Doctrine Worship or Religious Ministration for the Ministration of the word and Sacraments and Keys is already appointed by Christ And the Office or Order is specified by the work and terminus and a new Office hath new work But in the same species of Religious Ministration there are abundance of accidentals and circumstances and Princes or consenting Churches may give men power in those accordingly But not to forbid what Christ commanded nor destroy the works and power of his Institution And if they that are for other superiour or co-ordinate species of Church-power besides what is afore-granted say that it is a lawful humane Ordinance 1. Those that say Princes only may make it confess the Church had none that was lawful for three hundred years And they must prove the Commission 2. Those that say the Inferiour Bishops made it by consent 1. feign Inferiours to have power to make a power above their own which is more than for Presbyters to ordain their like 2. Why may not Archbishops then make Patriarks and they a Pope ad summum ascendendo 3. They must prove their power and that they are so far equal to Apostles who yet were but to teach the Nations what Christ commanded them which these Men know not but by the Scripture 4. What Man maketh Man may unmake And how came we to be less free than our Ancestors that made such Offices XLI In my Book of Concord where this is granted yet I say that let Church-Patriarchs Metropolitans Primates Archbishops or Diocesans like ours that have no Bishops under them be never so probably maintained to be lawful yea and desirable yet the uniting in them by consent and approbation will never become the terms or way of Universal Concord which I have fully proved even all that is true and good will never be the terms of Universal Concord nor just Christian Communion much less that which hath so much matter of doubt and great suspition of evil But I will live in Christian love peace and submission my self on terms uncapable of common concord or my own approbation of the things as imposed or done by all others XLII Lay-Chancellours may do what belongeth to a Magistrate but not use the Church-Keyes nor be the Church-Judges of Mens Communion because Christ hath Instituted the Sacred Office for it XLIII A Church is Ens Politicum in the sense in hand and the form of it is Relative in the predicament of Relation XLIV The parts of the Universal Church are similar and dissimilar more simple or more compound And the word whole applyed to a part disproveth not its being a part of the whole Christian world or Church A whole hand foot head c. is part of a whole Body and a whole Body part of a whole Man and a whole Man part of a whole Family and a whole Family part of a whole street and that of a whole City and that of a whole County or Kingdom A whole Colledge of a whole University c. All Members save Souls and Atomes are compounds XLV When we call all the Christian world The Catholick Church and call e. g. Hippo A or the Catholick Church the word Catholick and The are not univocal In the later we mean only The Church at Hippo which holds the true Catholick Faith and is a true part of the Catholick Church in the first sense Penuria nominum necessaria reddit aequivoca XLVI Particular Churches are Visible in the Regent and Governed parts The Universal Church is Visible in the Governed part and in the Head only so far as he was once on Earth and is now visible in Heaven his Court and will be visible at last to all and ruleth by visible Laws but not as a Head now visible on Earth nor is this any deformity to his Church nor any reason why it may not be called Visible as I have fully proved in two Books against W. Johnson alias Terret XLVII Those that deny an Universal Visible Church differ only de nowine not de re They only deny any Universal Regent power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical under Christ but I know no Christian that ever denyed the fore-described XLVIII Forma dat esse Divers constitutive forms or specifying differences make divers Essences Therefore the form of a Troop being the Captains Government differs from the form of a Regiment which is the Colonels Governing Relation and both from the forms of the Army which is the Generals The formal Essence of a Colledge is divers from that of an University and of a Family from a Corporation or City and that from a Kingdom And as forma dat nomen they have divers names A Family quatalis is not a Kingdom c. Reader forgive the mention of these things which Children know and till now I never read or heard any man deny or question In that which followeth you shall see the Reasons that excuse me CHAP. III. What Mr. Cheyney saith against these things And 1. Of Church-Forms and Essence § 1. THough it tempt me not to Conformity as the way of Concord where I see the great difference of such as plead for it amongst themselves yet I must do that right to the Conformists as to tell the world that they must not be judged of by Mr. Ch 's opinions and that I know no other Conformist or Non-conformist of his mind about Church-Forms § 2. But I must add that his Case doth increase my Conviction against himself and them that their Conformity is so far from being the necessary Cement that it is utterly destructive of it as so imposed and that it must be on few plain necessary things that common concord must be held or we must have none Mr. Ch. thinks me one who may be endured in the Ministry and I think so by him and yet how far easier and plainer than our Controversies of Conformity are those things in which we differ to the height of his following Accusations If none should be endured that cannot Covenant Swear Subscribe Declare and Practice as is required how much less can such as he and I be endured in one Church if we differ as he saith we do O what pardon and forbearance doth our peace require § 3. Of Church-Forms and Essence hear some of his Judgment Pag. 3. The several Congregations and Assemblies of Pastors and People throughout the Kingdom are not limbs and parcels of a Church but they are so many Churches consisting of a Pastor Governing and people governed joyning together in publick worship It is called the Church of England as all the Christian Pastors and people throughout the world are called the Universal Church One Church of which Christ is the transcendent Head I do not see but it is proper to call all the Christian Pastors and people of England One Church P. 6. Christ is the Head of the Church of England and under Christ all the Parish-Ministers are subordinate Guides and Rulers of their Flocks
Heylin charge them on some called Disciplinarians in the last age Ergo I may charge them on the present Non-conformists yea on the whole Chorus yea on their Discipline that desired Bishop Usher's Episcopacy Let it be so that you may be your self As to what you say against the Genevian Principles as against Government c. I answer 1. Why did you not name some one of those Principles and try by what Consequence it inferreth all the Villanies which you name Do not the Papists say the same of the Protestants 2. And next why did you not prove that we hold those rebellious Genevian Principles Were it Christian dealing in me if I should say Because Prins History of Prelates Treasons proveth that multitudes of Prelates have been Traytors therefore our present Prelates are such too But we see what Instruments the Prince of Malice and Calumny useth You tell me that you shall the less believe Confessions because the Parliaments Declarations so differed from their practice Ans 1. But will you falsly accuse the part that is good for the part that is evil Most Christians live not according to the Christian Profession Is the Christian Profession therefore bad and the cause of all their Villanies Will you judge fidem ex homine Will you charge all that upon a mans Religion objectively considered which you find amiss in his life 2. Do you not know that our Question now is not what the men are but what their Principles and Discipline and that it is not the Professio profitens but the Professio professa which is to be disputed of And by what means shall any Church or Party under Heaven defend their Religion against such a Censurer and Disputant as you are They will say that they have the true Religion you will say no for you are not true to your Religion They will say that their Articles are true you will say no they are false because you live not according to them which implieth that they are true and good or else what fault were it to contradict them in practice The Protestant will say Our Religion is sound and agreeable to Gods Word you teach the Papists to answer no it 's false for there are vicious Livers among you And I pray you what number of Sinners must go to prove a Religion Creed or Articles false Must it be all or the major part or will any one serve Must the Kingdom try by the Pole or Vote whether the Vicious or the Vertuous are the greater number among them before they can prove their Religion true Doth the Act go to the Essence of the Object 3. But if it must needs be so I pray dispute no more against the Non-conformists or dispute against them better by your Lives than you have done Will you teach them to argue the XXXIX Articles the Liturgy and Book of Ordination are not true or to be subscribed because the Conformists live thus or thus You know Foreigners and Posterity know not which of the Histories of this Age are true or false Suppose that they should read Mr. White 's Centuries of Drunkards c. ejected from the Ministry and the Records of the Country Committees saying So many and so many were upon Oath proved scandalous Drunkards c. And Ralph Wallis naming so many Drunkards and scandalous Conformists now Would you have them question the Principles and Discipline of the Church of England till they can prove these Histories false I profess to you resolvedly that if I must needs judge that Church or Party to have the soundest Principles and Discipline who have the best lives I should far and very far prefer the Presbyterians Independents and much more the Conciliators before the Prelatists and yet not extenuate any of their Faults But all this is nothing to you that go another way to work Why tell you of mens Professions when you see their contrary Practice When as it is not the Practice only but the Profession that is the Principles and Discipline that you accused And so when their Principles are in question why do we talk to you of their Principles And how silly a shift is all this covered with Because the Parliament promised to make the King the most glorious King if he would return to them c. But 1. Is a Promise and Disciplinarian Principles of the same nature when we question their truth The Promise is not true unless it agree with the Mind of the Promiser of which God is the Iudge till Performance shew it But Principles may be true though he that profess them be never so false 2. And I pray remember that the Parliament were pulled to pieces and conquered by Souldiers even for resolving to close with the King before the King could be cut off But as for the first War I have told you the Authors of it To your next If we must call none Episcopal men that are not faithful to their Principles Then I know not indeed whom I may call such If Parties must be notified by their Fidelity we should have agreed thus to sense the Word before we had disputed for other men speak not thus Did you think I cited Moulin against Philanax to prove that our Principles are better than the Papists Have you read him all and understand him no better I cited him as fully proving historically that the Places now charged with Presbyterianism and Rebellion Geneva Holland c. had changed this Government before or on other accounts Flanders and Brabant joyned with Holland in the change the main Body being Papists who after fell off when the Prince of Orange mentioned Liberty of Religion And for Geneva pag. 27. he faith My business being to vindicate the Reformation from the charge of Rebellion I must take from the Reformers of Geneva that Aspersion that they expelled their Bishop and that they altered the Constitution of that State and both these ascribed to Calvin It is a Tradition received in England as a currant and undoubted Truth A fair Credit to the Prelatists Honesty and historical Veracity And upon that ground many fine and judicious Inferences are built But it is like the Story of the Phoenix and the singing of Swans never the truer What credit can be given to Histories of things bapned in the Indies 2000 years ago if in things done so lately and so near us gross Mistakes go for uncontrolable Truths You know with whom I say it is utterly false that Calvin was one of the Planters of the reformed Religion at Geneva False also that he or the Reformers at Geneva turned their Bishop out of doors And false also that the Bishop went away upon the quarrel of Religion The Bishop was fled eight Months before the Reformation seeing his Conspiracy discovered to oppress the Liberties of the City by the help of the Duke of Savoy for which his Secretary was hanged after he was gone the said Bishop being hated before for the Rape of a Virgin
Colledge though in the great remote end they both agree But you fly to that poor shift of bidding me take heed of absurd and ridiculous Suppositions not argumentative c. As if you had shewed any absurdity in these Suppositions Or as if plain undeniable Instances had no place in Arguments or Answers but were ridiculous Suppositions and he that would say that a Kingdom is greater than a Family and the King than a Master or Major used a ridiculous Supposition Just thus the poor Nonconformists are perswaded by your Pithonalogy to subscribe swear c. But I seem you say to assert this my self by saying there is a small difference between Bishop Usher's Model and the present Answ It 's tedious disputing with one that must have still another Writing to help him to understand that which he will first confute yea and seemeth not willing to understand It is a fallacy A dicte secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I only askt you What Farthing doth it take from their Estates What Title from their Honour Power Negative voice even their Lordships and Parliament places But is this the Question We then laboured to satisfie the unsatisfied Ministers that not only Bishop Usher's Reduction but even the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs had changed the very species of Prelacy without any of those Abatements If you would know it is by one word Consent restoring the inferiour Pastors and Churches though not to their Integrals yet to their Essentials And we were so inclinable to Conformity that on that supposition we had Conformed had but that Declaration stood though some of the Sects are of another mind whom you Arguments would confirm For we judge that a Bishop of one only Church consisting of five hundred or a thousand Chappels or Congregations that are strictly no Churches as having no Bishops doth specifically differ from a Bishop of a thousand Churches which have every one their proper Bishop and so he is truly an Archbishop or General Bishop But I am not to trouble you with this And now how impertinent was it to bid me Rub up my Philosophy about Maximum quod sic minimum quod non Know you not that the common use of those Writers are to intimate the same thing that I am saying against you That there is a subjective maximum minimum which only are capable of the relative form But I am next turned to Vossius de invoc sanct of which he hath there disputed and one Histor Thes and I am not told which of them but the words are in the first Thes 49. to prove that the Saint in Heaven and those on Earth make one Society Quare cum nihil obstat quo minus unius civitatis cives dicamur nec causae quicquam erit quo minus aeque civilis honos dicatur qui civibus coelestibus exhibetur quam qui civibus terrenis Nam grad◠quidem honores isti differunt sed uterque tamen est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And was it possible that you should think that this made for you Because the world or Universe of Rationals are one Body or Society and so civil honour is the same thing as such in genere to them in Heaven as to them on Earth doth it follow that in this universal Society there are no Kingdoms Cities or Families specifically different Nor no different species of the civil honour what not to Kings Parents Masters What a thing is factions Interest Vossius only proveth Generical Identity of civil honour and the specifical difference of it from the honour of Religious Adoration The Church universal is one and the love and honour which we owe to the Saints in Heaven and Earth is Generically of the same kind But do you believe therefore that there are no subordinate Species of Churches and Honour on Earth What not the Honour due to the King the Bishop the Chancellor the Parish Curates the Deacons and the Beggars Yet all this with you are Premises sufficient to conclude And then it may be you may give leave to Magis minus non variant speciem to be a Maxim still See what Evidence it is that must perswade us to Nonconformity Are they not worthy to be silenced and branded as you have done that can resist such Light But you come to the quick and say Is there no Communion but personal Answ Yes else they could not be two ends to make two Societies You add Many of the Kings Subjects never saw his face yet they have many Hands and Eyes in respect of their subordinate Officers so have Diocesans in their Curates Answ Very true And that proveth that a Kingdom is one Society and a whole Diocess also one Ignoras Elenchum But doth that prove that there are no subordinate Societies in these Which though subordinate in point of Power yet specifically differ Is there no such thing as Personal Communion in presence because there is such a thing as distant Communion of another sort For all that your terms of Hands and Eyes would hide it I scarce think you are ignorant that under the King there are Heads as well as Hands and Eyes Heads of Families Schools Colledges Universities Corporations Cities who are constitutive parts of real Societies which are not of the same species with a Kingdom though in it And if Archbishops be of God's appointment so it should be with Archbishops and Bishops and every Church should have a Bishop But if you will not have it so but we must only have a Bishop and Curates and a Diocesan Church and Chappels you betray our Cause to the Brownists who easily prove No Bishop or Pastor no Church in sensu politico And so when you have granted them that we have no true Parish Churches there are few of them whose Wit is so weak as not to disprove the pretended right of such Diocesan Churches as consist of the Carkasses of many hundred mortified Parish Churches § 50. My Answer I must not repeat take it how you will you here come to the very Controversie I will not begin it with you because I cannot prosecute it I have so much to say on it as at these rates may engage you and me in dispute for many years if we lived so long which I find no reason allowing me to undertake Get me leave to Write and Publish it and I will write you a just Volume of it since it is published till then I again tell you I have said enough though too negligently in my Dispute of Church Government though one hath nibled at the Forms of some Arguments in it If you would have more answer Gers Bucer Parker and Ames's fresh Suit to name no other § 50. I shewed the invalidity 1. Of your Licitis honestis 2. And of former Obedience sub poena anathematis as nothing to our case in hand and do you deny what I said and disprove it 2. I tell you that so far as Bishops or
respectively P. 7. Some are as Colonels of Regiments others as Captains of Troops the Body is but One the Members many P. 13. The New Testament saith The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 2. the Churches of Judea Asia Yet One body All the faithful make One heavenly City one Church of the first born so that Gods Church on Earth is Many Churches and yet but One Church Do you not think now that we are agreed But hear him judge himself P. 15. I will shew one common Errour or mistake in multitudes of our able Divines That those we call particular Churches are counted Parts and Members of the Church Universal This I deny Mr. Baxter makes the Church of England or the Churches of England to be an integral part of the Church Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom So the Independents I overthrow this Errour by this Argument One and the same thing cannot be both a Body and a Member a whole and a part a society and one single person But that which we call a single or particular Church is not a Member but a Body it is not a limb or part of a Church but a whole and entire Church It hath a whole within it London is not a Member of England but a City and aggregation of Members It 's no less than a flat contradiction in terms what Dr. Ames saith Medul l. 1. c. 32. that a particular Church est Membrum ex aggregatione variorum Membrorum singulorum compositum contrary to common reason and plain Scripture P. 18. A bare Member in the Body hath no Authority but acteth by mere natural life and appetite and is not endued with rational authority nor can be capable of any That which we call a single Church is a Catholick or Universal Church It hath an Universal Head To be a Christian is to be of an universal impartial spirit where there is an All there is an Universal But every single Church hath an All within it the Pastor and all his flock The Church Universal and particular do only differ as to place and number A Church of godly Ministers and people in France Holland and England differ but as to place Every Church of Christians must needs be a Church Universal not a limb or member of another Church but a true body or entire Christian society P. 20. Christs Body is One not as one is opposed to Multitude but to division contrariety and destruction § 4. P. 21. This leads me to shew the unsoundness of another part of Mr. Baxters Doctrine and some others with him He saith There are two essentially different Policies or Forms of Church-Government of Christs Institution never to be altered by man 1. The Form of the Universal Church as Headed by Christ himself which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism 2. Particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors and are parts of the Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom And he defines the Universal Church to be The universality of Baptized Christians headed by Christ himself These his sayings contain many Errours I will first note them out and then confute and prove them to be Errours 1. It is an Errour in the art of defining to put in those words Headed by Christ himself 2. It is another Errour to define the Universal Church without Guides and Ministers as one essential constituent part 3. It is another Errour to say that the Universal Church and Churches particular differ essentially 1. It is an Errour in the art of desining to say Headed by Christ himself that 's supposed but need not be in the definition He finds fault himself with such a defect in the definition of a particular Church Grant them to be Christians and you grant they own Christ 2. It is an Errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors So doth the Assemblies Confession and Mr. Hudson His definition of the Church without Pastors is as if he defined a living healthful man without a stomach liver or lungs P. 24. 3. If there be an essential difference between Church and Church what then is the difference between the Church and the World Heaven and Hell the righteous and the wicked How can any man know which is the right Church We shall never be able to confute Popery nor Infidelity by this Doctrine For this Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors and of this Christ is Head himself Particular Churches of which Christ is no Head but particular Pastors are the Heads By this Doctrine the same thing shall be contrary to it self Christs Church in this world is but one And can one and the same thing have two different Essences beings and definitions Quae conveniunt uno tertio c. But the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio They stand on one foundation are directed by one rule quickned by one spirit an addition of homogeneous Particles makes no essential difference It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself and that the essentiating principles of Church holiness order and government are black and white darkness and light P. 25. If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand Two essentially different Forms of Churches will infer two sorts of Holiness the one repugnant to the other yet subordinata non pugnant If Christ set up two repugnant or essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world O dreadful § 5. P. 92. A word more ad hominem of that opinion That particular Churches are parts of the Universal as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom This is Mr. Baxters opinion why then do you blame the turning all the Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them to be but parts of the Diocesan as a Troop is of an Army c. who sees not that your Doctrine doth the same that you condemn c. If they are but parts and Members of another Church the Universal then they are not Churches It is not unlikely but you can find somewhat to say in defence of this your self-contradicting Doctrine but I believe it will match your wit were it ten times more and prove too hard for you Look to it if your disputations against Prelacie stand down goes this main assertion of yours If your disputations against Prelacie be found to have a hollow and false bottom then you have made you work for repentance you have greatly injured the Church of God and particularly the Church of England and have deceived a great many Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope to be to all the Pastors Churches and Christians through the world That do you make this which you call the Church Universal for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastors are parts and members of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up
so of every one City Corporation c. is no part of it I would desire them to allow him his own Exposition for he mcaneth not so ill as he saith § XV. To say that one whole cannot be a Member or part of another whole is yet if possible more than the former What may not Corpus politicum be a member of a larger body Politick Is there any part of the Universe if this be true at least save Atomes and Spirits And in what sense an Atome or Anima or Spiritus may be called totum Scaliger and the Schoolmen and Metaphysicks commonly tell you Are not whole stones part of Mountains and whole Trees of the Forrest and whole Herbs of the whole Garden and whole Fields of the whole Countrey and whole Parishes of the whole Diocess and County and those of the Kingdom and that of Europe and that of the world Is not a whole hand or foot part of a whole man Is not the mateial Universe made up of compounded parts What a trick has he found to exempt us all from Government every man may say I am a whole man therefore I am no part of the Bishop of Londons Diocess or of the Parish or of the Family Deny or destroy all such parts and you deny or destroy the whole Did he think that all Noun Substantives signified the same thing which have the same Adjective and that a whole Man and a whole Dog or World are all one § XVI It 's little better when he argueth that homogeneal parts make not a new species As if he could prove that the Church is Totum homogeneum Are not Christ and Christians the King and the Subjects of the Universal Church partes heterogeneae in esse politico relativo Are not Bishops and Laicks partes heterogeneae Had he forgot how much of his Book is to prove even Bishops and Presbyters as widely different No Christian denyeth it of the Church Universal nor any of single Churches that denyes not a Ministry and the being of such Churches as Political § XVII While thus he maketh National Churches Metropolitical Diocesane Parochial and the very Independent which he most revileth all one or of one essential species it seemeth that he knoweth not how he unsaith most that he said before § XVIII It is little better that he maketh several Churches viz. at Paris and at Plimouth c. to differ only in Number and Place 1. Do not the Popish Protestant Episcopal and Presbyterian differ in the Form of Government 2. Do not those of the same Form differ as Individuals by their several Rulers besides abundance of accidental differences § XIX And what Doctrine is it to say Christs Body is one not as one is opposed to multitude but to division and destruction Hath Christ a multitude of Bodies univocally so called even such a Body as we treat of Hath Christ many Universal Churches containing all Christians headed by Christ § XX. When he had so grosly wronged himself as to say It is an errour in the art of defining to say of the Universal Church it is Headed by Christ himself what other Head or formal Regent part doth he name will he have another or will he have none in the definition Is that the art of defining § XXI It 's little better to say Is is an errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors as the Assembly did What! a better Logician than all the Assembly too Alas how fell the good man under this temptation He instanceth in a body defined without Liver Stomack c. But 1. I hope he doth not think all is excluded that is not to be named 2. Is there no better definition of a man than Animal implume bipes c. or one that hath a Liver and Stomack c. When to the Entelechia or anima he added Corpus organicum Aristotle thought he said enough of the body Is not Animal rationale a just definition of a man without naming his Liver and Spleen or Heart Is not the Genus differentia enough for a definition Definitiones debent esse breves nihil otiosum continere otiosum est quo ablato definitio reliqua rei essentiam explicat A Kingdom is defined by naming no more than the King and Subjects in general without naming Judges Justices Sheriffs c. There are no constitutive principles in Nature but Mater materiae dispositio forma And the imperfect definitions of accidents must be as like as may be to those of substances The specifying form here is only Christ the Head so related Though he made Christians before Ministers and were all Pastors dead the Church were still Christs Universal Body yet I grant it is not a just organized body without Pastors but that maketh them but to be the nobler part of the disposed matter men do not use to play the Anatomists in definitions and instead of Animal or of Corpus organicum to name Heart Stomack Lungs c. But it is a healthful man that Mr. Ch. is defining Answ 1. But it is not a healthful Church but a true Church in essence that I was defining 2. If it had been otherwise the name of the parts need not enter the definition of health And are these his saving truths § XXII And what an intimation is it that if there be an essential difference between the Universal and particular Church there 's none between the Church and the world the righteous and the wicked Heaven and Hell These things are fitter to be answered by Interjections which be no words but voces non vocabula than by Speech If Christ and a Bishop in esse relationis politicae differ essentially must good and bad Heaven and Hell be all one If an Army and a Regiment and a Troop differ in their formal specifying essences must a Subject and a Rebel the Court and the Gallows therefore be all one Proh apage § XXIII Next he asks How can any man know the right Church then Answ What! no way but by making Christ and a Bishop formally the Head we know the Universal Church by its true definition and a true particular Church by its true definition and properties § XXIV Yea he saith we shall never be able to confute Popery and Infidelity by this Doctrine Answ Alas will the good man turn Papist or Infidel unless the Universal Church and a Diocesane have the same specifying difference or formal Head Then what remedy § XXV I have no Interjection deep enough for that which followeth viz. This Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors Putares and of this Christ is Head particular Churches of which Christ is no Head Putares Where said I any such thing Is this lawful As if 1. there must be no Pastors unless they be the formal Head of the Universal Church 2. And as if there must be no Christ the Supream Head if the Bishop be the formal differencing specifying
cannot do for all And he saith It 's all one to your Doctrine if he refuse your Church-covenant The Minister all this while is no Minister the People all this while are no Christians They are no more lawful Pastor and People than Whoremonger and Whore going together and committing acts of filthiness and living in Fornication all their days Ans Continued Calumny as to me Is no modesty or tender fear of sinning against the Ninth Commandment left 1. He that refuseth Consent to be a stated Member is none such But is he therefore no Christian Awake Conscience Do any Independents say that none are Christians but their special charge yea or stated Members of particular Churches If there be any such what 's that to me 2. Such persons may be Members of the Universal Church and I am a Pastor in the Universal Church and as such may communicate with them 3. If he desire temporary Communion he consents to as much as he desireth and that he may have If he desire more he shall have more § 19. But saith the Accuser what speak you of Literae Communicatoriae These are nothing to yourcase he saith it ergo he proveth it It shuts him out of all particular Churches and Congregations under Heaven except c. Ans Putares of me it 's thus true or false 1. He that consents not to be a stated Member of any Church none because he would be none and it 's blind self-contradiction to say that I shut him out because he will not come in 2. He that consenteth to be a Member of the Universal Church shall not be shut out 3. He that by literas Communicatorias or any good testimony sheweth himself a Christian and desireth onely one days temporary Communion with a stated particular Church shall not be denied that which he desireth nor will we urge him to more § 19. XV. He adds It layeth waste Parish-bounds leaving people to go to what Church they will Intimating that being a godly man and a Parishioner doth not make him a Member of the Parish-Church Teaching people to be disorderly Ans 1. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia I said enough before to prove the falsehood of your Church-estate 1. Then there were no Church till there were Parish-bounds 2. Then if Papists Anabaptists c. be godly and dwell in the Parish they are Members against their wills 3. And they are Members of two particular Churches one in despight of them and of the other as Consenters 4. There are some Houses that are in no Parish that I have known Alas these must be of no Church 5. Some parts of one Parish are in the middle of another The truth is Parish-bounds are ordinarily of good use for Order and Order is for Edification and to promote the thing ordered and he layeth it not waste 1. That giveth it no more than its due as a humane mutable circumstance and not as essential 2. Nor he that refuseth it when it is turned against the end and the res ordinanda § 20. XVI He addes Then if the Pastor set over them be a son of Belial and sinfully tolerated by the Magistrate the people of the Parish who can neither remove him nor sit under a more edifying Minister must covenant to him c. Ans Strange who would have thought but this was neerer your opinion than theirs Briefly if the man be tolerable they must rather accept of him than have none If he be intolerable in the Ministry they may use such common gifts as he hath as we read even a Cicero but they must be of no particular Church till they can be so on lawful terms Even a Council of the Popes decreed that till men can have lawful Pastors they must forbear that Communion that supposeth such And who can doubt of it § 21. XVII Next he quibbles onely with a Question How long shall it last Answ How long will you be of the Parish-Priests or the Diocesans Flock or of a Physicians Hospital We cannot secure men from providential changes a day and therefore would not have them to binde themselves but on such suppositions He that means to go to morrow to another Countrey should consent but to this days Communion He that intendeth here to dwell must consent to the relation of a stated Member of that Flock till he remove or till God shew him just cause to change that relation till then he should know his proper Pastors § 22. XVIII Next he questioneth Who shall degrade them that prove Heretical or Scandalous c. Ans The Ordainers made him a Minister by Investiture c. and yet without our consent he was not related to us as our Pastor or we to him as part of that Church And so we may withdraw our consent and become none of his special Church-flock and leave it to the Ordainers to degrade him if he must be degraded as to the world and Church Universal One would think this Answer should be undeniable But he goeth on with his dismal accusations p. 116. The particular Church-covenant is a thing of mans invention no where required of God it is destructive to the Church and Souls should it be practised Ans Seeing Covenanting and known Consenting are all one with him what a dreadful damning sin doth the man make it for to consent to be under our Pastors Office Then he that would escape damnation must not consent to the office of the Parish-priest much less of the Bishop much less swear obedience to the Bishop And least of all say or swear never to endeavour any alteration We have need to bless us from Conformity if Consenting be so damnable But what meant he to say should it be practised Doth he not know that it is practised by them all and so that this Judge doth damn them all § 23. XIX He next answereth two of our pretences 1. From the Election of Ministers by the people And saith Election is quite another thing till they are ordained they are no men in office but persons designed Ans Alas that the man that hath all this while been damning others should not see that he hath so damned himself yea and quite exceeded my damning errour This it is to print with the zeal described Jam. 3. before men know what it is that they talk of Note that he is not against the peoples election if he be intelligible and yet elsewhere They are Rebels and no Christians that stand not to the King and Parliaments election 2. Note that he talks of one election to the Office of the Ministry as such and I talk of another election even to be our particular Pastor For this Physician to be my Physician 3. Note that the mans bare word must against all common use and reason perswade us that Consent which I require is more than Election which is much less The Elector nominateth and first determineth of the person Consent may come after even in obedience
to the Elector The King electeth the Bishop and the Patron the incumbent Parson Doth every one that after consenteth do more or must we lay by our senses in believing such Writers against damning errour 4. Note that he quite overgoeth the truth on the popular extream which he accuseth others of As if the people must elect a man to the indefinite Office of a Minister as such which is false Christ sent out his Apostles and the Apostles sent abroad a converting Church-gathering Ministry without any popular election The Ordainers must chuse who shall be a Minister by his consent The Christian people should chuse and must consent at least who shall be the special Guide of their own Souls or their Pastor in particular And the Magistrate must chuse 1. Whom he will maintain and encourage 2. Whom he will tolerate How came he to think that Election is nothing to the case as if Consent were something more yet is he at it again P. 119. They make it another Baptism § 24. XX. Next he answereth our saying that No man can be a Pastor to a people against their wills And doth he say Yea or Nay Neither plainly but talks of somewhat else and saith He is a Pastor by Office and Calling whether the people will or not and so Pastor and people are not simul naturâ As if the equivocating with the word Pastor warranted him to damn his Brethren and confound Church-order As a Pastor signifieth but a Minister commissioned to become the actual undertaking Guide of a particular Church-flock when he is called to it so this man may be called a Pastor aptitudinal as a man is a Captain that hath Commission to raise a Troop But as the word Pastor signifieth one that is actually the Overseer of a particular Church-flock he is none till he have a Flock and in both senses Pastor and Flocks are relate and correlate simul naturâ that is in the first simul in esse cognito intentionali In the later in esse existente But saith he God is God whether the people will or no and Christ is Christ Apostles are Apostles and so faithful ordained Ministers are Pastors Ans This is but the fallacy of the foresaid equivocation of the word Pastor 1. God is not made God nor Christ made Christ nor Apostles or indefinite Ministers such by contract or humane consent But he that said Come out from amongst them c. I will be your God and you shall be my people and maketh some a holy Nation and peculiar people c. is so related to none but Consenters Christ is an offered Saviour to refusers but he is not the Saviour and Head of any as Christians or a Church actually but Consenters without consent we are not materia disposita receptive of the peculiar relation A man may be authorized to be a Tutor Schoolmaster Physician Captain Master c. without my consent but he is not my Tutor Master c. till I consent save aptitudinally not actually 2. And these relations are more dependent on humane Contract or Consent than Gods being God c. But saith he If all be Pagans the Minister lawfully ordained and appointed to convert and baptize and be a Pastor to them is a true full and compleat Pastor before he have christened one soul of them Ans True or false as the equivocation is taken As one decreed to be a Husband to a Wife that is yet unborn may by the deceiving improper language of an equivocator be said to be the true full and compleat Husband of her yet unborn or unmarried that is one designed to be a Husband hereafter in a proper sense so here But Pastor est ovium seu gregis Pastor Analogum per se positum stat pro significato famosiore Heathens are no Church Ergo no man is a Pastor of them as a Church Is he a compleat Pastor of a Flock that hath none § 25. XXI But saith he Mark the matter you are baptized a godly man I have nothing against you onely this I cannot take you for one of my Flock unless by a voluntary consent c. I must shut you out as an Apostate or a Pagan Ans Calumny and Deceit conjunct 1. It 's immodest calumny to say as an Apostate or a Pagan I take him for a Christian and on due testimony shall admit him to such Communion lawful as he himself desireth 1. Whether as a Member of the Universal Church 2. Or also as a fixed Member of another Church desiring temporary transient Communion here 2. It is gross Deceit to say I put him out that refuseth to come in If I give him no more than he is willing of what do I put him out from If I take him not for a Member of my proper stated Charge it is because he desireth it not I thank God I never was a proper Pastor to any People against their wills nor ever will be were I capable of more service § 26. But saith he This makes against you Can any man forbid these people from being Members of the Particular Church that are of the Universal Ans Self-contradiction Do we forbid them that are not willing or do they forbid themselves Doth the Physician forbid them to be his Patients that consent not Do we shut them out that will not come in Yet he feigneth us to do no less than cast them out of the Church Universal as casting them out of all Particulars under Heaven Ans Calumny hath got such a channel that his Writing runneth commonly that way 1. I cast them out of no Church under Heaven who will not consent to come in 2. Were they of no particular Church they may be in the Universal as I before proved of many sorts § 27. He next noteth that it is but signified Consent that I require But he saith neither Christ nor his Apostles mention it and all the Church are without it Ans Let us trie here whether this be true or false and all his damning and unchristning censures fall not on the Holy Ghost and all the Churches I. It is certain that besides Ministers unfixed and of general indefinite work there were by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles time fixed Churches of Neighbour-Christians setled II. It is certain that these had fixed Pastors of their own that were related to them specially as their special Charge so as they were not related to all or any other Churches III. It is certain that these Pastors had not equal authority to go into all other mens Diocesses or Parishes and say You are as much my Charge as any others and play the Bishops in other mens Diocesses though when they had a Call they might be Ministerial Temporary Helpers IV. It is certain that these Pastors were specially obliged to many Offices for those peculiar Flocks which to other Churches they were not so obliged to but onely to occasional help Dr. Hammond nameth many of them and so do
think the Imposers meant that all men should stay away till they had a full trust and quiet Conscience But that 's the plain importance of the words Here therefore it is more ill words than ill meaning which I do deny Assent and Consent to § 27. X. Pag. 38. About compelling each Communicant to receive thrice a year he saith 1. It is the Statute not the Minister 2. It is only the duely qualified Answ 1. The Bishops are Statute-makers 2. Nothing more common with the Canoneers than to call to Magistrates to execute such Laws 3. The Canons and Liturgy require it 4. It is not true that it 's only the duely qualified It is all that are not Naturally but Morally unfit that is that are at Age and have Reason and Health If the Priest should put away any as unfit he must accuse them to the Chancellor and they must be Excommunicate and lie in Jayl while they live unless they Communicate So that here is a plain Exposition 4. There are multitudes unfit to Communicate whom the Minister cannot put away that were they not constrained would keep away themselves as secret Atheists Infidels Sadduces Socinians Arians Seekers secret Fornicators Thieves Drunkards c. that are conscious of their Sin and Impenitence But rather than lie in Jayl will all Communicate § 28. Impl. What deplorable times are we fallen into that our highest Priviledge should be counted a great grievance c. Answ Still deceit 1. Is it our highest Priviledge to have unfit men constreined to prophane holy things and profess themselves what they are not and the dogs forced in that should lie without Is Christ's Discipline against our highest Priviledges 2. Who knoweth not that Infidels Sadduces and wicked men do account these Priviledges to be none Cure them of their Contempt and you need not force them by a Jayl Till then is it the Pastors that refuse such till they voluntary seek it or the Contemners of these Priviledges that are to be reproved Christ giveth pardon and life to none but desirous Consenters and if you will seal and deliver the promise of it to those that will but prefer it to a Jayl and make up your Churches on such terms we dare not imitate you The Church-Keys exercised are as Tertullian speaketh Praejudicium futuri judicii and should intimate to men who they be that shall be let into Heaven or shut out And to say Come all and take Christ Pardon and Life who will rather take the Sacrament than lye in a Jayl is like another Gospel § 29. XI The pronouncing Salvation to all that they bury save the three excepted sorts Unbaptized Excommunicate and Self-murderers is the next And 1. he will not have the words to signifie Salvation The words are Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great Mercy to take to himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed And we give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world And That we may rest in Him Christ as our hope is this our brother doth If all this signifie not Salvation in your judgment it doth in ours We accuse not you of deceiving Souls at a time when it will take the deepest impression but we only tell you we dare not Assent and Consent to that which to us would be false Equivocation and that in so serious a thing And if the difference be but Grammatical doth it deserve our Silencing and ruine to believe that those words import Salvation § 30. But 2. he saith Christian Charity teacheth us to hope the best of all that die in the Communion of the Church Answ It is not Christian Charity which is contrary to the Christian Verity and Covenant Nor that which tendeth to undo the living by false hopes Hobbes and such others as oppose Fundamentals deride Christianity or the Immortality of the Soul some by Writing some by common Talk do die in the Church of England I have heard Preachers lament their Numbers Impudence and Increase but never heard one of them Excommunicate nor brought to publick Repentance All die in the Church that Communicate rather than lie in Jayl and be ruined yea thousands that will not Communicate notwithstanding such Severities When in a Parish of 8000 or 10000 Communicants no more even on a Whitsunday than about 100 Communitate though the Minister be one of the best yet the rest are still in your Church We desire the highest degree of Charity But such a judgment of mens future state though called Charitable seemeth to us so fearfully uncharitable that it is one of the greatest things in which we seem to differ And I will not shew the rise and the import and tendency of it lest Dr. Fullwood and the Reflecter on Sacril Desert say again that I gather too hard Consequences from our Difference But nobis non licet Must we be Silenced and ruined for want of such Charity § 31. XII Silencing such as think the Surplice unlawful is the next pag. 42. And he saith If any man against such Authority and Arguments should think the Surplice unlawful it is better he should be Silenced than that the Churches Peace and Order be disturbed or antient Laws abrogated Answ You have owned it If it be well done you may partake of the Reward If ill of the Punishment Qu. Whether consenting so to Silence 2000 and 9000 if they had not Conformed will not make your Reward greater than if you had consented and subscribed to the Silencing but of one His blood be on us and on our Children were the words of Factious Zeal that escaped not without punishment Paul that consented to the death of Stephen and hunted others saith He was mad yea exceeding mad against them Christ never laid the Order and Peace of the Church nor the Preaching of the Gospel on such things nor ever encouraged any to do it Of which see Bishop Jer. Tailor in the words largely cited in my Second Plea § 32. XIII Though Athanasius Creed as to the damnatory part was that which Mr. Dodwell scrupled I will not answer this mans equivocating Exposition of it lest I be thought to tempt others to blame the Creed itself which I honour Where he saith p. 43. I frequently and falsely accuse the Conformists of Socinian or Antitrinitarian Doctrine Let him tell us where or else I accuse him as a false Accuser But it 's his mode § 33. XIV Whereas all must Assent and Consent to read the Common-Prayer every day of the year if not specially hindred he tells us what reason there is for it But 1. will it not necessitate the omission in many places of more necessary works 2. What encouragement have we to embody with that Tribe who all Consent to this and not one of multitudes of them do it Is such Conformity tolerable and our Preaching intolerable without it § 34. XV. Pag. 46. He calls