all Religion Christianity the Gospel the Church all Government Introducing Popery c. Especially for asserting 1. That Christ hath Instituted one Universal Church of which he onely is the Head and particular Churches as parts of it of which the Pastors are Subordinate Heads or Governours and so formally differenced 2. That neither of them is Constituted without some signification of consent which he never before heard one Christian deny CHAP. I. PREFATORY § 1. COntending though Defensive and made necessary by Accusers is an unpleasant work As I would choose a Prison before a Defensive War were it for no greater interest than my own so I would choose to be in Print proclaimed an Heretick Schismatick Atheist or any thing rather than be at the unpleasing labour of a Confutation of all Accusers were it not for a higher interest than mine For though we must contend for the Faith yet the servant of the Lord must not needlesly strive 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. And experience tells us the good seldome answereth the bad effects § 2. And there are few that call me to a publick Account that I answer less willingly than Mr. Cheney because his Accusations are such gross Mistakes that I cannot Answer them in the gentlest manner according to truth without opening that which will bring him lower in the Readers esteem than I desire and I much fear will be to himself a temptation which he will hardly overcome as I see by this his 2d Book Had he that was my familiar Neighbour thought meet to have spoken with me before his Publications I am past doubt that I could have convinced him of multitudes of Untruths and Errours so as to have prevented such a publication of them for in private he would easilier have born the detection of them than in the hearing of the World which he has chosen But whereas some cast away his Book as a fardel of Dotage and shameless Lyes I must remember such that I am confident he wrote no falshoods with a purpose knowingly to deceive and therefore they are not strictly Lyes but as rash untruths are such in a larger sense which ignorant men assert for want of due tryal It is a great errour to over-value such poor frail ignorant men as we all are Mr. Ch. and I have both over-valued one another and this errour now we have both escaped but not laid by our Christian love And as God will not take Mens Diseases for their Sins his bodily temper is to me a great excuse of his strong confident mistakes § 3. The very Introductory Preface of his Books disowning Cruelty and uncharitable dividing Impositions enableth me to forgive him the multitude of rash untruths and slanders and instead of a Mentiris I shall put but a Putares or Non-putares I have just such a task in dealing with Mr. Ch. as with one that is hard of hearing when I speak to such a one that heareth but one half and mis-heareth the rest he answereth me as he heard and when I tell him his mistake his last reply is I thought you had said thus and thus but if I should dispute a whole day with such a man I should be sharply censured if I printed the Dispute and told the World how many hundred times the man mis-heard and so mistook me And I fear neither he himself nor the Reader that valueth his time would thank me for such exercise of my Arithmetick with Mr. Cheney § 4. For his Preface I thank him It tells me that all our Accusers do it not in meer Malignity and that he hath a few steps further to tumble before he come to the bottom of the hill His Book consisteth partly of a handsome considerable discourse for Prelacie and other Church-Offices of Humane Invention and partly of a new singular Doctrine about Church-Forms partly in a critical discharge of his fancy and unpacking his preparations against the Independant Covenant and Church-Form and partly in detecting my many Atheistical Infidel Impious Errours by which he supposeth I am deceiving the world and partly n a multitude of falshoods of me and others in matter of fact and partly I hope an ignorant plea for the Pope To open all these fully would tire the Reader and me CHAP. II. What the Doctrine is which he accuseth of Atheism Impiety c. § 1. THE Reader that hath well perused my Writings knoweth it but I cannot expect that all should do so that read his Book The abstract is this I. That Jesus Christ is Head over all things to the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. II. That the Mosaical Law as such never bound other Kingdoms and is ceased with their Commonwealth and is abrogated by Christ and that he as King of the Church hath established a sufficient Law for all that is universally necessary for Doctrine Worship and Church-order or Government and was faithful in all his house as Moses and Commissioned his Apostles to Disciple Nations Baptizing them and teaching them what Christ himself had commanded them Matth. 28. 19. III. That he setled the Ministry and Church-Form before he made any Magistrate Christian and that no Magistrate hath power to change them IV. That what his Apostles did by his Commission and Spirit he did by them V. That Church-Forms being so Instituted and Constituted he hath not left them so much to the will of Man as he hath done the Forms of Civil Government VI. That Christ hath One Universal Church of which he is the onely Head and Law-giver and no Vicar personal or collective as one Political person or power of which professed believers and consenters in Baptism are the visible Members and sincere Believers and Consenters the Spiritual saved Members VII That the World and Church are not all one nor Heathens and Infidels the same with Christians nor any parts of the Church properly called VIII That Christs Ministers first work to which they were Commissioned was not on the Church or any Member of it but the Infidel world to gather them into a Church and the first Baptized person was not Baptized into a pre-existent Church but the Church existing Baptism entereth men into it IX That the first Baptizer was no Pastor of such an existent Church but an Organical Minister to gather a Christian Church X. That though at Baptism one may enter into the Universal and a particular Church yet Baptisme qua talis entereth us onely into the Universal being our Christening or Covenant-uniting to the body of Christ XI That a Pastor in the Scripture and usual sense is a Relate to Oves the Sheep or Flock and not to Infidels And a Ministry to Infidels and an Episcopacy or Pastorship of the flock are different notions but if any will use the terms otherwise we contend not de nomine though you call him a Pastor of Infidels or what else you can devise XII To explain my self when I mention a Bishop or Pastor I mean the Bishop or Pastor of
a Church and I take not Heathens for the Church XIII I believe that in this Universal Church are thousands of particular Churches and this by Christs Institution XIV I believe that there is no particular Church or Christian on earth who is not respectively as Visible or Mystical a part of the Universal Church XV. As every worshipping Assembly is a Church in a larger sense so a Church in a political sense is essentially constituted of the Pastor and People or the Sacerdotal guiding and the guided parts and of such a Church it is that I am speaking XVI As such meeting in transitu are an Extemporate transient Church so fixed Cohabitants ought to be a Church accordingly fixed related to each others as such for longer than the present meeting XVII Every such Political fixed Church should consist of a Pastor at least accordingly fixed to a cohabiting people and as their Pastor more specially related by obligation and authority to them than to strangers or neighbour Churches He is not bound to do that for all as he is for them nor may go into other Pastors Churches with equal power nor officiate where he please XVIII If there be no Church but the Universal than there is neither Parochial Diocesan or National nor are Assemblies Churches Nor is our King the Royal Governour of any Church for of the Universal he is not XIX Christian Princes must do their best to settle faithful Pastors in all Churches that is according to the Laws of Christ but not against them But as they must do their best that all their Subjects may have good Phycisians Schoolmasters Wives or Husbands Servants Dyet Cloathing c. but yet are not trusted by office to choose all these for every one and impose them on Dissenters because the same God that made Kingly power did first make personal and paternal power which Kings cannot dissolve so every man is so nearly concerned for his own Salvation more than for Wife Servant Dyet Phycisian c. that though he must thankfully accept of all the Rulers lawful help he is still the most obliged chooser Nor is it any part of the office of a King to choose and impose on every Subject a Guide or Pastor to whom only he shall trust the Pastoral conduct of his Soul any more than a Physician or a Tutor for him XX. Parish-bounds are not of Primitive or Divine Institution but cohabitation or propinquity is a needful qualification of setled Members gratia finis And Parish-bounds are a useful humane determination according to the general Rules Do all to edification and in order XXI No one is a Church-member merely because he dwelleth in the Parish for unbaptized Infidels Heathens Atheists may dwell there XXII Nor is a stranger a Church-member for coming into the Assembly for such as aforesaid or Jews Mahometans may come in XXIII A Pastor oweth more care and duty to his flock than to the rest of the world as a Physician to his Hospital Therefore he must know who they are better than by knowing that they dwell in the Parish nor may he Baptize them or give them the Lords Supper only because he seeth them in the Assembly or in the Parish else Jews and Heathens must have it XXIV Nor is he to give it to every one that demandeth it for so may Jews and Heathens that take it in scorn or for by-ends XXV Yet a Christian having a valid Certificate that he is such hath right to transient Communion with any Church of Christ where he cometh but for order the antient Churches used not to receive them without some Certificates from the Churches that they came from lest Hereticks and Excommunicates unknown persons should be every where received XXVI No man can be an adult Christian without signified consent nor a stated member of any particular Church without such consent no nor a lawful transient Communicant without consent For so great benefits none but consenters have right to nor can such relations be otherwise contracted XXVII Consent not signified nor known is none to the Church XXVIII A man may be obliged to consent that doth not but that makes no man a Christian or member of the Universal Church else Millions of Infidels and Heathens are Christians And so it maketh no one a member of a particular Church that he is obliged to be one nor am I a Pastor over any men as a Church because they are obliged to take me for their Pastor no more than that is a Husband Wife Servant who is obliged to be so and will not To say that I am a Pastor to Heathens as a Church is a contradiction or that I am their Pastor as my special Christian flock and particular church-Church-members that consent not XXIX But the same man that liveth among such may be to consenting Christians a Pastor and to Refusers Infidels or Heathens a Teacher The Church ever distinguished the Audientes and Catechumene Candidates from the Fideles who were the Members of the Church XXX No Pastor or people should impose any Covenant on any adult to be Christened but consent to be Christians signified by Baptism nor on any in order to transient Communion among strangers but just notice of their Christianity and understanding consent to that Communion nor on any in order to their being the stated Members of this or that flock and particular Church but due notice of their Christianity and of their understanding consent to what is essential to such members that is to the relation as essentiated by the correlate and ends XXXI No one should be obliged by covenant to continue one year or Month in the station of that particular relation because they know not when Gods providence may oblige them to remove or change it XXXII Though the Peoples consent be necessary to their relation their Election of the Pastor which signifieth the first determination who shall be the man is not absolutely necessary though of old so thought An after-Consent may serve ad esse relationis XXXIII Much less is it necessary that the people choose who shall be ordained a Minister unfixed and only of the Universal Church XXXIV 1. Mutual consent of the duely qualified Ordained and Ordainer determineth who shall be a Minister in the Church Universal as consent of the Colledge and the Candidate do who shall be the Licensed Physician 2. The Peoples consent and the Ministers instituted determine who shall be the Pastor of this particular Flock or Church 3. The King determineth whom he will tolerate countenance and maintain XXXV Though a man may be Ordained but once to the Ministry unfixed in the Universal Church to which I said the Peoples consent is not necessary yet may he be oft removed from one particular Church to another on just cause to which the peoples consent if not Election is still necessary Though to avoid Ambition the old Canons forbad Bishops to remove XXXVI It 's lawful to be ordained sine titulo
respectively P. 7. Some are as Colonels of Regiments others as Captains of Troops the Body is but One the Members many P. 13. The New Testament saith The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 2. the Churches of Judea Asia Yet One body All the faithful make One heavenly City one Church of the first born so that Gods Church on Earth is Many Churches and yet but One Church Do you not think now that we are agreed But hear him judge himself P. 15. I will shew one common Errour or mistake in multitudes of our able Divines That those we call particular Churches are counted Parts and Members of the Church Universal This I deny Mr. Baxter makes the Church of England or the Churches of England to be an integral part of the Church Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom So the Independents I overthrow this Errour by this Argument One and the same thing cannot be both a Body and a Member a whole and a part a society and one single person But that which we call a single or particular Church is not a Member but a Body it is not a limb or part of a Church but a whole and entire Church It hath a whole within it London is not a Member of England but a City and aggregation of Members It 's no less than a flat contradiction in terms what Dr. Ames saith Medul l. 1. c. 32. that a particular Church est Membrum ex aggregatione variorum Membrorum singulorum compositum contrary to common reason and plain Scripture P. 18. A bare Member in the Body hath no Authority but acteth by mere natural life and appetite and is not endued with rational authority nor can be capable of any That which we call a single Church is a Catholick or Universal Church It hath an Universal Head To be a Christian is to be of an universal impartial spirit where there is an All there is an Universal But every single Church hath an All within it the Pastor and all his flock The Church Universal and particular do only differ as to place and number A Church of godly Ministers and people in France Holland and England differ but as to place Every Church of Christians must needs be a Church Universal not a limb or member of another Church but a true body or entire Christian society P. 20. Christs Body is One not as one is opposed to Multitude but to division contrariety and destruction § 4. P. 21. This leads me to shew the unsoundness of another part of Mr. Baxters Doctrine and some others with him He saith There are two essentially different Policies or Forms of Church-Government of Christs Institution never to be altered by man 1. The Form of the Universal Church as Headed by Christ himself which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism 2. Particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors and are parts of the Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom And he defines the Universal Church to be The universality of Baptized Christians headed by Christ himself These his sayings contain many Errours I will first note them out and then confute and prove them to be Errours 1. It is an Errour in the art of defining to put in those words Headed by Christ himself 2. It is another Errour to define the Universal Church without Guides and Ministers as one essential constituent part 3. It is another Errour to say that the Universal Church and Churches particular differ essentially 1. It is an Errour in the art of desining to say Headed by Christ himself that 's supposed but need not be in the definition He finds fault himself with such a defect in the definition of a particular Church Grant them to be Christians and you grant they own Christ 2. It is an Errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors So doth the Assemblies Confession and Mr. Hudson His definition of the Church without Pastors is as if he defined a living healthful man without a stomach liver or lungs P. 24. 3. If there be an essential difference between Church and Church what then is the difference between the Church and the World Heaven and Hell the righteous and the wicked How can any man know which is the right Church We shall never be able to confute Popery nor Infidelity by this Doctrine For this Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors and of this Christ is Head himself Particular Churches of which Christ is no Head but particular Pastors are the Heads By this Doctrine the same thing shall be contrary to it self Christs Church in this world is but one And can one and the same thing have two different Essences beings and definitions Quae conveniunt uno tertio c. But the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio They stand on one foundation are directed by one rule quickned by one spirit an addition of homogeneous Particles makes no essential difference It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself and that the essentiating principles of Church holiness order and government are black and white darkness and light P. 25. If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand Two essentially different Forms of Churches will infer two sorts of Holiness the one repugnant to the other yet subordinata non pugnant If Christ set up two repugnant or essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world O dreadful § 5. P. 92. A word more ad hominem of that opinion That particular Churches are parts of the Universal as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom This is Mr. Baxters opinion why then do you blame the turning all the Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them to be but parts of the Diocesan as a Troop is of an Army c. who sees not that your Doctrine doth the same that you condemn c. If they are but parts and Members of another Church the Universal then they are not Churches It is not unlikely but you can find somewhat to say in defence of this your self-contradicting Doctrine but I believe it will match your wit were it ten times more and prove too hard for you Look to it if your disputations against Prelacie stand down goes this main assertion of yours If your disputations against Prelacie be found to have a hollow and false bottom then you have made you work for repentance you have greatly injured the Church of God and particularly the Church of England and have deceived a great many Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope to be to all the Pastors Churches and Christians through the world That do you make this which you call the Church Universal for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastors are parts and members of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up
an Universal Head or Government over all the Pastors Churches and Christians in the world besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and you lay the concord of all the Churches upon it Do but grant the Papists this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal Church as a City is of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarch on Earth either personal or collective who must have the Supreme power P. 96. But indeed you have gone beyond Bellarmine in seting up Papal Monarchy Your other assertion sets up Atheism by making the Holy God the Author and Founder of two essentially different Churches or Church-Forms According to Bellarmines assertion for the Pope there would be Pastors c. But according to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all P. 224 225. Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita But in this your division the Membra dividentia are not inter se opposita you oppose the same thing against itself You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church The whole or the Universal Church at Corinth is sound and good You plainly leave out of your description the differencing Form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood or dwelling or abiding in this or that place you make a new essential of Church-Membership and Church-Communion and lay the peace of all the Churches on it and say it is Divine sure harmless fitted to the interest of all good men This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot The more I strive the more I am overcome Mr. Cawdrey was lately with me and we had Conference about this point suspecting mine own judgment I have conferred with divers about your other Notions two Churches or two Church-Forms differing essentially and they cannot apprehend how it can stand you make the Universal Church-Form and the particular Church-Form to differ essentially and this by Divine Law I prove to you from the nature of the thing it self and the express word of God that the Universal Church of God at Corinth and the particular Church of God at Corinth are one and the same To oppose the Universal and particular Church and say they differ essentially is to oppose the same thing against itself and make the Lord Jesus Christ the Authour and Founder of selfsubverting Principles P. 226 227. As for that other point of the Church particular being part of the Church Universal it is to say that the whole Church at Corinth is a part of the whole Church which is absurd Reader I must not Transcribe the whole Book the rest is too like this exercise your patience in receiving a short Answer to the several parts which seemeth needful CHAP. IV. A Defence against the foresaid Accusations § 1. WHat Christians heart can choose but mourn for the Church of God and the puzzling confounding temptations of the ignorant that must hear men charged thus publickly with Atheism and the overthrow of all Religion for that which the Christian world agreeth in and this by Preachers of professed humility sincerity and zeal How shall the unlearned know when they are safe yea what snares are thus laid to rob men of their time as well as their Faith and Charity I must not give such lines their proper names but I will say that it remembreth me of Isa 1. 6. and it cryeth out unclean unclean How few words of Truth and soberness and soundness can you number among all these Had he written and published it in his sleep as some talk and walk it were some excuse But for a Man a Minister awake and after publick admonition deliberately on consultation a second time to talk at this rate in the Press And yet cannot we be endured without their Ceremonies c. When the Friendly Debater and Mr. Shurlocke have compared such Books as this with those that they reprehended perhaps they will say Iliacos intramuros c. To begin at the end I am sorry to read what he saith of the Divers he Conferred with c. 1. I never till now read or heard Papist Protestant or any Christian of his mind And alas are divers of it now Are Conformists come to that Either they were at Manhood or in breeches at least or not If not he should have chosen other Counsellers If yea were they Laymen or Clergymen He was to blame if he took up with the former alone in such a case If the later he greatly disgraceth them But we must say somewhat of our Atheistical Errours The beginning of his words which say the same thing which he so abominateth I will not charge with contradiction in sence from the rest for if he mean the same thing by One and Two A Church and no Church A part and no part Yea and Nay they are no contradictions in sence And indeed I cannot perceive that he understandeth what he readeth and answereth nor well what he saith And therefore I am not sure when I understand him but I will review some of the things that his words seem to accuse in order § I. The Universal Church as I defined it is a True Church Proved Where there is a true Church-Head and a Body of all Christians on earth united and subjected to that Head by mutual consent and Covenant there is a true Universal Church but such is that which I named and defined as the Church Universal Ergo. The Major is from the definition to the thing denominated As to the Minor 1. That Christ is the True Head 2. And all Christians the Universal true body visible as Baptized and mystical as Heart-Covenanters 3. And that mutual Covenanting is a sufficient bond for this Church-union the Christian Reader will chide me if I stay to prove § 11. Particular Churches existent are true Churches in Essence Proved to him 1. He oft confesseth this and the former 2. A true pars dirigens pars subdita necessarily qualified ad esse and united in those relations for Church-ends are a true particular Church But such are many existent particular Churches and all that I defined Ergo. 1. That a true Bishop at least with his Presbyters is a true pars dirigens 2. And a qualified flock a true pars subdita 3. And that such are found united in these relations I will take for granted with the Reader except Mr. Ch. And the Major is the definition § III. That the Relative union of the governing Part or nearest Head to the Governed body is the specifying form The proof being de Ente politico notione Logicâ is the consent of all Politicks Logicks and use of speech by the professours
me and you must be baptized in the name of Paul c. No Church-covenant no Church-member no right to any Church-ordinance Ans Confundendo fortiter caluminaris 1. The Eunuch consented to be a Christian of the Church Universal but not to be of a particular Church without that Consent he had not been baptized but this was not needful to it 2. The dispute whether Lay-mens baptism be valid I leave to you But if yea it is not necessary that I judge the Baptizer a Minister If not then it is necessary and my consent is necessary to make me a Christian but not him a Minister But mutual consent is necessary to his Pastoral relation to a particular Church 3. An Ordinance common to the Church Universal and proper to a particular Church should not be confounded nor so much as the modal ministration Do I adde to Baptism if I say that by the Canons and Custom of all the Churches for one Thousand years a man was not to be taken for the Bishop of any Church without mutual consent what 's this to Baptism And what temerity is it to feign men to wrong Christ by that which was his Institution and so judged and used in all the Churches § 14. X. Saith he It maketh the people Church-Rulers or Co-partners in office with the Pastors so that without their Consent they can do nothing not baptize Ans Of me the calumny hath no excuse I have written so much to the contrary Yea the very Act calumniated essentially containeth the contrary in it As he that consenteth to be a Servant consenteth not to be Master but to obey So they that consent to be Lay-members of a Pastors Flock consent that he and not they shall rule and that they will be the obeying part How could you wink so hard as not to see that your false witness confuteth it self And what if he cannot be their Governour without their consent doth this give them any part in governing Nay what if he cannot baptize a Non-consenter or give him the Lords Supper is the Refuser a Church-governour The man had got a heap of Notions against the Independents in his mind or his instigator that hath the same disease had thrust them in and out they must come against he knew not whom or what upon the word Consent What work would he make in the Church if he should deny the necessity of this Consent and have the Church made a Prison where Infidels should be cram'd and drencht with the Sacrament § 15. XI It sets up saith he Rebaptization by a Law For it requireth of godly baptized ones an antecedent Covenant to be Members of the particular Church As if a man should covenant to be a godly Citizen of London to be a Member of Gods Church at K. and hold communion therewith the people are called on to be new Christians as if they had been no Christians before Ans It is a sin to read such words without grief and indignation What! is every renewal of the Covenant of Godliness or Christianity a Rebaptizing or supposeth us Pagans Is this made by a Minister a heinous sin Are we not to do it in every partaking of the Lords Supper Yea explicitely or implicitely in every prayer Is Mr. Allen's Book for Covenanting and Mr. Rawlet's of Sacramental Covenanting such unchristening Heresies Is it damnable or sinful to covenant to be a godly Servant or a godly Husband or Wife or a godly Minister or Magistrate Doth this suppose them ungodly before with wat weapons are we assaulted § 16. XII He addes It bindeth people to be dwellers within the precincts of that one Church to hear no other Minister to joyn with no other Congregation Ans Concatenated Calumnies as to me They onely consent to the Relation of Lay-members till they remove their dwelling or relation They consent to take that Church but as a part of the Universal and therefore to hold just Communion with all others and receive what benefit they can from any other Ministers I abhor a Covenant that renounceth Communion with the Universal Church or any part of it without necessary cause Putide haec putares § 17. XIII He addes What shall godly Strangers Travellers c. do your Doctrine maketh them invaders Ans 1. If I have no notice of their consent to communicate with us pro tempore they expect it not And de ignotis non judicat Ecclesia and non apparere is equal to non esse If I have notice of their Consent it supposeth some notice that they are baptized or Christians and have more right than Heathens to Communion And if so 1. They consent to be Members of the Universal Church and as such I shall give them the Sacrament and Communion though I were no Pastor of any particular stated Church 2. They consent to a Transient Temporary Communion with me as a Minister in the Catholick Church And 3. They consent to transient temporary Communion with that particular Church and transient temporary Communion I will give them yea and may call them transient Members of that Church but no further any of these than they consent A Christian giving evidence of his Christianity hath right to transient Communion in all Churches in the world where he cometh yea all are not bound to live in stated Churches some are Travellers some unsetled Embassadors some Factors amongst Heathens some of no Habitation Beggars Pedlars Tinkers and such wandring Trades some live where is no Church with whom they may hold lawful Communion c. Now we have a new Divine risen up in the end of the world that seems to make all the setled Churches of Christ in the world for many hundred years to be all Traitors to Christ because these wanderers must not consent to their special relations nor enjoy their proper Priviledges and because they consent themselves to a more setled relation and Communion than these wanderers or refusers are capable of What would all the old Church that made so many Canons about their proper Communion have thought of this mans Doctrine if he had come among them at their Elections Discipline Distributions to the Widows and Poor and said Hold Sirs You are all destroying Baptism and Christianity by consenting to more towards one another than you owe to every unknown wanderer or refuser of a setled Church-state As if with our new Politician all Cities and Corporations are Traytors or deny or wrong the King because all Subjects are not Citizens some being Vagrants some in Villages some Souldiers some in odde Houses c. and because Cities consent to a special sort of Government which the rest have not Between the Anathematizers and these over-wise Censurers there are few Christians in the world that are not condemned as no Christians for being sound Christians § 18. XIV He was aware that we say that every one that may come into the Temple is not a part of my special Charge as a Pastor which I
cannot do for all And he saith It 's all one to your Doctrine if he refuse your Church-covenant The Minister all this while is no Minister the People all this while are no Christians They are no more lawful Pastor and People than Whoremonger and Whore going together and committing acts of filthiness and living in Fornication all their days Ans Continued Calumny as to me Is no modesty or tender fear of sinning against the Ninth Commandment left 1. He that refuseth Consent to be a stated Member is none such But is he therefore no Christian Awake Conscience Do any Independents say that none are Christians but their special charge yea or stated Members of particular Churches If there be any such what 's that to me 2. Such persons may be Members of the Universal Church and I am a Pastor in the Universal Church and as such may communicate with them 3. If he desire temporary Communion he consents to as much as he desireth and that he may have If he desire more he shall have more § 19. But saith the Accuser what speak you of Literae Communicatoriae These are nothing to yourcase he saith it ergo he proveth it It shuts him out of all particular Churches and Congregations under Heaven except c. Ans Putares of me it 's thus true or false 1. He that consents not to be a stated Member of any Church none because he would be none and it 's blind self-contradiction to say that I shut him out because he will not come in 2. He that consenteth to be a Member of the Universal Church shall not be shut out 3. He that by literas Communicatorias or any good testimony sheweth himself a Christian and desireth onely one days temporary Communion with a stated particular Church shall not be denied that which he desireth nor will we urge him to more § 19. XV. He adds It layeth waste Parish-bounds leaving people to go to what Church they will Intimating that being a godly man and a Parishioner doth not make him a Member of the Parish-Church Teaching people to be disorderly Ans 1. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia I said enough before to prove the falsehood of your Church-estate 1. Then there were no Church till there were Parish-bounds 2. Then if Papists Anabaptists c. be godly and dwell in the Parish they are Members against their wills 3. And they are Members of two particular Churches one in despight of them and of the other as Consenters 4. There are some Houses that are in no Parish that I have known Alas these must be of no Church 5. Some parts of one Parish are in the middle of another The truth is Parish-bounds are ordinarily of good use for Order and Order is for Edification and to promote the thing ordered and he layeth it not waste 1. That giveth it no more than its due as a humane mutable circumstance and not as essential 2. Nor he that refuseth it when it is turned against the end and the res ordinanda § 20. XVI He addes Then if the Pastor set over them be a son of Belial and sinfully tolerated by the Magistrate the people of the Parish who can neither remove him nor sit under a more edifying Minister must covenant to him c. Ans Strange who would have thought but this was neerer your opinion than theirs Briefly if the man be tolerable they must rather accept of him than have none If he be intolerable in the Ministry they may use such common gifts as he hath as we read even a Cicero but they must be of no particular Church till they can be so on lawful terms Even a Council of the Popes decreed that till men can have lawful Pastors they must forbear that Communion that supposeth such And who can doubt of it § 21. XVII Next he quibbles onely with a Question How long shall it last Answ How long will you be of the Parish-Priests or the Diocesans Flock or of a Physicians Hospital We cannot secure men from providential changes a day and therefore would not have them to binde themselves but on such suppositions He that means to go to morrow to another Countrey should consent but to this days Communion He that intendeth here to dwell must consent to the relation of a stated Member of that Flock till he remove or till God shew him just cause to change that relation till then he should know his proper Pastors § 22. XVIII Next he questioneth Who shall degrade them that prove Heretical or Scandalous c. Ans The Ordainers made him a Minister by Investiture c. and yet without our consent he was not related to us as our Pastor or we to him as part of that Church And so we may withdraw our consent and become none of his special Church-flock and leave it to the Ordainers to degrade him if he must be degraded as to the world and Church Universal One would think this Answer should be undeniable But he goeth on with his dismal accusations p. 116. The particular Church-covenant is a thing of mans invention no where required of God it is destructive to the Church and Souls should it be practised Ans Seeing Covenanting and known Consenting are all one with him what a dreadful damning sin doth the man make it for to consent to be under our Pastors Office Then he that would escape damnation must not consent to the office of the Parish-priest much less of the Bishop much less swear obedience to the Bishop And least of all say or swear never to endeavour any alteration We have need to bless us from Conformity if Consenting be so damnable But what meant he to say should it be practised Doth he not know that it is practised by them all and so that this Judge doth damn them all § 23. XIX He next answereth two of our pretences 1. From the Election of Ministers by the people And saith Election is quite another thing till they are ordained they are no men in office but persons designed Ans Alas that the man that hath all this while been damning others should not see that he hath so damned himself yea and quite exceeded my damning errour This it is to print with the zeal described Jam. 3. before men know what it is that they talk of Note that he is not against the peoples election if he be intelligible and yet elsewhere They are Rebels and no Christians that stand not to the King and Parliaments election 2. Note that he talks of one election to the Office of the Ministry as such and I talk of another election even to be our particular Pastor For this Physician to be my Physician 3. Note that the mans bare word must against all common use and reason perswade us that Consent which I require is more than Election which is much less The Elector nominateth and first determineth of the person Consent may come after even in obedience
the Scripture and Canons 1. A constant publick Teaching them which they owe not to all others or any 2. Constant Government by the Keys 3. Constant Administration of the Lords Supper 4. Constant leading them in publick Worship Prayer Praise c. 5. A special care of the Poor 6. Ordinary Visitation of the Sick 7. Comforting the Afflicted admonishing Offenders watching over all The Canons will tell you much which every man oweth more to his own Charge than to others V. It is certain that this Flock oweth a more special attendance and account and obedience to these Pastors than to Strangers or others of other Churches 1. To hear them 2. To receive the Communion ordinarily of them 3. To maintain them and so in the rest V. I. It is certain that none of this was done or can be done without mutual Consent VII It is certain that this Church-state Office and Duty was setled by Christ's Apostles and continued by the common consent of the Churches on Earth from age to age § 28. That it was an Apostolical Establishment is plain in Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church To omit the sence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the most usual sence includeth Suffrages it is evident that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implieth the fixing of the several Elders to their several Churches so as to make them the stated Elders of those Churches as their Flock in pepeculiar Acts 20. 17. Are they called the Elders of that Church over which as their Flock the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers to feed the Church of God to imitate Paul that taught them publickly and from house to house and was this no peculiar pastoral relation or were any but Consenters Members of that Church Tit. 1. 5. when Titus was to ordain Elders in every City it is equal to every Church And it stated them as their peculiar Pastors even Bishops as Gods Stewards over them in particular v. 7. more than others Jam. 5. 14. the sick that must call for the Elders of the Church were their proper Flock as is supposed The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. 2 and 3. were not equally the Angels of other Churches Phil. 1. 1. the Bishops and Deacons of the Church at Philippi had a fixed peculiar relation to them as theirs Archippus had a proper Ministry at Colosse Col. 4. 17. And Laodicea had a peculiar Church v. 16. 1 Thess 5. 12 13. sheweth the common state of the Christian Churches Know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake And be at peace among your selves Here Pastors to labour and admonish and be over them are to be known owned esteemed beloved persons dwelling among them and knowing their own Flock and the peoples duty to them and one another laid down And shall a Christian Minister say O but do not promise no nor signifie any consent to do it for that is to be rebaptized and is damning to the practisers The Bishops and Elders that Timothy is instructed about were such as had their proper Flocks and took care of them as the Church of God that were to rule them well and labour in the Word and Doctrine to preach the word in season and out of season reprove rebuke exhort with all long-suffering and Doctrine c. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. the Elders that Peter writeth to were to feed the Flock of God which was among them taking the oversight of them more than of all the world not by constrain but willingly and may they not signifie willingness not as Lords but Examples to their Flocks and Shepherds under the chief Shepherd Heb. 13. 7 17 24. fully expresseth it Obey them that have the rule over you they watch for your Souls as those that must give account not of all the world but of that Flock that they oversee The same Church had Bishops that had Deacons and some Deaconesses Widows c. but it was never known that Deacons were to be indefinite Overseers of the poor of all Churches but they had ever relation to particular Churches This is the ordering of the Churches appointed by the Holy Ghost Tit. 1. 5. And yet this man maketh it an abuse or injury against Christ and overthrow of the Gospel § 29. II. As for the constant judgement and practice of all Churches I am ashamed that such usage should put me to such a work as to prove that they ever held and practised that which this man condemneth in me He knoweth nothing of the Churches state and History and Canons that knoeth not 1. That all Churches were Societies of Christians united under their proper known Bishops or Pastors fixed to those Flocks by proper relation though also related to the World and the Church Universal 2. That the people did not onely Consent but Chuse their Pastors and he was to be no Bishop that had not their consent 3. That the Laity of other Churches promiscuously had no power to chuse them but onely those whom they were set over 4. That the Bishops as Ignatius speaks were to know the particular Members of their Churches and see that they came constantly to the Assemblies even to enquire after Maids and Servants saith he by name 5. That they made multitudes of Canons for exercising particular Discipline on each person that needed it by long suspending some from Communion restoring others taking care of the poor and of all 6. That they took not the Catechumens for the Church but Candidates and prepared and tried them before admittance 7. That it was not mere baptizing that made them of that Flock for they preached and baptized in other places 8. That it was not mere neighbourhood of Christians for there were sometime divers Churches in one City as in Meletius case at Alexandria and Dr. Hammond thinks the Jewish and Gentile Christians at first had several Bishops and Churches in the same Cities ordinarily And the Audians Luciferians Donatists and others that were of the same Religion had divers Churches besides such as the Novatians that had some little Doctrinal differences and none till now ever thought that these were all the same Pastors special Flocks and the same particular Churches Yea I have elsewhere cited that Council that decreed that if any Bishop neglected to convert the Hereticks c. he that converted them should have them as his Flock or Church In a word all Church-history and Canons describing their particular Churches and their Elections Orders Offices Priviledges Discipline c. and limiting them that strove for the greatest from encroaching one on another tell us so fully that they were so many incorporate Christian Societies consisting by mutual Consent of their proper Pastors and Flocks that Et pudet piget that such a task as the proofs should be thus imposed on me by a Minister § 30. The same is still continued even
so of every one City Corporation c. is no part of it I would desire them to allow him his own Exposition for he mcaneth not so ill as he saith § XV. To say that one whole cannot be a Member or part of another whole is yet if possible more than the former What may not Corpus politicum be a member of a larger body Politick Is there any part of the Universe if this be true at least save Atomes and Spirits And in what sense an Atome or Anima or Spiritus may be called totum Scaliger and the Schoolmen and Metaphysicks commonly tell you Are not whole stones part of Mountains and whole Trees of the Forrest and whole Herbs of the whole Garden and whole Fields of the whole Countrey and whole Parishes of the whole Diocess and County and those of the Kingdom and that of Europe and that of the world Is not a whole hand or foot part of a whole man Is not the mateial Universe made up of compounded parts What a trick has he found to exempt us all from Government every man may say I am a whole man therefore I am no part of the Bishop of Londons Diocess or of the Parish or of the Family Deny or destroy all such parts and you deny or destroy the whole Did he think that all Noun Substantives signified the same thing which have the same Adjective and that a whole Man and a whole Dog or World are all one § XVI It 's little better when he argueth that homogeneal parts make not a new species As if he could prove that the Church is Totum homogeneum Are not Christ and Christians the King and the Subjects of the Universal Church partes heterogeneae in esse politico relativo Are not Bishops and Laicks partes heterogeneae Had he forgot how much of his Book is to prove even Bishops and Presbyters as widely different No Christian denyeth it of the Church Universal nor any of single Churches that denyes not a Ministry and the being of such Churches as Political § XVII While thus he maketh National Churches Metropolitical Diocesane Parochial and the very Independent which he most revileth all one or of one essential species it seemeth that he knoweth not how he unsaith most that he said before § XVIII It is little better that he maketh several Churches viz. at Paris and at Plimouth c. to differ only in Number and Place 1. Do not the Popish Protestant Episcopal and Presbyterian differ in the Form of Government 2. Do not those of the same Form differ as Individuals by their several Rulers besides abundance of accidental differences § XIX And what Doctrine is it to say Christs Body is one not as one is opposed to multitude but to division and destruction Hath Christ a multitude of Bodies univocally so called even such a Body as we treat of Hath Christ many Universal Churches containing all Christians headed by Christ § XX. When he had so grosly wronged himself as to say It is an errour in the art of defining to say of the Universal Church it is Headed by Christ himself what other Head or formal Regent part doth he name will he have another or will he have none in the definition Is that the art of defining § XXI It 's little better to say Is is an errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors as the Assembly did What! a better Logician than all the Assembly too Alas how fell the good man under this temptation He instanceth in a body defined without Liver Stomack c. But 1. I hope he doth not think all is excluded that is not to be named 2. Is there no better definition of a man than Animal implume bipes c. or one that hath a Liver and Stomack c. When to the Entelechia or anima he added Corpus organicum Aristotle thought he said enough of the body Is not Animal rationale a just definition of a man without naming his Liver and Spleen or Heart Is not the Genus differentia enough for a definition Definitiones debent esse breves nihil otiosum continere otiosum est quo ablato definitio reliqua rei essentiam explicat A Kingdom is defined by naming no more than the King and Subjects in general without naming Judges Justices Sheriffs c. There are no constitutive principles in Nature but Mater materiae dispositio forma And the imperfect definitions of accidents must be as like as may be to those of substances The specifying form here is only Christ the Head so related Though he made Christians before Ministers and were all Pastors dead the Church were still Christs Universal Body yet I grant it is not a just organized body without Pastors but that maketh them but to be the nobler part of the disposed matter men do not use to play the Anatomists in definitions and instead of Animal or of Corpus organicum to name Heart Stomack Lungs c. But it is a healthful man that Mr. Ch. is defining Answ 1. But it is not a healthful Church but a true Church in essence that I was defining 2. If it had been otherwise the name of the parts need not enter the definition of health And are these his saving truths § XXII And what an intimation is it that if there be an essential difference between the Universal and particular Church there 's none between the Church and the world the righteous and the wicked Heaven and Hell These things are fitter to be answered by Interjections which be no words but voces non vocabula than by Speech If Christ and a Bishop in esse relationis politicae differ essentially must good and bad Heaven and Hell be all one If an Army and a Regiment and a Troop differ in their formal specifying essences must a Subject and a Rebel the Court and the Gallows therefore be all one Proh apage § XXIII Next he asks How can any man know the right Church then Answ What! no way but by making Christ and a Bishop formally the Head we know the Universal Church by its true definition and a true particular Church by its true definition and properties § XXIV Yea he saith we shall never be able to confute Popery and Infidelity by this Doctrine Answ Alas will the good man turn Papist or Infidel unless the Universal Church and a Diocesane have the same specifying difference or formal Head Then what remedy § XXV I have no Interjection deep enough for that which followeth viz. This Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors Putares and of this Christ is Head particular Churches of which Christ is no Head Putares Where said I any such thing Is this lawful As if 1. there must be no Pastors unless they be the formal Head of the Universal Church 2. And as if there must be no Christ the Supream Head if the Bishop be the formal differencing specifying
fallacia aequivocationis and so quatuour termini This Parish-Church and the Universal are not the same The word Church in the Major signifieth one thing and in the Minor another All is not essential to Communion in the Church Universal which is essential to Communion with this or that or any particular political Church To the later there must be you say Neighbourhood and I say proper Pastors and Flocks for personal Communion But the Eunuch Acts 8. was baptized into the Universal Church and not into any Neighbourhood Parish Diocess Assembly or had any stated Pastor He came into no Church-meeting Philip the Deacon supposed was snatcht away from him in the open field c. Baptism as such enters us into no particular Church Your words you are a Pagan to me are too false for a Christian to have used He that believeth with all his heart is no Pagan I am a Minister of Christ to the world but Infidels are not my Flock or a Church Catechizers should teach Children all this plain truth § 5. II. P. 102. Ask Mr. Baxter saith he Whom do you mean by the word Church and at last he must come to one man the Pastor as the Papist◠the Pope He that covenanteth first covenantet◠with none but the Pastor You change your terms What Church must he covenant with that was first baptized Ans Christ was baptized and his first baptized Disciple and he were the Embryo of the Universal Church if you can prove that one was baptized alone And as to a particular Church the Gatherer at first is onely a Minister in the Church Universal and authorized to that gathering which shall be the Foundation of his future relation And the first person that consenteth and he are not a proper Church for it is an Embryo and in fieri as a Troop when the Captain hath listed the first man But usually many are made Christians first and then they are materia disposita and Consent maketh the Pastors and them to be particular Churches Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church Elders of their own Acts 20. the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so of the rest of the Churches are mentioned And is the Captain a Troop or the Pastor a Church if he be the gatherer of it § 6. III. You name not Christ saith he but the Pastor Ans When we say Captain A. B's Troop we name not the General When we say the Bishop of London 's Diocess the King's Dominion c. we name not Christ or God For onely the Genus proximum is to be in definitions The Superiour are supposed they are Christians first § 7. IV. You say saith he that before this Covenant men are but hewed stones that is all the faithful are Pagans Ans Putares To be prepared for Baptism is somewhat more than to be Pagans But till consent Christians are not Members of any particular Church The Eunuch was but a hewn stone as you call it as to a formed Congregation but he was no Pagan but a Member of the Body of Christ § 8. V. This saith he makes the most excellent Ministers Apostles c. mere Lay-men such as go up and down preaching to Pagans where Christ is not known plainly subverts the Gospel c. Ans They are Christ's Ministers and not Lay-men while they convert Pagans and yet Pagans are no Church And till they are a Church no Apostle is a Pastor of them as a Church The Gospel standeth for all this § 9. But saith he may not a man be a Shepherd by calling and occupation unless he have a Flock as well as a Physician c. Ans Either you quarrel de re or de nomine If de re do you mean any more than that he is authorized to gather and rule a Flock If more what is it If not you calumniate if you pretend that I deny this but if it be onely de nomine whether the name of a Pastor may be given him that yet hath no Flock or of a Captain to him that hath no Troop I answer 1. When you wrangle but about Names try once more to stay that list of laying the overthrow of the Gospel on your Names 2. Titles of Relation may be given aptitudinally ex intentione de futuro But if one may be called a Pastor by relation to an intended Flock much more to an actual Flock and still it is a Relative to such a Flock intended 3. Try in Scripture and Councils and all Church-writers whether the title Pastor be not usually given onely to those that have actual Flocks But to avoid your quarrel call you them by what name you list if that will ease or please you § 10. VI. According to this Doctrine a Minister hath no Office or Authority but just to those of his own charge he preacheth elsewhere but as a gifted man Ans Still false as to me of whom you speak what a strange Chain of Calumnies can you make A Minister is 1. Christ's Officer to the world to convert them 2. To gather a Church in fieri 3. To officiate pro tempore in any other Church as a Licensed Physician to others even to Physicians doth his office § 11. VII It maketh void saith he Gods Ordinance of Ordination for either they are Ministers by Ordination or not If yea this Doctrine is erroneous Ans Unproved Ordination sine titulo maketh a man a Minister to the World and to the Church indefinitely Ordination with Institution doth that and more viz. it tieth a Minister to a consenting people Your Writings are all stigmatized with the shame of naked affirmations without proof and then forgetfully you oft say I have proved Why may not Consent and Ordination and Institution and Induction too be all needful Is a man and womans Consent needless unless the Ministers marrying them be needless May not a Town Hospital or Person chuse a Physician as theirs if he were licensed be-before If a Captain have commission to raise a Troop is consent of the Listed needless So of a Major a Pilot or any relation which requires Consent § 12. VIII It inferreth saith he that the Church is before the Officers viz. Pagans a Church Ans All fictions as to me to whom he speaks I said before they are as the Heart to the Body the punctum saliens is the first organical part to make the rest but not a part of the Body till the Body be made They are Ministers to gather Churches and then Pastors of Churches onely by consent And when Churches are gathered and the Pastor dead the people are Intentionally a Society but actually but a Community till a Pastor related to them make them a politick society And then relata sunt simul § 13. IX This Doctrine puts a new clause into Baptism which Christ never put in and altereth Christianity saith he Before I baptize you I must have an antecedent Covenant or signified Consent from you to submit to
that they are ruined if we be but suffered to Preach Christ's Gospel and to live out of a Jayl and think that if we offer to refel the Slanders that render us odious to them and do but speak for our Ministry and Liberties as every Malefactor is allowed by the Judges to speak for himself we seek the ruine of our Clergy-Accusers Do not Heathens abhor such Injustice as this My Purse is less to me than my Ministry and all that any man can take from me will be much less than Fourty Pound a Sermon And yet if any men on the High-way or in my House should not only take away all that I had but afterward prefer a Bill against me as seeking their ruine because by Reason I intreated them to forbear and that in vain it would be one of the oddest Cases that hath come into Westminster-Hall I was once neighbour to a valiant Knight who yet was so gentle that when the Hookers in a Moonshine-night were hooking his Cloaths and Goods through the window and he lay in Bed and saw them he lay still and mildly told them Gentlemen This is not well done These things are not yours If you are taken you may be hanged for it And by that time his Sermon to them was done they had got what they came for and were gone But I never heard that they entred a Suit against him for seeking to ruine their Trade by his reprehension But if any of you have such a trade as will not endure the Plea of innocent Sufferers for Peace or Mercy without your ruine I would some one that you have more regard for would perswade you quickly to lay by that trade lest when Christ is Judge and saith Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these you did it to me your Clergy will not save you from his Sentence were it but the devouring of Widows houses it is not the longest Liturgy that will excuse you by a Legit nor will you escape with Burning in the Hand unless Repentance now prevent it The evil Servant that stuffs his guts and beats his Fellows presuming on his Lords delay you know is threatned with a sharper penalty § 11. Impl. p. 4. No person of any Note that I have heard of in all that Party who were in places of Trust and Publick Employment did on the late Test refuse to communicate with the Church of England Answ 1. How far doth your hearing reach 2. How many of that Party have you known in such places of Trust I suppose you know when the Test in the Corporation-Act was imposed that Party were then turned out of all Corporation-power In some places not two of the old staid in And is it any wonder then if none of that Party be in such Power 3. And is Communicating in the Lords Supper all the Conformity that is scrupled And what 's all this to our Controversie § 12. Impl. When all our United strength is too little to withstand the attempts of our common Adversaries it is a wonder to me with what Confidence and what Designe he should not only proclaim Conformity on the Ministers part to be impossible but endeavour also with all his might to withdraw the Laity from our Communion m. 14. Answ 1. Is it a Truth that one that holdeth Communion with your Church and speaketh and writeth for it and disswadeth none from it doth endeavour with all his might to withdraw the Laity from it Can you not forbear this ill custome a few Lines together 2. Ex ore tuo See Reader the man confesses the need of our United strength Hold him to that word And I repeat If he and the rest of that Tribe do believe that it was morally possible that the two Thousand Silenc'd Ministers and all that came after them should believe all the things which I named in my Plea for Peace and all the rest which many scruple are lawful for them to do I wonder not at any Confusion Calamity or Corruption that shall befal a Church that is conducted by such men Who would have thought that there had been such men among Christians and Pastors of a Reformed Church But I do not believe that there are many such that think it morally possible that we should all believe all Conformity lawful they would never else have trusted so much to Mulcts and Jails as to think their Church undone without those Helps They are not such strangers to Sence and Conscience It is the wearing out of the present Generation of Non-Conformists and alluring or affrighting Youth from following them which the men of any Brains have trusted to Judge by these Evidences of this mans Wit and wondering 1. By the great number of the things which we judge sinful They might dispute men into their Opinion in some few differences that cannot in so many 2. The Sins feared are so heynous as that Conscience will not quickly universally swallow them 3. The number of the Dissenters To dispute a few men out of their Judgments in difficult cases proveth hard much more many hundreds or thousands 4. Consider the quality of the silenced Ministers Could they think that such men as Anthony Burges Sam. Hildersham Mr. Hughes Dr. Manton Dr. Seaman c. did not consider what they did neither in their Health nor before their Death Did they never read or hear what might be said for the New-Conformity Had they not Learning or Wit enough to understand it Or had they no Conscience living or dying So many hundreds that after their best enquiries and hearing all remain Non-Conformists are unlike to be all brought to Conform 5. Judge by old experience Were old Hildersham Ames Dod and hundreds like them brought to Conformity heretofore Mr. Sprint Dr. Burges and some others were but more were not Did not even the Westminster-Assembly of old Conformists forsake it assoon as they could 6. Judge by the change of the Case and the Writings even of the old Conformists Such things are put into the New-Conformity as Bilson Hooker Usher and other old Conformists have written against And would they also repent and change their minds if they were alive I again profess that I am bound in Charity and Reason fully to conclude that had Usher Bilson Hooker Jewel Preston Sibbes Whately Bolton and all such yea Dr. Jo. Burges Sprint and such others of their minde that writ for the old Conformity bin alive they would all have bin Nonconformists to our new Impositions 7. Judge by the means that are used to convince us Is there any thing said that hath such cogent Evidence as to convert so many hundred men to your Opinions Did such men as Dr. Twisse Mr. Herle Mr. Gataker Mr. Vines c. want the Instruction of our present Lords to make them wise enough to Conform When I know none of the Conformists writings that have so much as named some of the things that we think worst of 8. Judge by present
poor Bishop that renounced all their Communions for it is Canonized a Saint while Hooker himself justly reproacheth Ignatius And it made me marvail to read in Bellarmine de Scriptor Ecles pag. 100. this great Lie that Ithacius whom he falsly makes the same with Idacius who was one of the same Synod and Author of the Chron. in Jos Scaliger de emend temp In eo reprehensus punitus ab Episcopis fuit quod Priscillianum apud seculares judices accusaverit occidi cur averit Whenas 1. The Bishops never punished him for it 2. The Synod of Bishops joyned with him 3. Martin was despised as an unlearned Hypocrite and Favourer of the Hereticks that did renounce their way and Communion 4. Ithacius and Idacius because of the common Odium would have pretended that they put not on the Magistrate hereunto And that Bellarmine one of the Tribe that is for burning Hereticks should yet leave this blot on Idacius and seek by untruths to excuse the rest of the Bishops of it whence is it but that the Memory of the just shall be blessed and the Name of the wicked the cruel especially shall rot I digress only to tell you that the honour of violence will end in shame and he be odious to Posterity who may be set up as high as Gardiner or Bonner to serve the turn in some present Execution And I had rather be luke-warm than have a destroying or slandering heat To what you say of Beza and Selden I answer 1. Did I or the present Nonconformists ever subscribe to Beza or Geneva 2. Is it not palpably against your self that cry down Lay Elders though many with Ministers have power but in one Presbytery or Synod when our Lay Chancellor hath the power over hundreds of Ministers and Churches You that cry up or keep up Lay-mens Church Discipline may worse speak against Lay-mens Church Discipline than we that are against it in all whomsoever 3. But Beza and Geneva do not take them for Lay Elders nor the Scots neither but for Church Elders and part of the Clergy of Divine Institution none of which is pretended for Lay Chancellors And is that no difference For Selden as I know what he saith against the Diocesan Church Bishops in Eutychius Alexandr So I know what he saith against all of us for Erastianism de Synedriis better than by any Citations out of Heylin And I know he was one of the Long Parliament that raised the War whom even now you had possessed with the Spirit of Presbytery And you may judge of many of the rest by Selden And must you or I be Erastians because Selden and other Lawyers in the Parliament were so § 46. The Quibble in this Section is Content without an Answer § 47. I judged but of your Words and judge you of my Motives for refusing a Bishoprick no worse than I give you cause I answer you it intimated no Ingratitude to His Majesty nor did I ever repent And that I did it not to keep up a Party or Interest in them the Lord Chancellor had Evidence and my voluntary endeavours against all Faction and casting away my Reputation with all such declareth when I could as easily have kept it as you with yours and had no outward interest to move me to renounce it I say this because you seem suspectingly to talk of my Motives § 48. Our Question is Whether a Church of One Altar as they spake of old Associated for personal Communion and a Church of never so many Altars or Congregations Associated for other ends and not for personal Communion be ejusdem speciei And so whether the word Church here signifies but one Species You hold the Affirmative of both and I the Negative My reason is 1. Because it being a Relative which is in question The ends of the Society specifically differing make the Societies specifically to differ the Terminus being essential to the Relation But here are different sorts of ends Ergo here are different sorts of Relations I use the word ends to signifie the nearest end which specifieth and not the remote And to avoid the ambiguity of the word Terminus which as Finis cujus finis cui are distinguished so they use variously sometimes for the Correlate and sometimes for the nearest end and so I now use it As a Master to teach a Grammar-school and a Master to rule a Family or to guide a Ship are Relations specifically distinct à fine And so is a Magistrate and a Pastor and a Physician c. This is clear And for the Minor That these Churches in question have different nearest ends is evident For the end of a particular Church is personal â—ummunion in God's publick Worship and holy living to their mutual assistance But the ends of Churches that never know each other but live an 100 or 1000 Miles asunder They say some of our Islands and Plantations are parts of some English Diocesan Church can be no such thing but only a distant communion in the same Faith Love and Obedience The end of a single Church is the personal Communion of Christians in that one Society The end of an Association of many Churches is the Communion of those many Churches in distant mental Concord or by Delegates or Synods sometimes in â—ase of need And who ever thought that a particular Church a Patriarchal Church and a Pabal or the Universal Church were ejusdem speâ—iâ—i when they agree only in remote ends and differ in the Terminus vel finis proximus As a Kingdom and a Corporation differ Ex differentia â—inium because though both are Societies for Ciâ—il Communion and Government and so agree â—n genere yet the end of one is Kingdom government and Communion and the end of the other is â—ut Corporation-government and Communion 2. Where there are different sorts of Relates corâ—elates there are different sorts of Relations But â—â— a particular Church and a Patriarchal Dioceâ—n or other Combination of many Churches â—here are different sorts of Relates correlates Ergo there are different sorts of Relations The â—hing supposed in the major is undeniable that â—â—e Relate correlate enter the definition â—â—erefore the major is undeniable The minorâ—pposeth â—pposeth a Church to be Constituted of the â—ars dirigens vel regens and the pars subdita as relate correlate which is undeniable And â—en it is proved per partes 1. The Pastor of a â—â—gle Church and a Patriarch Pope or Dioceâ—n of a multitude of combined Churches are not the same Relate for they have not the same Relation I suppose the Relation of a Church to be thus Constitute of the two Complicate Relations as well the Church subjectively of the two Relates For 1. The different Work 2. And the different Correlate prove these Pastors to be two sorts of Relation however agreeing inâ—genere 1. It is not the same sort of Works personally to guide a present people in Doctrine Worship and Discipline
Doctrine Worship or Religious Ministration for the Ministration of the word and Sacraments and Keys is already appointed by Christ And the Office or Order is specified by the work and terminus and a new Office hath new work But in the same species of Religious Ministration there are abundance of accidentals and circumstances and Princes or consenting Churches may give men power in those accordingly But not to forbid what Christ commanded nor destroy the works and power of his Institution And if they that are for other superiour or co-ordinate species of Church-power besides what is afore-granted say that it is a lawful humane Ordinance 1. Those that say Princes only may make it confess the Church had none that was lawful for three hundred years And they must prove the Commission 2. Those that say the Inferiour Bishops made it by consent 1. feign Inferiours to have power to make a power above their own which is more than for Presbyters to ordain their like 2. Why may not Archbishops then make Patriarks and they a Pope ad summum ascendendo 3. They must prove their power and that they are so far equal to Apostles who yet were but to teach the Nations what Christ commanded them which these Men know not but by the Scripture 4. What Man maketh Man may unmake And how came we to be less free than our Ancestors that made such Offices XLI In my Book of Concord where this is granted yet I say that let Church-Patriarchs Metropolitans Primates Archbishops or Diocesans like ours that have no Bishops under them be never so probably maintained to be lawful yea and desirable yet the uniting in them by consent and approbation will never become the terms or way of Universal Concord which I have fully proved even all that is true and good will never be the terms of Universal Concord nor just Christian Communion much less that which hath so much matter of doubt and great suspition of evil But I will live in Christian love peace and submission my self on terms uncapable of common concord or my own approbation of the things as imposed or done by all others XLII Lay-Chancellours may do what belongeth to a Magistrate but not use the Church-Keyes nor be the Church-Judges of Mens Communion because Christ hath Instituted the Sacred Office for it XLIII A Church is Ens Politicum in the sense in hand and the form of it is Relative in the predicament of Relation XLIV The parts of the Universal Church are similar and dissimilar more simple or more compound And the word whole applyed to a part disproveth not its being a part of the whole Christian world or Church A whole hand foot head c. is part of a whole Body and a whole Body part of a whole Man and a whole Man part of a whole Family and a whole Family part of a whole street and that of a whole City and that of a whole County or Kingdom A whole Colledge of a whole University c. All Members save Souls and Atomes are compounds XLV When we call all the Christian world The Catholick Church and call e. g. Hippo A or the Catholick Church the word Catholick and The are not univocal In the later we mean only The Church at Hippo which holds the true Catholick Faith and is a true part of the Catholick Church in the first sense Penuria nominum necessaria reddit aequivoca XLVI Particular Churches are Visible in the Regent and Governed parts The Universal Church is Visible in the Governed part and in the Head only so far as he was once on Earth and is now visible in Heaven his Court and will be visible at last to all and ruleth by visible Laws but not as a Head now visible on Earth nor is this any deformity to his Church nor any reason why it may not be called Visible as I have fully proved in two Books against W. Johnson alias Terret XLVII Those that deny an Universal Visible Church differ only de nowine not de re They only deny any Universal Regent power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical under Christ but I know no Christian that ever denyed the fore-described XLVIII Forma dat esse Divers constitutive forms or specifying differences make divers Essences Therefore the form of a Troop being the Captains Government differs from the form of a Regiment which is the Colonels Governing Relation and both from the forms of the Army which is the Generals The formal Essence of a Colledge is divers from that of an University and of a Family from a Corporation or City and that from a Kingdom And as forma dat nomen they have divers names A Family quatalis is not a Kingdom c. Reader forgive the mention of these things which Children know and till now I never read or heard any man deny or question In that which followeth you shall see the Reasons that excuse me CHAP. III. What Mr. Cheyney saith against these things And 1. Of Church-Forms and Essence § 1. THough it tempt me not to Conformity as the way of Concord where I see the great difference of such as plead for it amongst themselves yet I must do that right to the Conformists as to tell the world that they must not be judged of by Mr. Ch 's opinions and that I know no other Conformist or Non-conformist of his mind about Church-Forms § 2. But I must add that his Case doth increase my Conviction against himself and them that their Conformity is so far from being the necessary Cement that it is utterly destructive of it as so imposed and that it must be on few plain necessary things that common concord must be held or we must have none Mr. Ch. thinks me one who may be endured in the Ministry and I think so by him and yet how far easier and plainer than our Controversies of Conformity are those things in which we differ to the height of his following Accusations If none should be endured that cannot Covenant Swear Subscribe Declare and Practice as is required how much less can such as he and I be endured in one Church if we differ as he saith we do O what pardon and forbearance doth our peace require § 3. Of Church-Forms and Essence hear some of his Judgment Pag. 3. The several Congregations and Assemblies of Pastors and People throughout the Kingdom are not limbs and parcels of a Church but they are so many Churches consisting of a Pastor Governing and people governed joyning together in publick worship It is called the Church of England as all the Christian Pastors and people throughout the world are called the Universal Church One Church of which Christ is the transcendent Head I do not see but it is proper to call all the Christian Pastors and people of England One Church P. 6. Christ is the Head of the Church of England and under Christ all the Parish-Ministers are subordinate Guides and Rulers of their Flocks
of both known to us in the world I oft enough distinguishing de nomine aequivoco have told men that it is not every Christian Assembly that we speak of but societas politica And all Politicks call the form of the Government the specifying form of the Politick Society throughout the known world So Monarchy Aristocracie Democracie are specifying forms of Republicks And Schools Armies Navies have divers Relative forms specifyed by the union of the various Regent Relative parts to the rest § IV. The Form is a chief essential part § V. Therefore divers specifying forms prove divers essences in specie § VI. It is not the generical form that specifieth Else all things that are ejusdem generis should be ejusdem speciei All bodies are not Animate nor all Animals Men nor all Men Bishops or Physicians § VII The Genus denominated without defining it with the specifying form or difference makes the Definition of the Species Else the Definition of the species infima would be confounded by the conjunct definitions of all the superiour Genera He that defineth a King must not put in it the definition of Homo of Animal of Vivens of Corpus and Anima of substantia § VIII The highest species must be defined by its proper highest form though not the subordinate species The King must be put in the definition of a Kingdom but not of a City Country Church Family School he is there supposed in a Kingdom And so of others § IX The higher Genera must not be named in the definition of the species but the next which is the superiour species Therefore Mr. Ch. mistook his Art of defining when he said I mist it by naming Christ as the Head of the Church Universal and adding that I blame my self that defining of a particular Church As in Relations it is not the ultimate end but the nearest that must be in the definition so is it not the highest but the next Genus that must be named In defining all the lower species the higher Genera are but implyed in the naming of genus proximum and not named § X. The Relation of Jesus Christ and of a humane Bishop are not the same Relation in specie though both be called Heads or Rulers Proved There is not the same subjectum nor the same fundamentum vel ratio fundandi nor the same Correlate for all the Christian world and a Diocese are not the same nor the same nearest terminus Ergo not the same Relation § XI Therefore the Universal Church Headed by Christ onely and a particular Church subordinately Headed by a Bishop or Clergy-head are essentially divers and two Proved Where the formal specifying Head or Regent part is two or divers and the Body divers c. there the societies are divers in specie or essentially But so it is here Ergo. That One and One are Two I will not undertake to prove to Mr. Ch. nor think it needful to prove to others nor yet that Christ is One and a Bishop one and not the same That Christ is the formal Head of the Universal Church all Christians confess and therefore to be named in the definition whether Mr. Ch. will or not and not supposed Baptismal Union and subjecting to him maketh us Christians and not supposeth us such in visible Church-state That Christ is not the formal specifying Head of a particular Church as such but of the Universal and so the Supream Head only of the particular is proved before 1. Because the specifying forma totius heterogenei is not the specifying form of the parts 2. Else all that Christ is Supreme Ruler to should be such particular Political Churches which is false It is not true of single persons of Christian Armies Troops Markets Parliaments Courts c. as such 3. Christ himself by his Apostles hath ordained a subordinate humane species of Church-heads or Rulers 4. From parity of cases Natural and Political The forma animalis is not forma hominis nor forma hominis forma oculi manus pedis c. The General is the formal Head of the Army but not of a Regiment but the Colonel Nor the Colonel of a Troop but the Captain nor the King of a City but the Maior or other subordinate head Nor the King or Maior of a Family School Colledge but the Pater-familias the Master the Rector c. Depose the subordinate Head and it's part of the Kingdom still but no Family School Colledge Troop Regiment c. All Mankind that profess dealing in such subjects as far as I know are agreed in all this As to the Body related also a Diocess is not all the Christian world § XII Every true particular or single Church is part of the Universal which is Headed only by Christ That it is part of the Universal I know not that ever man denyed till now that a conformable pious Divine maketh this with the former Atheistical making God and Christ a deceiver driving all Religion out of the world Popery worse c. Proved Quae unita totum constituunt sunt partes At Ecclesiae omnes particulares cum membris caeteris Christo Capite totam seu Universam Ecclesiam Redemptorum constituunt Ergo sunt Ecclesiae Universae partes Ecclesia universa constat ex horum unione Ergo haec omnia sunt ejus partes Again If the single Churches be no parts of the Universal either they are Co-ordinate Churches with the Universal or there is no Universal If the Universal be All without them than they are none If not then it is not Universal if there be other Churches which are no parts of it Again If they be no parts of the Church Universal they are no parts of the Body or peculiar people or Kingdom of Christ for that is but one 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 15 16. 5. c. But they are parts of the Body of Christ Ergo. § XIII To say that the whole Church e. g. at Corinth and the whole Church in the world are the same and what 's predicated of one is also of the other is a saying not to be justly denominated The subjectum relatum correlatum fundamentum terminus proximus and so the relation are divers The whole Church and its Head and a part and its subordinate Head are not the same The Kingdom and the City the City and a Parish or Ward the University and a Colledge the Man and a hand c. are not the same § XIV To say as he doth that a Family is not a part of the street or that of the City and London no Member or part of the Kingdom is stuff that I will not name an ill foundation for the charge of Atheism Blasphemy and all Impiety But I am out of all fear that he should make one Proselyte that 's sani cerebri If any accuse him of less than denying God and Christ even but of Deposing the King from most of his Kingdoms and saying that London and
humane policie that he denied and that they differed but about words Did ever Christian before you deny particular Churches to be distinct policies and parts of the Universal Have we so many Books written of Ecclesiastical Policie and is there no such thing or no Churches that are Politick Societies § XXXVII He adds According to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all Answ Then all the world of Christians are so for as far as writings notifie they are generally of this mind Alas Brother did you shew this to any man before you Printed it for their honour I must think you did not and for your sake I wish you had § XXXVIII He adds Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita but you oppose the same thing against it self Answ Thus do men humble themselves by forsaking humility Had it not been better for your to have let your Logick alone than to bewray that which you might have concealed Are not diversa distinguishable as well as opposita And is there no diversity in parte essentiae as in subalternis where there is not a diversity in totâ essentia as there is in summis generibus is there not both diversity and opposition inter totum partem and between the species of an universal and particular Society Are they not Relative opposita May you not distinguish Army and Regiment and Troop Kingdom and City Christ and a Bishop c. § XXXIX He adds You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church Answ And do not all Christians Is it all the Christian world § XL. You plainly saith he leave out of your description the differing form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood c. Answ Anne putares 1. Have I so oft exprest it and yet will you say so 2. But it was in descriptions indeed and I was far from your Logical belief that Neighbourhood is the differencing form And I hope no one else is of your mind 1. If Neighbourhood be the differencing form then all Christian Neighbours are particular Churches But that is false Ergo. 1. Those that dwell together only for Trade are not therefore Churches 2. Those that hold that there are no particular Churches or Pastors but that all Christians are as Priests 3. Those that hold that the Minister of the Parish where they live is no true Minister nor the Parish a true Church 4. Those that profess themselves Members of no particular Church 5. Those that profess to be no Members of that Church but of another 6. Papists and Sectaries that stand in opposition to that Church 7. Those that dwell near another Parish-Church and many miles from their own are not Members by proximity 8. Those that are Excommunicated which is de facto all professed Non-Conformists 9. In places where the Magistrate tyeth not Churches to Parish-bounds persons of the same street and house may be of several Churches 10. No man that consenteth not is a Church-Member 11. And who knoweth not that proximity is but dispositio materiae and not the differencing form All these singular novelties should have had better proof than these dry assertions contrary to all Christian sense § XLI This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot saith he and the more I strive the more I am overcome Answ If you are so far gone I shall hereafter I think without any striving with my self let that which is within you talk on and not resist you For who can hold that which will away But I wish you the benefit of some stiptick remedy and a sober mind § XLII I prove to you saith he when there is nothing like one proving word c. you make the Lord Jesus the authour and founder of subverting principles Answ Read the Ninth Commandment I conclude with these requests to him as my true friend viz. to consider Qu. 1. Whether a man so far from persecution and yet condemning us of Atheism blaspheming and destroying all Religion c. be not much more uncharitable than they that charge no such thing upon us but trouble us for refusing Forms are Ceremonies or is it not the same spirit Qu. 2. Whether he justifie not the silencing and ruining of all whom he so accuseth should not such impious Atheists be silenced Qu. 3. If he knew that the generality of the Christian world in all ages hold what he thus censureth what will he call it to charge all Christians so far with Atheism and casting out all Religion and making God and Christ a deceiver If he knew it not what will he call it to venture thus to publish such an accusation before he knew that which an ordinary Inhabitant of the world might so easily have known As if he had published All that say a City is specified by its subordinate Form of Government and is a part of the Kingdom specified by the Monarch are Traytors and depose the King or make him a deceiver and no King and deny all obedience What will you call this dealing Qu. 4. Was it well done to write such a Book while he understood so very little of the very plainest passages which he wrote against Qu. 5. Was it excusable to confess some errour of the last and to add far worse and after warning a second time so to speak evil of what he understood not Qu. 6. Was it humility to make ostentation of the Logick he understood not Qu. 7. Doth not the extreme bold confidence of the falsest of his own conceptions shew a very unhumbled overvaluing of his own understanding To be ignorant is common to Mankind yea and to be much ignorant of our ignorance and to think that we know more than we do But to have so little sense of this calamity and so little suspicion of ones own understanding as to be confident to such a height of accusation of the grossest falshoods where a lad of fourteen years old that had read any thing of Logick and Politicks might have better taught him that I say not the reason and use of Mankind this seemeth somewhat beyond the common measure of self-conceitedness Qu. 8. Whether the great number of asserted untruths here shew not some want of necessary tenderness or care of writing CHAP. IV. Mr. Chenies Accusations of me about Church-Covenants and rigid Independencie and the odiousness hereof considered § 1. WHen he had said that it leads to two contrary Gods which is to make no true God p. 69. He proceedeth Mr. B. hath devised and framed two Covenants the one to make a man a Member of the Church Universal the other of the particular p. 97. I will shew 1. That this is the same with the upstart way of the Independents 2. The unsoundness of it p. 101. Mr. B. and the Independents now are contrary to
their own principle in baptizing the Infants of Non-Confederates p. 129. I do utterly withstand it as Wickedness and Abomination in Gods Church I am to die and burn at a stake before I yield to any such thing This is Mr. Baxters way He offers it to Bishop Morley and Bishop Gunning in his Preface to his last Book of Concord that posterity may see what it is that he would have had and laboured to set up in all the Churches And accordingly let both the present and future Ages see and know p. 130. Your way is not so innocent as that of re-baptizing For the very matter and terms of your Church-Covenant are unsafe and plainly Schismatical As if Constables and people of each Town must Confederate to be a Corporation an Independent body having all jurisdiction within themselves and such as will not enter into this Confederacy must be counted none of the Kings Subjects To say there are no Churches in the world but a few Independent Churches were to go beyond Brownism It were rather to teach Infidelity such an opinion would be abhorred by all Now Mr. Baxter and the Independents Doctrine saith it Their errour should they hold it habitually predominantly and practically would be certainly their damnation p. 141 I see not but Pagans gross Hereticks Apostates Thieves and Robbers might combine together and say I take thee for my Pastor and I take you for my people Doth not your Doctrine infer it p. 143. If I yield to their assertion I must subvert the office of Christ and his Apostles and all his faithful Ministers and all the Churches to this day which I will not do for fear of the censure of any man living no nor of a whole Council of men p. 57. The way that Mr. Baxter offers seems to be a worse way It is the way of rigid Independencie Indeed Mr. B. in all his Writings seems to be against the Office of Lay-Elders But that he is not for them under another notion as Heads and delegates of the people mutually chosen by the Pastor and people for assistance in Discipline may be doubted He seems to hint at it c. § 2. How little truth is in all this and abundance such 1. either it is truth that I am for rigid Independency or not If not if yea I am glad that the Independent way is no worse I am not much acquainted with them But if this man say true 1. They are for no Covenanting but consent to the relation signifyed 2. They are not for binding any to continue in that relation 3. They are not for binding any from a regular use of any other Minister or Churches Communion 4. In places where Parishes are divided by Law and the ordinary attendance on the Pastors Ministration goeth for a sign of consent they are true Churches and Members that thus signifie it and ad esse it is usually enough though ad bene esse in doubtful cases the more express as more intelligible caeteris paribus is best 5. They are against an Office of Lay-Elders distinct from Ministers of the Word and Sacraments as of Gods institution for Church-government 6. They are against Democracie or the Church-governing power of the People 7. They take reformed Parish-Churches for the best Order not taking all for Members that are in the Parish but all the capable 8. They are against gathering Churches out of such Parish-Churches without great necessity 9. They are greatly against requiring any qualification as necessary to Communion in point of holiness but express consent to the Baptismal Covenant or profession of Christianity not disproved 10. They make not the peoples Election of their Pastors necessary ad esse but meer consent though the Patron or others Elect them 11. They suppose that the peoples Election or consent is not necessary to make a man a Minister in the Universal Church but only to make him their Pastor As to make a Physician and to make him my Physician differ 12. They suppose that a true Minister officiateth as such where ever he doth it 13. They suppose that associations or correspondencies of Churches for concord and help and Synods to that end and dependencie on such Synods is usually a duty where it can well be had and needless discord a fault 14. They refuse not to submit in practice to the instructions or admonitions of any general Visiter or Overseer of many Churches called by some Archbishops 15. They refuse not the precedency of one Pastor in every particular Church over the rest of the Presbyters 16. They refuse him not the name of the Bishop nor yet to submit to his negative voice as of the Quorum or the Archbishops either in Ordinations and all great publick matters 17. They are for separating from no Christians further than they separate from Christ or would force them to sin but are for universal Love and Concord 18. They are for obeying the Magistrate in all lawful things belonging to his function 19. They take the most extensive Love Peace and Concord for the most desirable and best 20. It is next their obedience to Christ and his sufficient Laws the great reason why they are against the terms imposed in most places of the Christian world where things unnecessary and suspected are made necessary to Communion Reader Mr. Ch. is so honest a man that it were unjust to take him for a deliberate studied Lyar. Therefore seeing he saith that my way is rigid Independency and oft maketh me a downright Independent I that know my own Judgement and knew not theirs so well as he seems to do am glad to hear that they are no worse and that they are wronged by such as accuse them of denying any of those Twenty points § 3. And supposing that he saith true and that they hold but my way as he calls it I will now try the force and honesty of his charge against them And first it savours of a spirit worse than his own that when he had before used the word Oath as owned by me and then said he repented of it that he still useth the word Covenant here as mine instead of Consent which is the word which I use and over and over say that I own no Covenant but any signification of Consent to the relation onely because I said that not ad esse but ad bene esse plain or express Consent in doubtful cases is best This smells of an ill intention and now I will try his arguments against this Consent § 4. P. 101. he saith Mr. B. acts contrary to his own Principles in baptizing the Children of No◠confederates The Universal and Particular Church make but one Church of God He that refuseth one Essential of Church-communion is no Christian and is to be debarred the Priviledges of Christians But according to you Non-confederates refuse one essential of Church-communion I may not baptize you you are to me a Pagan Ans Putares sed calumniaris Here is
subordinate Head and all but the named parts are denyed As if he would have more than the genus proximum and differentia specificans in a definition yea even the genus supremum and Christ shall be the specifying Head or none § XXVI He saith So the same thing shall be contrary to itself As if 1. Christ and a Bishop in formal relation were proved to be the same 2. Or things subordinate were contrary which he denyeth himself § XXVII He saith Christs Church in this world is but one Answ If there be but one particular Church 1. Then numerically the Church of London and Basil are one And then if I separate not from the Church at Basil I separate not from the Church of London 2. If de specie there be but one then a Patriarchal Diocesane Parochial Presbyterian and Democratical Church are but of one species And why then did you use so many words to tell us of the need of Bishops over Bishops and of the several sorts of supra-ordinate Church-Rulers Then a National Church and a Parish-Church are but one § XXVIII He addeth Quae conveniunt uno tertio conveniunt inter se but the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio c. Answ As if Convenientia generica were convenientia totalis vel specifica or Convenientia partialis totalis Accidentalis Essentialis were all one What pretty Logick is here to prove a King and a Constable all one because they are both Men both Christians and both Rulers I hope then a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one that in your sorry sense agree in uno tertio But let us hear the inferred Charge against us § XXIX An Addition of Homogeneous Particles saith he makes no essential differences Answ Christ and a Bishop are heterogeneous Yea a Diocesane and a Parish-Priest have you proved that they are not or that they are § XXX It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself saith he Answ O Temerity in the dark that is unless his Church-relation be the same with the Bishops As if the King be contrary to himself if his Kingdom and a Corporation or School be not of the same species § XXXI He saith If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand An. Do you mean in you or in me or all others Do you resolve to cast away all Religion if Christ and a Bishop be not the same informing regent parts of the Church Universal and particular Think better of it first for Religion is more necessary than so Do you think that the Christian world which hath ever been of the opinion which you detest had never any Religion Nor hath now any Which way do Churches that are parts of the Universal cast out all Religion § XXXII If Christ set up two essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world Answ And must Christ bear such a charge as well as I I should sooner have expected it from a Turk or Jew than from you § XXXIII He saith Why then do you blame turning Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them but parts of a Diocesane as a Troop of an Army Answ Putide putares When shall we meet with a true Sentence It is not for making them parts of a Diocesane Church as Troops of an Army but for making them no Political true Churches but disbanding all the Troops by making them no Troops but such parts of a Regiment as Squadrons are It is for putting down Inferiour Bishops and not for being themselves Bishops over them yet on this doth he ground his charge of my deceiving men and wronging God and his Church c. § XXXIV He addeth Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope c. that do you c. for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastours are parts of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up an Universal Head besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and lay the Concord of all the Churches on it Answ If you are sani Cerebri this is so gross that your putarem hath no excuse Had you not your self repeated my definition and carpt at those very words Headed only by Christ and many times your self repeated it as my opinion 2. Or had you tryed your wrangling wit to have proved that if Christ only be asserted to be the Head I thereby assert another Head or that If I make Bishops particular specifying Heads I therefore assert a humane Universal Head you had some cloak for your putarem But now If you next print that I said that a Dog is a man I will no more wonder at it than at this See Reader how my Church-Concord is oppugned and by what weapons Satan doth that work As if he that saith the King only is the specifying Head of the Kingdom and the Captain of his Troop or the Diocesans of a Diocess were a Traytor and did assert another Head of the Kingdom than the King § XXXV Do but grant the Papists saith he this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal as Cities of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes Headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an universal Monarch on earth c. Answ 1. Affirmanti incumbit probatio Did you think we must take your bare word in so great a case Do you say one word to prove your affirmation Must we all turn Papists upon your immodest naked saying it is so 2. But your immodesty is in this excessive to me that have written two Books against Johnson alias Terret and the later but lately and largely to prove that the Church hath no Universal Head but Christ notwithstanding the particular Regency of the Bishops and for you to give me not a word of answer to them and bid me now prove it if you can when I have voluminously proved it This is such dealing as I will not name 3. But I am heartily sorry what ever did it that you are got so neer to Popery As if you will be a Papist unless all the writers of the Christian world are deceived and if the particular Church be a part of the Universal which â—â—â—â— dare boldly swear it is and sober men doubt not XXXVI He adds Indeed you have gone beâ—ond Bellarmine in setting up Papal Monarchy Your â—ther assertion sets up Atheism by making the holy God the authour and founder of two essential different Churches or Church-Forms Answ Putares But if all the Christian world be of the same mind do they all set up Atheism and are you only free As for Tho. Hooker whom you cited though it be twenty four years or thereabouts since I read Mr. Hudson and him and will not tast away my time in perusing them my memory doubts not that it was only a Universal Church made one by one universal