Christian Religion For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies These are not the usual ways of defining nor give me any true notice of your sence 6. And you make it not intelligible whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond or only as a Rule to some humane Rule But though the application look this way yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse that are united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion If this will serve those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order c. But is not this against those Churches that take not the Bible but Canons or other humane Laws for the bound of their Church-Vnion or their Rule If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which maketh a Church let us then try which Societies are so united and let that be the matter of our Dispute § 24. Serm. p. 13. And it is a great mistake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other Bond that uniteth them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church Ans 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body If so you should have told them who are your Adversaries I never met with one to my remembrance that saith the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate but Mr. Cheney who writeth against my Plea for Peace And so the two first who now write against me write against one another and I must please them both When you so far differ among your selves you should bear with them that less differ from you 2. What mean you by the Notion of a Church which all Men know is an equivocal word Do you mean that a Church hath but one Notion I pray you tell us whether the Notion be the same as it is used Matth. 16. 18. 18. 17. 1 Corinth 11. 18 22. Acts 19. 32 39 40. 1 Crrinth 14. 34. Psalm 26. 5. Ephes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all these Texts taken in the same Notion or sence I am sure I need not ask this of you as to the sence of prophane Authors who use the word for any sort of Concilium coetus concio congregatio convivia as in Lucian Demosthenes Aristotle Thucidides c. 3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print so often that a Church is constituted not only for Communion in Worship but also in Doctrine and holy Living I will not ask you why you dissembled this nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers Repetition is not the least fault of my Writings and all will not prevent the mis-intimations even of such worthy Men as you Ad nauseam usque I have repeated that the Office of the Ministery standeth in a subordination to the three parts of Christ's Office Prophetical or Teaching Priestly or Worshipping Kingly or Ruling and that a particular Church is associated for the use and benefit of all three conjunctly Were you not willing to take notice of this or not willing that others should take notice of it 4. How many Writings of ours have told the World that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation Do not my Books which you cite copiously express the contrary Do we not over and over tell Men that the word Church must be considered as equivocal generical and specifical Do we take the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed for a particular Congregation Worthy Sir this is unworthy dealing whether it be by ignorance negligence rashness or wilfulness We distinguish between Churches of God's Institution and of Man's Invention And of the first sort what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniversal Church at least besides particular Congregations And of Man's making who can number the sorts that are and may be made 5. Did you ever know Man save such Conformists as he that answered my Plea whether Greek Papist Episcopal Presbyterian Independent or Anabaptist who denieth a Church Bond that uniteth them when the Congregation is dismiss'd All confess that the Union of the pars regens and pars subdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church And who doth not distinguish between the Constitution and Administration the Status and the Exercitium 6. How then could you say If this be true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up What shew is there of such a consequence What if we held that the Church were so called barely in relation to Publick Worship doth it follow that this Relation ceaseth as soon as the several Acts of Worship cease Their mutual consent and the union of the VVorshippers Priest and People associated for that use may continue when the Act of VVorship is intermitted May it not continue a School when the Boys go home or play May it not be a Parliament when the House is risen tho it be only for the work of assembled Men that they are related and denominated 7. But Sir do you not confess even in your Iroenicon where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command 1. That God hath commanded that there be Assemblies ordinarily used for his VVorship 2dly And that Pastors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorship 3dly And that they should be also their Teachers 4thly And that they govern them by their Keys And if all this be true then such Assemblies are of Divine Institution not such as are associated only for VVorship but for Doctrine Worship and holy Living under the Teaching and Conduct of their Pastors If you deny that such Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Institution we have often proved it though few Christians deny it or need any proof And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite that I must suppose you know it though you seem to dissemble it that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be not the whole Church meeting at one time and place but personal presential Communion in Doctrine VVorship and Holy Conversation as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only Your Parish is associated for such
personal presential Communion and yet they meet not all at once but some one day and some another and some not at all which is a fault in exercitio but overthroweth not the being of the Church while it is personal present Communion which they associate for and profess and that states the Church-relation And they meet not all in one place but some in the Bishop of Ely's Chappel and it is pity but you had many more and yet Chappels of Ease consist with some Obligations on the whole Parish ordinarily to have per vices sometime personal Communion in the Parish-Church If you would have told us plainly that Parish-Churches are no Churches or that God never ordained such single Churches as are associated for personal Communion in Presence in Doctrine VVorship and Conversation which have their proper Pastors we should have known what to say to you But if you deny not such which we undertake fully to prove plainly confess their Constitution VVorth and Privileges and we shall readily next debate the Case with you how far Men may associate these into larger Churches of another species But still we say that as Families cease not to be Families when they are combined into a Village or City no more do particular Churches lose their Constitution or Administration by being associated into any lawful larger Churches § 25. Serm. And if there be one Catholick Church consisting of multitudes of particular Churches consenting in one Faith then why may there not be one National Church from Consent in the same Articles c. Ans 1. I pray confess first that your National doth consist of a multitude of such particular Churches of God's Institution and cannot destroy them or their Power and Privileges Secondly And once tell us what you mean by a National Church whether Regal or Sacerdotal If you mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it If you mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as Equals we deny it not If you mean that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Sacerdotal Head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical we must have further satisfaction about this First whether it be of Divine or of Humane Institution Secondly whether if humane its Power be from the Prince or from the Consent of the particular Churches Thirdly what it is empowered to do 1. Not to make necessary Laws for the Churches of the same sort with Christ's already made 2. Not to cross any of his Laws 3. Not to destroy any Privilege of the particular Churches instituted by Christ 4. But if it be only to determine of such Circumstances as the Christian Prince may determine of we shall obey them as his Officers And now to your Why not I answer Man is not God God made the Form of the Vniversal Church of which the particular are parts whose Form also is of his making And if God hath made National Regent Churches as distinct from Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths we will obey them if not we must know what Men made them and by what authority and whether God authorized them thereto if not your Why not is answered § 26. Serm. p. 18. Nay if it be mutual Consent and Agreement which makes a Church then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation Ans 1. Is it only de nomine or de re that you ask If de nomine we grant you that a Parliament an Army may be truly called Ecclesia if de re we grant you that it is truly a Church of another kind 2. Mutual Consent makes a Church but God's Consent or Institution must go first to warrant that Consent and make it a Church which he will own Else mutual Consent may make it but Jeroboam's Church or a false and sinful Policy Prove if you can that God hath authorized Men to make as many new Church-Species Policies or Forms as they please or any against or above or equal to those of his Institution besides Magistracy § 27. Serm. p. 19. Why many of these Cities united under one Civil Government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one National Church I cannot understand which makes me wonder at those who say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Sacrileg Desert p. 35. Answ 1. Admiratio est ignorantis I am as ignorant of you as you are of 〈◊〉 therefore may answer wondering with wondering 1. That such a Man should not know the reason when I so plainly and distinctly wrote it down 2. And that while you wonder you should not vouchsafe to give me the least means of Satisfaction For I suppose few will think that you do so much as attempt it here 3. You make it still as if the Controversie were de nomine what it may be called when I only spake de re and bid you call it what you will if you will but tell us your meaning 4. Yea in my Plea sect 4 5. and in the Addition I fully shewed what we grant de re de nomine and what we deny and what the state of our Controversie is and do you think to satisfie us after all this with Wondering that we understand not what you mean § 28. Serm. In short we mean that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship Answ And will not they that know not your Heart any otherwise than by such Words deride us if we should pretend by these Words to be ever the nearer understanding your Resolution of the Controversie 1. The essential constitutive Parts of a political Society are the Pars regeâ—s pars subdita as is aforesaid And here is no mention of the Regent part at all can any Man tell by this whether it be the King or a Clergy Head that you take to be the Constitutive Head 2. Laws and Rules are part of the Administration and our question is of the Constitution Is this then any satisfying Definition 3. The Papists by this Definition are the national Church They are a Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship viz. Papâ—l If you say They are not all the Nation I answer 1. nor doth your Definition require it 2. You are not all If you say that they are not the major part I answer 1. Whether you are I know not 2. In Ireland they are and so are there the National Church by your Definition If you say that you mean the Laws of Lawful Governours I answer 1. The Papists take the Pope for their lawful Governour 2. If a Usurper get Possession as K. Stephen and many others is the National Church then dead or null 3. There is
Richard Baxters ANSWER TO Dr STILLINGFLEET's CHARGE of SEPARATION Containing I. Some Queries necessary for the understanding of his Accusation II. A Reply to his Letter which denyeth a Solution III. An Answer to his Printed Sermon Humbly tendred I. To Himself II. To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen III. To the Readers of his Accusation the Forum where we are Accused Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Rom. 14. 1 17 18. Him that is weak in the Faith receive but not to doubtful Disputations For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Phil. 3. 16. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things 15. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons at the Three Cocks at the West-end of S. Paul's and Thomas Simmons at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate-street MDCLXXX THE PREFACE Readers 1. IF you would be truly informed of the Case of the Nonconformists and the meaning of this Defence you must know 1. That the meer Nonconformists of this age take not up their Judgment in trust from any party of men and therefore take not themselves obliged to be for or against any thing because men were so that were called Nonconformist sheretofore As the Scripture is their Rule and objective Religion so they reverence the judgment of the Primitive Church above the judgment of any party And indeed are so far against Sects and Parties as such as that their judgment is that the Church will never be well restored to desireable Concord till our Vnion be Catholick upon the terms that Christ appointed and which all good Christians have agreed in and may agree in 2. That what the meer Nonconformists of this age desired for Concord and Reformation as to the old Liturgy and Conformity is best known by their common Proposals 1660 all the Ministers of London being by Mr. Calamy Mr. Ash and Dr. Reynolds invited to Sion-Colledg freely to give their judgments who offered nothing for Church-Government but Bishop Usher's Primitive form and nothing for Worship but the Reforming of the Liturgy and the free use of additional formes Their exceptions against passages in the Liturgy being not thought absolutely necessary to Communion And it must be remembred that they offered then 1. A Defence of those Exceptions 2. A Reformed Liturgy or Additions 3. A Petition for Peace and preventing Schism to the Bishops which they never answered to this day that we know of 3. You must know that the Change of the Liturgy on pretense of easing us and the Act of Vniformity have made Conformity now quite another thing than it was before and to us far more intollerable I am past doubt that Ri. Hooker Bishop Bilson Bi Usher and such others were they now alive would be Nonconformists yea I can prove it as well as I can prove that they were honest men and would hold to what they wrote 4. You must know that we had never leave to give our Reasons against the New Conformity nor allowed to be once heard speak for our selves before about two thousand Ministers were silenced when our Judicatures will hear a single Malefactor We have been silent about eighteen years while men have call'd to us What is it that you would have while they would not give us leave to tell them 5. And when the Press was somewhat open they spread it abroad that our silence now plainly shewed that we had nothing to say but kept up a Schism against our own Consciences 6. At last though my Friends had long told me that our Lives must be our best Defence and that our Accusers would but be inflamed by an Apology and could not endure to hear our Reasons I durst forbear no longer but yet ventured no farther than to write a bare Narrative of the Matter of our Nonconformity lest arguing should exasperate But that very naming of the things which we deny hath much displeased them that differ from us supposing that it implyeth an accusation of them which I renounced 7. The Reader then that will understand our Case must not look to find it here but be at the labour to read what is already written of it which we must not repeat as oft as any will write against us that is 1. In the said unanswered writings of 1661. 2. In the Kings eclaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs for which the London Ministers subscribed and printed a Thanksgiving 3. In my first Plea for Peace describing our Nonconformity 4. In the efence of it against Mr. Cheyny's Answer 5. In my second Plea for Peace describing our Judgment of Government and obedience and what our Nonconformity is not and divers other points 6. In my True and only way of Universal Concord on which the Churches must agree if ever 7. In my Moral Prognostication 8. In my Abridgment of Church-History of Bishops and Councils shewing what hath divided the Churches heretofore 8. You must know that I write not to justifie every man that is called a Nonconformist but to give an Answer to the publick Accusation of my self and a Reason of the Preaching of the meer Nonconformists 9. But that the fuller Justification of our Preaching is intended in another Treatise called Their Apology or Third Plea for Peace II. And as to the prosecution of the debate with this Reverend Doctor it is not likely that I shall trouble him with any Rejoinder if he Reply unless he will take another course and first explain our terms and state the question to be disputed Much less shall I contend with any substitute who shall avoid the way of Love and Reason which from the Doctor I may expect There is one sort of Disputants that are too strong for me Those that have a better Cause Truth will overcome Light will appear through narrow cranies Of these I shall be glad to be overcome I protest that to my knowledg I never managed a Dispute in which I trusted not to the Goodness of my Cause more than to wit or words or humane advantage But there are above twenty sorts of other Disputants too hard for me to overcome 1. Those that will Dispute before they agree of the sense of their terms or state the question and then quarrel for not being understood 2. Those that will not read or answer our fullest Defence already written but look I should still begin anew 3. Vniversallists that can prove me to be an Ass because I am an Animal 4. Equivocaters that can prove me a Separatist because I sit not at their feet or read not in their Book or with their Spectacles 5. A Pope that taketh it for a
would be so bad in us but also to accuse us so publickly to Magistrates for not forbearing to preach the Gospel when we were solemnly devoted to it and pleading against the toleration of it when Non-toleration must be by Imprisonment Banishment or Death or such Disablement against such as believe they are bound to preach while they are able § 5. Yet you can tell that they are ill Men that reported you stir up Magistrates to Persecution If that much will prove it it 's like they will be emboldened to call you an ill Man too for such faults are so common that we may say as Seneca Quid ulcus leviter tangam omnes mali sumus Indeed they do not well that use that word Persecution when your words are but against Toleration and the Church of England ' s endeavour after Vniformity which are publickly known § 6. And no wonder if they are ill Men when you are but finding out a certain Foundation for a lasting Vnion which is impossibâ—e to be attained till Men are convinced of the evil and danger of the present Separation c. That is you are but proving our Union impossible for I have elsewhere proved that the Conviction which you speak of is morally impossible to become the terms of a common Union It is impossible that we should all be convinced that none of the Particulars imposed are sinful which I have named in my first Plea And secondly 't is as impossible that we should all be convinced that it is any more lawful for us to forsake our Ministry to which we were vowed in our Ordination than to break our Oath of Allegiance and deny our Duty to the King So that you do no worse than for Union to prove our Union impossible and who is it that makes it so § 7. And this Impossibility you infer from this Principle That it is lawful to separate on a pretence of greater Purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship Answ 1. Was there not this Agreement in the case of Cyprian and the Council who persuaded the People to separate from Martial and Basilides And is not Union possible with such as Cyprian and the Carthage Bishops 2. We that are accused by you do not say that we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms or their imposing Power we never denied this difference But we say in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the Form of Government and imposed Abuses we agree And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church that yet held only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniversal Church and would take none that confess it not for Christians were it a Sin to separate from that Church 3. Suppose that Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and you and make themselves our Pastors against our wills is it unlawful to separate from them though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worship And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right which for 700 yea 1000 years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent I need not tell you how far this will reach 4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worship will not receive you unless you will deliberately profess or subscribe an Untruth or covenant against some Duty or commit a known Sin is it intolerable for you rather to separate from them than to sin And must we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do § 8. I think you need not expect the Censures of the chief makers of our Divisions And as to the inferiour Sectaries if you are a Sacrifice it will be an unbloody one You well admonish us in the end not to complain too much when we are silenc'd impoverished and imprisoned The counsel is good But for the Dean of Pauls c. that is deservedly loved and honoured by us all whom you thus deal with and by those great Men whose esteem he deservedly more valueth while he liveth in this Plenty and Honour to call himself a Sacrifice if a few poor Men say He wrongeth them when he pleadeth against the Magistrates enduring them or against their Judgment that think they should be endured Doth not this seem to another greater tendency than for me only to say de facto I was laid in the Common Gaol and fain to make away my Goods and Library to save them from Distress But so much to your Epistle The Sermon followeth § 9. And what could a Man have desired more to end the main differences among us than the serious consideration of your Text in its very plain import and drift 1. That the Text speaketh for Unity and Concord is past question 2. And that it speaketh both to the Pastors and the Flocks 3. And that it speaketh to all Christians though of various degrees of Attainment And therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences 4. All the doubt is what is meant by the same Canon or Rule And there are these several Expositions pleaded for 1. That by the same Rule is meant only the General Concord idem velle nolle to agree and live in Peace and to mind the same things 2. That by the same Rule is meant the Essentials of Christianity received by all Christians which they should have concordantly practised notwithstanding other differences 3. That by the same Rule is meant the Doctrine which the Apostles had concordantly delivered to all the Churches 4. That it was the Churches Creed which is supposed then to be in use as the Symbol of Christians 5. That it is the Canonical Scriptures in the times that they were written and delivered to the Churches 6. That it is the Example of S. Paul before described or the matter of itâ— that is to hold fast what he had attained and press forwards towards the heavenly perfection by desire hope diligence and patience 7. Some take the one Rule to be the end as it is to be attained by the means that is the common good of the Church and furtherance of the Gospel and our Salvation Let all be done to edification 8. Some say that it is the great Duty of Love which is made the Rule for our undetermined actions or that the fundamental duties are made a Canon to the Superstructures as it seemeth to be meant Gal. 6. 15 16. And by Christ Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice To tell you which and how many of these I take to be meant in the Text and why is none of the work which you call me to but to tell you that which-ever of these it is or if all these we fully consent All these Canons we must all walk by 9. But some say
or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the