must be taken cum graâ—â— salis or else they may prove insipid if not worse As 1. Christ took upon him our nature essentially but he bestows his flesh and blood upon us spiritually and mystically 2. The union of the two natures in Christ was proper and personal into one person hypostatically as the Soul and Body in us make one man But the union of many persons with Christ is not into one nature properly but mystically into one person we are members of his body flesh bones but mystically otherwise the union of many persons into one nature should be like that of Christs two natures into one person hypostatically And like unto the union of the three persons in the Trinity into the same nature or essence which is incomprehensible 3. We are made parts of him of his mystical body that he and we become thereby as it were that is improperly and mystically one Christ 4. We are made partakers of the Divine nature not essentially and personally as Christ but in its graces and operations as generally all Divines understand it renewed by the Spirit into that Divine Image which we had by nature but lost by the fall 5. The same Spirit is indeed in Christ and in us but with this assigned difference In him dwelleth the fulness of it fulness of grace and truth Joh. 1.14 it is bestowed on us in measure 6. This same Spirit makes us one with him that is still mystically not as the Soul of man being one makes with the body one man for that is hypostatically and personally one The words thus expounded and candyed may passe for Orthodox otherwise not to be admitted But now in his Tract of Schism p. 94. of Schism he is declined into that Heterodox opinion so judged by most and best Divines that the holy Spirit dwells personally and essentially in us For 1. he tells us he cannot consent that the Divine nature given us should be no more than the new creature 2 That it is in the person of the Spirit wherof we are by the promise made partakers he is the Spirit of promise pag. 95. and in the participation of the Divine nature consists the union of the Saints with Christ 3. That the union of the head and members is the oneness of the Soul whereby the whole is animated and that which answers hereunto in the mystical body of Christ is the animation of the whole by his Spirit Now every body knows that the Soul is the form of a man and the union of Soul and Body is personal So then must the union of Christ and his body the Church be personal as animated by the same Spirit if the person of the holy Spirit be the Soul that animates the body of Christ And so he saies it is The form of the Church Catholick p. 236. absolutely so called is the unity with Christ and in it self by the one Spirit whereby it is animated I shall not enter upon the contest at this time it being a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the main businesse its enough to shew the difference of himself from himself then and now § 5 We now return after this digression to consider with him the evidences and signs of an extraordinary vocation which some of late pretend unto There is only one thing briefly to be taken notice of that is Whether the Ministers of the Gospel are by the Scripture to be called Priests which name some have arrogated and ascribed to the Clergy O which he affirms peremptorily p. 25. The name of Priests is no where in the Scripture attributed distinctly to the Ministers of the Gospel Priests and Prelates are a sort of Church Officers whom Christ never appointed c. These were his then thoughts and its like are so still only I would desire to know why he gives that name its suppoâ—ed in scorn to the Ministers of our particular Congregations calling them Parochial Priests or Schism p. 235. I leave him to give or others to guesse the reason of that Appellation and so proceed to what I named before § 6 There are but three waies given by him to receive and be assured that a man is extraordinarily called to the Teaching of others or to be a Preacher 1. p. 30. By immediate Revelation 2. By concurrence of Scripture Rules 3. By some outward acts of providence Concerning w ich in general it may be said 1. That p. 28. he thus resolved In cases extraordinary it may perhaps be affirmed that every one that is allowed to teach or preach the Gospel for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God But of all his three wayes named only one of them is by immediate call from God viz. that of immediate Revelation such as the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles had the other by Rules of Scripture and Acts of providence are but mediate calls or warrants and may be common to all Christians as the case may be 2. Before this p. 15. and again p. 40. In such extraordinary cases of a corrupt Church c. no more is required but Gifts in the man and consent of the people which latter is an outward call and that by men and the former a call from God inward indeed but not immediate These things do not well agree § 7 But come to the particulars The first way of extraordinary calling is immediate Revelation This is specially in two cases p. 33. 1. Either the inchoation of some divine worke to be established among men by a new revelation of Gods will 2. Or a restauration of the same when collapsed and corrupted by men The only question will be Whether there be any revelation to be expected now with respect to either of those And he answers negatively to both To the first thus Nothing in such a way shall again take place God having ultimatly revealed his mind concerning his worship and our salvation c. To the second thus There being an infallible Rule for the performance of it making it fall within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation and instructed with ordinary Gifts God doth not alwaies immediatly call men unto it But grant that he doth not alwaies immediatly call men to it as oft he did heretofore it would have been resolved Whether sometimes God do now immediatly call men to the work of Restauration of Religion To which he saies nothing If he shall say he does not he contradicts himself who said p. 28. In this case of a corrupted Church every one for such an undertaking must have a warrant by an immediate call from God If he say he does sometimes immediatly now call men to it I would say 1. This is needless by his own grant For there being an infallible rule it falls within the duty and ability of men partakers of an ordinary vocation instructed with ordinary Gifts as he newly said 2. And then I would call for those
two holy good men first fell into a paroxysm of contention and presently separated and parted asunder 2. Basil's definition is almost the same who makes schism to be a division arising from some Church controversies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the unlawful Conventicles the ordinary consequents of such division First they raise divisions that 's the first degree of Schism from Schism they fall into Heresie the second degree and then separate into new conventions pag. 46. which is the highest Schism Nor because of later years honest and pious meetings for Religion were called Conventicles and Schism therefore may men conclude that there is now no Schism in unlawful Conventions apart from a true Church when it shall be determined so to be 3. The Common definition given That Schism is a causelesse separation from the communion and worship of any true Church c. presupposes a Division in that Church which occasions that separation one party not being satisfied by the other The Crime of which separation must be taken and judged by the unjustness of the cause thereof which cannot be in a true Church but in those that separate from it For if a Church be either no true Church or so extreamly corrupted that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it without sin such a separatâ—on is no Schism but they are the Schâ—smaticks who give the cause of that separation But the Reverend Doctor is very large in his allowance of Separation pag. 46. for he saies Certain he is that a separation from some Churches true or pretended so to be is commanded in the Scripture so that the withdrawing from any Church or society whatever upon the plea of its corruption be it true or false with a mind resolution to serve God in the due observation of Church institutions according to that light which we have received is no where called Schism nor condemned as a thing of that nature c. If this be true there will be found but litle or no Schism in any Church or in the World If a man may lawfully separate from a true Church as well as from a false and that upon a false plea of its corruption as well as true only with a good mind to serve God in Church institutions true or conceited by his own light all the Sectaries Separatists Donatists Brownists in the world may be justified But this will come again below thither I shall remit the particular scanning of it § 12 Now lest by the former indulgence any should surmise p. 47. that he complyes with them that have slight and contemptible thoughts of Schism or to plead for his own Separation from our true Churches as we are able to prove them he will at present heighten the heinousnesse of Schism when he hath first considered what aggravations others have put upon it § 13 1. Some say it is a renting of the seamlesse coat of Christ pag. 48. but saies he they seem to have mistaken their aim and instead of aggravating extenuated it a rent of the body is not hightned in its being called the renting of a seamless coat But this is but a nicity I suppose they us'd it only by way of allusion à minore ad majus The Souldiers thought it not wisdom to divide that seamlesse coat whereby it would be rendered uselesse to all how much more heinous was it to rent his Body The Church is called Christs mystical Body Look then as it was an heinous thing to those Souldiers to divide his seamless coat and much more to divide by piercing his natural body so it is more hainous to rent his body mystical which must needs reach to him the Head This is the Apostles way of arguing 1 Cor. 1.13 Is Christ divided 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divided into parts q. d. Do you not by these divisions divide and rent the Body of Christ and does not Christ himself suffer in such divisions But enough of that § 14 2. It is usually said to be a sin against Charity pag. 49. as Heresie is against Faith but is Schism so a sin against Charity doth it supplant and root out love out of the Heart He means so as Heresie does the Faith But that 's not the question but whether Schism be not a sinne against Charity as well though not as much as Heresie is a sin against Faith And suppose it do not root out Charity may it not supplant or at least suppress weaken it may it not interrupt the exercise of the duties of love as he said above p. 27. their Church order as to Love Peace Union were wofully disturbed with divisions c. And if Schism be persisted in it may in the end root out Charity and be inconsistent with it as well as Heresie doth the Faith Nor does every Heresie root out all Faith a man may be an Heretick in one Article and Orthodox in the Faith in others Yea pag. 49. himself here confesses men by Schism are kept off from the performance of any of those offices and duties of love which are useful or necessary for the preservation of the bond of perfection and then is it or may in some sense be said to be a sin against Love When the Apostle saies that Love is the bond of perfection because it preserves that perfect and beautifull order amongst the Saints notwithstandâ—ng all hinderances and oppositions made by Schism He tells us rather what true love is in it self and ought to be in us than what it is manifested to be in mens corrupt hearts and conâ—ersations Divisions among them breaches of Love so he pag. 69. pag. 50. They then that described it to be open breach of love aimed near at the true nature it which his wary consideration doth not excuse from Schism For suppose it were possibâ—e for a man to be all and do all that those were and did whom the Apostle judges for Schismaticks under the power of some violent temptation and yet have his heart full of love to the Saints to the communion disturbed by him which is very rare Yet that person who ever he be could not be excused from Schism and a breach of charity any more than those whom the Apostle calls Schismaticks who no doubt some of them were under some violent temptation It is again confessed It is thus far a breach of love in its own nature in that in such men Love cannot exert it self in its utmost tendency in wisdom and forbearance for the preservation of order in the Church If this had been said at first this had been enough to aggravate the sinfulnesse of Schism § 15 3. As for those who say it is a rebellion against the Rulers of the Church if they mean it pag. 50. in regard of their Canons and imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies c. let them plead for themselves But if he mean that Schism may be raised against the
of our Divines as we shall shew hereafter our cause being defensible without this Plea But I am farre more unsatisfied that he undertakes the cauâ—e of the Donatists and labours to exempt them from Schism though he allows them guiltie of other Crimes and Miscarriages The grounds of this undertaking I suppose to be 1. His singular notion of Schism limiting it onely to differences in a particular Assembly 2. His jealousie of the charge of Schism to be objected to himselfe and partie if separating from the true Churches of Christ be truely called Schism For the ventilating whereof I suppose we may without flattery or falshood p. 163. grant him his request in respect to our selves not to Rome that is put the whole Protestant Church of God into that condition of Libertie and soundnesse of doctrine which it was in when that uprore was made by the Donatists Certainely most of the Protestant Churches our own among them have as much Libertie are as sound in doctrine and as if not more sincere and incorrupt in worship than those Churches from which the Donatists separated they being not onely troubled with Heresies as we all are but pestered with mulâ—itude of Ceremonies from which wee are freed And now we shall take his thoughts of the Donatists Schism into consideration The objection raised by himselfe is this p. 162. Doth not Austine and the rest of his contemporaries charge the Donatists with Schism because they departed from the Catholicke Church and doth not the charge rise up wâ—th equall efficacie against you as them At least doth it not gâ—ve you the nature of Schism in another sense than is by you granted This objection concernes not us the generality of Protestants who grant that sense of Schism that it is a breach â—f union or a causelesse separation from the true Churches of Christ but it lyes in full force against him and his partie who â—ave broken the union of our Churches and separated themselvs from all the Protestant Churches in the world not of their own constitution and that as no true Churches of Christ for lack as they say of a right constâ—tution We know indeed where and by whom this Cloud is scattered without the least annoyance to the Protestant cause as formerâ—y stated even as himselfe hath stated it and produced the answers of our learned Divines p. 190. § 47. c which he highly approves p. 192. though he rest not in it but rather cleaves to his own way as we shalll see erre long p. 194. That his designe is to vindicate himselfe and his partie as well as the Donatists from charge of Schism is evident by what hâ— sayes I shall cleerly deliver my thoughts concerning the Donatists whâ—ch will be comprehensive also of those other that suffer with them in former and after ages under the same imputation It will therefore be necessary or very expedient to consider how neer their case comes to be parallell with that of the Donatists both for matter and manner of mannaging it and then how he will free them and himselfe from Schism For the first The Donatists having raised causlesse differences in the Church about Cecilianus being ordained by the Traditores which whether it were true or false was no just ground of casting him out of Communion § 17 made that the ground of their separation how ever they took in other things as is usual into their defence afterwards § 16. The principles they first fell upon were those two long since named 1. That they were the onely Church of Christ in a corner of Afrâ—ca 2. That none were truely baptâ—sed or entered members of the Church of Christ but by some of their partie That the Stage is changed from Africa into America is evident but that these were the principles of the Brownists and are now of all Independents for all Sects are Independents I need not exemplifie by drawing up the parallel he that runnes may read it in their books and practice I wonder not that the Doctor hath unchurched Rome for he hath done as much to England and all forraine Protestant Churches and makes none to be members of the Church but such as are by covenant and consent joyned to some of their Congregations § 3 Secondly for the manner of mannagement of their way the parallel runnes but too smooth and even 1. He sayes of the Donatists That upon supposition they had just cause to renounce the Communion of Cecilianus yet they had no ground of separating from the Church of Carthage p. 165. where were many Elders not obnoxious to that charge The parallel comes home to him thus Upon supposition or grant that the Church of England and himselfe had just cause to renounce the Pope and Church of Rome yet had he and his partie no ground to separate from the Church of England where there were many Elders and people not obnoxious to that charge of Apostacie upon the Church of Rome 2. Leaving the instance given to avoid prolixitie I shall onely apply what he sayes of the Donatists Though men of tender consciences might be startled at the Communion with our late Hierarchicall Church yet nothing but the height of pride madnesse and corrupt fleshly interest could make men declare hostilitie against all the Protestant Churches of Christ in the world which was to regulate all the Churches in the world by their own fancie and imagination 3. This line is also parallel Though men of such pride and folly might judge all the residue of Christians to be faultie and guiltie in not separating from our Churches yet to proceed to cast them out from the very name of Church members and so disannull their priviledgts and ordinances they had been partakers of as manifestly some doe by rebaptizing all that enter into their communion and others by denying both Sacraments to some baptism to Children of parents and Lords Supper to parents themselves not in their Church way is such unparallel'd pharisaism and tyrannie as is wholly to be condemned and intolerable 4. Once more and I have done the consequences that befell the Donatist's separation are too much parallel The divisions outrages and enthusiasticall furies in the Levellers and such like and riots in the Ranters and Quakers that have befallen some of them Mr. Baxt. Mr. Firm. Sep. exami Mr. Raie Gem. pleb or they fell into beginning at Independentism were and are in many pious and wisemens judgment tokens of the hand of God against them to wâ—tnesse that their undertaking and enterprize was utterly undue and unlawfull pag. 19. I wish they may patiently consider all this § 4 Thirdly we expected to heare how he would free them and himselfe so neere agreeing with them from the charge of Schism in their separation from the true Churches of Christ Hee cannot but acknowledg them to be faultie many wayes but not guiltie of Schâ—sm If he would acknowledge as much of his own way I should
maintaining those differences is a worse Schism and then upon those dâ—fferences to depart and break the Church inâ—o pieces is Schism in the highest degree and admits of all his own aggravations given above and is an he nous sinne 2. One Church refusing to hold that communion with another which ought to be between them p. 218. is no Schism properly so called Besides what hath been said above that one Church may raise differences in and with another Church which hath the nature of Schism I adde that theâ—e words are aequivocall for they holding all Churches to be Independent they must hold consequentially there is not necessarily any communion between thâ—m as Churches but as to particular members of the Catholike Church the refusing to hold communion with another Church can be no Schism because they owe no communion to one another at least of divine institution but of mere prudence as was newly said But seeing as I proved there ought to be a communion between all particular Churches not onely in profession of the same Faith but also in the same specificall and where it is possible numericall worship the refusing to hold this union and communion in doctrine or worship hath the nature and well deserves the name of Schism 3. If that departure of any man or men be done without strife variance judging and condemning of others it cannot be evill but from circumstances c This is as much as to say that departure which is not evill is not evill For Schism in its nature signifies or presupposes variance strife and divisions before the parting and is commonly attended with judging and condemning of others both persons and Churches as experience tells us at this day The very separation from a Church to set up another Church is a reall judging and condemning of the Church from whence they separated Is it not the practise of all Separatists to judge and condemne all our Churches as Antichristian or none to asperse us as no Ministers but Priests c Is it not the designe of his book to prove if he could and condemne us as no Churches Let the world be judge for unlesse this be proved he can never justifie his separation either therefore he must prove us to be no Churches of Christs institution and that he owes us no communion nor hath broken any union of Christs appointment which he shall never be able to prove or else he had need put himselfe not upon the Justice but on the largest mercy of his Judges CHAP. VIII Independentism a great Schism § 1 In his vindicatâ—on of himselfe and partie from the charge of Schism by Episcopall men he first layes down their Indâ—cement to which how he hath answered and acquitted himselfe let them if they please consider I shall onely take notice by the way of some things tending to the issue of the debate between us and him and that very briefly He first consideâ—s in what sense the Church of England may be taken As 1. The people of God his elect c in this Nation may though improperly be called the Church of England But why not a properly as all true beleivers in the world may be and are by him called the Catholike Church The World and a Nation differ but as greater and lâ—sser as a part and the whole and a particular Church is but a part of the Catholike and so as properly called a Church In this sense sayes he it is the desire of our souls to be and abâ—de members of the Church of England to keep with it the unitie of the Spirit in the bond of peace But unlesse he think there are no members of this Church in England but those that are of his formed particular Churches I fear he will be found to break the Union that ought to be between them And indeed it seems by their gathering the Saints of the first magnitude they intend to have none but such of their Churches which is as much as they can to make the invisible Church to be visible on earth He speaks something suspitiously this way p. 90. The Elect and the Church are the same persons under several considerations and therefore even a particular Church on the account of its participation of the nature of the Catholick is called the elect 1 Pet. 5.13 And yet he speaks of some parts of the body uncomely p. 215. which who they be in his Church I know not They leave those to us to clouth and beautifie and then they may admit them into their elected Congregations But he says If we have grieved p. 223. offended troubled the least member of his Church so that he may justly take offence at any of our wayes we profess our readiness to lie at his foot for reconciliation c. This strengthens the suspicion of what I said For unless he take us all for Reprobates we have and do profess our selves and we think justly offended at their wayes and how ready they have been to give us satisfaction let the world judge The rest that follows is spoken with equal confidence and truth If we love not all the members of this Church rejoyce not with them c. but I forbear He deludes us when he saies if we do not these things Let us be esteemed the vilest Schismaticks that ever lived on the face of the earth For if we prove all or some of these to be false yet he accounts none of them to be Schismatical whatever they may be else § 2 2. In this sense also we profess our selves members of the Church of England p. 224. as professing and adhering to the doctrine of Faith in the unity of it which was here established declared by Lawes Confessions Protestations c. Will he undertake this for all the Independent Churches in England Are not many of them grossly Apostatiz'd from the professed doctrine of this Church and so Heretical But were it true which he says for himself they may be excused from being Heretical but they may yet be Schismatical in denying communion in matter of worship For the worship of God was as well declared professed protested as the Doctrine They hold communion with us in profession of the same Faith but not in the observance of the same worship yet are the Ordinances of worship as pure with us as with them or let them prove our failings and we promise a Reformation In this sense they are neither children nor members of the Church of England And this is the wonder That professing they received their regeneration and new birth p. 225. by the preaching of the word and the saving truths thereof with the seal of it in their Baptism they should now separate from us not only in that Ordinance of the Lords Supper but also in the preaching of the Word and Baptism Could they make use of our preaching and Baptism for their regeneration and not of the other Sacrament and the same preaching for their
calling thereunto but onely an immediate call from God All I say for the change of his opinion is That he allows them this liberty now in cases ordinary as will appear hereafter § 3 The question then will be in cases more than ordinary when a Church is much degenerated and corrupted what may ordinary Christians do then to the Restauration of Religion Concerning which his judgement was what ever it be now this delivered and rested upon That in a collapsed and corrupted state of the Church pag. 15. when the ordinary Teachers are either utterly ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not perform their duty Gifts in any one to be a Teacher and consent in others by him to be taught are a sufficient warrant for the performance of it That is the duty of teaching or preaching But more expresly p. 40. In such a case of Apostacy in the Church I conceive he may nay he ought to preach and publish the truths discovered to him neither is any other outward call requisite to constitute him a Preacher of the Gospel than the consent of Gods people to be instructed by him I shâ—ll only remember him That as he spake this of a lay man in Italy for that is his instance so he did not then take Rome to be no Church at all as now he does but a collapsed and corrupted Church but that by the way That which I observe is1. That he is not distinct enough in these Assertions for if he mean that in such a falling state of a Church p. 16. When it is ruinously declining every one of Gods servants hath a sufficient warrant to help or prevent the fall as a common duty of zeal and charity in a charitative way it s not denyed by any Doing it as a charitable duty not as out of necessary function even as Priscilla a woman expounded unto Apollos the word of God c. pag. 50. f. It s the duty of every Christian man or woman to publish truths reâ—ealed to others that will hear him as he speaks hereafter But if he take it in an Authoritative way as an act of the Keys as a Teacher or Preacher is taken under the Gospel for an Officer then its certain that Gifts and the consent of people to be instructed by him is not sufficient warrant to make him a Preacher And this appears upon his own former principles For being at that time a Presbyterian in judgement as we shall hear anon he knew did then hold that Ordination by the hands of the Presbytery was a requisite to make him a Preacher But this he now declines and hath renounced his Ordination and requires now no more but Gifts and peoples consent to make a man a Minister 2. And that not only in a collapsed or corrupted Church where Teachers are either ignorant and cannot or negligent and will not do their duty but now when neither of these can without injury be charged upon our Church-state he requires no more than Gifts and consent to make a man a Preacher in Office 3. Herein his discourse was dark and defective that he allows the people a liberty of preaching or publishing he truths of the Gospel in such a case but tells us not whether such a Preacher be a compleat Minister as to the administration of other Ordinances as the Sacraments not one word of that I suppose then he did not intend so much but now so is he changed he allows some that were never ordained and himself who hath renounced his Ordination not onely to preach the Gospel but also to administer Sacraments as compleat Ministers in the name of Christ Let them fear and tremble to hear one day those questions By what authority do you these things or who gave you this authority It is a dreadfull speech of his own p. 16. Who ever doth any thing in anothers stead not by expresse patent from him is a plain Impostor And yet how many such Impostors are there abroad who take upon them without commission from Christ or Authority from the Church not only to preach but to baptize and give the Lords Supper I have heard a sad story of a young forward man that did so and fell into great perplexity of mind for so doing and as I remember so dyed Many such there are who 〈◊〉 before they are sent having neither Gifts nor consent of people The Lord say it to their hearts and to the hearts of those that indulge them in it as guilty of such usurpation in them and the great contempt of the sacred calling of the Ministry Lastly how ever it might be sufficient in an extraordinary state of a corrupted Church to make a man a Minister to have such Gifts and consent of the people which was all the Dr. then asserted yet that those should be sufficient in an ordinary Reformed Church-state is his 〈◊〉 light and opinion unless they can shew some extraordinary signs of such a call from God which they cannot do For he speaks rationally below when he saies It is certain enough p. 34. that God never sent any one extraordinarily instructed only with ordinary Gifts and for an ordinary end But these his new Preachers have no more than ordinary Gifts some of them not so much wherein others are their equalls if not Superiors and the end is no more but ordinary the conversion of souls and settling the Ordinances in purity Then it follows that these being not 〈…〉 of God nor ordinarily 〈…〉 by the Church are no 〈◊〉 Impostors as he said afore § 4 How long the Dr. hath been of that opinion That the blessed Spirit of God is 〈◊〉 and personally in every true believer I cannot tell but he speaks suspitiously that way as on p. 94 95. and 236. of Schism was noted above c. 7. â— 11 so he speaks the same language here p. 21. with what difference we shall observe Thus he sales As in his Incarnation Christ took upon him our flesh and blood by the work of the Spirit so in our Regeneration he bestoweth on us his flesh and blood by the operation of the same Spirit yea so strict is this latter union which we have with Christ that as the former is truly said to be an union of two natures into one person so this of many persons into one nature for by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature 2 Pet. 1.4 becoming members of his body of his flesh and of his bones Eph. 5.30 We are so parts of him of his mystical body that He and we become thereby as it were one Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 And the ground of this is because the same Spirit is in him and us In him indeed dwelleth the fulness of it when it is bestowed upon us only by measure but yet it is still the same Spirit and so makes us one with him as the soul of man being one makes the whole body with it to be but one man These things