a Foot parts similar and dissimilar in man are all compounded of lesser Parts If many Students may make one Colledge why may not many Colledges make one University It 's strange if a Doctor deny this 3. But let us consider of his Reason and enquire 1. Whether the Church have all things Common 2. Whether the very Essence of it consist in this I. It is granted that the whole Essence of the Genus and Species is found in every individual of that Species Natural or Politick but did we ever hear till Mr. Cheny and this Doctor said it that Politick Bodies differ not numero as well as Natural The Kingdom of England and of France are two the Church of Rome and Constantinople long strove which should be uppermost but who ever said that they were not two II. Have they all things common Dissenters would have excepted Wives and Husbands th◠the Canons called Apostolical do not Why should the Essence of a Church lie in this and not the Essence of a City or Kingdom Tories in Ireland would have all common Merchants and Tradesmen Knights Lords and Princes here would not But it 's no Schism here also to distinguish simpliciter secundum quid Propriety and the use of Propriety There is no Community without Propriety Men have first a Propriety in themselves their members their food the acquests of their Labours their Wives and Children and Goods And they consent to Community to preserve this Propriety because every man loveth himself And yet they must use their Propriety even of Life for common good because all are better than one But if they had no Propriety they could not so use it for the Common-wealth And I never conformed to the Doctrine that denyeth Propriety in Church Members and Particular Churches and thought all simply common I 'le tell you what Particular Churches have to individuate them not common to all 1. They consist of individual natural Persons many of which as much differ from many other Persons those in England from those in Spain as one man doth from another 2. Their Graces and gifts are numerically distinct Faith Hope Love c. from those of other Churches thó ejusdem speciei 3. England and France London and Oxford have Churches of different place and Scituation 4. But the formal individuating difference is their nearest Relation to their several Pastors as several Kingdoms Cities Schools are numerically distinct by their distinct Kings Maiors School-masters so are several Churches ejusdem speciei 1. Thess. 5.12 13 Know those that are among you and over you in the Lord and esteem them highly in love for their Works sake As every mans Wife Children and Servants must be used for the common good and yet are not common one mans Wife and Children are not anothers So the Bishop of London of Oxford c. must govern his Church for the good of the Universal but he is not the Bishop of Gloucester Norwich Paris Rome These are differences enow to constitute a numerical difference of Churches Paul distinguisheth the Bishops of Philippi Ephesus c. from others Do you yet see no Priviledges that one hath Proper and not common to all none that make a difference in specie but both numerical and gradual 1. All Churches have not Bishop Iewel Bishop Andrews Doctor Stillingfleet Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers All Churches be not taught all that 's in this Resolver 2. All Churches have not men of the same soundness nor excellency of Parts It was once taken for lawful to account them specially worthy of double honour who laboured in the Word and Doctrine and to esteem men for their works sake Paul saith of Timothy I have no man like minded If those that heard not a Sermon in many years differed not from your Congregation why do you preach I am reproached in Print for telling the world this notorious truth That I lived till ten years old where four men four years hired successively were Readers and School-masters two Preached as it was called once a Month the other two never Two drank themselves to beggery After I lived where many Parishes about us had no Preachers The Parish that I lived in had a Church with a Vicar that never preached and a Chappel with a Parson eighty years old that had two Livings twenty Miles distant and never preacht His Son a Reader and Stage-player was sometime his Curate His Grand-son my School-master his Curate next that never preacht in his life but drunk himself to beggery One year a Taylor read the Scripture and the old man the best of them all said the Commmon-Prayer without book for want of sight The next year a poor Thresher read the Scripture After that a Neighbours Son my Master was Curate who never preacht but once and that when he was drunk in my hearing on Mat. 25. Come ye Blessed and go ye Cursed the saddest Sermon that ever I heard These things were no rarities Now my assertion is That the Church that had such as Austin Chrysostome Iewel Andrews and such worthy men as London now hath many had Priviledges distinct from these and many the like that I was in If you say that every Bishop and Preacher is as much the Bishop and Preacher to all other single Churches as to that which is his Title then 1. He must be condemned for not teaching them all 2. Then he may claim maintenance from them all 3. Then he may intrude into any mans Charge 4. Then no Church is unchurcht for want of a Bishop for any one Bishop is Bishop to every Church in the World and so ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia signifieth but that Church and Bishop are on the same Earth and Ecclesia est Plebs Episcopo adunata may be verified if there be but one in the World 5. And so Mr. Dodwell and such are self-confuted before you are aware Geneva Holland and all Presbyterians are true Churches for they have all Bishops e. g. The Bishop of London is Bishop to them all For if one man be no more a Member of one single Church than of another and so no more a Subject to one Bishop than to another then one Bishop is no more Pastor of one Church than of another 7. And how can you magnifie the Church of England for a Wise Learned Pious Clergy above other Churches if all Priviledges be common and they have no proper Pastors of their own 8. Do you think that the Church e. g. Of Hippo that was in Austins dayes was the same numerical single Church with that which is there now were there any or with the Diocesan Church of London if not then at least distance of time and change of Persons maketh divers Particular Churches and it 's no more against the unity of the Church Universal to have divers particular Churches in it in the same Age than in divers Ages In short Diversity of matter and form maketh a numerical Diversity as of Natural
so of Politick Bodies of the same species But the Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Thyatira Philadelphia c. were of divers matter and form numerically Ergo they were divers Political Churches Sure God doth not commend Laodicea for Philadelphia's Church Virtues nor condemn the Church of Philadelphia for the other Churches Sins And if the Angels be Bishops why are some Bishops praised as the Bishops of such Churches and the Bishops of other Churches threatned But I confess this is a ready way to end the Controversies between the Bishops of several Churches which shall be greatest if they be all but one But I hope that when the Bishop of Rome and his Church was corrupted it is not true that every Bishop and Church fell with him or with any that hath turned to Mahumetanism To be no longer on this which I thought no Prelatist would ever have put me on if these men speak not notoriously against Scripture against the constant Language of Canons and Fathers Historians and Lawyers and all Antiquity and all Christian Countreys and Divines yea even those that at Trent would have had only the Pope to be of immediate Divine Right then I know not any thing by Reading And if poor Nonconformists must be put to defend themselves against such singularities and be Schismaticks unless they will differ from all the Christian World of all Ages there is no Remedy § 7. But p. 5 6. he tells us that a Church is made by a Divine Covenant God only can constitute a Church Such Persons if there be any so absurd are not worth disputing with who dare affirm the Church to be an humane Creature or the invention of men And no Church can depend on humane Contracts for then a Church would be a humane Creature and Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only on a Divine Covenant 1. Who would think but this man were a Nonconformist that talks so like them e. g. Amesius in Medul Theol. against humane Church Forms But what then will Bishop Bilson and almost all other Bishops and Christians be thought of who affirm Patriarchal and Metropolitical Churches and many of the Diocesane to be but humane Constitutions and Inventions And if these be not worth the disputing with it seems that you differ from them more than Separatists do and then were not all these Schismaticks and then are not you a Schismatick if you communicate with them yea your Mr. Dodwel himself maketh Diocesan Churches to be a humane Creature and A. Bishop Bromhall much pleadeth for mans power to make Patriarchal Churches and so do such others 2. But is it true that humane Contracts make not a Church Ans. No◠alone But I think that all Churches are made by mutual Contracts and humane is one part of that which is mutual I. As to the Vniversal Church 1. God as Legislator and Donor instituteth the species of Covenanting by Baptism and therein he commandeth mans consent to his offered Covenant and conditionally promiseth to be our God But Conditionale nihil ponit in esse This much maketh no Christian nor Church To command a man to be a Christian and conditionally to promise him life if he will be one proveth him not to be one else all were Christians that reject an offered Christ. 2. But when man consenteth and covenanteth with God then Gods conditional gift becomes actual and efficacious the man being a capable Recipient and not before and in this it is the Contract that is the Fundamentum Relationis but a single Promise is not a mutual Covenant or Contract So that it is no wiser Divinity to say Gods Covenant and not mans consent Covenant or Contract with God doth make Christians and the universal Church than it is sober Reason to say That Gods Institution of Marriage or Magistracie only doth make the Relation of Husband and Wife without their covenanting consent or doth make Common-wealths without the consent or Covenant of Sovereign and Subjects Did this Doctor think that Voluntariness is not as necessary to the Relation of Christianity as to the Relation of Prince and Subjects yea or of Husband and Wife if he do he is shamefully mistaken Baptism delivereth men possession of Pardon Grace and right to Glory and can men have this against their wills One would think by the Doctrine and course of some men that they could force men to Pardon and Salvation if I believed that their force could accomplish this I would never call it Persecution If they can force men to be true Christians they may force them to be justifyed and saved and then they are very uncharitable if they do not Let them then cease preaching and disputing us to their Opinion but bring us all to Heaven whether we will or not Yea the self-contradictor playing fast and loose confesseth p. 6. That no man at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow And is not that humane Covenanting Yea he knoweth that the Liturgie maketh even Neighbours or Strangers vow and covenant both in the name of the Child and for the Child And so necessary doth the Episcopal Church think humane Covenanting that without this no Child must be Baptized publickly though the Parents would covenant and that they can neither for Love nor Money for many poor men hire Godfathers get any one much less three who examined will seriously purpose to perform the Covenant for the Child 's holy Education which they make II. But is not humane Covenanting a cause of single Church Relation as well as of universal I see no cause to doubt it and I am sure that the Church for a thousand years before and since Popery came in have declared him no Bishop that comes in without consent of Clergie and People which Consent is their covenanting act To make a single Church manifold consent goeth to the Fundamentum Relationis 1. God commandeth single Church Officers order and consent and promiseth them his blessing where they are met The Lord and his Angels are among them No command is vain and without a virtual Promise 2. To this a threefold humane consent is needful Ordinarily 1. the Persons called 2. The Ordainers when it may be had 3. The Peoples He that formerly from the Apostles dayes for a thousand years should have said that neither the covenanting that is the consent of the Pastor or People or Ordainers is necessary to the Fundamentum of a single Church Relation or Form would have been taken for a wild-brain'd Schismatick at least § 8. But saith this Doctor and another of them p. 6. But the Independent Church Covenant between Pastor and people is of a very different nature from this Vnless any man will say that the voluntary Contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their Members and wherein they place a Church state be part of the Baptismal vow if it be not then they found the Church upon a
us that he did not place this Communion in any transient Acts but in a fixed permanent state Ans. But 1. Taking the Bishops for true authorised Pastors and the Church for a true Church are transient acts Believing in Christ and repenting of sin are transient acts quoad objectum tho immanent quoad subjectum effectum Baptism and Profession of Christianity and of love and obedience to others are transient both quoad objectum effectum Coming to Church communicating obeying Bishops and departing from Schismaticks are transient in both respects You see that by Catholick Communion the Doctor meaneth none of all these 2. What meaneth he then a fixed permanent state But 1. Which Predicament can you conjecture that word state is in It 's commonly applied to Relation Quality and Scite and Place These latter I am confident he meaneth not If he mean Quality it is Dispâ—sitiâ—n or Habit sure But those come by Acts and he tells us not what he meaneth nor is it probable that this is it Relation is most likely to be that fixed state which is indeed the true form of a Church and a Church-Member and saith Durandus is meant by Baptism's indelible Character Supposing this his meaning 2. Are not transient acts the fundamentum of this Relation as verily as of Paternity Marriage-Relation c. Is any Man a Church-Member or Christian but by the transient acts of Baptism Profession Covenanting c. And do you define a Relation without the Fundamentum 3. But if Relation be all wherein lieth our damning Schism We profess Catholick Communion then somewhat more than you do For as we profess the same Relation that you do to Jesus Christ so we profess our Relation of Fellow-Members to all his Body even to those that in such Matters depart from each others and if I can understand you to the greatest part of Christ's Church on Earth which you damn as Rebels This is our profest Relation If you can disprove it 〈◊〉 § 9. He adds I conclude it 's sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian-Communion which in a large Notion signifies the Christian Church or Society which is called Communion from Communication which all the Members of it had with each other The plain and obvious sense is All the Churches of the World are but one Church or Society and have the same right and the same obligation on them to communicate with each other for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the members of a particular Church are Ans. 1. Such large Notions may be sufficient to you but they signifie little more than noise to me Here we are told that by Communion he meaneth the Church And so when we read of Communion with the Church it meaneth the Church with the Church and Church-Communion are Two Synonimal words and signifie Church Church And in the Creed the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints is a Tautology 2. But the Church is called Communion from Communication And is Communication no transient act but a fixed state 3. If the plain sense be That all Churches in the World are one Church as parts in the whole who differs from you in that We are all then of one Catholick Communion and shall believe that all true Christians are of one Church till the Excommunicators better disprove it 4. But have all the same right and obligation to communicate with each other 1. All do actually communicate with each other 1. In their Union with and Relation to our Saviour and Head 2. And in having one holy Spirit 3. Being the adopted children of one God 4. Being of that one body formally related to Christ. 5. Believing in the same God and Father Saviour and holy Spirit And 6. Consenting to the same Baptismal Covenant 7. Having the same hope of everlasting life These are the Instances of Christian Union and Communion in Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And 8. They have also Communion in the same common benefits Pardon and Justification and right to life 9. And besides all this when they may be had they have Communion in the same species of necessary worship the use of the same Gospel and Sacred Scriptures and Creed of the same sort of Eucharistical Sacrament and Prayer and Praise and Thanksgiving in all parts of absolute necessity and holy Assemblies to that end consisting of several Pastors with their Flocks 10. Yea and all true Christians love one another as such and live in sincere tho imperfect obedience to the same holy Laws of Christ. In all this all Christians have Communion 2. And all have right to such measures of Local Communion where they come as they are in a more immediate capacity of 3. And all are obliged to exercise so much Mental and Local Communion as is necessary to edification and to the exercise of Christian love and peace besides what is forementioned But yet 1. All Churches on Earth are separate by distance as to Local Communion 2. No Two Churches or Men on Earth are perfectly united as to Mental Câ—mmunion There are Multitudes of degrees of differences in this 3. There are very many just causes of diversifying Local Communion in the same City Diocess or other Precincts and of diversifying individual Pastoral Relation and single proper Church-Communion Diversity of Languages is a cause that no man can deny The excessive Magnitude of a Church that is the Multitude of Persons is another Suppose that I were first and alone made Pastor of a Church in Mexico or Quinsay and I am not able to do the work of a Pastor for a Thousand Souls I get the help of Three or Four Presbyters and Deacons and we all are utterly unable to do the Pastoral work for Four Thousand may Four Thousand or Forty Thousand more claim of me the performance of the Pastoral Office Am I bound to undertake Tenfold more than I am able to perform Then Men may not only enslave me but damn me at their pleasure and pretend their right to Communion with me If you say I am bound to multiply Presbyters in the same Church to sufficiency I answer 1. What if I can neither have Men nor Maintenance 2. What if I think that when the Multitude is so great that I cannot know them nor they ever speak with me or know one another any more than Men of several Countreys that I ought not to undertake a personal oversight of them but perswade them to associate in Churches capable of such oversight It 's no breach of Charity for one School-Master or Physician to refuse a personal Relation as School-Master to Five Hundred Schools or Physician to all the City or Five Hundred Hospitals tho he have Apothecaries or others under him No Man hath right to more of my labour than I am able to perform If I be a Bishop and bound to hear and try the Causes of all that ought to come under Church Censure in a whole Diocess and am