Schism Detected in Both Extremes, Part 1 · Chapter 1

Schism Detected in Both Extremes · Part 1 · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I.

SAITH THE RESOLVER,

§. 1. THE Church is a Body or ſociety of men ſeparated from the reſt of the World, and united to God and to themſelves by a Divine Covenant.

A. He ſaith this is the plaineſt deſcription he can give: That is not the fault of his Auditors or Readers. 1. As to the Genus, a Community of equals without Rulers is a body: but I ſuppoſe he meaneth not ſuch. 2. Is it enough that it be of Men? ſure now they ſhould be Chriſtians? 3. Many are ſeparated from the reſt of the World, ſecundum quid, that are no Chriſtians; ſome in one reſpect and ſome in another, and none in all reſpects. 4. Vnited to God, is an ambiguous word, no Creature is Vnited to him perfectly ſo as to be thereby what he is, God, in the created Nature. Only Chriſt is united to him Hypoſtatically in his created Nature. All are ſo far united to him in natural being, as that in him they live and move and have their being: And the Nature of man is one ſort of his Image: All things are united to him as effects to their conſtant efficient. The Church ſhould not be defined without any mention of Chriſt: The Churches Union with God is by Chriſt. 5. Chriſt himſelf as Head is an eſſential part of the Church, and ſhould not be left out of a Definition, thô the meer Body may in common ſpeech be called the Church, as the People may be called a Kingdom. 6. Will any Divine Covenant ſerve? or muſt it not be only the Baptiſmal Covenant? 7. Is it called Divine only as made by God, or as commanded by God and made by Man, or as mutual? Certainly Gods Law and offered or Conditional Promiſe is moſt frequently called His Covenant in Scripture; and this uniteth not men to God, till they conſent and Covenant with him. Their own Covenant Act is neceſſary hereto: And that is a Divine Covenant, only as commanded, and accepted and done by Gods aſſiſting Grace. 8. The form of a Church is Relative, and the Terminus is eſſential to a Relation. It is no definition that hath not the End p. 2of the Aſſociation: Therefore this is none at all; and ſo the beginning tells us what to expect.

This deſcription hath nothing in it▪ but what may agree to divers forms of Society, and ſo hath not the form of a Church: And if he intended not a Definition, but a looſe deſcription, I would a defining Doctor had had the Chair, during this controverſie.

Let us try this deſcription upon a Mahometan Kingdom, Army, or Navy, or ſuppoſe them meer Deiſts.

1. Such a Kingdom, Army, or Navy may be a Society. 2. Of Men. 3. Separated from the reſt of the World ſecundum quid & ad hoc (and none are ſeparated from it ſimpliciter & ad omnia: e. g. No man is Separated from the common humanity, No Deiſt from any but Atheiſts, and no Chriſtian in believing a God and the Law of Nature and Nations.) 4. They are Vnited to God ſo far as owning a God and Worſhipping him amounts to, beſides the Union of the Creature with the Creator in whom he liveth, &c. And no unregenerate ungodly Chriſtian is united to him ſavingly. 5. They are united among themſelves. 6. This is by a Covenant: 7. And by a Covenant Divine, as to command, approbation and object. It is God that they Covenant to own and obey: The common Profeſſion of the Mahometans, is, There is one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet. It is Divine in tantum as commanded. For God Commandeth all men to Own him; to believe that God is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently ſeek him: And God ſo far approveth it: St. James ſaith, (Thou doſt well) to him that believeth there is a God, much more that is profeſſedly devoted to him.

Let us by this examine the Jewiſh Church: Jews now may be 1. A Body, 2. Of Men, 3. Separated from the reſt of the World, even in Religion and Church pretenſions. 4. United to God as Creatures, as Men, as the corporal ſeed of Abraham, and as profeſſing Belief, Love and Obedience to God, as their God. 5. Strictly united among themſelves: 6. By a Covenant, 7. Which God once commanded, and ſtill approveth ſo far as they own God.

Let us conſider whether this deſcription take not in, thoſe in every Nation that fear God and work Righteouſneſs, that never heard of Chriſt, (being thus combined.) And whether the Kingdom of God, be not larger than his Church: Joyn the Head and Tail of this mans book together, and by the Head (the deſcription) for ought I ſee, Jews, Mahometans, if not almoſt; all Heathens, are the Church: But at the End, I think none on Earth is the Church: At leaſt none that ſeparate from a pair of Organs, or an ignorant Curate; Nor can any man know who.

Page 2. §. 2. He explaineth his Word [Body] as oppoſed to a confuſed Multitude.

A. But a Community of Equals, that have no Governours, may have order, and be no confuſed Multitude. And he himſelf after pleads over much for …neceſſity of Rulers.

p. 3P. 3. §. 3. And in many places, his Confuſion and grand errour is repeated, that the Chriſtian Church is but one: p. 7. We know no Church but what all Chriſtians are members of by Baptſme, which is the Vniverſal Church; p. 8. There is but one Church, of which all Chriſtians are members, as there is but one Covenant; p. 19. If there be but one Church and one Communion, of which all true Chriſtians are members, &c. p. 23. I am no otherwiſe a member of any particular Church, than I am of the Vniverſal: p. 40. It's a ſchiſmatical Notion of memberſhip that divides the Chriſtian Church into diſtinct memberſhips, and therefore into the diſtinct Bodyes: And. p. 19. and often he ſaith, thoſe Churches which are not members of each other, are ſeparate Churches and Schiſmaticks.

A. I had hoped that no man but Mr. Cheny had talkt at this rate.

I. It's agreed on, that there is but one Univerſal Church: The contrary is a Contradiction. 2. It is agreed, that there is no lawful particular Church which is not a part of the Univerſal. 3. That whoever hath juſt Union and Communion with a true particular Church, hath Union and Communion with the Univerſal: 4. That all men in their Worſhip of God, ſhould accordingly perform it (and do all that they do) as Men in that Relation to the Univerſal Church: None of this is controverted.

II. But I had hoped never to have heard any but Seekers ſay, that there are not many lawful particular Churches, diſtinct from the whole and from one another, though not disjunct in the Common Eſſentials. For the proof of the contrary,

1. I begin with that which I expect ſhould be moſt powerful; The mans own after-Confeſſions, to which he is oft brought. Pag. 8. Diſtance of Place and the neceſſities and conveniences of Worſhip and Diſcipline, has divided the Church into ſeveral parts and members, and Particular Churches, &c. So pag. 14. pag. 19. All Chriſtian Churches ought to be members of one. More fully p. 20, 21. This is ad hominem, Yea and Nay is his Reſolution.

2. But I'le bring other Arguments that prevail more with me. The Sacred Scriptures oft tell us of many Churches, therefore there are many. Act. 9. 31. The Churches had reſt; and 15. 4. Confirming the Churches; 16. 5. So were the Churches eſtabliſhed in the Faith; Rom. 16. 4. All the Churches of the Gentiles: So ver. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 17. So ordain I in all Churches; 11. 16. Neither the Churches of God (have ſuch Cuſtom;) 14. 33. As in all the Churches of the Saints; 34. Let your Women keep ſilence in the Churches. So 16. 1. 19. & 2 Cor. 8. 1. The Grace of God beſtowed on the Churches of Macedonia: 18. Whoſe Praiſe is in the Goſpel through all the Churches. So 19. 23, 24. and 11. 8. 28. The care of all the Churches; 12. 13. Inferior to the other Churches. Gal. 1. 2, 22. 1 Theſ. 2. 14. 2 Theſ. 1. 4. Rev. 1. 4. To the ſeven Churches, ver. 11. 20. Angels and Candleſticks of the ſeven Churches. And 2. 7, 11, 17, 29. and 3. 6, 13, 22, 23. and 22. 16. His Concordance might have ſhew'd him all theſe in order, Phil. 4. 15. No Church communicated with me (concerning giving and receiving) but ye only. The diſpute now muſt be, whether p. 4the Apoſtles or this Reſolver be to be believed: They ſay there are many Churches, parts of One; he ſaith, There is but one, and it's Schiſmatical to divide it into diſtinct memberſhips or Bodyes, &c. It's no Schiſme here to ſay, I am for Paul and the Holy Scripture: Let who will believe the contradictor.

3. My next Argument is this: Where there are many Political Societies, conſiſting of Chriſtian Paſtors and People, profeſſedly aſſociated for the ordinary Exerciſe of thoſe Relations as ſuch, in holy Communion, in Chriſtian Doctrine, Worſhip, Order and Converſation, for Edification in true Faith, Hope, Love and Obedience, and the Glorifying of God therein. There are many diſtinct true Churches, parts of the Church Univerſal; But on Earth there are many ſuch Societyes, &c. Ergo, &c.

Either the controverſie is De re or de nomine (for we called Separatiſts uſe to ſeparate theſe.) 1. If de re; Let the exiſtence of the thing defined be tryed by Scripture, Reaſon and common Experience: 2. If de nomine; Forma quae dat eſſe dat Nomen: Here is the true ſpecifick form which is found in many ſingle Churches, ergo the Name of ſuch ſingle (or individual) Churches is due to them.

4. Again ad hominem, from the conſequences: 1. If there be not many ſingle Churches in the Univerſal, then there are not many Patriarchal, National, Provincial, Metropolitical, Dioceſan, or Parochial Churches: For non entium non datur numerus: Many nothings is a contradiction Multae ſunt ergo ſunt; Ab eſt tertij adjecti ad eſt ſecundi valet argumentum.

But if there be not many, then 1. All the Pariſh Churches in England being but one, and not many, a Patron can have right to preſent to no one as a Church, more than to another. 2. Then the Parſon, Vicar or Curate is no more the Parſon of one Church than of another; nor bound to no more Care and Duty; for there is but one. 3. Then no one is bound to go to one Pariſh Church more than another; for there is but one. 4. Then the Temple and Tithes belong no more to one than another. 5. Then no Biſhop is the proper Biſhop of one Dioceſan Church, more than of another. 6. Then all the revenues of the Biſhop of London, are no more appropriate to one Church than to another. 7. Then you owe no more Obedience to the Biſhops of one Dioceſan Church than another: 8. Then you make the King no more Head or Governour of the Church of England, than of another. 9. Then a Dioceſan oweth no Reverence to a Metropolitane Chruch (if there be none ſuch.) 10. Then many Churches cannot have Communion nor ſend Biſhops to Councils; (if there be not many) 11. And the charge of Separation from a Church that is no Church, is a contradiction.

5. I adde, from Parity of Reaſon, if many diſtinct ſubordinate Societies may make one Civil Body Politick, ſo they may one Univerſal Church: But the Antecedent is undoubted. If it be Learnedly ſaid with Mr. Cheny, that one whole cannot be Part of another whole; One may attain the perfection by that time he hath worn the Breeches but a few years, to know that a whole Family p. 5may be part of a whole Village, and a whole Vicinage be part of a whole City, and a whole Colledge be part of a whole Univerſity; and a whole City part of a whole Kingdom; and a whole Kingdom part of the whole Earth.

And if it be objected, that the Names of the whole and parts are here divers; but a Church and a Church are the ſame Name. I Anſwer, at the ſame age one may learn that the ſame Name proveth not the ſameneſs of the things Named; and that ex penuria nominum the Genus and Species, the Totum and Parts have oft equivocally the ſame Name, with the Addition of juſt Notes of diſtinction. Sometimes an Academy of many School is called Schola, and ſo are the ſingle Schools therein: The City of London is a Society; and ſo are the Societies of Merchant-Taylors, Drapers, Mercers, &c. therein.

§. 4. But theſe Churches muſt be members of one another, or they are Schiſmaticks.

A. 1. How can that be, if they be all but one. 2. This is alſo above or below the ferula age. They are no members of one another, but all members of the whole: Yet how oft have we this with the ſting of Schiſme (as Damning as Murder of Adulter) in the Tail of it. The hand is not a member or part of the Foot, or the Foot of the Hand, or the Liver a member of the Lungs, &c. but each one of the Man: If ever I were a Schoolmaſter again, I would perſwade may Boyes, that A is not a member of B, nor B of C, &c. but each of the Alphabet; And that one leaf of their Book is not a member of another, but both of the Book; And if they were ripe for the Univerſity, I would perſwade them that Exeter Colledge is not a member of Corpus Chriſti, nor that of Lincoln, &c. but all of the Univerſitie of Oxford. And I think that Briſtol is not a member of Exeter or Glouceſter, &c. but all of England; and that the Company of Stationers are not part of the Society of Merchants or Drapers, &c. but all of London.

What a Priviledg is it, that a Man may believe this about any ſuch thing without Schiſme and Damnation! And how dreadful to fall into ſuch Church-mens hands that in their Caſe make it Schiſme, Separation and Damnation. But there is a Remedy.

§. 5. But he hath reaſon for what he ſaith: p. 3, 4. [Indeed it is extreamly abſurd and unreaſonable, to ſay, that the Chriſtian Church, which is built on the ſame Foundation, &c. who enjoy all Priviledges in Common, ſhould be divided into as diſtinct and ſeparate Bodies, thô of the ſame kind and nature, as Peter, James and John are diſtinct Perſons—It's abſurd to ſay, That where every thing is common there is not one Community.

Anſ. Let us not ſwallow this without Chewing: 1. Whether all be extreamly abſurd and unreaſonable which ſuch Doctors call ſo; I am grown to doubt as much as whether all be Schiſm which Schiſmaticks call ſo: Ipſe dixit is no Proof.

2. What the meaning of this great, Decantate Word [Separate] is; p. 6muſt anon be enquired: But, may not Churches be diſtinct and not culpably ſeparate? He confeſſeth afterwards both local diſtinction and ſeparation.

3. How far are the Vniverſal Church and Particular Churches diſtinct? As Whole and Parts? Muſt the World at laſt learn that Whole and Parts are not diſtinct? If you take it for abſurd to diſtinguiſh a Man from a Body, or from a Liver, Hand or Foot, Diſſenters do not; nor to diſtinguiſh a Colledge from an Univerſity, a Houſe from a Street, a Street from a City, &c.

But how are the Particular Churches diſtinguiſhed one from another? Reader, ſo conſtantly do ſuch men fight with themſelves, that it's meet to ask, whether they that thus ſay there are not many diſtinct Churches, do not aſſert a far wider difference between many, than thoſe they diſſent from. We affirm that there are many, and that they differ not in ſpecie, but numero, as Colledges, Cities do among themſelves; but theſe men, after all this, hold not only a numerical, but a ſpecifick difference, even as Parochial, Dioceſan, Provincial, Patriarchal, National; at leaſt Presbyters and Dioceſans differing Ordine vel Specie with them, the Church denominated from them muſt do ſo too.

§ 6. But he confirms it. [Peter, James and John, thô they partake of the ſame common nature, yet each of them have a diſtinct Eſſence and Subſiſtence of their own, and this makes them diſtinct Perſons; but where the very Nature and Eſſence of a Body or Society conſiſts in baving all things common, there can be but one Body.

Anſ. I hope its no culpable Separation to diſtinguiſh things as differing ſpecie & numero; and this is the Doctors meaning, if his words are ſignificant: and the common way of expreſſing it would have been, [Peter and John differ numerically but not in ſpecie; but two Churches differ neither ſpecie nor numero.]

And 1. Reader, whereas he ſaid before, that the Church is not divided into diſtinct Bodies, as James and John, &c.] did you think till now, that James and John, and the Doctor, and the ſeveral Biſhops had not been diſtinct parts of the Church in their diſtinct natural bodies?

2. And why may there not be diſtinct Politick Bodies, or Compound in one whole as well as natural? certainly, all things corporeal ſave Attomes are Compounds: A Muſcle, a Hand, a Foot, parts ſimilar and diſſimilar in man are all compounded of leſſer Parts. If many Students may make one Colledge, why may not many Colledges make one Univerſity? It's ſtrange if a Doctor deny this.

3. But let us conſider of his Reaſon, and enquire 1. Whether the Church have all things Common. 2. Whether the very Eſſence of it conſiſt in this.

I. It is granted that the whole Eſſence of the Genus and Species is found in every individual of that Species, Natural or Politick; but did we ever hear, p. 7till Mr. Cheny and this Doctor ſaid it, that Politick Bodies differ not numero as well as Natural? The Kingdom of England and of France are two; the Church of Rome and Conſtantinople long ſtrove which ſhould be uppermoſt, but who ever ſaid that they were not two?

II. Have they all things common? Diſſenters would have excepted Wives and Husbands, (thô the Canons called Apoſtolical do not;) Why ſhould the Eſſence of a Church lie in this, and not the Eſſence of a City or Kingdom? Tories in Ireland would have all common; Merchants and Tradeſmen, Knights, Lords and Princes here would not. But it's no Schiſm here alſo to diſtinguiſh ſimpliciter & ſecundum quid, Propriety and the uſe of Propriety: There is no Community without Propriety: Men have firſt a Propriety in themſelves, their members, their food, the acqueſts of their Labours, their Wives and Children, and Goods. And they conſent to Community to preſerve this Propriety, becauſe every man loveth himſelf: And yet they muſt uſe their Propriety, (even of Life) for common good, becauſe all are better than one: But if they had no Propriety they could not ſo uſe it for the Common-wealth.

And I never conformed to the Doctrine that denyeth Propriety in Church Members and Particular Churches, and thought all ſimply common. I'le tell you what Particular Churches have to individuate them, not common to all.

1. They conſiſt of individual natural Perſons, many of which as much differ from many other Perſons, (thoſe in England from thoſe in Spain) as one man doth from another.

2. Their Graces and gifts are numerically diſtinct (Faith, Hope, Love, &c.) from thoſe of other Churches thô ejuſdem ſpeciei. 3. England and France, London and Oxford, have Churches of different place and Scituation: 4. But the formal individuating difference is their neareſt Relation to their ſeveral Paſtors; as ſeveral Kingdoms, Cities, Schools are numerically diſtinct by their diſtinct Kings, Maiors, School-maſters, ſo are ſeveral Churches ejuſdem ſpeciei. 1. Theſſ. 5. 12, 13. Know thoſe that are among you and over you in the Lord, and eſteem them highly in love for their Works ſake. As every mans Wife, Children and Servants muſt be uſed for the common good, and yet are not common, one mans Wife and Children are not anothers; So the Biſhop of London, of Oxford &c. muſt govern his Church for the good of the Univerſal; but he is not the Biſhop of Glouceſter, Norwich, Paris, Rome.

Theſe are differences enow to conſtitute a numerical difference of Churches: Paul diſtinguiſheth the Biſhops of Philippi, Epheſus▪ &c. from others.

Do you yet ſee no Priviledges that one hath Proper, and not common to all? none that make a difference in ſpecie, but both …umerical and gradual. 1. All Churches have not Biſhop Jewel, Biſhop Andrews, Doctor Stillingfleet, Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers: Air Churches be not taught all that's in this Reſolver. 2. All Churches have not men of the ſame ſoundneſs p. 8nor excellency of Parts: It was once taken for lawful to account them ſpecially worthy of double honour who laboured in the Word and Doctrine, and to eſteem men for their works ſake. Paul ſaith of Timothy, I have no man like minded. If thoſe that heard not a Sermon in many years differed not from your Congregation, why do you preach?

I am reproached in Print for telling the world this notorious truth; That I lived till ten years old, where four men, four years hired ſucceſſively were Readers and School-maſters; two Preached (as it was called) once a Month, the other two never: Two drank themſelves to beggery. After I lived where many Pariſhes about us had no Preachers: The Pariſh that I lived in, had a Church with a Vicar that never preached, and a Chappel with a Parſon eighty years old, that had two Livings twenty Miles diſtant, and never preacht: His Son a Reader and Stage-player was ſometime his Curate: His Grand-ſon, my School-maſter, his Curate next that, never preacht in his life, but drunk himſelf to beggery. One year a Taylor read the Scripture, and the old man (the beſt of them all) ſaid the Commmon-Prayer without book (for want of ſight.) The next year a poor Threſher read the Scripture. After that a Neighbours Son (my Maſter) was Curate, who never preacht but once, and that when he was drunk, (in my hearing) on Mat. 25. Come ye Bleſſed, and go ye Curſed;] the ſaddeſt Sermon that ever I heard. Theſe things were no rarities: Now my aſſertion is, That the Church that had ſuch as Auſtin, Chryſoſtome, Jewel, Andrews, and ſuch worthy men as London now hath many, had Priviledges diſtinct from theſe, (and many the like) that I was in.

If you ſay that every Biſhop and Preacher is as much the Biſhop and Preacher to all other ſingle Churches, as to that which is his Title; then 1. He muſt be condemned for not teaching them all. 2. Then he may claim maintenance from them all. 3. Then he may intrude into any mans Charge. 4. Then no Church is unchurcht for want of a Biſhop, for any one Biſhop is Biſhop to every Church in the World; and ſo ubi Epiſcopus ibi Eccleſia, ſignifieth but that Church and Biſhop are on the ſame Earth; and Eccleſia eſt Plebs Epiſcopo adunata may be verified if there be but one in the World. 5. And ſo Mr. Dodwell and ſuch are ſelf-confuted before you are aware: Geneva, Holland, and all Presbyterians are true Churches, for they have all Biſhops; e.g. The Biſhop of London is Biſhop to them all: For if one man be no more a Member of one ſingle Church than of another, and ſo no more a Subject to one Biſhop than to another, then one Biſhop is no more Paſtor of one Church than of another.

7. And how can you magnifie the Church of England for a Wiſe, Learned, Pious Clergy above other Churches, if all Priviledges be common, and they have no proper Paſtors of their own.

8. Do you think that the Church, e. g. Of Hippo, that was in Auſtins dayes, was the ſame numerical ſingle Church with that which is there now, p. 9(were there any) or with the Dioceſan Church of London? if not, then at leaſt diſtance of time, and change of Perſons maketh divers Particular Churches; and it's no more againſt the unity of the Church Univerſal to have divers particular Churches in it in the ſame Age, than in divers Ages.

In ſhort, Diverſity of matter and form maketh a numerical Diverſity (as of Natural, ſo) of Politick Bodies of the ſame ſpecies: But the Churches of Epheſus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia &c. were of divers matter and form numerically; Ergo they were divers Political Churches.

Sure God doth not commend Laodicea for Philadelphia's Church Virtues, nor condemn the Church of Philadelphia for the other Churches Sins.

And if the Angels be Biſhops, why are ſome Biſhops praiſed as the Biſhops of ſuch Churches, and the Biſhops of other Churches threatned.

But I confeſs this is a ready way to end the Controverſies between the Biſhops of ſeveral Churches which ſhall be greateſt, if they be all but one.

But I hope that when the Biſhop of Rome and his Church was corrupted, it is not true that every Biſhop and Church fell with him, (or with any that hath turned to Mahumetaniſm.)

To be no longer on this, (which I thought no Prelatiſt would ever have put me on) if theſe men ſpeak not notoriouſly againſt Scripture, againſt the conſtant Language of Canons and Fathers, Hiſtorians and Lawyers, and all Antiquity, and all Chriſtian Countreys and Divines, (yea, even thoſe that at Trent would have had only the Pope to be of immediate Divine Right) then I know not any thing by Reading. And if poor Nonconformiſts muſt be put to defend themſelves againſt ſuch ſingularities, and be Schiſmaticks unleſs they will differ from all the Chriſtian World of all Ages, there is no Remedy.

§ 7. But p. 5, 6. he tells us, [that a Church is made by a Divine Covenant—God only can conſtitute a Church: Such Perſons, if there be any ſo abſurd, are not worth diſputing with, who dare affirm the Church to be an humane Creature, or the invention of men.—And no Church can depend on humane Contracts; for then a Church would be a humane Creature and Conſtitution, whereas a Church can be founded only on a Divine Covenant—

1. Who would think but this man were a Nonconformiſt, that talks ſo like them (e. g. Ameſius in Medul. Theol.) againſt humane Church Forms? But what then will Biſhop Bilſon, and almoſt all other Biſhops and Chriſtians be thought of, who affirm Patriarchal and Metropolitical Churches (and many of the Dioceſane) to be but humane Conſtitutions and Inventions. And if theſe be not worth the diſputing with, it ſeems, that you differ from them more than Separatiſts do: and then were not all theſe Schiſmaticks? and then, are not you a Schiſmatick if you communicate with them? yea, your Mr. Dodwel himſelf maketh Dioceſan Churches to be a humane Creature; and A. Biſhop Bromhall much pleadeth for mans power to make Patriarchal Churches; and ſo do ſuch others.

p. 102. But is it true that humane Contracts make not a Church? Anſ. Not alone: But I think that all Churches are made by mutual Contracts, and humane is one part of that which is mutual.

1. As to the Vniverſal Church, 1. God as Legiſlator and Donor, inſtituteth the ſpecies of Covenanting by Baptiſm, and therein he commandeth mans conſent to his offered Covenant; and conditionally promiſeth to be our God: But, Conditionale nihil ponit in eſſe: This much maketh no Chriſtian, nor Church. To command a man to be a Chriſtian, and conditionally to promiſe him life if he will be one, proveth him not to be one; elſe all were Chriſtians that reject an offered Chriſt.

2. But when man conſenteth and covenanteth with God, then Gods conditional gift becomes actual and efficacious, the man being a capable Recipient, and not before: and in this it is the Contract that is the Fundamentum Relationis; but a ſingle Promiſe is not a mutual Covenant or Contract.

So that it is no wiſer Divinity to ſay, Gods Covenant and not mans conſent, Covenant or Contract with God, doth make Chriſtians, and the univerſal Church; than it is ſober Reaſon to ſay, That Gods Inſtitution of Marriage or Magiſtracie only doth make the Relation of Husband and Wife, without their covenanting conſent, or doth make Common-wealths, without the conſent or Covenant of Sovereign and Subjects. Did this Doctor think that Voluntarineſs is not as neceſſary to the Relation of Chriſtianity as to the Relation of Prince and Subjects; yea, or of Husband and Wife? if he do, he is ſhamefully miſtaken. Baptiſm delivereth men poſſeſſion of Pardon, Grace and right to Glory; and can men have this againſt their wills? One would think by the Doctrine and courſe of ſome men, that they could force men to Pardon and Salvation! if I believed that their force could accompliſh this, I would never call it Perſecution. If they can force men to be true Chriſtians, they may force them to be juſtifyed and ſaved; and then they are very uncharitable if they do not: Let them then ceaſe preaching and diſputing us to their Opinion, but bring us all to Heaven whether we will or not.

Yea the ſelf-contradictor, playing faſt and looſe, confeſſeth p. 6. That no man at age can be admitted to Baptiſm, till he profeſs his faith in Chriſt, and voluntarily undertake the Baptiſmal Vow: And is not that humane Covenanting?

Yea, he knoweth that the Liturgie maketh even Neighbours or Strangers, vow and covenant, both in the name of the Child and for the Child. And ſo neceſſary doth the Epiſcopal Church think humane Covenanting, that without this no Child muſt be Baptized publickly though the Parents would covenant, and that they can neither for Love nor Money (for many poor men hire Godfathers) get any one (much leſs three) who examined, will ſeriouſly purpoſe to perform the Covenant for the Childs holy Education which they make.

p. 11II. But is not humane Covenanting a cauſe of ſingle Church Relation as well as of univerſal? I ſee no cauſe to doubt it; and I am ſure that the Church for a thouſand years (before and ſince Popery came in) have declared him no Biſhop that comes in without conſent of Clergie and People; which Conſent is their covenanting act.

To make a ſingle Church, manifold conſent goeth to the Fundamentum Relationis. 1. God commandeth ſingle Church Officers, order and conſent, and promiſeth them his bleſſing where they are met: The Lord and his Angels are among them: No command is vain, and without a virtual Promiſe. 2. To this a threefold humane conſent is needful, Ordinarily: 1. the Perſons called. 2. The Ordainers (when it may be had.) 3. The Peoples. He that formerly, from the Apoſtles dayes, for a thouſand years, ſhould have ſaid, that neither the covenanting, that is the conſent of the Paſtor, or People, or Ordainers, is neceſſary to the Fundamentum of a ſingle Church Relation or Form, would have been taken for a wild-brain'd Schiſmatick at leaſt.

§ 8. But ſaith this Doctor (and another of them) [p. 6. But the Independent Church Covenant between Paſtor and people, is of a very different nature from this: Vnleſs any man will ſay, that the voluntary Contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their Members, and wherein they place a Church ſtate, be part of the Baptiſmal vow; if it be not, then they found the Church upon a humane Covenant; for Chriſt hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptiſm; if it be, then no man is a Chriſtian but an Independent.

Anſ. Alas for the Church that is taught at this rate!

1. I never ſaw what Independents do in this caſe; but I think none of them that are Sober own any other ſort of Church but the univerſal, and ſingle Churches as members of it, and therefore require no Contract but 1. To the Covenant of Baptiſm or Chriſtianity. 2. To the Duties of their particular Church-relation.

2. And nothing is here of neceſſity but manifeſted Conſent (which is a real Contract) but a clearer or a darker, an explicite or implicate conſent differ only ad melius eſſe.

3. Is not God the Author of Magiſtracy, Marriage, &c. And is it any violation of Gods part, if Rulers and People, Husband and Wife be Covenanters by his command?

4. Is it any renuntiation of Baptiſm to promiſe at Ordination to obey the Arch-Biſhop and Biſhop, and to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience? Is it not ſtill exacted? Are not the Takers of it obliged? are not Covenants impoſed on all that will be Miniſters in the act of Uniformity? are not multitudes kept out and caſt out for not making theſe Covenants? Quo teneam nodo, &c. How ſhould one deal with ſuch ſtippery men? Good Mr. Zachary Cawdry that wrote to have all men to covenant Submiſſion to Biſhops p. 12and Pariſh Miniſters, did not dream that it was any violation of Baptiſm.

5. Do not men owe duty to their Paſtors which they owe to no others? If not, put them not on it: Why are you angry with them for going from you? Why doth the Canon ſuſpend thoſe that receive them to Communion from another Pariſh that hath no Preacher? Why are we ruined for not covenanting as aforeſaid? if yea, then is it againſt Baptiſm to promiſe to do our duty?

6. But hath God commanded or inſtituted no Covenant but Baptiſm? Yes ſure, the Matrimonial at leaſt; and I think Ordination is covenanting for the Miniſtry: Did not the Apoſtle Acts 14. 23. ordain Elders in every Church? if you would have [by Suffrage] left out of the Tranſlation, no ſober man can doubt but it was by the Peoples conſent; and was it without their conſent that Titus was to ordain Elders in every City? Could any then come otherwiſe in? Did not all Churches hold and practiſe this after, and was it none of Gods Inſtitution? If ſo, God requireth us not to take any of you for our Biſhops or Paſtors: Who then requireth it? What meaneth Paul when he ſaith, they gave up themſelves to the Lord and to us, by the Will of God.

7. Can the wit of man imagine how it is poſſible without conſent, for a man to be made the Paſtor of any Flock? Who ever ordained a man againſt his will? or for any man to have Title againſt his will, to the proper overſight and paſtoral care of any one Paſtor, or the priviledges of any Church? If any think they may be cramm'd and drencht with the Sacrament, or that an unwilling man may have a ſealed pardon and gift of Salvation delivered him, he will make a new Goſpel. And how any particular Paſtor is bound to give that man the Sacrament ordinarily, that conſents not ordinarily to receive it of him, I know not. No man is a member of any City, or any Company of Free-men in the City, but by mutual conſent; and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King maketh not the Oath of a Citizen as ſuch or of a Member of a Company as ſuch, unlawful.

8. Doth this Doctor think that he ever yet proved to ſober men, that the Covenant aforeſaid, of Godfathers and Godmothers, to make Chriſtians, and members of the univerſal Church, is more (or ſo much) of Gods Inſtitution, than the Contract or Conſent between Biſhops or Paſtors and People to make a ſingle Political Church?

9. If it follow not, that no man is the Kings Subject that ſweareth not to the City; It will not follow, that none is a Chriſtian, but an Independent, or Church-conſenter.

10. How are your Pariſh or Dioceſan Church members known to your ſelves or any others? Are all that dwell in the Pariſh or Dioceſs your Church members? Then Atheiſts, Sadducees, Hobbiſts, and all vicious men and thouſands that never communicate, are ſuch: Yea thoſe that you call Separatiſts. p. 13If it be every tranſient Communicant, have you a proper Paſtoral care of every Travellers Soul that ſo communicates with you? You after plead that his very ordinary Communion maketh him not a member, if he be unwilling to be one. And is not his conſent then neceſſary? Or if ordinary Communion be the teſt (how few then of great Pariſhes are of the Church) yet that is becauſe ſuch Communion ſignifieth their Conſent to your over-ſight of them.

§ 9. But it's much to be approved which p. 5. and oft he ſaith, that to be taken into Covenant with, God, and to be received into the Church is the very ſame thing, as to the Univerſal Church. By which all his groſs Schiſmatical Accuſations after wards are confuted. No, man then is out of the Church that is not out of the Baptiſmal Covenant, either by not taking it, or by renouncing ſome Eſſential part of it? And when will he prove, that to take him, rather than Dr. Bates that was caſt out, to be a Teacher or Paſtor at Dunſtans, or to take this man and not another to be the Lawful Biſhop or Prieſt, and to obey him in every Oath and Ceremony, is an Eſſential part of the Baptiſmal Covenant, or of Chriſtianity? But; ſuch a rope of Sand, as Mr. Dodwell and this man tye together, to bind men to their Sect, will ſerve turn with ſome that know not who ſpeaks Truth, by any ſurer way than prejudice.

§ 10. His Doctrine of Separation and gathering Churches out of Churches is anon to be conſidered: But whereas he addes, p. 7. [Theſe men convert Chriſtians from common Chriſtianity, and the Communion of the Vniverſal Church to Independency.]

Anſ. My acquaintance with them is ſmall, ſave by reading their Books: And there are few Men of any Common Denomination (Epiſcopal, or other) that are not in many things diſagreed. But I muſt in Charity to them ſay, that as far as I can judge by their Writings or Speech, he palpably ſlandereth them; and that none that are grave and ſober among them do ſeparate their Churches from the common Chriſtianity or the Univerſal Church, any more than the Company of Stationers, Ironmongers, &c. are ſeparated from the City of London, or London from England, or Trinity Colledge from the Univerſity of Cambridge or Oxford. I never met with man, and I am confident never ſhall do, that doth not take his Independent Church to be part of the Univerſal, and Dependent as a part on the whole. If belying others ſtopt at words, the wrong were ſmall: But when it's made but the ſtairs to hatred and deſtroying, it's his way to cure Schiſm that is commonly painted with Horns and Cloven feet. If a man come from a Countrey Village and be made by Covenant a Citizen of London, how prove you that he renounceth King or Kingdom?

But he ſaith, p. 9. Thoſe who wilfully ſeparate from the Corporation to which the Charter was granted, forfeit their Intereſt in the Charter.

Anſ. What Reader doth this man preſume upon that will not ask him, how he proveth 1. That Gods Law or Charter to his Church doth not require p. 14them to congregate in diſtinct ſingle Churches (as London Charter doth to erect ſeveral Companies, and the Univerſities ſeveral Colledges?) 2. And that God hath not in his Word given order or command for ſuch ſingle Churches: But that the Apoſtles and Titus by fixing Elders to their ſeveral Churches and Cities, ſeparated from the Univerſal Church? 3. And that their ſubordinate Churches have not need of diſtinct ſubordinate conſent and duty: And that our Dioceſan Churches all ſeparate from the Univerſal? Did he think theſe things need no proof at all?

It may be he will ſay that the Dioceſan depend on the Vniverſal, but the Preſbyterian or Independent do not.

I Anſwer, Dependance is either that of Subjects on Soveraign or Magiſtrates for Government, or that Of a Community of Equals for Communion. In the former reſpect they depend on none but Chriſt as Univerſal Soveraign, Nor on any Foriegners for Governments: In the latter, they depend on all true Churches for Communion: And Doctor Hammond and moſt Dioceſans hitherto have ſaid that Dioceſan Churches are thus far Independent or National at moſt.

And if any be for a Forreign Juriſdiction, in Charity before they perſwade England to it, they ſhould procure them a Diſpenſation from all the Oaths, that have ſworn all this Kingdom againſt endeavouring any change of Government, and againſt a Foreign Juriſdiction: For ſome Fanaticks now Dream that PER is the Mark of the Beaſt, and that foreign (which is the number of his Name, is nominal as well as numeral, and refers to [CH-urch foreign (and) S Tate] (For as for them that find a mans name in them, I abhorr their Expoſition more.)

§11. P. 9. [God (ſaith he) hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva, France or England, &c.

A. 1. God hath made one General Law, for Chriſtians congregating with their fixed Elders or Biſhops in particular Churches all the World over: And his Command is not without Promiſe of being with them to the End of the World; and that Promiſe becometh a Promiſe to every Church ſo congregate. God hath not made diſtinct Laws or Promiſe to every Chriſtian: But the Promiſe to Juſtifie all Believers juſtifieth each ſingle Perſon when he believeth. If the King ſhould make one common Law to command all his Subjects that are Freeholders to live in Corporations or Hundreds, deſcribed with their priviledges, thoſe priviledges would be all theirs that are ſo incorporated: As one Charter may Priviledge every London Company, diverſified by ſubordinate Agreements.

2. And that God who will have them thus incorporated and diſtributed into ſeveral ſingle Churches, doth Covenant (or Promiſe) according to their demerits to each. Do I need to recite the peculiar Promiſes and threats to the ſeven Aſian Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. which are Covenants to them?

§ 12. Next Pag. 10. He will tell us what Communion is, and in many p. 15words, it is to tell us that Communion is nothing but Vnion: I know that quoad notationem nominis, Communion may ſignifie, Vnion with others: But they that write Politicks have hitherto diſtinguiſhed. Vnion and Communion, taking Communion for Actual Communication, or exerciſe of the duties of men in Union? But to ſpeak croſs to other Writers on the ſame Subjects and give no reaſon for it, and to confound Vnion and Communion, is one part of this edifying Reſolution.

§. 13. Pag. 11. [Our Communion with the Church conſiſts in being members of the Church, which we are made by Baptiſm,] (ſaith he.)

Then the Baptized are ſtill in Communion with the Church, till their baptiſm be nullified: And hath he proved us Apoſtates?

§. 14. Pag. 12. Should any man who is no member of the Church, nor owns himſelf to be ſo, intrude into the Church and Communicate in all Holy Offices, it's. no Act of Communion, &c.

A. I thought communicating ordinarily in Holy Office, had gone for an owning of Communion: If it do not, would you would tell us how to know who are of your Church.

§. 15. P. 13. Saith he (Church-Communion does not conſiſt in particular Acts of Communion, which can be performed among thoſe who are preſent and Neighbours, but in memberſhip: Now as a member is a member of the whole Body (not meerly of any part of it, &c.) All the Subjects of England who never ſaw nor converſt with each other, are members of the ſame Kingdom.]

A. 1. That word [meerly] hath more Craft than juſtice or Honeſty: Meerly ſignifieth Only I ſuppoſe; and if he would make his Reader think that they that are for ſingle Church peculiar memberſhip and conſent, do take themſelves to be [meerly or only] members of thoſe ſingle Churches, and not of the Univerſal, it is ſhameleſs injury.

2. Will he ever draw men to conformity by making them believe, that becauſe they owe Common Communion to all Chriſtians, therefore we owe no ſpecial duty to the Biſhops, Prieſts, Churches or Neighbours where we are ſetled? Do the Men of one Colledge, School, Corporation, owe no more duty to that than to all others? Do the Free-holders of Bedford-ſhire chooſe Knights for Middleſex; or the Citizens of Oxford chooſe Officers in London? Theſe ſeem ſtrange Reſolutions to us.

3. But doth he remember that [if Communion conſiſt not in Acts, of Communion to ſuch, but in memberſhip even with the diſtant,] then he that is baptized, and no Apoſtate, and performeth no other Acts of Communion to the Biſhops, Parſon or People where he liveth, than he is bound to perform to them a hundred or thouſand miles off, is no Separatiſt. Methinks this favours Separation too much.

§. 16. Pag. 14. When he denyed any Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches diſtinguiſh't from the Univerſal (as all National, Dioceſan and Parochial are, as parts from the whole) he preſently confuteth all again, ſaying [The exerciſe of Church Communion, as to moſt of the particular p. 16duties and Offices of it muſt be confined to a particular Church and Congregation (for we cannot actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, &c. but with ſome particular Church.]

A. Oportuit fuiſſe memorem,—1. Reader, doth not this man here confeſs that there are particular Churches? 2. If theſe be not diſtinct from the whole, then each particular is the whole. 3. If the Exerciſe muſt be in particular Churches, muſt not men Conſent to their Relations and Duties? Is it a ſin to Promiſe Duty? 4. Sure it is not meer Place, but a mutual Relation of Paſtors and People that diſtinguiſheth theſe Churches. The Preſbyterians preach't once in the ſame Places that you do, and yet you take them not for the ſame Church Paſtors. If one from York or Cornwall come into your Pulpit without conſent, do People ſtand as much related to him as to you? Some men are of extraordinary ſufficiency to reſiſt and conquer the cleareſt evidence of Truth.

But he addes [every Act of Communion thô performed to ſome particular Church, is and muſt be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church.]

A. And who denyeth this? No ſober Independent or Presbyterian that ever I met with. It's a weighty Truth.

§. 17. P. 14. Saith he [Praying, and Hearing and Receiving the Lords Supper together doth not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church, thô in the remoteſt part of the World.]

A. I think that's not true: With the remoteſt parts you have only Catholick Communion with the Church Univerſal: In England and London you have that and more; even ſpecial ſubordinate Communion with your own King, Biſhop and Flock.

2. And hath not the Church of England ſuch Communion in obedience to its own Laws; (as the Act of Uniformity,) Convocation and Canons, which you have not with all abroad? Do your Biſhops in Convocation make Canon Laws for all the World? Do you Swear Canonical obedience as much to the Biſhop of Paris, or Haffnia, &c. as to your Ordinary? Do the Canons of all Churches impoſe our Liturgy, or ipſo facto excommunicate all that affirm any thing in it, or our Ceremonies or Church Government, to be againſt Gods word? Sure this is a peculiar kind of Communion.

3. If not, why are all the Nonconformiſts caſt out that offer to officiate and Communicate on ſuch terms as are common to all ſound Churches?

Pag. 15. Saith he [There is nothing in all theſe Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to ſuch a particular Church than to the whole Chriſtian Church.]

A. What, neither in theſe Acts nor any other! Then we are no more bound to hear you, or maintain you as our Paſtor, than to hear and maintain the whole Chriſtian Church.

§. 18. P. 20. Saith he [There is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for p. 17private Chriſtians, but to communicatee in all Religious Offices and all Acts Government and Diſcipline with Chriſtians thoſe with whom they live.

A. 1. Elſewhere you added [ſound and Orthodox:] Elſe they that live with Arians, Socinians, Papiſts (in Spain, France, Italy, &c.) are bound to communicate with them in all Religious Offices and obey them. 2. This concludeth, that where Presbytery or Independency is the way of the place where we live, all muſt thus communicate and obey. The King and Cuſtom then may make any way to become our Duty. 3. If you tell us that it's only with the Sound and Orthodox, you were as good ſay nothing, unleſs you tell us who muſt judge that, whether the People themſelves, or who for them. 4. But if this be the only rule for private Chriſtians, what ſhall they do, e. g. in Aethiopa, Egypt, Syria, and many other Countreys where the Churches are ſuch as General Councils and other Churches judge Hereticks or Schiſmaticks? And what ſhall they do, when at Antioch, Alexandria, Conſtantinople, &c. one party is uppermoſt (by the Judgment of Councils and Prince) one Year, and another contrary party the next. And what ſhall they do where the Prince equally tolerateth both, and it's hard to know which is the more numerous? as in Zeno's and Anaſtaſius Reign, &c. And what ſhall they do when many Churches in one City are of divers Tongues, as well as Cuſtoms? Have the Greeks, French and Dutch in London no rule of Catholick Communion but communicating in all Offices with the Engliſh, and obeying all your Biſhops Court?

§. 19. P. 21. Saith he [Diſtinct and particular Churches▪ which are in Communion with each other, must have their district bounds and limits, as every member has it's natural and proper place, and Situation in the Body.]

A. Why may not the Greeks; Dutch and French live in Communion with the Churches London though they live diſperſedly among them! In Brandenburg, Haſſia, and many free Cities, and Belgia, where Lutherans and Calviniſts (as called) live together, and own each other as Brethren, why may not both be Churches of Chriſt?

§. 20. P. 21, 22. A great deal more he hath of the like, making Schiſmaticks at his Pleaſure. [This is plain in the Caſe of the Preſbyterian and Independent Churches and thoſe other Conventicles—They are Churches in a Church,— Nothing can justifie the Distinction of Chriſtians into ſeveral Churches, but only ſuch a distance of place as makes it neceſſary, &c. p. 22. Distinct Churches in the ſame place can never be under the ſame Communion.

A. Theſe things are repeated ſo oft, and the word [ſeparate] ſo deceitfully rolled over and over, that I will anſwer all together under his third Caſe at the End.

§. 21. P. 27. See how openly he recanteth moſt aforeſaid: There is a ſence indeed wherein we may be ſaid to be members of one particular Church conſidered as distinct from all other particular Churches: But that principally conſists in Government and Diſcipline. Every Christian is a member of the Whole p. 18Chriſtian Church, and in Communion with it, but he is under the immediate inſtruction and Government of his own Biſhop and Preſbyters, and is bound to perſonal Communion with them; and this conſtitutes a particular Church, in which all Acts of Worſhip and all Acts of Diſcipline and Government are under the Direction and conduct of a particular Biſhop.]

A. Omitting that he ſeemeth to make the Parochial Churches no Churches, but parts of one, here he ſaith all that he ſeemed to write againſt, and that thoſe that he reproacheth hold, allowing the difference of the extent of Churches. And is it Edifying to read ſuch a diſcourſe, that ſaith and unſaith by ſelf-contradiction? And he adjoyns 28. p. how by agreement Patriarchal and National Churches are made! And is not Agreement a humane Contract?