any thing against it 3. And the Law that layeth us in Gaol and ruineth us if we so say and do forbear accordingly Is it an Argument to say The Law renounceth all that is contrary to the Word of God and Excommunicateth and Silenceth and ruineth you if you say that there is in the Liturgy any thing against it Ergo You may subscribe though there be somewhat against it because the Law disowneth it I would not think you mean this Therefore I know not what you mean to infer unless it be your next words Therefore what Faults be in the Government are rather the Faults of the Governours Alas this is it and worse Thus you might infer There is no fault in the Papal Government if the Pope in general renounce all that is against God's Word and then bids you swear that Popery is not against it Turks and Heathens renounce in general all sinning against God and yet I would not say that their Laws may be owned as sinless You say If all Governours in Church and State faithfully did their Duties according to the Canons Liturgy c. it would be happy for all sides Ans. No Man can tell by these words whether you mean If they did all that the Laws and Canons command them or If they did the good part and left out the bad If the later be your sense it is against you If it have a bad part which we must not do it hath a part which we must not consent covenant or promise to do If the former then you have part of your Happiness and may soon enough see more Your honest words elsewhere shew that you take it for no Happiness to have all professed Non-conformists Excommunicated according to the Canon and Silenced and Ruined according to the Law And yet I cannot tell how to agree you with your self You say All good and peaceable Men would be protected whether Conformists or Non-conformists Ans. As Mr. Field Mr. Thompson and others that died in Gaol were or as Mr. Hughs Mr. Ioseph Allen and others that died by their Prison-Diseases were or as those that must be Silenced or lie in Gaol six Months and pay forty pound a Sermon or as Men Excommunicated ipso facto are protected § 3. You say The words of the Declaration do not say No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours but the Government that is Of the Laws Rules and Canons by which they govern and the several Offices which be in the Church These may be good The office may be Divine or justly prudential or tolerably lawful Suppose the Oath and Covenant doth not bind to endeavour the alteration of the Chancellor's Office Your Conclusion seems implied in your Challenge Now let any Nonconformist prove that there is any Office in the English way of Church Government simply unlawful c. Ans. 1. Have you answered the proof that I pretend to have brought in my Disput. of Church Government If not must I write it again as oft as you will bid me Or would it be here meet to write a Treatise to answer this your Challenge But get it tolerated and it shall soon be done 2. You say The Government is the Laws Rules and Canons by which they Govern And if these need not be altered why did you before disown the exercise of them as a great Sin And yet this implieth The Law and Canon which Excommunicate Non-conformists and which deny the Lord's Supper to those that kneel not and which silence Non-subscribers to the 36th Canon and which deny Baptism to those that scruple the English use of the Cross and God-fathers and which ruine all that preach when Silenced need no alteration as simply unlawful But we must prove them unlawful Come to me then in private and let us debate the Case and I will prove to you as much as I affirm In the mean time if it will go for any Proof with you I crave your answer to these Arguments which some use that doubt of the lawfulness which they dare not deny I. A Church-governing Office for the exercise of that power of the Church Keys by Lay-men which Christ hath appropriated to the Clergy is sinful But such is the Office of our Lay-Chancellors Ergo c. II. A species of Prelacy which is destructive of or inconsistent with the form of particular Churches and of Bishops and Presbyters and the exercise of that Church-Discipline which Christ and his Spirit in the Apostles did institute is sinful But they fear such is the English Diocesan species of Prelacy Ergo c. III. The Government which is to be the execution of the foresaid Canons and Act of Uniformity c. for Expelling Excommunicating Silencing Imprisoning Ruining Non-conformists you said before was unlawful But Ergo. But here I would as your real Friend advise you to two things more as well as not needlesly to contract the guilt of that which you call grievous Sin in others 1. That you will publish your Retractation of those words The words of the Declaration do not say No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours but only of the Government Do you consider what you say 1. You know that it is the Government of the State as well as Church that is here expressed And do you think that the King and Parliament never intended to keep Men from deposing the King Or the Lords and Commons and Judges though they changed not the Species but set up others in their steads Or will the Bishops so expound it to you as that it meaneth not that you are not obliged by the Covenant to pull down all the present Bishops if you set up others in their stead 2. That you avoid the commoner answer of others who say That it is only the Essentials of Government that are here meant and not any Integrals or Accidents For 1. The King and State-Government is here touched And dare you say that If any Man think that the Covenant bindeth him to destroy all the King 's Civil Government except the bare essentials of Monarchy that the Parliament intended not here to contradict him 2. And I doubt the Bishops will be angry with you and call you Schismaticks if you say that the Parliament here meant not to contradict them that say they are bound by the Covenant to turn our Diocesan Bishops into Parochial ones or into one in every Corporation and to take down their Court Officers and their Lordships Parliament Power and Wealth That which serveth Men best in Arguing will not best please the Men that they plead for You say We grant that there is no one thing in the Episcopal Government but what we may well bear with and submit to Ans. 1. We well may and must bear with that which we cannot help In Moscovy we may fear that all Preaching is put down saving reading Homilies and a Man may there live Godly But do not you therefore tell all Men
Chancellors use of the Keys to be unlawful 3. Nor those that think that Officials Surrogates Commissaries Arch-Deacons being no Bishops have no just power but what the King may give them and not a superior Power of the Keys see Dr. Hammond's Explication of it § 2. But after you think that none but the Bishop is the Ordinary but the Church-Laws and common use contradict you and call all these when Judges of the Court your Ordinaries § 3. And I told you which you pass over that this is condemned by the Decrees of Antient Councils as a mischievous thing § 4. You say It binds us not to obey the Canons else the Oath of Allegiance would bind us to it and all the Statute-Laws Answ. This hath more seeming strength than the rest But 1. If it did hold it removeth but one branch of the difficulty 2. And indeed he that sweareth Obedience to the King doth swear to obey him according to the Law And so he that sweareth Obedience to the Bishop may mean more and include Mandates but he cannot reasonably mean less and exclude the Governing Laws But yet as we never meant that the King's Laws are all blameless or that we will obey them if they command us to sin against God but only will shew our submission by suffering So I confess our Oath to Bishops as such can mean no more But then were I under a King whose very frame of Laws were unlawful as tending to extirpate Piety I should doubt whether I might simply swear to obey him as my Governor How far the Canons are more unmeet instruments for true Church-Government than our Laws are for Civil Government I will not here enquire CHAP. VI. § 1. YOur fifth Section is about the words Receive the Holy Ghost c. in Ordination 1. Two things you include in the sense 1. Inward Qualifications 2. Investiture But I told you 1. Inward Qualifications are presupposed and the person examined accordingly 2. I never heard or knew of any that received them by Ordination 3. By Investiture it is the Ministerial Office that is given them To none of this do you answer But you say Christ used the words and no extraordinary thing then conferred c. Ans. 1. If Christ intended their after-reception of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost it followeth not that we must use such words that can promise or give no such spirit 2. There were five several sorts of Mission or Commission then given to Christ's Ministers 1. Christ sent out the twelve and seventy temporarily to Preach do Miracles and return and gifted and blessed them accordingly 2. He chose twelve as related to the number of the Tribes and ordained them stated Apostles to the Jews or Circumcision and he qualified them accordingly by his Spirit 3. He ordained them Apostles to all the world indefinitely and accordingly renewed their Commission For this he qualified them with ordinary gifts of his Spirit initially now at his resurrection together with their new Commission and more fully and miraculously at Pentecost You know how ignorant the Apostles were of Christ's Death Sacrifice Resurrection Ascension c. till he was risen And then Christ opened their understandings in these Articles and gave more Faith and answerably we must conceive other grace was given than they had before This cannot be denyed And is not this giving of the Holy Ghost more than man must now pretend to imitate 4. Besides these there were after-missions of particular Apostles as Paul and Barnabas or particular messages in particular Provinces 5. And there was the Ordaining of Bishops or Elders as fixed Guides of particular Churches And these being ordinary Officers were ordinarily to be qualified before they were ordained and not to receive their Abilities by their Ordination And this is the Ordination that we have to do with CHAP. VII § 1. YOur sixth Section requireth pity rather than reply The Church that a Bishop is ordained to is many hundred Parishes the Bishop of Lincoln hath many Counties You know by whom the Bishops are Chosen and where Consecrated The words were originally used to the Church over which the Bishop was placed And is it serious dealing to send word to none of them of your Time or Place and then call to Men in a Church in London or a private Chappel to come forth and speak their Exceptions If you can prove that this may be Assented and Consented to you have a stronger proving Faculty than I have CHAP VIII § 1. I See nothing satisfactory to the Objections which I made about the Damnatory Passages in Athanasius's Creed And I had reference much to a Manuscript in which Mr. Dodwel is the Objector and the Bishop of Lincoln supposed the Answerer which he doth with great Learning and Impartiality But to his Argument That we are not to Assent to the truth of the Passages excepted against because we read the Apocrypha and yet the Church intendeth not to bind us to believe some Untruths in it which he nameth I Answered that Athanasius's Creed is part of the Book which we must assent to but the Apocrypha is not I make less my self of this Scruple than the rest because I have reason to believe Athanasius meant it well when I have not the same assurance of the meaning of the Authors of some late Impositions CHAP. IX § 1. YOur Sect. 8 about the certainty of Baptized Infants Salvation being made here an Article of Faith I have much more to say against But you answer not to any of the strength of my Objections 1. And how strange is it that you saw a Manuscript of Bishop Usher's telling us of this Clause coming surreptitiously into the Book whereas he was Dead two Years before the Book was altered or that Clause put in Indeed there was another in that sounded almost like it which meant no more than that A Baptized Child hath all that is necessary to Salvation supposing his right ex parte Ecclesiae though he die without Confirmation or the Eucharist which were formerly given to Infants But this never said what the new Article saith § 2. You say many Conformists say It is no part of Assent and Consent because it is not used as part of the Church Service and they subscribe to no more Answ. Name not those Conformists lest you Dishonour them Do they declare their Assent to all things contained in the Book and mean only the Service which they must say Or do they Consent to the use of all and take an Article of Faith to be put in for no use Intreat them not to take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy with that Latitude and Exceptiousness § 3. You say you can Assent to it in a sound sense And it's more than you can prove that all Infants are saved but all that have right before God are saved but not those that have no right before God Answ. 1. But you were told that the Church signifies her sense by
Sabbath as I have proved in a peculiar Treatise Men may set apart one day in a year for special Thanksgivings or Commemorations and one day in a week e. g. in a time of Plague and danger to fast and pray c. But if any should make another weekly day of holy observance to commemorate the same work of Christ's Resurrection or our Redemption which Christ did separate that day to commemorate I think he would be both an unjust accuser of Christ's Law as insufficient and an unjust usurper of his Prerogative 4. And it is considerable to me that though Christ so extraordinarily Commissioned and Qualified his Apostles to record his Words and Acts in Scripture and settle Church-Orders and Inferiour Offices and teach the Nations to observe all that he had Commanded them yet even them did did he never Commission to make a new Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace nor did they ever make one but contrarily rebuked those that would but have kept up some of the old Ceremonies Divine or Humane And was not the Cross a stumbling and foolishness to the World in the Apostles Days and yet they never made such a Sacrament And who hath equal Power with them § 2. If any say the Church doth not make it a Sacrament I answer 1. It is not the Name that we contend about but the thing 2. I have before proved it by the Constitutive parts which you answer not 3. If Christ had Instituted the Cross as the Church doth as a Badg of our Christianity dedicating the Child to God as a solemn Covenanting Figure by which the Minister in God's Name and in the Persons pronounceth him Consecrated and engaged as signifying both God's part or Grace of the Covenant and Mans part or Duty I ask Whether you would not have câ—â—led this a Sacrament And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction it wanteth indeed a due Efficient but it is still a Humane Sacrament though not a Divine and therefore an unlawful Sacrament I would but know whether Men may make New Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace or not If yea how many and Quo jure § 3. And God's Prohibition Deut. 12. of adding or diminishing is not washt away so easily as your words would make Men believe You say It reacheth to the whole Duty of Man and Government of the Church c. Ans. There be some things in the Duty of Man and Church-Matters that God hath left to Man To do those is no addition to God's Laws But to do the like work that God by his Law hath done which he never left to Man seemeth to me the Addition there forbidden e.g. If Men had made another Tabernacle another Ark of the Covenant another holy Vestment for Aaron another Sacrament like Circumcision or the Passeover he that so reproved their worshiping in the High Places would have reproved these § 4. But the sum of your defence is ad Hominem to my self for granting the lawfulness of humane private professing Signs and of the Cross as such It 's strange to me that you that are so judicious can discern no more difference between 1. Private and publick Church-actions And 2. Between a bare professing Sign in genere and a Sacramental Covenanting-dedicating Symbolical Sign in specie 1. Every Sacramental Symbol is a professing Sign But every professing Sign is not a Sacramental Symbol a solemn Sacramental Celebration of a Mutual Covenant by an investing signification of the parts of both the Covenants Doth it follow then that because Men yea any Man may make a professing Sign of his Mind that Man yea every Man may make a new Sacrament An Israelite might have lift up his Hand to signifie consent to a Duty or to answer a Question But might he therefore have imitated Circumcision or the Passeover When a Man is Baptized if you ask him whether he consent he may signifie it by Bowing lifting up his Hand by Writing which are all but to the same use as Speech But he must Sacramentally signifie it by the reception of Baptism as the instituted solemn Covenanting Symbol of his Religion But for any to make to the Church of Christ a new Sacramental Symbol for such a Covenanting use is another Matter A Man that at the Lord's Supper is asked whether he consent to Christ's Covenant may signifie it as aforesaid But he may not therefore joyn to the Sacrament such another Covenanting Symbol of Christianity e. g. To make or consent to and approve and use a Law that all Christians shall solemnly after the Eucharist have their Heads anointed with Oyl to signifie that they are Members of Christ and hereby Covenant with him and the Holy Ghost as signifying his Grace received and their Duty performed and promised and this applied by a Minister Officiating as by his Commission § 4. I perceive by your mistaking Inferences that you understood not my distinction of Private and Publick and thought I had meant Secret or Open or before Few or Many Whereas I speak in the sense that these words are commonly used in Politicks e. g. When they distinguish Index publicus privatus Res publicae privatae Actiones publicae privatae c. Publick is that which either belongeth to the Society or a Publick Officer as such As a meer Subject is Homo privatus so his Actions and Affairs meerly as his are private The Aerarium of the Commonwealth though kept secretly is the publick Treasure The judgment of a publick Judge when few are present in his Chamber is Iudicium publicum and the judgment of a meer Arbitrator before thousands is Iudicium privatum A private Man's arbitrary Words or Actions in Westminster-Hall at the Bar are Actiones privatae § 5. I have more reverence for the Ancient Christians than to be a bold condemner of all their Actions which I wish they had not done and had they foreseen the Consequents they would not have done And I must Fide humanâ give some credit to those ancient Writers specially such as Augustine who tells us of Miracles adjoyned to some use of the Cross And considering how they used it I find it was when those things were done as a private arbitrary professing Sign such as it would have been to say by words I am a Christian or I trust in Christ or I am not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour And if when one asked them of their Faith or derided them for trusting in a Crucified Man they answered by crossing I judge them not for so doing The occasions and Persons might excuse such a private professing Action But if they would turn this into a publick Church-Ordinance by a Law and into a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace requiring all to receive it as the common Badge of Christianity I reproach not the approvers but I dare not approve it or so use it § 6. You say We must reduce what is said in the Canon to the words in the
Vow falsly But the harder it is for him to know his own Mind the more excusable he is And a false entrance is not a Sin that is unpardonable nor is the Sinner uncurable but may be converted in the Church though he came in unlawfully § 6. While preposterously you tell us who you think hath right to Baptism and the Lord's Supper you pass over the Fundamental Controversie as if you knew it not which is What Baptism and the Lord's Supper are This is it that we are mostly disagreed about End this and end all I suppose you take Baptism to be the first Sacrament and that less is not necessary to the Lord's Supper than to it And I presume to tell you that Christ never ordained nor the Church ever used any other Baptism of the Adult than 1. That which delivered the present Remission of Sin and right to Life to the just receiver of Baptism 2. and that which contained on the part of the Receiver his present profession of saving Faith and Repentance that is his true consent to the Covenant § 7. The Scripture telleth us that Baptism saveth as containing the answer of a good Conscience to God And that as many as are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ and have professed that they are buried with him by Baptism into his Death and raised with him to newness of Life c. § 8. God in great Mercy hath delivered down to us from the Apostles the form of Baptism by a fuller Tradition than the words of the Scripture or any things else of our Religion are delivered All Ages and Churches to this Day have retained the same form as to all the Essential parts The very words of the Baptizer and the Baptized the Credo Abrenuncio c professed full shew that all used this one Baptism which was a professed Vow and Covenanting with God and renouncing of the Flesh the World and the Devil for present delivered pardon and right to Christ and Life See the long List in Gataker against Davenant of the Ancients that took all the Baptized for justified In a word If you make another Species of Baptism which hath lower Conditions and Gifts only than these I am past doubt 1. That you introduce a new sort of Christianity 2. That you hereby would change the very Essence of the Church and wofully corrupt it A worse thing than to impose new Ceremonies 3. That by denying the truth of so universal concurrent Tradition as the form of Baptism hath you will shake Mens Faith by weakning the Credit of that Tradition by which we have received the Bible It being a harder matter to keep all the words of such a Book than the Form of Baptism used on every Christian in the World 4. That you will too grosly reproach all the Christian Churches as if they had in all Ages and Places been ignorant what Christening and Christianity is and had used a false Baptism till of late 5. You will contradict the Church of England which you Conform to and all the Churches now in the World which in their form of Baptizing and their Catechisms and Confessions tell us of no Baptism but what is a present Covenanting with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as consenters to his Covenant giving up our selves to him in the foresaid Relations for present Pardon c. See Dr. Hammona's Pract. Cat. of the Baptismal Vow And is all this fit Work for two or three singular Men To deny the said History is to be grosly Ignorant or Immodest § 9. And now I am ashamed to trouble you and the Reader with the opening of all your Impertinencies and Contradictions of That Man will not be persuaded to consent to the Baptismal Covenant and to be a Christian indeed doth yet sigh and grown and pray for that which he would not have and that the Impenitent must penitently use this means for Penitence and because whosoever will must come and take the Water of Life therefore they that will not take it must take the Sacrament And that the outward Act which is false Vowing themselves to God and saying They consent to the Covenant when they do not is the means of Grace appointed for their Conversion in which they do well and are accepted And that Non-consenters may fly to Christ as a merciful Physician to save Souls and cast themselves at his Feet Repenting Praying and crying for Mercy which they would not have and yet if they come with particular ill intentions away with them Confute what I have written to the contrary if you would convince me or any Man that hath read my Five Disputations QUEST III. WHether a Minister may put from the Sacrament those of his Parish who be Christned People and come to Church and joyn in the Publick Worship and tender themselves to receive being under no sentence of Excommunication You say He may not Ans. § 1. 1. What 's this to the Primitive Churches that were not Parishes Or to the Countries that yet are not settled into Parish Churches Or to such Churches as are but tolerated among Papists Parishes 2. And all that is here mentioned the Papists did for the first ten Years of Queen Elizabeth 3. And remember that we have in our Parishes many that are open Atheists Infidels Sadduces Persecutors Scorners of the Scripture and Religion open boasting impenitent Whore-mongers Blasphemers Drunkards c. and many that openly deny the Ministry and Sacraments and yet to avoid Penalty and for Custom will do all that is here named though they deride it And that all these are to be received though also you suppose that they never so much as professed consent to the Baptismal Covenant you take on you to prove 1. Because it is the Will of Christ. Oh! Brother dread such additions to Christ's Words And how is that proved Why None but Dogs and Swine must be denied holy things Ans. 1. Where found you that None else 2. How prove you that none of these are Dogs or Swine 3. Yea are not all they swinish despisers of Grace who will not be persuaded to consent that God shall be their God and Christ their Saviour and the Holy Ghost their Sanctifier and give up themselves to him in these Relations § 2. Yet Page 30. the Case is this If the People being Christened do make a credible profession of true Christianity or a profession of true Christianity which we cannot prove to be false at least by a violent Presumption we must accept their Profession and admit them Ans. This is mine as cited and the plain truth But 1. Did you think that a credible profession of true Christianity is not a credible profession of Conversion Are not true Christians saved What else are Men to be Converted to 2. Do all such as are afore described make such a credible profession of true Christianity § 3. You tell us that the Standard that Christ hath set is that If now thou be
cohabit or dwell near The confutation is I conceive he is out Ans. What is he against Parish Churches after all this No He only denieth it of a transient Member pro tempore as a Traveller and granteth it as to a stated Member And yet I am out Many and many a time have I written of Churches and use to distinguish first of the Equivocal Name saying That an occasional meeting of Christians for Worship may be called a Church and a transient Christian pro tempore a Member I have written more this way than ever he did But declared that it is a settled Political Society that I defined when I speak of what he now accuseth And why should a wise and good Man thus hastily trouble the World and make discord by pretending because he cannot have leisure to know what he speaks against § 3. My third Error is That to the being of a particular Church there is necessary a mutual Covenant or exprest consent between Pastor and People even every Member and the more express the better And I define a Church to be a Society of Christians consisting of Pastor and People associated by consent The force of the Confutation is I conceive he is out But wherein is it We have here such work as I never met with before 1. He granteth that none are to each other Pastor and People against their Wills Good still And yet do I err But saith he as Christ is Christ and a Saviour by Office whether Sinners will or not So faithful Ministers are Pastors by Office whether the People accept them or no. Reader it is not the least blemish of my Writings that on divers occasions I oft repeat the same things And many a time have I distinctly said 1. That the Ordainers judge who shall be a Minister of Christ in general 2. The Magistrate is judge whom he will Countenance Maintain or Tolerate 3. And the People must be consenting judges to whom they will trust the conduct of their Souls As it 's one thing to be a Licensed Physician and another to be Physician to this Hospital or Person If this Brother mean otherwise what meant he by saying that No Man can be a Pastor to a People against their will Doth he say and unsay in the next Lines Is Christ any Man's actual Saviour whether they believe in him and accept him or not I have oft said that in divers Cases the People may be bound in duty to Consent as all are bound to be Christians But they are no Christians or Church-members till they do Consent What then is it that he meaneth as our Difference § 4. Yes He saith No more is necessary to the being or well-being of a particular Church than this A company of Christians met together in publick for the Solemn Worship of God by Iesus Christ having a Pastor or Minister with them to guide and govern the Congregation and edifie himself and them by the Word and Sacraments where there is no Assembly of Pastor and People there is no Church and no longer than the Assembly lasteth are they a Church Ans. Did the World ever here this Doctrine before When the Church at Ierusalem Corinth Cenchrea Colosse Laodicea c. and the Churches in Iudea Galatia c. are mentioned when the Apostles ordained them Elders in every Church Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 3 5. c. Is the word Church here taken for no Christians longer than they are Assembled Doth not Scripture Canons Fathers and all Writers speak of Churches as Associated Christians remaining Churches all the Day and Year and not only while Assembled If the word Church may be taken for a Transient Assembly doth it follow that there is no other Have we so many Books of Ecclesiastical Policie if there be no Political Society that is a particular Church What an unpleasing talk is it to be put on a defence against such an Opponent § 5. Saith he I would but ask Mr. Baxter what is it that you mean by Associated by consent Ans. Have I in the Books cited by you so largely told you what I mean and must you print the Question before you will take an Answer Saith he Either you mean bare Assembling or some other thing Ans. Will you better understand me if I write it again than you did before When I told you at large in what Cases express consent by words or other signs is meet and that where the Laws settle Parish Churches ordinary attendance and submission to the Pastor's Office must be taken for express Consent But then I do hold that there is such a Church as I describe and that the Parish is not Unchurcht when the Assembly is dismist § 6. He saith When the Assembly breaks up the Church for that time ceaseth till the Meeting be renewed till which time they remain Christian Inhabitants Neighbours Families Parishioners or Sojourners the Pastor of the place dwelling among them Ans. In your Equivocal sense of a Church this is true In the Political sense they are a Church still as the Parliament Citizens Souldiers are a Parliament City Army when they Assemble not If your wrangle be de re do you deny their continued Relation If it be de nomine let the Scripture and all Nations judge whether the name Church belong to them no longer than they are Assembled 1. Then all that stay at Home or are Sick are no Church-members 2. Then the Bishop or Pastor hath no Church but while Assembled And he hath no Duty to perform for his Church but while Assembled 3. This is quite contrary to our Diocesans who say as honest Mr. Cawdry himself that a Diocess is the first particular Church and that it is no matter how many Assemblies it consist of and that there is no Church without a Bishop and so that we have no more Churches than Bishops 4. If a Bishop build a Temple on London Road where Travellers shall be his ordinary Hearers whom he shall never see again this is a Temporary Transient Church but verily it is another sort Church that is described in Scripture and by Ignatius Cyprian and all Church-writers And when the Bishop was to visit the Sick and take care of the Poor and to exhort from House to House it was as for a Church and not meerly as for Christian Neighbours And do you think no more consent was necessary to his special Duty to these more than to others and theirs to him than bare Assembling Atheists Infidels Hereticks may Assemble with the rest and Catechumens ordinarily did so and were never made themselves the judges whether and when they should be Baptized and admitted to Communion but the Pastors were the judges § 7. As to your oft mentioning the words Covenants and Oaths for such Church Associations as if I had written for Oaths or had not written against all needless Covenants which though you say not your words would make the Reader believe whilst over and over it is