of them pretendeth to be a Bishop of Bishops and limiting every man to his own Province and saying that they were to give account to none but God with much the like But in what sence is Episcopacie one 1. Undoubtedly not as numerically in the personal Subjectum Relationis One Bishop is not another if you should say Paternity is One none believe that one mans Relation of Paternity is anothers The Relation is an accident of its own Subject as well as Quantity Quality c. 2. Nor doth any man believe that many Bishops go to make up one Bishop in Naturals 3. Nor did ever Cyprian hold or say that all Bishops go to make up one Politick Governing Aristocracie as many go to make one Senate or Parliament that hath a power of Legislation and judgment by Vote as one Persona politica He never owned such a humane Soveraignty But Episcopatus unus est I. In specie all Bishops have one Office 2. Objective As the Catholick Church is one whose welfare all Bishops ought to seek 3. And so finaliter as to the remote End and are bound to endeavour Concord 4. And as effects all are from one efficient institutor As it may be said that all official Magistracy in England is one 1. As from one King or summa potestas 2. As described by one Law and as Justices of one Species 3. As all their Cities and Counties and Hundreds are but part of one Kingdom whose welfare all are for 4. And as they are all bound to keep as much common Concord as they can if any mean more they should ten us what If any mean that all Bishops make one numerical Universal Government they are heinous Schismaticks and the kingdom is Sworn agaisst their Judgment And these Men damn them in damning Schismaticks The truth is Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae leaving out the Papists additions is a good Book and worthy to be read of all and take Cyprian's Description of the Epispcopacy of the Church which we must unite with and the nature of that Union and we would rejoyce in such But if Cyprian had lived to see 〈◊〉 Arians or Donatists the greater number or any Sect after 〈◊〉 themselves the Church because that Princes set them up and had seen them depoâ—â—â—â—e Chrysostome and such other doubtless he would never have pleaded the Unity of Episcopacy for this but have judged as he did in the Case of Martial and Basilides nor did he ever plead for an universal humane Soveraignty LXXXVIII If we are damned Schismaticks I can imagine no pretended manner of Separation in which our Schism consists but first either Local as such 2. Or Mental as such 3. Or Local caused by Mental If Local as such be it All Christians are Schismaticks for being locally separated from others and absent from all Churches and places save one If Mental Separation be it either all Mental Division is such or but some only if all then all mortal men are Schismaticks as differing in a multitude of things from others If it be not all what is it is it all difference in the Essentials of Christianity we grant it and we are charg'd with no such thing Is it all difference in the Integrals or Accidents so do all differ that are not perfect Is it all want of Love or all Vncharitableness to one another all on earth have some degree of it and those are likest to have most that do as the Bishops did against the Priscillianists bring godly people under reproach on pretence of opposing Heresie or that seek the Silencing Imprisonment Banishment or Ruine of men as faithful as themselves For our parts we profess it our great Duty to love all men as men all Christians as Christians all godly men as godly all Magistrates as Magistrates c. Is it for our separating in mind from any Principles in specie necessary to Communion in the Church Universal or single Churches let it be opened what those Principles be We own all Christianity and all Ministry of Gods Institution and all his Church Ordinances We own Bishops over their Flocks let them be never so large so they be capable of the Work and End and alter not the true species and we submit to any that shall by the Word admonish Pastors of many Churches of their Duty or Sin or seek their good Nor do we refuse Obedience to any humane Officers set up by Princes to do nothing against Christs Laws not nothing but what is in Princes power in the Accidents circa Sacra Is it because we disown any Numerical Rulers we own the King and his Magistrates we own all that we can understand to be true Pastors and if we are in doubt of their Calling we resist them not unless obeying Christ before them be resistance But our Accusers loudly profess that Usurpers are not to be owned and if they go on the ground that he hath right that the Prince is for we would know whether that hold in Turky in Italy Spain France or only in England or where If it be where Princes are Orthodox do they make all the People Judges of their Princes Orthodoxness And we would know whether EVERY BISHOPS and PRIESTS right as a true Minister called of God and set over us be necessary to Salvation to be believed or known by all the People if it the wo to us that ever such men were set over us whose right we cannot know What abundance of things go to make a Bishops or Priests right known 1. That he hath capable sufficiency 2. That he is a just Bishop that 's chosen by the King the Dean and Chapter obediently consenting that the Clergy's and Peoples consent is unnecessary 3. That the Diocesan species over multitudes of Churches without any subordinate Bishop is of Christ or lawful 4. That their work according to the Canon is lawful 5. That all our Patrons have right to chuse Pastors for all the People 6. That they are true Pastors over them that consent not 7. That if they prove worse far than Martial and Basilides and be owned by the Bishops as they were the people may not forsake them plebs obsequens divinis praeceptis which saith Cyprian have most power to chuse or refuse Is every Christian bound on pain of Damnation to know all these and then to examine and judge Bishops and Priests accordingly or if they mistake one or more mens Commission do they therefore separate from the Catholick Church If so what a case was the East in by the difference between Chrysostome and his Competitors Photius and Ignatius and hundreds others and France about the Archbishops of Rhemes when he was put out that deposed Ludovicus 4. and when an Infant was put in and oft besides What if the Alexandrians when Athanasius was banisned by Constantine himself were half for him and half against him Or Basil at Caesarea was put down and hundreds more or when Theodosius first and second
made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva France or England c. A. 1. God hath made one General Law for Christians congregating with their fixed Elders or Bishops in particular Churches all the World over And his Command is not without Promise of being with them to the End of the World and that Promise becometh a Promise to every Church so congregate God hath not made distinct Laws or Promise to every Christian But the Promise to Justifie all Believers justifieth each single Person when he believeth If the King should make one common Law to command all his Subjects that are Freeholders to live in Corporations or Hundreds described with their priviledges those priviledges would be all theirs that are so incorporated As one Charter may Priviledge every London Company diversified by subordinate Agreements 2. And that God who will have them thus incorporated and distributed into several single Churches doth Covenant or Promise according to their demerits to each Do I need to recite the peculiar Promises and threats to the seven Asian Churches Rev. 2. and 3. which are Covenants to them § 12. Next Pag. 10. He will tell us what Communion is and in many words it is to tell us that Communion is nothing but Vnion I know that quoad notationem nominis Communion may signifie Vnion with others But they that write Politicks have hitherto distinguished Vnion and Communion taking Communion for Actual Communication or exercise of the duties of men in Union But to speak cross to other Writers on the same Subjects and give no reason for it and to confound Vnion and Communion is one part of this edifying Resolution § 13. Pag. 11. Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church which we are made by Baptism saith he Then the Baptized are still in Communion with the Church till their baptism be nullified And hath he proved us Apostates § 14. Pag. 12. Should any man who is no member of the Church nor owns himself to be so intrude into the Church and Communicate in all Holy Offices it 's no Act of Communion c. A. I thought communicating ordinarily in Holy Office had gone for an owning of Communion If it do not would you would tell us how to know who are of your Church § 15. P. 13. Saith he Church-Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion which can be performed among those who are present and Neighbours but in membership Now as a member is a member of the whole Body not meerly of any part of it c. All the Subjects of England who never saw nor converst with each other are members of the same Kingdom A. 1. That word meerly hath more Craft than justice or Honesty Meerly signifieth Only I suppose and if he would make his Reader think that they that are for single Church peculiar membership and consent do take themselves to be meerly or only members of those single Churches and not of the Universal it is shameless injury 2. Will he ever draw men to conformity by making them believe that because they owe Common Communion to all Christians therefore we owe no special duty to the Bishops Priests Churches or Neighbours where we are setled Do the Men of one Colledge School Corporation owe no more duty to that than to all others Do the Free-holders of Bedford-shire choose Knights for Middlesex or the Citizens of Oxford choose Officers in London These seem strange Resolutions to us 3. But doth he remember that if Communion consist not in Acts of Communion to such but in membership even with the distant then he that is baptized and no Apostate and performeth no other Acts of Communion to the Bishops Parson or People where he liveth than he is bound to perform to them a hundred or thousand miles off is no Separatist Methinks this favours Separation too much § 16. Pag. 14. When he denyed any Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches distinguish't from the Universal as all National Diocesan and Parochial are as parts from the whole he presently confuteth all again saying The exercise of Church Communion as to most of the particular duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congregation for we cannot actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments c. but with some particular Church A. Oportuit fuisse memorem 1. Reader doth not this man here confess that there are particular Churches 2. If these be not distinct from the whole then each particular is the whole 3. If the Exercise must be in particular Churches must not men Consent to their Relations and Duties Is it a sin to Promise Duty 4. Sure it is not meer Place but a mutual Relation of Pastors and People that distinguisheth these Churches The Presbyterians preach't once in the same Places that you do and yet you take them not for the same Church Pastors If one from York or Cornwall come into your Pulpit without consent do People stand as much related to him as to you Some men are of extraordinary sufficiency to resist and conquer the clearest evidence of Truth But he addes every Act of Communion thô performed to some particular Church is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church A. And who denyeth this No sober Independent or Presbyterian that ever I met with It 's a weighty Truth § 17. P. 14. Saith he Praying and Hearing and Receiving the Lords Supper together doth not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church thô in the remotest part of the World A. I think that 's not true With the remotest parts you have only Catholick Communion with the Church Universal In England and London you have that and more even special subordinate Communion with your own King Bishop and Flock 2. And hath not the Church of England such Communion in obedience to its own Laws as the Act of Uniformity Convocation and Canons which you have not with all abroad Do your Bishops in Convocation make Canon Laws for all the World Do you Swear Canonical obedience as much to the Bishop of Paris or Haffnia c. as to your Ordinary Do the Canons of all Churches impose our Liturgy or ipso facto excommunicate all that affirm any thing in it or our Ceremonies or Church Government to be against Gods word Sure this is a peculiar kind of Communion 3. If not why are all the Nonconformists cast out that offer to officiate and Communicate on such terms as are common to all sound Churches Pag. 15. Saith he There is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church A. What neither in these Acts nor any other Then we are no more bound to hear you or maintain you as our Pastor than to hear and maintain the
some separation that is not so bad as Murder and methinks the Doctor should forgive it for the success for the Parish hereupon resolved to pull down the Church and build it new a far better Fabrick where the Dr. now Preacheth and it drove me away that I preacht there no more Whether this new Church built where the old one had possession before be not a Schismatical Separatist I leave to him LII 2. Local Separation without Mental can make no culpable Schism for Nil nisi Voluntarium est morale if a man be imprisoned or be sick and cannot come to the Church it is innocent Separation I have been at no Church this half year much against my will O that God would heal me of this Separation LIII 3. If it must be mental Separation that must be culpable then it is diversified according to the mental degree and kind and no man separateth from the universal Church who separateth not from somewhat essential to it to separate from its Integrals or Accidents may be culpable but it 's no Separation from the Church no more than every breach of the Law is a Separation from the Kingdom LIV. 4. Some separate as to place locally and not mentally some mentally and not locally and some both He that daily observeth the outward Communion of the Church and yet taketh it for no Church or denyeth its Faith Hope or essential Duty separateth indeed All those men that live unbelievingly atheistically wickedly that in their converse prate against the Scripture and immortality of the Soul and that hate and persecute serious Godliness are damnably separated from Christ and therefore from the Catholick Church and are so to be esteemed so far as this is known thô when it is unknown the Church can take no notice of it LV. 5. It being only Humane Laws and Circumstantial Conveniences that make it unmeet to have divers Churches Bishops living promiscuously in the same Parishes Cities Dioceses or Nations where Laws and circumstances allow it it is no unlawful seperation LVI 6. He that liveth in forreign Lands Christian Mahometan or Heathen where various Churches live promiscuously Greeks Armenians Protestants Papists c. is no Schismatick if he choose which he thinks best and be absent locally from the rest condemning them no further than they deserve LVII 7. He that removeth into another Diocess or Parish for his worldly interest seperateth without fault from the Church he was in LVIII 8. It is a lawful separation to remove ones dwelling because the Minister is ignorant unskilful or otherwise bad and this for the better edification of his Soul and the use and help of a more able faithful Minister even Law and Custome and reason do allow it LIX 9. Thô the Canon 57. and 28. forbid Ministers oft to give the Sacrament to Strangers that come out of other Parishes even where no Preaching is yet those many sober People that use this in London are not taken to be Schismaticks as bad as Murders Many that are esteemed the most sober religious Conformists do ordinarily goe from their own Parish Churches some in Martins and St. Giles's Parish c. for want of room and some for more Edification to Dr. Tillotson Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Burnet Dr. Fowler Mr. Gifford Mr. Durham Mr. Hornech and such others and communicate with them and thô these are called by the late Catholicks by the Name of Dangerous Trimmers I think even Dr. Sherlock will think it more pardonable than Murder if they come to him LX. 10. If the King and Law should restore the antient order that every City that is every great incorporate Town in England should have a Bishop yea or every great Parish and that the Diocesans should be their Arch-Bishops and our new Catholicks should tell the King and Parliament that they are hereby unchristened Schismaticks as dangerous as Adulterers of Murderers for gathering Churches within a Church I would not believe them LXI 11. If e.g. at Frankford Zurick Lubeck Hamburgh c. a Church is settled in the Lutheran way and another in the Bochemian way described by Lasitius and Commenius which is a conjunction of Episcopacy Presbytery and Independency or a Church that had no Liturgy or none but that which the French Protestants and Dutch have would it be damning Schism for such as Cox and Horne at Frankford to set up an Episcopal Church in the English mode and with their Liturgy and so far to separate from the rest LXII 12. If it be true that John Maior Fordon and others say that Presbytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland before Episcopacy was brought in was the introduction of Episcopacy by Palladius a damning Schism by separating from the former or a Reformation is just Reformation Schism LXIII 13. When the Church first set up Patriarchs Metropolitans General Councils Monasteries Parish Churches distinct from Cathedrals Organs New Liturgies and multitudes of Ceremonies this was a departing or separating from the contrary Church way which was there before was it therefore Schism LXIV 14. When Socrates tells us of some Countreys that had Bishops in the Countrey Villages like our Parishes was it a damning Schism to separate from this custome by decreeing that even small Cities should have no Bishops Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi or when the Chorepiscopi were put down where they had been LXV 15. If a man separate not from any thing essential to the Church of England he separateth not from that Church though he refuse that which is its Accidents or some Integral parts We are charg'd with separating from the Church of England as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute and scorn'd for denying it even by them that will not tell us what they mean by the Church of England or by Separation By the Church of England we mean the Christian Kingdom of England or all the Christians in England as living in one land under One Christian King who Governeth them by the Sword which includeth their Concord among themselves in true Christianity we are Christians we profess agreement in Christianity with all Christians we are under the same King as they are and profess subjection and take the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy yea we are not charged with differing in any thing called Doctrinal from their Thirty Nine Articles but we disown certain late Covenants and Oaths which are not Twenty three Years old and the Subscription to one Canon about the Innocency of all in their Liturgy now either these new Oaths Covenants and Canon Liturgy and Ceremonies are essential to the Church of England or not If yea then 1. It 's a poor humane Church made by them that made these Oaths Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. And then it 's a new upstart Church and no man can answer the Papists where it was before Luther or before Henry 8. yea if its essentials were made by this King and Parliament 1662. then the present Church is no
older But if these things be indifferent or not essential to the Church then to separate only from these is not to separate from the Church If it be said That for the sake of these we separate from the Church it self and therefore from its essence we abhor the accusation and challenge them to prove it If we separate from the Church essentially it is either Locally or Mentally not Locally for we are yet in England nor is Local distance only a sin not Mentally for we own it for a true Christian Kingdom called a National Church bound to serve Christ in Love and Concord to their Power We deny not the King to be the Governour nor Christians to be Christians no nor the particular Churches and Ministers to be true thô culpable Churches and Ministers nor their Sacraments to be true Sacraments we profess to hold with them one Catholick Body one Spirit one God one Chirist one Faith one Baptism in the essentials and one Hope and are ready to promise to live in Concord with them in all other things as far as will stand with our Obedience to God so that we separate not from the Church of England as such but from some of its Accidents which we dare not be guilty of LXVI 16. The same I say of a Parish Church he that locally removeth e. g. from a Church that hath Organs to one that hath none separateth from a pair of Organs but not Mentally from the Church unless the Organs be its essence LXVII 17. They that are for the true antient Episcopacy e. g. as much as Arch-Bishop Vsher's Reduction which we offer'd did contain but dislike the Lay Civilians power of the Keyes and Officials Surrogates Arch-deacons Government c. do not separate from the Church as Episcopal but from the humane Novelties which they disown LXVIII 18. If a Parishioner fall out with his Priest and they goe to Law about Tythes Glebes Words c. and the Suit be long and the man dare not Communicate with him believing that he hateth him thô the animosity should be culpable being but personal his going from-him to another Church is not separating from Christ for I hope that even Mr. Dodwell himself will not say that every Priest is Christ LXIX 19. Ex quovis ligno non fit Mercurius surely there is some qualification essential to the Ministry if a man want that qualification it is a Duty to separate from him as no Minister e. g. When I came to Kederminster after my subjection to six or seven worse I found the Vicar one reputed ignorant of the Fundamentals he was brought in by Sir Henry Blunt a Papist who Preacht but once a quarter which most thought he might better have forborn and his Curate Mr. Turner at Mitton Preacht once a day whom I found ignorant of the Catechism Principles by Conference and he confest he had but one Book Musculus common places in English and he said some of that to the People and they took it for a Sermon he lived by unlawful Marrying infamous for Drinking and Quarrelling he that had taken these for no Ministers and separated from them had not thereby seperated from Christ or his Church Catholick LXX 20. If it prove as hard to know who is the true Pastor in a competition of Pretenders as it was to know which was the true Pope when there were two or three above twenty times or whether e. g. Optandus was true Bishop of Geneva that knew not Letters or whether Duke Heriberts Son consecrated in Infancy was Arch-Bishop of Rhemes or any other Infant consecrated be a Bishop officiating per alios Surrogates Chancellours Officials c. it is not here a Separation from Christ to separate from either of the Pretenders He that mistaketh not is not liable to the Charge he that mistakes doth not erre in an Article of Faith but in a difficult point of humane title and the qualification and right of a single man and my Opinion is that if such a title were tryed before our Judges or King and they should mistake and give Judgment against him that had right this were no separating from Christ nor proof that they are Infidels LXXI 21 If the Case of two contending Bishops or Presbyters come before a General or Provincial Council and they mistake and give it to the wrong and so separate from the right I do not think that thereby they separate from Christ or the Church Catholick e. g. The Constantinopolitan Council first gave the Church of Constantinople to Nazianzene and after judged him out as having no right if by this they separated from Christ they that take them for the Catholick Church representative must say that the Catholick Church separated from Christ and it self When another Council wrongfully deposed Chrysostome and separated from him and Cyril Alexandr perswaded the continuance of it did the universal Church separate from it self and Christ If a General Council which should be wisest be excusable from damning Schism whenever it misjudgeth and separateth from a rightful Bishop sure every Lay-man and woman that doth the same doth not separate from Christ If it prove that a General Council deposed Nestorius as unjustly as David Derodon thought or Dioscorus as unjustly as others thought or Flavian as unjustly as the Orthodox think this proveth them Guilty of some Schism but not of separating from the universal Church When Menna of Constantinople and the Pope excommunicated each other when a Synod in Italy renounced Vigilius and all his Successors were an hundred years deposed from their Primacy and a Patriarch at Aquileia set up in his stead for a great part of Italy because Vigilius subscribed to a General Council de tribus Capitulis this was Schism some where but not separating from Christ LXXII 22. If a man in England should think that all the old Councils were obligatory which decree that he shall be taken for no Bishop that comes in by the choice yea or Mediation of Courtiers Princes or great men or any that have not the true Consent of Clergy and People and thereupon should conclude that Bishops Deans Prebends c. so chosen and imposed are Lay-men and no true Bishops and Pastors this were a separating from those Persons but not from Christ and the Vniversal Church when as Mr. Thorndike saith that till the right of Electing Bishops by the Clergy and People be restored we need look no further for the reason of the Contempt of Episcopacy here So if a man think that God never trusted every Ignorant Wicked man that can but get Money and buy an Advowson to choose those Pastors to whose conduct all the People are bound to trust their Souls and the Bishop to admit them for fear of a Quare impedit if they have but a Certificate and can speak Latine This is not damning Separation LXXIII 23. If a Bishop set up a seeming Convert really a Papist e. g. Mr. Hutchinson alias Berry or one of
a Society and so are the Societies of Merchant-Taylors Drapers Mercers c. therein § 4. But these Churches must be members of one another or they are Schismaticks A. 1. How can that be if they be all but one 2. This is also above or below the ferula age They are no members of one another but all members of the whole Yet how oft have we this with the sting of Schisme as Damning as Murder of Adulter in the Tail of it The hand is not a member or part of the Foot or the Foot of the Hand or the Liver a member of the Lungs c. but each one of the Man If ever I were a Schoolmaster again I would perswade may Boyes that A is not a member of B nor B of C c. but each of the Alphabet And that one leaf of their Book is not a member of another but both of the Book And if they were ripe for the University I would perswade them that Exeter Colledge is not a member of Corpus Christi nor that of Lincoln c. but all of the Universitie of Oxford And I think that Bristol is not a member of Exeter or Gloucester c. but all of England and that the Company of Stationers are not part of the Society of Merchants or Drapers c. but all of London What a Priviledg is it that a Man may believe this about any such thing without Schisme and Damnation And how dreadful to fall into such Church-mens hands that in their Case make it Schisme Separation and Damnation But there is a Remedy § 5. But he hath reason for what he saith p. 3 4. Indeed it is extreamly absurd and unreasonable to say that the Christian Church which is built on the same Foundation c. who enjoy all Priviledges in Common should be divided into as distinct and separate Bodies thô of the same kind and nature as Peter James and John are distinct Persons It 's absurd to say That where every thing is common there is not one Community Ans Let us not swallow this without Chewing 1. Whether all be extreamly absurd and unreasonable which such Doctors call so I am grown to doubt as much as whether all be Schism which Schismaticks call so Ipse dixit is no Proof 2. What the meaning of this great Decantate Word Separate is must anon be enquired But may not Churches be distinct and not culpably separate He confesseth afterwards both local distinction and separation 3. How far are the Vniversal Church and Particular Churches distinct As Whole and Parts Must the World at last learn that Whole and Parts are not distinct If you take it for absurd to distinguish a Man from a Body or from a Liver Hand or Foot Dissenters do not nor to distinguish a Colledge from an University a House from a Street a Street from a City c. But how are the Particular Churches distinguished one from another Reader so constantly do such men fight with themselves that it 's meet to ask whether they that thus say there are not many distinct Churches do not assert a far wider difference between many than those they dissent from We affirm that there are many and that they differ not in specie but numero as Colledges Cities do among themselves but these men after all this hold not only a numerical but a specifick difference even as Parochial Diocesan Provincial Patriarchal National at least Presbyters and Diocesans differing Ordine vel Specie with them the Church denominated from them must do so too § 6. But he confirms it Peter James and John thô they partake of the same common nature yet each of them have a distinct Essence and Subsistence of their own and this makes them distinct Persons but where the very Nature and Essence of a Body or Society consists in baving all things common there can be but one Body Ans I hope it s no culpable Separation to distinguish things as differing specie numero and this is the Doctors meaning if his words are significant and the common way of expressing it would have been Peter and John differ numerically but not in specie but two Churches differ neither specie nor numero And 1. Reader whereas he said before that the Church is not divided into distinct Bodies as James and John c. did you think till now that James and John and the Doctor and the several Bishops had not been distinct parts of the Church in their distinct natural bodies 2. And why may there not be distinct Politick Bodies or Compound in one whole as well as natural certainly all things corporeal save Attomes are Compounds A Muscle a Hand 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 thô 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 thô 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 â—â—â—â—umerical and gradual 1. All Churches have not Bishop Jewel Bishop Andrews Doctor Stillingfleet Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers Air 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 Jewel 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
without their consent that Titus was to ordain Elders in every City Could any then come otherwise in Did not all Churches hold and practise this after and was it none of Gods Institution If so God requireth us not to take any of you for our Bishops or Pastors Who then requireth it What meaneth Paul when he saith they gave up themselves to the Lord and to us by the Will of God 7. Can the wit of man imagine how it is possible without consent for a man to be made the Pastor of any Flock Who ever ordained a man against his will or for any man to have Title against his will to the proper oversight and pastoral care of any one Pastor or the priviledges of any Church If any think they may be cramm'd and drencht with the Sacrament or that an unwilling man may have a sealed pardon and gift of Salvation delivered him he will make a new Gospel And how any particular Pastor is bound to give that man the Sacrament ordinarily that consents not ordinarily to receive it of him I know not No man is a member of any City or any Company of Free-men in the City but by mutual consent and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King maketh not the Oath of a Citizen as such or of a Member of a Company as such unlawful 8. Doth this Doctor think that he ever yet proved to sober men that the Covenant aforesaid of Godfathers and Godmothers to make Christians and members of the universal Church is more or so much of Gods Institution than the Contract or Consent between Bishops or Pastors and People to make a single Political Church 9. If it follow not that no man is the Kings Subject that sweareth not to the City It will not follow that none is a Christian but an Independent or Church-consenter 10. How are your Parish or Diocesan Church members known to your selves or any others Are all that dwell in the Parish or Diocess your Church members Then Atheists Sadducees Hobbists and all vicious men and thousands that never communicate are such Yea those that you call Separatists If it be every transient Communicant have you a proper Pastoral care of every Travellers Soul that so communicates with you You after plead that his very ordinary Communion maketh him not a member if he be unwilling to be one And is not his consent then necessary Or if ordinary Communion be the test how few then of great Parishes are of the Church yet that is because such Communion signifieth their Consent to your over-sight of them § 9. But it 's much to be approved which p. 5. and oft he saith that to be taken into Covenant with God and to be received into the Church is the very same thing as to the Universal Church By which all his gross Schismatical Accusations after wards are confuted No man then is out of the Church that is not out of the Baptismal Covenant either by not taking it or by renouncing some Essential part of it And when will he prove that to take him rather than Dr. Bates that was cast out to be a Teacher or Pastor at Dunstans or to take this man and not another to be the Lawful Bishop or Priest and to obey him in every Oath and Ceremony is an Essential part of the Baptismal Covenant or of Christianity But such a rope of Sand as Mr. Dodwell and this man tye together to bind men to their Sect will serve turn with some that know not who speaks Truth by any surer way than prejudice § 10. His Doctrine of Separation and gathering Churches out of Churches is anon to be considered But whereas he addes p. 7. These men convert Christians from common Christianity and the Communion of the Vniversal Church to Independency Ans My acquaintance with them is small save by reading their Books And there are few Men of any Common Denomination Episcopal or other that are not in many things disagreed But I must in Charity to them say that as far as I can judge by their Writings or Speech he palpably slandereth them and that none that are grave and sober among them do separate their Churches from the common Christianity or the Universal Church any more than the Company of Stationers Ironmongers c. are separated from the City of London or London from England or Trinity Colledge from the University of Cambridge or Oxford I never met with man and I am confident never shall do that doth not take his Independent Church to be part of the Universal and Dependent as a part on the whole If belying others stopt at words the wrong were small But when it 's made but the stairs to hatred and destroying it 's his way to cure Schism that is commonly painted with Horns and Cloven feet If a man come from a Countrey Village and be made by Covenant a Citizen of London how prove you that he renounceth King or Kingdom But he saith p. 9. Those who wilfully separate from the Corporation to which the Charter was granted forfeit their Interest in the Charter Ans What Reader doth this man presume upon that will not ask him how he proveth 1. That Gods Law or Charter to his Church doth not require them to congregate in distinct single Churches as London Charter doth to erect several Companies and the Universities several Colledges 2. And that God hath not in his Word given order or command for such single Churches But that the Apostles and Titus by fixing Elders to their several Churches and Cities separated from the Universal Church 3. And that their subordinate Churches have not need of distinct subordinate consent and duty And that our Diocesan Churches all separate from the Universal Did he think these things need no proof at all It may be he will say that the Diocesan depend on the Vniversal but the Presbyterian or Independent do not I Answer Dependance is either that of Subjects on Soveraign or Magistrates for Government or that Of a Community of Equals for Communion In the former respect they depend on none but Christ as Universal Soveraign Nor on any Foriegners for Governments In the latter they depend on all true Churches for Communion And Doctor Hammond and most Diocesans hitherto have said that Diocesan Churches are thus far Independent or National at most And if any be for a Forreign Jurisdiction in Charity before they perswade England to it they should procure them a Dispensation from all the Oaths that have sworn all this Kingdom against endeavouring any change of Government and against a Foreign Jurisdiction For some Fanaticks now Dream that PER is the Mark of the Beast and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the number of his Name is nominal as well as numeral and refers to CH-urch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S Tate For as for them that find a mans name in them I abhorr their Exposition more §11 P. 9. God saith he hath not