Catholic Communion Defended Against Both Extremes, Text 2

Catholic Communion Defended Against Both Extremes · Text 2

p. 1A Survey of the Reply to Mr. Humphrey, and my Self; called A Vindication, &c. of Dr. Stillingfleet.

§ 1. HAving lately read six or seven Casuists, that perswaded Men to Communion with the Parish Churches; I found in them many sober discourses, worthy to be read by those that are inclined to a faulty alienation; and I perswaded some such to read them, as being obliged to hear what both sides can say, if they will escape partiality and error. Though I find very few such Writers that seem to be acquainted with the true case of Non-Conformists, but much strangers to it, while they disswade men from it. But some of them I found are not content to perswade men to Communion with their Party, to which they find it advantageous to appropriate the name of The Church of England, (unjustly) unless they also perswade them from Communion with all others in the land that be not of their Mind and Party. And they conclude,

1. If it be lawful to hear and Communicate with us once, it is lawful to do it constantly.

2. And if it be lawful to Communicate with us, it is unlawful to Communicate with the Non-conformists.

§ 2. One would think, this task should signifie gross Schism in these men, as well as in other Sects, that say, We are the only true Church, and it's unlawful to Communicate with any but us: So did the Donatists, and most Sects of old; and every Sect usually that got uppermost by the Emperors countenance, called themselves the Catholick Church, and their Communion the Catholick and only lawful Communion: So did the Arians, and so did the Acacians, and Semi-arians; and so did the Nestorians a little while, and the Eutychians long; and so did the Monothelites, and the Phantasiasts, and the Image-adorers, and such like. And so do the Papists; and some say, That some Anabaptists have come to that; but I have not met with them.

§ 3. But though little Sects for this use some appearance of Scripture-reason (as the Anabaptists, that say, The unbaptized are no Church-Members: but you are all unbaptized, &c.) yet there are few big Sects, but worldly advantage, and cheating Words and Names, are the strength of their p. 2Cause, by which they do more than by any sober shew of reason. The assumed names [of the Church, and Catholicks, and Ancient] and the Names of Hereticks, and Schisma…icks, and Lutherans, and Calvinists, and Novelists, falsly imposed on their Adversaries, next to the Sword and Flames, are the Engines of the Popish Sect, by which they defend their Separation from all other Christians in the World. And such use the gross Schismatical parts do make of the names of [The Church of En…land, and Catholick Communion] appropriated to themselves, and the names of Seperatists and Schismaticks imposed arbitrarily on others: Next to the Sword, this is their chief proof, That men are Separatists, if they will not separate from all save them, and such as they.

§ 3. Among all the Casuists, I found none abound with this sort of Logick, so much as the Resolver of three Cases about Church-Communion] which when I had read, I am so much against Separation, that I thought meet to joyn with the rest of the Casuists, who unite against Schism, so far as to disswade Men from this Man's (and Mr. Dodwells) extraordnary Schismatical Doctrine.

§ 4. But when I had written a just Confutation of him, hearing by fame who he is, I thought it my duty before I publisht it, to see the Book which he wrote against Mr. Humphrey, and Me; because he may perhaps be there more intelligible; (for I had never before seen it, and would not seek it, because I would not tempt my self to a work which I have so little pleasure in, as is the confutation of such men). But when I had read it, I found the Author a great deal sounder in his opinions than in his words, and than he was represented to me to be: There is a great deal that's good and worthy the reading in his Book, when he doth but keep off from his Schismatical cause. He handsomely openeth some Doctrinals, and so fairly alloweth forbearance of others in Doctrinal differences, that were he as Catholick and equal in his opinion about Government, and that which he calleth Catholick Communion, he would be against Schism a Catholick indeed. He doth fairly disclaim even Archbishop Bramhall's concession to the Papists: And he handsomely confuteth Mr. Dodwell, and maintaineth the validity of Sacraments, and the duty of our Communion with the foreign Churches that have no Bishops, and justifieth the Church of England that hath still owned Communion with them: He hath proved the no necessity of continued Successive ordination by Bishops: He hath defended the Independency of Diocesan Churches in point of Government; and that one Church hath not proper Governing Power over another, but only an obligation to Communion, of which more anon.

§ 5. But I must say, That though he hath a smooth and handsom Stile for an Orator; either He, or I, (which of us I am no fit Judge) is so p. 3wofully defective in Logick, and Politicks, that of these Subjects one of us is utterly unfit for a strict dispute, not knowing the usual Sense of ordinary terms, nor explaining them aright, nor seeming to know what a true Definition is; nor proceeding in any Scholar-like method: But that little explication of Terms which he giveth, is usually near the end of the …ook, when a confused dispute before, hath tended but to seduce: which ever of us it is, that is in the fault, it's a great wrong to the Reader: And if it be he, I find no likelihood that any should cure him but himself, or some one that he hath a very high opinion of: For when his mistakes are discovered, the substance of his Answer, is a haughty ignorant scorn at the discovery. Had he happily learnt to Explain, Define, and Distinguish, and Methodize, when he was young enough to submit to his Tutor, it had been well for him: But it being now to be learnt, when he is a Doctor, and such a Doctor, Scorning and ignorant Wrangling will take the place of necessary Learning.

§ 6. This I must tell the Reader, That the Man speaketh so much worse than he seemeth (by after Contradictions) to think, and hath so little Skill in exact expressing the matter, or his mind, that I can scarce ever pretend with any confidence to know his meaning: For when he hath said worst, and is confuted, he comes over it again, and scorneth us for misunderstanding him, and tells us, that he meant as we do: So that it is his Words that I only undertake to confute, and not his meaning, till I am better able to say, that I know it. Nor would I think it a work beseeming me, to write a Book to tell the World, how unskilful this man is in speaking intelligibly and aptly, if I did not find that others are seduced, by receiving his words in the usual sence of such, not knowing that he meaneth not as he speaketh: So far as he meaneth well, I think I am his Friend, in perswading people to be of his mind, and to believe what he thinks, and not what he saith. And if he hold on his way, and fall not out with the Truth for my sake, I am in hope that the effect also of this Survey will be, that in the next he will renounce all his Errors, save the terms, and will say, that he meant as I did: And then, if he do rail and scorn at me only as misunderstanding him, I can bear it.

§ 7. Nor should I think it a Duty (in my condition), to save Readers from his real errors, were it not that they notoriously tend to perswade the Land to think of Thousands of the faithfullest Christians that I know, as damnable intollerable Schismaticks, guilty of the sin that will damn them, as soon as Adultery and Murder; and consequently to call Men to hate them as such, and to proceed in silencing, ruining and imprisoning them; which is to tell all them that do so, that they do well; which if it should prove otherwise, who can express the greatness of his sin against the Souls of one party, and the Lives, Estate, and Ministry of the other?

p. 4§ 8. His scorn, p. 11, 12. for my purpose to have medled with such Men in the Cause of Conformity no more, seems some invitation to me to prevent the like. But the foresaid Motives are far greater.

P. 35, 36. While he over and over repeated the confused words of [One Communion], which must excuse us from Schism, as dangerous as Murder; and we that live among Men that use to distinguish Union from Communion; and know that Communion, yea, and Union too, hath a Multitude of degrees, and our desire was, that he would but explain in what he fixt it, that we might understand his accusation; he tells us, that he did not place this Communion in any transient Acts, but in a fixed permanent state.

Ans. But 1. Taking the Bishops for true authorised Pastors, and the Church for a true Church, are transient acts. Believing in Christ, and repenting of sin, are transient acts, quoad objectum, tho immanent quoad subjectum & effectum. Baptism, and Profession of Christianity, and of love and obedience to others, are transient, both quoad objectum & effectum. Coming to Church, communicating, obeying Bishops, and departing from Schismaticks, are transient in both respects. You see, that by [Catholick Communion] the Doctor meaneth none of all these.

2. What meaneth he then [a fixed permanent state]? But 1. Which Predicament can you conjecture that word [state] is in? It's commonly applied to Relation, Quality▪ and Scite and Place. These latter I am confident he meaneth not. If he mean Quality, it is Disp…siti…n or Habit sure: But those come by Acts; and he tells us not what he meaneth, nor is it probable that this is it. Relation is most likely to be that [fixed state] which is indeed the true form of a Church and a Church-Member (and, saith Durandus, is meant by Baptism's indelible Character).

Supposing this his meaning, 2. Are not transient acts the fundamentum of this Relation, as verily as of Paternity, Marriage-Relation? &c. Is any Man a Church-Member, or Christian, but by the transient acts of Baptism, Profession, Covenanting, &c.? And do you define a Relation without the Fundamentum?

3. But if Relation be all, wherein lieth our damning Schism? We profess Catholick Communion then somewhat more than you do: For as we profess the same Relation that you do to Jesus Christ, so we profess our Relation of Fellow-Members to all his Body, even to those that in such Matters depart from each others; and if I can understand you, to the greatest part of Christ's Church on Earth, which you damn as Rebels. This is our profest Relation: If you can disprove it, …

p. 5§ 9. He adds, [I conclude, it's sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian-Communion, which in a large Notion signifies the Christian Church or Society, which is called Communion, from Communication, which all the Members of it had with each other. The plain and obvious sense is, All the Churches of the World are but one Church or Society, and have the same right, and the same obligation on them to communicate with each other; for the sake of which, Christian Churches are instituted, as the members of a particular Church are].

Ans. 1. Such large Notions may be sufficient to you, but they signifie little more than noise to me. Here we are told, that by [Communion] he meaneth [the Church]: And so when we read of [Communion with the Church], it meaneth [the Church with the Church]; and [Church-Communion] are Two Synonimal words, and signifie [Church, Church]. And in the Creed (the Catholick Church and Communion of Saints] is a Tautology.

2. But the Church is called [Communion] from [Communication]: And is Communication no transient act, but a fixed state?

3. If the plain sense be, That all Churches in the World are one Church (as parts in the whole), who differs from you in that? We are all then of one Catholick Communion, and shall believe that all true Christians are of one Church, till the Excommunicators better disprove it.

4. But have [all the same right and obligation to communicate with each other]? 1. All do actually communicate with each other, 1. In their Union with, and Relation to our Saviour and Head. 2. And in having one holy Spirit. 3. Being the adopted children of one God. 4. Being of that one body formally related to Christ. 5. Believing in the same God and Father, Saviour and holy Spirit. And 6. Consenting to the same Baptismal Covenant. 7. Having the same hope of everlasting life. These are the Instances of Christian Union and Communion, in Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. And 8. They have also Communion in the same common benefits, Pardon and Justification, and right to life. 9. And besides all this, when they may be had, they have Communion in the same species of necessary worship; the use of the same Gospel, and Sacred Scriptures, and Creed, of the same sort of Eucharistical Sacrament, and Prayer, and Praise and Thanksgiving, in all parts of absolute necessity, and holy Assemblies to that end, consisting of several Pastors with their Flocks. 10. Yea, and all true Christians love one another as such, and live in sincere (tho imperfect) obedience to the same holy Laws of Christ. In all this all Christians have Communion.

p. 62. And all have right to such measures of Local Communion, where they come, as they are in a more immediate capacity of.

3. And all are obliged to exercise so much Mental and Local Communion as is necessary to edification, and to the exercise of Christian love and peace, besides what is forementioned.

But yet, 1. All Churches on Earth are separate by distance, as to Local Communion.

2. No Two Churches▪ or Men on Earth, are perfectly united as to Mental C…mmunion. There are Multitudes of degrees of differences in this.

3. There are very many just causes of diversifying Local Communion in the same City, Diocess or other Precincts; and of diversifying individual Pastoral Relation, and single (proper) Church-Communion. Diversity of Languages is a cause that no man can deny. The excessive Magnitude of a Church (that is, the Multitude of Persons) is another. Suppose that I were first and alone made Pastor of a Church in Mexico or Quinsay, and I am not able to do the work of a Pastor for a Thousand Souls; I get the help of Three or Four Presbyters and Deacons; and we all are utterly unable to do the Pastoral work for Four Thousand; may Four Thousand, or Forty Thousand more claim of me the performance of the Pastoral Office? Am I bound to undertake Tenfold more than I am able to perform? Then Men may not only enslave me, but damn me at their pleasure, and pretend their right to Communion with me. If you say I am bound to multiply Presbyters in the same Church to sufficiency: I answer, 1. What if I can neither have Men nor Maintenance? 2. What if I think that when the Multitude is so great that I cannot know them, nor they ever speak with me, or know one another any more than Men of several Countreys, that I ought not to undertake a personal oversight of them, but perswade them to associate in Churches capable of such oversight? It's no breach of Charity for one School-Master or Physician to refuse a personal Relation, as School-Master to Five Hundred Schools, or Physician to all the City, or Five Hundred Hospitals (tho he have Apothecaries or others under him). No Man hath right to more of my labour than I am able to perform. If I be a Bishop, and bound to hear and try the Causes of all that ought to come under Church Censure in a whole Diocess, and am certain that I am unable to do this to One of an Hundred, who can claim a right to that or more?

4. But out of this his Doctrine, I gather, That if all the Christian World have rig… to communicate with me upon occasion, 1. Sure there is some difference between occasional and fixed Local Communion. 2. And surely if I refuse any that would communicate on common necessary p. 7terms, because they will not break the Custom of their several Countries, and communicate with me in doubted unnecessary things, I wrong all the Christian World, and am to them a Schismatick: Much more if I presume to Excommunicate every Stranger that cometh into my Precincts, and herein differs from me, as you do us: and most of all if I impose many sinful terms of Communion on him.

All Christians are bound to hold Communion in Christianity, and in all things necessary to the common Communion of them all; and to extend this also to as many Integrals as they can reach: But there are Multitudes of things in which they are not bound to have Communion; much less as necessary to salvation.

§ 10. p. 36. We have all explained by an odd supposition, viz. Suppose the whole World were one Family, or one Kingdom, in which every man, according to his rank and station, enjoys equal Priviledges, the necessity of Affairs would require that Men should live in distinct Houses and Countries —But yet if every Man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges wherever he went, as he now does in his own House and Countrey, the whole World would be but one great Family, or universal Kingdom.

Ans. 1. The whole World is one great Kingdom of God, as verily as the Church is the Church of Christ: And yet we Non-Conformists think that every Man in it (no, nor every Saint) hath not right to be King of England, nor a Judg in our Courts, nor Lord Mayor of London, nor so much as a Freeman in any City. And we think that the Church hath no more one subordinate universal Soveraign, than the World. And that therefore the case, in point of universal priviledg, is not by this similitude well explained.

2. Your odd supposition of the World being one Family, either supposeth one Husband to all the Wives in the World, and one Father to all the Children in the World; or else that all distinct Husbands, Wives, Children and Servants, are in this one Family. In the first supposition I may suppose that you take him to be more than a Man that can be an Husband to all the Women, and a Father to all the Children on Earth: And therefore if his Wisdom be equal to such a greatness, he must be no Fool. And if so, whi…e Men are his Family, he will order and govern them as Men; and then they will be distributed into subordinate Families, Cities and Kingdoms, as now they are. But if you suppose many Husbands and Fathers, our Opinion is, that Husbands and Wives should not be common, nor Parents and Children. Nay, which way ever you take, that Childrens Food, Rayment and Portions should not be common: Nor could any come from India, and claim p. 8a Lordship or Lands in England, as a Member of the Family. Fathers distribute unequally, as their Will and Wisdom, and their Childrens fitness, are diversifying Causes. Even in a Colledg one cannot claim anothers Chamber, Books, Cloaths or Food. One would think by your scourge for Non-Conformists, that you were no Leveller, nor against fatherly justice, and inequality of right and distribution. Even they that come to your Church, cannot so much as claim equal right in Seats.

And verily if all the World that will come to you, may claim equal Pastoral oversight from you, or any Bishop, your equality must be like his to the Beggars, that gave nothing to any, that he might serve them all alike.

§ 11. P. 38, 39, &c. he saith, [He can hardly be so charitable to me, as not to believe that I wilfully mistook him, it being impossible for any man of common sense who ever read him,—to mistake his Catholick Communion for some transient acts].

Ans. Reader, it's hard terms that these Men hold us to. I was loath to judg him so void of common Sense, or use of Words, as to talk of Catholick Communion which was in no transient acts: But for the future, rather than forfeit common sense, or be wilful, I will believe him, that by Catholick Communion he meaneth Union, and that he meaneth neither Baptism, nor profession of Christianity, nor owning any Article of Faith, nor owning Bishops, nor any Church-order or Worship of God. But do not unsay all this again, and call us all to nought for believing you.

§ 12. But he saith, [Upon a stricter examination he finds me blundered and confounded about the Notion of Unity—This Unity I term Union.

Ans. The Doctor will grow over-critical if he hold on, if he mean this as part of my blundering and confusion: But it is but Grammar that I am ignorant of: I confess my ignorance: I thought that [Unio] had Two significations; one active, for that act of uniting which maketh One of Two; and that also Twofold: 1. To unite efficiently: 2. To unite constitutively: And the other as signifying the same with Unity caused. And I thought that Unitas had ordinarily signified by a more abstract word, the same Oneness as Unio, in the latter sense; and sometimes abusively, active Union. But I am ready to learn better.

§ 13. But saith he, [He understands it of our Union to Christ, not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church.

p. 9Ans. The best is, he saveth me from unmannerly telling you that he speaketh falsly, by confessing the falshood in the very terms of accusation: For if he dare say, that it is no Church-Union to be all United to one Christ in our common Christianity, he is a very fal…e Teacher.

§ 14. P. 39. Repeating my words, he tells you, I misconstrue both terms: But you are best take it on his word. And he feigneth, that I do, or must infer [ergo, the Unity of the Catholick Church doth n…t consist in being one Body, and Society, and Communion of Christians: Whereas I infer the clear contrary, That it doth consist in one such body, it's Union with Christ making it such an one.

Yet here he addeth, [If this be to write controversies, we may as well lay wagers, and cast lots for major, minor, and conclusion: Which words truly tell you what the Doctor's Logical strength is; like the Woman that told the Doctor, that she could make her hungry Pig cry with better Logick than all the Doctors in the University did dispute. And could not a Quaker say as much?

§ 15. P. 41, 42. He seemeth serious in asking me, How the Catholick Church is united in one Body, so as to be one Church? And when I tell him, how many sorts af Union there are; he saith, he cares not how many sorts there are, so I will tell him what the Unity of the Catholick Church is.]

Ans. He maketh me think of the Man's Answer to the Pharisee, John 9. I have told you, and you heard not. Would you hear it again? If you would know what Unity is, in uno, which is affectio entis, I must again send you to Schibler, or Suarez, or some such Tutor; for I am not meet to tutor you. If you would know in what this Unity consisteth, I have told you before, and oft.

§ 16. But tho this Doctor use it not, we use first to enquire whether the Controversie be de nomine, or de re: And 1. If I satisfie him what maketh the Church to be One, will he grant, that if we agree in that Union, we are in Catholick Communion? If he will, we shall soon be Friends, and no Schismaticks, at least with any that knows what Unity is. If he will not, doth he not all this while abuse his Reader, when he so hotly damneth us for want of Catholick Communion, and tells us, that he meaneth Unity, and chargeth me with wilfulness or nonsense, if I think that he meaneth any transient act.

But 1. De nomine, I will once more tell him why I distinguish Unity and Communion, and think he should have done so too.

Words in Dispute are to be used in the sense that Men of the Profession which the Subject most belongs to, use them, unless otherwise explained. But Men that write of Logick, Metaphysicks, Physicks and Politicks, p. 10use to distinguish Unity from Communion so far, as that usually Communion pres…pposeth Unity, secundum quid, and ever includeth some transient Acts, when Unity is but the denomination of Eus qua U…um.

I hope I may take the Language of our Creed to be so tollerable, as that it is not necessary to salvation to condemn it. foreign, is by the Church of England [which I hope is no damned Schismatical Sect] translated [the Communion of Saints]. That by [Communion] they mean some t…an…ient Acts, and not meer Union, all Expositors that ever I read among them shew, (as do all the Fathers, and all Forreign Interpreters that I have read) At least, methinks he should not disdain to learn his Grammar again of Dr. Hammond and Dr. Heylin.

I remember not that ever I read foreign translated Communion. Indeed Eph. 4.3. foreign, expresseth Communion in transient acts; but bare Unity doth not: But Communion must maintain it, foreign, as in the bond of peace. King Iames so liked Bishop Usher's Sermon on that Text, that a Knight then near him, told me▪ that when by his winking posture, the Courtiers thought he had been asleep, at the end of the Sermon he spake aloud, This is the Religion that I will live and die in (or to that sense). The regardful reading of consenting learned Commentators on Eph. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. Verses, might have quenched this fire…rand.

Indeed I believe with Beza, that they who translate foreign by meer participation, say too little: For it is not all participation which is the Communion which many Texts express; but such a participation as connoteth an Union in quibusdam: For Union absolute and simple, is uncapable of Communion, except with some other thing, having no parts.

1 Iohn 1.6, 7. we are said to have foreign with God and with Christ, (or one another). I find no Expositor that taketh this for meer Union: Some call it Partnership, some Society, some Friendship, others Communion; but all take it to include transient acts. Dr. Hammond ▪ goeth so far from this Doctor, that he will have foreign almost every where in the New Testament to signifie Communication by transient acts: Yea, he goeth so far from his Friend Grotius, who placeth it in the exercise of Friendship, that he saith, [It is appliable to Friendship or Society, no otherwise than to knowledg, or anything else]. So he expoundeth Rom. 15.26. 2 Cor. 8.4. 2 Cor. 9.13. Phil. 1.5. Heb. 13.16. Phil. 6. and the Creed. Tho for my part, I doubt not but the [foreign, 1 Cor. 1.9. and the foreign, Phil. 2.1. and the foreign, and foreign, 1 Cor. 10.16, &c. do signifie such a participation p. 11of that which is common to them all, as implieth and connoteth that Unity which is the thing signified in this Communion, tho it includes transient acts.

II. I should now again answer his question de re: What makes all these Churches one? But he stops me with a profession that he will not be to me intelligible, and complaineth that I am unintelligible to him: So that we seem Barbarians, or Men of strange Languages in disputing with one another: And it would be no edifying work for any to hear, e. g. a Dutch-man and a Spaniard dispute in their several Tongues, not understanding one another.

When I distinguisht of [unifying the Church, and uniting a single Member to it], he tells me, That he [supposeth the particular Churches formed, and particular Christians united to them, and only enquireth how they are one Church], and saith, my distinction is to prevent understanding (which his confusion promoteth). And when I distinguish between Union in essential parts, and in integral parts, and in accidents (without which distinction, no true satisfaction can be given to the Querist), he saith, [He perceiveth that we shall never come to the business: for he did not enquire wherein the Essence of a Church consists, or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its being, — but how a thousand Churches become one Church?

Ans. Which words are to me as unintelligible as any Nonsence. Doth any thing make it One Church but that which maketh it A Church? Doth not that which maketh it eus existens, make it Unum? Doth not the word [Church] name its Essence? If he ask me, how the parts of Man come to make One Man? Who would think but he meant either One Man essential, or else improperly, One entire Man? And what Answer would any give but this? If your [how] mean what was the efficient cause, it's God and the Generators: If you mean, [what are the constitutive causes]? They are Soul and Body united, that make a Man in Essence; and the integrating parts united, that make him an entire Man.

O! but saith our Doctor, I ask not wherein the Essence of the Church consists? Ans. Then you ask not what maketh it One in constitution: What then do you mean, unless it be the efficient cause, which no Man would think you meant that read the rest of your Book? For my part, I despair of knowing what you mean, till you have better learned to speak.

But this seemeth to imply, that we are agreed of the constitutive Causes of the One Catholick Church; and our disagreement were of the Efficient. If that be it, I'le tell you what maketh the Church One efficiently: 1. God maketh Man to be Man, and so capable matter. 2. God gave Christ to be the Mediator and Head. 3. God made (by Christ) p. 12the Covenant of Grace, by which, as by a Law and Gift, he determineth of the Conditions of Church-Relation and Benefits, and commandeth Man's belief and consent, and professeth his own acceptance of such consenters. 4. His Ministers and Word perswade Men to believe and consent. 5. His Spirit efficiently causeth Men to believe and consent. 6. At that time God's conditional grant becometh actual, and giveth them actually a right and relation to Christ and his Benefits. 7. Thereupon Christ's Ministers solemnize this Covenant, declaring God's acceptance; and by Baptism, investing the person in the visible possession of his relation to Christ and all his Members, the person professing his believing, which maketh it a mutual Covenant (the Parent doing it for Infants).

These Seven Acts go to make up the total efficient Cause of the Churches Essence and Unity, and each Members Union therein. And if you exclude any one of them, you will be a false Teacher. Is there any room here for a Controversie among Christians? The Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Covenant and Law, the Consenter, the Minister and Baptism, all make up the efficient Cause of the Churches Essence. And that which maketh it a Church, maketh it One Church: As that which maketh it an House, a Ship, a Family, a School, a Kingdom, maketh it thereby One House, One Ship, One Family, &c. for eus & unun convertuntur.

§ 17. But tho his Question [How] (that ambiguous Syllable), enquire not of the Churches Essence (and of what, who knows?) yet p. 43. he ventures to enquire of it, upon my words, [it is only essential to the Church, that there be an organized Body of Pastors and People united to Christ, the Head], saith he, [Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add One Body; for that is the thing in dispute, Whether Christ have one or a thousand bodies].

Ans. I pray you remember this happy agreement, that we agree of the Churches Essence. But is not [A Body] the Singular Number? If I say, that a man is corpus organicum, and a rational soul united, do I need to put in [One Body, or One Soul], while unum is entis inseparabilis affectio? Good Doctor, why must not Verum and Bonum be named with every eus in a definition, as well as Unum? Can it be a Body, and not One Body? O! what a Jest will School-boys make of us for such disputing?

3. But the pretended disagreement is much worse asserted. Is that the Controversie, Whether Christ have One Body, or a Thousand? Would you make men believe that we deny the Unity of the Universal Church? If you would, prove it, or blush. 2. Do you your self deny the being of Thousands of particular Churches, which are parts of the Universal? When p. 13you have seemed long to do it, you come again and confess such Churches, and condemn us as separating from them. 3. Is the Controversie whether these single Churches, de nomine, may be called so many Bodies of Christ? 1. Name the men that so call them, and prove it, or confess your self a false Accuser. 2. If they did, an unfit Name is not an error, de re. I never heard man so speak. We say, that the word [Church] used for the [Universal] and the [Particular], is not univocally used, but analogically, expenuriâ nominum. As oft the whole and part have one Name. We say, that as an hundred Cities and Counties may make one Kingdom, and were they all equivocally called Republicks, or Kingdoms, it would be no change in the Doctrine: All the Christian World call the universal and the particulars by the name of [Church]. And yet, if to help us out of the Equivocation, you will invent a better Name, and get men to consent to it (not reprehending the Scripture-use), we will hearken to you. But as One Kingdom is individuate by One King, and yet subordinate Societies may have subordinate individuating Heads; so is it here. And it's grosly unfit to say Christ hath many Bodies, tho he have many Churches in one; as the King hath many Cities, but one Kingdom here.

But he adds, [If but One, how do all the Christians in the World make up that one Body]?

[How] must not be explained: If by [how] he meant [by what efficiency], I have told you: If it mean by what constitutive Causes, it is [by Form and Matter united]: If it be any Mode that you mean, vouchsafe to tell us what.

§ 18. P. 43. he goes on thus (reciting some of my words), [In this definition Christ only is the supreme constitutive summa potestas, or regent part. The organized body of Pastors and People, is the pars subdita: and the Union of Christ and that body, maketh it a Church]. (And saith he) This is very well: But the main doubt still remains untouched; What is it that makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but One Church]?

Ans. Contra negantem principia non est disputandum. This intimateth, that eus & unum non convertuntur: And that besides that which maketh it a Church, somewhat else must go to make it one.

Whether your obstinate equivocation in the word [make], shall be by you expounded of the efficient or constitutive causes, in this it's all one: That which maketh it a Church, doth thereby, without any more causality, make it one Church.

p. 14This is as if he said, We are agreed what maketh a Man, an House, a City, a Book, &c. but we agree not what maketh him One Man; and so of the rest: Nothing but that which maketh him a Man, and causeth the existing Essence: Matter and Form united constitutively: And efficiently, all that which causeth Matter, and its Disposition (which Aristotle calls Privation…, and Form, and their Union.

But, Reader, it's so hard to understand such a Speaker, that we must …ift every doubtful word, lest he come again and say we wilfully mistake him. Who knows but the Doctor hath a C…t…urnus in the word [but], and the question be, What maketh this the only Church? or that God hath no other but one? As if the question were, What made Adam at first the only man in the World? or the Israelites the only peculiar Nation? I answer, Nothing in Adam, nothing in Israel; and so nothing in the Church can be the cause of Nothing: No Man, no Nation, no Church speak Nothing: Not to make another, is nothing; but the words are a meer Negation: And Nothing hath no Cause. What is the Cause that there is not another Sun? Why, Nothing hath no Cause: But if we must give any other Answer, it must be only by calling the Negation of a Cause by the Name of a Cause, and saying, that the Cause why there is but one Sun (that we know of), and one Church Universal, is because God made no more.

§ 19. The Doctor proceeds, [Nor does his similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass: His words are these, [As in the constitution of man, 1. The rational soul is the real form, which is principium motus; The organized body is the constitutive matter. That there be Heart, Liver, Stomack, is but the bodies organization: That these parts be duly placed and united, is forma corporis (non hominis), and make the body but materia disposita. 3. The union of soul and body is that nexus (like the copula in a proposition) which may be called the relative form, or that which maketh the soul become forma in actu].

Reader, Dost thou know, as a Philosopher, what a man is? and dost thou doubt of ever a word of this? If this Doctor be ignorant of it, had he not been a Doctor, and overgrown Humility and Learning, I might have expected either thanks or silence from him: But what saith the Man to it?

Had this Philosophy been known in St. Paul's days, I should not much have wondered that he warns men against vain Philosophy, (was not Aristotle known in Paul's days?) Aures erigite. The Confutation will come anon.) I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can (too late Sir) and therefore will not quarrel with him for saying, The Soul is Principium motus — to the Body, though it may be some Cartesians will not like it, (Hitherto p. 15we are quiet: The Doctor is so modest that he will not deny that F…rma is Principium Motus.] And it is but a May be, whether a Cartesian will: I have met lately with University-men, that cry'd up Cartesius as if they had been quite above Aristotle and Plato; and when I tryed them, I found that they knew not what Aristotle or Plato said (nor what Cartesius neither.)

[Nor (saith he) for affirming, that the Union of Soul and Body is but like the Copula in a proposition, which is but a spick and spang n…w Notion.] Ans. The man is pugnacious enough, but somewhat restrains him: Is Novelty here the fault? More than this was N…w to him within these twenty years; and much is yet. The terms of a Proposition are no Propositon till the Copula make them one by making the Predication. And a Soul and a Body are no Man, but as United; which maketh the Soul to be Forma in actu. Hath the man confuted this?

'But (saith he) I shall only consider how he applies this to the Church.) Ans. How Sir! do you accuse the Philosophy, and now will you only question the application of it?

Christ it seems th…n is the Soul, and Christians the Body, though in Scripture he is represented as the Head of the Body, and the Divine Spirit as the Soul, which enlivens and animateth it: And if Christ be not the Head of the Body (which I think the Soul was never affirmed yet) the Church must be without a Head, or have another Head than Christ, which I suppose is the reason why he talks so much of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church.]

Ans. It's easie to suppose, that the cause of these Words was a want of somewhat both in your Head and Heart, that should have been there. 1. Is this any Confutation of my Philosophy? Could not a Quaker have talkt against it at as reasonable Rates as these? 2. Do you not think, that every understanding Reader doth know, that both the term [Head and Soul] here are Metaphors, as spoken of Christ? Both of them signifie the form of the Society, because the Head is the seat of the Soul in its Rational Regent Acts; the King is called the Head of his Kingdom, that is, He is forma Regni (for the Politick forms of Society is their forms of Government.) And so as the Church is a Politick Society, Christ is the form of it: But it is nobler than all meer humane Policies, and his Headship is Essentiated by the three parts of his Office in One, as he is Prophet, Priest, and King; and as the principle of Knowledge, Love, and Practice; and his Church is together, Dominion, Kingdom, and a Society of Friendship, or Family. And the Head, which is the seat of the Soul, as operative by Intellection, Sense, and Motion, most aptly representeth all this in Christ.

But while the Head-part of the Body is this Seat, the Soul is in it the operator: And Christ as Man is part of the Church, in and by whom p. 16his Divine nature performeth the operations: And as the Soul is the form of the Man, Christ is the form of his Church, quae dat esse & nomen. And that the Holy Ghost illuminateth, and quickneth, and comforteth, is so far from being against this, that it is the chief proof of it. For the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and is the Spirit of Christ, sent by him; and what he doth herein, Christ doth by him: Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt in-divisa. Who would have thought that a Christian durst deny Christ to be forma Ecclesiae, as the Soul is of a Man, and the King of a Kingdom?—Doth the Man give you the least proof, but his vain word, that Christ cannot be both as a Head, and a Soul (that is, forma informans) to his Church, — or that Christ is not the Soul, because the Holy Ghost is? — But I think neither is called by the name of a Soul in the Scriptures. But I pray you tell us what these Texts import. — Rom. 8.10. If Christ be in you, — the spirit is life. — John 17.23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one. — 5.26. He hath given the Son to have life in himself. — 21. He quickeneth whom he will. — 6.51, 57. I am the living bread, — he that eateth me, shall live by me. — 1 Cor. 6.15. Your bodies are the members of Christ. — 17. He that is joyned to the Lord, is one spirit. — 8.6. Our Lord Iesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. — 12. As the body is One, and hath many members, and all the members of that One body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 27. Ye are the body of Christ. 2 Cor. 3.17. The Lord is that Spirit. — 18. We are changed into the same Image from glory to glory, foreign John 1.4. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. — 2 Cor. 13.5. Iesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates. Gal. 2.20. Not I, but Christ liveth in me. — Gal. 3.19. Till Christ be formed in you. — Eph. 1.22, 23. Head over all things to his Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Eph. 3.15, 17. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named — that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith. — 4.15, 16. May grow up into him in all things, who is the Head Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joint supplyeth, — maketh increase of the body. — Eph. 5.30. We are the members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Col. 1.18, 19. He is the head of the body, the Church — In him all fullness dwells. — 2.3. In whom are hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledg. 9. In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 17.19. The body is of Christ the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministred, knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. — 3.3, 4. Your Life is hid with Christ in God, when Christ our Life shall appear. — 11. Christ is all and in all. — 1 John 1.2. The Life was manifested, and we have seen it. — 4.9. We live through him. — 5.11, 12. This is the record, that God hath given to p. 17us eternal life, and this Life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath Life and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life. We are in him that is true, in his Son Iesus Christ.

These and many other signifie, that Christ is fitly likened both to a Head and to a Soul, to his Church; and is not a dead Head, but a living; and that the word Head includeth the Soul operating in the Head, for the Sense, Reason, and Guidance, and increase of the body.

And that he doth operate by the Holy Ghost, who is one God with the Father and Himself, confirmeth it. Even as Christ is said to be quickned by the Spirit, and by the Spirit to offer himself to God, and to justifie us, &c. which is far from proving, that he did it not himself. Chrysostome, and Basil, and Ambrose, need not to have been at so great care to prove that it is Christ himself that is called [The Spirit] and [the Lord the Spirit] 2 Cor. 3.17, 18. against the Arians: It will prove him God, that as he the word in making the World, moved on the Waters by the Spirit, which is one with him, so he doth by his Spirit, which is one with his own Godhead, sanctifie Souls. I hope you are not against the [Filio que ] Briefly [He that giveth to his Church, and every true Member of it, Spiritual Life, Light, and Love; illumination, Sanctification, Strength, increase and Consolation, as appointed by the Father, to do all this by himself, and by his Spirit, is the form Essentiating the Church, as much and more than the Soul is to the Man: But such is Christ: Ergo —

If I were of their mind that anathematized the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites as damn'd Hereticks, for their unskilful words, I should much more Hereticate a Doctor in our Age, that will say, That if Christ be the Head of the Church, he cannot be to it as a Soul, a forma informans & denominans. But I am not of that mind.

3. But when this Doctor added [If Christ be not the Head of the Body, the Church must be without a Head, or have some other Head than Christ, which I suppose is the Reason why he talks so much of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church.]

Reader, Can you tell what he means by [which is the Reason?] Which of the two meaneth he [that I suppose the Church without a Head?] When I so oft and largely prove Christ to be the Head. — Or is it that [I hold some other Head?] When my Book is to disprove it. Which ever it be, I do not think refusing such a Pastor as makes no more of the Ninth Commandment, is a damning Schism. The Sin of Church tyranny goes not alone.

§ 20. P. 45 He proceeds [But the organized Body is the constitutive matter of the man: though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part: but to let that pass.]

Ans. You had not the Wit to let it pass: Durst I have accused you of p. 18what you bewray and accuse your self? Reader, Is not the Matter a Part? And is not the Form a Part (of the man)? And doth that man speak plainer, that barely calleth either of them [a Part], and tells you not [which Part it is], Matter or Form? If one of his Pupils should say, Sir, you should not call the Soul the Form, but [a Part], nor the Body the Matter, but a Part; what would the Boys say to him?

§ 21. He goes on, [Thus an Organical Church is the constitutive Matter: Of what? Of Christ? or of his Church? or of some third compound…d?

Ans. 1. Did I say, [An Organical Church, or an Organical Body]? When Aristotle saith, [the soul is entelechia corporis physici organici], doth he say, [Hominis physici Organici]? But you are an enemy to vain Philosophy and distinction.

2. What if I had said an Organical Church (as I sometimes do an Organized) who knows not that ex penuria nominum, the words Church, Kingdom▪ City, Family, School, &c. are ordinarily used equivocally; sometimes properly, for the whole Church, Kingdom, City, &c. as a Governed Society including Matter and form united: And sometimes improperly for the Material part alone; the Kingdom, as distinguisht from the King; the Church, as distinct from Christ, and from the Bishops; and so of all the rest. And when I so oft told you, that the Organical Body of Christians is the Matter of the Church, and Christ the fo…m, (as far as these terms fit Bodies Politick) could you not find in such words, [Of what it is the Matter?] of the Church of Christ.

§ 22. He adds [But that these parts be duly placed and united, is forma Corporis, non Hominis; which what it means, I cannot tell, unless that a man would be a man, though the several parts of his Body did not stand in their right places, nor were united to one another, so they were all united to the Soul.]

Ans. Do you not understand what it means? What if I had so accused you? Whether it be long of your Tutor, or You, I know not; But 1. If you know not the difference between forma Corporis, and forma Hominis, some body is too blame. Forma dat esse & nomen: The Soul giveth Being and Name to a Man: He is no Man without it. Do you think it gives Being and Name to the Body? What if Lazarus his Body in the Grave were without its Soul; is it not Corpus a Body? What if such a Body as M…ns had only the Soul of a Brute, were it no Body? What if Dr…elius made his Engines move constantly by the Sun, or Fire? Is it not an Engine materially organized, before the Sun or Fire move it? Hath not a Wind …ll, or Water mill its mechanical form? which is but the Organization o… d…e matter, when Wind or Water, move it not. But to what purpose is it to talk to one that tells us, he cannot understand it?

p. 192. But the addition is shameful misunderstanding; Doth he that saith, Organization is forma Corporis, say, that one may be a m…n without it? This is below puerility? Did I not maintain, that (as Aristotle ha…h his three principles, Matter, Privation, and Form, and by Privation meaneth the Dispositio receptiva of the matter; so) Politick Bodies by similitude to natural, have: And that Organization is that Dispositio receptiva sine qua Materia non recipit formam: And now this famous Doctor cannot understand me when I assert it's Necessity to humanity, unless I mean that one may be a man without it.

I would not exagitate this ignorance, were it not in a Man that is damning (and encouraging the silencing and ruining of) so many Servants of Christ, for their supposed Ignorance of the Lawfulness of all their Oaths, Promises, and Impositions.

But Reader, my Heart grieveth to think, that so great a number should be caried by such men as this, to the same Love-killing opinions, and practices. I'le put a case to you.

A Leveller that would have got down the Universities, undertook that his Parrot should Learn Philosophy, as well as Scholars, and should dispute with any of them all. He taught the Parrot only two words before Noon every day [It's true, Sir,] and [I understand you,] and to say two more every day afternoon, viz. [You lie Sir,] and [away you Rogue.] When he had learnt them perfectly, he inviteth a Tutor to read Philosophy to his Parrot. He reads in the morning a Lecture of the Principles of Man, and the Parrot oft saith, [I understand you,] and [I'ts true, Sir,] The Hearers admiring it, are invited to dispute with the Parrot in the Afternoon: Multitudes come, and the Respondent maintained that Man hath a Reasonable Soul, and next, that Parrots have none such: The Parrot oft answered [You lie Sir,] and at last [Away you Rogue:] If the Company gave the Parrot the better, and concluded for Brutes against Humanity, did they more deserve pity or indignation?

Once more: God made Adam's Body before he breathed into it the Breath of Life: If this Body had not its form, it was not a Body; nor a humane Body, without the proper form of such: That which hath no form, is no being. If the form of that Body was forma Hominis, then Adam's Body was a Man without his Soul: And then the Soul is not forma hominis. But saith the Doctor, I know not what it meaneth, unless it be, that Adam may be a man without the Corporeal form or Organization.

But lest the Doctor when he understands me, should think, that I have hereby served his Notion of Communion; I must add that it is not either the placing or the being of all the parts of a humane Body, that is this form…l Organization, but only of the Essential parts: It may be a humane Body without a Finger, or Hand, or Foot, or Arm, or Leg; and what great p. 20diversity of parts are found within men, and diversity of place, and shape, you may see in Skenkius his Observation, as well as in Paraeus, Hildanus, Hollerius, and multitudes more that afforded him his instances. But without a Heart, a Brain, a Stomach, a Liver, Lungs, &c. it cannot be a humane Body organized. And without a Gospel Ministry to guide the Flocks, it is not a compleat organized Body of Christ, though in fieri, it was an Embrio before.

But I must again warn the Reader, not to argue too far from Similitudes. In a natural Body God hath fixed all the parts by a constant Law of generation, except in Monsters. But in political Bodies, the difference is much: Civil politicks quoad formas specificas, are humane Creatures; and men may alter them. The Church is a Divine politie; God hath fixed its essentials: But he hath left many of its Accidents to the choice of Man, who may alter them as Edification requireth. And again, I say, that Catholick Union in the Essentials only, is necessary to the Being of the Church; and in the Integrals, to its Integrity; and in the needful common Accidents, to its Comeliness; and in other Accidents its unnecessary and impossible. God makes the Man, but the Tailor makes his Cloathes; and the Country, and Usage, and Parents, may diversifie Colour and Complexions. Metropolitans and Patriarchs, and Diocesian Churches, as containing multitudes of Churches, without Bishops, and their Chancellors, Officials, Commissaries, Arch-Deacons, &c. are humane Creatures, as the Episcopal Protestants usually confess: And Liturgies are various, as Languages; and Ceremonies are like our Periwigs: Some think it lawful to wear Womens Hair, and some think it unlawful, though the fashion: But I remember none yet, that have taken all for Rebels, or Out-laws, that wear not Periwigs, or are not of the same Habit, Language, or Complexion; nor any that for these send men to Prison, nor that think it a wise way to unity.

§ 23. p. 46. He comes after with an [If I mean] to conjecture what I mean and think; it fits his present case well; why then doth he quarrel with it? But what is his case, [Then the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body without union with it self, and the unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist meerly in the Union of all particular Churches in and to Christ, without any Union among themselves.]

Ans. Who did he ever Read, or hear say, that the Churches have no Union, or no other than their Union in Christ, among themselves? He may see before § 9. I named ten points of their Union. On Condition that he will not take the Cloathes, or the Periwig, or the House, or the Horse, or Coach, no nor his Wealth, or Office, for the man; I'le once more tell him, (for the Readers sake, and not his) wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth, and also in what all have Communion.

p. 21Politick Bodies are not like Natural, where all the Members must have a continuity of contract: Men that touch not and see not one another, may be Members of one Kingdom. Houses that touch not one another, may make one City.

1. The Church is considered in its meer Essence. 2. Its Organized compleat state, needful to its Edification. 3. In its gradual growth or perfection. 4. In its mutable accidents.

I. Christ and Christians United, are all that is Essential to it as a Church.

II. Christ and Christians, Sub-Churches, or Societies of Pastors and Flocks, are all that is necessary to make it an Organized Church compleated in the parts necessary to its Edification. These Pastors at first were extraordinary, Apostles, and Prophets, for the first settling of universal Laws, and order; And after Ordinary Pastors, to Teach and Guide the Flocks.

III. This Body hath integral parts of various degrees, differing in Knowledge, Orthodoxness, Piety, Peace, Power of Preaching, and Purity and order of Worship and Government. Some in it Preach Christ not sincerely, but in strife, and contention, to add affliction to sincere suffering Preachers: and some, as Diotrephes, receive not the Brethren, but cast them out of the Church, and forbid others to receive them, and judge or despise each other for things that God would have left free; and receive not those that Christ receiveth.

IV. All of them differ in multitudes of accidents. They are not bound to agree in the same Forms, Liturgies, or unnecessary Circumstances: Nor in humane additional Modes, called forms of Government in Accidents; as in Patriarchs, Metropolitans, extended Diocess's, &c. Nor are they bound to take account of the Ordinations, Presentation, Titles, and Rights of all the foreign Churches of other Kingdoms with whom they are to hold Communion; nor to be Tryers or Judges between contending Parties, which is the true Pastor: (Though in the same Kingdom, and under the same Laws, order may require this oft times.) Possession and Profession may satisfie them.

V. Though the Churches had all the degrees of Union besides, yet nothing maketh them One Church in the proper political Sense, as it signifyeth One Governed Society, but their Union with Christ. But their own Capacity is necessary to the reception of this Unity with Christ.

All Politicks difference a meer Community from a publick Body. A hundred or a thousand persons agreed together to manage their affairs by a common Stock and Converse, are a Community; but not Civitas or Respublica: No, though they purpose to set up a Government: But when they are formed into a Body, under one supream Government, they are a page missing

p. 24XII. They are all obliged to use Pastors, Church-Assemblies, Word, Prayer, Praise and Sacraments, that are the same, of Christ's institution.

Now Reader, judg whether all this be no Union and Communion among our selves? And whether his Cant of [Catholick Communion] undistinguisht, be intelligible?

Qu. But wherein lieth your difference then?

Ans. Let him that maketh it, and accuseth us, tell: For my part, either his confused head cannot tell what he would have, or my dull head cannot understand him. But I can tell you what it is that I deny.

I. Tho we are all sanctified by one Spirit, and have one faith and hope, there is great difference among us in the degrees of these.

II. Tho we are all under one Universal Law of Love, Peace, Concord and Obedience, every man breaketh this Law in some degree: but every breach doth not out-law us, or prove us Rebels against God. Whoever so far breaks the Law of Christian Love, Peace and Concord, as will prove that he hath not the sincere Love of God and his Brethren, it is as truly damning (in its degree) as Murder or Adultery, specially if it be notorious in silencings, revilings of godly men, and persecution, to the hinderance of the Gospel, and the encouraging of prophane unconscionable men. But whoever breaks the Laws of Christian Love, Peace and Concord, only so far as may proceed from meer imperfection of Knowledg, Love and Obedience, in a sincere heart where Love is predominant, God pardoneth him, tho he may correct him; and it doth not Unchurch him.

III. He that despiseth the Ministry out of predominant pride, or prophaness, or unbelief, doth it damnably: But so doth not he that in uprightness of heart, for fear of guilt, flyeth further from an ignorant, false or malignant Teacher, than he ought.

IV. If Hereticks, or other uncapable men, get uppermost and in possession, that binds not all Christians, or any, to own them.

V. If Power impose men without fitness, and without the Flocks consent, to be all the Peoples Pastors, so that they are Usurpers, or such as wise men cannot safely trust their souls with as Pastors, it is no sin (much less damnable) to choose better Pastors, if they may be had without more hurt than benefit. It hath ever been Satan's way against Christ, to thrust his Servants into the Sacred Office, to butcher the Flocks, and then cry out against all as Schismaticks that would save their souls, and others, from them.

p. 25VI. The Laws of Rulers that set up Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and other Humane Orders in the Church, if they be but to do what man can impower them to do, must be as far obeyed as other Humane Laws (not being against Gods Laws): But the breach of them unchristens not, nor is punishable, but as the breach of other Humane Laws (which some Casuists say, bind only in case of scandal, if we break them; others only if they be for common good: but I say, if they be not against it, and be things which belong to their Office to determine)▪

VII. In the Roman Empire the Christian Pastors at first had no such way to preserve the people from Heresie, as by keeping close Concord among themselves, and agreeing that all should disown those that were regularly rejected by their own Pastors, which in case of Controversie, Councils were to try: And Christian Emperors added their civil sanction to this power of Councils, and banished such as the Councils condemned as Heresiarks: And this combination they called [the Catholick Church] (in the Empire), to distinguish it from all the Heresies that brake from them. And (Emperors not using the Sword to compel any to Communion, nor enabling the Bishops to do it) this course was needful, and did great Service to the Church, as long as the Majority of the Clergy kept sound: But when worldly Baits drew worldly men into the Bishops seats, this turned clean the other way; and Arians, and every Sect that by power could get uppermost, called themselves the Catholick Church, and persecuted the rest as Schismaticks. In this case the Orthodox durst not plead Majority: but 1. They fled to the Scriptures to try which was the sound part. 2. And they appealed to the Nicene and first Councils when the Church was sound: But the Second Council (at Const.) began a breach; the Third (at Ephesus) made it wider, and was rejected by a great party: The Fourth (at Ephesus) made it yet wider, and was utterly disowned by the soundest part: The Fifth (at Calcedon, call'd the Fourth) made it yet wider, and rent the Church almost into equal parts: And the following Councils went on till they set up Images and Popery, and tore all to pieces.

Therefore I conclude, that uniting on the Decrees of General Councils, as such, is no necessary nor sure way of Catholick Communion. But while godly Pastors use Synods really for Love and Peace, and the Churches welfare, it is the duty of all the People finis gratia, and in obedience to their proper agreeing Pastors, to keep such bonds of Peace. But a failing therein is not an unchurching crime, tho a fault.

VIII. If Councils of Bishops will arrogate a Legislative power over all the Church, or over those that are not of their Flocks, it is part of our duty to Christ, and means of Concord, to disown their Usurpation.

p. 26IX. If a company of uncalled usurping obtruded Pastors, keep Councils, their Pastoral Authority bindeth not.

X. If lawful Bishops will make Agreements for needless or noxious things, on pretence of Concord or Ornament, and lay on them such necessity, that none shall communicate without them, and make them dividing Snares and Engines, particular Bishops ought to disown this; and their authority binds none to obey such Canons, whatever the end (the Churches peace) may do.

XI. Bishops and Pastors in the same Kingdom may well be used to try what Pastors are fit for their Communion: But (as I said before) were we bound to disown the Communion of all Forreign Pastors, the validity of whose right to their places we have not just notice of, our Task would be impossible, or our Communion narrow.

And if forreign Bishops will become so pragmatical, as to make themselves Judges of other Kingdoms, which party of Competitors are the truly called Pastors, when they cannot try them, or will take the words of one party against the other, because they are uppermost, it is just to disregard their Judgment, tho they do it on pretence of Communion.

XII. If men will turn a voluntary consultation for concord, into the Nature of a Law, tho they call it but Communion, the Church should not own their Usurpation: As the Princes of Europe are bound to do the best they can to promote by their concord the interest of Christ, and may well hold Diets or Meetings for that end; yet no man calls that Diet a Kingdom, nor hath the Major Vote a power to bind the Minor to consent, when the reason of the thing doth not bind them. So is it in the concord of forreign Churches: All are bound to agree in what Christ commandeth: But in circumstantial determinations, no man is bound further than the End and Reason of the thing requireth: Communion here is not Subjection.

XIII. There is an Excommunication which is a governing act: This no Church or Bishop can use over others: And there is a meer renunciation of Communion which equals may use.

XIV If any Bishops or Councils (Usurpers or not) excommunicate men unjustly, or forbid them Communion, unless they will sin, such prohibited men must obey Christ, and not forbear Church-Worship and Communion where they can have it, specially if they are many: Schismatical imposing Church tearers must not be encouraged by sinful obedience to them: Whomever they call Schismaticks, God will judg them as Schismaticks themselves, and their revilings and persecutions are self-condemnation.

p. 27I doubt I weary the Reader with oft repeating the same thing, to make them plain against perverters.

§ 24. Let us follow him further: p. 47. he saith, [But how to apply the Copula in a Proposition either to the union of Soul or Body, or of Christ and his Church, I cannot tell; and shall never be able to learn, till I meet with some new Baxterian Logick, as well as Grammar and Metaphysicks.

Ans. And yet you will think your self wise enough to stir up men against us for our ignorance, while you are raging confident. Are you resolved to read no Logick that's already written? One would have thought it should have pleased one that pleads for Unity: As it is no Proposition, but made so by the Copula, uniting the terms as Subject and Predicate, and the Union maketh one the Predicate; so it is no Man and no Church by the bare existence of Soul and Body, or of Christ and Believers, without the uniting of both together, that so the Soul may become in actu, the forma hominis, and Christ the forma Ecclesiae. Homo & Animal rationale, are no Proposition without a Uniting est. Is not this plain?

§ 25. P. 47, 48. Granting that there is no Universal Government but Christ, he's again at it, that there is somewhat more than Organization, and all the Essentials of Christianity and Union with Christ, to make the Church One: and thereupon feigneth me to say, [That which maketh this Body to become a Church, is no union among themselves]; and leaveth out the rest of the Sentence, [but their common union with Christ:] As if their common Union with Christ were not an Union among themselves. If I have not made this plain enough, That 1. the Church hath the Unity of the parts to make it a capable Body or Matter. 2. That it hath a consequent Union and Communion after it is a Church. 3. But that it is only the Union of adapted Matter and Form, that makes it essentially the Church of Christ in the proper political sence, then I despair of making it intelligible, that forma dat esse & nomen: And if that which maketh it [the Church] do not thereby make it hoc unum, then eus & unum non convertuntur, and unum must have a distinct cause from eus.

§ 26. He adds, [I should rather think that the Unity of several Churches makes them one Church, and does not only prepare and dispose them to be one].

Ans. Their Unity in Christ doth make them one formally: And this is the informing Unity among themselves: But all other Unity is but preparatory or consequential to the formal unity. I told you out of Dr. Barrow, and may see in Rod. Goclenius, Martinius, and many more, beside Metaphysicks, in what abundance of loose sences things may be called One: We deny no such Unity, no not in an heap of Sand. But of formal political Unity, why would you never tell us what it is but Union with one King, that makes p. 28many Cities one Kingdom? Do you rather think they are One Kingdom by any other Union among themselves? Yes, if you take [Kingdom] materially and equivocasly, but not else. Dare you say, That they are the Church of Christ, without their Union with him as the Form? Or dare you say, That all Christians united to Christ as their Head and Form, are not eo nomine, one Polity or Church?

And what's the reason that all this while you will not name that thing else, that makes the Church one? Do it if you can.

§ 27. P. 49. Falsly saying, that I have not told him what Union of the Churches among themselves is necessary, he feigns an Union in Christ the Center, consistent with as great distance as the two Poles..

Ans. What base thoughts hath this man of Christianity? Is it a contemptible Union to have all one Faith, one Hope, one Baptismal Covenant, and so one God, one Lord, one Spirit, and one body of such, and all the Twelve parts of Union and Communion before named? 2. Were it not worth the labour for this man to tell us what the more near and excellent Union is which he hath a mind to set up? Paul saith, I tell you of a more excellent way, when he speaks of the Union of Love, even Love to God and our Saviour first, and to all his Members as united in him. Out of all this man's books I cannot find what his nearer Union is, unless it be to unite in such as he; that is, in obedience to their Wills; and so Subjection to them be this high Communion: He saith over and over the general word, Catholick Communion; but what he placeth it in, let him find that can.

§ 28. He saith, [This is a pretty easie way of determining Controversies, to out-face all the authority of Scripture and Antiquity by a dogmatical assertion, without offering the least Reason, or shadow of Reason to confirm it.

Ans. Reader, find one word of Scripture or true Antiquity that I contradict, or that ever he shewed that I contradict; and judg who giveth Reason, and take not his word or mine.

§ 29. Saith he, [I had at large proved the necessity of one Catholick Communion to make one Catholick Church, and instead of answering the proef, he asserts the contrary upon his own naked authority, and that must pass for confutation.

Ans. Could a man have spoken more untruly that had studied it? 1. While he tells us, that by Communion he means Union; did I ever deny it? No, nor ever met with a Christian that denied it. 2. Yea, I said more than he, That besides Union, some Communion in transient acts is necessary, which he placeth not his Communion in. Is not this an hardened Disputer? Who can doubt but Union and Communion is necessary to one Church? But the doubt is, wherein it doth consist? whether in Essentials, p. 29Integrals or Accidents? and what these be? We are far more for Catholick Union and Communion than you. We are for Communion with all true Christians, even those that you represent odious, and excommunicate and ruin; and you are for Communion with a Sect that will honour you and obey your will. We know that to have one God, and Christ, and Holy Spirit, one Faith and Hope of Heaven, one Baptism, and a true Love to one another, and to be all under one Law and Covenant of Christ, and in our several Assemblies to read the same Scripture, use the same Sacraments, and the same Rule of Prayer (the Lord's Prayer) and Praise; this is a most excellent Catholick Communion. We believe that true Christian Unity is the Unity of the Spirit; that is, mental in Faith, Hope and Love; but that it must be held, exercised and preserved in the bond of peace, Eph. 4 3. And therefore if any Christian take it for a sin to joyn with us in the circumstances of Worship, if we can, we'l alter them to satisfie them: If we cannot, we will gladly allow them to worship God together in their own circumstances, and there we will love and pray for one another: We will not cut men off from Christ or the Catholick Church, and damn them for not swearing or saying, that they will obey us, and that there is nothing sinful in any of our Government, Liturgies, Forms or Ceremonies. Our Union is in greater matters common to all Christians, and not in wearing the same fashions, and reading the same forms, and obeying the usurpers of the power of the Keys that are Lay-men, &c.

And as for having obligation and right to Communion with all other Churches (which is all that I can gather he placeth it in, save obeying the same Bishops and Canons), we make no doubt of such right to be used in due order: And therefore we condemn all Church Tyrants that deny men their right: And we do not believe that our right is in the power of Prelates to take from us, unless we forfeit it, and cast it away: And we grant obligation to due Communion, as well as right; and therefore will be no such Separatists as you are, that refuse Communion with Dissenters in their Churches; yea, condemn all that do but call them Churches: And seeing no man is obliged to sin, we disown their crime that will not let men preach nor communicate, unless they will make a solemn Covenant to sin.

The Catholick Communion that he seems to aim at, is to receive and reject the same persons in every Church that are received in or rejected by any one. We are for as much of this as is needful to the purity and peace of the Church: But we do not believe that all the Christian World is bound to take all the godly persons for excommunicate, who shall be excommunicated here according to the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, &c. Canons of the Church of England; nor to silence all Ministers that you silence. p. 30When we were newly silenced, 1662. some great men were imployed to affirm, That if we would go and preach to the Americans it was an excellent work, and they would bear our charges: I told them, that our lives would be spent e're we could learn their Languages, as fit to preach to them. But it seems if we had gone, Catholick Communion would have silenced us there too, and have obliged the Americans, if we converted them, to reject us.

What if Bishops excommunicate men for not paying the Civilians their Fees, or for not repenting of a truth, or silence us for not assenting and consenting to all in their book? must all the World reject us in conformity to them? It's an heinous crime for any one man to draw a Nation to sin with him; but much more to engage all the Christian World to sin with him; yea, and that on pretence of Catholick Communion. Christ saith (by his Spirit in his Apostle), Him that is weak in the faith receive, and receive one another as Christ received us. If Bishops silence and excommunicate even them that ate strong in the Faith, must all the World disobey Christ to obey them?

If you grant that, clave errante, they bind not, must we take their bare words, that claves non errant? or must we become Tryers and Judges of all the World that they will judg?

And how shall all Churches receive the same that some receive, when you know not whom you receive your selves? Are all the score thousands that are in some of your great Parishes, in your Church? Must all the World take all the Sadduces, Hobbists, Infidels and Damners that dwell in your Parishes into their Communion? No, nor all that come to the Altar, when the Priest knows not who they be, and never saw them before? Do you use to write Testimonial Letters for every one of your Communicants, when he travelleth into other Parishes or Diocesses? Any man (save a Nonconformist) that had rather take the Sacrament than lie in Goal, is admitted (unless some rare Minister stop a notorious scandalous man, till the Court absolve him). If you make a Prison of your Church, and say to all men, [Chuse this or Newgate, &c.] must all the World receive such, because they chuse the Church-Prison rather than the other?

And if we cannot possibly know which of our Neighbours be of your Church, and which not, in the same Parish (e. g. Martins, Giles, &c.) how shall we know who hath right to Communion all the World over? You must needs cast us on believing the Bishops words, when as, 1. They use not to give the World such notice. 2. If they did, we know not forreign Bishops credibility (in France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany, &c.) they most separate from one another.

p. 31§ 30. P. 50. He proceeds, [He takes that for granted which I can never grant him, That the Churches which are divided from one another by separate and opposite Communions, may yet be all united to Christ; for Christ hath but one Body, one Spouse, one Flock, one Church; and if we be not Members of this one Church (as no Schism…ticks are), we are not united to Christ].

Ans. 1. The Lord have mercy then on this miserable Priest, and save him from his heinous Schism, that out of his own month he may not be condemned as no Member of Christ.

2. Reader, while the Piper, Harper, or Trumpeter, giveth no distinction in the sound, (1 Cor. 7.7, 8.) but thinks that crying [Communion, Communion] should charm men into the same Disease of Confusion and Schism, which he is sick of; If thou be awake, I invite thee still but to use thy Reason in these three distinctions 1. Between Subjection and Communion. 2. Between local Separation and mental. 3. Between mental Separation in and from meer circumstances, accidents, or integrals, and in and from essentials necessary to Christianity and Christian Communion; And then if thou canst not Answer this Doctor, and escape Schism, which he tempts thee to, without any further Confutation, I dispair of curing thee.

1. None are of Christ's Church that separate from any thing Essential to it.

2. All Congregations are locally divided and separated frome one another.

3. All Churches and Persons that differ in a Translation, a Form, a Word, a Ceremony in their Communion, by opposite Opinions or Practises are so far mentally opposite in their Communion. E. g. They that were for observing Meals and Daies, Rom. 14. and they that were not: Peter and Barnabas that separated from the Gentile Christians while the Jews were there, and Paul that reproved them for it: Yea, those that for small Mental difference separate locally: A Prelatist that scruples taking one Parish Priest, or Bishop for his Pastor, suppossing him insufficient or a false Teacher, separateth by removing his dwelling to another Diocess, or Parish: These Schismaticks have not yet dared to say, that this man separateth from Christ. The Convocation caused Godfrey Goodman to be imprisoned 1640: His Diocess and the next were Separate in their Separate Heads. Victor Excomunicated the Asian Churches. Here were opposite Churches and Communion; the Greeks and Romans, the Abassine, Syrian, Assyrian, Armenian, Georgian, &c. Churches censure and Separate from others in their Communions to this day; so do some Lutherans from other Protestants hold Communions opposite in point of Consubstantiation and Images. So do such as Mr. Dodwell, condemn all Communion p. 32that hath not uninterrupted Episcopal Succession: You write against him, and Archbishop Bramhall: so far are your Communions opposite. Doctor Gunning in the time of Usurpation, was against the Parish-Communion then practised, and separated from it: Archbishop Usher, Bishop Browning, and multitudes of Episcopal men did not. Did all these separate from Christ.

Was Cyprian and all the African and Numidian Bishops separate from Christ, or the Pope — in Augustin's daies, when there was so long opposition between three Popes and Aurelius, Augustine, and the rest of the Africans, which party was unchristened?

Was it (Miracle-working) St. Martin, that was unchristened, or the Synods of Bishops whose Communion he renounced to the Death?

Epiphanius giveth so high a character of Audius, that wise men think his Separation from the Bishops that abhorred his reproof, unchristened him not.

Socrates and S…zomen, tells us of great diversity and opposition in the Communions of many Countries, about Easter, and other things, that yet unchristened them not.

When the Scots and Britains would not communicate with Gregories Austin, nor eat in the same House with the Romans, which party was cut off from Christ?

Was it Chrysostomes Ioannites, or the Council that deposed him, and the Cyrillians, that were cut off from Christ?

Was it the Party of Meletius, Paulinus, or Flavian at Antioch, that were not united to Christ?

Not only Socrates and Sozomen, but Atticus and Procluus, and other men, freer from Schism and Ignorance than our Dr. thought the Novatians were united to Christ.

Was Lucifer Calaritanus cut off from Christ for gathering a Church separate from the Bishops that he thought too hastily received the returning Arians?

Was it Zachary and Boniface that were cut off from Christ, or the Two Presbyters that they excommunicated for holding Antipodes, &c?

Was it the Church of Canstantinople, or of Rome, that was unchurch't when Vigilius and Menna, and other Patriarchs excommunicated one another?

If David Derodon have proved, that Nestorius spake Orthodoxly, and Cirilas was an Eutichian; or if I have undeniably proved, that they meant the same thing; or Iob Ludolphus, that the Eutychians were sound in the faith, which of the parties that these 1300. years have condemned each other, are cut off from Christ?

p. 33When the Italians set up a Patriarch at Aquileia, an hundred years against Rome, which side was unchurched?

When the Pope (Alexander 3. Innocent 4. &c.) interdicted whole Kingdoms (France, England, &c.) and part of the Churches obeyed the Pope, and part the King; and when in the Wars with Frederick, Henr. 4th and 5th, O…h…. &c. part of the Bishops were for the Emperor, and condemned the rest, and the other part condemned them as Henrician Hereticks, which side was unchurched?

When all the Truths that Philastrius calls Heresies (in palpable ignorance) had parties condemned for holding them (as Hereticks), was it the feigned Hereticks, or the condemners, that were unchurched?

But if this man's words be true, and Priests can so easily damn men, it's time to think what those men do that have made such damning Canons as ours before-mentioned; and that damn all that differ, and obey them not in every word and ceremony which they will command on those damning terms: And (were this true) whether it were not wisdom for all men to pack up, and leave the Land to the Priests themselves, and those that are ductile and sequacious enough to follow them to the last?

For my part, I believe not, that he that goeth from one Church to another, as separating from a pair of Organs, or Cathedral singing, or Copes, or from a sorry Priest for a better, or from an undisciplined Church, to one that useth true Discipline; not judging the Church that he goeth from, worse than it is doth any thing inconsistent with his Christianity, nor is separated from Christ: What the seed of Cain do, that hate and persecute their brethren; and whether they separate from Christ when they fight against Love, I leave to others.

… 31. Page 64, 65. But the man, hard put to it, hath a new notable subterfuge: He that hath said all this for One Church, hath found Two Universal Visible Churches in the World, besides the Invisible: [One c…nsists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ, observe his Laws and Institutions, and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other]: This he owns.

Ans. So do we, with these Suppositions, 1. That no man observeth all Christ's Laws and Institutions, without sin; but true Christians profess and practice the observation of them sincerely, so far as they know them.

2. Those that you damn and persecute, profess to do this to the best of their understanding, and say, it is for doing it that you revile and ruin them.

p. 343. We suppose, that when Christ's Laws and Man's interfere, Christ's are to be obeyed against Man's.

4. And we take not the Church of England to be cut off from Christ's Church; if it should be proved, that they [observe not all the Laws and Institutions of Christ]: In this you preach Separation too blindly. There are some Laws and Institutions of so low a Nature, that Error and Offence against them, cuts not Men off from the Church.

But what is his other Notion of [a Christian Church]? Why, It's that which contains the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks, which are a middle thing between the true Catholick Church and the World of Infidels, as Rebels in a Kingdom.

Ans. This is the effect of Confusion: When such men are got into a Labyrinth, they go the further the worse. The Truth of the case is this. The Church is usually likened to a Corn Field, that hath, 1. Corn: 2. the Straw and Chaff that feeds and covers it: 3. Stricken Ears, in whole or in part: 4. Weeds: All is but one Corn Field, so denominated from the Corn: But the Straw and unsound Ears are Integral Parts and Acciden…s: But the Weeds are no part at all, but noxious Adjuncts.

So, 1. True Believers and Heart-Covenanters, are the Christians in famosiore & propriâ significatione analogati, to whom the denomination of the Church is ordinarily given in the New-Testament.

2. Verbal profession and covenanting, is common to the sound and unsound, as the Straw and Chaff to the Grain and Ears. It constituteth the Church as visible matter, as it is supposed to serve and contain the Grain

3. The Ears totally and visibly smitten, are but equivocally parts; that is, the persons whose profession or notorious practice containeth a renunciation of their Baptismal Covenant or Christianity, are but equivocally called Christians and Church-Members.

4. Those that deny some Article of Faith consequentially, nororiously and ignorantly thinking their Opinion consistent with all the Essentials which they practically profess, are not thereby cut off from the Church; but they having made their Title litigious, may be suspended from some Communion till it be tryed.

5. All good Christians are sinners, and have errors; and if any judg them Hereticks and Schismaticks, for such, they are still in the Church of Christ. The word [Heretick and Schismatick] are now become what the speaker please. He is a true Heretick that separateth from something essential to (Faith, Love, or Obedience to Christ), and from the p. 35Church for that, or thereby. Persecutors separate from Christian Love and Communion.

So that here is but one Catholick Church; and some called by men Hereticks and Schismaticks, are true Members: but all that notoriously renounce any Essentials, are no Members of it.

Rebels is a word that may signifie such as cast off the Soveraign: By which, renouncing subjection, they renounce being Members of the Kingdom, and are as an Army of invading Enemies, who are in the Land, but not of the Kingdom. But if any will call those Rebels that do but break a penal local Law, or that are disobedient to a Constable, a Justice, or a Master; this proveth them not to be no part of the Kingdom.

But he numbreth the excommunicate with those that are cut off from Christ.

Ans. Yes, upon these Suppositions following: 1. That they be excommunicate not only for sin, but for such sin by which they first cut off themselves from Christ, the Excommunicator only declaring it by his Sentence: else Excommunicators will be worse than Devils, if they damn men, or cut them off from Christ, who do not first cut off and damn themselves.

2. That it be not only proved an heinous sin in it self, but that they are proved after due instruction and patient warning, to be so impenitent in it, by wilful ignorance, or obstinacy against Knowledg, as will not stand with sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ.

3. That it's no cutting off a man's self from Christ, to say, that there is somewhat sinful in your Church Government, Liturgy or Ceremonies, or to be afraid to assent and consent to all imposed, or to take an Oath never to endeavour any reforming-alteration of Church Government; nor will it prove a renouncing Christ, to separate from a Usurper, or a false Teacher, or run out of Dunstans Church (as they did) for fear it should fall on their heads. If therefore any will cut men off from Christ for any such thing, or for observing the 20th Canon of the Council of Nice, or for the fashion of his Cloke, or for not paying the Court his Fees, they either condemn themselves instead of others, or do much worse than the Devil, that can damn none such.

It's Two to One but this Doctor that here damns the excommunicate without distinction, will next say, he meant well, tho he said ill, and that he supposed the Excommunication just. The best is, it's no great matter what he meaneth, while he is none of our Judg, except as to himself and the seduced.

p. 361. And I add, That we will suppose the Excommunicator to be no Usurper, but a justly called Pastor, and not a proud ignorant Obtruder, nor a Stranger that cannot try the Cause, nor is called to try it. Much less a Lay-Civilian, usurping the power of the Keys.

These men have so many things to say, before they can accomplish their work, as bespe…ks such Auditors whom darkness and interest hath made monstrously credulous.

As 1. We are y…ur lawful Past…rs. 2. The Patron's had power to choose, and the … us so, whether you …. 3. No … are your lawful … bu… we. 4. We have power to c…mmand things indifferent; and if we c…mmand a Su…lice, or a pair of O…gans, or …ru…ue you are cut off from Christ if you … us, or at least, if we excommunicate you for it. 5. If y…u think any of our Oa…hs, or other Imp…sitions, to be sins that would damn you; yet if you refuse them, and we excommunicate y…u f…r it, you are cut off from Christ, and in a state of damnation. 6. If one Chancellor or Priest cut you off, all the Church on Earth must judg you accordingly.

Reader, when so small a part of Christians in a thousand years have escaped Excommunication from one or other, what have these men done in the World? Is it any wonder if Kings and Kingdoms were subjected by Excommunication, and to say, [St. Peter will be angry else] frightned the Nations into obedience? Did not Christ and Paul speak gently, when they called such grievous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, devouring the Flocks?

§ 32. Yet p. 69, 70. his cause leads him to say, that this Church, which is wider than the Catholick, taking in Rebels, yea, those Rebels themselves, and Hereticks, and Schismaticks, [May have the power of Orders (or else I know what would follow), and Officers rightly constituted, Christian Sacraments, and all the Essentials of a true Church, except Christian Peace, and Unity, and Catholick Communinion.

Ans. Reader, pretend not to understand him, but answer him dilemmatically; either by [Peace and Union] you mean inclusive Union with Christ, and the Unity of the Spirit, one Faith, one hope, and Union of Christian Love; and by Communion, a Communion in things necessary to salvation; or you do not. If you do, then this is the true Paraphrase of your words, [They may have all the Essentials of a true Church, except all the Essentials]; for those they have not. If you do not include these, then this is the Paraphrase, [They may be true Believers, and penitent, and love God and Man sincerely, and be Members of Christ, and have his Spirit, and one Baptism, and one true hope of Heaven, and the pardon of sin, and p. 37yet be Rebels, and damned for want of somewhat ese, which I call Unity, Peace, and Catholick Communion]. I think you mean subjection to such as you, in all your Canonical Impositions.

In short, the plain truth of this Case I before opened, viz. When disobedience to true Church-…astors, proveth t… be as Adultery and Murder, sins signifying such Predominance of the Flesh, and absence of Divine Faith and Love, as is inconsistent with …, then it is damning, as other gr…ss and reigning sin is: But else it …uts not off from Christ; and if the Prelates pretend to cut off such, they are liker to cut off themselves.

§ 33 His rare distinction he fullier openeth, which is, [Between the Visible Church, and the one true Catholick Visible Church: The Visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians, Hereticks, Idolaters, or whatever they be: T…e one true Catholick Church … not].

Ans. I have answered this before. It's well the distinction is not commonly observed (as the Coyner saith); for it would be a common abuse. Hitherto we have known but one Universal Church, considered as Mystical (in Believers) or Visible (in Prosessors of the same, and not another Faith). Profest Idolaters, or Hereticks, that deny the Essential, are no Members of it, as Visible. But this Doctor hath forged an One true Catholick Church, less than the Visible, and yet Visible▪ Could he have spoken sence, he would but have said, [The Universal Visible Church hath some Members that are sound, orderly and peaceable, and some that are erroneous, disorderly and unruly, even as it hath some holy, and some Adulterers, Thieves and Persecutors. In a great house are some Vessels of Earth to dishonour.

§ 34. I fear if I should survey but half the confused passages of this book, I should tire the Reader as well as my self. I will be briefer with the rest

P. 94, 95, &c. He giveth us an allay against the tenor of his Excommunications and Damnations, to shew, that he is not so uncharitable as he seems to be, and that his Canon that maketh so great a noise, hath but Powder without Bullet. I look he should say, I misunderstand him; and therefore I will not tell you his meaning, but the sum of his words, viz. p. 87. to shew us why [Those that believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and lead an holy life in all godliness and honesty—may yet be excluded from all the ordinary means of salvation]: He first blames them that in these days have thought Holiness so sufficient; and would cheat his Reader, by citing Austin, as of that mind, who hath no mention in the words which he cites of Faith, Holiness, Love to God, or to his Saints, or Service, but only a Catalogue of such Virtues as Heathens or …nfidels plead for, viz. Chastity, Continence, not cove…us, not serving Idols, not p. 38contentious, patient, quiet, emulating and envying none, sober, frugal]. But yet an Heretick (who is without the Christian Faith and Love), so far is he from including these in his Description. But no doubt he will have some Readers that will swallow all such Hooks as these.

Then supposing men have no Love that communicate not on his terms, nor love the Peace and Unity of the Church, unless they joyn in such Principles as his, that would destroy it; he tells us truly, that Heaven is only the Gift of Christ, as merited by him; and therefore can be had only on his terms; and that is, only in Communion with his Church, and by his Sacraments.

Ans. And what Christ's Terms are, he hath told us, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. John 3.16. Whoever believeth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life, &c. The Whole Gospel is a Charter of salvation to all that have true Faith, Hope, Love, and Holiness. And all such are in the Church of Christ.

2. And as ordinarily doth the Scripture tell us, that the preaching of the Gospel is the means of faith and holiness, by which God saveth them that believe; and that by the hearing of faith preached, the spirit is given, Gal. 3.2, &c. Rom. 10.14, 17. John 5.24. Acts 18.8. Acts 10.44. The holy ghost fell on all them that heard the word, before they were baptized, even the miraculous gift of the Spirit, Matth. 13.18. Mark 4.20. Luke 8.13, 21. and 11.28. Christ himself preached, but did not baptize: He sent forth his Disciples to convert men by preaching, Matth. 10.7. and 11.1. Mark 1.38. and 3.14. Luke 4.18, 19, 43. and 9.2, 60. Acts 5.42. and 10.42. and 8.5, 25, 35, 40. and 9.20. 1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Cor. 1.17. Paul saith, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. John 15.3. Ye are clean through the word, &c. John 6.63. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. John 17. Sanctifie them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 6.68. and 8.30. 2 Cor. 5.19, 20. 1 Tim. 5.17. and 1.2. John 4.2. It is able to save souls. James 1.21. 1 Pet. 2.2. John 8.31. Heb. 4.12. It is able to make us wise to salvation: It is by the word of God that men are born again as an incorruptible seed. 1 Pet. 1.23. It is that abiding in us that is our continued life, 1 Iohn 2.14.

There is no mention in Scripture of any one that was converted and made a Believer by Baptism or the Lord's Supper. The Adult were all to repent and believe, before they were baptized; and God promised them forgiveness thereupon: He never bid men baptize Infidels, nor graceless men. Baptism was but the publick solemnizing of the Covenant, which they consented to before, and the solemn investing them in that relation to which they were before entered: And entring them by Baptism, stated p. 39them in the Universal Church, before ever they were setled under any particular Pastor in a particular Church, as the case of the Eunuch, Acts 8. shews.

But that which I call his Allay, is, that he copiously tells us, that [Heaven is a supernatural state of happiness, and not the natural reward of an eartly creature, p. 92, 93. It is but an earthly happiness that Nature was made for, and was promised to Adam in Paradise; an immortal life on Earth. An immortal life after death cannot be the natural Reward. Innocent flesh is flesh: Were it not for Heaven, man were not bound to lay any restraint on himself, nor suppress sensual inclinations, nor deny them proper and natural satisfactions. As far as we know, to live always in this world and body, was the Original state of mankind, without any expectations of a more divine and spiritual life, p. 98. Briefly, p. 272. The Divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us, which first giveth life to our souls, and will at last raise our bodies.

Ans. His Opinion in this, is not without the consent of some very learned and good men: And if he had held only, that immortality is proper to the spiritual, so far as it is immortal blessedness, who would contradict him? But seeing it is the undistinguisht immortality of the Soul that he speaketh of, I shall in this, with submission, declare my Dissent and Reasons.

§ 35.1. I confess that, as I said, it is an Allay to his damning Sentence of thousands of God's faithful Servants: For it seems by [Damnation] he meaneth but Death, and the loss of Heaven, in which the Soul is dead as well as the Body; and so he judgeth us not to any other Hell. But then all the Infidels, Atheists, Murderers, Perjured, Adulterers and Drunkards, find the like kindness from him (if it will prove such). It seems all their Souls are mortal, and die as Beasts: And so the fear of Hell, or any pain after Death, is dismist by him to all the World.

2. I believe not this, because God is the righteous Governor of the World, and ruleth by means suited to the end: And we find, that the fear of a future positive punishment, is so natural to the Conscience of man, that the World is mostly governed by it: And God ruleth not man by meer deceit.

3. We see that even the fear of Hell is not sufficient to restrain (no, not professed Christians and Preachers) from Perjury, Persecution, Sensuality, Worldliness and Wickedness: What a case then would the World be in, were they delivered from those fears? Men would be worse than Toads, Adders, or mad Dogs to one another.

p. 404. The Philosophers, yea, most (and almost all) the Infidel and Pagan World to this day, were convinced of the Immortality of the Soul: So that even the Lord Herbert, de verit. numbereth it with the Notices of ….

5. I have in divers books given, I think, satisfactory proof of the Souls immortality, not now to be repeated, both Natural, and from Revelation: And if he preach the contrary, I crave his patience with those that scruple taking him for their Pastor.

6. But (as La…iantius and Arnobius plead against the Platonists for the Souls Mortality by Nature) I do confess that there is nothing in Nature that will prove that God cannot annihilate it, as he can do any Angel; nor that it is immortal without depend…nce on God, nor that will prove infallibly that God will annihilare no Soul: But all that we pretend to prove by Nature is, 1. That there is nothing in the Nature of the Soul that hath a tendency to annihilation or dissolution of it. 2. That God, who maketh all things suitable to their use, seemeth to intimate, that he will not dissolve or annihilate it, by making it of such a durable Nature. 3. And his Government affords us yet stronger moral Arguments.

7. As God made Adam's Soul of an immortal Nature, so sin changed not his Essence, but his Quality and Relation. And tho it made him mortal in the dissolution of his humanity or composition, and liable to pain, it did not turn him into an Animal of another species, nor acquit him from all future suffering. God having made his Soul naturally durable or immortal, man's merits were but to determine whether it should be immortal happiness or immortal misery. God was not bound to change man's Essence to shorten his suffering, because man vitiated it.

8. If one should preach, that Christ came to make Humane Souls immortal that were all naturally mortal, it would make Faith so hard a Work, as would greatly hinder the conversion of the Infidels. It would be an hard thing to believe that Christ maketh Saints of another species from all other men, as men are from Brutes: And if ones Soul be naturally mortal, and others, by the Spirit, immortal, it would seem a specifick difference: And Philosophers and Mahometans, who can say so much for the immortality of the Soul, would despise Christians as less Orthodox than they.

9. I have elsewhere proved, that the Iews held the Souls immortality, except the Sadduces: He that said, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit …t…rnal life? spake but their common Opinion; as did all they that believed that any rose from the dead.

p. 4110. It seems by the History of Henoch and Elias, that if man had not sinned, he should have been so translated: For God had said, Increase and multiply; and the Earth would not have held all Humane Generations.

11. Christ expresly saith, There shall be a Resurrection to condemnation, John 5. and that the wicked shall go to everlasting punishment, Matth. 25. and that their worm never dieth, nor their fire is quenched, &c. But if the Soul be not immortal, there can be no Resurrection: It will not be the same man, but another new made: And shall a new soul suffer for anothers sin? Luke 16. in the case of Dives and Lazarus, tells us Christ's mind of this.

12. Yet I confess that the Resurrection of the Body was not promised before the Fall, nor yet plainly threatned, but seemeth to be the common effect of Redemption in its first instance, as it was for all Mankind; viz. That man being filius mortis, Christ would first, as a common Saviour, restore his Nature, and then set him in the way of Tryal for its happiness or misery; as God at first made his Nature, and then tryed him accordingly. But it seems had there been no Saviour, the body should have continued dead (being but the meer instrument of the sinning soul), and the immortal soul be immortally unhappy.

13. Therefore in this, if the Doctor mean not better than he speaks, but thinks indeed that the Spirit only is the Principle of the Souls immortality, I differ from him, but not with contempt, acknowledging that these things are weighty, and of difficulty: But I am loath to be less Orthodox than Heathens and Infidels, or than the vain conceited Rabbins, who as Buxtorfe and others tell us, do hold that good Israelites go to Heaven, and bad Israelites to Hell, and all others die like Beasts. Did he so hold of good and bad Christians, it were too gross (or of those that are called by the Gospel, and some believe and some refuse). The Papists most commonly hold, That unbaptized Infants are in some such neutral state, shut out of Heaven, but under no positive pain. But if the Doctor preach so of the Adult and all, tho he seem to abate of his severity to the Dissenters, he will do no service to the Church.

14. The Terms Reedeeming, Restauration, and other such in Scripture, intimate, that Christ did restore Man to the state he fell from▪ adding more mercy to it: And therefore that his Soul was immortal, and he in via, and not in patria.

And I believe not what he adds of man's being not obliged to deny Sensuality, were it not for Heaven: 1. He thinks Adam was made but for Earth: And yet God bound him Not to eat of that Fruit which his eye, appetite and fancy led him to desire. Doth he not here directly condemn God's Law, and justifie Adam's Sin? 2. Were there no Heaven for us, p. 42man were bound to rule his Appetite and Sense by Reason: And the bonum publicum, and his own, would oblige him by Reason to restrain Sensuality, as to Women, Wine, Meat, desire of our Neighbours Estate, Anger that would kill others in revenge. 3. And I think God doth not bind us now to take the forbearance of such comforts as further us in Holiness, Thankfulness, and other Duties, to be any necessary way to Heaven.

§ 36. Page 122, 123. To prove his sort of Catholick Unity, he is not content with Episcopatus Unus est; but he asserteth, That all the Bishops of the Church are but one Bishop, invested with the same Power, &c.

Ans. 1. Episcopacy may be said to be One, as it is One in specie, and for one remote End and Object; as Justiceship in England may be called One: But that all Bishops should be but one Bishop, is strange (Tho by impropriety of speech, almost any thing may be said). No doubt but the Name [Bishop] signifieth in common speech, the Subject related]: Either he meaneth, that the Subjects are one, or the Relation. While he abhorreth the distinguishing of the equivocal [Unity], we must take him to speak in sinsu famosiore & usitato: 1. They that have divers numerical constitutive parts of men (matter and form), are divers Bishops, as Subjects of the Relation: But so have e. g. the Bishop of Canterbury, and York, and London: They have divers Souls and Bodies.

They that may depose and curse each other, are not the same Bishop: But so did Chrysostome and his Adversaries, and hundreds more. If they are One subjectively, the Virtues and Vices of ones are anothers, and the Creditor may take one man to Prison for anothers Debt.

2. They cannot be One numerically in the Relation of Bishop: For the Relation is Accidens quod sequitur subjectum: The same numerical Accident cannot possibly be in two distinct Subjects: For it perisheth if it cease to be in its Subject. One man's Colour, Virtue, Learning, &c. cannot numerically be the Accident of another: So that all Bishops being one Bishop, is just like the rest of this man's Doctrine. I believe one may be good and another bad, one saved and another damned.

What can the man mean by it, if he could speak his mind? Sure nothing but that their Office is of the same species, and they bound to use it in their several places, as from one Christ, under one Law of his, with the greatest Love and Concord they can, and for the common good of one Universal Church: Can he mean more, without gross Error? And who denieth any of this, as to the Episcopacy of Christ's institution?

p. 43§ 37. [They are bound to govern where it can be had, by mutual advice and consent].

Ans. So far as the end requireth, The common good: So say the Independents: And is that the Unity so much talkt of?

§ 38. ['No Bishops are absolutely independent, but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy—Those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government, as all must have that have independent Governours or Bishops; and independent Churches can never make one Body, and one Catholick Communion, because they are not Members of each other.

Ans. 1. No Two Churches on Earth of the same species (Diocesan, or Parochial, &c.) are members of each other, but all of the Universal or National, of which they are parts; no more than your fingers or eyes are members of each other.

2. Reader, pardon me, that in the beginning I commended him, as being for Diocesan Independency in Power. These words make me again uncertain what he's for. Plain English would distinguish dependance of Subjects on Rulers in a Polity, and dependance of Equals by Concord in a Community: These are plain words. He after saith, that Diocesans have no proper Governors Ecclesiastick over them, or to that sence: But here he saith, they are not independent in Power and Government: Yet the man saith so little in any determinate sence, that I know not whether by [dependance in Government], he mean [a political dependance on superior Governors], or [a political Union of many persons to make one superior governing power (like a Senate), or a meer voluntary concord of many Governors that are Equals, like that of many School-Masters or Princes, whose Concord maketh them not One Polity, but One Community. The former sence some words of his do favour; but elsewhere he so much denieth them, that I hope it is but the last that he meaneth.

3. But if this be his sence, What independent (whom he so much damneth) doth not acknowledg a dependance in Community, on all true Christians (and in Polity on Christ)? Doth not every Christian confess, that all true Churches and Christians depend on the Whole, as Parts, and on each other, as Fellow-Members, obliged to live on the same Christ, in the same Love and Communion in Essentials, and in as many Integrals of Religion as they can reach to? I never met with the Christian that denied this: Therefore what to make of this man's words, I know not.

§ 38. P. 126. he saith, [He who causelesly breaketh this Unity, can be no Catholick Bishop].

p. 44Ans. Is it come to that? Alas! how few Catholick Bishops then do we hear of in the World? Tho no good man breaks it in the Essentials, who breaks it not in Degrees or Integrals. They were guilty of Schism that said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas. Peter brake it in some degree, Gal. 2. And much more those, Phil. 1. that preacht Christ in strife, to add to Paul's affliction. How shall we know then what all his talk for Communion signifieth as to practice? With what Bishops in the World must we hold Communion? And how shall we know them? If any prove that any English Bishop causelesly breaketh this Union in any degree, must we separate from him? I know no evasion for him here, unless he will yet distinguish of Unum… Martinius saith, Unus is, 1. Indivisus. 2. Sic indivisus, ut etiam indivisibi…s. 3. Sic indivisas, ut divisibilis. 4. Sic indivisus ut divisus, se… distinctus ab aliis. 5. Unicus solus. 6. Unus cum aliquo, seu idem, aut numero, aut gen…re, aut specie, aut analogia: item Essentia, Persona, Voluntate, aut actu]. But this is Gibberish, I suppose, to the Doctor: Bare Unity is more intelligible, tho no one know wherein it must be.

§ 39. He adds, [To preservt the Peace and Unity of Episcopacy, it's necessary that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith, but especially in matter of weight and consequence, the same Customes and Usages, and the same Laws of Discipline and Government — and when any difficult case happens, for which they have no standing Rule to consult.

Ans. The longer the worse! If I ask him whether he mean such Customs and Usages as are part of God's Word materially, commanded or commended in Scripture, I know not what he will say; but I strongly conjecture he will say, No: It is Tradition and Church-Customs not there mentioned.

If I ask, how these come, [espcially to be mentioned as matter of weight and consequence], he confesseth, that God, and not Man, made the Church: And is not God's Law sufficient to be its Universal Rule? If man make these matters of weight, man may unmake them.

2. But is it not Universal Church-Communion that he is speaking of? I provoke him to tell me, if he can, who on Earth hath power (beside God and our Saviour) to make Laws (the same) of Discipline and Government to the Universal Church? Is not Legislation the prime part of Government? Have not you oft denied any Humane Supreme Government under Christ over all the Church? Do you not here say the contrary? Know you not the difference between the Contracts of a Community, and the Laws of a Polity? It's no true Law if it be not the act and instrument of a Rector to govern his Subjects. If Twenty Kings meet (or School-Masters, Physicians, &c.) and agree on certain Points of Government, this maketh p. 45them not One Polity, Kingdom (or School): Their Contracts are neither Laws to each other, nor to their common Subjects; but every King may make them a Law to his own Subjects.

4. If you should mean only National Laws of Discipline and Government, how come all the Churches in the World to be obliged to [observe the same Laws], e, g. our Canons? This, as to Traditions, is expresly contrary to our Articles of Religion which you subscribe. And when the Church-Laws of all Countreys differ so much, which must all be reduced to?

If you say, They must all agree to those called the Codex Ecclesiae Universalis, or the Four or Six first approved Councils, &c. I answer, 1. It's gratis dictum: And how prove you those universally obligatory, and no other? And how will you satisfie Conscience, which are the obligatory Laws indeed?

2. Why do you then cast all from Communion that observe the 20th Canon of the Council of Nice?

3. What power have dead Bishops over us, and all Christ's Church? They were Canons for one Empire which is dissolved, and of which we are no part.

4. Is Christ so insufficient a Lawgiver, even for Laws necessary to the Unity of his Church, as that we must have more Laws of Government and Discipline which the Catholick Church must unite in, or be no Church: And shall that man plead for such Laws that yet saith, There is no universal Governor? I never said, you are a Cassandrian, or a Papist: But it was such ignorant Doctors that saddled the Horse, and held the Stirrup while the Pope got up.

§ 40. [This (saith he) makes it highly reasonable for Neighbour-Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with ease and convenience, as the Bishops of the same Province or Nation, to live together in a strict Ass… ciation and Confederacy, to meet in Synods—to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship—There may be a primacy of order granted to some Bishops and their Chair, by general consent, and under the regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons, for the preservation of Catholick Unity.

Ans. You make this Catholick Unity essential to the Church: And yet doth it lie in Humane Canons and Ass…ciations? Did Christ leave things so essential to Humane Invention? And is concord in your Canons necessary to salvation? And yet the proof of all this, is but this, and such Doctors Assertion, that [it's highly reasonable]. And so Unity and Salvation must lie on all that such will think highly reasonable.

p. 462. If Subjects may thus make their own Laws, no doubt they will make them suitable to their Natures and Inclinations (And it's confest, that oft the most, even of Bishops, are bad and worldly men), and suitable to their Ends and Interests: How many would be glad if Soveraigns would thus let Subjects make their own Laws?

3. But how were the Canons, or Laws of a National Church to be a Rule to all the Church on Earth, and necessary to its Unity?

4. And how comes this man that made it damnable in the Independents to make a Church-Covenant, as if they renounced Baptism, now to make Church-Associations and Confederacies to be so necessary to Catholick Unity? Truly I know no answer for the man, but the same that Binnius giveth us, when Pope Iohn and Hormisda gave a contrary determination, de fide, on the question, Whether it may be said, that One of the Trinity was crucified? One said, Yea; But the N…storians taking hold of it, the other said, Nay: Ita mutatis hostibus, saith B…nius, arma necessario mutanda sunt: That's true when it's for themselves, which is false when it's for others.

5. But it was modestly done to confine these Confederacies to the greatest distance that the thing is practicable with ease and convenience: And so he fairly denieth General Councils (and after more plainly). But when the Armenians, Syrians, Abassines, Greeks, &c. cannot with ease and convenience, go above Five or Six Hundred miles (at most); and so each Countrey hath different Customs, Laws and Canons: Can the Catholick Church obey them all?

§ 41. P. 127. This (saith he) seems to be the true Original of Archiepiscopal and Metropolitical Churches.

Ans. If so, I will not believe that they are necessary to Catholick Unity and Salvation, till I know who invented them, and whether they had as good a Commission as the Apostles

2. If Bishops made the first Achbishops (and Parish-Bishops, say others the first Diocesans, and Presbyters the first Parish-Bishops), then, 1. Inferiors may make Superiors, and give the power which they never had. 2. Why then may they not ordain Equals, and propagate their species. 3. Then Presbyters or Bishops are of God, and Archbishops of Men.

§ 42. Page 128. Saith he, [Every Bishop is the proper Governour of his own Diocess, and cannot be regularly imposed on against his consent.]

Ans. Yet even now [He that causelesly breaks this Union is no Catholick Bishop. It seems then it goeth not by Vote; but a Dissenter may be a free Catholick: I pray you then impose not on others against their con…ent.

p. 47[The whole Authority (saith he) of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops, is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion—Therefore they have no proper Authority, but only in such matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy, or the Peace and Communion of the Catholick Church. If a Bishop be convicted of Heresie or Schism, or some great wickedness or impiety, they may depose him, and forbid his people to communicate with him, and ordain another in his stead, because he subverts the Unity of the Faith, or divides the Unity of the Church, or is himself unfit for Communion.

Ans. 1. Either these are meant as acts of Government, or not: If yea, then why do you so oft disclaim it, and call it only Advice and Communion Then you place this governing Power in Forreigners, when they are no further off than with ease and convenience we may confederate with them: And whither this will lead, I'le not enquire. If nay, then it seems men may depose Bishops, and set up or ordain others in their stead, without any governing Power over them. If so, then by Authority you must mean Authoritatem Doctoris, vel Nimcii (and so, I confess, Pastors may in Christ's Name, require other Churches to do their duty), and not Authoritatem Regentis: And if so, it's as true, that when there is just cause, a few may depose many, as many depose a few. But men use not to call it deposing and ordaining in his place, when men do but charge others in Christ's Name to do their duty: I find not tha… St. Martin excommunicated the Bishops and Synods in Ithacius and Idacius time; but I find that he renounced Communion with them, and so may Equals do.

§ 43. P. 140. he saith, [The sensless imputation of Cassandrianism, and French Popery, is managed so knavishly by Mr. Lob, and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter, with so much confusion, &c.]

Ans. The Terms I wonder not at; but whatever we are for Knavery, or blind Fury, if this man help us against Confusion, it's strange.

§ 44. P. 173. he grants that the Bishops are not the Governours of the Church, as united in one common regent Head over the whole Church; but as every Bishop governeth his own share]: And this (of true Bishops) who denieth him?

P. 183. It is but a voluntary combination, and stricter associasion for preserving Unity by advice, &c. All this is good (tho damned by him in the Independents) if they would combine to rule according to the Laws of Christ, and not make any of their own without authority, nor so as to accuse Christ's Laws of insufficiency, nor make dividing noxious snares.

§ 45. Saith he, p. 189. [That this Church is Universal, is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion].

p. 48Ans. No Humane Laws make the Church Universal. Men may make their own Subjects or Confederates unite in accidents (either just, as in one Translation of Scripture, one time and place and meeting, &c. or unjust, when it's hurtful, vain, or belongs not to them); but it is only he that maketh the Church a Church, who thereby maketh it One Church in Essentials: And in Integrals, he that maketh it entire (by institution or efficiency).

2. This Union is founded in mens Unity in Christianity, Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6.

§ 46. P. 192. He saith, [The Association and Confederacy of Neighbour-Churches is founded on the Law of Catholick Communion, and the Catholick Communion cannot be maintained without it.

Ans. Not without Baptismal Confedera…y in the necessary Duties commanded by Christ: But as to your Confederacies in Humane new Church-Forms, Patriarchal, Metropolitan, &c. was not the Church One without them, before they were invented? Here he maketh voluntary Confederacies to make new Church-Canons, or Laws of Discipline, necessary to Unity, and that Unity necessary to Salvation, all being cut off from Christ that break it: As if Christ had not made Laws enough necessary to salvation, and he that only kept his Laws, and not mens Canons, could not be saved. Can he tell us then where to fix our Religion? On what Bishops, and on what Canons? I am certain that his Religion will not stand with certainty of salvation, when no man can be certain what is necessary to salvation, nor what de novo will by Bishops be made necessary the next year, nor who those Bishops must be.

2. See here again: When he made it a renouncing our Christianity, to confederate and associate to do mens duty in a particular Church, he yet maketh it necessary to Unity (and so to salvation) by confederacy to make new Humane Church Forms. All this is to bring all mens salvation (opinionatively) into the power of those that can get uppermost; as if men could as easily damn others as themselves.

§ 47. P. 200, 201. saith he [If the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head, then the Church is not a Political Society; for it neither has nor can have any such— on Earth over the whole].

Ans. We thank you for that much. But the Church is a Political Society; and to deny it, is to deny an Article of the Creed, and to unchurch it, quoad ipsam formam: And Christ is its constitutive regent Head: The whole Family in Heaven and Earth is named by him; from whom the whole compacted body is increast and edified: And it's dangerous false Doctrine (worse than breaking one of your Canons) to hold, that the Church cannot be a Political Society, unless it have an Head on Earth.

p. 49§ 48. He adds (when I shewed that all Episcopal Writers, as Hooker, Spalatensis, &c. of Church Polity, take the Church for one Body Politick) [But what is this to the purposo? Does Hooker set up one Regent Head?]

Ans. 1. Yes, Christ. 2. Was it not directly to my purpose, to prove it a Polity, which was that which I alledged it for?

But (saith he) do any of them prove, That Civil and Ecclesiastick Polity is the same thing?

Ans. Yes, in genere. Do they use the word equivocally? Is not Polity or Government in Civils and Ecclesiasticks [Polity in genere]? How can these else be distinct species of it? Was this ever denied by Conformist before?

Saith he, ['Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastick Commonwealth differ as much as the Church and the State?

Ans. And do not Church and State differ in specie, as being both Politick Bodies, sub uno genere?

He adds, [Therefore he must still prove, That as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom, so it is to the Unity of the Church, which will be a fair advance towards Popery.

Ans. 1. Every Christian holds, That Christ is the Head over all things to his Church: But every Christian says not, That this is an advance to Popery. Is Christianity Popery?

2. Is one State and Kingdom all the World? All that I have to prove is, That as all the Earth is one Divine Kingdom, God being the absolute Soveraign, and each particular Kingdom is part of it, a Political Body subordinate, informed by its One Humane Soveraign; even so the Universal Church is one Body Politick, informed by Christ, the Divine-Humane Head; and particular Churches are subordinate Bodies Politick, parts of it; as such (but not as Christian) constitutively informed by their proper Pastors; which all those Episcopal men believed, that used the old description, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata. This is all plain to other men.

§ 49. P. 201, 202. He finds [nothing like proof but my Assertion, That the Regent part is the Informing part; and if it have not one Regent part, it is not one Society, as Political: If it have none, it is no Polity: If it have many, it is many].

Ans. Reader, his own words are, What a Drudgery it is to dispute with such: If he had talkt of these things at School, he would not have challenged his Master to prove the signification of the words in his Dictionary; but now he is a Disputer, there is no end with him: If he challenge me to prove, that Rex signifieth a King, and Subditus a Subject, and so of the rest, he will get the better by tiring me: I can only refer him to p. 50books, and use, and men of that profession: And so I do here: If Politia do not signifie the Government, and Governed Societies informed by Government, all the Politicks, and Dictionaries, and use of Politick-Professors, have deceived me. I know Politria is sometime used Tropically for any cause of life, any rules of living, yea, for good works, by Chrysostome, &c. But I said enough to make him know that I spake of it in the usual proper sense of Politicians: And so it is taken, 1. For the stated Form of …vernment in Civiiate. 2. For the administration of that Government: 3. For the Ius Civitatis, or Burgesship in a governed City: 4. For the …nver…ation of men in such a governed Society. What is Politica but civilis scientia? What is Politicus but civilis respublicae gerendae peritus, or …ui rempublicam gerit? Tho it be called Respublica a fine, from the publick …od, yet men of that profession have appropriated the Names of Respubl…ca, Civitas, and Politia, to governed Societies only, and analogum per se p…situm stat pro famosi…re analogato.

Saith he, ['This I grant is true of such Societies as are One by one supreme … power; but not of such a Society as is One, not by one supreme power over the whole, but by one Communion: And such a Society the Church is.

Ans. This is downright Heresie: But he meaneth not as he speaks: For he often confesseth, that Christ is the Soveraign Head of the Church: And to confess that, and yet say, [That tho Christ be the Regent Head and Soveraign], yet this doth not inform it, or unifie it, is gross contradiction, as if the F…rm did not give the specifying and unifying esse & nemen: We may next come to deny, that Master and Scholars are a School, or King and Subjects a Kingdom, or Soul and body united, a Man, or that Two and Two are Four.

2. He here plainly makes the Church to be but a Community, which is false.

3. And yet he will have it a Political Society: For he saith, That [for a Politica… S…ciety to be informed by the One Regent part, is not true of the Church]: which plainly includeth, That the Church is a Political Society, and yet hath not One Regent Head, which is a contradiction. He saith, (The Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of … ).

Ans. You see to what a pass these men would bring us: As we must have New Rules and Laws of salvation, if we will be of their Church-state; so we must have New Politicks, and New Dictionaries: The Church cannot be a species of a Politick Society without New Definitions of Polity. Next say, God's Laws are no Laws, unless you make a New Definition of Laws in genere; and Christians are no Men, without a New definition of a Man.

p. 51I will not pretend to teach this Doctor; but if he will go to School again, I may hope he may meet with a Tutor that will teach him these Things following:

I. That a meer Community is not a proper Body Politick, Civitas vel Respublica, but an ungoverned Society of Equals (in hoc), associated for common good: So are a company of men that venture all their Goods and Lives in one Ship, as Equals, agreeing on some means of common safety; or any combined Body without Government.

2. That no Community can make a true Law in proper sence, but meer contracts; tho the Names of Laws may be abusively so used: For a Law is only the signification of a Rector's Will, making the Subjects duty with due reward or punishment: And it is the first part of the Administration in Government: Legislation is the Prerogative of Rulers, and never belongs to Equals in Community.

III. That a proper Political Body is only a Society consisting of Governour and Subjects, united relatively.

IV. That if Twenty Governors, Kings or States, that are each supreme in their Republick, confederate, so as to set up one in rule over all the rest, or the Major Vote of themselves to be Governor of the rest, they make a new Kingdom or Republick by it: But if they only confederate for the strictest Concord, Offensive and Defensive, this makes no new Polity nor Law, but meer Contract of Equals; tho all are Kings, each one may make Laws for his own Kingdom, according to those Contracts; but they are Laws only by the Authority of their proper Soveraign.

V. That Cities are Bodies Politick, and in a Kingdom are subordinate parts, headed per modum formae, by their proper chief Governour; but supposing the superior Headship of the Kingdom, and that Kingdoms are informed by Union with their Soveraigns (specified as the Soveraigns are, Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical, or mixt), and unified by them; But no man's Soveraignty is unlimited, independent or absolute, God being only such over all, and Earthly Soveraigns more dependent under him than Mayors and Justices under the King

VI. That even so it is in the Church, which is one Political Body under Christ, containing particular Churches subordinately in…ormed by their proper Pastors.

VII. That a Confederacy of these Pastors is very useful, for agreement to observe the Laws of Christ, and to make such Local By-Laws as Corporations may do by Charter, to determine their own Circumstances which the Law of the Land determines not, each Church hath power, which many may agree to use, allowing necessary variety: And the Magistrate may determine that which is not proper to the Pastor's Office for p. 52many. But the concord of these Associated Confederates, can make no Law, but contract; nor any proper new Church-form, save as improperly called a Church from Accidents. If the Saxon Heptarchs had agreed to govern all their Kingdoms by strict consent, this had not made another Kingdom or Law; they had not been made One Kingdom by such a Confederacy, but many Kingdoms agreeing as one Community of Equals.

VIII. The Relation that all Pastors have to the Universal Church, will enable any of them, more or fewer, confederate or not, ex authoritate Ministri & Nuncii, to tell any other Bishops or Churches of heinous scandalous sin, and admonish them, and renounce Communion with the impenitent, and exhort people to forsake Heretick Bishops, &c. But all this as Equals, and not as the fixed Overseers of other Churches, nor as Rulers of other Pastors: And so one Martin may do by a Synod of Bishops.

IX. Kings are as truly (and I think as much) obliged to do their work in Concord and Communion,The contrary dreadful Doctrine of Dr. Parker, for setting up an Vniversal Council of Princes to govern all the Kings on earth, is to be confuted elsewhere, as also his subjecting Christ to Kings, which implieth, that they may command, reward, and punish him. as Bishops; And Kingship is as truly One as Episcopacy: That is, 1. It is of the same species: 2. Under the same Universal King: 3. Governed by the same Universal Laws: 4. Bound to regard the Good of all the Church and World above that of their own Kingdoms: 5. And bound to contribute the utmost of their Wit, Interest and Power for the said common good of Church and World. And because all the Kings in Europe may do more to this common good of all, than Bishops without them can do, I may say, That they are bound hereto rather more than less than the Bishops: As a rich man is bound to liberality more than a poor man, and one that hath the Tutorage of Princes and Nobles Sons, or a Physician that hath an Hundred such Patients, is bound to more care, and more bound to care than another. And all Kingdoms are as truly parts of God's Kingdom over men, as all Churches are parts of the Universal Church.

If Justices or Mayors will of themselves make a New Body Politick by Confederacy and Association, and say, We claim no Superiority, but an Authority, in order to Communion to make Laws of Government for the Kingdom, or many Counties, and should say, It is One Kingdom, as Unified by this Communion, and these Laws of ours, and not by their Relation to one King, I should doubt whether to call them Sots, or Rebels, or Traitors.

§ 5…. P. 206, 207. he boldly repeateth, [How oft have I told him what it is that makes the Catholick Church One Catholick Church, which is the constitutive Form he enquires after; viz. Not one superior power over the whole Church, but one Communion] (and this Communion is in Humane Forms and Canons).

p. 53Ans. How oft doth he tell us that, which if a Dissenter had asserted, I should have thought the Name of an Heretick too gentle for him, as coming so near the denying both of the Church and Christ. See here the Church is not made One (and so not made the Church) by its unitive Relation to Christ the Head: He is not the constitutive Regent Form, but a Voluntary Agreement to make Laws of Government, &c. is the constitutive Form: And yet he saith before, It is not made by Man, but God.

§ 51. But p. 220. he disgraceth the Dean by these words, [Mr. B. indeed says, That the Universal Church is headed by Christ himself: But as the Dean adds, this doth not remove the difficulty: For the question is about the Visible Church, whereof the particular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts, do require a visible constitutive Regent Head, as essential to them: Therefore the whole Visible Church must likewise have a visible constitutive Regent Head.

Ans. Dangerously false, and the Fundamental Principle of Popery: When they know how frequently the Papists are answered to this by Protestants; and I told them how fully I had answered it to Iohnson, and oft; why have we no Reply, but say over and over the same things? Viz.

1. No Kingdom, nor thing is Visible simpliciter, but secundum quid. Our King is not visible in Ireland, nor but to …ew in England: His soul is visible to none; nor his body, save the outward Accidents. If he were seen by none but Courtiers, it were a Visible Kingdom.

2. In all these Respects the Church is Visible: 1. The Bodies of the Subjests are Visible: 2. Their Oath af Allegiance, Baptism and Profession, are Visible: 3. Christ lived Visibly on Earth: 4. He is Visible in Heaven to his Courtiers: 5. He hath one Visible Law and Covenant to govern all his Church: 6. He hath Visible Officers: 7. He hath Visible administrations of Mercy and Justice by himself and his Officers: 8. And he is coming to Judgment Visibly, and all Eyes shall see him.

Now the Controversie is either de re, or de nomine: De re none but a false Teacher will deny any one of these, that I say not a gross Heretick. 2. De nomine, either this much may warrant the Name of a Visible Church, or not. If not, we must go the old way of some former Protestants, and say, That the Chatholick Church is not Visible. And for ought I see, we must say, That the Kingdom of Ireland, if not of England, is Invisible, because few see the King, and no man ever saw the Soul of King or Subjects, or their Bodies, save the skin. If all this warrant not the Name of Visible Church, the Confederacy of an unknown Company of Bishops will not. But remember that the Controversie is but de nomine; and we say more by far to prove it Visible than you do, while you deny Popery.

p. 54§. 52. P. 2…5. I Argued, That if a Regent Supreme be the informing part of a Diocesan, Metropolical, &c. Church, so must it he of the Catholick, if the word Church, be used univocally. Hence he inferreth that I thus argue [If there be not a Supreme Head over the whole Church, there is no such over any part]: So little doth he understand an Argument. When as I argued only from the parity of Reason, That if the summa potestas be not the Form of the Catholick Church, then it is not of Diocesan Churches: But it is of Diocesan Churches, as is confest; Ergo, This supposeth that they confess Christ to be the summa potestas. Therefore I say, He must be the Constitutive Form. The man blusht not here to say, That I infer [A Bishop cannot govern his own Church, unless one Bishop or a Colledge govern the whole]. How little Belief is due to such a Man?

§. 53. P. 844. He saith, I think it as certain, That those Churches cannot be Members of the Catholick Church, whose Communion is unlawful.

Answ. Seeing it is plain, That he meaneth not only mental Communion in Essentials (of which it's true) but local Communion in outward Acts, I take him to be one of the grossest Schismaticks that ever I had to do with; and one of the greatest Enemies to Christian Catholick Love. If any could prove it unlawful to have Ministerial Communion in England, where he cannot have it, without declaring Assent and Consent to all thingt in their three Books, that would not prove the Church of England no part of the Catholick Church. If a Lay-man could prove it unlawful to trust other men with his Child in Baptismal Covenanting, as far as the Church here doth, or sinful to joyn in avoiding the Communion of all such g…dly men as the Canons or a Lay-Civilian may Excommunicate; This will not prove the Church of England no part of the Catholick Church.

If any Church will deny men Communion, unless they subscribe to some one small Untruth (as the Liturgies false Rule to find out Easter-day, or a mis-translation; or the denial, that Christ died for all, &c.) this doth not unchurch them all. But men have made so many snares by their numerous invented sinful forms of Communion, that by such schsmatical Censures as this, one scarce knows what Church on Earth is …ot unchurched.

§. 54. He saith, [Where there is … b…ach of Communion, no declared … act of communi…n between … be in communion with each …. You may say of them what you will; But all these Negatives speak no positive Act: And is Communion nothing but Negations? All this I may say of those that never heard of each others being. 2. There may be an express disowning of each, as the Romans did the Asians about Easter, and the Africans about rebaptizing, and the Britains disowned Augustine, and as some disown a Pair of Organs, or neglect p. 55of Discipline, &c. And yet both be parts of the Catholick Church.

§. 55. P. 326. He is so Catholick in Doctrinals, as to say that [We may safely communicate with any Church, how different soever our Opinion in other Matters may be, when we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship] Answ. What could one wish more? Is this the same Man? May you not then admit those that so far agree with you? Are all your humane Associations and Confedearcies, and all the Laws for Church-Discipline and Government (made by men that have no Legislative Power) Essentials of Worship, or Fundamental Doctrines of Faith? Are all that your foresaid Canons Excommunicate Men for such Essentials? If this much be enough in the Church, notwithstanding all other Sins and Errors, why not in those that you should receive. But it seems by this, that Matters of Divine Faith and Worship, besides bare Essentials, are small things to him in comparison of Bishops Rules and Canons.

§. 56. Pag. 395. He saith, [To separate causelesly from any true and sound part of the Catholick Church, cuts such Separatists off from the Church. [If they will justifie their Separation, they must prove that what is Enjoyned, is Sinful].

Answ. 1. Have you answered what they have said, and said again towards a Proof? Remember that you call them to it, and justifie their Separation, if they prove it.

2. But your Conclusion is false and odious, leaving it doubtful, what part of the Christian World you damn not. If I could prove that you separate causelesly from the Nonconformists, doth that certainly cut you from all the Church? I doubt there are too few Christians on earth, who do not in some degree separate causelesly from others? Grotius joyned with no Church locally in Worship, long before he died. Most of the Church in East, West, South and North, is damned falsly by this Rule. He that doth but causelesly separate pro tempore from a Preacher, by Passion or Mistake (as Mr. Martin aforesaid from Mr. Lapth…rne) separate causelesly from a true and sound part of the Christian Church.

His words make me think so sadly of the Case of the Church, that must be tempted and distracted by such men, as puts me far from a sporting frame: But as Dr. Twisse, and some of the Gravest Writers, sometime divert their Readers with a sad Story that hath somewhat in it ridiculous, why may I not put him another such Case?

At Bridgenoth, before 1639. One Parson Crosse, a thorough Conformist, Preacht a Sermon: In which, inveighing against Marriage, he said, [If you marry a Widow, —She will be like a Banbury Cheese; when all the Paring is cut off, there's little left: So when all Portions and Legacies are paid ▪ &…. Whoever, Maid or Widow, if you will hope for a Wife, and virtu…us p. 56Woman, you must be like a Man that will find out one Ele in a Barrel of Snakes: It's a hundred to one you miss her. But if you light on her, you have but a wet Snig by the Tail; a slippery handful.

Now the Women were angry with the Preacher; he was an Orthodox Licens'd Man: They separate from him. Quere, Whether they separated from the Catholick Church?

Reader, I am tired with following this Writer, and Mr. Crosse's Sermon, makes me think of his Book. By that time all the wordy mistakes are pared off, the good matter is like his pared Banbury Cheese: And if you fish for them at a venture, it's great odds but you meet with some scurvy words or matter instead of them: Or if you light of that which is better, his Sence is so uncertain in undistinguisht words, that you have but Mr. Crosse's wet Snig by the Tail.

But not to seem more incredulous and indifferent from him than I am, I subscribe to his words to Mr. Humphrey, pag. 226. [Ignorance and Insensibility is as great a security to some Men against Shame, as Impudence is to others]. And to his words to Mr. Lobb, pag. 388. [What a blessed thing is Ignorance, which helps Men to confute Books without Fear or Wit]. And I do acknowledge, That this …r hath helpt me more sensibly to understand St. Paul, 1 Tim. 3.6. [Not a Novice, lest being lifted up with Pride, he fall into the condemnation of the Devil.

FINIS.

p. 1UNNECESSARY SEPARATING, disowned; in the Reasons of the Authors Censured Practice.

§ 1. WHEN I see, 1. How many suffer for refusing Communion with the Parish Churches. 2. And how many are offended with Me, and such others for Communicating with them; censuring Us as mistaking compliers with Sin: The Cause and some good Peoples request, invite me to answer these following Questions. I. Whether Men should be compelled to Communicate with any Church, by Corporal Penalties?

II. Whether they who consent to Communicate with some Church, may chuse their own Pastor and Company, or may by force be confined to their Parish Priest, and Church?

III. For what Reasons I, and such others, Hear in, and Communicate with the Parish Churches? And whether so to do, be a Sin, or a Duty, or a thing Indifferent.

§ 2. I. To the first case I answer, 1. It were happy, if the Sword could compel Unbelievers to Believe; but it cannot, nor is a way which Nature or Scripture ever allowed Man to use for such an end.

2. To force an Unbeliever to Lie, by saying he Believeth, is a Sin.

3. An Infidel must not be Baptized till he profess with seeming Seriousness, and Willingness that he Believeth in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and will Vow and Devote himself to Him: Therefore to force the unwilling to be Baptized, is a Sacrilegious Prophanation of Baptism.

4. To be Baptized, is to be solemnly invested in a visible State of Regeneration, Pardon, Adoption, and Right to Christ and Life Eternal, by a Ministerial Delivery of such Right as in the Name of Christ. But no unwilling Person hath any Right to these unvaluable Gifts: Therefore no unwilling Person should be forced to receive the said Investiture.

5. Christ's Tryal and Description of the Willing, is, Whether they resolve to accept of his Grace, forsaking all worldly interest that stands p. 2against it: Luke 14.26, 27, to the end. Therefore to Baptize all that are forced to it by the Sword, and had rather be Baptized, and say they Believe, than lose all they have, and lie in Gaol, is to Preach another Gospel in part

6. Persons Baptized in infancy, have no right to Communion in the Lord's Supper, till they profess their personal Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant: And the Unbaptized are not to be forced to Communicate: The Lords Supper redelivering all the same great unvaluable Gifts to the Receivers which were delivered in Baptism; the Unwill…ng are no more capable of one, than the other. And to force them to say they are Willing, and to receive that which they have no right to, is Sacrilegious prophaning Holy things.

7. The ancient Churches for many hundred years, were so far from forcing any to Baptism or Church-Communion, or thinking that they should be forced, that they admitted none that did not earnestly desire it: And if the Baptized by Impenitency, or Apostacy, or …long withdrawing from Communion, did shew themselves again uncapable by unwillingness, they Declaratively cast them out.

8. And that the Excommunicate, as such, should be laid up in Prison, and undone, to force them again to be Willing to be Christians, or to Communicate, hath the same Reasons against it, as against doing it at the first; and to take them for Willing and Capable of Absolution, and Salvation, who had rather say, they Repent and Consent, than lye in Gaol, is to pervert Christ's Gospel and Sacraments, and confound the Church: And the ancient Churches would have abhorred the motion of such a thing.

9. But it is just and meet, that Princes make a difference between Christian and Infidel Subjects; and between those that live Willingly in Communion of the Church, and those that refuse it: And that a Christian Kingdom should give those Powers and Immunities to willing Christians, which they give not to Infidels, and the justly Excommunicate; especially in matters relating to Government, Legislative and Judiciary, and especially about Re…igion, and the Church. And if any to obtain such Immunities or Powers, do Hypocritically profess Christianity and consent, themselves only are guilty of the Prophanation, no wrong means was used, and the Church is no searcher of the Heart.

10. But Christianity being necessary to our Salvation; and it being the Christian Magistrates Duty to do his best for the Salvation of all his Subjects, and Knowledge being the means of Consent, and Teaching and Learning the means of Knowledge; it is the Duty of such Magistrates to provide suffic…ent Teachers for Number and Qual…ty for all the Subjects; and to compel men to Hear, Con…er, and Learn, as Catechumens: p. 3The ancient Churches had their previous Instructions for such, who were yet dismissed before the Communion Exercises, proper to the faithful.

§ 3. II. To the second case I Answer; 1. There is nothing in this World that Man can do without all inconveniencies, or which may not be turned to some occasion of Evil. On one side, 1. It is most desirable that all Kingdoms were wholly Christians, and the Princes be Defenders and Promoters of Religion, and the Church and Kingdom be materially the same; and the Civil Government used Holily, according to God's Laws, to holy ends. 2. And it is desirable accordingly, that the Kingdom being all Christian, be divided into fit parts for Christian Conversation and Communion, such as our Parishes are, and that all be of the Church who are of the Parish, and the Civil State sanctified, and the Ecclesiastick, grow up as Body and Soul into one. And that all in the Parish be of one mind, and of one Church; and that there be no just cause given for any to separate from the rest; nor any do it without cause. 3. And it is desirable that all these Parish-Churches in a Kingdom living under one civil Government, do by the means of Senior Pastors and Synods, hold such Correspondence as is necessary to their common Concord and Strength.

These things being Desirable, it is no wonder if good Governours Endeavour them; and that ignorant men Plead for all such Concomitants, Subordinates and Consequents, as do suppose them. When as in Fact the case being quite otherwise, to administer matters on a false supposition of the matter of Fact; as if that were, which is not; is but like the Men of Gothams striving and fighting which way they should drive their Sheep, and where they should pasture them, when they had none.

1. No Kingdom is so wholly Christian as not to have many (alas, how many!) uncapable of Church-Communion. 2. Yet it is a matter of order to be endeavoured, that the Country be divided into Parishes; and that they have an Ecclesiastick as well as a Civil Relation: That is, That each of these Parishes have a stated Teacher (or many) for the Catechumens, who are uncapable of Communion: And that the same Men be the Pastors of all in that Parish who consent; and have the Temples and Tythes by the Magistrates Countenance and Consent: And this great advantage of Publick Countenance and Maintenance, will no doubt prevail with the main Body of Christians in that Parish, if the men be desirable or tollerable, to chuse them rather than others, to avoid discountenance, p. 4and the maintaining of others: As all in the Hospital will be for the established Physician, who dare trust him with their Lives.

But if this should be carried further, to bind all persons to an absolute acceptance of such Parish Priests to be their only Pastors (under the Bishops) who are put upon them, the mischiefs would be intollerable.

For 1. Then all must accept of Papists Priests only in France, Spain, Italy, Bavaria, Austria, &c and of bare Readers in Mu…covy. 2. Or else all Subjects are made Judges of the qualification of their Kings, whether they are Orthoodox enough to chuse them Pastors, while they are not allowed to judge what Pastor to trust. 3. And then every ignorant, malignant, or prophane Man, who by inheritance or purchase hath got Advowsons or Presentations, hath got an advantage greatly to hinder the Salvation of all the Parish: And if Money may buy Souls for so much probability of Damnation, no wonder if the god of this World imploy many rich Merchants to purchase Advowsons. For how ordinarily God worketh according to the suitableness of means, Scripture and full Experience prove. If the Blind lead the Blind, both fall into the Ditch. 4. And this is quite contrary to the Ordination and bounty of our Lord, who gave men gifts for the Edification of his Church; and our Salvation, if we may not use the publick Pastoral help of any, better than many Patrons will chuse. I would fly from that Kingdom as from a Bondage where I may use no Physician, no Tutor, no Food, but what is chosen for me by any one that can purchase such a chusing-power. And my Soul is more to me than my Body, and less in the Power of Man. And it is not the talk of a Magisterial Ranter that shall perswade me to be indifferent what Teacher I use, as if God would work by all alike.

§ 4. 2. On the other side, 1. It is of absolute necessity that every man consent before another man can do the work of a Pastor for his Soul: And God in Nature and Scripture hath ordained, that he who must be saved or damned according to the Ministers success, should be the chuser or refuser of that which so unspeakably concerneth him; and not have his salvation more in anothers power than his own, if he be at Age, and in his Wits.

2. And yet this may be run into Extreams; and these are not easily avoided. 1. Infants (that is, all short of an Understanding, chusing Age) and Ideots and Mad-men, are half Brutes in act, and to be governed accordingly by force, so far as they are uncapable of Reason. But these are not capable of the Church-Communion of the Adult. Yea, not only Children, but all Subjects who are not Communicants, may be forced to p. 5hear and learn as Catechumens, as is said: And they must not pretend a power to chuse their Teachers, to excuse them from all Learning: But if they say, that they can learn better of another than the Parish-Minister; if they are able, they may remove to another Parish: If not, they must give proof that they live as Learners under some Teacher who is capable to instruct them, approved or tolerated by Authority, where Rulers own the Truth.

3. And if Communicants will be at the charge of maintaining a Pastor whom they can better trust their Souls with, than him whom the Patron chuseth for them, the Orthodox or tolerating Magistrate must see that he be not an Heretick, that doth more hurt than good; and must keep them under the Laws of Loyalty and Peace, and see that they sow not Sedition, and revile not others under pretence of worshipping God.

4. And no men should, without necessity, lose the advantages of a publick Ministry which the most consent to, and which hath the Magistrates countenance and maintenance; because gathering singular Churches within Parish-bounds, seems some accusation of the Parish-Minister or Church; and such Churches are oft tempted to Envy and Censoriousness, and are usually envied and censured by others: And Unity is much of our strength and beauty. But in case of necessity it may be done.

§ 5. In short: 1. A good Ruler chusing a worthy Teacher for the Parish, will thereby do much to draw all the sober to consent to him as their Pastor.

2. Bad Rulers and Patrons chusing ignorant, unskilful, furious, malicious or scandalous Teachers, will drive those that love their souls, to chuse better for themselves, whatever it cost them.

3. Where the Ministry and Churches are so vitiated in publick, that their Communion is unlawful, there God's worship must be kept up only in other voluntary Churches.

4. Where publick Ministers or Worship are not utterly intolerable, but greatly insufficient for the preservation of Religion and good of Souls, by Disability, or unsound Doctrine, or Vice; there the chief preservation of Religion must be in Voluntary Churches; but so, that the Parochial be no further disowned than there is cause.

5. Where the publick Ministry and Worship are sound, but impose some unnecessary doubtful things, as conditions of Communion, in justice they bind themselves thereby to allow Voluntary Churches to such as take these terms to be sin.

p. 66. When the Ministry, and Church-Worship, and State, are sound, and the conditions lawful, and weakness maketh conscionable Christians think otherwise, there private Churches must be tolerated, but as Hospitals for the sick, under the care of the Magistrate, keeping peace.

The strife in England at this day, is chiefly about the choice of Pastors, in which good people will never be indifferent: And few that I have known, refuse audience and honour to able, godly, profitable Preachers that differ from them. We are not at all of different Rel…gions, tho some say so, to the dishonour of the National Church, as if their Forms, their Cross and Surplice, and their New Oaths and Subscriptions, were their Religion, and so their Religion were Ceremony or Novelty.

§ 6. III. As to the Third Case, [For what Reasons I, and such other join in Worship and Communion with Parish-Churches? And whether our practice be a sin or a duty, or a thing indifferent?] For answer, I. I shall shew what I am not pleading for. II. What it is that I hold and plead for, or defend. III. What are the Reasons of my practice. IV. Why it is that I now give out my Reasons.

§ 7. I. For the First, 1. I am far from perswading any one to commit the least sin on pretence of Concord or Communion with any Church on earth. Their damnation is just, who say, Let us do evil that good may come. Sin may seem to serve us for a Job, but it will be bitter in the latter end.

2. I would not have any to stretch their Consciences for Worldly Interest, to believe that Sin is no Sin, or that they may do it because it is a little one. It is no little one to him that does it wilfully for Worldly Ends.

3. If an honest Christian mistake an indifferent thing to be a Sin, I would have him do his best to get a truer apprehension: But if he cannot, I would not have him do the thing: For he that can do that which he thinks a sin, tho by mistake, can as easily commit a real sin: And it is a real sin to him: for St. Paul saith, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatever is not of faith, is sin.

Qu. But is such a man a martyr, or rewardable, who suffereth for his error?

p. 7Ans. He is rewardable as he suffereth for fearing to disobey God, and for that which is formally obedience, tho materially it was a mistaken thing. If you had a Servant who mistook your command, but died in the performance of that mistake, you would commend his fidelity: And if another that mistook you, did what you bid him by that mistake, but treacherously for hire, crossed what he thought you meant, you would take him for a perfidious knave.

Qu. But must a man then do all that he taketh to be a duty, or avoid all which he taketh for a sin?

Ans. A culpable erring judgment entangleth a man in sin, whether he follow it or not: And there is no possibility of avoiding the sin, but by using God's helps till his judgment be set right. For Conscience is not the Maker of the Law, but the Discerner of it: And the Law-maker changeth not his Law, because men change their thoughts of it. But while men are under a self-made necessity of sinning, the lesser sin and the greater may be distinguished, e. g. If you mis-judg it unlawful to keep a Saints day holy, to eat Flesh on Fridays, to use a Cross as a sign of Christianity, it is a greater sin to do these, than to omit them: But if you judg it unlawful to pray, or hear God's Word, or worship him, or to feed your self or children, your error is the aggravation, and no extenuation of the sin. And if you think it a duty to keep a Fast once a week, to wear a course garment, or to do any indifferent thing, it's a greater sin to omit them, than to do them: But if you take it to be a duty to lie, slander, steal, be drunk, murder, persecute, it aggravateth the sin, that both mind and practice are defiled with it.

4. I perswade no one to own the Ministry of an uncapable Person; viz. one utterly Insufficient, Heretical, or Malignant, who doth more harm than good. The Conformists own this Rule, while they silence so many, and tell men, that those that have not Ordination by Diocesans, are not to be communicated with, or owned as Ministers. Both sides then confess, that uncapable persons are not to be owned.

5. I perswade none to be indifferent in the matters which concern their souls, as whom they hear or chuse to be their Pastor, nor in what manner they worship God, nor to prefer any person or mode, which (all things considered) is worse before better; nor to deny themselves the great help of a learned, skilful, godly, faithful Pastor, to teach them publickly, and counsel them privately, when they may have such, meerly because it is forbidden them by men, and the Patron hath chosen them another, who hath no such qualifications.

p. 86. I am perswading none that are under the government of their Parents or Masters, to disobey them in the choice of the Pastor whom they shall ordinarily attend, as long as they perswade them to a safer choice than the Patron hath made for them.

7. I perswade none by Profession or Subscription, to justifie as true or good, the least untruth or evil in the Doctrine, or Worship, or Discipline of any Church, or in any extemporate performance of the Minister.

8. I perswade no Minister to conform to the Act of Uniformity, and all the Canons.

9. I perswade none to make light of any Church-corruptions, nor to forbear endeavouring by lawful means, in their place and calling, to reform them; much less to swear or promise it, were that any where required, or to renounce any Oath as not obliging them to any thing which God had made their duty.

10. I perswade none to the sinful fear of man, or to abate Christian fortitude, constancy and patience in a good Cause, nor to be over-tender of the Flesh, or make too great a matter of their suffering. Alas! what are Worms, that in the way to the Grave they should be feared more than God? Poverty and Prisons may be as safe and near a way to Heaven, as Wealth and Liberty. None of all these are the things that I am for.

§ 8. II. That you may know the Reasons of my own practice, I shall next tell you, what it is that my judgment is for: which leads me to it.

And 1. I think all persons are visible Christians who are Baptized, and profess their continued consent to the Baptismal Covenant, and are not proved to have renounced or forsaken it by Word or Deed.

2. I think, that the Pastor is by Office made the Church-Judge, whether the persons Profession be understanding, serious, and credible, or not: and whether he be proved to forsake it. And if the man dissemble, or the Pastor judge falsly, it's their Sin and not mine, if I contribute not to it by omitting any Monitory duty of my own; nor is it lawful for me to usurp the Pastors judging power: Nor am I bound to know (my self) the Case and Lives of all in the Church that I joyn with; much less, where I occasionally or seldom come.

p. 93. I think, that a tollerable man, though unduly chosen, yet after received and consented to by the Parish Communicants, is a true Pastor, supposing his own Consent: And that he and they are a true Church.

4. I hold that Christ commanded his Apostles to endeavour [to Disciple to him all Nations, and Baptize, and Teach them,] Mat. 28.19, 20. And that we should pray and endeavour that the Kingdoms of the World may become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ. And that all Christian Kings are bound to do their best, to make all their Subjects the Subjects of Christ, more than the Jewish Kings were bound to promote the Iews Religion: And that Christian Kingdoms are much more honourable and desirable than Christian Churches in an Heathen Kingdom: And that the Civil State and Interest should be sanctified and made religious, and more than a Shell or Body to the Religious State, as the Kernel or the Soul: And so they should be as far coherent and commensurable, as can be procured: Yet not so as to corrupt the religious state on that pretence, by crookening it to any carnal interest. The Body formeth not the Soul, nor is it to be cut meet to the Cloathes, nor the Foot fitted to the Shooe. I intreat those that be not sensible of the great importance of National Christianity, to read a little Book, called, The whole Duty of Nations (written by a Conforming Minister, who is much more Honourable by his Extraordinary Worth, than his Great Estate and Birth), which will bear down dissent by a stream of Evidence.

5. In order to the promoting of this National Concord in Religion, I have still resolved to conform to all the National Laws and Orders about Religion, which corrupt it not, nor command any sinful thing.

6. Tho I renounce all Forreign Jurisdiction, Monarchical or Aristocratical, and usurpation of an Universal Government over all the Christian World (which hath no civil or religious Universal Lawgiver or Judg but Christ, neither Monarch nor Senate being capable of it), yet I much more value the concord of the Universal Church, than of one Nation: And do more abhor doing any thing which is a sinful separation, or discord from the Church Universal: And I take the unchurching of the Univer…al Church to be a denying or deposing Christ.

7. All Christians must be known to be Christ's Disciples by loving one another as themselves: And love judgeth no evil till constrained.

8. Therefore I will separate from no Christian or Church without necessity, no further than they separate from Christ.

p. 109. I do not separate from a Church meerly because I meet not with them: else I should separate from all the World, save the place where I am present: But I avoid these several degrees of sinful separation.

1. Accounting true Churches and Ministers to be none such (as the Papists do by all that have not an uninterrupted succession of Diocesan Ordination).

2. Accounting the Ministry, and Worship, and Government so bad, as makes Communion with the Church unlawful, if it be not so.

3. Doing that needlesly which hath the scandalous appearing signification of such a judgment.

10. I know many of the Parish-Ministers to be men of very laudable abilities and conversations, and to have the consent of the most of the Communicants of the Parish.

11. I am past doubt, that so much of the Liturgie as is used every Lords Day, as the common Worship, is so far sound as to the matter of it, that it hath no more material faultiness than is too often in extemporate Church-praying: And that the disorder and faultiness in the Manner, is no greater than is used also by many in free prayer, with whom we all think it lawful to joyn. And that prejudice maketh it seem to many much more faulty than it is: The greatest dislike is of the Responses by the People, and the shortness of the Prayers, both which were used in the Ancient Churches, when no sound Christians scrupled it, much less separated for it. Christ approved of the short Prayer of the Publican, [God be merciful to me a sinner]. Repetitions, and the Peoples Acclamations and Responses, were used in the Iewish Church, as is evident in Ezra, and in many Psalms, &c. We all allow the Peoples speaking, even as much as the Minister in singing Psalms: And the Congregation would murmur if the People should be but Hearers while the Minister singeth alone. Of old their singing was like our saying, and not in Rithmes, like ours. Will any pretend to prove that it's lawful for the People to sing God's Praise, and not to say it? But they that dislike it, may be silent.

As to the Objection, that it's unlawful to use imposed forms; I have answered it so fully in my Cu…e of Church-Divisions, and in my Christian Directory, that I will here say no more, but that, 1. Every Ministers Prayer is a Form to the People, and imposed on them to joyn in putting it up to God. 2. And that its lawful for a Child to use a Form imposed by Parents; therefore not simply evil. 3. And that we all allow imposed Forms of Catechizing, and of singing Prayers and Praise to God: And that he that said, Speak to one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs, never meant that they must not be premeditated. 4. And many men sin by needless impositions, when the use of the thing imposed is no sin, but a duty.

p. 11And I am satitsfied, that the Number of the Christian Churches on Earth▪ which worship God without a Form, far worse than ours, is so small, as that the soundness of ours is almost singular. The supposed great … in the By-Offices about God-Fathers, Crossing, the form of Burial, and such other, the Hearers of the common Lords-day-Service have no business with. For my part, I profess I take the ordinary Liturgy so▪ …he best part of the publick Service in half the Churches in England; and had rather have it without the Sermon, than the Sermon without it, in those Churches.

12. I therefore take it to be my duty, as a private Hearer, 1. When I am where there is a tolerable Minister, and no other Church but the Parochial, to joyn in Worship and Communion with them constantly. 2. As a Minister on whom the Conditions in the Laws are put, to refuse some of those Conditions. 3. As an Hearer where the Minister is utterly intolerable, to do nothing which seemeth an owning him as a Minister. 4. In a place where the Parochial Ministry is the best, but a private Minister and Church is peaceable and sound, I will go ordinarily to the Parish-Church, but sometime to the weaker, if my forbearance would seem a disowning of their Communion; yea, tho it were to one that is against Infant-Baptism by mistake. 5. In a place where the privater Minister and Worship is most spiritual, powerful and profitable, I would go ordinarily thither, if I may: But sometimes to a tolerable Parish-Minister and Communion, in case my not going seem to signifie that I separate from their Communion, as utterly unlawful. And if I be a Preacher in a privater Church, I will sometimes get another to supply my place, and go to the Parish-Church, if else my forbearance would seem to signifie that I judg it unlawful. 6. I therefore take the same thing here to be lawful to one, and a fault in another, and a duty to another. Those that have far better Helps and Communion (all things considered), should not ordinarily prefer worse: And when the case differs not much, the Will of a Parent, an Husband, a Master or a Magistrate, should sway much: And where it is a duty to noted persons to go to the Parish-Church sometime, because else it will signifie that they think it unlawful, an hundred Children, Servants, Wives, poor people, who are not noted or mist, and their absence is no scandal, are not bound to go at all, while they have much better Helps and Communion elsewhere.

Having told you my Judgment, of which in my Two forementioned Books I have given a fuller account: I shall next add the reason of my Practice, both to satisfie those that censure me, and those that crave my help for their information; but not making my self a Judg of them that differ.