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
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all
you I named And now O the power of Innocency and worth all those for their Gravity Sobriety Learning and Peaceableness you have as much esteem for as I can have And really I hope as bad as they and their adversaries judge each other were they all better acquainted with each other the rest would constrain their afflicters themselves to such a praise and approbation an inconsiderable number only excepted But who else should I name in the County where you live and near you Mr. Joseph Baker Mr. Benjamin Baxster Mr. George Hopkins Mr. Waldern c. are dead Those living are Mr. Ambrose Sparrey your predecessour at Hampton Mr. Andrew Tristram Mr. Kimberley Mr. Osland Mr. Badland of Worcester Mr. Sergeant Dr. Richard Morton Mr. Stephen Baxter Mr. Richard Dowley Mr. Cowper Mr. Paston Mr. Read I cannot remember all Tell me how many and which of those you mean The Elder about you dead were on our side Mr. Arthur Salway Mr. John Hall Mr. Thomas Hall your next Neighbour Mr. Smith at Dudley Mr. Smith at Stoke a younger Man and not far of Mr. Anthony Burgess Mr. Blake c. which of these mean you And what if you can Name one unlearned Man in Forty or Fifty If he be but a meer Nonconformist and not of some such Sect with whom we have not much more affinity than with the Papists who conform not and yet say they are nearer to you than to us I doubt that odd unlearned Man should he but conform would be a great ornament to your present Church But what course can one better take to silence such Calumnies and to convince Posterity of such mens incredibility than to Name the persons round about How many hundred worthy men in London and a few Counties of my acquaintance could I Name you And you say it is a usual Stratagem with us to possess particular persons with an opinion that you detract from them It is bad arguing Syllogizare ex particulari Excellent Logick He that condemneth the Non-conformists and the ejected Ministers as meer illiterate doth not condemn the Individuals though it came in with an How many I never said that you condemn them all but I askt you as you did me How many And is this like syllogizing ex particulari Do you intimate an Accusation against Many of them and when I name almost all of that County neer you will you absolve them all 2. Next you say Those I intended have your suffrage Because I said I had rather have a meer English Divine than an Hebrew or a Syriac Sot It seems you are of another mind A Sot will serve to preach Divinity and seek mens salvation We feel the judgment of more than you and this was enough to set you upon blew Aprons c. How forgot you Tub-Preachers 3. And you would fain steal some honour to your self from the Universities as a Defender of them O happy advantage But who accused them I said I am grown of late years to take it for no very great honour to our young Preachers that they are acquainted with the Universities And you put It is for I take it and so I take it still But late years signifieth not always nor our young Preachers all Preachers Doth he that dishonoureth the University deserve honour for being at the University What young ones you have I know not but our young ones that I speak of do not yet go about to change my mind Do you think all those named though he did not well by the Glocester Cobler Ralph Wallis are an honour to the University or it to them I still take it for no very great honour I said not none for any ignorant idle Lad to have been at the University But sure I obtruded not this judgment on you or any other Yet here is place for Corah's holy Congregation eclipsing the two Luminaries Agamemnon the Sodomites and more such stuff And shall it be the Controversie whether you or I have written more for Learning and Universities and which of us did more to save them from the Anabaptists and other Fanaticks when they were endangered The visible Evidences shall decide the Case You may be more beholden to the Universities than I but I have done more than wish their prosperity as well as you But Quidvis ex quovis is your way There went about Eleven or twelve out of Kederminster Parish and School to the University and Ministry in my time and many since If you please enquire of the difference 3. And when you tell me that I deal no better with the Primitive Fathers I first ask you how could you make shift to be ignorant how ill you use the ancient Presbyters yea and Bishops of the Church your self were they not mostly blew Aprons with you and such as you disdain for want of Hebrew c. Know you not that the Paucity of Learned Presbyters was the true Cause that the few that were such got the place and honour and power of Bishops above the rest And how few Philosophers turned Christians then And how long it was before the Christians had many considerable Schools much less Universities And what men the common Presbyters were yea and the Bishops for the most part Alexandria by Pantaenus Clemens and Origen kept up some competent Learning Basil Nazianzen Nissen Chrysostom were fain to go to such as Libanius and to Athens except those forenamed and Justin Martyr and Tertullian before them and Hierom after how few either Linguists or Philosophers had we And yet do not you account those holy and worthy men blew Aprons such as Ignatius Polycarpus Irenaeus yea and Cyprian almost all the Bishops of Rome Graeg Neocaesar Antonius Ab. Pachomius Macarius yea Epiphanius himself Ephrem Syrus Isidore Pelesiota Ambrose Philastrius Theoph. Alexand Ruffinus Gaudentius Maximus c. Besides Simeon Stillita and all the holy Famous Monks yea Augustinus himself the best rational Divine had little enough of the Tongues Their Writings easily prove all this with the Historical Descriptions of others concerning them I said I think it so short a Work to read the few brief Writers of the three first Centuries as maketh it more a dishonour to be ignorant of them than any great honour to be acquainted with them Instead of this you feign me to say It is no great honour to be acquainted with them But is this true Is a Positive and a Comparative Assertion all one But it seems you are not of my mind But take it for a greater honour for a Minister to know them than a dishonour to be ignorant of them And who vilified them more then you or I If I say that it is a greater dishonour to be ignorant of the Alphabet of the Grammar of the Gospel than honour to be acquainted with them so as to know what is in them and you denied this who vilified them most Have you no greater matters than these to exercise your censorious faculty on You know
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
it a Calumny that I say the Liturgy is defective and Disorderly Answ I did in 1660. draw up a Catalogue of the mere defects and disorders but never offered it to avoid offending them He tells us 1. of the disorders of the Directory And had he proved it is that a justification of the Liturgy 2. And also he tells us of the defects and confusions which were in Mr Baxter's eight days exploit our Additionals or Reformed Liturgy 1661. when as neither this Accuser nor any of the Bishops or Dissenters then said one word of particular accusation against it nor any other that ever I knew of to this day save an impertinent quarrel of Mr. Roger le Strange that we used not more imposing words and such trifles § 35. XVI Next comes the Profession of the Antiquity of Three Orders in the Preface of the Book of Ordination and elsewhere p. 47. And he citeth me Christ Direct p. 127. as against my self falsly intimating that I assert three Orders because I am uncertain whether there be not divers Degrees in one Order I cited out of Spelnian the Canons of Aelfrike shewing that the Church of England even in times of Popery took Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order as many Papists-Schoolmen do And the man should have known that it is not the Bishops of a particular Church that I mentioned in my Direct but only such as have the care of many Bishops Churches § 36. XVII He next defends the Scenical Call to the people to come forth and shew reason why the person may not be Ordained As if he knew not that it is not the sence of the words that is questioned but that this insignificant Ceremony should be set in the place of the ancient demand of their free consent over whom the Minister is set to seem as if they had still that liberty when it is no such matter nor do the people whose Souls he is to have the charge of know any thing usually of his Ordination nor at his Institution which sets him over them have they any Call Nor are so much as these Shews used at the Ordination of Bishops which by the old Canons was void without the Peoples Consent § 37. XVIII Of the words Receive the Holy Ghost c. he saith less than Mr. Cheny whom I have answered § 38. XIX So have I there answered p. 11 12. what he saith for the Oaths of Obedience to Archbishops Bishops Chancellors c. 1. It 's one thing to Obey them and another to Assent to the Oath of Obedience 2. And it 's one thing to swear Obedience to them as exerciâ—ing the power of Magistrates under the King and another thing as Laymen exercising the power of the Church-Keys c. And I have elsewhere cited divers old Canons that condemn such Oaths as dangerous § 39. XX. In the 20th Chap. to Mr. Cheny I have abundantly answered what he saith here about keeping men from the Sacrament and informing the Ordinary These be the Number of our Exceptions which the Impleader could finde though the rest were as plainly written § 40. XXI As for our Objections against the Declarations and Oaths required by Act of Parliament because it is not the sence of the Liturgie but of an Act of Parliament that we doubt of he refers us to the Executioners of the Law for our Instruction their natural way of satisfaction the Justice and Jailor I suppose Did these satisfie him to Conform herein Doth he take such Arguments for unanswerable Why did he pretend to defend the rest which are imposed in the same Act These are greater matters than the Ceremonies and need as clear a Justification § 41. But that you may see the measure of his Knowledge he can tell you that our mistake is wilful and an act of pure malice and revenge Answ Our Rule oft mentioned is agreed on by Casuists viz. To take such Oaths Promises and Professions in the sense of the imposing makers of them if they are our Rulers and unless they give us another sense we must take the ordinary sense that those words are used in to be theirs Therefore we take on any pretence whatsoever and those Commissioned by him and any alteration of Government in the Church and not at any time endeavour and no obligation on any other person as well as Assenting and Consenting to all things conteined and prescribed to have that meaning which not only our Parents that taught us to speak and our Masters and Dictionaries and the use of such as we hear talk hath taught us to take such words in but also in the sense of the Lawyers and Law-books which we are acquainted with unless any odde persons differ from the rest And this sagacious man hath found that this Exposition is a wilful mistake in malice and revenge Just as others of them can prove before God that it is through Covetousness that we Conform not viz. Two thousand Ministers England knoweth of what sort though the Accusers do not have forsaken all Church-maintenance and their Rulers countenance and put themselves under a Law that mulcts them 40 l. a Sermon banisheth them from Cities and Corporations lays them in Jayl c. reproacheth them as seditious and all this in Covetousness Malice and Revenge I have seen a Child throw away his meat in revenge but he returned to it in less time than 18 years I have heard of a woman that cut her throat and another that drowned herself and Children in a revengeful passion against her drunken cruel Husband but sure if she had 18 years deliberated it would have calm'd her passion But that 2000 such Ministers should chuse ruining Fines and Poverty and Jails and wilfully damn their own Souls by sin and all to be revenged on Parliament or Prelates is somewhat strange Especially when it is that which that Parliament and Prelates themselves are pleased with who chose the terms What kinde of Revenge hath our Malice found out which destroyeth ourselves and pleaseth our Afflicters § 42. And here p. 55. he falls with scorn on my Book of Concord and that his Book may be Conformable to itself describeth my terms of Concord by downright fiction and falshood as if he had thought none would ever open the book to shame his Calumny He tells you that the result of all is That every Pastor be independent free from any superiour to controul him and have an arbitrary Power and arbitrarily exercise the power of the Keys without Appeal to have the power of Ordaining who they will the power of altering the Laws in Church and State c. All which I have expresly written against at large Besides what I have written 1. For Bishops in each Church 2. For Archbishops or general Overseers 3. For Synods 4. Had it been no more than what I have written for the Magistrates Governing of all Pastors and Churches it would prove the falshood of this mans Assertion Yet that you
of a Bill for Accommodation Octavo price 2 s. The Narrative of Rob. Bolron of Shippon-hall Gent. concerning the late horrid Polish Plot and Conspiracy for the Destruction of His Majesty and the Protestant Religion Wherein is contained 1. His Informations upon Oath before His Majesty in Council and before several Justices of the Peace of the said Design and the means by which he arrived at the knowledge thereof 2. Some particular Applications made to himself to assist those design'd in the murdering of his Majesty the persons by whom such Applications were made and the Reward promised 3. The project of the Popish party to Erect a Nunnery at Dolebanck near Ripely in Yorkshire together with the Names of some Nuns actually design'd for that Imployment and taking the Profession upon them As also an Account of a certain Estate of 90 l. per annum given by Sir Thomas Gascoigne to the Nunnery for ever With other remarkable Passages relating to the horrid Piot Together with an Account of the Endeavours that were used by the Popish party to stifle his Evidence The Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray of Leeds in the County of York Gent. concerning the bloody Popish Conspiracy against the Life of his Sacred Majesty the Government and the Protestant Religion Wherein is contained 1. His knowledge of the said Design from the very first in the Year 1676 with the Opportunity he had to be acquainted therewith and the Reasons why he concealed it so long with the manner of his discovering the said wicked Project to his Majesty and his most honourable Privy Council 2. How far Sir Thomas Gascoigne Sir Miles Stapleton c. are ingaged in the Design of Killing the King and Fireing the City of London and York for the more speedy setting uppermost the Popish Religion in England 3. An Account of the Assemblings of many Popish Priests and Jesuits at Father Rishton's Chamber at Sir Gascoigue's house at Barmebow with their Consultations and Determinations with other considerable matters relating to the Plot. Together with an account of the Endeavours that were used to stifle his Evidence by making an Attempt upon his Life in Leicester Fields price 6 d. A Memento for the English Protestants c. with an Answer to that part of the Compendium which reflects on the Bishop of Lincoln's late Book Quarto price stitcht 6 d. Naked Truth the first part Being the true state of the Primitive Church By an humble Moderator price stitcht one shilling Causa Dei Or an Apology for God wherein the perpetuity of Insernal Torments is evinced and Divine Goodness and Justice that notwithstanding defended c. By Richard Burthogge M. D. Tulli's elect Orations Gouge's Works Octavo Horrid Popish Plot in a Pack of Cards A second Pack continuing a Representation of their Villainous Design from the publication of the first Pack to the last Sessions of Parliament begun Octob. 21. 1680. AN ANSVVER TO M R. HINCKLEY SIR I Have perused yours I think Impartially and to tell you my Judgment of it I perceive is like to offend you more I find it is natural to men to desire to be thought to be in the right and to have said well and done well be it never so ill It is some Honour to Truth and Goodness that the Names and Reputation of them seem desirable to those that cannot endure the things yea that the Things are never loathed or opposed formally as such but for their opposition to somewhat that is more loved And it is some help to the depression of Falshood and Sin that it is ashamed of its own Name and cannot endure to see its own Face which hath ever inclined it to break the Glass though to its greater shame when every piece will shew that ugliness which was shewed but by the whole before If nothing else had notified it to us one might have strongly suspected that you are of that Tribe who take themselves to be persecuted when they may not domineer and when others may but Preach and live without their Consent by your excessive tenderness and impatience calling it Poyson Hornets and abundance of such smarting angry Names if a man that is cast out of God's Vineyard as well as his Maintenance among many hundreds more do but plainly in a private Letter speak for himself and shew the injustice of your Printed Accusations O! that you were all but the thousandth part as tender I will not say of your Brethrens sufferings but of the danger of many thousand perishing starved Souls I shall only tell you this much in general that I now perceive you are used but for a Temptation to me to lose my time by the neglect of better Work And that you do so notoriously bawk the Truth and hide Untruth in a heap of Confident Rhetorical Flourishes that while you are of this temperament I will not undertake to prove to you that Two and Two are Four 1. My Beginning was taken from your Ending where you wrote You will satisfie your self as little as you will do others And what others Mind know you better than your own And sure that which satisfieth not you doth you no good as to its proper end what ever it may do by accident some other way Yet it seems you forgot that you had written this and that was warrant enough for all your confident Impertinencies on that occasion Sandy foundations light and darkness Hornets Nests rushing into the midst of the Pikes waking Dragons the golden Fleece c. come all in upon this your oversight And you seem to think that you have acquit your self well 2. You tell me of bringing the Controversie to an issue by dint of Scripture whether you sin in Conforming Is this fairly done to pretend that to be the Controversie which I never undertook to meddle with Could you possibly forget 1. That You were the Plaintiff and Accuser in Print not content that your Brethren were forbidden to Preach Christ and that many of them live in great poverty and want You wrote a Book of reproachful Oratory with no strength of Argument worthy an Answer to make them seem the flagitious Causes of their own silence and sufferings Against which they that meddled not with you had nothing to do but to justifie themselves 2. That in this Book you vehemently importune me who never knew you nor meddled with you to give the World the Reasons of my Non-conformity 3. That hereupon the Question that I treated about with you was How I may have leave to do it And whether it be ingenious thus publickly to urge me to that which you know I cannot do This was all the Controversie I had with you I tell you again I would go on my knees to any Bishop in England to procure but License for my self alone much more my Brethren to Write and Print the Reasons of our Non-conformity after Nine years Silence Suffering and Accusation that the World and Posterity may but once hear us
of Diocesan Prelacy Therefore to save us any more trouble we will refer all that Controversie to your own Ignatius alone who determineth That in every Church there is one Altar and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons and with that we are content In your Page 6 to keep your wont 1. You feign me to say that which I tell you is objected to me by others 2. You falsly feign me to allow the Conformists to have some Hebrew Chaldee Syriac and Arabic my very mention of which words you out lay hold on as an Honour granted to your â—â—â—â— But it is all a false supposition I never apâ—roved hofe words to the Conformists I only told you that valuing Matter before Words I 〈…〉 the Church had men that speak sound Doctrine in an apt and serious manner for bringing Sinners to repentance in English than such as can lace an insipid empty senceless Discourse with some shreds of Chaldee Syriac or Arabic and though I could wish that all the Ministers of Christ had all Accomplishments fit even for the adorning of their â—acred Work yet I had rather hear a meer English Divine than an Hebrew or a Syriac Sot You put me to the troublesom repeating of my words by your falsification I did not mention Conformists at all nor had any thought of appropriating these Passages to them any more than others But only to tell you that be he Conformist on Non-conformist if like Augustine Ambrose c. he had sound Divinity without the Languages now mentioned I could better bear with him than with one whoever that had Words for Ostentation without Sense and to free you from all suspicion of Injury I never heard one of the young Conformists which I mention make any ostentation or credible signification of his skill in any one of those Tongues Nor do I remember but exceeding few Conformists in England of my acquaintance that I will accuse or suspect of any such skill But having a Lad in my house not long ago come from School who hath some acquaintance in all these Languages and as many more who I assure you is too young to be a Conformable Preacher or Divine he being next me suggested the Matter of my Comparison when you vilified I know not whom some unnamed Non-conformists for knowing little more than English Books can teach them One Pressick a Sadler in Leverpool hath written That against some of your Sect in English which all their Languages will hardly enable them to Confute And I hear but few of you that in real knowledge are much more Angelical than Aquinas subtle than Scotus profound than Bradwardine c. when yet they and their Scholastick Tribe were commonly very sorry Linguists But it s needful that I intreat you that you affirm me not to have called them all Non-conformistâ— because I name them in this Comparison As for the loads of Dirt that you say I cast and your saying that you see you should have said feel that its difficult to forbear reproach towards them from whom we differ I answer 1. And I see that it s no wonder if that Tribe who think themselves persecuted when they may not persecute and silence others do also think themselves reproached when others are justly vindicated from their reproach 2. But it s hard that as Transubstantiation must be an Article of some mens Faith so we also must be obliged to believe that all our Senses and Experience are deceived And that he that walketh in the Frost is a reproach for saying it is cold because another affirmeth that the Summer is colder because of now and then a rainy day Alas are so many great Chappelries and many Parish Churches in several parts of the Land utterly without any Minister at all Are so many others so supplied yea so many hundreds as the Lovers of Souls do groan and weep for and must we neither see nor feel it But Sir if we must not feel it to you let us feel it to God that we may feelingly and not formally pray him to send forth more and better Labourers into his Harvest For my part I seriously profess that if the Gospel be but better Preached and the Souls of all the Parishes in the Three Kingdoms better instructed for their Salvation without us than with us I will never more speak for a Liberty to Preach much less desire a Farthing of the Maintenance But Sir if you talk in Print as you do to me in private Letters you might make strangers of your Mind But to the People of the present Age that see that hear that know the Persons your words will be all vain You may call them the Children of Hell for not believing you but men are so naturally sensible that your Anger will not change them neer London and in it I think are the worthiest Conformists in the Land proportionably And yet how many places not far off it feel what I say A worthy Learned judicious peaceable Divine bred up in one of the next Parishes to you awhile Mr. John Warren is silenced at a great Town Hatfield Broadoak in the Bishop of London's Presentation Thus he hath long lived and done much good yet since 1662 that he was silenced the Place hath been void many years because the Maintenance is small and there must be none at all rather than such a one as He. But you call this casting Dirt too The starved Souls must not take on them to feel their Case And to be past feeling in such cases is a state that men are prone to of themselves and need no Preachers to help them to be indifferent in Well! Souls must be starved or not be humble How can we prefer others before our selves unless we will be content that those for whom Christ died be neglected and Ignorance set up to teach men knowledge and the Ungodly to teach them Godliness But as in Natune so in Grace there is a Principle that will not suffer men by Words to be brought to take Famine for Food nor saying a dry Lesson for teaching men the Way to Heaven Blessed be God that hath possessed all renewed Christians with a new Nature which differenceth the Chaff from the Wheat and words from real worth and substance But you heard a Preacher say That he thanked God he never heard a Preacher but he could get something by him Answer And I also am of Mr. Herbert's mind Church-porch p. 15. If all want sense God takes a Text and preacheth Patience But for all that I will not by my Approbation contract the Guilt of such Preachers nor of those that set them up and would have others silenced and calumniated and then plead Humility for the valuing of these Every Text that is preached on is eaifying and I hope by bare reading it we may be edified And in Muscovy where all Preaching is put down for fear of Treason 1671. and yet now by Treason they are just between Life and Death
they seem to have great advantage in the using of your Argument to tell them that would have Preaching that Humility should teach them to esteem the Readers labour above their own And truly Basil and Chrysostom's Sermons which they read are better than the Sermons in very many Churches in this Land which you that honour the Fathers its like will not deny But cheat not your self so as to dream that we are the Assailants when we meddle not with you but by way of Comparison when urged to it in our own defence But because Prejudice and Factious passages yellow Jaundices a Party c. are here accused I could almost find in my heart to send you a Copy of some of the Sermons that I have lately heard But you would but pretend that this were some rare unusual thing O let the World take heed what History they believe I have as much ado to perswade you that many Churches are left in a case which calls for Tears as I have to perswade Bagshaw and others on the other extream that any of them have worthy or tolerable men When yet many hundred thousand Persons have Sense Reason and Experience to decide the Case But these ten years experience and much more have taught me not hastily to believe a Faction though in a matter where the common sense is Judge for Faction is one of the greatest Lyars in the world But you say Just so did Martin Marprelate traduce the regular Clergies Answer Just so is just untruly spoken by you As well may the Papists say to the Lutherans Just so did the Heriticks of old Rather just so did Christ tell some men That they took away the Key of Knowledge and would neither enter nor suffer others And just so he told them That if the blind lead the blind both will fall into the Ditch One of the last Sermons I heard was on Servants obey your Masters in all things and our own Servants being almost wholly past by it was applied to shew That we are Servants to the Bishops and must obey them in all things As if subjection without servitude had not been enough One of the next before it was to prove That the Church may appoint Holy-days because Easter-day which is the Lords-day is a Holy-day of the Churches appointment When most of the people had more need to have been taught the Cathechistical Principles and what they did when they were Baptized I can name you the Man and Place that from the Title of John's Epistle To the elect Lady proved undeniably that then there were Lord Bishops because an Elect Lady relateth to an Elect Lord and there are no Elect Lords but Elect Lord Bishops And if such as you are pleased to approve of the silencing of many hundreds yea of such as Amesius Cartwright Greenham Hildersham John Rogers Egerton Dod Bradshaw Rob. Parker Paget Hering c. O what men and the setting up of such as These or Readers in their stead all is salved by telling us that we must think others better than our selves and that we may profit by all And if God did work by all alike sense or non-sence and made as much use of the Ignorant and Ungodly to procure Knowledge and Godliness in the world I would say as you I believe with K. James they have an ill Spirit that recount Grievances to make themselves popular I suppose Sir Edw. Sands named by you was one he meant so ill do your Allegations agree But I will not therefore consent to their Guilt that make grievances and then declaim against such Popularity They please not God and are contrary to all mens forbidding us to Preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved for Wrath is come upon them to the uttermost was this Popular declaiming against grievances Deny your Children Food and Rayment and then call them such Popular declaimers Again you snatch at your former self-deceiving fiction did these Hebrew Children and Ara bick Lads come out of your School they should have been stroaked for Precious Youthes Answer How pleaseing to you is a selfmade Cheat. Realy Sir I know not one such Lad that is a Conformist your urgency may possibly provoke me to send you if it please you some of our homebred Fruits to tell you whence I fetcht my comparison 1. when you well mourn for your Alehouses Sots and yet say that all our 1800 are not free your Confession on one part is constrained your Accusation on the other side I think is a Calumny 1. Because no one of all the Non-conformists was cast out for Drunkenness but many on the other side were cast out uppon Accusation of that sin seconded by Oathes how just I must not presume to say 2. I that know the Non-conformists better than you know not one Drunkard amongst them all in England 3. I Challenge you to Name one of all the Ministers I Named to you or any other in the County of Worcester where you live Next Page 7. you pretend that I Change my judgement in valuing the Common Prayer and Homilies Answer all false still no change at all I ever valued the Common Prayer and Homilies much before such Preaching as I described to you And realy I think that the Non conformists much more value the Homilies than the Conformists do Next I am glad that you disclaim the proving it of any of our Non-conformists in England that he was silenced for Insufficiency But was this impertinent to one that intimated such Charges of unlearnedness as you did But you say it is of another Nature the reason of our silence that we do not give security to Authority that we will Preach up no more Wars Answer I summon your Conscience to justify you silencing of so many and such in the necessity of so many Thousand Souls one moment after death upon the Charge now given us on these reasons 1. I told you and you could not deny it that if you leave out your Oath and Subscription to the Bishops and Chancellors with the Vast Assent and Consent few Non-conformists will refuse the renuncation mentioned by you about Wars Yet still have you that front to â—ay it upon this The many that took the Oxford Oath upon this and the more that were ready to take it if Judge Keeling had not presently and openly declared it to be a renunciation of the National Vow 2. I again provoke you to prove that there is one Non-conformable Minister of Ten or Twenty that ever was proved or can be to have medled with the War against the King 3. you read and cite my late Writing wherein I say Page 51. Differ of the Pow of Mag. and Past I ascribe all that power to Kings which is given them by any Text of Scripture or acknowledged by any Council General or Provincial or by any Publick Authentick Confession of any Christian Church either Protestant Greek or Papist that ever I yet saw And is all this Insufficient to
still that there are some honest men in the World yea such as have sinned avowedly and deliberately when they knew it not to be sin as most Sects that contradict each other do yea and some that sin against knowledge too as many do in their vain thoughts and words But where is it that I said that these honest Conformists sin avowedly delaberately and against knowledge Make Conscience of Truth 'T is like that I might sometime say What it would be in me if I should do it But is that to say that it is so in others whose knowledge I am a stranger-to or that it borders on the sin against the Holy Ghost As for your Invective against these honest Conformists I ask you 1. May not a man be an honest Conformist that taketh Conformity for a thing lawful meerly in case of Deprivation as Mr. Sprint did though he had rather be excused If not few learned godly Divines of my youthful acquaintance were honest men For all such as pleaded then with me for it went upon those terms May not those be honest Conformists that heartily and openly wish for abatements as the Bishop of Chester doth and Bishop Gawden openly upon my demand of his Judgment oft did May not those be honest Conformists who go on Bishop Reynolds and Dr. Stillingsteet's grounds That no form of Church-Government is of Divine Institution Or those that had rather all the Ceremonies were out of the Church than so many Preachers If they are you do ill to censure them as dishonest If they are not I shall never be induced to Conform for it would be to give away my honesty if I do it on those aforesaid Principles Thus I perceive that it is not Conformity that would satisfie you if we yielded to it unless we also did it on your Principles But if neither the Bishops and Clergy of England in Abbot's days were any of them honest saving the few described by Heylin that went higher or if all the Latitudinarians that had rather the Ceremonies were forborn and all the unwilling Conformists in England that would not do it but to keep their Ministry be dishonest men I am not yet ready to fall in with that other sort of men that charge so many of their own Society with dishonesty and that account so few honest who are accounted honest by the rest of Mankind and appropriate honesty to those that others can hardliest discern it in § 17. And will you so grosly dispute down Non-conformity To distinguish between meddling with the War and entring into the Army to you is a Fly ad populum phalerae ficulnea evasio a little poor Criticism So that it seems you dare affirm or deny that of the one which you do of the other Durst you swear that none of the Lords or Commons or Citizens meddled with the War but those that entred into the Army And can you insist on such passages thus against your sight when your Error is detected I pray you if ever you be a Confessor resolve not other mens Cases of Conscience at this rate as you do your own § 18. It is an unhappiness in you that so hardly write that which is not errour and yet so hardly acknowledge any crrour in your Writing The Aphorisms recited by the Bishop were mentioned by way of Accusation You excepted none but spake generally of those collected by him What can I do more for tryal than to name Particulars And where should I begin but with the first But it 's many more that I can name which would extort from you the same Answer Particularly that which Bagshaw seeing there was tempted to transcribe among his falshoods as if I had said all that of Oliver which I said of his Son which others also have falsly said of me § 19. It is a troublesom thing to dispute on terms not explained or understood I thought all this while that Presbyterian and Episcopal had been terms whose sense we had agreed of but I was mistaken for now you let me know that an Archbishop who strove hard for such Preferment who drew the rest of the Bishops into that high Protestation for which some were imprisoned who forsook the Parliament and went to the Kings Party as soon as he saw that they would bring low the Bishops who for self-safety turned to the Parliament when he saw all was almost gone on the other side and this but in Wales to recover his own house this man with you was a Presbycerian Archbishop I may understand shortly what a Presbyterian signifieth of late in England As many Episcopal Non-conformists are silenced and go now under the Name of Presbyterians So take heed of straining the word too high lest Archbishops and Bishops at last be put down as Presbyterians too If he be a Presbyterin who is an Archbishop and would continue an Archbishop because he foresaw that the Bishops would pull down themselves and the Puritans would prevail In this sense I should not have denied but that they were Presbyterians that first raised that War in England against the King But your proof is out of Rushworth p. 224. viz. No other than those two famous men Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sibthorpe importuned the Bishop to prosecute the Puritans the Bishop said He knew of none and asked what manner of people they be It 's answered by Sir John Lamb in Dr. Sibthorp's presence That they seem to the World to be such as would not Swear Whore nor Drink but yet would Lye Cheat and Deceive That they would frequently hear two Sermons a day and repeat the same too and afterwards Pray and sometimes fast all day long Then the Bishop asked Whether those places where those Puritans were did lend Money freely to the King upon the Loan To which Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sybthorp replyed That they did generally resolve to lend freely Then said the Bishop No man of descretion can say that that place is a place of Puritans For my part I am not satisfied to give way to Proceedings against them At which Dr. Sibthorp said He was troubled to see that the Church was no better regarded Very good A Presbyterian then is a Bishop that is not satisfied to persecute such Puritans as those Add but what is said by many old Conformists how the word Puritan was used with the utmost Malice by Papists and Drunkards and ungodly persons against those who were firm Protestants and would not Drink and Whore as they did as Dr. Robert Abhot Regius Professor in Oxford and Bishop of Salisbury and Bishop Downam one that I verily thought had been no Presbyterian in his Spittle Sermon called Abraham's Tryal Mr. Rob. Bolton frequently who thinks there was never poor persecuted word used with such bitter malice by the mouth of the Serpents Seed as that word Puritan was at that day of good people I say take in all this and let Posterity judge of an English Presbyterian by it that he
Henry Cholmley and so through the rest of the Colonels were no Presbyterians though the Lord Say Lord Brook and the Lord Wharton were not Episcopal 10. That except these three last named all the Parliament's Lord-Lieutenants through England that ever I could hear of were men accounted Episcopal and Conformable and these three were not accounted Presbyterians but honest godly Independents or neither 11. That their Major Generals in the several Parts of the Land were commonly Episcopal and Conformable men yea the Earl of Stamford Sir William Waller Mr. G. Brown Mr. G. Massey Mr. Lawghorn Ferdinando Lord Fairfax Mr. G. Pointz Mr. G. Morgan Sir Thomas Middleton Mr. G. Mitton Sir John Gell c. 12. That the Synod at Westminster at first were all Conformists except about nine or ten As Doctor Hammond telleth them in his Answer to the London Ministers 13. That the Scots themselves as may be seen in a late Answer to the Bishop of Dumblanes Accommodation do profess That as England never was Presbyterian so they never supposed that they should immediately be such but only put into the Covenant the general words of Reforming according to the word of God and the Example of the best Reformed Churches That they might engage them further to enquire what is the Reformation which is most agreeable hereunto that so in time they might attain it So that when the said Bishop now Archbishop of Glasgoe being known to me citeth my own words and other mens to prove that the Assembly or Parliament never intended the Renunciation of Episcopacy but of the English exorbitant Prelacy the Scots Presbyterians deny it not but answer as aforesaid 14. That it is a commonly known thing that the Covenant came in not only after the Wars were begun but when the Parliament was brought so low as to seek to the Scots for aid And that Presbytery was little known in England till the Scots brought in the knowledge of it 15. And it was a notorious thing that the Parliament yielded to Presbytery and to exclude Episcopacy at last not because they thought that a moderate Episcopacy was not lawful and best but because they had no way to hold up their Wars without which they thought they had no way to uphold themselves but by the help of the Scots and such as were against Episcopacy And because they had seen the Prelacy fly so high and now to be so strong against them that they had no hope of moderating it but fear'd it would bear down all Insomuch that Mr. Thomas Coleman gave the Covenant to the Lords with this open profession That it signified not the Renunciation of Episcopacy 16. And it is a notorious thing that before the Parliament 1640 there were not so many Non-conformable Ministers in England Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists altogether as there were Counties in the Kingdom And 17. It is known that few of those few had any hand in raising or promoting the War Mr. Dod in Northamptonshire Mr. Ball in Staffordshire Mr. Langley in Cheshire poor Mr. Barnet of Uppington in Shropshire Mr. Oliver Thomas and Mr. Wrath in Wales that quickly died as almost all the rest did Mr. Augier in Lancashire Mr. Slater Mr. Root and a few more in all England And 18. It is known that when necessity had drawn them to please the Scots and take the Covenant the Parliament would never be drawn though they made Ordinances for it to appoint any to settle Presbytery in the Counties in execution of their Ordinances But purposely delayed and never did it except in London Lancashire Warwickshire and a few more places 19. And it is known that the Ministers of England themselves were but few of them indeed Presbyterians and therefore were the backwarder to set up that Discipline And therefore our Worcestershire Agreement to concur in all that the three Parties are agreed in did the more easily and generally take and that the People themselves were so generally against Presbytery except some of the stricter sort that they never would submit to it And so de facto it was never indeed set up save in the few places forenamed 20. Lastly It is visible that the Reasons of the Parliament's War published in their Remonstrances and Declarations do suppose their Consent to Episcopacy and mention nothing of a change And that the Lawyers of the House as Judge Brown Selden Glin c. were generally Episcopal Erastians that thought Episcopacy lawful as being from the Soveraign Power which they thought might appoint Church Government as he please As Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenic pleads and as the Kings late Acts in Scotland intimate so far as to determine that all the external Government belongs to the King And I will not believe though you should swear it that the King is a Presbyterian I did think that these Twenty Evidences set together would have proved to any sober man that on both sides it was Episcopal men and Episcopal Erastians that raised the first War in England But all this Evidence notwithstanding this is to you the strangest Paradox in Historical Transactions that ever saw the light A serious Confutation of it would have shewed you to be in a delirium c. Answ You have hit on the best Confutation of it in those words that the Cause was capable of For now ignorant strangers and Posterity may possibly think that a man would not so confidently deny a notorious thing without some ground But what are those grounds for it is almost all one as to dispute whether the English War was between Protestants or between English-men Why 1. you say That the Spirit of Presbytery and Non-conformity was stirring in those Parliaments though not known by those Names Answ Nay then there is no dealing with you in History We judge of mens Hearts by their Professions and direct practice and take him for conformable that saith he is so and actually conformeth But you see deeper into the Spirit So you may say that it was the Spirit of Socinianism that workt in the Arminians as others say it was the Spirit of Popery that workt in A. Bishop Laud and his Party and others say that it is the Spirit of Democracy that worketh in popular Princes and the Spirit of Rebellion that workt in Hooker and the Spirit of Independency that worketh in the Presbyterians and the Spirit of Anabaptism that worketh in the Independents and so Bagshaw and his Brethren say it is the Spirit of Conformity that worketh in us And so whatever Errour a man runs not as far from as frightned or furious Adversaries do he must be said to have the Spirit of that Error As if a Pythagorean should tell you that you have the Spirit of Ajax Thraso or of some Brute Sir we plain people have hitherto taken a Presbyterian to be one that holdeth That the Church is and ought to be governed by Sessions Classes and Synods the lesser subordinate to the greater to which there lieth an Appeal
Conformists that desired a Deliverance But this proveth not that the Parliament was Presbyterians then much less that they were so before the Wars But you that meddle not with Lay-men remember that Lay-men sent those Propasitions You next tell me of Alderman Pennington and the Apprentices Answ 1. Few of those Apprentices knew what Presbytery was but were exasperated against Episcopacy for the sake of the present Bishops as the common people be now within these nine years thinking that it 's they that silence their Teachers and cause all our Divisions But alas little knew they what Church-Government to desire But most that were in judgment against Episcopacy were Independents and Separatists then And how inconsiderable a number in London were those Apprentices 2. And our Question is not what Party of Lads or Apprentices or Women did clamour against Bishops But what Party it was that raised the War Did these Lads give the Earl of Essex his Commission But you find none that said any thing against their Petition but the Lord Digby Answ And hath not he forsaken you also 1. Where did you seek to find it Not in the Parliament Journal sure else you might have found more 2. The truth is the Episcopal Parliament themselves perceiving what Party they must trust to opposed not those Petitions because the Petitioners might serve their turns and I doubt were too well contented with them But as no man must say that the King had the Spirit of Popery because he was willing that the Papists should help him So no man can prove that the Episcopal Parliament had the Spirit of Presbytery or were against Episcopacy it self because they were willing to be helped by all sorts who on a sudden were fallen out with Bishops The truth is the suspending and silencing of Ministers and the cropping the Ears and stigmatizing Prin with Burton and Bastwick had suddenly raised in the London Apprentices and others a great distate of the Bishops though they knew little of any Controversies about Church-Government at all When you say that Episcopacy or rather Bishops Lands was the Palladium c. 1. Episcopacy was not so till after the Army was raised It was so no doubt in the private designs of some particular men Apprentices and Women in the City and Kingdom that is all that were against it desired it should fall And many that were Episcopal desired that it should rather fall than the Abuses of it continue by such men as they thought would else ruine Church and State thinking that there was no other way to save them so far did different apprehensions about Propriety Liberty Popery and Arminianism carry men from one another who were all for Episcopacy But forget not 1. That it is the major Vote of the Parliament and not a few secret designers within or without doors that is the Parliament 2. That it was the Parliament that raised the Militia and Armies 3. That this Parliament was not at that time against Episcopacy Therefore your talk of the Isle of Wight so long after is liker a Jest than serious Besides that you seem ignorant of the Parliament resolved to accept of the Kings Concessions as Prins long Printed Speech will shew you and therefore immediately before they should have voted that closure were pulled out by Cromwell who had secret intelligence what they were going to do 2. And your oblivion caused you by your Parenthesis to contradict what you have hitherto said your self For if it were Bishops Lands rather than Bishops that they would have down it implyeth that they were not Presbyterians nor against Episcopacy Would you make an English-man of this age believe that none of your own Church have an appetite to Bishops Lands Try them and they will confute you more effectually than I can Do you think that of the Multitude that now drink and â—rant and roar and whore and rob there are none whose Consciences could be content that Bishops fell that they might have their Lands you will say perhaps these are not truly for Episcopacy Ridiculous Must we write Histories out of mens secret thoughts and hearts and call men only what they are conscientiously and in sincerity Who knoweth another mans sincerity but God Come into London or go among these Gallants and tell them that they are not Sons of the Church if you dare Hearken whether they talk not more for Bishops than for any other Sect Whether they do not curse and damn the Presbyterians and Fanaticks and their Conventicles and deride their Preaching and praying and say as bad of them as you can wish them Though I know that too great abundance since our silencing are fallen off from you to Infidelity or Atheism and to make a Jest of the Sacred Scriptures and the Papists say that very many thousands are turned to them yet I speak of those that still call themselves Protestants of the Church of England Really if you will take none to be of your Church that would sell the Bishops Lands or none that are not conscientiously for you I doubt your Church yet will prove invisible and as little as some of the housed Sects And if that will serve your turn I pray deal equally and let the Sectaries also have leave to say of any of their Party that killed the King or were guilty of Treason he was not truly one of us The War was first called Bellum Episcopale by the Parliament-men because they thought or said that Land and his Adherents were the Causes of it by seeking to reduce the Scots to their will and to set up Altars and other Innovations in England But not because the Parliament at that time renounced Episcopacy it self As to the particular Members of the Armies I confess I did know them better than you I speak not of Fairfax or Cromwell's Army but of Essex's And it s well that you have so much modesty as not to deny that they were Episcopal or no Presbyterians But you venture to say of those yet living That they were so whilst they assisted in the support of the late Cause I have not so far renounced my Reason and Experience as to fall in with your account And if we persevere in this new Doctrine we shall be as distant as the two Poles Answ Now you are at your Strength your Confidence and Resolution to believe or say you believe as you do is all the life of your Cause It is now taken for no dishonour to the greatest Lords to say that they are for Episcopacy There are yet living the Earl of Bedford the Earl of Denbeigh the Earl of Stamford the Lord Grey of Warke the Lord Hollis the Lord Asthey the Lord Roberts the Earl of Anglesey though he be no Souldier Major General Morgan Mr. G. Massey Sir John Gell and many more Enquire of themselves or any that know them whether they were ever Presbyterians or against a moderate Episcopacy Sir William Waller was most called a Presbyterian
say the Prelatists for then it will set Presbyters too high or rather take hundreds from that which belongeth to their Office whilst one in the same Office exerciseth the Keys upon all their people and themselves that are his equals Et par in parem non habet potestatem Not as Bishops for they are not such really and the Episcopacy cannot be delegated as I proved You said which I am glad of That it may be you could wish that Excommunication were reduced into a more Scriptural Apostolical and Primitive Channel as much as my self But you never look that the Church below should be without spot or wrinkle Answ You speak here so well that it half reconcileth us If so then the main difference left is not whether we shall live peaceably in such a Church or promise to do so for that I have oft done yea and did subscribe to the Archbishop that now is when he gave me a Licence to Preach and I could have had it without subscribing a word that I would not Preach against the Doctrine Liturgy or Ceremonies of the Church But whether I may deliberately give my hand and profession that I assent and consent to such a frame and may swear that I will not any time endeavour an alteration of that Government which runs not in the Scriptural Apostolick Primitive Channel nor of its acknowledged spots and wrinkles That is To promise or swear that I will not obey God nor seek the Reformation of any such thing in his Church which is acknowledged amiss no not in my place and calling and by any lawful means Whereas in my Baptism I vowed my self and service to Christ as the Saviour of his Body and in my Ordination I vowed my self to him as a Minister and I daily pray for the hallowing of his Name the coming of his Kingdom the doing of his Will on Earth even as it is done in Heaven And therefore will not by swearing to the contrary renounce my Baptism Ministery or Prayers Pardon the description of the Sin as it would be to me I do not say that it is such in you or another that seeth not what I see Good Meanings and Latitudes and stretching Expositions will not make this pass with me among things indifferent And for your own sake not mine who stand or fall to a higher Tribunal I entreat you to judge of us in this as of men that are dying daily and neer a World where Preferments and Wealth and humane Favour signifie nothing and who are so unwilling to neglect our undertaken Office for mens Souls that we offer our Superiours to take it joyfully as a Favour to be any way punished for this supposed Sin of not lying nor being perjur'd so it may not hinder us from Preaching the Gospel of Salvation Even to be punished as deeply as common Swearers Drunkards or Adulterers are to rid Channels to Dig or Plow or to be burnt in the hand as Felons are or our Ears bored or cropt as Rogues or perjur'd Persons are so we may but Preach Christ or see the Kingdoms so supplyed as that our Labours may be truly needless to mens Salvation I would take all this thankfully on my Knees much more be denied the Levites Bread or Ministerial Maintenance But these are too high Favours for such as we to hope for in such a time and from such Persons as Experience proveth except that the Clemency of the King vouchsafeth us some convenience against the will of such of the Clergy as you Nothing but either Debauching our Consciences and stretching them so wide as that any thing will afterward go down or else deserting the Preaching of Christ for mens Salvation will serve with some men that I have talkt with For it is not my Superiours now that I am speaking of I did all that I was able unfeignedly to have brought all men once to Union with the Church upon any other terms than these when the thing was feasible as to the most But was an Enemy and one that deserved shame and ruine for it But I am gone back To return I am glad also that you say That the Surrogates have the power of the Keys and indeed so most School-men say and so Spalatensis hath notably and oft proved But what it will infer against Bishops denying them to all the Presbyters in a whole Diocess save one or two or few I will not repeat You say I did not well to overlook what you said about Chancellour's Skill in the Civil Law c. Answ I did not overlook it but past it by as an Impertinency supposing we had been agreed 1. That the holy Scriptures are the Universal Rule of Church Discipline as to the Essentials and the Laws of the Land and Canonical Agreements the subservient Rules about Circumstances and Adjuncts and for the execution of the former 2. And that Ability in Scriptures much less in the Roman Laws doth give no man authority to the exercise of the Spiritual Keys without a Call being but his remote Capacity 3. And that he that is called hereunto is called to be a Clergy-man to whome the Keys are proper I pray you Sir deny none of this Let Begging this once go instead of Arguing 4. And he may be fit to Advise and Assist a Bishop that is himself no Clergy man but Advising and judicial Decreeing are several things 5. And I am weary with saying that we submit to Chancellors as Magistrates doing that which belongeth to Magistrates according to the sense of the Oath of Supremacy But what 's all this to our Case in hand You add Tell me Sir may not a man be said to do that virtually which he doth not immediately Answ Yes a man may pay a Debt by his Servant or Deputy but not Baptize or Administer the Lords Supper or Discipline by another because Christ hath annexed the Office to the Person and the Office is an Obligation and Authority to do the work You add The King doth neither Preach nor Administer Sacraments yet hath a Supremacy of Power in all things belonging to the Church Answ Now I cannot follow you so far as to believe that the King doth virtually Administer the Sacraments per alios At least I durst not swear it If you think it is but a Gorgons head that affrighteth me hear and judge 1. Christ gave the Keys immediately to Ministers and not to Kings and distinguished their Offices 2. Queen Elizabeth ' K. Iames and the Convocation have publickly disclaimed such a sense of the Oath of Supremacy and taken it for the Papists slanders and disclaimed such a Power of the Keys in the King and so hath our present King wisely in my hearing 3. Some Scots are well charged with an injurious refusal of the Oath of Supremacy on the account of such a false Exposition which is the Papists Case 4. Almost all the Papists and Protestants in the World that ever I heard or read are agreed that
the King hath not the said Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments 5. And specially the most learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy Bilson of Chest Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti have most plainly and vehemently renounced it and shewed their malice or ignorance that impute such an Arrogation to our Kings So also Carlton of Jurisdic Jewel Whitaker and who not 6. What a King may do virtually by another I think unless Inconveniencies hinder the exercise he hath power to do himself But I think the King may not Administer Sacraments or Spiritual Discipline himself Which of our Kings did it Or who since Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews 7. Our Kings never yet pretended so much as to Ordain that is to Invest another in that Power Ministerially in the Name of Christ But as to the Supremacy it 's true that the King is the Supream over Physicians Philosophers c. but not the Supream Physician or Philosopher He exerciseth Coercive Government by the Sword over Bishops who use Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word but hath not Authority to use this same sort of oversight himself unless a Clergy-man were King as some are Magistrates As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament when you have as well proved that Christ hath allowed them to Preach Administer Sacraments and exercise the Keys by Proxies I will yield all that Cause But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy Page 21. As to Jebosaphats Mission and his Nobles Teaching I answer 1. Teaching is not so proper to a Pastor or Clergy-man as the Keys and Sacraments Parents have their Office or Power of teaching and School-masters and Lay Catechists have theirs and Magistrates have theirs Judges on the Bench do usually teach the People even religious Duties so did Constantine and so may any King But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy which is by teaching to gather Churches and guide them and edifie them as Pastors devoted or separated to this as their proper Office As there is a difference between the Office of a Physician and a Womans healing a cut finger or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth But this proper Teaching which God did not leave in common to others no Prince can use no Bishop can do by Proxy Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments 2. And the King may no doubt command Pastors to do their Duty as well as Physicians to do theirs I take none of this to be quarrelling but plain truth Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and advise the Surrogates may signifie something in another Land but not with us If we had never seen their Courts nor read Travers Of the difference between Christs Discipline and theirs yet Cousin's Tables are in our Libraries You add We are all but the Bishops Curates in the exercise of it Answ 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag shaw who made it the Reason of Separation And I will yet deny it of some others though not of you If we are all but the Bishops Curates the Italian Bishops of Trent were not so absurd as they were made in making the Bishops the Popes Curates How easie should I be were I a Curate could I believe that I have no more to answer for than the Bishop imposed on me and that he must answer for all the rest I suppose that the Office of the Presbyters or Ministers of Christ is immediately Instituted and described in the Scriptures and that the Bishop doth but Invest them in it and that their work is their own as properly as the Bishop's is his own and that his Precminence maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himself nor them to be his Curates 2. And while I think that I can prove this very easily censure us not too deeply for not swearing to the Bishops if the sence of it be to make us his Curates Not that I think my self too good to be a Servant to the Bishop's Coach man but that I dare not subvert Christ's established Church Orders As for your Engine and Wonders and Babel and Lucifer and trembling I have not learning enough to answer them As to your talk of Absolute Autocratical c. they are but Oratorical Flowers that speak against none of our particular Doctrines but are the rant of your Magisterial style And your talk of Excommunicating Kings may pass as part of your equal ways to one that hath written so oft against Excommunicating Kings when yet Bishop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refusing them the Communion and you know in what Case Chrysostom rather offered to lose Hand and Life even then to give the Sacrament to the Greatest that was unworthy Prove that ever any of the present Non-conformists who were called to present the judgment or desires of the rest did ever say more than Andrews and Bilson or so much But the Lord Digby is your Author Answ 1. Were we and our present Controversie for the most of us in being and at age when the Lord Digby spake that Is not Conformity now another thing Do all or half the Non-conformists profess themselves Presbyterians Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings And do not some that are for it confine it only to such Pastors as Kings themselves shall commit their Souls to and give leave to exercise that Power Are we I say we now living and silenced answerable for all that any Presbyterian holdeth any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth Some Scots-men refuse the Oath of Supremacy Are we guilty of that Mistake who Take it and Write for it Or did we spring out of their Loins and must be silenced for such Original sin derived from them that were no kin to us 2. But where did the Lord Digby say it You cite no Book or Speech of his but cite Rushworth p. 218. Where is no syllable of any such matter nor any where else that I can yet find 3. Suppose he had Did he not say in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery He was then Episcopal he is now a Papist Is not his Authority then ad hominem while he was one of your own more valued against you than against them that were not of his Party or way and is this good arguing Whatever the Lord Digby Bancroft Heylin and if you will Bellarmine charge the Presbyterians with 1640 or I know not when or where all that are the Non-conformists Episcopal Presbyterians Independents and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby sometimes said that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings Ergo the present Nonconformists even Episcopal and all are guilty of that Opinion even they that write against it But all your ways are just and equal But I pray you why was no Article about
Excommunicating Kings offered us as a Test or why was there never any such difference between us and the Prelatists pretended Try us whether we will not subscribe in this to as much as the Prelatists ever did agree on or ordinarily hold and lay our Liberty upon it and spare not But I remember you nibled before at my words in Differ of Magist and Pastors power Thes 60. p. 38. as if I had said That unless perhaps in some rare Case Kings may not be Excommunicated A Calumny when I annexed those words of exception only to the Excommunicating of Parents But your ways are still equal And I gave even Moral Reasons against Excommunicating Kings and Parents But when you in swearing will put who knows how many Exceptions to express Universals must I after all this be at your mercy unless I will say that In no rare case a Pastor may Excommunicate his own Parents What if the rare Case were 1. That he were but one in a Presbytery subject to a Bishop and his Parents were as open Apostates as Julian and the Bishop and the rest of the Presbytery required him to concur in their Excommunication 2. What if the King command a Bishop to Excommunicate a Magistrate or Parent for Treason Must he needs be disobeyed 3. What if God should send an Angel or Prophet with a particular Message so to do I am sure that Case is rare enough and I durst not disobey But it s hard pleasing some men § 45. Semper idem 1. But will you give it under your hand as a Lesson to your Flock That a Minister may not gainsay another for slandering Christians who in any thing differ from him that doth gainsay him nor may defend the Innocency of a Presbyterian unless he be one himself And that all men are bound to stand to the Opinions of all Christians in all other points whom they seek to vindicate against publick slanders What a pack of Doctrines do the Reasonings of these your Writings imply if they were but set together If I write almost twenty years ago and still against Lay Elders a Conformist may equally charge that upon me which I write against if I do but plead against slandering those that hold what I dissent from Yea he knoweth not where to have us so little do our Writings signifie our minds in these mens account The first Epist to Kederm in the first Book that ever I wrote disclaims them But that 's nothing to you And I must be taken for the Achilles of the Party and accountable for their Opinions if I do but say to a Printing Conformist Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour May I not say so to you for a Heathen or a Papist Dr. Heylin tells us in the Life of Archbishop Laud That the Kings Printers were censured sorely for Printing the Seventh Commandment Thou shalt commit Adultery But I never yet met with the Ninth Commandment so transmuted to give you any excuse If you think it lawful to say any thing how unjust soever against a man that is not for your Discipline which you as much wish amended your self I am of another mind When Lamprid tells us that Alex Severus borrowed his Motto of the Christians Quod tibi fieri non vis c. He never said that therefore he was a Christian I had got no Lawyer to plead for me at the Bar if they had known that they were accountable for all my Opinions I am sure the Lord Chief Justice when he acquit me thought fit to declare his different judgment from mine in point of Preaching privately Yet here your terms of Logick are Into how many shapes and Hecatetriformis Fish flesh Mermaid Episcopal Presbyterian Independent yet none of these when you please an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes in the water sometimes out I wish you were hot or cold All this set together would make a Syllogism of a new Mood and Figure But 1. For ought I know most of the Nonconformists are such are your bungling description intimateth And whatever men hold take it as it is and feign them not to hold what they do not Do not you in Print proclaim men to be flesh or fish hot or cold that are not so But lay our Error where it lieth even as I must not take your Chancellors for Clergy-men or Lay-men 2. And did not all my tedious writings convince you before now that I therefore take that for an honour which you take for my disgrace because I take that for plain and certain truth which you reproach You could not except a Catholick Christian have trulier called me than an Episcopal Presbyterian-Independent I have oft enough told the World that I am very confident that each of the three Parties have some Truths and some Errors appropriate to themselves or which the rest have not I never found in Scripture any Obligation that I must needs be of a Faction in a time when Faction hath bred Wars troubled Kingdoms silenced Preachers by the hundreds c. and when I have seen and felt the Effects and not been always innocent of the Cause Nor yet that I must either refuse all the good or receive all the bad and feed on the excrements of any Faction whatsoever I am for no such heats or cold I am no such fish or flesh I will neither persecute as Paul did nor separate as Peter did Gal. 2. nor comply as Barnabas did nor reject the Brethren as Diotrephes did nor condemn others as the Weak did nor despise them as the strong did Rom. 14. 1 2 c. But be such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he that became a Jew a Greek all things to all men that he might win some When I offended the Bishops in Conference I openly told them I had ever taken kneeling at the Sacrament to be lawful but I never took it to be lawful to cast honest Christians out of the Communion of the Church of Christ that dare not do it Did this prove me to be neither fish nor flesh Is no man of your Religion that is not for Excommunication or Prisons Swords or Flames for every Child of God that cryeth or wrangleth with the Breast Again I will say were they Priscillianists I am more for Martin's Spirit than the Ithacian Bishops And Sir that factious fury and uncharitableness keepeth up but a present violent kind of honour the Instance now once again named may tell you that when all the Bishops thereabouts in their Synods did but seek to the Magistrate to use the Sword against such gross Hereticks as the Priscillianists who as Severus saith that knew them were Gnosticks and but one poor ragged unlearned godly Bishop Martin with one other only in all France did dissent from them reprove them and separate for it from their Synods and Communion Godly people accidentally falling under the Vulgars reproach for the Hereticks sake as lately by the word Puritans here yet this one
Colledge though in the great remote end they both agree But you fly to that poor shift of bidding me take heed of absurd and ridiculous Suppositions not argumentative c. As if you had shewed any absurdity in these Suppositions Or as if plain undeniable Instances had no place in Arguments or Answers but were ridiculous Suppositions and he that would say that a Kingdom is greater than a Family and the King than a Master or Major used a ridiculous Supposition Just thus the poor Nonconformists are perswaded by your Pithonalogy to subscribe swear c. But I seem you say to assert this my self by saying there is a small difference between Bishop Usher's Model and the present Answ It 's tedious disputing with one that must have still another Writing to help him to understand that which he will first confute yea and seemeth not willing to understand It is a fallacy A dicte secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I only askt you What Farthing doth it take from their Estates What Title from their Honour Power Negative voice even their Lordships and Parliament places But is this the Question We then laboured to satisfie the unsatisfied Ministers that not only Bishop Usher's Reduction but even the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs had changed the very species of Prelacy without any of those Abatements If you would know it is by one word Consent restoring the inferiour Pastors and Churches though not to their Integrals yet to their Essentials And we were so inclinable to Conformity that on that supposition we had Conformed had but that Declaration stood though some of the Sects are of another mind whom you Arguments would confirm For we judge that a Bishop of one only Church consisting of five hundred or a thousand Chappels or Congregations that are strictly no Churches as having no Bishops doth specifically differ from a Bishop of a thousand Churches which have every one their proper Bishop and so he is truly an Archbishop or General Bishop But I am not to trouble you with this And now how impertinent was it to bid me Rub up my Philosophy about Maximum quod sic minimum quod non Know you not that the common use of those Writers are to intimate the same thing that I am saying against you That there is a subjective maximum minimum which only are capable of the relative form But I am next turned to Vossius de invoc sanct of which he hath there disputed and one Histor Thes and I am not told which of them but the words are in the first Thes 49. to prove that the Saint in Heaven and those on Earth make one Society Quare cum nihil obstat quo minus unius civitatis cives dicamur nec causae quicquam erit quo minus aeque civilis honos dicatur qui civibus coelestibus exhibetur quam qui civibus terrenis Nam grad◠quidem honores isti differunt sed uterque tamen est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And was it possible that you should think that this made for you Because the world or Universe of Rationals are one Body or Society and so civil honour is the same thing as such in genere to them in Heaven as to them on Earth doth it follow that in this universal Society there are no Kingdoms Cities or Families specifically different Nor no different species of the civil honour what not to Kings Parents Masters What a thing is factions Interest Vossius only proveth Generical Identity of civil honour and the specifical difference of it from the honour of Religious Adoration The Church universal is one and the love and honour which we owe to the Saints in Heaven and Earth is Generically of the same kind But do you believe therefore that there are no subordinate Species of Churches and Honour on Earth What not the Honour due to the King the Bishop the Chancellor the Parish Curates the Deacons and the Beggars Yet all this with you are Premises sufficient to conclude And then it may be you may give leave to Magis minus non variant speciem to be a Maxim still See what Evidence it is that must perswade us to Nonconformity Are they not worthy to be silenced and branded as you have done that can resist such Light But you come to the quick and say Is there no Communion but personal Answ Yes else they could not be two ends to make two Societies You add Many of the Kings Subjects never saw his face yet they have many Hands and Eyes in respect of their subordinate Officers so have Diocesans in their Curates Answ Very true And that proveth that a Kingdom is one Society and a whole Diocess also one Ignoras Elenchum But doth that prove that there are no subordinate Societies in these Which though subordinate in point of Power yet specifically differ Is there no such thing as Personal Communion in presence because there is such a thing as distant Communion of another sort For all that your terms of Hands and Eyes would hide it I scarce think you are ignorant that under the King there are Heads as well as Hands and Eyes Heads of Families Schools Colledges Universities Corporations Cities who are constitutive parts of real Societies which are not of the same species with a Kingdom though in it And if Archbishops be of God's appointment so it should be with Archbishops and Bishops and every Church should have a Bishop But if you will not have it so but we must only have a Bishop and Curates and a Diocesan Church and Chappels you betray our Cause to the Brownists who easily prove No Bishop or Pastor no Church in sensu politico And so when you have granted them that we have no true Parish Churches there are few of them whose Wit is so weak as not to disprove the pretended right of such Diocesan Churches as consist of the Carkasses of many hundred mortified Parish Churches § 50. My Answer I must not repeat take it how you will you here come to the very Controversie I will not begin it with you because I cannot prosecute it I have so much to say on it as at these rates may engage you and me in dispute for many years if we lived so long which I find no reason allowing me to undertake Get me leave to Write and Publish it and I will write you a just Volume of it since it is published till then I again tell you I have said enough though too negligently in my Dispute of Church Government though one hath nibled at the Forms of some Arguments in it If you would have more answer Gers Bucer Parker and Ames's fresh Suit to name no other § 50. I shewed the invalidity 1. Of your Licitis honestis 2. And of former Obedience sub poena anathematis as nothing to our case in hand and do you deny what I said and disprove it 2. I tell you that so far as Bishops or
Chancellors are the Kings Officers to Govern the Church circa sacra by the Sword we will swear and perform Obedience to them under the King in licitis honestis But I told you they that take them for the Usurpers of Spiritual power will easily prove it to be lawful to swear Obedience to Usurpers in licitis honestis will you deny that 3. And I told you that it is another Oath that is imposed on us to take But did you well to say You produced the words of Ignatius to prove the antiquity of swearing to Bishops who saith not a syllable of any such thing And untruly say I took no notice of it when I told you that Ignatius mentioned not Oaths but only actual Obedience This is no notice with you But do you not know how late it was before swearing Obedience to Bishops came into the Church and by what sort of men and to what end and effect § 52. Your talk of Cartwright confirmeth me of the vanity of the Hypocrites reward the praise of men there being nothing so false which may not by some men be said of them with boldest confidence If Cochleus or his like do but say That Luther learned of the Devil that Calvin was a stigmatized Sodomite c. all their Followers can ever after say It is in Print So Mr. S. P. some body Printed this you say And Heylin saith He promised What just the same or to the same sense as I told you I voluntarily subscribed when I might by the Kings Declaration have chosen meerly because I would have them know our minds and peaceable resolutions I told you why he that can promise to live peaceably c. cannot subscribe and swear the Approbation of all in that Liturgy Government c. which he liveth peaceably under But this is nothing to you if Cartwright Conformed first Prove it by credible History 2. Why then could the great Earl of Leicester procure no more liberty for him than an Hospital in Warwick and no Church 3. I have lived in Coventry and been oft in Warwick and know by all credible testimony of Neighbours that it 's false and no such thing as his Conformity was there dream'd of any further than I Conform 4. Why did he never declare it to the World nor retract his Writings 5. Your Heylin's own words intimate the contrary though I must tell you I owe as little belief to that Book of his as most Histories written by sober Protestants But you say much more Dr. Burges p. 377. observed That Cartwright opposed the Ceremonies as Inconveniences but not as unlawful and therefore perswaded men to Conform rather than leave their Flocks Answ 1. But the Ceremonies are but part and the lesser part of Conformity 2. Else had all Conformity been here included he was still a Conformist And how could you then say That at last he wrangled himself into Conformity if he was such at first 3. But if you cite him truly be judge your self whether Hoylin said true and what will be your case if you will report all that you find such men report 1. Dr. Burges's own words are but these pag. 423. The consideration of this necessity moved Mr. Cartwright to advise the wearing of the Surplice and Mr. Beza to resolve for the use of these Ceremonies rather than the Flocks of Christ should be forsaken for these And he citeth Cart. Repl. 2. So that here is not a word of Cartwright's Concession in any thing but the Surplice kneeling he was for The Answer of Amesius to his Father-in-law Burges is in these words Fresh suit p. 21 22. Whereas he addeth that Beza and Mr. Cartwright determined with them in case of the Surplice I answer 1. They did not so for the Cross 2. They did not so for subscription to either 3. They did not so but by way of toleration requiring also that men speak against the imposing of the Surplice 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the state of our Church Mr. Cartwright as I have been certainly informed by his own Son recalled that Passage of his Book and desired that his revoking of it might be made known Then followeth the Attestation of another to that report Do you see now how credibly S. P. Heylin and you report Cartwright to have wrangled himself at last into Conformity Be warned and take up false reports no more § 53. I thank you for shortning my trouble § 54. Waspish and faltering and raging after a tedious journey Are your Logicks above my skill to answer But adrem 1. It is a wonder to me that an Englishman should be in doubt who they be that drive men from the Parish Churches Enquire who drave away the People of Kederminster Did I I Preach'd I Printed long before That should the Liturgy be restored it were no sufficient cause c When I was silenced and might not Preach in publick the last Sermon that ever I preached to some at my Farwel in a private House was in conclusion to perswade all to keep to the publick Churches where the Ministers are not notoriously Insufficient as to the very Essentials or notorious Hercticks or Malignant Opposers not of differing Parties but of the certain Practice of Godliness it self But when I had done my best then and since by other means the Reading Vicar and one Sermon of the Bishops and one of the Deans and many of a Lecturers after and they saw so many hundred Ministers silenced it possessed them with so great a prejudice that till a good Minister came among them it was past my power to reconcile them to the Church nor is it done so fully as before I could easily have done 2. As to your second Questien When I told you how hardly the People would be driven tâ— Communion in your way You answered Haâ— they not been distracted distorted poysoned by other Tutors But since they have been taught like Wolves not to value the Scepter like Mastiff-dogs they will worry me to pieces Those that are lately perverted any way are most heady and â—ierce The Revolters are profound to make slaughter And after the Scribes and Pharisees compassed Sea and Land to make a Proselyte when he was made he was twofold more the Child of Hell than themselves These are your words And I thought I had used them very gently when I only say Whether all such Dissenters are such Children of Hell as you describe I might have added such Wolves Dogs c. I shall leave to a more wise and righteous Judge what is in these words Be impartial one hour before you die and compare them with your own and think how he that will say at last Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these my Brethren c. will take all these Revilings of faithful Souls But how heedlesly do you read I said All such Dissenters as you described and were talkt of And you say all Dissenters There is no
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-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
only to the Ministry in general but in settled Churches it is usually inconvenient And he that is ordained to a fixed Church doth at once become a Minister in the universal Church and may act as a Minister and not as a Layman when called elsewhere and also a fixed Minister of a particular Church even as he that is baptized into a particular Church is a member of both Though Baptism and Ordination qua tales enter but into the Universal XXXVII It is not this or that mode of signification of consent that is necessary to either relation of Pastor or Flock but Consent signified intelligibly where Laws and Custome order it that actual ordinary attendance in publick worship and communion and submission to necessary ministration shall be the signification all that so do express consent by it And therefore our ordinary Parish-Assembling and Communion being express consent to the mutual relation have that which is necessary ad esse to true Churches and they slander them that say they are not such But ad melius esse more may oft-times be profitable 1. Because that is the best means which is best fitted to the end But the end of Signes being Notification that is caeteris paribus the best which is most notifying as that is the best Language which is most significant and intelligible Why should playing in the dark or dealing under-board be preferred in the greatest things 2. It oft falls out that some that live in the Parish are known Church-Papists Church-Atheists Infidels will tell in their meetings to their companions I believe not the words of the Parish-Priest It is his Trade to talk for gain I will do what the Law requires of me for my safety but I will have no more to do with him nor do I take him for a true Pastor that hath any Authority but by Law nor for any Pastor to me And 3. there are many Hereticks and Schismaticks engaged Members of other Churches who yet to avoid suffering will do that in the Parish-Church which the Law requireth 4. And the Antient Churches used express Consent yea and Election So for the Minister he is no Pastor without his signified consent but actual Ministration may be such a signification This is enough to reconcile the difference about Church-covenants XXXVIII They that rail against a more express consent in cases truly dubious as if it were tyranny and destructive to Christianity do suppose that if the King and Law commanded such a thing they commanded Tyrannically that which destroyeth Christianity and contradict themselves when they say that Rulers may make various orders of Church-governours and determine of undetermined Modes XXXIX As it is not needful and usual to set up a Coordinate Imperium artificum vel Philosophorum in Imperio Civili so it seemeth also of an Imperium Religiosum The first Question is whether Christ hath Instituted such The second whether he hath given power to Men to make it There is not in any Kingdom that I hear of but somewhat towards it in China such a Society of Physicians Astronomers Navigators Lawyers Schoolmasters Philosophers c. who set up a Co-ordinate Empire or Government that shall have all degrees of self-governing power as a National Socity with one Supreme either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Head according to the order of Civil-government Nor doth any reproach Schools Colledges Hospitals or any trading Societies that they are confused Independent and ungoverned because they have no common Governour but God and the King nor any particular Governour but the Principal or Master and Fellows of the Society nor any National association besides their subjection to one King and their voluntary correspondence for concord and mutual assistance with one another And much less is there any Co-ordinate Political Regiment of any of these through all the world under one visible humane Head personal or collective And yet many think that there is such a Society and Regiment for Religion National say some Universal say others That all that will serve God and be saved must be under one Co-ordinate power over all the Kingdom or World besides Christ and the Supreme Magistrate and they contend whether this power be Monarchical or Aristocratical c. I am so far Independent as to think that Christ hath Instituted no such Universal or National Power and Head of Religion but that 1. his own Universal Kingdom 2. And particular Churches under their several Bishops and Teachers 3. And Synods for concord and mutual help 4. And Christian Magistrates to rule all by the Sword 5. With the improvement of Mens eminent gifts and opportunities that these be Instituted by Christ I doubt not 6. And whether some should succeed the Apostles excepting their extraordinary powers in having a visiting instructing ordering care of many Churches and their Bishops and Teachers I confess my self uncertain and therefore will never strive against such nor deny due obedience to them who shew a true call to such an employment Nay if Christ have made no such Institution yet 1. if the Christian Magistrate 2. or the Churches by consent choose some faithful Ministers to such a power onely to direct instruct guide admonish reprove exhort the Bishops and Teachers of the particular Churches without any other force than the Apostles used and not destroying any of their proper power and duty or that Church-order which the Apostles setled I am no opposer of any such though my uncertainty disables me from subscribing and swearing to the right of their Authority The Scots themselves even by Knox's consent set up Super-intendents over many Churches John Spotswood Super-intendent of Lothian and so others And the power of a President Principal or Rector of a Colledge of Physicians Philosophers or Divines doth not make him of any other Order or species of Office and Profession than the rest But if any affirm more than this I will learn but cannot yet swear or subscribe it XL. Those that are for the obligation of the Jewish order I have fully spoke to in my first Plea for Peace Those that are only for the power of man to make such several Orders or Ranks of Governours in the Church as are in Armies and Kingdoms 1. Must tell us what sort of power may be given them 2. And who must give it And 1. No men can Institute a power of the same species or another species from that which we call the Sacred Ministry or as the Fathers the Sacerdotal but what is subordinate about the Accidentals of Religion and the Church 1. Not the same species because it is Instituted by God already No Man can create a creature already created 2. Not of another supra-ordinate or co-ordinate for 1. they can prove no power given them to do it 2. And that were to accuse Christ of insufficient doing his undertaken work and being less faithful in his house than Moses 3. And it will infer Mans introduction of a new co-ordinate
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
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
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
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
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
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
to the Elector The King electeth the Bishop and the Patron the incumbent Parson Doth every one that after consenteth do more or must we lay by our senses in believing such Writers against damning errour 4. Note that he quite overgoeth the truth on the popular extream which he accuseth others of As if the people must elect a man to the indefinite Office of a Minister as such which is false Christ sent out his Apostles and the Apostles sent abroad a converting Church-gathering Ministry without any popular election The Ordainers must chuse who shall be a Minister by his consent The Christian people should chuse and must consent at least who shall be the special Guide of their own Souls or their Pastor in particular And the Magistrate must chuse 1. Whom he will maintain and encourage 2. Whom he will tolerate How came he to think that Election is nothing to the case as if Consent were something more yet is he at it again P. 119. They make it another Baptism § 24. XX. Next he answereth our saying that No man can be a Pastor to a people against their wills And doth he say Yea or Nay Neither plainly but talks of somewhat else and saith He is a Pastor by Office and Calling whether the people will or not and so Pastor and people are not simul naturâ As if the equivocating with the word Pastor warranted him to damn his Brethren and confound Church-order As a Pastor signifieth but a Minister commissioned to become the actual undertaking Guide of a particular Church-flock when he is called to it so this man may be called a Pastor aptitudinal as a man is a Captain that hath Commission to raise a Troop But as the word Pastor signifieth one that is actually the Overseer of a particular Church-flock he is none till he have a Flock and in both senses Pastor and Flocks are relate and correlate simul naturâ that is in the first simul in esse cognito intentionali In the later in esse existente But saith he God is God whether the people will or no and Christ is Christ Apostles are Apostles and so faithful ordained Ministers are Pastors Ans This is but the fallacy of the foresaid equivocation of the word Pastor 1. God is not made God nor Christ made Christ nor Apostles or indefinite Ministers such by contract or humane consent But he that said Come out from amongst them c. I will be your God and you shall be my people and maketh some a holy Nation and peculiar people c. is so related to none but Consenters Christ is an offered Saviour to refusers but he is not the Saviour and Head of any as Christians or a Church actually but Consenters without consent we are not materia disposita receptive of the peculiar relation A man may be authorized to be a Tutor Schoolmaster Physician Captain Master c. without my consent but he is not my Tutor Master c. till I consent save aptitudinally not actually 2. And these relations are more dependent on humane Contract or Consent than Gods being God c. But saith he If all be Pagans the Minister lawfully ordained and appointed to convert and baptize and be a Pastor to them is a true full and compleat Pastor before he have christened one soul of them Ans True or false as the equivocation is taken As one decreed to be a Husband to a Wife that is yet unborn may by the deceiving improper language of an equivocator be said to be the true full and compleat Husband of her yet unborn or unmarried that is one designed to be a Husband hereafter in a proper sense so here But Pastor est ovium seu gregis Pastor Analogum per se positum stat pro significato famosiore Heathens are no Church Ergo no man is a Pastor of them as a Church Is he a compleat Pastor of a Flock that hath none § 25. XXI But saith he Mark the matter you are baptized a godly man I have nothing against you onely this I cannot take you for one of my Flock unless by a voluntary consent c. I must shut you out as an Apostate or a Pagan Ans Calumny and Deceit conjunct 1. It 's immodest calumny to say as an Apostate or a Pagan I take him for a Christian and on due testimony shall admit him to such Communion lawful as he himself desireth 1. Whether as a Member of the Universal Church 2. Or also as a fixed Member of another Church desiring temporary transient Communion here 2. It is gross Deceit to say I put him out that refuseth to come in If I give him no more than he is willing of what do I put him out from If I take him not for a Member of my proper stated Charge it is because he desireth it not I thank God I never was a proper Pastor to any People against their wills nor ever will be were I capable of more service § 26. But saith he This makes against you Can any man forbid these people from being Members of the Particular Church that are of the Universal Ans Self-contradiction Do we forbid them that are not willing or do they forbid themselves Doth the Physician forbid them to be his Patients that consent not Do we shut them out that will not come in Yet he feigneth us to do no less than cast them out of the Church Universal as casting them out of all Particulars under Heaven Ans Calumny hath got such a channel that his Writing runneth commonly that way 1. I cast them out of no Church under Heaven who will not consent to come in 2. Were they of no particular Church they may be in the Universal as I before proved of many sorts § 27. He next noteth that it is but signified Consent that I require But he saith neither Christ nor his Apostles mention it and all the Church are without it Ans Let us trie here whether this be true or false and all his damning and unchristning censures fall not on the Holy Ghost and all the Churches I. It is certain that besides Ministers unfixed and of general indefinite work there were by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles time fixed Churches of Neighbour-Christians setled II. It is certain that these had fixed Pastors of their own that were related to them specially as their special Charge so as they were not related to all or any other Churches III. It is certain that these Pastors had not equal authority to go into all other mens Diocesses or Parishes and say You are as much my Charge as any others and play the Bishops in other mens Diocesses though when they had a Call they might be Ministerial Temporary Helpers IV. It is certain that these Pastors were specially obliged to many Offices for those peculiar Flocks which to other Churches they were not so obliged to but onely to occasional help Dr. Hammond nameth many of them and so do
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
by the Conformists 1. The Ministers are even to swear Obedience to the Diocesane and the Diocesane promise it to the Arch-Bishop And this is a Covenant and more 2. They are to attend him at Visitations and otherwise to express their consent to his Government which they do not to the Bishop of the Neighbour-diocesses 3. The Parishioners signifie their consent to their Relation to that particular Church and Incumbent by their constant Attendance Submission Communion c. 4. The Law and Canon command their Consent yea to keep their own Parishes though the Minister preach not at all suspending Neighbour-ministers that receive such to their Communion that come from such a Reader to them And the Conformists say that men are bound to obey these Canons § 31. Either Parishioners are supposed thus to signifie Relation-consent to that particular Pastor and Church or not If yea this Accuser falsly supposeth that no Church but the Independents do so If not then he giveth up most of their Cause to the Brownists that say the Parish-Churches are none For it 's easie proved that Non-consenters are none Thus rash men confute themselves Nay we are all silenced for not Covenanting to the present frame of Diocesane Churches and never to endeavour an alteration Yet saith this man It is not in any of the Churches unless Independents neither explicite nor implicite Then none should so much as implicitely shew Consent to the Relation to his Diocesane or Parish-pastor or Church § 32. But saith he to me with gross falsehood Your Covenant is to this effect you shall not onely submit to me as your Pastor but binde your self by a particular antecedent Covenant so to do You shall dwell in the Parish and Covenant so to do c. Ans I wish that though design brought the word Covenant infread of Consent into his mouth it might not so long stick there as to choak his Conscience to think that any use of it is lawful Where and when did I engage any to dwell in the Parish If they dwell there I never hindred any from removing 2. But the Consent required is beforehand very true The Liturgie bids men come tell the Ministers before-hand that they desire the Communion Shall I ask them to consent to their duty when it is past Or can I know who are capable till I know who consenteth But saith he Why not à Church-Covenant for all other Duties Ans Why not a Marriage-covenant to make one a Priest c. Why not an Oath of Allegiance to make one a Coblar c. Consent necessary to the being of a Relation is one thing and Consent to every Duty is another which yet in general all Christians should promise sincerely to perform Must we write Books against such things as these § 33. To the Objection I am not bound to take every one that comes into the Parish for one of my Charge he hath no better answer than to tell us of Parish-bounds setled by law and binding me to do my best for all Ans Deceitfully confounding Charge the Genus with Church As if Heathens and Atheists and Papists and Refusers are of that Church because I have a Charge to seek their Conversion Or as if I had no special Charge of that Church 2. He did not see that he confuteth himself implying that we must consent because of the Law 3. And he forgot the many hundred years before Parish-divisions § 34. His zeal at last thus swelleth 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 You make two Churches two Church-forms as two Baptisms p. 130. to teach Infidelity c. Ans Let him that thinks he standeth take heed lest he fall Alas for the Church whose Guides are no wiser and better men and tenderer Conscienced than he or I which ever is in the wrong 1. You will make me think you are deeply melancholy Is it so frightful a thing for me to say I will be no Pastor to any that consent not as to put you into talk of dying and burning at a Stake Had the Martyrs been burnt if men had been of this minde Did you ever know any put to death or burnt at a Stake for your Opinion Which is liker to be the burning party they that say We will rule none but Consenters or Volunteers or they that call this wickedness and abomination and so are for the contrary course Which Party hath killed more for Religion Reader you see my wickedness and abomination CHAP. V. I Had thought to have gone thus over the rest of his Book but it is such stuff that my Reason and Conscience bid me spare my own and the Readers time I. He begins with telling me what the Church of England is and all is worse than nothing Instead of telling me what is the Constitutive Formal Regent part he tells me of Bishops Pastors Convocation King c. as if he defined a Man to be one that hath a Head Eyes Liver Stomack c. II. It grieveth me to read what he saith of Popery 1. His Supposition that Popery is sound if the Particular Church be a part of the Universal having its subordinate form of Government under Christ's 2. His Supposition of the Emperour of Constantinople's turning Christian and becoming the Universal Prince and Bishop of his Empire as a lawful thing 3. His Supposition of the Pope's resigning his Place to St. Peter if he were alive c. 4. His Note that to claim but St. Peter's Place is not to claim Christ's with more such are unwise Temptations to Strangers to fear lest London-Air have done him hurt III. His many words about the Princes power to chuse Pastors for all his Subjects and that if faithful he is no Christian that refuseth to accept them 1. Is all a bare saying over what he thinketh taking little or no notice of my Discourse on that subject in my first Plea where all that 's against us is answered before and I will not repeat it 2. And it shamefully condemneth his foresaid Condemnations Is not Consent then necessary to the imposed Pastor if not consenting Unchristen men 3. It supposeth that the political Controversie Whether the King be authorized by God to chuse what pastoral Guide all the Subjects shall trust their Souls with any more than what Tutor Physician Wife Diet they shall take is an essential of Christianity and yet it is not in the Creed c. When yet it is notorious that all Churches for most Ages since Christ if not almost all in the world to this day were and are of the contrary minde and so are all unchristened by him 4. And though I urge him he will not answer what I said of the Question Who shall judge whether the Minister be faithful 5. If the Patron present a weak ignorant man that is faithful but of little use comparatively and
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