wegierski, Andrzej: Systema Historico-Chronologicum Ecclesiarum
       Slavonicarum: [438]1
     * von Walenburch, Adrian and Peter: Tractatus Generalis de
       Controversiis Fidei: [439]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Names

     * Alsop, Vincent: [440]1
     * Amyraut, Moïse: [441]1 [442]2
     * Aquinas, Thomas: [443]1 [444]2 [445]3 [446]4
     * Aristides: [447]1
     * Aristotle: [448]1
     * Athenæus: [449]1
     * Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: [450]1 [451]2 [452]3 [453]4 [454]5
       [455]6 [456]7 [457]8 [458]9 [459]10 [460]11 [461]12 [462]13 [463]14
     * Augustus Cæsar: [464]1
     * Averroës: [465]1
     * Barret, John: [466]1 [467]2
     * Basil: [468]1 [469]2
     * Baxter, Richard: [470]1 [471]2 [472]3
     * Bellarmine, Cardinal Robert: [473]1 [474]2 [475]3 [476]4 [477]5
       [478]6 [479]7
     * Bernard: [480]1
     * Beza, Theodore: [481]1 [482]2 [483]3 [484]4
     * Biddle, John: [485]1
     * Biel, Gabriel: [486]1
     * Bucanus, Gulielmus: [487]1
     * Budæus, Cajus: [488]1 [489]2
     * Caecilianus, Bishop of Carthage: [490]1 [491]2 [492]3 [493]4
     * Cajetan, Cardinal Tommaso de Vio Gaetani: [494]1
     * Calvin, John: [495]1
     * Cawdrey, Daniel: [496]1 [497]2 [498]3 [499]4 [500]5 [501]6 [502]7
       [503]8 [504]9 [505]10 [506]11 [507]12 [508]13 [509]14 [510]15
       [511]16 [512]17 [513]18 [514]19 [515]20 [516]21 [517]22 [518]23
     * Cicero: [519]1
     * Clement of Rome: [520]1 [521]2 [522]3 [523]4 [524]5 [525]6 [526]7
       [527]8 [528]9 [529]10 [530]11 [531]12 [532]13 [533]14
     * Coke, Sir Edward: [534]1
     * Comenis: [535]1
     * Cotton, John: [536]1 [537]2 [538]3 [539]4 [540]5 [541]6 [542]7
       [543]8
     * Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage: [544]1 [545]2
     * Cyril: [546]1
     * Dorchetus: [547]1
     * Du Moulin, Pierre: [548]1
     * Elmacinus: [549]1
     * Epiphanius of Salamis: [550]1 [551]2
     * Erpenius: [552]1
     * Eusebius Pamphilus: [553]1
     * Firmin, Giles: [554]1
     * Grotius, Hugo: [555]1 [556]2
     * Hall, Bishop Joseph: [557]1
     * Hammond, Dr Henry: [558]1 [559]2 [560]3
     * Hegesippus: [561]1 [562]2 [563]3
     * Hobart, Chief Justice, Sir Henry: [564]1 [565]2
     * Hook, Richard: [566]1
     * Hooker, Thomas: [567]1
     * Howe, John: [568]1
     * Hugo de Victore: [569]1
     * Huseinus, the son of Mansor: [570]1
     * Innocent: [571]1
     * Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons: [572]1 [573]2
     * Jerome: [574]1 [575]2
     * John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: [576]1 [577]2 [578]3
       [579]4 [580]5 [581]6
     * Justin Martyr: [582]1 [583]2
     * Juvenalis of Jerusalem: [584]1
     * Lasitius, Joannes: [585]1 [586]2
     * Leo the Great: [587]1
     * Ligarius: [588]1
     * Lob, Mr: [589]1
     * Long, Thomas: [590]1
     * Lucian: [591]1
     * Luther, Martin: [592]1 [593]2 [594]3
     * L'Estrange, Sir Roger: [595]1
     * Marsilius: [596]1
     * Maximus bishop of Antioch: [597]1
     * Medina: [598]1
     * Mohammed: [599]1
     * Moses Amyraldus: [600]1
     * Muctadinus the caliph of Bagdad: [601]1
     * Mæcenas: [602]1
     * Nicholas I, Pope: [603]1
     * Nottingham, Lord Chancellor: [604]1
     * Optatus: [605]1 [606]2
     * Origen: [607]1
     * Owen, John: [608]1 [609]2 [610]3 [611]4 [612]5 [613]6 [614]7 [615]8
       [616]9 [617]10 [618]11 [619]12 [620]13 [621]14 [622]15 [623]16
       [624]17 [625]18 [626]19 [627]20 [628]21 [629]22
     * Polanus, Amandus: [630]1
     * Polyeuctus: [631]1
     * Rufinus: [632]1
     * Rule, Gilbert: [633]1
     * Saravia, Hadrian à: [634]1
     * Sarpi, Paul: [635]1 [636]2 [637]3 [638]4 [639]5
     * Sherlock, William: [640]1
     * Simon Magus: [641]1 [642]2
     * Spensippus: [643]1
     * Stillingfleet, Edward: [644]1 [645]2 [646]3 [647]4 [648]5 [649]6
       [650]7 [651]8
     * Stubbes, Mr: [652]1 [653]2
     * Tertullian: [654]1 [655]2 [656]3 [657]4
     * Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus: [658]1
     * Thrasilaus: [659]1
     * Troughton, John: [660]1
     * Tubero: [661]1
     * Wall, Thomas: [662]1
     * Wallis, Dr John: [663]1 [664]2 [665]3 [666]4 [667]5
     * Whitaker, William: [668]1
     * Wegierski, Andrzej: [669]1 [670]2 [671]3
     * Young, Patrick: [672]1
     * Zanchius, Jerome: [673]1
     * Zwingli, Huldrych: [674]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Greek Words and Phrases

     * Grapho toinun peri hon met' eidon, met' epathon, mete par' allon
       eputhomen.: [675]1
     * Dei ton episkopon anenkleton einai, hos Theou oikonomon, me
       authade, me orgilon, me paroinon, me plekten, me aischrokerde.:
       [676]1
     * Dei ton episkopon anegleton einai, hos Theou oikonomon, me authade,
       me orgilon, me paroinon, me plekten, me aischrokerde.: [677]1
     * Dia to einai auten nean Romen: [678]1
     * Doulon Kuriou ou dei machesthai.: [679]1
     * Eparchia: [680]1
     * Zelos: [681]1
     * Theokratia: [682]1
     * Katapetasma tou naou eschisthe: [683]1
     * Kai hai petrai eschisthesan: [684]1
     * Kai meta panton pantache keklemenon hupo tou Theou: [685]1
     * Kai schisma en en autois: [686]1
     * Kai cheiron schisma ginetai: [687]1
     * Lian akribos, sukophantes phainetai: [688]1
     * Mepot' eu erdein geronta: [689]1
     * Makarioi hoi proodoiporesantes presbuteroi hoitines enkarpon kai
       teleian eschon ten analusin, ou gar eulabountai me tis autous
       metastese apo tou hidrumenou autois topou·: [690]1
     * Me enkataleipontes ten episunagogen heauton: [691]1
     * Hoi presbuteroi, apistoi di' empeirian: [692]1
     * Hoi ten Rhomen oikountes diemeristhesan eis ta mere, kai ouketi
       homonoesan pros allelous· kai egeneto mega schisma.: [693]1
     * Ou gar eulabountai me tis autous metastese apo tou hidrumenou
       autois topou: [694]1
     * Oude hen gar holos esti to genos anthropon eite Barbaron, eite
       Hellenon, eite : [695]1
     * Oupo en Pneuma hagion: [696]1
     * Paroikos: [697]1 [698]2
     * Parochos: [699]1 [700]2
     * Pistei parokesen eis ten gen tes epangelias hos allotrian: [701]1
     * Parakalo humas, hina to auto legete pantes: [702]1
     * Paroikeo: [703]1
     * Schisma oun en to ochlo: [704]1
     * Su monos paroikeis en Hierousalem: [705]1
     * Ta archaia: [706]1
     * To me dunasthai hesuchian agein hupo tes tuches en pentasuringo
       noso dedemenon: [707]1
     * Te ekklesia paroikouse Korinthon: [708]1
     * Te ekklesia te ouse en Korintho: [709]1 [710]2
     * Philoneikoi este adelphoi kai zelotai peri me anekonton eis
       soterian: [711]1
     * hai ekklesiai: [712]1
     * hairesis: [713]1
     * bdelugma: [714]1
     * deuterai throntides: [715]1
     * deuterai phrontides: [716]1
     * diairesis tes henotetos: [717]1
     * diairesis henotetos: [718]1
     * diemeristhesan eis ta mere: [719]1
     * dichostasia: [720]1
     * diogmos: [721]1
     * douleuein hupothesei: [722]1
     * theia phusis: [723]1
     * theias koinonoi phuseos: [724]1
     * kathisai eis ton naon tou Theou: [725]1
     * kaine ktisis: [726]1
     * katoikia: [727]1
     * kai me e en humin schismata: [728]1
     * kai eschisthe to plethos: [729]1
     * kurias doxas: [730]1
     * leroi: [731]1
     * metoikos: [732]1
     * metegagete: [733]1 [734]2 [735]3
     * meta panton pantache ton keklemenon hupo tou Theou: [736]1
     * miaras kai anosiou staseos: [737]1
     * mormolukeia: [738]1
     * me koinonein: [739]1
     * me legein chairein: [740]1
     * me sunanamignusthai: [741]1
     * me e en humin schismata: [742]1
     * hoi men esan: [743]1
     * ouk all' edokesen idein dia nukta silenen: [744]1
     * pantes hoi epikaloumenoi to onoma tou Christou en panti topo:
       [745]1
     * pantes en panti topo: [746]1
     * panton pantache keklemenon: [747]1
     * paroikoi: [748]1 [749]2 [750]3
     * parapiptesthai: [751]1
     * parasunagoge: [752]1 [753]2
     * parepidemos: [754]1
     * paroikia: [755]1 [756]2 [757]3 [758]4 [759]5 [760]6 [761]7 [762]8
     * paroikiai: [763]1
     * paroikein: [764]1
     * paroche: [765]1
     * prostitheasin aei to isos kai tacha: [766]1
     * protiman ten aletheian: [767]1
     * prosoikoi: [768]1
     * prosoikoi·: [769]1
     * pros ten hupothesin tes patridos suchnes adikias deomenes: [770]1
     * pros to genos: [771]1
     * polemos: [772]1
     * pasi epikaloumenois to onoma tou Christou en panti topo: [773]1
     * stasis: [774]1 [775]2
     * sumpolitai: [776]1
     * schisma: [777]1 [778]2
     * sun Theo: [779]1
     * sun tois hagiois pasi tois ousin en hole te Achaia: [780]1
     * taroikousa, ouse en Korintho: [781]1
     * tuphos: [782]1
     * ta archaia: [783]1 [784]2 [785]3 [786]4
     * tas poleis: [787]1
     * to krinomenon: [788]1
     * to en arche·: [789]1
     * te ametria tes antholkes: [790]1
     * pheugein: [791]1
     * akatastasia: [792]1
     * akouo schismata en humin huparchein: [793]1
     * alazoneia: [794]1
     * allotrioepiskopoi: [795]1
     * ametria tes antholkes: [796]1
     * ametria antholkes: [797]1
     * anupeuthunos: [798]1
     * ap' arches ou gegonen houto: [799]1
     * ataktos: [800]1
     * atopous: [801]1
     * aph' hemeron archaion: [802]1
     * haplos hotinioun onomati prosagoreuomenon, e hamaxobion, e asikon
       kaloumenon, e en skenais ktenotrophon oikounton, en hois me dia tou
       onomatos tou staurothentos Iesou euchai kai eucharistiai to patri
       kai poiete ton holon ginotai.: [803]1
     * ataktoi: [804]1
     * All' oude ei Pneuma hagion estin, ekousamen: [805]1
     * Apotrepesthai: [806]1
     * ekklinein: [807]1
     * ekklesia en Hierosolumois: [808]1
     * en panti topo: [809]1
     * epechousi: [810]1
     * epi to auto: [811]1 [812]2
     * exo tou paragmatos: [813]1
     * exo tou pragmatos: [814]1
     * eris: [815]1
     * eti laleitai: [816]1
     * heos tes sunteleias tou aionos: [817]1
     * Ean tis soi apangeile hoti ho deina se kakos legei, me apologou
       pros ta lechthenta, all' apokrinou hoti agnoei, ta gar alla
       prosionta moi kaka epei ouk an tauta mona elegen: [818]1
     * Ekklesia paroikousa Korinthon: [819]1 [820]2
     * Ekklesia paroikousa Rhomen: [821]1 [822]2
     * Epangelian tou hagiou Pneumatos labon para tou Patros: [823]1
     * Eschisthe de to plethos tes poleos: [824]1
     * Erchetai Hellen kai legei, hoti boulomai genesthai Christianos alla
       ouk oida tini prosthomai· mache par' humin polle kai stasis, polus
       thorubos, poion helomai dogma; ti hairesomai; hekastos legei hoti
       ego aletheuo, tini peitho meden holos eidos en tais graphais;
       kakeinoi to auto proballontai panu ge touto huper hemon, ei men gar
       logismois elegomen peithesthai eikotos ethorubou, ei de tais
       graphais legomen pisteuein, autai de aplai kai aletheis, eukolon
       soi to krinomenon, eitis ekeinais sumphonei houtos Christianos·
       eitis machetai houtos porrho tou kanonos toutou.: [825]1
     * hettema: [826]1
     * He charis meta panton ton agaponton ton Kurion hemon Iesoun
       Christon en aphtharsia: [827]1
     * He ekklesia Theou he paroikousa Rhomen te ekklesia tou Theou
       paroikouse Korinthon·: [828]1
     * Ete de katertismenoi en to auto noi kai en te aute gnome: [829]1
     * idou Rodos, idou pedema: [830]1
     * iota: [831]1
     * oliga prosopa: [832]1
     * ophthalmoi basileon: [833]1
     * hode horon tous nomous: [834]1
     * horomen gar: [835]1
     * Ho logos ho sos aletheia esti: [836]1
     * Horomen gar hoti henious humeis metegagete kalos politeuomenous ek
       tes amemptos autois tetimemenes leitourgias·: [837]1
     * Horomen hoti henious humeis metegagete kalos politeuomenous ek tes
       amemptos autois tetimemenes leitourgias: [838]1
     * Holos hettema en humin estin: [839]1
     * homonoesan: [840]1
     * Hon oudeni koinonoumen hoi gnorizontes atheous kai asebeis, kai
       adikous, kai anomous autous huparchontas, kai anti tou ton Iesoun
       sebein, onomati monon homologein, kai Christianous heautous
       legousin, hon tropon hoi en tois ethnesi to honoma tou Theou
       epigraphousi tois cheiropoietois: [841]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Latin Words and Phrases

     * 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.: [842]1
     * Accipitur etiam ecclesia pro tota multitudine prædestinatorum:
       [843]1
     * Actis apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est,
       ut S. Ambrosius expressit, constat eos denuo non esse baptizandos.:
       [844]1
     * An potestas ministri evangelici ad unius tantum ecclesiæ
       particuiaris membra extendatur?: [845]1
     * Animos et iram ex crimine sumunt.: [846]1
     * Anno Dom.: [847]1
     * Ascendendo: [848]1
     * 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.:
       [849]1
     * Compotor meus nihil plane habet in se iniquitatis, bibendum mihi
       dedit simile ejus quod bibit, fecit hospitem in hospite.: [850]1
     * Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris: [851]1
     * Credat Apella: [852]1
     * Crimen inauditum, C. Cæsar.: [853]1
     * Debemus optare optima, cogitare difficillima, ferre quæcunque
       erunt: [854]1
     * Descendendo: [855]1
     * Ecclesia Anglicana: [856]1
     * Ecclesia sancta corpus est Christi uno Spiritu vivificata, unita
       fide unâ, et sanctificata: [857]1
     * Ecclesia universalis, est communio, seu societas omnium coetuum:
       [858]1
     * Ecclesiarum Reformatarum: [859]1
     * Ego sum vitis: [860]1
     * Egregiam veto laudem!: [861]1
     * Etsi in mundo loquelæ dissimiles sunt, sed tamen virtus traditionis
       una et eadem est, et neque hæ quæ in Germania sunt fundatæ ecclesiæ
       aliter credunt, aut aliter tradunt; neque hæ quæ in Hiberis sunt,
       neque hæ quæ in Celtis, neque hæ quæ in Oriente, neque hæ quæ in
       Ægypto, neque hæ quæ in Libya, neque hæ quæ in medio mundi
       constitutæ. Sed sicut sol, creatura Dei, in universo mundo unus et
       idem est, sic et lumen, prædicatio veritatis ubique lucet: [862]1
     * Excerpta: [863]1
     * Fortem animum præstant rebus quas turpiter audent?: [864]1
     * Hic labor, hoc opus.: [865]1
     * Hinc mihi sola mali labes.: [866]1
     * Id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab initio, id ab initio quod ab
       apostolis: [867]1
     * Ille coetus Christianorum qui solus in orbe claret regeneratis est
       ecclesia; solus coetus Christianorum papæ subditorum claret
       regeneratis; apud illos solos sunt qui miracula faciunt. ergo.:
       [868]1
     * In quem alium crediderunt gentes universæ, nisi in ipsum, qui jam
       venit? Cui enim aliæ gentes crediderunt, Parthi, Medi et Elamitæ,
       et qui habitant Mesopotamiam, Armeniam, Phrygiam, et incolentes
       Ægyptum et regionem Africæ quæ est trans Cyrenem, Romani et incolæ;
       tunc et in Hierusalem Judæi, et gentes cæteræ, ut jam Gætulorum
       varietates, et Maurorum multi fines, Hispaniarum omnes termini, et
       Galliarum diversæ nationes, et Brittanorum inaccessa Romanis loca,
       Christo vero subdita; et Sarmatarum et Dacorum et Germanorum et
       Scytharum et abditarum multarum gentium et provinciarum et
       insularum multarum nobis ignotarum, et quæ enumerare non possumus?
       In quibus omnibus locis Christi nomen, qui jam venit, regnat ad
       Judæos.: [869]1
     * Jamque aspexit eum creatura ejus, sicuti supercilium obliquum
       respiciat spercilium.: [870]1
     * Judicabit omnes eos, qui sunt extra veritatem, id est, extra
       ecclesiam: [871]1
     * Laus ei qui manifestavit humilitatem suam, celavit inter nos
       divinitatem suam permeantem donec coepit in creatura sua apparere
       sub specie edentis et bibentis.: [872]1
     * Mala mens, malus animus.: [873]1
     * Mihi jussa capessere [fas est]: [874]1
     * Nos viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis,: [875]1
     * Nunquam periclitatur religio nisi inter reverendissimos: [876]1
     * Obscurius dixerunt prophetæ de Christo quam de ecclesia: : [877]1
     * Omnibus consideratis: [878]1
     * Omnium fidem Christianam profitentium sive illi ad ecclesias
       aliquas particulares pertineant, sive non pertineant"), "qui
       religionem Christianam profitentur, consistens in eo, quod tametsi
       neque exercitia pietatis uno numero frequentent, neque sacramenta
       eadem numero participent, neque uno eodemque omnino ordine regantur
       et gubernentur, unum tamen corpus in eo constituunt, quod eundem
       Christum servatorem habere se profitentur, uno in evangelio
       propositum, iisdem promissionibus comprehensum, quas obsignant et
       confirmant sacramenta, ex eadem institutione pendentia: [879]1
     * Oportet, si vos voltis perhiberi probos.: [880]1
     * Parvas habet spes Troja, si tales habet.: [881]1
     * Potentes, dites, fortunati, nobiles;: [882]1
     * Quandoque ego Remigius episcopus de hac luce transiero, tu mihi
       hæres esto, sancta et venerabilis ecclesia catholica urbis Remorum:
       [883]1
     * Quem das finem, rex magne, laborum!: [884]1
     * Qui Scripturam non credit esse divinam, nisi propter ecclesiæ
       vocem, Christianus non est: [885]1
     * 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: [886]1
     * Quod erat demonstrandum.: [887]1
     * Quod erat demonstratum: [888]1
     * Quod fors feret, feramus æquo animo: [889]1
     * Quoniam Christiani adorant quod comedunt, anima mea sit cum
       philosophis: [890]1
     * Quàm vos facillime agitis, quàm estis maxume: [891]1
     * Schisma ni fallor est eadem opinantem, et eodem ritu utentem solo
       congregationis delectari dissidio: [892]1
     * Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus: [893]1
     * Scio nonnunquam appellari particularem ecclesiam communionem, ac
       veluti confoederationem plurium ejusmodi societatum, quas vel
       ejusdem linguæ usus, vel eadem reipublicæ forma: [894]1
     * 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 foedissima 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 : [895]1
     * Sed, Demea, hoc tu facito cure animo cogites,: [896]1
     * Si Deo in creatione adfuissem, mundum melius : [897]1
     * Si Tybris ascendit in mænia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si
       coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim,
       Christianos ad leonem!': [898]1
     * Si accusâsse sufficiat, quis erit innocens?: [899]1
     * Si in nomine S. S. Trinitatis, vel tantum in Christi nomine, sicut
       in : [900]1
     * Si quis, aut privatus aut publicus, eorum decreto non stetit,
       sacrificiis interdicunt. Hæc poena 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.: [901]1
     * Sicut scriptum est, qui non habet Spiritum Christi, hic non est
       ejus; qui non habet Spiritum Christi, non est membrum Christi. In
       corpore uno Spiritus unus, nihil in corpore mortuum, nihil extra
       corpus vivum.: [902]1
     * Solis nosse Deos et Coeli numina vobis: [903]1
     * Tam maxume vos æquo animo æqua noscere: [904]1
     * Tantæne animis coelestibus iræ?: [905]1
     * Tu es Petrus: [906]1
     * Tu es Petrus, tibi dabo claves, et pasce oves meas: [907]1
     * Utrum ministri ecclesiæ Anglicanæ habeant validam ordinationem?:
       [908]1
     * Vid.: [909]1
     * Vocatio exterior fit per prædicatores, et est communis bonorum et
       malorum, interior vero tantum est electorum.: [910]1
     * Vos autem non sic: [911]1
     * [B. Virgo] sola per illud : [912]1
     * actum agere: [913]1
     * actus vivificantis in vivificatum per unionem utriusque: [914]1
     * ad idem: [915]1
     * ad populum phaleras: [916]1
     * alienum solum: [917]1
     * altare contra altare: [918]1 [919]2
     * aut solis nescire datum.: [920]1
     * convivator: [921]1
     * cothurnus: [922]1
     * coetus prædestinatorum credentium: [923]1
     * de facto: [924]1 [925]2 [926]3 [927]4 [928]5 [929]6
     * de fide: [930]1
     * de jure: [931]1 [932]2
     * de jure divino: [933]1
     * de jure pontificio: [934]1
     * de novo: [935]1
     * dissidium congregationis: [936]1
     * diversatur: [937]1
     * dioecesis: [938]1
     * ecclesia instituta: [939]1
     * eminenter: [940]1
     * en herbam: [941]1
     * ex abundanti: [942]1
     * ex animo: [943]1 [944]2
     * ex opere operato: [945]1
     * fideles: [946]1
     * formalis ratio: [947]1
     * gallinæ filius albæ,: [948]1
     * genus: [949]1
     * hic nigræ succus loliginis, hæc est ærugo mera: [950]1
     * hic pes figendus: [951]1
     * id populus curat scilicet: [952]1
     * in hypothesi: [953]1 [954]2
     * in solidum: [955]1
     * in thesi: [956]1 [957]2
     * individuum vagum: [958]1
     * instituenda: [959]1
     * latria: [960]1
     * meliora speramus: [961]1
     * mentis gratissimus error: [962]1
     * momento turbinis: [963]1
     * nisi accusâsse sufficiat: [964]1
     * nobis non tam licet esse disertis: [965]1
     * non quà itur, sed quà eundum est: [966]1
     * obiter: [967]1
     * operam et oleum perdidimus: [968]1
     * ordinassem: [969]1
     * parochia: [970]1
     * parochiæ: [971]1
     * pars essentialis suppositi: [972]1
     * paroecia: [973]1 [974]2 [975]3 [976]4
     * peregrinatur: [977]1
     * populicum: [978]1
     * postulata: [979]1 [980]2
     * postulatum: [981]1
     * provincia: [982]1
     * præbitio: [983]1
     * publicum: [984]1
     * purum putum mendacium: [985]1
     * puto me non temere dicere, alios ita esse in domo Dei, ut ipsi
       etiam sint eadem domus Dei, quæ dicitur ædificari supra petram, quæ
       unica columba appellatur, quæ sponsa pulchra sine macula, et ruga,
       et hortus conclusus, fons signatus, puteus aquæ vivæ, paradisus cum
       fructu pomorum, alios autem ita constat esse in domo, ut non
       pertineant ad compagem domûs, sed sicut esse palea dicitur in
       frumentis: [986]1
     * puto propterea quia videbant in spiritu contra ecclesiam homines
       facturos esse particulas; et de Christo non tantam litem habituros,
       de ecclesia magnas contentiones excitaturos?: [987]1
     * quod erat demonstrandum: [988]1 [989]2 [990]3
     * ratione officii: [991]1
     * sacræ accipiatur. Paulus enim varias ecclesias particulares quæ
       erant in Achaia, ecclesias Achaiæ nuncupat, non ecclesiam Achaiæ
       vel ecclesiam Achaicam: [992]1
     * species: [993]1
     * studio partium: [994]1
     * sub judice: [995]1
     * subesse Romano pontifici: [996]1
     * substratum: [997]1
     * supersedeas: [998]1
     * terque quaterque: [999]1
     * totum: [1000]1 [1001]2
     * traditores: [1002]1
     * triste sabbathum stetit in fide, et salvata fuit ecclesia in ipsâ
       solâ: [1003]1
     * una cum ejusdem disciplinæ regimine consociavit. Sic appellatur
       ecclesia Gallicana, Anglicana Germanica particularis, ut
       distinguatur ab universali illa Christianorum societate; quæ omnes
       Christiani nominis nationes complectitur. At uti supradiximus,
       ecclesiæ nomen non proprie convenire societati omnium
       Christianorum, eo modo quo convenit particularibus Christianorum
       coetibus; sic consequens est, ut dicamus, eeclesiæ nomen non
       competere in eam multarum ecclesiarum particularium consociationem
       eodem plane modo. Vocetur ergo certe ecclesiarum quæ sunt in Gallia
       communio inter ipsas, et ecclesia, si ecclesia est multarum
       ecclesiarum confoederatio, non si nomen ecelesiæ ex usu Scripturæ :
       [1004]1
     * vetus: [1005]1
     * viis et modis: [1006]1
     * vim ecclesiasticam: [1007]1
     * vinculum Trinitatis: [1008]1
     * visus: [1009]1
     * vivâ voce: [1010]1
     * vox populi: [1011]1 [1012]2 [1013]3 [1014]4 [1015]5 [1016]6 [1017]7
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Pages of the Print Edition

   [1018]89  [1019]90  [1020]91  [1021]92  [1022]93  [1023]94  [1024]95
   [1025]96  [1026]97  [1027]98  [1028]99  [1029]100  [1030]101
   [1031]102  [1032]103  [1033]104  [1034]105  [1035]106  [1036]107
   [1037]108  [1038]109  [1039]110  [1040]111  [1041]112  [1042]113
   [1043]114  [1044]115  [1045]116  [1046]117  [1047]118  [1048]119
   [1049]120  [1050]121  [1051]122  [1052]123  [1053]124  [1054]125
   [1055]126  [1056]127  [1057]128  [1058]129  [1059]130  [1060]131
   [1061]132  [1062]133  [1063]134  [1064]135  [1065]136  [1066]137
   [1067]138  [1068]139  [1069]140  [1070]141  [1071]142  [1072]143
   [1073]144  [1074]145  [1075]146  [1076]147  [1077]148  [1078]149
   [1079]150  [1080]151  [1081]152  [1082]153  [1083]154  [1084]155
   [1085]156  [1086]157  [1087]158  [1088]159  [1089]160  [1090]161
   [1091]162  [1092]163  [1093]164  [1094]165  [1095]166  [1096]167
   [1097]168  [1098]169  [1099]170  [1100]171  [1101]172  [1102]173
   [1103]174  [1104]175  [1105]176  [1106]177  [1107]178  [1108]179
   [1109]180  [1110]181  [1111]182  [1112]183  [1113]184  [1114]185
   [1115]186  [1116]187  [1117]188  [1118]189  [1119]190  [1120]191
   [1121]192  [1122]193  [1123]194  [1124]195  [1125]196  [1126]197
   [1127]198  [1128]199  [1129]200  [1130]201  [1131]202  [1132]203
   [1133]204  [1134]205  [1135]206  [1136]207  [1137]208  [1138]209
   [1139]210  [1140]211  [1141]212  [1142]213  [1143]214  [1144]215
   [1145]216  [1146]217  [1147]218  [1148]219  [1149]220  [1150]221
   [1151]222  [1152]223  [1153]224  [1154]225  [1155]226  [1156]227
   [1157]228  [1158]229  [1159]230  [1160]231  [1161]232  [1162]233
   [1163]234  [1164]235  [1165]236  [1166]237  [1167]238  [1168]239
   [1169]240  [1170]241  [1171]242  [1172]243  [1173]244  [1174]245
   [1175]246  [1176]247  [1177]248  [1178]249  [1179]250  [1180]251
   [1181]252  [1182]253  [1183]254  [1184]255  [1185]256  [1186]257
   [1187]258  [1188]259  [1189]260  [1190]261  [1191]262  [1192]263
   [1193]264  [1194]265  [1195]266  [1196]267  [1197]268  [1198]269
   [1199]270  [1200]271  [1201]272  [1202]273  [1203]274  [1204]275
   [1205]277  [1206]278  [1207]279  [1208]280  [1209]281  [1210]282
   [1211]283  [1212]284  [1213]285  [1214]286  [1215]287  [1216]288
   [1217]289  [1218]290  [1219]291  [1220]292  [1221]293  [1222]294
   [1223]295  [1224]296  [1225]297  [1226]298  [1227]299  [1228]300
   [1229]301  [1230]302  [1231]303  [1232]304  [1233]305  [1234]306
   [1235]307  [1236]308  [1237]309  [1238]310  [1239]311  [1240]312
   [1241]313  [1242]314  [1243]315  [1244]316  [1245]317  [1246]318
   [1247]319  [1248]320  [1249]321  [1250]322  [1251]323  [1252]324
   [1253]325  [1254]326  [1255]327  [1256]328  [1257]329  [1258]330
   [1259]331  [1260]332  [1261]333  [1262]334  [1263]335  [1264]336
   [1265]337  [1266]338  [1267]339  [1268]340  [1269]341  [1270]342
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=2&scrV=24#i.vii-p16.6
   2. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=8&scrV=7#i.vii-p32.3
   3. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=23&scrV=1#iii.iv-p4.4
   4. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=26&scrV=0#i.ix-p34.3
   5. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=13&scrV=1#i.vii-p32.1
   6. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Judg&scrCh=21&scrV=25#i.viii-p54.3
   7. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=30&scrV=0#i.iv-p2.6
   8. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=45&scrV=9#iii.iv-p25.2
   9. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=68&scrV=12#iii.iv-p25.3
  10. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=68&scrV=17#i.v-p42.3
  11. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=72&scrV=10#i.xi-p43.1
  12. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=82&scrV=1#i.v-p42.2
  13. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Prov&scrCh=12&scrV=18#iii.iv-p20.3
  14. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=9&scrV=6#i.v-p43.5
  15. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=49&scrV=23#i.xi-p43.2
  16. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=54&scrV=13#i.vii-p18.2
  17. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=59&scrV=21#i.vii-p15.11
  18. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=59&scrV=21#i.vii-p18.6
  19. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=60&scrV=10#i.xi-p43.2
  20. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=60&scrV=16#i.xi-p43.2
  21. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=20&scrV=10#iii.iv-p4.3
  22. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=11&scrV=19#i.vii-p15.12
  23. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=36&scrV=26#i.vii-p15.12
  24. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Hos&scrCh=4&scrV=6#i.vii-p33.2
  25. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Hos&scrCh=4&scrV=15#i.xi-p58.3
  26. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Zech&scrCh=3&scrV=9#i.v-p43.4
  27. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Zech&scrCh=3&scrV=10#i.x-p22.3
  28. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Zech&scrCh=11&scrV=15#i.vii-p33.3
  29. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Mal&scrCh=3&scrV=16#i.x-p22.4
  30. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=7&scrV=22#i.vii-p32.2
  31. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=16#i.v-p5.1
  32. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#i.vii-p11.1
  33. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#i.vii-p11.16
  34. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#i.x-p20.3
  35. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#ii.x-p3.1
  36. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=15#i.x-p11.1
  37. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=19#i.x-p20.4
  38. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=20#i.x-p22.1
  39. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=6#i.vii-p16.7
  40. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=28#i.ix-p32.8
  41. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=24#i.vii-p11.17
  42. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=27&scrV=51#i.v-p5.3
  43. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=33#i.x-p20.2
  44. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=8#i.viii-p40.1
  45. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=24&scrV=18#i.v-p16.22
  46. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=21#i.viii-p4.1
  47. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=22#i.v-p12.3
  48. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=23#i.viii-p4.1
  49. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=40#i.vii-p11.3
  50. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=45#i.vii-p18.3
  51. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=47#i.vii-p18.4
  52. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=56#i.vii-p15.13
  53. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=63#i.vii-p15.14
  54. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=39#iii.iv-p83.5
  55. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=43#i.v-p5.6
  56. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=7&scrV=43#ii.viii-p4.2
  57. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=9&scrV=16#i.v-p5.8
  58. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=15#i.vii-p11.5
  59. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=19#i.v-p5.10
  60. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=27#i.vii-p11.3
  61. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=16#i.vii-p15.10
  62. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=5#i.vii-p16.9
  63. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=0#i.v-p44.2
  64. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=17#i.vii-p11.5
  65. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=19#i.vii-p14.1
  66. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=20#i.vii-p11.3
  67. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=21#i.vii-p15.15
  68. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=21#i.vii-p19.3
  69. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=23#i.vii-p19.3
  70. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=17&scrV=24#i.vii-p11.3
  71. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=21&scrV=15#i.ix-p32.9
  72. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=1&scrV=15#iii.iv-p25.6
  73. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=2&scrV=33#i.vii-p15.8
  74. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=6&scrV=2#iii.iv-p25.6
  75. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=7&scrV=0#i.viii-p14.9
  76. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=8&scrV=1#i.v-p16.6
  77. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=8&scrV=1#i.x-p1.4
  78. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=8&scrV=1#i.xi-p43.4
  79. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=8&scrV=3#i.x-p1.5
  80. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=31#i.x-p1.21
  81. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=9&scrV=31#iv.iv-p83.1
  82. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=1#i.x-p1.6
  83. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=1#i.xi-p43.4
  84. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=5#i.xi-p43.4
  85. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=13&scrV=1#i.x-p1.8
  86. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=13&scrV=2#iii.iv-p25.6
  87. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=4#i.v-p5.11
  88. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=4#ii.viii-p4.3
  89. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=4#iii.iv-p75.1
  90. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#i.x-p1.10
  91. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#i.x-p14.1
  92. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#i.xi-p33.5
  93. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iii.iv-p25.6
  94. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=23#iv.iv-p83.8
  95. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=27#i.x-p1.7
  96. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=0#iv.iv-p52.3
  97. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=2#i.v-p25.3
  98. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=4#i.xi-p43.4
  99. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=4#iv.iv-p84.3
 100. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=7#i.viii-p18.5
 101. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=12#iv.iv-p84.3
 102. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=22#i.x-p1.9
 103. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=22#i.xi-p43.4
 104. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=16&scrV=0#iv.iv-p83.5
 105. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=16&scrV=4#i.x-p1.27
 106. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=16&scrV=5#i.x-p1.29
 107. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=2#i.v-p9.2
 108. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=8#i.v-p9.1
 109. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=17&scrV=18#i.v-p9.2
 110. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=18&scrV=10#iv.iv-p84.1
 111. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=18&scrV=22#i.x-p1.11
 112. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=2#ii.xi-p6.2
 113. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=2#iii.iv-p83.1
 114. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=9#ii.viii-p4.8
 115. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=9#iii.iv-p75.1
 116. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=9#iii.iv-p75.2
 117. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=18#iii.iv-p75.1
 118. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=17#i.x-p1.12
 119. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=17#i.xi-p43.7
 120. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=17#ii.xiii-p1.2
 121. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=27#iii.iv-p77.2
 122. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=28#i.x-p1.12
 123. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=30#iii.iv-p76.1
 124. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=20&scrV=30#iii.iv-p77.1
 125. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=21&scrV=20#iv.iv-p19.1
 126. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=21&scrV=20#iv.iv-p64.2
 127. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=21&scrV=22#iv.iv-p84.3
 128. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=22&scrV=5#i.xi-p43.11
 129. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=23&scrV=7#i.v-p5.13
 130. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=23&scrV=7#ii.viii-p4.5
 131. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=16#i.x-p22.2
 132. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=0#i.vii-p5.4
 133. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=28#i.vii-p5.2
 134. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=31#i.vii-p34.2
 135. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=10&scrV=2#i.vii-p34.3
 136. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=11&scrV=16#i.vii-p16.10
 137. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=3#i.v-p43.6
 138. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=6#i.viii-p28.2
 139. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=14&scrV=0#iv.iv-p64.1
 140. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=15&scrV=5#i.x-p25.4
 141. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=15&scrV=26#i.v-p19.2
 142. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=1#iv.iv-p84.2
 143. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=4#i.x-p1.16
 144. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=5#i.x-p4.4
 145. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=16#i.x-p1.17
 146. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=17#i.v-p25.5
 147. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=16&scrV=17#i.v-p8.6
 148. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=2#i.viii-p4.3
 149. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=2#i.x-p1.13
 150. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=2#ii.viii-p15.11
 151. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=10#i.v-p8.1
 152. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=10#i.v-p9.17
 153. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=10#i.x-p25.2
 154. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=12#i.v-p9.4
 155. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=12#i.v-p9.15
 156. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=12#ii.viii-p14.2
 157. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=13#i.v-p9.21
 158. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=24#i.v-p43.3
 159. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=27#i.v-p9.22
 160. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=4#ii.viii-p14.2
 161. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=4#i.v-p9.22
 162. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=5#iii.iv-p25.8
 163. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=6#i.v-p9.3
 164. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=22#i.v-p9.4
 165. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=4&scrV=1#iii.iv-p25.4
 166. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=1#i.v-p9.12
 167. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=4#i.v-p9.7
 168. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iii.iv-p83.7
 169. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=0#i.v-p29.3
 170. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=4#i.x-p1.13
 171. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=7#i.v-p29.5
 172. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=7#i.vii-p29.1
 173. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=9#i.vii-p35.2
 174. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=17#i.vii-p16.8
 175. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=17#i.x-p1.19
 176. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=4#i.v-p9.9
 177. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=32#i.xi-p43.13
 178. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=0#i.x-p13.2
 179. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=3#i.vii-p16.1
 180. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=16#ii.viii-p15.4
 181. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#i.v-p8.3
 182. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#i.v-p9.16
 183. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#ii.viii-p15.3
 184. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#ii.viii-p15.6
 185. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#i.x-p1.13
 186. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=18#ii.viii-p4.10
 187. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=20#i.v-p9.6
 188. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=20#ii.viii-p15.7
 189. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=20#i.v-p9.13
 190. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=20#ii.viii-p15.3
 191. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=21#ii.viii-p15.9
 192. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=22#ii.viii-p15.10
 193. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=33#ii.viii-p15.8
 194. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=0#i.v-p43.7
 195. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=12#i.vii-p16.1
 196. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=12#iii.iv-p55.3
 197. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=12#i.vii-p15.2
 198. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=13#i.v-p9.23
 199. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=25#i.v-p8.5
 200. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=26#i.vii-p19.5
 201. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=27#i.x-p15.3
 202. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=28#i.x-p15.2
 203. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=28#i.xi-p43.13
 204. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=4#i.x-p1.13
 205. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=12#i.x-p1.13
 206. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=19#i.x-p1.13
 207. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=12#i.v-p9.10
 208. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=45#i.vii-p16.4
 209. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=16&scrV=19#i.x-p1.22
 210. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=1#i.v-p17.3
 211. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=1#i.x-p1.14
 212. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=24#iii.iv-p25.9
 213. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=1#i.x-p1.23
 214. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=1#iv.iv-p83.7
 215. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=5#iv.iv-p87.1
 216. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=18#i.x-p1.20
 217. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=23#i.x-p1.20
 218. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=23#iv.iv-p83.7
 219. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=8&scrV=24#i.x-p1.20
 220. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=2#i.v-p18.8
 221. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=5#i.vii-p26.1
 222. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=11#i.x-p25.3
 223. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=2#i.x-p1.24
 224. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=2#iv.iv-p83.4
 225. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=10#iv.iv-p31.1
 226. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=13#i.xi-p43.9
 227. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=22#iv.iv-p83.3
 228. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=1&scrV=22#i.xi-p43.10
 229. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=3#i.viii-p30.2
 230. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=13#i.vii-p15.7
 231. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=8#i.vii-p34.4
 232. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=19#i.v-p16.9
 233. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=21#i.xi-p43.14
 234. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=5#i.viii-p27.1
 235. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=8#i.v-p43.8
 236. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=11#i.x-p15.1
 237. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=11#iii.iv-p25.7
 238. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=11#iv.iv-p44.1
 239. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=13#i.vii-p18.7
 240. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=13#i.viii-p28.3
 241. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=15#i.vii-p14.2
 242. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=16#i.vii-p19.2
 243. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=23#i.vii-p16.2
 244. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=25#i.vii-p11.4
 245. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=5&scrV=31#i.vii-p16.5
 246. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=6&scrV=12#i.vii-p25.1
 247. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=1&scrV=1#iv.iv-p83.6
 248. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=1#i.x-p25.1
 249. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=3&scrV=15#i.iv-p9.2
 250. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=3&scrV=16#iv.ii-p1.4
 251. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=3&scrV=18#i.viii-p29.2
 252. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=4&scrV=1#i.x-p25.1
 253. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=18#i.vii-p11.9
 254. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=18#i.vii-p16.3
 255. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=1&scrV=24#i.vii-p11.11
 256. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=2&scrV=19#i.vii-p14.3
 257. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=3&scrV=3#i.vii-p19.4
 258. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=3&scrV=14#i.v-p37.1
 259. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Col&scrCh=3&scrV=14#i.x-p24.4
 260. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=14#iv.iv-p83.2
 261. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=5&scrV=14#i.vi-p6.2
 262. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=1&scrV=4#i.x-p1.18
 263. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=8#i.vii-p32.5
 264. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=3&scrV=2#i.vi-p6.6
 265. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=3&scrV=6#i.vi-p6.4
 266. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=3&scrV=6#i.vi-p10.2
 267. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=3&scrV=14#iii.iv-p83.8
 268. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=8#i.viii-p4.4
 269. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=15#iii.iv-p25.5
 270. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=6&scrV=5#i.xi-p58.1
 271. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=10#i.vii-p11.12
 272. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=24#ii.i-p7.2
 273. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=5#i.vi-p10.1
 274. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=5#i.xi-p58.2
 275. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=5#i.x-p14.2
 276. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=5#i.xi-p33.6
 277. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=7#ii.i-p7.5
 278. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=7#iii.i-p6.2
 279. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=1&scrV=16#i.viii-p29.3
 280. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=25#i.vi-p5.1
 281. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=25#iii.iv-p76.2
 282. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=25#iii.iv-p77.4
 283. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=25#iii.iv-p78.3
 284. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=26#i.vi-p5.3
 285. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=26#iii.iv-p77.5
 286. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=38#i.vi-p5.4
 287. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=39#i.vi-p5.5
 288. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=11&scrV=9#i.v-p16.17
 289. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=2&scrV=1#ii.viii-p15.5
 290. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=11#i.v-p16.19
 291. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=3&scrV=20#i.ix-p57.3
 292. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=4&scrV=3#i.vii-p35.6
 293. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=3#iii.iv-p25.10
 294. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=13#i.vii-p11.15
 295. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=1&scrV=4#i.vii-p15.3
 296. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=19#ii.ix-p2.1
 297. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=19#iii.iv-p78.2
 298. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=20#i.vii-p18.5
 299. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=27#i.vii-p18.5
 300. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=3John&scrCh=1&scrV=9#i.vi-p11.1
 301. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=3John&scrCh=1&scrV=10#i.vi-p11.1
 302. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=4#i.vi-p7.2
 303. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=7#i.vi-p7.3
 304. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=8#i.vi-p7.3
 305. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=10#i.vi-p7.4
 306. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=12#i.vi-p7.5
 307. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=13#i.vi-p7.5
 308. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=16#i.vi-p7.5
 309. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=19#i.vi-p7.1
 310. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=19#iii.iv-p76.3
 311. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Jude&scrCh=1&scrV=19#iii.iv-p77.6
 312. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=1&scrV=11#i.x-p1.25
 313. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=1&scrV=13#i.v-p42.4
 314. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=1&scrV=14#i.v-p42.5
 315. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=1#i.xi-p43.8
 316. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=7#i.x-p13.1
 317. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=9#i.ix-p9.3
 318. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=11#i.x-p13.1
 319. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=14#i.vi-p10.3
 320. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=2&scrV=29#i.x-p13.1
 321. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=3&scrV=6#i.x-p13.1
 322. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=3&scrV=13#i.x-p13.1
 323. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=3&scrV=22#i.x-p13.1
 324. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=8#i.vii-p37.2
 325. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=16#i.vii-p37.2
 326. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=18&scrV=4#i.vi-p10.4
 327. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=19&scrV=8#i.vii-p11.6
 328. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=21&scrV=2#i.vii-p11.7
 329. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=21&scrV=14#i.ix-p32.7
 330. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=21&scrV=27#i.vii-p11.8
 331. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=15#i.vii-p29.2
 332. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=15#i.vii-p35.3
 333. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.8
 334. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p3.6
 335. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p49.5
 336. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p52.1
 337. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p11.21
 338. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.7
 339. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p65.2
 340. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.5
 341. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.3
 342. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.4
 343. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p4.2
 344. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p25.2
 345. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.8
 346. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.25
 347. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.13
 348. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.6
 349. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.3
 350. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.29
 351. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.2
 352. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.7
 353. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p35.1
 354. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.12
 355. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.iii-p2.2
 356. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.3
 357. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.8
 358. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.7
 359. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.8
 360. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p17.1
 361. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p28.3
 362. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.12
 363. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p16.2
 364. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-p1.5
 365. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.5
 366. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.11
 367. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p64.6
 368. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.8
 369. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p18.12
 370. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.5
 371. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p35.3
 372. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.3
 373. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p39.3
 374. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.11
 375. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p42.2
 376. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.9
 377. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.7
 378. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p16.2
 379. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.5
 380. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.7
 381. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p3.3
 382. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p4.2
 383. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p79.2
 384. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.8
 385. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.5
 386. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p18.10
 387. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.30
 388. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.5
 389. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.3
 390. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.8
 391. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.10
 392. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p44.2
 393. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p2.1
 394. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p42.2
 395. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p52.2
 396. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.7
 397. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p26.8
 398. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p29.2
 399. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p43.3
 400. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.26
 401. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.6
 402. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.10
 403. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p31.2
 404. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p6.2
 405. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.7
 406. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p5.1
 407. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p37.1
 408. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p66.1
 409. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p18.2
 410. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.5
 411. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.7
 412. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p60.1
 413. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-p1.2
 414. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p3.3
 415. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p3.4
 416. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.6
 417. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p11.2
 418. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p15.2
 419. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.31
 420. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.2
 421. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p82.2
 422. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p82.3
 423. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.3
 424. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.2
 425. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.3
 426. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p61.1
 427. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p1.3
 428. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.11
 429. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.15
 430. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p54.1
 431. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.13
 432. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p52.3
 433. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p38.4
 434. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p39.1
 435. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p39.2
 436. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.17
 437. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.22
 438. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p30.3
 439. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p34.2
 440. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.7
 441. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p0.3
 442. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p0.3
 443. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p48.5
 444. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p11.20
 445. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p57.2
 446. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p70.5
 447. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.10
 448. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.6
 449. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p51.1
 450. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.2
 451. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.10
 452. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.1
 453. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.2
 454. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p13.2
 455. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p14.1
 456. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p24.1
 457. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p25.1
 458. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p57.1
 459. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p70.1
 460. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p0.4
 461. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p65.1
 462. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p82.2
 463. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p77.3
 464. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p39.2
 465. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p35.4
 466. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.10
 467. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.24
 468. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.11
 469. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.5
 470. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.2
 471. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.28
 472. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.5
 473. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p48.3
 474. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p0.3
 475. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p11.10
 476. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p13.1
 477. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p13.8
 478. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p27.1
 479. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p32.4
 480. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.1
 481. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p16.3
 482. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p16.4
 483. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.2
 484. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p37.1
 485. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p10.2
 486. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.5
 487. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-p8.2
 488. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.13
 489. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.35
 490. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p18.6
 491. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p20.1
 492. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p21.1
 493. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p86.1
 494. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p54.4
 495. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p17.7
 496. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.11
 497. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.14
 498. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.16
 499. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p18.1
 500. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-p3.1
 501. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vii-p1.2
 502. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-p13.3
 503. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.2
 504. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.6
 505. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.12
 506. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.3
 507. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.5
 508. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.7
 509. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p3.1
 510. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p3.2
 511. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.5
 512. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p35.6
 513. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p48.1
 514. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p55.4
 515. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p64.2
 516. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p71.1
 517. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p80.1
 518. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.8
 519. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p2.1
 520. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.3
 521. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.9
 522. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.2
 523. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.4
 524. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p17.2
 525. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p17.5
 526. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.1
 527. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.3
 528. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.10
 529. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.13
 530. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.15
 531. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.17
 532. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p28.2
 533. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.3
 534. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p16.1
 535. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p29.3
 536. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-p1.4
 537. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.4
 538. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.9
 539. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.13
 540. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.4
 541. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.6
 542. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.12
 543. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p64.5
 544. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p82.1
 545. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.5
 546. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p4.10
 547. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-p8.3
 548. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p82.4
 549. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p34.1
 550. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p4.9
 551. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p83.13
 552. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p34.4
 553. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p43.3
 554. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.8
 555. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.3
 556. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.4
 557. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p51.7
 558. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.1
 559. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p4.1
 560. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.2
 561. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p0.5
 562. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p42.1
 563. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p43.2
 564. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p78.1
 565. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p79.1
 566. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.7
 567. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p3.5
 568. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.4
 569. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p18.9
 570. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p34.3
 571. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p70.4
 572. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.3
 573. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.1
 574. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.7
 575. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p37.2
 576. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.8
 577. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p20.1
 578. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p21.1
 579. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p21.2
 580. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p4.8
 581. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p83.12
 582. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.4
 583. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.7
 584. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.7
 585. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p28.1
 586. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p29.1
 587. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p70.3
 588. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p2.2
 589. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.27
 590. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.4
 591. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p7.1
 592. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.7
 593. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p17.6
 594. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p89.1
 595. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.9
 596. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.6
 597. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.6
 598. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p48.4
 599. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p41.1
 600. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p49.1
 601. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p34.2
 602. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p39.1
 603. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p35.2
 604. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p79.3
 605. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p70.2
 606. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p82.3
 607. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.6
 608. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ii-p1.2
 609. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ii-p1.3
 610. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.2
 611. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p10.4
 612. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p18.1
 613. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.3
 614. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.6
 615. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.10
 616. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.13
 617. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p1.15
 618. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p2.1
 619. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p3.1
 620. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-p3.2
 621. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.10
 622. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.14
 623. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.15
 624. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p52.1
 625. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.1
 626. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.19
 627. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.20
 628. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p5.2
 629. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p38.2
 630. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-p8.1
 631. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p71.2
 632. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p37.3
 633. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.32
 634. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p17.4
 635. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.1
 636. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.5
 637. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p79.6
 638. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p81.1
 639. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p82.1
 640. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p3.1
 641. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p38.1
 642. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p38.2
 643. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p71.3
 644. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-p1.16
 645. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p1.2
 646. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.6
 647. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.12
 648. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.14
 649. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.18
 650. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.21
 651. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p38.1
 652. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.9
 653. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.11
 654. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.6
 655. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p52.1
 656. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p24.4
 657. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.i-p4.2
 658. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p4.11
 659. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p51.2
 660. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.16
 661. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p2.3
 662. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-p2.23
 663. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.1
 664. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.3
 665. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.5
 666. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.7
 667. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.10
 668. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p5.3
 669. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p29.5
 670. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p30.1
 671. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p30.2
 672. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.17
 673. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p51.6
 674. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p17.5
 675. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p55.5
 676. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.i-p7.4
 677. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.i-p6.1
 678. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.4
 679. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.i-p7.1
 680. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.44
 681. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.9
 682. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p54.2
 683. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.4
 684. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.5
 685. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p17.6
 686. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.9
 687. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.2
 688. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p43.8
 689. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p37.4
 690. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.15
 691. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p5.2
 692. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.8
 693. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p6.1
 694. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.7
 695. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.5
 696. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p83.6
 697. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.5
 698. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.7
 699. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.7
 700. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.26
 701. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.16
 702. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p9.18
 703. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.15
 704. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.7
 705. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.23
 706. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p0.4
 707. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p71.4
 708. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.2
 709. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.4
 710. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.6
 711. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p28.4
 712. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p1.28
 713. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.7
 714. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p17.2
 715. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.11
 716. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vii-p1.1
 717. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p13.1
 718. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.x-p1.2
 719. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p4.6
 720. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p25.4
 721. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.12
 722. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p34.1
 723. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.5
 724. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.4
 725. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p4.1
 726. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.6
 727. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.14
 728. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p9.19
 729. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.14
 730. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p16.1
 731. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p37.1
 732. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.8
 733. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.6
 734. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.13
 735. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.18
 736. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.11
 737. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.1
 738. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p55.1
 739. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.9
 740. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.10
 741. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.6
 742. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p8.2
 743. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p4.4
 744. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p48.2
 745. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.9
 746. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.14
 747. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.16
 748. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.10
 749. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.36
 750. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.39
 751. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.7
 752. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.9
 753. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.10
 754. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.18
 755. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.6
 756. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.2
 757. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.12
 758. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.24
 759. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.34
 760. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.43
 761. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.45
 762. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p19.3
 763. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.38
 764. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.3
 765. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.28
 766. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.9
 767. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.1
 768. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.40
 769. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.37
 770. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.11
 771. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p43.12
 772. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.16
 773. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p17.4
 774. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.11
 775. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p25.2
 776. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.11
 777. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.8
 778. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p4.9
 779. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p54.1
 780. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.7
 781. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.5
 782. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.15
 783. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.1
 784. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p14.2
 785. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p18.1
 786. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p18.3
 787. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p1.26
 788. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p42.3
 789. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p43.5
 790. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.1
 791. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.11
 792. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.13
 793. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p8.4
 794. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.14
 795. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p52.1
 796. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p2.2
 797. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p74.2
 798. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p50.1
 799. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p18.2
 800. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p6.3
 801. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p6.5
 802. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p18.4
 803. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.6
 804. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p6.1
 805. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p83.4
 806. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.5
 807. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p10.8
 808. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.5
 809. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p4.2
 810. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.7
 811. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p9.5
 812. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p3.2
 813. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p10.1
 814. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p52.1
 815. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.10
 816. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.2
 817. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p7.1
 818. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.10
 819. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.4
 820. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.42
 821. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.4
 822. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.41
 823. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.9
 824. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.12
 825. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.9
 826. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p29.4
 827. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p18.12
 828. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.1
 829. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p9.20
 830. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-p12.4
 831. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p32.12
 832. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.3
 833. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p54.1
 834. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p43.6
 835. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.16
 836. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.4
 837. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p15.14
 838. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p14.5
 839. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.9
 840. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p4.7
 841. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p30.3
 842. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p17.3
 843. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.6
 844. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p35.5
 845. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.2
 846. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.2
 847. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.i-p6.1
 848. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p25.1
 849. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.i-p4.1
 850. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p38.1
 851. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.2
 852. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p3.6
 853. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p43.1
 854. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p1.4
 855. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p24.1
 856. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p14.2
 857. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p18.8
 858. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p3.4
 859. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p14.3
 860. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.3
 861. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p19.1
 862. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p51.2
 863. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-p1.3
 864. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p60.4
 865. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p76.4
 866. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p64.1
 867. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p2.5
 868. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p31.1
 869. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p52.2
 870. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p36.1
 871. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.4
 872. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p35.1
 873. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p2.8
 874. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p5.1
 875. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p26.7
 876. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p89.2
 877. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.3
 878. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.1
 879. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p3.5
 880. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.11
 881. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p77.7
 882. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.7
 883. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.6
 884. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p53.4
 885. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p5.4
 886. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p34.1
 887. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p4.1
 888. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-p5.1
 889. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p1.3
 890. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p35.5
 891. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.5
 892. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.2
 893. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p5.15
 894. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p49.2
 895. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p17.1
 896. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.3
 897. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p33.3
 898. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p16.2
 899. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p81.1
 900. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p35.4
 901. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p44.1
 902. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p18.11
 903. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p4.4
 904. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p98.9
 905. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p9.3
 906. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p32.6
 907. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p32.3
 908. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p14.1
 909. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p16.1
 910. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p5.5
 911. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p32.4
 912. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.4
 913. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p11.18
 914. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p51.4
 915. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p6.2
 916. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p52.2
 917. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p85.1
 918. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p13.2
 919. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p48.1
 920. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p4.6
 921. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.27
 922. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.2
 923. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p20.1
 924. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p17.1
 925. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p20.2
 926. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p54.4
 927. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p9.2
 928. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p51.2
 929. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p3.4
 930. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p33.2
 931. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p13.1
 932. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p3.3
 933. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.3
 934. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p16.4
 935. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p75.3
 936. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p31.4
 937. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.21
 938. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p12.3
 939. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p33.3
 940. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p33.1
 941. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p7.1
 942. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p5.1
 943. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.4
 944. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.6
 945. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p20.2
 946. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p52.3
 947. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.1
 948. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p26.5
 949. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p3.2
 950. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p4.2
 951. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-p6.1
 952. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-p9.1
 953. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p60.1
 954. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p6.3
 955. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p26.2
 956. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-p29.1
 957. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p6.4
 958. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p49.1
 959. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p33.4
 960. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p48.6
 961. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vii-p1.3
 962. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-p6.1
 963. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-p3.1
 964. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p1.2
 965. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p11.1
 966. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p3.1
 967. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-p4.12
 968. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-p1.2
 969. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p33.4
 970. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.32
 971. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.31
 972. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p51.5
 973. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p0.8
 974. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.25
 975. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.33
 976. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p12.1
 977. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.20
 978. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.8
 979. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p33.1
 980. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-p9.3
 981. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-p13.2
 982. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p12.2
 983. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.29
 984. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.7
 985. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.4
 986. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p12.3
 987. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-p2.4
 988. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p39.2
 989. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p15.2
 990. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-p4.1
 991. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p20.1
 992. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p49.4
 993. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p3.3
 994. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p74.1
 995. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p43.6
 996. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p1.2
 997. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p16.1
 998. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p6.1
 999. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p11.19
1000. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p2.1
1001. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p3.4
1002. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-p18.7
1003. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p8.5
1004. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-p49.3
1005. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-p16.30
1006. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-p2.5
1007. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-p17.2
1008. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-p15.16
1009. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p8.1
1010. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-p6.1
1011. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.1
1012. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.3
1013. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.5
1014. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p14.6
1015. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p15.4
1016. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p26.1
1017. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-p84.12
1018. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.i-Page_89
1019. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ii-Page_90
1020. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iii-Page_91
1021. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_92
1022. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_93
1023. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_94
1024. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_95
1025. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_96
1026. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_97
1027. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.iv-Page_98
1028. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_99
1029. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_100
1030. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_101
1031. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_102
1032. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_103
1033. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_104
1034. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_105
1035. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_106
1036. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_107
1037. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_108
1038. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_109
1039. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_110
1040. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_111
1041. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_112
1042. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_113
1043. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_114
1044. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_115
1045. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_116
1046. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_117
1047. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_118
1048. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_119
1049. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.v-Page_120
1050. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-Page_121
1051. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-Page_122
1052. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-Page_123
1053. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vi-Page_124
1054. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_125
1055. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_126
1056. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_127
1057. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_128
1058. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_129
1059. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_130
1060. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_131
1061. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_132
1062. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_133
1063. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_134
1064. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_135
1065. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.vii-Page_136
1066. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_137
1067. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_138
1068. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_139
1069. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_140
1070. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_141
1071. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_142
1072. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_143
1073. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_144
1074. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_145
1075. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_146
1076. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_147
1077. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_148
1078. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_149
1079. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_150
1080. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_151
1081. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_152
1082. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.viii-Page_153
1083. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_154
1084. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_155
1085. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_156
1086. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_157
1087. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_158
1088. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_159
1089. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_160
1090. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_161
1091. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_162
1092. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_163
1093. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_164
1094. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_165
1095. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_166
1096. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_167
1097. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_168
1098. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_169
1099. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_170
1100. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_171
1101. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_172
1102. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.ix-Page_173
1103. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_174
1104. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_175
1105. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_176
1106. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_177
1107. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_178
1108. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_179
1109. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_180
1110. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.x-Page_181
1111. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_182
1112. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_183
1113. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_184
1114. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_185
1115. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_186
1116. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_187
1117. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_188
1118. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_189
1119. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_190
1120. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_191
1121. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_192
1122. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_193
1123. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_194
1124. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_195
1125. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_196
1126. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_197
1127. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_198
1128. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_199
1129. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_200
1130. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_201
1131. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_202
1132. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_203
1133. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_204
1134. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_205
1135. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#i.xi-Page_206
1136. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.i-Page_207
1137. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ii-Page_208
1138. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.iii-Page_209
1139. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.iii-Page_210
1140. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.iv-Page_211
1141. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_212
1142. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_213
1143. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_214
1144. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_215
1145. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_216
1146. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_217
1147. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_218
1148. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_219
1149. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_220
1150. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.v-Page_221
1151. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_222
1152. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_223
1153. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_224
1154. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_225
1155. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_226
1156. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vi-Page_227
1157. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vii-Page_228
1158. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.vii-Page_229
1159. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_230
1160. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_231
1161. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_232
1162. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_233
1163. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_234
1164. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_235
1165. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_236
1166. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_237
1167. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_238
1168. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.viii-Page_239
1169. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-Page_240
1170. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-Page_241
1171. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-Page_242
1172. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-Page_243
1173. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.ix-Page_244
1174. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.x-Page_245
1175. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.x-Page_246
1176. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_247
1177. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_248
1178. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_249
1179. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_250
1180. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_251
1181. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_252
1182. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xi-Page_253
1183. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-Page_254
1184. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-Page_255
1185. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-Page_256
1186. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xii-Page_257
1187. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_258
1188. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_259
1189. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_260
1190. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_261
1191. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_262
1192. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_263
1193. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiii-Page_264
1194. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_265
1195. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_266
1196. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_267
1197. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_268
1198. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_269
1199. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_270
1200. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_271
1201. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_272
1202. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_273
1203. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_274
1204. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#ii.xiv-Page_275
1205. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.i-Page_277
1206. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.ii-Page_278
1207. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iii-Page_279
1208. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_280
1209. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_281
1210. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_282
1211. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_283
1212. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_284
1213. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_285
1214. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_286
1215. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_287
1216. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_288
1217. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_289
1218. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_290
1219. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_291
1220. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_292
1221. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_293
1222. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_294
1223. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_295
1224. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_296
1225. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_297
1226. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_298
1227. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_299
1228. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_300
1229. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_301
1230. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iii.iv-Page_302
1231. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.i-Page_303
1232. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.ii-Page_304
1233. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iii-Page_305
1234. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_306
1235. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_307
1236. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_308
1237. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_309
1238. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_310
1239. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_311
1240. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_312
1241. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_313
1242. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_314
1243. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_315
1244. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_316
1245. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_317
1246. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_318
1247. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_319
1248. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_320
1249. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_321
1250. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_322
1251. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_323
1252. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_324
1253. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_325
1254. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_326
1255. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_327
1256. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_328
1257. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_329
1258. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_330
1259. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_331
1260. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_332
1261. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_333
1262. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_334
1263. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_335
1264. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_336
1265. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_337
1266. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_338
1267. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_339
1268. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_340
1269. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_341
1270. file:///ccel/o/owen/schism/cache/schism.html3#iv.iv-Page_342