A Third Defense of Peace, Part 2

A Third Defense of Peace · Part 2

p. 1RICHARD BAXTERS ſecond Account to Mr. John Cheney of his Judgment, accuſed by him of Atheiſm, ſubverting all Religion, Chriſtianity, the Goſpel, the Church, all Government, Introducing Popery, &c. Eſpecially for aſſerting, 1. That Chriſt hath Inſtituted one Univerſal Church, of which he onelyonly is the Head; and particular Churches as parts of it, of which the Paſtors are Subordinate Heads or Governours, and ſo formally differenced. 2. That neither of them is Conſtituted without ſome ſignification of conſent: which he never before heard one Chriſtian deny.

CHAP. I. PREFATORY.

§ 1. COntending though Defenſive, and made neceſſary by Accuſers, is an unpleaſant work: As I would chooſe a Priſon before a Defenſive War, were it for no greater intereſt than my own; ſo I would chooſe to p. 2be in Print proclaimed an Heretick, Schiſmatick, Atheiſt, or any thing, rather than be at the unpleaſing labour of a Confutation of all Accuſers, were it not for a higher intereſt than mine: For though we muſt contend for the Faith, yet the ſervant of the Lord muſt not needleſly ſtrive, 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25. And experience tells us, the good ſeldome anſwereth the bad effects.

§ 2. And there are few that call me to a publick Account, that I anſwer leſs willingly than Mr. Cheney: becauſe his Accuſations are ſuch groſs Miſtakes, that I cannot Anſwer them in the gentleſt manner, according to truth, without opening that which will bring him lower in the Readers eſteem than I deſire; and I much fear, will be to himſelf a temptation which he will hardly overcome, as I ſee by this his 2d Book. Had he that was my familiar Neighbour thought meet to have ſpoken with me, before his Publications, I am paſt doubt that I could have convinced him of multitudes of Untruths and Errours, ſo as to have prevented ſuch a publication of them; for in private he would eaſilier have born the detection of them, than in the hearing of the World, (which he has choſen.) But whereas ſome caſt away his Book, as a fardel of Dotage and ſhameleſs Lyes, I muſt remember ſuch, that I am confident he wrote no falſhoods with a purpoſe knowingly to deceive; and therefore they are not ſtrictly Lyes, but as raſh untruths are ſuch in a larger ſenſe, which ignorant men aſſert for want of due tryal. It is a great errour to overvalue ſuch poor frail ignorant men as we all are: Mr. Ch. and I have both over-valued one another; p. 3and this errour now we have both eſcaped, but not laid by our Chriſtian love. And as God will not take Mens Diſeaſes for their Sins, his bodily temper is to me a great excuſe of his ſtrong confident miſtakes.

§ 3. The very Introductory Preface of his Books diſowning Cruelty and uncharitable dividing Impoſitions, enableth me to forgive him the multitude of raſh untruths and ſlanders: and inſtead of a Mentiris, I ſhall put but a Putares or Non-putares.

I have juſt ſuch a task in dealing with Mr. Ch. as with one that is hard of hearing: when I ſpeak to ſuch a one, that heareth but one half, and miſ-heareth the reſt, he anſwereth me as he heard: and when I tell him his miſtake, his laſt reply is [I thought you had ſaid thus and thus:] but if I ſhould diſpute a whole day with ſuch a man, I ſhould be ſharply cenſured if I printed the Diſpute, and told the World how many hundred times the man miſ-heard, and ſo miſtook me. And I fear neither he himſelf, nor the Reader that valueth his time, would thank me for ſuch exerciſe of my Arithmetick with Mr. Cheney.

§ 4. For his Preface I thank him: It tells me, that all our Accuſers do it not in meer Malignity: and that he hath a few ſteps further to tumble, before he come to the bottom of the hill. His Book conſiſteth partly of a handſome conſiderable diſcourſe for Prelacie, and other Church-Offices of Humane Invention; and partly of a new & ſingular Doctrine about Church-Forms; & partly in a critical diſcharge of his fancy, and unpacking his preparations againſt the Independant Covenant, p. 4and Church-Form; and partly in detecting my many Atheiſtical, Infidel, Impious Errours, by which he ſuppoſeth I am deceiving the world; and partly n a multitude of falſhoods of me (and others) in matter of fact; and partly (I hope an ignorant) plea for the Pope. To open all theſe fully, would tire the Reader and me.

CHAP. II. What the Doctrine is which he accuſeth of Atheiſm, Impiety, &c.

§ 1. THE Reader that hath well peruſed my Writings knoweth it: but I cannot expect that all ſhould do ſo that read his Book. The abſtract is this.

I. That Jeſus Chriſt is Head over all things to the Church, Eph. 1. 22, 23.

II. That the Moſaical Law, as ſuch, never bound other Kingdoms, and is ceaſed, with their Commonwealth, and is abrogated by Chriſt, and that he as King of the Church, hath eſtabliſhed a ſufficient Law for all that is univerſally neceſſary for Doctrine, Worſhip, and Church-order or Government: and was faithful in all his houſe as Moſes, and Commiſſioned his Apoſtles to Diſciple Nations, Baptizing them and teaching them what Chriſt himſelf had commanded them, Matth. 28. 19.

III. That he ſetled the Miniſtry and Church-Form before he made any Magiſtrate Chriſtian, p. 5and that no Magiſtrate hath power to change them.

IV. That what his Apoſtles did by his Commiſſion and Spirit, he did by them.

V. That Church-Forms being ſo Inſtituted and Conſtituted, he hath not left them ſo much to the will of Man, as he hath done the Forms of Civil Government.

VI. That Chriſt hath One Univerſal Church, of which he is the onelyonly Head and Law-giver, and no Vicar perſonal or collective, as one Political perſon or power: of which profeſſed believers and conſenters in Baptiſm are the viſible Members, and ſincere Believers and Conſenters the Spiritual ſaved Members.

VII. That the World and Church are not all one; nor Heathens and Infidels the ſame with Chriſtians, nor any parts of the Church properly called.

VIII. That Chriſts Miniſters firſt work to which they were Commiſſioned, was not on the Church or any Member of it, but the Infidel world to gather them into a Church; and the firſt Baptized perſon was not Baptized into a preexiſtent Church; but the Church exiſting, Baptiſm entereth men into it.

IX. That the firſt Baptizer was no Paſtor of ſuch an exiſtent Church, but an Organical Miniſter to gather a Chriſtian Church.

X. That though at Baptiſm one may enter into the Univerſal and a particular Church, yet Baptiſme qua talis entereth us onelyonly into the Univerſal, being our Chriſtening or Covenant-uniting to the body of Chriſt.

p. 6XI. That a Paſtor in the Scripture and uſual ſenſe, is a Relate to Oves the Sheep or Flock, and not to Infidels: And a Miniſtry to Infidels, and an Epiſcopacy or Paſtorſhip of the flock, are different notions: but if any will uſe the terms otherwiſe, we contend not de nomine, though you call him a Paſtor of Infidels, or what elſe you can deviſe.

XII. To explain my ſelf, when I mention a Biſhop or Paſtor, I mean the Biſhop or Paſtor of a Church: and I take not Heathens for the Church.

XIII. I believe that in this Univerſal Church are thouſands of particular Churches, and this by Chriſts Inſtitution.

XIV. I believe that there is no particular Church or Chriſtian on earth, who is not (reſpectively as Viſible or Myſtical) a part of the Univerſal Church.

XV. As every worſhipping Aſſembly is a Church in a larger ſenſe, ſo a Church in a political ſenſe is eſſentially conſtituted of the Paſtor and People, or the Sacerdotal guiding and the guided parts: and of ſuch a Church it is that I am ſpeaking.

XVI. As ſuch meeting in tranſitu are an Extemporate tranſient Church, ſo fixed Cohabitants ought to be a Church accordingly fixed, related to each others as ſuch for longer than the preſent meeting.

XVII. Every ſuch Political fixed Church, ſhould conſiſt of a Paſtor (at leaſt) accordingly fixed, to a cohabiting people, and as their Paſtor more ſpecially related by obligation and authority p. 7to them, than to ſtrangers or neighbour Churches. He is not bound to do that for all, as he is for them, nor may go into other Paſtors Churches with equal power, nor officiate where he pleaſe.

XVIII. If there be no Church but the Univerſal, than there is neither Parochial, Dioceſan, or National, nor are Aſſemblies Churches. Nor is our King the Royal Governour of any Church: for of the Univerſal he is not.

XIX. Chriſtian Princes muſt do their beſt to ſettle faithful Paſtors in all Churches, that is, according to the Laws of Chriſt, but not againſt them. But as they muſt do their beſt that all their Subjects may have good Phyciſians, Schoolmaſters, Wives, or Husbands, Servants, Dyet, Cloathing, &c. but yet are not truſted by office to chooſe all theſe for every one, and impoſe them on Diſſenters, becauſe the ſame God that made Kingly power, did firſt make perſonal and paternal power, which Kings cannot diſſolve: ſo every man is ſo nearly concerned for his own Salvation, more than for Wife, Servant, Dyet, Phyciſian, &c. that though he muſt thankfully accept of all the Rulers lawful help, he is ſtill the moſt obliged chooſer. Nor is it any part of the office of a King, to chooſe and impoſe on every Subject a Guide or Paſtor, to whom only he ſhall truſt the Paſtoral conduct of his Soul, any more than a Phyſician or a Tutor for him.

XX. Pariſh-bounds are not of Primitive or Divine Inſtitution: but cohabitation or propinquity is a needful qualification of ſetled Members, gratia finis: And Pariſh-bounds are a uſeful humane p. 8determination, according to the general Rules, Do all to edification and in order.

XXI. No one is a Church-member merely becauſe he dwelleth in the Pariſh; for unbaptized Infidels, Heathens, Atheiſts, may dwell there.

XXII. Nor is a ſtranger a Church-member for coming into the Aſſembly; for ſuch, as aforeſaid, or Jews, Mahometans, may come in.

XXIII. A Paſtor oweth more care and duty to his flock, than to the reſt of the world (as a Phyſician to his Hoſpital.) Therefore he muſt know who they are, better than by knowing that they dwell in the Pariſh; nor may he Baptize them, or give them the Lords Supper, only becauſe he ſeeth them in the Aſſembly or in the Pariſh: elſe Jews and Heathens muſt have it.

XXIV. Nor is he to give it to every one that demandeth it: for ſo may Jews and Heathens, that take it in ſcorn, or for by-ends.

XXV. Yet a Chriſtian having a valid Certificate that he is ſuch, hath right to tranſient Communion with any Church of Chriſt where he cometh: but for order, the antient Churches uſed not to receive them without ſome Certificates from the Churches that they came from, leſt Hereticks and Excommunicates, unknown perſons, ſhould be every where received.

XXVI. No man can be an (adult) Chriſtian without ſignified conſent: nor a ſtated member of any particular Church, without ſuch conſent: no, nor a lawful tranſient Communicant without conſent. For ſo great benefits none but conſenters have right to, nor can ſuch relations be otherwiſe contracted.

p. 9XXVII. Conſent not ſignified nor known, is none to the Church.

XXVIII. A man may be obliged to conſent that doth not: but that makes no man a Chriſtian or member of the Univerſal Church; elſe Millions of Infidels and Heathens are Chriſtians; And ſo it maketh no one a member of a particular Church, that he is obliged to be one: nor am I a Paſtor over any men as a Church, becauſe they are obliged to take me for their Paſtor, no more than that is a Husband, Wife, Servant, who is obliged to be ſo, and will not. To ſay that I am a Paſtor to Heathens as a Church, is a contradiction: or that I am their Paſtor as my ſpecial Chriſtian flock, and particular Church-members that conſent not.

XXIX. But the ſame man that liveth among ſuch, may be to conſenting Chriſtians a Paſtor; and to Refuſers, Infidels, or Heathens, a Teacher. The Church ever diſtinguiſhed the Audientes and Catechumene Candidates, from the Fideles, who were the Members of the Church.

XXX. No Paſtor or people ſhould impoſe any Covenant on any adult to be Chriſtened, but conſent to be Chriſtians ſignified by Baptiſm; nor on any in order to tranſient Communion among ſtrangers, but juſt notice of their Chriſtianity and underſtanding conſent to that Communion: nor on any in order to their being the ſtated Members of this or that flock and particular Church, but due notice of their Chriſtianity, and of their underſtanding conſent to what is eſſential to ſuch members; that is, to the relation as eſſentiated by the correlate and ends.

p. 10XXXI. No one ſhould be obliged by covenant to continue one year or Month in the ſtation of that particular relation: becauſe they know not when Gods providence may oblige them to remove or change it.

XXXII. Though the Peoples conſent be neceſſary to their relation, their Election of the Paſtor (which ſignifieth the firſt determination who ſhall be the man) is not abſolutely neceſſary, though of old ſo thought. An after-Conſent may ſerve ad eſſe relationis.

XXXIII. Much leſs is it neceſſary that the people chooſe who ſhall be ordained a Miniſter unfixed, and only of the Univerſal Church.

XXXIV. 1. Mutual conſent of the duely qualified Ordained and Ordainer, determineth who ſhall be a Miniſter in the Church Univerſal; as conſent of the Colledge and the Candidate do who ſhall be the Licenſed Phyſician. 2. The Peoples conſent and the Miniſters inſtituted, determine who ſhall be the Paſtor of this particular Flock or Church. 3. The King determineth whom he will tolerate, countenance and maintain.

XXXV. Though a man may be Ordained but once to the Miniſtry unfixed in the Univerſal Church, (to which I ſaid the Peoples conſent is not neceſſary) yet may he be oft removed from one particular Church to another, on juſt cauſe, to which the peoples conſent (if not Election) is ſtill neceſſary. Though to avoid Ambition, the old Canons forbad Biſhops to remove.

XXXVI. It's lawful to be ordained ſine titulo only to the Miniſtry in general; but in ſettled p. 11Churches it is uſually inconvenient: And he that is ordained to a fixed Church, doth at once become a Miniſter in the univerſal Church (and may act as a Miniſter, and not as a Layman, when called elſewhere) and alſo a fixed Miniſter of a particular Church; even as he that is baptized into a particular Church, is a member of both: Though Baptiſm and Ordination qua tales enter but into the Univerſal.

XXXVII. It is not this or that mode of ſignification of conſent that is neceſſary to either relation of Paſtor or Flock; but Conſent ſignified intelligibly: where Laws and Cuſtome order it that actual ordinary attendance in publick worſhip and communion, and ſubmiſſion to neceſſary miniſtration, ſhall be the ſignification, all that ſo do expreſs conſent by it. And therefore our ordinary Pariſh-Aſſembling and Communion, being expreſs conſent to the mutual relation, have that which is neceſſary ad eſſe to true Churches; and they ſlander them that ſay, they are not ſuch. But ad melius eſſe more may oft-times be profitable; 1. Becauſe that is the beſt means, which is beſt fitted to the end: But the end of Signes being Notification, that is, caeteris paribus, the beſt which is moſt notifying; as that is the beſt Language which is moſt ſignificant and intelligible. Why ſhould playing in the dark, or dealing underboard, be preferred in the greateſt things? 2. It oft falls out, that ſome that live in the Pariſh are known Church-Papiſts, Church-Atheiſts & Infidels, & will tell in their meetings to their companions, [I believe not the words of the Pariſh-Prieſt: It is his Trade to talk for gain: I will do what the Law p. 12requires of me, for my ſafety; but I will have no more to do with him, nor do I take him for a true Paſtor, that hath any Authority but by Law, nor for any Paſtor to me.] And 3. there are many Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, engaged Members of other Churches; who yet to avoid ſuffering, will do that in the Pariſh-Church, which the Law requireth. 4. And the Antient Churches uſed expreſs Conſent, yea and Election. So for the Miniſter; he is no Paſtor without his ſignified conſent: but actual Miniſtration may be ſuch a ſignification. This is enough to reconcile the difference about Church-covenants.

XXXVIII. They that rail againſt a more expreſs conſent in caſes truly dubious, as if it were tyranny and deſtructive to Chriſtianity, do ſuppoſe that if the King and Law commanded ſuch a thing they commanded Tyrannically that which deſtroyeth Chriſtianity; and contradict themſelves when they ſay that Rulers may make various orders of Church-governours, and determine of undetermined Modes.

XXXIX. As it is not needful and uſual to ſet up a Coordinate Imperium artificum vel Philoſophorum in Imperio Civili; ſo it ſeemeth alſo of an Imperium Religioſum. The firſt Queſtion is, whether Chriſt hath Inſtituted ſuch: The ſecond, whether he hath given power to Men to make it. There is not in any Kingdom that I hear of, (but ſomewhat towards it in China) ſuch a Society of Phyſicians, Aſtronomers, Navigators, Lawyers, Schoolmaſters, Philoſophers, &c. who ſet up a Coordinate Empire or Government, that ſhall have all degrees of ſelf-governing power as a National p. 13Socity, with one Supreme, either Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, or Democratical Head, according to the order of Civil-government: Nor doth any reproach Schools, Colledges, Hoſpitals, or any trading Societies, that they are confuſed, Independent, and ungoverned, becauſe they have no common Governour but God and the King, nor any particular Governour, but the Principal, or Maſter and Fellows of the Society; nor any National aſſociation, beſides their ſubjection to one King, and their voluntary correſpondence for concord and mutual aſſiſtance with one another. And much leſs is there any Co-ordinate, Political Regiment of any of theſe through all the world, under one viſible humane Head, perſonal or collective. And yet many think that there is ſuch a Society and Regiment for Religion; National ſay ſome, Univerſal ſay others: That all that will ſerve God and be ſaved, muſt be under one Co-ordinate power over all the Kingdom, or World, beſides Chriſt and the Supreme Magiſtrate: and they contend whether this power be Monarchical or Ariſtocratical, &c. I am ſo far Independent, as to think that Chriſt hath Inſtituted no ſuch Univerſal or National Power and Head of Religion: but that 1. his own Univerſal Kingdom: 2. And particular Churches under their ſeveral Biſhops and Teachers: 3. And Synods for concord and mutual help: 4. And Chriſtian Magiſtrates to rule all by the Sword: 5. With the improvement of Mens eminent gifts and opportunities, that theſe be Inſtituted by Chriſt I doubt not: 6. And whether ſome ſhould ſucceed the Apoſtles (excepting their extraordinary powers) in having a viſiting, inſtructing, p. 14ordering care of many Churches and their Biſhops and Teachers, I confeſs my ſelf uncertain; and therefore will never ſtrive againſt ſuch, nor deny due obedience to them, who ſhew a true call to ſuch an employment. Nay, if Chriſt have made no ſuch Inſtitution; yet 1. if the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, 2. or the Churches by conſent, chooſe ſome faithful Miniſters to ſuch a power, onelyonly to direct, inſtruct, guide, admoniſh, reprove, exhort the Biſhops and Teachers of the particular Churches, without any other force than the Apoſtles uſed, and not deſtroying any of their proper power and duty, or that Church-order which the Apoſtles ſetled; I am no oppoſer of any ſuch, though my uncertainty diſables me from ſubſcribing and ſwearing to the right of their Authority. The Scots themſelves, even by Knox's conſent, ſet up Super-intendents over many Churches (John Spotſwood Super-intendent of Lothian, and ſo others.) And the power of a Preſident, Principal or Rector of a Colledge of Phyſicians, Philoſophers, or Divines, doth not make him of any other Order or ſpecies of Office and Profeſſion than the reſt. But if any affirm more than this, I will learn, but cannot yet ſwear or ſubſcribe it.

XL. Thoſe that are for the obligation of the Jewiſh order, I have fully ſpoke to in my firſt Plea for Peace. Thoſe that are only for the power of man to make ſuch ſeveral Orders or Ranks of Governours in the Church, as are in Armies, and Kingdoms, 1. Muſt tell us what ſort of power may be given them: 2. And who muſt give it. And 1. No men can Inſtitute a power of the ſame ſpecies, p. 15or another ſpecies from that which we call the Sacred Miniſtry, or as the Fathers, the Sacerdotal, but what is ſubordinate about the Accidentals of Religion and the Church. 1. Not the ſame ſpecies, becauſe it is Inſtituted by God already: No Man can create a creature already created. 2. Not of another ſupra-ordinate or co-ordinate: for 1. they can prove no power given them to do it: 2. And that were to accuſe Chriſt of inſufficient doing his undertaken work, and being leſs faithful in his houſe than Moſes: 3. And it will infer Mans introduction of a new co-ordinate Doctrine, Worſhip, or Religious Miniſtration: for the Miniſtration of the word and Sacraments, and Keys, is already appointed by Chriſt: And the Office or Order is ſpecified by the work and terminus; and a new Office hath new work. But in the ſame ſpecies of Religious Miniſtration, there are abundance of accidentals and circumſtances; and Princes or conſenting Churches may give men power in thoſe accordingly. But not to forbid what Chriſt commanded, nor deſtroy the works and power of his Inſtitution. And if they that are for other ſuperiour or co-ordinate ſpecies of Church-power, beſides what is afore-granted, ſay that it is a lawful humane Ordinance: 1. Thoſe that ſay, Princes only may make it, confeſs the Church had none that was lawful for three hundred years. And they muſt prove the Commiſſion. 2. Thoſe that ſay the Inferiour Biſhops made it by conſent; 1. feign Inferiours to have power to make a power above their own, (which is more than for Presbyters to ordain their like.) 2. Why may not Archbiſhops then make Patriarks, and p. 16they a Pope, ad ſummum aſcendendo? 3. They muſt prove their power; and that they are ſo far equal to Apoſtles, (who yet were but to teach the Nations what Chriſt commanded them; which theſe Men know not but by the Scripture.) 4. What Man maketh, Man may unmake. And how came we to be leſs free than our Anceſtors that made ſuch Offices?

XLI. In my Book of Concord where this is granted, yet I ſay, that let Church-Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Primates, Archbiſhops, or Dioceſans, like ours that have no Biſhops under them, be never ſo probably maintained to be lawful, yea, and deſirable; yet the uniting in them by conſent and approbation, will never become the terms or way of Univerſal Concord, which I have fully proved; even all that is true and good, will never be the terms of Univerſal Concord, nor juſt Chriſtian Communion; much leſs that which hath ſo much matter of doubt, and great ſuſpition of evil. But I will live in Chriſtian love, peace, and ſubmiſſion my ſelf, on terms uncapable of common concord, or my own approbation of the things as impoſed or done by all others.

XLII. Lay-Chancellours may do what belongeth to a Magiſtrate, but not uſe the Church-Keyes, nor be the Church-Judges of Mens Communion, becauſe Chriſt hath Inſtituted the Sacred Office for it.

XLIII. A Church is Ens Politicum (in the ſenſe in hand) and the form of it is Relative, in the predicament of Relation.

XLIV. The parts of the Univerſal Church are ſimilar and diſſimilar, more ſimple or more p. 17compound. And the word [whole] applyed to a part, diſproveth not its being a part of the whole Chriſtian world or Church. A whole hand, foot, head, &c. is part of a whole Body; and a whole Body part of a whole Man, and a whole Man part of a whole Family, and a whole Family part of a whole ſtreet, and that of a whole City, and that of a whole County or Kingdom: A whole Colledge of a whole Univerſity, &c. All Members ſave Souls and Atomes, are compounds.

XLV. When we call all the Chriſtian world [The Catholick Church] and call e. g. Hippo [A or the Catholick Church] the word [Catholick] and [The] are not univocal: In the later we mean only [The Church at Hippo] which holds the true Catholick Faith, and is a true part of the Catholick Church in the firſt ſenſe. Penuria nominum neceſſaria reddit aequivoca.

XLVI. Particular Churches are Viſible in the Regent and Governed parts: The Univerſal Church is Viſible in the Governed part, and in the Head only, ſo far as he was once on Earth, and is now viſible in Heaven (his Court) and will be viſible at laſt to all, and ruleth by viſible Laws; but not as a Head now viſible on Earth: nor is this any deformity to his Church, nor any reaſon why it may not be called Viſible; as I have fully proved in two Books againſt W. Johnſon, alias Terret.

XLVII. Thoſe that deny an Univerſal Viſible Church, differ only de nowine, not de re: They only deny any Univerſal Regent power, Monarchical, or Ariſtocratical, or Democratical, under Chriſt; but I know no Chriſtian that ever denyed the fore-deſcribed.

p. 18XLVIII. Forma dat eſſe: Divers conſtitutive forms, or ſpecifying differences, make divers Eſſences. Therefore the form of a Troop being the Captains Government, differs from the form of a Regiment, which is the Colonels Governing Relation, and both from the forms of the Army, which is the Generals. The formal Eſſence of a Colledge, is divers from that of an Univerſity; and of a Family from a Corporation, or City; and that from a Kingdom. And as forma dat nomen, they have divers names: A Family quatalis, is not a Kingdom, &c. Reader, forgive the mention of theſe things, which Children know, and till now I never read or heard any man deny or queſtion. In that which followeth, you ſhall ſee the Reaſons that excuſe me.

CHAP. III. What Mr. Cheyney ſaith againſt theſe things: And 1. Of Church-Forms and Eſſence.

§ 1. THough it tempt me not to Conformity as the way of Concord, where I ſee the great difference of ſuch as plead for it amongſt themſelves, yet I muſt do that right to the Conformiſts, as to tell the world that they muſt not be judged of by Mr. Ch's opinions; and that I know no other Conformiſt (or Non-conformiſt) of his mind about Church-Forms.

§ 2. But I muſt add, that his Caſe doth increaſe p. 19my Conviction againſt himſelf and them, that their Conformity is ſo far from being the neceſſary Cement, that it is utterly deſtructive of it, as ſo impoſed: and that it muſt be on few plain neceſſary things, that common concord muſt be held, or we muſt have none. Mr. Ch. thinks me one who may be endured in the Miniſtry, and I think ſo by him; and yet how far eaſier and plainer than our Controverſies of Conformity, are thoſe things in which we differ to the height of his following Accuſations? If none ſhould be endured that cannot Covenant, Swear, Subſcribe, Declare and Practice, as is required, how much leſs can ſuch as he and I be endured in one Church, if we differ as he ſaith we do? O what pardon and forbearance doth our peace require!

§ 3. Of Church-Forms and Eſſence, hear ſome of his Judgment.

Pag. 3. [The ſeveral Congregations and Aſſemblies of Paſtors and People throughout the Kingdom, are not limbs and parcels of a Church, but they are ſo many Churches—conſiſting of a Paſtor Governing, and people governed, joyning together in publick worſhip—It is called [the Church of England] as all the Chriſtian Paſtors and people throughout the world, are called the Univerſal Church—One Church, of which Chriſt is the tranſcendent Head—I do not ſee but it is proper to call all the Chriſtian Paſtors and people of England—One Church.—P. 6. Chriſt is the Head of the Church of England,—and under Chriſt all the Pariſh-Miniſters are ſubordinate Guides and Rulers of their Flocks reſpectively.—P. 7. Some are as Colonels of Regiments, others as Captains of Troops; the Body p. 20is but One, the Members many.—P. 13. The New Teſtament ſaith,—The Churches of Galatia, Gal. 1. 2. the Churches of Judea, Aſia,—Yet One body.—All the faithful make One heavenly City,—one Church of the firſt born;—ſo that Gods Church on Earth is Many Churches, and yet but One Church.—(Do you not think now that we are agreed? But hear him judge himſelf.) P. 15. I will ſhew one common Errour or miſtake in multitudes of our able Divines,—That thoſe we call particular Churches, are counted Parts and Members of the Church Univerſal. This I deny,—Mr. Baxter makes the Church of England, or the Churches of England, to be an integral part of the Church Univerſal,—as a Troop of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom. So the Independents. I overthrow this Errour by this Argument. One and the ſame thing cannot be both a Body and a Member, a whole and a part, a ſociety and one ſingle perſon.—But that which we call a ſingle or particular Church, is not a Member but a Body; it is not a limb or part of a Church, but a whole and entire Church,—It hath a whole within it.—London is not a Member of England, but a City and aggregation of Members. It's no leſs than a flat contradiction in terms,—what Dr. Ames ſaith, Medul. l. 1. c. 32. that a particular Church eſt Membrum ex aggregatione variorum Membrorum ſingulorum compoſitum, contrary to common reaſon and plain Scripture.—P. 18. A bare Member in the Body hath no Authority, but acteth by mere natural life and appetite, and is not endued with rational authority, nor can be capable of any.—That which we call a ſingle Church, is a Catholick or Univerſal Church. It hath an Univerſal Head. To be a Chriſtian, is to be p. 21of an univerſal impartial ſpirit;—where there is an All, there is an Univerſal.—But every ſingle Church hath an All within it, the Paſtor and all his flock.—The Church Univerſal and particular, do only differ as to place and number;—A Church of godly Miniſters and people in France, Holland,—and England, differ but as to place.—Every Church (of Chriſtians) muſt needs be a Church Univerſal; not a limb or member of another Church, but a true body, or entire Chriſtian ſociety.—P. 20. Chriſts Body is One: not as one is oppoſed to Multitude—but to diviſion, contrariety, and deſtruction.

§ 4. P. 21. This leads me to ſhew the unſoundneſs of another part of Mr. Baxters Doctrine, and ſome others with him: He ſaith, [There are two eſſentially different Policies or Forms of Church-Government of Chriſts Inſtitution, never to be altered by man: 1. The Form of the Univerſal Church as Headed by Chriſt himſelf, which all Chriſtians own as they are Chriſtians, in their Baptiſm. 2. Particular Churches headed by their particular Biſhops or Paſtors, and are parts of the Univerſal, as a Troop of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom.—And he defines the Univerſal Church to be, The univerſality of Baptized Chriſtians, headed by Chriſt himſelf. Theſe his ſayings contain many Errours; I will firſt note them out, and then confute and prove them to be Errours. 1. It is an Errour in the art of defining, to put in thoſe words, [Headed by Chriſt himſelf.] 2. It is another Errour to define the Univerſal Church without Guides and Miniſters, as one eſſential conſtituent part. 3. It is another Errour to ſay, that the Univerſal Church, and Churches particular, differ eſſentially. 1. It is an Errour in the art of deſining to p. 22ſay,—Headed by Chriſt himſelf] that's ſuppoſed, but need not be in the definition. He finds fault himſelf with ſuch a defect in the definition of a particular Church. Grant them to be Chriſtians, and you grant they own Chriſt.—2. It is an Errour to define the Univerſal Church without Paſtors,—So doth the Aſſemblies Confeſſion, and Mr. Hudſon—His definition of the Church without Paſtors, is, as if he defined a living healthful man, without a ſtomach, liver or lungs.—P. 24. 3. If there be an eſſential difference between Church and Church, what then is the difference between the Church and the World! Heaven and Hell! the righteous and the wicked!—How can any man know which is the right Church? We ſhall never be able to confute Popery nor Infidelity by this Doctrine: For this Doctrine ſuppoſeth two eſſentially different Churches: The Univerſal Church without Paſtors, and of this Chriſt is Head himſelf: Particular Churches, of which Chriſt is no Head, but particular Paſtors are the Heads.—By this Doctrine the ſame thing ſhall be contrary to it ſelf.—Chriſts Church in this world is but one! And can one and the ſame thing have two different Eſſences, beings, and definitions? Quae conveniunt uno tertio, &c. But the Church Univerſal and particular agree in uno tertio. They ſtand on one foundation, are directed by one rule, quickned by one ſpirit; an addition of homogeneous Particles makes no eſſential difference. It will neceſſarily infer, that God is contrary to himſelf, and that the eſſentiating principles of Church holineſs, order and government, are black and white, darkneſs and light,—P. 25. If this opinion ſtand, Religion cannot ſtand, Two eſſentially different Forms of p. 23Churches, will infer two ſorts of Holineſs, the one repugnant to the other, (yet) ſubordinata non pugnant. If Chriſt ſet up two repugnant, or eſſentially different Church-Forms, he is not the Saviour, but the deceiver of the world. (O dreadful!)

§ 5. P. 92. A word more ad hominem of that opinion, That particular Churches are parts of the Univerſal, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom.

This is Mr. Baxters opinion: why then do you blame the turning all the Pariſh-Churches into Chappels, and making them to be but parts of the Dioceſan, as a Troop is of an Army, &c. who ſees not that your Doctrine doth the ſame that you condemn, &c. If they are but parts and Members of another Church, (the Univerſal) then they are not Churches.—It is not unlikely but you can find ſomewhat to ſay in defence of this your ſelf-contradicting Doctrine; but I believe it will match your wit, were it ten times more, and prove too hard for you. Look to it; if your diſputations againſt Prelacie ſtand, down goes this main aſſertion of yours. If your diſputations againſt Prelacie be found to have a hollow and falſe bottom, then you have made you work for repentance, you have greatly injured the Church of God, and particularly the Church of England, and have deceived a great many. Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope to be to all the Paſtors, Churches, and Chriſtians through the world, That do you make this which you call the Church Univerſal: for you ſay that particular Churches, as headed by their reſpective Biſhops and Paſtors, are parts and members of another Church called the Church Univerſal: By which aſſertion you ſet up an Univerſal p. 24Head or Government over all the Paſtors, Churches, and Chriſtians in the world beſides Chriſt; and you ſay this is of Divine Inſtitution; and you lay the concord of all the Churches upon it. Do but grant the Papiſts this one aſſertion, that particular Churches, as headed by their reſpective Paſtors, are parts and members of the Univerſal Church, as a City is of a Kingdom, and overthrow the Popes headſhip over all if you can. It will follow that there muſt be, beſides Chriſt, an Univerſal Eccleſiaſtical Monarch on Earth, either perſonal or collective, who muſt have the Supreme power. P. 96. But indeed you have gone beyond Bellarmine in ſeting up Papal Monarchy. Your other aſſertion ſets up Atheiſm, by making the Holy God the Author and Founder of two eſſentially different Churches, or Church-Forms. According to Bellarmines aſſertion for the Pope, there would be Paſtors, &c. But according to your aſſertion, all the world muſt be Atheiſts, of no Religion at all.—P. 224, 225. Your diviſion of the Church into Univerſal and particular, is plainly againſt that Rule in Logick; Membra omnis bonae diviſionis debent eſſe inter ſe oppoſita. But in this your diviſion the Membra dividentia are not inter ſe oppoſita: you oppoſe the ſame thing againſt itſelf. You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church,—The whole or the Univerſal Church at Corinth is ſound and good. You plainly leave out of your deſcription, the differencing Form or token of that which you call a particular Church, and that is Neighbourhood, or dwelling or abiding in this or that place,—you make a new eſſential of Church-Memberſhip and Church-Communion, and lay the peace of all the Churches on it, and ſay it is Divine, p. 25ſure, harmleſs, fitted to the intereſt of all good men. This ſtartles me, I ſtrive to be ſilent and cannot: The more I ſtrive, the more I am overcome **Alas! then there is no remedy!. Mr. Cawdrey was lately with me, and we had Conference about this point,—ſuſpecting mine own judgment; I have conferred with divers about your other Notions, two Churches, or two Church-Forms differing eſſentially; and they cannot apprehend how it can ſtand! you make the Univerſal Church-Form, and the particular Church-Form to differ eſſentially, and this by Divine Law. I prove to you from the nature of the thing it ſelf, and the expreſs word of God, that the Univerſal Church of God at Corinth, and the particular Church of God at Corinth, are one and the ſame.—To oppoſe the Univerſal and particular Church, and ſay they differ eſſentially, is to oppoſe the ſame thing againſt itſelf, and make the Lord Jeſus Chriſt the Authour and Founder of ſelfſubverting Principles. P. 226, 227. As for that other point, of the Church particular being part of the Church Univerſal, it is to ſay, that the whole Church at Corinth is a part of the whole Church, which is abſurd.

Reader, I muſt not Tranſcribe the whole Book: the reſt is too like this; exerciſe your patience in receiving a ſhort Anſwer to the ſeveral parts which ſeemeth needful.

p. 26CHAP. IV. A Defence againſt the foreſaid Accuſations.

§ 1. WHat Chriſtians heart can chooſe but mourn for the Church of God, and the puzzling confounding temptations of the ignorant, that muſt hear men charged thus publickly with Atheiſm, and the overthrow of all Religion, for that which the Chriſtian world agreeth in; and this by Preachers of profeſſed humility, ſincerity and zeal? How ſhall the unlearned know when they are ſafe? yea, what ſnares are thus laid to rob men of their time, as well as their Faith and Charity? I muſt not give ſuch lines their proper names: but I will ſay that it remembreth me of Iſa. 1. 6. and it cryeth out unclean, unclean. How few words of Truth, and ſoberneſs, and ſoundneſs, can you number among all theſe? Had he written and publiſhed it in his ſleep, as ſome talk, and walk, it were ſome excuſe! But for a Man, a Miniſter, awake, and after publick admonition, deliberately, on conſultation, a ſecond time, to talk at this rate in the Preſs!—And yet cannot we be endured without their Ceremonies, &c. When the Friendly Debater and Mr. Shurlocke have compared ſuch Books as this with thoſe that they reprehended, perhaps they will ſay, Iliacos intramuros, &c.

To begin at the end, I am ſorry to read what p. 27he ſaith of the Divers he Conferred with, &c. 1. I never till now read or heard Papiſt, Proteſtant, or any Chriſtian of his mind: And, alas, are divers of it now? Are Conformiſts come to that? Either they were at Manhood, or in breeches at leaſt, or not: If not, he ſhould have choſen other Counſellers: If yea, were they Laymen or Clergymen? He was to blame if he took up with the former alone in ſuch a caſe. If the later, he greatly diſgraceth them.

But we muſt ſay ſomewhat of our Atheiſtical Errours. The beginning of his words, which ſay the ſame thing which he ſo abominateth, I will not charge with contradiction in ſence from the reſt: for if he mean the ſame thing by [One and Two, A Church and no Church, A part and no part, Yea and Nay] they are no contradictions in ſence. And indeed I cannot perceive that he underſtandeth what he readeth and anſwereth, nor well what he ſaith. And therefore I am not ſure when I underſtand him; but I will review ſome of the things that his words ſeem to accuſe in order.

§ I. The Univerſal Church, as I defined it, is a True Church. Proved: Where there is a true Church-Head and a Body of all Chriſtians on earth, united and ſubjected to that Head by mutual conſent and Covenant, there is a true Univerſal Church: but ſuch is that which I named and defined as the Church Univerſal.—Ergo.—The Major is from the definition to the thing denominated. As to the Minor, 1. That Chriſt is the True Head. 2. And all Chriſtians the Univerſal true body, (viſible as Baptized, and myſtical p. 28as Heart-Covenanters.) 3. And that mutual Covenanting is a ſufficient bond for this Churchunion, the Chriſtian Reader will chide me if I ſtay to prove.

§ 11. Particular Churches exiſtent, are true Churches in Eſſence. Proved to him: 1. He oft confeſſeth this and the former. 2. A true pars dirigens & pars ſubdita, neceſſarily qualified, ad eſſe, and united in thoſe relations for Church-ends, are a true particular Church: But ſuch are many exiſtent particular Churches (and all that I defined:) Ergo. 1. That a true Biſhop, at leaſt with his Presbyters, is a true pars dirigens: 2. And a qualified flock, a true pars ſubdita: 3. And that ſuch are found united in theſe relations, I will take for granted with the Reader, except Mr. Ch. And the Major is the definition.

§ III. That the Relative union of the governing Part, or neareſt Head to the Governed body, is the ſpecifying form. The proof being de Ente politico & notione Logicâ, is the conſent of all Politicks, Logicks, and uſe of ſpeech by the profeſſours of both, known to us in the world. I oft enough diſtinguiſhing de nomine aequivoco, have told men that it is not every Chriſtian Aſſembly that we ſpeak of, but ſocietas politica. And all Politicks call the form of the Government, the ſpecifying form of the Politick Society, throughout the known world. So Monarchy, Ariſtocracie, Democracie, are ſpecifying forms of Republicks: And Schools, Armies, Navies, have divers Relative forms, ſpecifyed by the union of the various Regent Relative parts to the reſt.

§ IV. The Form is a chief eſſential part.

p. 29§ V. Therefore divers ſpecifying forms, prove divers eſſences in ſpecie.

§ VI. It is not the generical form that ſpecifieth. Elſe all things that are ejuſdem generis, ſhould be ejuſdem ſpeciei. All bodies are not Animate, nor all Animals Men, nor all Men Biſhops or Phyſicians.

§ VII. The Genus denominated without defining it, with the ſpecifying form or difference, makes the Definition of the Species. Elſe the Definition of the ſpecies infima, would be confounded by the conjunct definitions of all the ſuperiour Genera: He that defineth a King, muſt not put in it the definition of Homo, of Animal, of Vivens, of Corpus and Anima, of ſubſtantia.

§ VIII. The higheſt ſpecies muſt be defined by its proper higheſt form, though not the ſubordinate ſpecies. The King muſt be put in the definition of a Kingdom, but not of a City, Country, Church, Family, School; he is there ſuppoſed in a Kingdom. And ſo of others.

§ IX. The higher Genera muſt not be named in the definition of the ſpecies, but the next, which is the ſuperiour ſpecies. Therefore Mr. Ch. miſtook his Art of defining, when he ſaid I miſt it, by naming Chriſt as the Head of the Church Univerſal, and adding that I blame my ſelf that defining of a particular Church. As in Relations it is not the ultimate end, but the neareſt that muſt be in the definition; ſo is it not the higheſt but the next Genus that muſt be named. In defining all the lower ſpecies, the higher Genera are but implyed in the naming of genus proximum, and not named.

p. 30§ X. The Relation of Jeſus Chriſt, and of a humane Biſhop, are not the ſame Relation, in ſpecie, though both be called Heads or Rulers. Proved: There is not the ſame ſubjectum, nor the ſame fundamentum, vel ratio fundandi, nor the ſame Correlate, (for all the Chriſtian world and a Dioceſe are not the ſame) nor the ſame neareſt terminus: Ergo, not the ſame Relation.

§ XI. Therefore the Univerſal Church Headed by Chriſt onelyonly, and a particular Church ſubordinately Headed by a Biſhop or Clergy-head, are eſſentially divers, and two: Proved: Where the formal ſpecifying Head or Regent part is two, or divers, and the Body divers, &c. there the ſocieties are divers in ſpecie, or eſſentially: But ſo it is here: Ergo. That One and One are Two, I will not undertake to prove to Mr. Ch. nor think it needful to prove to others, nor yet that Chriſt is One, and a Biſhop one; and not the ſame. That Chriſt is the formal Head of the Univerſal Church, all Chriſtians confeſs, and therefore to be named in the definition, whether Mr. Ch. will or not, and not ſuppoſed: Baptiſmal Union and ſubjecting to him, maketh us Chriſtians, and not ſuppoſeth us ſuch (in viſible Church-ſtate.) That Chriſt is not the formal ſpecifying Head of a particular Church as ſuch, but of the Univerſal, and ſo the Supream Head only of the particular, is proved before. 1. Becauſe the ſpecifying forma totius heterogenei, is not the ſpecifying form of the parts. 2. Elſe all that Chriſt is Supreme Ruler to, ſhould be ſuch particular Political Churches: which is falſe; It is not true of ſingle perſons, of Chriſtian Armies, Troops, Markets, Parliaments, p. 31Courts, &c. as ſuch. 3. Chriſt himſelf by his Apoſtles hath ordained a ſubordinate humane ſpecies of Church-heads or Rulers. 4. From parity of caſes: Natural and Political. The forma animalis, is not forma hominis, nor forma hominis forma oculi, manus, pedis, &c. The General is the formal Head of the Army, but not of a Regiment, but the Colonel: Nor the Colonel of a Troop, but the Captain; nor the King of a City, but the Maior or other ſubordinate head: Nor the King or Maior of a Family, School, Colledge, but the Pater-familias, the Maſter, the Rector, &c. Depoſe the ſubordinate Head, and it's part of the Kingdom ſtill, but no Family, School, Colledge, Troop, Regiment, &c. All Mankind that profeſs dealing in ſuch ſubjects, (as far as I know) are agreed in all this. As to the Body related alſo, a Dioceſs is not all the Chriſtian world.

§ XII. Every true particular or ſingle Church, is part of the Univerſal, (which is Headed only by Chriſt.) That it is part of the Univerſal, I know not that ever man denyed till now, that a conformable pious Divine maketh this with the former Atheiſtical, making God and Chriſt a deceiver, driving all Religion out of the world, Popery, worſe, &c. Proved. Quae unita totum conſtituunt ſunt partes: At Eccleſiae omnes particulares, cum membris caeteris & Chriſto Capite totam ſeu Univerſam Eccleſiam Redemptorum conſtituunt: Ergo, ſunt Eccleſiae Univerſae partes. Eccleſia univerſa conſtat ex horum unione. Ergo, haec omnia ſunt ejus partes. Again, If the ſingle Churches be no parts of the Univerſal, either they are Co-ordinate p. 32Churches with the Univerſal, or there is no Univerſal. If the Univerſal be All without them, than they are none: If not, then it is not Univerſal, if there be other Churches which are no parts of it. Again, If they be no parts of the Church Univerſal, they are no parts of the Body or peculiar people or Kingdom of Chriſt, (for that is but one, 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 15, 16. & 5. &c.) But they are parts of the Body of Chriſt. Ergo.

§ XIII. To ſay that the whole Church, e. g. at Corinth, and the whole Church in the world are the ſame, and what's predicated of one is alſo of the other, is a ſaying—not to be juſtly denominated. The ſubjectum, relatum, correlatum, fundamentum, terminus, proximus, and ſo the relation are divers. The whole Church and its Head, and a part and its ſubordinate Head, are not the ſame. The Kingdom and the City, the City and a Pariſh or Ward, the Univerſity and a Colledge, the Man and a hand, &c. are not the ſame.

§ XIV. To ſay as he doth, that a Family is not a part of the ſtreet, or that of the City, and London no Member or part of the Kingdom, is ſtuff that—I will not name: an ill foundation for the charge of Atheiſm, Blaſphemy, and all Impiety. But I am out of all fear that he ſhould make one Proſelyte that's ſani cerebri. If any accuſe him of leſs than denying God and Chriſt, even but of Depoſing the King from moſt of his Kingdoms, and ſaying that London, and ſo of every one City, Corporation, &c. is no part of it, I would deſire them to allow him his own Expoſition: for he mcaneth not ſo ill as he ſaith.

§ XV. To ſay that one whole cannot be a Member p. 33or part of another whole, is yet, if poſſible, more—than the former. What, may not Corpus politicum be a member of a larger body Politick? Is there any part of the Univerſe if this be true? at leaſt ſave Atomes and Spirits: And in what ſenſe an Atome, or Anima, or Spiritus, may be called totum, Scaliger, and the Schoolmen, and Metaphyſicks, commonly tell you. Are not whole ſtones part of Mountains? and whole Trees of the Forreſt? and whole Herbs of the whole Garden? and whole Fields of the whole Countrey? and whole Pariſhes of the whole Dioceſs and County, and thoſe of the Kingdom? and that of Europe? and that of the world? Is not a whole hand or foot part of a whole man? Is not the mateial Univerſe made up of compounded parts? What a trick has he found to exempt us all from Government? every man may ſay, I am a whole man: therefore I am no part of the Biſhop of Londons Dioceſs, or of the Pariſh, or of the Family. Deny or deſtroy all ſuch parts, and you deny or deſtroy the whole. Did he think that all Noun Subſtantives ſignified the ſame thing, which have the ſame Adjective; and that a whole Man, and a whole Dog, or World, are all one?

§ XVI. It's little better when he argueth that homogeneal parts make not a new ſpecies. As if he could prove that the Church is Totum homogeneum. Are not Chriſt and Chriſtians, the King and the Subjects of the Univerſal Church, partes heterogeneae, in eſſe politico relativo? Are not Biſhops and Laicks partes heterogeneae? Had he forgot how much of his Book is to prove even Biſhops p. 34and Presbyters as widely different? No Chriſtian denyeth it of the Church Univerſal, nor any of ſingle Churches, that denyes not a Miniſtry, and the being of ſuch Churches as Political.

§ XVII. While thus he maketh National Churches Metropolitical, Dioceſane, Parochial, and the very Independent, which he moſt revileth, all one, or of one eſſential ſpecies, it ſeemeth that he knoweth not how he unſaith moſt that he ſaid before.

§ XVIII. It is little better that he maketh ſeveral Churches, viz. at Paris and at Plimouth, &c. to differ only in Number and Place. 1. Do not the Popiſh, Proteſtant, Epiſcopal, and Preſbyterian, differ in the Form of Government? 2. Do not thoſe of the ſame Form differ as Individuals by their ſeveral Rulers? beſides abundance of accidental differences?

§ XIX. And what Doctrine is it to ſay, Chriſts Body is one; not as one is oppoſed to multitude, but to diviſion and deſtruction? Hath Chriſt a multitude of Bodies univocally ſo called? even ſuch a Body as we treat of? Hath Chriſt many Univerſal Churches containing all Chriſtians headed by Chriſt?

§ XX. When he had ſo groſly wronged himſelf, as to ſay, It is an errour in the art of defining, to ſay of the Univerſal Church, it is Headed by Chriſt himſelf; what other Head or formal Regent part doth he name? will he have another? or will he have none in the definition? Is that the art of defining?

§ XXI. It's little better to ſay, Is is an errour p. 35to define the Univerſal Church without Paſtors, as the Aſſembly did. What! a better Logician than all the Aſſembly too? Alas, how fell the good man under this temptation? He inſtanceth in a body defined without Liver, Stomack, &c. But 1. I hope he doth not think all is excluded that is not to be named? 2. Is there no better definition of a man, than Animal implume, bipes, &c. or one that hath a Liver and Stomack, &c. When to the Entelechia or anima, he added Corpus organicum, Ariſtotle thought he ſaid enough of the body. Is not Animal rationale a juſt definition of a man, without naming his Liver and Spleen, or Heart? Is not the Genus & differentia enough for a definition? Definitiones debent eſſe breves; & nihil otioſum continere: otioſum eſt quo ablato, definitio reliqua rei eſſentiam explicat. A Kingdom is defined by naming no more than the King and Subjects in general, without naming Judges, Juſtices, Sheriffs, &c. There are no conſtitutive principles in Nature, but Mater, materiae diſpoſitio & forma: And the imperfect definitions of accidents, muſt be as like as may be to thoſe of ſubſtances. The ſpecifying form here, is only Chriſt the Head ſo related: Though he made Chriſtians before Miniſters, and were all Paſtors dead, the Church were ſtill Chriſts Univerſal Body; yet I grant it is not a juſt organized body without Paſtors: but that maketh them but to be the nobler part of the diſpoſed matter: men do not uſe to play the Anatomiſts in definitions, and inſtead of Animal, or of Corpus organicum, to name Heart, Stomack, Lungs, &c. But it is a healthful man that Mr. Ch. is defining. Anſw. 1. But it p. 36is not a healthful Church, but a true Church in eſſence that I was defining. 2. If it had been otherwiſe, the name of the parts need not enter the definition of health. And are theſe his ſaving truths?

§ XXII. And what an intimation is it, that if there be an eſſential difference between the Univerſal and particular Church, there's none between the Church and the world, the righteous and the wicked, Heaven and Hell. Theſe things are fitter to be anſwered by Interjections (which be no words; but voces non vocabula) than by Speech. If Chriſt and a Biſhop in eſſe relationis politicae differ eſſentially, muſt good and bad, Heaven and Hell be all one? If an Army, and a Regiment, and a Troop, differ in their formal ſpecifying eſſences, muſt a Subject and a Rebel, the Court and the Gallows therefore be all one. Proh! apage!

§ XXIII. Next he asks, How can any man know the right Church then? Anſw. What! no way but by making Chriſt and a Biſhop formally the Head? we know the Univerſal Church by its true definition; and a true particular Church by its true definition and properties.

§ XXIV. Yea, he ſaith, we ſhall never be able to confute Popery and Infidelity by this Doctrine. Anſw. Alas, will the good man turn Papiſt or Infidel, unleſs the Univerſal Church and a Dioceſane have the ſame ſpecifying difference, or formal Head? Then what remedy?

§ XXV. I have no Interjection deep enough for that which followeth, viz. This Doctrine ſuppoſeth two eſſentially different Churches: The Univerſal Church without Paſtors, (Putares) and of p. 37this Chriſt is Head: particular Churches, of which Chriſt is no Head] Putares! Where ſaid I any ſuch thing! Is this lawful? As if 1. there muſt be no Paſtors, unleſs they be the formal Head of the Univerſal Church. 2. And as if there muſt be no Chriſt the Supream Head, if the Biſhop be the formal differencing ſpecifying ſubordinate Head: and all but the named parts are denyed: As if he would have more than the genus proximum, and differentia ſpecificans in a definition: yea, even the genus ſupremum! and Chriſt ſhall be the ſpecifying Head, or none!

§ XXVI. He ſaith, [So the ſame thing ſhall be contrary to itſelf.] As if 1. Chriſt and a Biſhop, in formal relation were proved to be the ſame. 2. Or things ſubordinate were contrary, (which he denyeth himſelf.)

§ XXVII. He ſaith, [Chriſts Church in this world is but one.] Anſw. If there be but one particular Church, 1. Then numerically the Church of London and Baſil are one: And then if I ſeparate not from the Church at Baſil, I ſeparate not from the Church of London. 2. If de ſpecie there be but one, then a Patriarchal, Dioceſane, Parochial, Presbyterian, and Democratical Church are but of one ſpecies: And why then did you uſe ſo many words to tell us of the need of Biſhops over Biſhops, and of the ſeveral ſorts of ſupra-ordinate Church-Rulers? Then a National Church and a Pariſh-Church are but one.

§ XXVIII. He addeth, [Quae conveniunt uno tertio, conveniunt inter ſe; but the Church Univerſal and particular agree in uno tertio, &c.] Anſw, As if Convenientia generica, were convenientia totalis p. 38vel ſpecifica? or, Convenientia partialis & totalis, Accidentalis & Eſſentialis, were all one? What pretty Logick is here, to prove a King and a Conſtable all one, becauſe they are both Men, both Chriſtians, and both Rulers? I hope then a Biſhop and a Presbyter are all one, that in your ſorry ſenſe agree in uno tertio? But let us hear the inferred Charge againſt us.

§ XXIX. An Addition of Homogeneous Particles (ſaith he) makes no eſſential differences. Anſw. Chriſt and a Biſhop are heterogeneous: Yea, a Dioceſane and a Pariſh-Prieſt: have you proved that they are not? or that they are?

§ XXX. It will neceſſarily infer that God is contrary to himſelf, ſaith he. Anſw. O Temerity in the dark! that is, unleſs his Church-relation be the ſame with the Biſhops? As if the King be contrary to himſelf, if his Kingdom and a Corporation or School be not of the ſame ſpecies?

§ XXXI. He ſaith, [If this opinion ſtand, Religion cannot ſtand. An. Do you mean in you or in me, or all others? Do you reſolve to caſt away all Religion, if Chriſt and a Biſhop be not the ſame informing regent parts of the Church Univerſal and particular? Think better of it firſt; for Religion is more neceſſary than ſo. Do you think that the Chriſtian world, which hath ever been of the opinion which you deteſt, had never any Religion? Nor hath now any? Which way do Churches that are parts of the Univerſal, caſt out all Religion?

§ XXXII. If Chriſt ſet up two eſſentially different Church-Forms, he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world. Anſw. And muſt Chriſt p. 39bear ſuch a charge as well as I? I ſhould ſooner have expected it from a Turk or Jew, than from you.

§ XXXIII. He ſaith, [Why then do you blame turning Pariſh-Churches into Chappels, and making them but parts of a Dioceſane, as a Troop of an Army?] Anſw. Putide putares. When ſhall we meet with a true Sentence? It is not for making them parts of a Dioceſane Church as Troops of an Army, but for making them no Political true Churches, but disbanding all the Troops, by making them no Troops, but ſuch parts of a Regiment as Squadrons are. It is for putting down Inferiour Biſhops, and not for being themſelves Biſhops over them; yet on this doth he ground his charge of my deceiving men, and wronging God and his Church, &c.

§ XXXIV. He addeth, [Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope, &c. that do you, &c. for you ſay that particular Churches, as headed by their reſpective Biſhops and Paſtours, are parts of another Church called the Church Univerſal. By which aſſertion you ſet up an Univerſal Head—beſides Chriſt, and you ſay this is of Divine Inſtitution, and lay the Concord of all the Churches on it.] Anſw. If you are ſani Cerebri, this is ſo groſs, that your putarem hath no excuſe. Had you not your ſelf repeated my definition, and carpt at thoſe very words, [Headed only by Chriſt] and many times your ſelf repeated it as my opinion. 2. Or had you tryed your wrangling wit to have proved, that [if Chriſt only be aſſerted to be the Head, I thereby aſſert another Head] or that [If I make Biſhops particular ſpecifying Heads, I p. 40therefore aſſert a humane Univerſal Head,] you had ſome cloak for your putarem: But now—If you next print that I ſaid that a Dog is a man, I will no more wonder at it than at this. See Reader how my Church-Concord is oppugned, and by what weapons Satan doth that work. As if he that ſaith the King only is the ſpecifying Head of the Kingdom, and the Captain of his Troop, or the Dioceſans of a Dioceſs, were a Traytor, and did aſſert another Head of the Kingdom than the King.

§ XXXV. Do but grant the Papiſts (ſaith he) this one aſſertion, that particular Churches, as headed by their reſpective Paſtors, are parts and members of the Univerſal, as Cities of a Kingdom, and overthrow the Popes Headſhip over all if you can. It will follow, that there muſt be beſides Chriſt, an univerſal Monarch on earth, &c. Anſw. 1. Affirmanti incumbit probatio. Did you think we muſt take your bare word in ſo great a caſe? Do you ſay one word to prove your affirmation? Muſt we all turn Papiſts upon your immodeſt naked ſaying, it is ſo? 2. But your immodeſty is in this exceſſive to me, that have written two Books againſt Johnſon, alias Terret, and the later but lately and largely, to prove that the Church hath no Univerſal Head but Chriſt, notwithſtanding the particular Regency of the Biſhops; and for you to give me not a word of anſwer to them, and bid me now prove it if you can, when I have voluminouſly proved it! This is ſuch dealing as I will not name.—3. But I am heartily ſorry, what ever did it, that you are got ſo neer to Popery. As if you will be a Papiſt, unleſs all the writers of the p. 41Chriſtian world are deceived, and if the particular Church be a part of the Univerſal, which … dare boldly ſwear it is, and ſober men doubt not.

XXXVI. He adds, [Indeed you have gone be…ond Bellarmine, in ſetting up Papal Monarchy. Your …ther aſſertion ſets up Atheiſm, by making the holy God the authour and founder of two eſſential different Churches, or Church-Forms.] Anſw. Putares. But if all the Chriſtian world be of the ſame mind, do they all ſet up Atheiſm, and are you only free? As for Tho. Hooker whom you cited, though it be twenty four years, or thereabouts, ſince I read Mr. Hudſon and him, (and will not taſt away my time in peruſing them) my memory doubts not that it was only a Univerſal Church made one by one univerſal humane policie, that he denied; and that they differed but about words. Did ever Chriſtian before you, deny particular Churches to be diſtinct policies, and parts of the Univerſal? Have we ſo many Books written of Eccleſiaſtical Policie, and is there no ſuch thing? or no Churches that are Politick Societies?

§ XXXVII. He adds, [According to your aſſertion, all the world muſt be Atheiſts, of no Religion at all.] Anſw. Then all the world of Chriſtians are ſo; for as far as writings notifie, they are generally of this mind. Alas, Brother, did you ſhew this to any man before you Printed it? for their honour I muſt think you did not; and for your ſake I wiſh you had.

§ XXXVIII. He adds, [Your diviſion of the Church into Univerſal and particular, is plainly againſt that Rule in Logick, Membra omnis bonae diviſionis p. 42debent eſſe inter ſe oppoſita] but you oppoſe the ſame thing againſt it ſelf. Anſw. Thus do men humble themſelves by forſaking humility! Had it not been better for your to have let your Logick alone, than to bewray that which you might have concealed? Are not diverſa diſtinguiſhable as well as oppoſita? And is there no diverſity in parte eſſentiae, (as in ſubalternis) where there is not a diverſity in totâ eſſentia, (as there is in ſummis generibus?) is there not both diverſity and oppoſition, inter totum & partem, and between the ſpecies of an univerſal and particular Society? Are they not Relative oppoſita? May you not diſtinguiſh Army, and Regiment, and Troop, Kingdom and City, Chriſt and a Biſhop? &c.

§ XXXIX. He adds, [You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church.] Anſw. And do not all Chriſtians? Is it all the Chriſtian world?

§ XL. You plainly (ſaith he) leave out of your deſcription the differing form or token of that which you call a particular Church, and that is, Neighbourhood, &c. Anſw. Anne putares? 1. Have I ſo oft expreſt it, and yet will you ſay ſo? 2. But it was in deſcriptions indeed, and I was far from your Logical belief, that Neighbourhood is the differencing form. And I hope no one elſe is of your mind. 1. If Neighbourhood be the differencing form, then all Chriſtian Neighbours are particular Churches: But that is falſe: Ergo.—1. Thoſe that dwell together only for Trade, are not therefore Churches. 2. Thoſe that hold that there are no particular Churches or Paſtors, but that all Chriſtians are as Prieſts. 3. Thoſe that hold that the Miniſter of the Pariſh where they p. 43live is no true Miniſter, nor the Pariſh a true Church. 4. Thoſe that profeſs themſelves Members of no particular Church. 5. Thoſe that profeſs to be no Members of that Church, but of another. 6. Papiſts and Sectaries that ſtand in oppoſition to that Church. 7. Thoſe that dwell near another Pariſh-Church, and many miles from their own, are not Members by proximity. 8. Thoſe that are Excommunicated, which is de facto all profeſſed Non-Conformiſts. 9. In places where the Magiſtrate tyeth not Churches to Pariſh-bounds, perſons of the ſame ſtreet and houſe may be of ſeveral Churches. 10. No man that conſenteth not is a Church-Member. 11. And who knoweth not that proximity is but diſpoſitio materiae, and not the differencing form? All theſe ſingular novelties ſhould have had better proof than theſe dry aſſertions, contrary to all Chriſtian ſenſe.

§ XLI. [This ſtartles me: I ſtrive to be ſilent and cannot, (ſaith he) and the more I ſtrive, the more I am overcome.] Anſw. If you are ſo far gone, I ſhall hereafter, I think, without any ſtriving with my ſelf, let that which is within you talk on, and not reſiſt you. For who can hold that which will away? But I wiſh you the benefit of ſome ſtiptick remedy, and a ſober mind.

§ XLII. [I prove to you (ſaith he, when there is nothing like one proving word) &c. you make the Lord Jeſus the authour and founder of ſubverting principles.] Anſw. Read the Ninth Commandment. I conclude with theſe requeſts to him, as my true friend; viz. to conſider: Qu. 1. Whether a man ſo far from perſecution, and yet p. 44condemning us of Atheiſm, blaſpheming, and deſtroying all Religion, &c. be not much more uncharitable, than they that charge no ſuch thing upon us, but trouble us for refuſing Forms are Ceremonies? or is it not the ſame ſpirit?

Qu. 2. Whether he juſtifie not the ſilencing and ruining of all whom he ſo accuſeth? ſhould not ſuch impious Atheiſts be ſilenced?

Qu. 3. If he knew that the generality of the Chriſtian world in all ages hold what he thus cenſureth, what will he call it, to charge all Chriſtians ſo far with Atheiſm, and caſting out all Religion, and making God and Chriſt a deceiver? If he knew it not, what will he call it, to venture thus to publiſh ſuch an accuſation, before he knew that which an ordinary Inhabitant of the world might ſo eaſily have known? As if he had publiſhed [All that ſay a City is ſpecified by its ſubordinate Form of Government, and is a part of the Kingdom, ſpecified by the Monarch, are Traytors, and depoſe the King, or make him a deceiver and no King, and deny all obedience.] What will you call this dealing?

Qu. 4. Was it well done to write ſuch a Book, while he underſtood ſo very little of the very plaineſt paſſages which he wrote againſt?

Qu. 5. Was it excuſable to confeſs ſome errour of the laſt, and to add far worſe, and after warning a ſecond time, ſo to ſpeak evil of what he underſtood not?

Qu. 6. Was it humility to make oſtentation of the Logick he underſtood not.

Qu. 7. Doth not the extreme bold confidence of the falſeſt of his own conceptions, ſhew a very p. 45unhumbled overvaluing of his own underſtanding? To be ignorant is common to Mankind; yea, and to be much ignorant of our ignorance, and to think that we know more than we do: But to have ſo little ſenſe of this calamity, and ſo little ſuſpicion of ones own underſtanding, as to be confident to ſuch a height of accuſation of the groſſeſt falſhoods, where a lad of fourteen years old, that had read any thing of Logick and Politicks, might have better taught him; (that I ſay not, the reaſon and uſe of Mankind) this ſeemeth ſomewhat beyond the common meaſure of ſelf-conceitedneſs.

Qu. 8. Whether the great number of aſſerted untruths here, ſhew not ſome want of neceſſary tenderneſs, or care of writing?

CHAP. IV. Mr. Chenies Accuſations of me about Church-Covenants, and rigid Independencie, and the odiouſneſs hereof, conſidered.

§ 1. WHen he had ſaid, that [it leads to two contrary Gods, which is to make no true God, p. 69.] He proceedeth [Mr. B. hath deviſed and framed two Covenants, the one to make a man a Member of the Church Univerſal, the other of the particular, p. 97. I will ſhew, 1. That this is the ſame with the upſtart way of the Independents: 2. The unſoundneſs of it, p. 101. Mr. B. and the Independents now, are contrary to their own principle p. 46in baptizing the Infants of Non-Confederates, p. 129. [I do utterly withſtand it as Wickedneſs and Abomination in Gods Church; I am to die and burn at a ſtake before I yield to any ſuch thing: This is Mr. Baxters way: He offers it to Biſhop Morley and Biſhop Gunning, in his Preface to his laſt Book of Concord, that poſterity may ſee what it is that he would have had, and laboured to ſet up in all the Churches: And accordingly, let both the preſent and future Ages ſee and know, p. 130. Your way is not ſo innocent as that of re-baptizing. For the very matter and terms of your Church-Covenant are unſafe, and plainly Schiſmatical! As if Conſtables and people of each Town muſt Confederate to be a Corporation, an Independent body having all juriſdiction within themſelves, and ſuch as will not enter into this Confederacy, muſt be counted none of the Kings Subjects.—To ſay there are no Churches in the world but a few Independent Churches,—were to go beyond Browniſm: It were rather to teach Infidelity: ſuch an opinion would be abhorred by all: Now Mr. Baxter and the Independents Doctrine ſaith it.—Their errour, ſhould they hold it habitually, predominantly, and practically, would be certainly their damnation.—p. 141, [I ſee not but Pagans, groſs Hereticks, Apoſtates, Thieves and Robbers might combine together and ſay, I take thee for my Paſtor, and I take you for my people: Doth not your Doctrine infer it? p. 143. If I yield to their aſſertion, I muſt ſubvert the office of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and all his faithful Miniſters, and all the Churches to this day; which I will not do for fear of the cenſure of any man living, no nor of a whole Council of men, p. 57. The way that Mr. Baxter offers, p. 47ſeems to be a worſe way,—It is the way of rigid Independencie.—Indeed Mr. B. in all his Writings ſeems to be againſt the Office of Lay-Elders: But that he is not for them under another notion, as Heads and delegates of the people, mutually choſen by the Paſtor and people, for aſſiſtance in Diſcipline, may be doubted. He ſeems to hint at it, &c.

§ 2. How little truth is in all this, and abundance ſuch? 1. either it is truth that I am for rigid Independency, or not. If not,—if yea, I am glad that the Independent way is no worſe. I am not much acquainted with them: But, if this man ſay true, 1. They are for no Covenanting, but conſent to the relation ſignifyed. 2. They are not for binding any to continue in that relation. 3. They are not for binding any from a regular uſe of any other Miniſter, or Churches Communion. 4. In places where Pariſhes are divided by Law, and the ordinary attendance on the Paſtors Miniſtration goeth for a ſign of conſent, they are true Churches and Members that thus ſignifie it; and ad eſſe it is uſually enough, though ad bene eſſe in doubtful caſes the more expreſs, as more intelligible caeteris paribus is beſt. 5. They are againſt an Office of Lay-Elders, diſtinct from Miniſters of the Word and Sacraments, as of Gods inſtitution for Church-government. 6. They are againſt Democracie, or the Church-governing power of the People. 7. They take reformed Pariſh-Churches for the beſt Order, not taking all for Members that are in the Pariſh, but all the capable. 8. They are againſt gathering Churches out of ſuch Pariſh-Churches, without great neceſſity. 9. They are greatly againſt requiring p. 48any qualification as neceſſary to Communion in point of holineſs, but expreſs conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant, or profeſſion of Chriſtianity, not diſproved. 10. They make not the peoples Election of their Paſtors neceſſary ad eſſe, but meer conſent, though the Patron or others Elect them. 11. They ſuppoſe that the peoples Election or conſent is not neceſſary to make a man a Miniſter in the Univerſal Church, but only to make him their Paſtor. As to make a Phyſician, and to make him my Phyſician, differ. 12. They ſuppoſe that a true Miniſter officiateth as ſuch, where ever he doth it. 13. They ſuppoſe that aſſociations or correſpondencies of Churches for concord and help, and Synods to that end, and dependencie on ſuch Synods, is uſually a duty where it can well be had; and needleſs diſcord a fault. 14. They refuſe not to ſubmit in practice to the inſtructions or admonitions of any general Viſiter or Overſeer of many Churches, called by ſome Archbiſhops. 15. They refuſe not the precedency of one Paſtor in every particular Church over the reſt of the Presbyters. 16. They refuſe him not the name of the Biſhop, nor yet to ſubmit to his negative voice as of the Quorum (or the Archbiſhops either) in Ordinations and all great publick matters. 17. They are for ſeparating from no Chriſtians, further than they ſeparate from Chriſt, or would force them to ſin; but are for univerſal Love and Concord. 18. They are for obeying the Magiſtrate in all lawful things belonging to his function. 19. They take the moſt extenſive Love, Peace, and Concord for the moſt deſirable and beſt. 20. It is p. 49next their obedience to Chriſt and his ſufficient Laws; the great reaſon why they are againſt the terms impoſed in moſt places of the Chriſtian world, where things unneceſſary and ſuſpected are made neceſſary to Communion. Reader, Mr. Ch. is ſo honeſt a man, that it were unjuſt to take him for a deliberate ſtudied Lyar. Therefore ſeeing he ſaith that my way is rigid Independency, and oft maketh me a downright Independent, I that know my own Judgement, and knew not theirs ſo well as he ſeems to do, am glad to hear that they are no worſe, and that they are wronged by ſuch as accuſe them of denying any of thoſe Twenty points.

§ 3. And ſuppoſing that he ſaith true, and that they hold but my way, as he calls it, I will now try the force and honeſty of his charge againſt them.

And firſt, it ſavours of a ſpirit worſe than his own, that when he had before uſed the word [Oath] as owned by me, and then ſaid, he repented of it, that he ſtill uſeth the word [Covenant] here as mine, inſtead of Conſent, which is the word which I uſe, and over and over ſay, that I own no Covenant but any ſignification of Conſent to the relation; onelyonly becauſe I ſaid, that not ad eſſe, but ad bene eſſe, plain or expreſs Conſent in doubtful caſes is beſt. This ſmells of an ill intention; and now I will try his arguments againſt this Conſent.

§ 4. P. 101. he ſaith Mr. B. acts contrary to his own Principles in baptizing the Children of No… confederates. The Univerſal and Particular Church make but one Church of God. He that refuſeth p. 50one Eſſential of Church-communion, is no Chriſtian, and is to be debarred the Priviledges of Chriſtians. But according to you, Non-confederates refuſe one eſſential of Church-communion—I may not baptize you, you are to me a Pagan.

Anſ. Putares, ſed calumniaris. Here is fallacia aequivocationis, and ſo quatuour termini. This Pariſh-Church and the Univerſal are not the ſame. The word Church in the Major, ſignifieth one thing, and in the Minor another. All is not eſſential to Communion in the Church Univerſal, which is eſſential to Communion with this or that, or any particular political Church. To the later, there muſt be, you ſay, Neighbourhood; and I ſay, proper Paſtors and Flocks for perſonal Communion. But the Eunuch, Acts 8. was baptized into the Univerſal Church, and not into any Neighbourhood, Pariſh, Dioceſs, Aſſembly, or had any ſtated Paſtor. He came into no Churchmeeting. Philip (the Deacon ſuppoſed) was ſnatcht away from him in the open field, &c. Baptiſm as ſuch, enters us into no particular Church. Your words [you are a Pagan to me] are too falſe for a Chriſtian to have uſed. He that believeth with all his heart is no Pagan. I am a Miniſter of Chriſt to the world; but Infidels are not my Flock, or a Church. Catechizers ſhould teach Children all this plain truth.

§ 5. II. P. 102. [Ask Mr. Baxter (ſaith he) Whom do you mean by the word Church, and at laſt he muſt come to one man the Paſtor (as the Papiſt… the Pope.) He that covenanteth firſt, covenantet… with none but the Paſtor. You change your terms. What Church muſt he covenant with that was firſt p. 51baptized? Anſ. Chriſt was baptized, and his firſt baptized Diſciple and he were the Embryo of the Univerſal Church, if you can prove that one was baptized alone. And as to a particular Church, the Gatherer at firſt is onelyonly a Miniſter in the Church Univerſal, and authorized to that gathering which ſhall be the Foundation of his future relation: And the firſt perſon that conſenteth, and he, are not a proper Church; for it is an Embryo, and in fieri, as a Troop when the Captain hath liſted the firſt man. But uſually many are made Chriſtians firſt, and then they are materia diſpoſita, and Conſent maketh the Paſtors and them to be particular Churches, Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church. Elders of their own, Acts 20. the Elders of the Church of Epheſus, and ſo of the reſt of the Churches, are mentioned. And is the Captain a Troop, or the Paſtor a Church, if he be the gatherer of it?

§ 6. III. You name not Chriſt, (ſaith he) but the Paſtor. Anſ. When we ſay Captain A. B's Troop, we name not the General. When we ſay, the Biſhop of London's Dioceſs, the King's Dominion, &c. we name not Chriſt, or God: For onelyonly the Genus proximum is to be in definitions. The Superiour are ſuppoſed: they are Chriſtians firſt.

§ 7. IV. You ſay (ſaith he) that before this Covenant men are but hewed ſtones, that is, all the faithful are Pagans. Anſ. Putares. To be prepared for Baptiſm is ſomewhat more than to be Pagans: But till conſent Chriſtians are not Members of any particular Church. The Eunuch was but p. 52a hewn ſtone, as you call it, as to a formed Congregation; but he was no Pagan, but a Member of the Body of Chriſt.

§ 8. V. This (ſaith he) makes the moſt excellent Miniſters, Apoſtles, &c. mere Lay-men, ſuch as go up and down preaching to Pagans where Chriſt is not known—plainly ſubverts the Goſpel, &c. Anſ. They are Chriſt's Miniſters, and not Lay-men, while they convert Pagans, and yet Pagans are no Church: And till they are a Church, no Apoſtle is a Paſtor of them as a Church. The Goſpel ſtandeth for all this.

§ 9. But (ſaith he) may not a man be a Shepherd by calling and occupation, unleſs he have a Flock, as well as a Phyſician? &c. Anſ. Either you quarrel de re or de nomine. If de re, do you mean any more than that he is authorized to gather and rule a Flock? If more, what is it? If not, you calumniate if you pretend that I deny this; but if it be onelyonly de nomine, whether the name of a Paſtor may be given him that yet hath no Flock, or of a Captain to him that hath no Troop; I anſwer, 1. When you wrangle but about Names, try once more to ſtay that liſt of laying the overthrow of the Goſpel on your Names. 2. Titles of Relation may be given aptitudinally ex intentione de futuro: But if one may be called a Paſtor by relation to an intended Flock, much more to an actual Flock, and ſtill it is a Relative to ſuch a Flock intended. 3. Try in Scripture, and Councils, and all Church-writers, whether the title Paſtor be not uſually given onelyonly to thoſe that have actual Flocks. But to avoid your quarrel, call you them by what name you liſt, if that will eaſe or pleaſe you.

p. 53§ 10. VI. According to this Doctrine, a Miniſter hath no Office or Authority but juſt to thoſe of his own charge, he preacheth elſewhere but as a gifted man. Anſ. Still falſe, as to me, of whom you ſpeak! what a ſtrange Chain of Calumnies can you make? A Miniſter is 1. Chriſt's Officer to the world to convert them. 2. To gather a Church in fieri. 3. To officiate pro tempore in any other Church, as a Licenſed Phyſician to others (even to Phyſicians) doth his office.

§ 11. VII. It maketh void (ſaith he) Gods Ordinance of Ordination: for either they are Miniſters by Ordination, or not: If yea, this Doctrine is erroneous. Anſ. Unproved: Ordination, ſine titulo, maketh a man a Miniſter to the World and to the Church indefinitely. Ordination with Inſtitution doth that and more, viz. it tieth a Miniſter to a conſenting people. Your Writings are all ſtigmatized with the ſhame of naked affirmations without proof, and then forgetfully you oft ſay [I have proved.] Why may not Conſent, and Ordination, and Inſtitution, and Induction too, be all needful? Is a man and womans Conſent needleſs, unleſs the Miniſters marrying them be needleſs? May not a Town, Hoſpital, or Perſon, chuſe a Phyſician as theirs if he were licenſed bebefore? If a Captain have commiſſion to raiſe a Troop, is conſent of the Liſted needleſs? So of a Major; a Pilot, or any relation which requires Conſent.

§ 12. VIII. It inferreth (ſaith he) that the Church is before the Officers, viz. Pagans a Church. Anſ. All fictions as to me to whom he ſpeaks: I ſaid before, they are as the Heart to the Body; p. 54the punctum ſaliens is the firſt organical part to make the reſt; but not a part of the Body till the Body be made. They are Miniſters to gather Churches, and then Paſtors of Churches onelyonly by conſent. And when Churches are gathered, and the Paſtor dead, the people are Intentionally a Society, but actually but a Community, till a Paſtor related to them make them a politick ſociety: And then relata ſunt ſimul—

§ 13. IX. This Doctrine puts a new clauſe into Baptiſm, which Chriſt never put in, and altereth Chriſtianity (ſaith he.) Before I baptize you, I muſt have an antecedent Covenant or ſignified Conſent from you to ſubmit to me; and you muſt be baptized in the name of Paul, &c. No Church-covenant, no Church-member, no right to any Church-ordinance. Anſ. Confundendo fortiter caluminaris. 1. The Eunuch conſented to be a Chriſtian of the Church Univerſal, but not to be of a particular Church; without that Conſent he had not been baptized: but this was not needful to it. 2. The diſpute whether Lay-mens baptiſm be valid, I leave to you. But if yea, it is not neceſſary that I judge the Baptizer a Miniſter. If not, then it is neceſſary, and my conſent is neceſſary to make me a Chriſtian, but not him a Miniſter: But mutual conſent is neceſſary to his Paſtoral relation to a particular Church. 3. An Ordinance common to the Church Univerſal, and proper to a particular Church, ſhould not be confounded, nor ſo much as the modal miniſtration. Do I adde to Baptiſm, if I ſay that by the Canons and Cuſtom of all the Churches for one Thouſand years, a man was not to be taken for the Biſhop of any p. 55Church without mutual conſent? what's this to Baptiſm? And what temerity is it to feign men to wrong Chriſt by that which was his Inſtitution, and ſo judged and uſed in all the Churches?

§ 14. X. [Saith he] It maketh the people Church-Rulers or Co-partners in office with the Paſtors, ſo that without their Conſent they can do nothing; not baptize. Anſ. Of me the calumny hath no excuſe, I have written ſo much to the contrary: Yea, the very Act calumniated eſſentially containeth the contrary in it. As he that conſenteth to be a Servant, conſenteth not to be Maſter, but to obey: So they that conſent to be Lay-members of a Paſtors Flock, conſent that he, and not they, ſhall rule, and that they will be the obeying part. How could you wink ſo hard, as not to ſee that your falſe witneſs confuteth it ſelf? And what if he cannot be their Governour without their conſent, doth this give them any part in governing? Nay what if he cannot baptize a Non-conſenter, or give him the Lords Supper, is the Refuſer a Church-governour? The man had got a heap of Notions againſt the Independents in his mind, or his inſtigator that hath the ſame diſeaſe had thruſt them in, and out they muſt come againſt he knew not whom or what, upon the word [Conſent.] What work would he make in the Church, if he ſhould deny the neceſſity of this Conſent, and have the Church made a Priſon where Infidels ſhould be cram'd and drencht with the Sacrament?

§ 15. XI. [It ſets up (ſaith he) Rebaptization by a Law—For it requireth of godly baptized p. 56ones an antecedent Covenant to be Members of the particular Church: As if a man ſhould covenant to be a godly Citizen of London—to be a Member of Gods Church at K. and hold communion therewith: the people are called on to be new Chriſtians, as if they had been no Chriſtians before] Anſ. It is a ſin to read ſuch words without grief and indignation. What! is every renewal of the Covenant of Godlineſs or Chriſtianity a Rebaptizing, or ſuppoſeth us Pagans? Is this made by a Miniſter a heinous ſin? Are we not to do it in every partaking of the Lords Supper? Yea, explicitely or implicitely in every prayer. Is Mr. Allen's Book for Covenanting, and Mr. Rawlet's of Sacramental Covenanting, ſuch unchriſtening Hereſies? Is it damnable or ſinful to covenant to be a godly Servant, or a godly Husband or Wife, or a godly Miniſter or Magiſtrate? Doth this ſuppoſe them ungodly before? with wat weapons are we aſſaulted?

§ 16. XII. He addes [It bindeth people to be dwellers within the precincts of that one Church, to hear no other Miniſter, to joyn with no other Congregation. Anſ. Concatenated Calumnies, as to me: They onelyonly conſent to the Relation of Lay-members till they remove their dwelling or relation. They conſent to take that Church but as a part of the Univerſal, and therefore to hold juſt Communion with all others, and receive what benefit they can from any other Miniſters. I abhor a Covenant that renounceth Communion with the Univerſal Church, or any part of it, without neceſſary cauſe. Putide haec putares.

§ 17. XIII. He addes, [What ſhall godly p. 57Strangers, Travellers, &c. do? your Doctrine maketh them invaders.] Anſ. 1. If I have no notice of their conſent to communicate with us pro tempore, they expect it not: And de ignotis non judicat Eccleſia; and non apparere is equal to non eſſe. If I have notice of their Conſent, it ſuppoſeth ſome notice that they are baptized, or Chriſtians, and have more right than Heathens to Communion: And if ſo, 1. They conſent to be Members of the Univerſal Church, and as ſuch I ſhall give them the Sacrament and Communion, though I were no Paſtor of any particular ſtated Church. 2. They conſent to a Tranſient Temporary Communion with me as a Miniſter in the Catholick Church. And 3. They conſent to tranſient temporary Communion with that particular Church, and tranſient temporary Communion I will give them; yea, and may call them tranſient Members of that Church; but no further any of theſe than they conſent. A Chriſtian giving evidence of his Chriſtianity, hath right to tranſient Communion in all Churches in the world where he cometh: yea, all are not bound to live in ſtated Churches; ſome are Travellers, ſome unſetled Embaſſadors, ſome Factors amongſt Heathens, ſome of no Habitation, Beggars, Pedlars, Tinkers, and ſuch wandring Trades; ſome live where is no Church with whom they may hold lawful Communion, &c. Now we have a new Divine riſen up in the end of the world, that ſeems to make all the ſetled Churches of Chriſt in the world for many hundred years, to be all Traitors to Chriſt, becauſe theſe wanderers muſt not conſent to their ſpecial relations, p. 58nor enjoy their proper Priviledges; and becauſe they conſent themſelves to a more ſetled relation and Communion than theſe wanderers or refuſers are capable of. What would all the old Church, that made ſo many Canons about their proper Communion, have thought of this mans Doctrine, if he had come among them at their Elections, Diſcipline, Diſtributions to the Widows and Poor, and ſaid, Hold Sirs! You are all deſtroying Baptiſm and Chriſtianity, by conſenting to more towards one another than you owe to every unknown wanderer, or refuſer of a ſetled Churchſtate? As if with our new Politician all Cities and Corporations are Traytors, or deny or wrong the King, becauſe all Subjects are not Citizens, ſome being Vagrants, ſome in Villages, ſome Souldiers, ſome in odde Houſes, &c. and becauſe Cities conſent to a ſpecial ſort of Government which the reſt have not. Between the Anathematizers and theſe over-wiſe Cenſurers, there are few Chriſtians in the world that are not condemned as no Chriſtians for being ſound Chriſtians.

§ 18. XIV. He was aware that we ſay that every one that may come into the Temple is not a part of my ſpecial Charge as a Paſtor, which I cannot do for all: And he ſaith, [It's all one to your Doctrine if he refuſe your Church-covenant—The Miniſter all this while is no Miniſter; the People all this while are no Chriſtians.—They are no more lawful Paſtor and People, than Whoremonger and Whore going together, and committing acts of filthineſs, and living in Fornication all their days—Anſ. Continued Calumny as to me. Is no modeſty or tender fear of ſinning againſt the Ninth p. 59Commandment left? 1. He that refuſeth Conſent to be a ſtated Member, is none ſuch: But is he therefore no Chriſtian? Awake, Conſcience! Do any Independents ſay that none are Chriſtians but their ſpecial charge; yea, or ſtated Members of particular Churches? If there be any ſuch, what's that to me? 2. Such perſons may be Members of the Univerſal Church, and I am a Paſtor in the Univerſal Church; and as ſuch may communicate with them. 3. If he deſire temporary Communion, he conſents to as much as he deſireth, and that he may have: If he deſire more, he ſhall have more. § 19. But (ſaith the Accuſer) what ſpeak you of Literae Communicatoriae, Theſe are nothing to yourcaſe; (he ſaith it, ergo, he proveth it.) It ſhuts him out of all particular Churches and Congregations under Heaven, except, &c.] Anſ. Putares! of me it's thus true or falſe. 1. He that conſents not to be a ſtated Member of any Church, none, becauſe he would be none: and it's blind ſelf-contradiction, to ſay that I ſhut him out, becauſe he will not come in. 2. He that conſenteth to be a Member of the Univerſal Church ſhall not be ſhut out. 3. He that by literas Communicatorias, or any good teſtimony, ſheweth himſelf a Chriſtian, and deſireth onelyonly one days temporary Communion with a ſtated particular Church, ſhall not be denied that which he deſireth, nor will we urge him to more.

§ 19. XV. He adds [It layeth waſte Pariſhbounds, leaving people to go to what Church they will—Intimating, that being a godly man and a Pariſhioner, doth not make him a Member of the Pariſh-Church—Teaching people to be diſorderly.] p. 60Anſ. 1. A quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia. I ſaid enough before to prove the falſehood of your Church-eſtate. 1. Then there were no Church till there were Pariſh-bounds 2. Then if Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, &c. be godly, and dwell in the Pariſh, they are Members againſt their wills. 3. And they are Members of two particular Churches; one in deſpight of them, and of the other as Conſenters. 4. There are ſome Houſes that are in no Pariſh (that I have known.) Alas, theſe muſt be of no Church. 5. Some parts of one Pariſh are in the middle of another. The truth is, Pariſh-bounds are ordinarily of good uſe for Order, and Order is for Edification, and to promote the thing ordered: and he layeth it not waſte, 1. That giveth it no more than its due, as a humane mutable circumſtance, and not as eſſential. 2. Nor he that refuſeth it when it is turned againſt the end and the res ordinanda.

§ 20. XVI. He addes, [Then if the Paſtor ſet over them be a ſon of Belial—and ſinfully tolerated by the Magiſtrate; the people of the Pariſh who can neither remove him, nor ſit under a more edifying Miniſter, muſt covenant to him, &c. Anſ. Strange! who would have thought but this was neerer your opinion than theirs? Briefly, if the man be tolerable, they muſt rather accept of him than have none. If he be intolerable in the Miniſtry, they may uſe ſuch common gifts as he hath, (as we read even a Cicero) but they muſt be of no particular Church, till they can be ſo on lawful terms. Even a Council of the Popes decreed, that till men can have lawful Paſtors, they muſt forbear that Communion that ſuppoſeth ſuch: And who can doubt of it?

p. 61§ 21. XVII. Next, he quibbles onelyonly with a Queſtion [How long ſhall it laſt?] Anſw. How long will you be of the Pariſh-Prieſts or the Dioceſans Flock, or of a Phyſicians Hoſpital? We cannot ſecure men from providential changes a day, and therefore would not have them to binde themſelves but on ſuch ſuppoſitions—He that means to go to morrow to another Countrey, ſhould conſent but to this days Communion. He that intendeth here to dwell, muſt conſent to the relation of a ſtated Member of that Flock till he remove, or till God ſhew him juſt cauſe to change that relation: till then, he ſhould know his proper Paſtors.

§ 22. XVIII. Next, he queſtioneth, [Who ſhall degrade them that prove Heretical or Scandalous? &c.] Anſ. The Ordainers made him a Miniſter by Inveſtiture, &c. and yet without our conſent he was not related to us as our Paſtor, or we to him as part of that Church. And ſo we may withdraw our conſent, and become none of his ſpecial Church-flock, and leave it to the Ordainers to degrade him if he muſt be degraded, as to the world and Church Univerſal. One would think this Anſwer ſhould be undeniable. But he goeth on with his diſmal accuſations, p. 116. [The particular Church-covenant is a thing of mans invention, no where required of God; it is deſtructive to the Church and Souls, ſhould it be practiſed.] Anſ. Seeing Covenanting and known Conſenting are all one with him, what a dreadful damning ſin doth the man make it for to conſent to be under our Paſtors Office? Then he that would eſcape damnation muſt not conſent to the office p. 62of the Pariſh-prieſt, much leſs of the Biſhop: much leſs ſwear obedience to the Biſhop: And leaſt of all, ſay or ſwear never to endeavour any alteration. We have need to bleſs us from Conformity, if Conſenting be ſo damnable. But what meant he to ſay [ſhould it be practiſed?] Doth he not know that it is practiſed by them all? and ſo that this Judge doth damn them all.

§ 23. XIX. He next anſwereth two of our pretences. 1. From the Election of Miniſters by the people: And ſaith, Election is quite another thing; till they are ordained, they are no men in office—but perſons deſigned—Anſ. Alas, that the man that hath all this while been damning others, ſhould not ſee that he hath ſo damned himſelf; yea, and quite exceeded my damning errour. This it is to print with the zeal deſcribed Jam. 3. before men know what it is that they talk of. Note, that he is not againſt the peoples election (if he be intelligible) and yet elſewhere [They are Rebels and no Chriſtians] that ſtand not to the King and Parliaments election. 2. Note, that he talks of one election, (to the Office of the Miniſtry as ſuch) and I talk of another election, even to be our particular Paſtor: For this Phyſician to be my Phyſician. 3. Note, that the mans bare word muſt, againſt all common uſe and reaſon, perſwade us that Conſent which I require is more than Election, which is much leſs. The Elector nominateth and firſt determineth of the perſon. Conſent may come after, even in obedience to the Elector. The King electeth the Biſhop, and the Patron the incumbent Parſon. Doth every one that after conſenteth do more? or muſt we lay by our ſenſes p. 63in believing ſuch Writers againſt damning errour? 4. Note, that he quite overgoeth the truth on the popular extream, which he accuſeth others of: As if the people muſt elect a man to the indefinite Office of a Miniſter as ſuch, which is falſe. Chriſt ſent out his Apoſtles, and the Apoſtles ſent abroad a converting Church-gathering Miniſtry without any popular election. The Ordainers muſt chuſe who ſhall be a Miniſter (by his conſent.) The Chriſtian people ſhould chuſe [and muſt conſent at leaſt] who ſhall be the ſpecial Guide of their own Souls; or their Paſtor in particular. And the Magiſtrate muſt chuſe, 1. Whom he will maintain and encourage. 2. Whom he will tolerate. How came he to think that Election is nothing to the caſe, as if Conſent were ſomething more? yet is he at it again, P. 119. [They make it another Baptiſm.]

§ 24. XX. Next, he anſwereth our ſaying that [No man can be a Paſtor to a people againſt their wills.] And doth he ſay Yea, or Nay? Neither plainly, but talks of ſomewhat elſe, and ſaith, [He is a Paſtor by Office and Calling whether the people will or not, and ſo Paſtor and people are not ſimul naturâ.] As if the equivocating with the word [Paſtor] warranted him to damn his Brethren, and confound Church-order: As [a Paſtor] ſignifieth but a Miniſter commiſſioned to become the actual undertaking Guide of a particular Church-flock when he is called to it; ſo this man may be called a Paſtor aptitudinal, as a man is a Captain that hath Commiſſion to raiſe a Troop: But as the word [Paſtor] ſignifieth one that is actually the Overſeer of a particular Church-flock, p. 64he is none till he have a Flock; and in both ſenſes Paſtor and Flocks are relate and correlate, & ſimul naturâ: that is, in the firſt, ſimul in eſſe cognito & intentionali: In the later, in eſſe exiſtente. But, ſaith he, [God is God whether the people will or no; and Chriſt is Chriſt, Apoſtles are Apoſtles—and ſo faithful ordained Miniſters are Paſtors.] Anſ. This is but the fallacy of the foreſaid equivocation of the word [Paſtor.] 1. God is not made God, nor Chriſt made Chriſt, nor Apoſtles or indefinite Miniſters ſuch by contract or humane conſent: But he that ſaid, Come out from amongſt them, &c. I will be your God, and you ſhall be my people, and maketh ſome a holy Nation and peculiar people, &c. is ſo related to none but Conſenters. Chriſt is an offered Saviour to refuſers; but he is not the Saviour and Head of any as Chriſtians, or a Church actually, but Conſenters: without conſent we are not materia diſpoſita receptive of the peculiar relation. A man may be authorized to be a Tutor, Schoolmaſter, Phyſician, Captain, Maſter, &c. without my conſent: but he is not my Tutor, Maſter, &c. till I conſent, ſave aptitudinally, not actually. 2. And theſe relations are more dependent on humane Contract or Conſent, than Gods being God, &c. But, ſaith he, [If all be Pagans, the Miniſter lawfully ordained and appointed to convert and baptize and be a Paſtor to them, is a true, full, and compleat Paſtor before he have chriſtened one ſoul of them. Anſ. True or falſe as the equivocation is taken: As one decreed to be a Husband to a Wife that is yet unborn, may by the deceiving improper language of an equivocator be ſaid to be the true, p. 65full and compleat Husband of her yet unborn or unmarried; that is, one deſigned to be a Huſband hereafter in a proper ſenſe; ſo here. But Paſtor eſt ovium ſeu gregis Paſtor: Analogum per ſe poſitum ſtat pro ſignificato famoſiore. Heathens are no Church; Ergo, no man is a Paſtor of them as a Church. Is he a compleat Paſtor of a Flock that hath none?

§ 25. XXI. But ſaith he, [Mark the matter, you are baptized a godly man; I have nothing againſt you, onelyonly this, I cannot take you for one of my Flock, unleſs by a voluntary conſent, &c. I muſt ſhut you out as an Apoſtate, or a Pagan.] Anſ. Calumny and Deceit conjunct. 1. It's immodeſt calumny to ſay, [as an Apoſtate or a Pagan] I take him for a Chriſtian, and on due teſtimony ſhall admit him to ſuch Communion (lawful) as he himſelf deſireth. 1. Whether as a Member of the Univerſal Church. 2. Or alſo as a fixed Member of another Church deſiring temporary tranſient Communion here. 2. It is groſs Deceit to ſay [I put him out] that refuſeth to come in. If I give him no more than he is willing of, what do I put him out from? If I take him not for a Member of my proper ſtated Charge, it is becauſe he deſireth it not. I thank God I never was a proper Paſtor to any People againſt their wills, nor ever will be, were I capable of more ſervice.

§ 26. But, ſaith he, [This makes againſt you—Can any man forbid theſe people from being Members of the Particular Church that are of the Univerſal?] Anſ. Self-contradiction! Do we forbid them that are not willing, or do they forbid p. 66themſelves? Doth the Phyſician forbid them to be his Patients that conſent not? Do we ſhut them out that will not come in? Yet he feigneth us to do no leſs than caſt them out of the Church Univerſal, as caſting them out of all Particulars under Heaven. Anſ. Calumny hath got ſuch a channel, that his Writing runneth commonly that way. 1. I caſt them out of no Church under Heaven, who will not conſent to come in. 2. Were they of no particular Church, they may be in the Univerſal, as I before proved, of many ſorts.

§ 27. He next noteth, that it is but ſignified Conſent that I require: But he ſaith, neither Chriſt nor his Apoſtles mention it, and all the Church are without it. Anſ. Let us trie here whether this be true or falſe, and all his damning and unchriſtning cenſures fall not on the Holy Ghoſt and all the Churches. I. It is certain, that beſides Miniſters unfixed and of general indefinite work, there were by the Holy Ghoſt in the Apoſtles time fixed Churches of Neighbour-Chriſtians ſetled. II. It is certain that theſe had fixed Paſtors of their own, that were related to them ſpecially as their ſpecial Charge, ſo as they were not related to all or any other Churches. III. It is certain that theſe Paſtors had not equal authority to go into all other mens Dioceſſes or Pariſhes, and ſay, You are as much my Charge as any others, and play the Biſhops in other mens Dioceſſes; though when they had a Call, they might be Miniſterial Temporary Helpers. IV. It is certain that theſe Paſtors were ſpecially obliged to many Offices for thoſe peculiar Flocks, which p. 67to other Churches they were not ſo obliged to (but onelyonly to occaſional help.) Dr. Hammond nameth many of them, and ſo do the Scripture and Canons. 1. A conſtant publick Teaching them, which they owe not to all others or any. 2. Conſtant Government by the Keys. 3. Conſtant Adminiſtration of the Lords Supper. 4. Conſtant leading them in publick Worſhip, Prayer, Praiſe, &c. 5. A ſpecial care of the Poor. 6. Ordinary Viſitation of the Sick. 7. Comforting the Afflicted, admoniſhing Offenders, watching over all. The Canons will tell you much, which every man oweth more to his own Charge than to others. V. It is certain that this Flock oweth a more ſpecial attendance, and account, and obedience to theſe Paſtors, than to Strangers or others of other Churches. 1. To hear them. 2. To receive the Communion ordinarily of them. 3. To maintain them; and ſo in the reſt. V. I. It is certain that none of this was done or can be done without mutual Conſent. VII. It is certain that this Churchſtate, Office, and Duty was ſetled by Chriſt's Apoſtles, and continued by the common conſent of the Churches on Earth from age to age.

§ 28. That it was an Apoſtolical Eſtabliſhment is plain in Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church. To omit the ſence of foreign, which in the moſt uſual ſence includeth Suffrages, it is evident that foreign implieth the fixing of the ſeveral Elders to their ſeveral Churches, ſo as to make them the ſtated Elders of thoſe Churches as their Flock in pepeculiar. p. 68Acts 20. 17. Are they called the Elders of that Church over which, as their Flock, the Holy Ghoſt had made them Overſeers to feed the Church of God, to imitate Paul that taught them publickly and from houſe to houſe; and was this no peculiar paſtoral relation? or were any but Conſenters Members of that Church? Tit. 1. 5. when Titus was to ordain Elders in every City, it is equal to every Church. And it ſtated them as their peculiar Paſtors, even Biſhops, as Gods Stewards over them in particular, v. 7. more than others. Jam. 5. 14. the ſick that muſt call for the Elders of the Church, were their proper Flock, as is ſuppoſed. The Angels of the ſeven Churches Rev. 2 and 3. were not equally the Angels of other Churches. Phil. 1. 1. the Biſhops and Deacons of the Church at Philippi had a fixed peculiar relation to them as theirs: Archippus had a proper Miniſtry at Coloſſe, Col. 4. 17. And Laodicea had a peculiar Church, v. 16. 1 Theſſ. 5. 12, 13. ſheweth the common ſtate of the Chriſtian Churches: Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admoniſh you; and to eſteem them very highly in love for their works ſake. And be at peace among your ſelves. Here Paſtors to labour, and admoniſh, and be over them, are to be known, owned, eſteemed, beloved perſons, dwelling among them, and knowing their own Flock, and the peoples duty to them and one another laid down. And ſhall a Chriſtian Miniſter ſay, [O but do not promiſe, no nor ſignifie any conſent to do it, for that is to be rebaptized, and is damning to the practiſers.] The Biſhops and Elders that Timothy is inſtructed about, were ſuch as had p. 69their proper Flocks, and took care of them as the Church of God, that were to rule them well, and labour in the Word and Doctrine; to preach the word in ſeaſon and out of ſeaſon, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-ſuffering and Doctrine, &c. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. the Elders that Peter writeth to were to feed the Flock of God which was among them, taking the overſight of them (more than of all the world) not by conſtrain, but willingly, (and may they not ſignifie willingneſs?) not as Lords, but Examples to their Flocks, and Shepherds under the chief Shepherd. Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. fully expreſſeth it, Obey them that have the rule over you; they watch for your Souls as thoſe that muſt give account, not of all the world, but of that Flock that they overſee. The ſame Church had Biſhops that had Deacons, and ſome Deaconeſſes, Widows, &c. but it was never known that Deacons were to be indefinite Overſeers of the poor of all Churches, but they had ever relation to particular Churches. This is the ordering of the Churches appointed by the Holy Ghoſt, Tit. 1. 5. And yet this man maketh it an abuſe or injury againſt Chriſt, and overthrow of the Goſpel.

§ 29. II. As for the conſtant judgement and practice of all Churches, I am aſhamed that ſuch uſage ſhould put me to ſuch a work, as to prove that they ever held and practiſed that which this man condemneth in me. He knoweth nothing of the Churches ſtate, and Hiſtory, and Canons, that knoeth not, 1. That all Churches were Societies of Chriſtians united under their proper known Biſhops or Paſtors, fixed to thoſe Flocks p. 70by proper relation, though alſo related to the World and the Church Univerſal. 2. That the people did not onelyonly Conſent, but Chuſe their Paſtors, and he was to be no Biſhop that had not their conſent. 3. That the Laity of other Churches promiſcuouſly had no power to chuſe them, but onelyonly thoſe whom they were ſet over. 4. That the Biſhops, as Ignatius ſpeaks, were to know the particular Members of their Churches, and ſee that they came conſtantly to the Aſſemblies, even to enquire after Maids and Servants, ſaith he, by name. 5. That they made multitudes of Canons for exerciſing particular Diſcipline on each perſon that needed it, by long ſuſpending ſome from Communion, reſtoring others, taking care of the poor and of all. 6. That they took not the Catechumens for the Church, but Candidates, and prepared and tried them before admittance. 7. That it was not mere baptizing that made them of that Flock; for they preached and baptized in other places. 8. That it was not mere neighbourhood of Chriſtians; for there were ſometime divers Churches in one City, as in Meletius caſe at Alexandria; and Dr. Hammond thinks the Jewiſh and Gentile Chriſtians at firſt had ſeveral Biſhops and Churches in the ſame Cities ordinarily. And the Audians, Luciferians, Donatiſts, and others that were of the ſame Religion, had divers Churches, beſides ſuch as the Novatians, that had ſome little Doctrinal differences: and none till now ever thought that theſe were all the ſame Paſtors ſpecial Flocks, and the ſame particular Churches. Yea, I have elſewhere cited that Council p. 71that decreed that if any Biſhop neglected to convert the Hereticks, &c. he that converted them ſhould have them (as his Flock or Church.) In a word, all Church-hiſtory and Canons deſcribing their particular Churches, and their Elections, Orders, Offices, Priviledges, Diſcipline, &c. and limiting them that ſtrove for the greateſt, from encroaching one on another, tell us ſo fully that they were ſo many incorporate Chriſtian Societies conſiſting by mutual Conſent of their proper Paſtors and Flocks, that Et pudet & piget, that ſuch a task as the proofs ſhould be thus impoſed on me by a Miniſter.

§ 30. The ſame is ſtill continued, even by the Conformiſts. 1. The Miniſters are even to ſwear Obedience to the Dioceſane, and the Dioceſane promiſe it to the Arch-Biſhop: And this is a Covenant and more. 2. They are to attend him at Viſitations, and otherwiſe to expreſs their conſent to his Government, which they do not to the Biſhop of the Neighbour-dioceſſes. 3. The Pariſhioners ſignifie their conſent to their Relation to that particular Church and Incumbent, by their conſtant Attendance, Submiſſion, Communion, &c. 4. The Law and Canon command their Conſent; yea, to keep their own Pariſhes, though the Miniſter preach not at all, ſuſpending Neighbour-miniſters that receive ſuch to their Communion that come from ſuch a Reader to them. And the Conformiſts ſay that men are bound to obey theſe Canons.

§ 31. Either Pariſhioners are ſuppoſed thus to ſignifie Relation-conſent to that particular Paſtor and Church, or not: If yea, this Accuſer p. 72falſly ſuppoſeth that no Church but the Independents do ſo. If not, then he giveth up moſt of their Cauſe to the Browniſts, that ſay the Pariſh-Churches are none: For it's eaſie proved that Non-conſenters are none. Thus raſh men confute themſelves. Nay we are all ſilenced for not Covenanting to the preſent frame of Dioceſane Churches, and never to endeavour an alteration. Yet ſaith this man [It is not in any of the Churches, unleſs Independents, neither explicite nor implicite.] Then none ſhould ſo much as implicitely ſhew Conſent to the Relation to his Dioceſane or Pariſh-paſtor or Church.

§ 32. But ſaith he, (to me with groſs falſehood) [Your Covenant is to this effect, you ſhall not onelyonly ſubmit to me as your Paſtor, but binde your ſelf by a particular antecedent Covenant ſo to do: You ſhall dwell in the Pariſh, and Covenant ſo to do, &c.] Anſ. I wiſh, that though deſign brought the word Covenant infread of Conſent into his mouth, it might not ſo long ſtick there as to choak his Conſcience, to think that any uſe of it is lawful. Where and when did I engage any to dwell in the Pariſh? If they dwell there, I never hindred any from removing. 2. But the Conſent required is beforehand! very true. The Liturgie bids men come tell the Miniſters beforehand that they deſire the Communion: Shall I ask them to conſent to their duty when it is paſt? Or can I know who are capable till I know who conſenteth? But, ſaith he, Why not à Church-Covenant for all other Duties? Anſ. Why not a Marriage-covenant to make one a Prieſt? &c. Why not an Oath of Allegiance to make one a p. 73Coblar? &c. Conſent neceſſary to the being of a Relation, is one thing; and Conſent to every Duty, is another; which yet in general all Chriſtians ſhould promiſe ſincerely to perform. Muſt we write Books againſt ſuch things as theſe?

§ 33. To the Objection, [I am not bound to take every one that comes into the Pariſh for one of my Charge: he hath no better anſwer than to tell us of Pariſh-bounds ſetled by law, and binding me to do my beſt for all.] Anſ. Deceitfully confounding [Charge] the Genus with [Church:] As if Heathens, and Atheiſts, and Papiſts, and Refuſers are of that Church, becauſe I have a Charge to ſeek their Converſion: Or as if I had no ſpecial Charge of that Church. 2. He did not ſee that he confuteth himſelf, implying that we muſt conſent becauſe of the Law. 3. And he forgot the many hundred years before Pariſh-diviſions.

§ 34. His zeal at laſt thus ſwelleth [p. 129. I do utterly withſtand it, as wickedneſs and abomination in Gods Church: I am to die and burn at a Stake before I yield to any ſuch thing. You make two Churches, two Church-forms, as two Baptiſms—p. 130. to teach Infidelity,—&c.] Anſ. Let him that thinks he ſtandeth, take heed leſt he fall. Alas! for the Church, whoſe Guides are no wiſer and better men, and tenderer Conſcienced than he or I, which ever is in the wrong. 1. You will make me think you are deeply melancholy! Is it ſo frightful a thing for me to ſay, I will be no Paſtor to any that conſent not, as to put you into talk of dying and burning at a Stake? Had the p. 74Martyrs been burnt, if men had been of this minde? Did you ever know any put to death or burnt at a Stake for your Opinion? Which is liker to be the burning party! they that ſay [We will rule none but Conſenters or Volunteers,] or they that call this wickedneſs and abomination, and ſo are for the contrary courſe? Which Party hath killed more for Religion? Reader, you ſee my wickedneſs and abomination.

CHAP. V.

I Had thought to have gone thus over the reſt of his Book; but it is ſuch ſtuff, that my Reaſon and Conſcience bid me ſpare my own and the Readers time. I. He begins with telling me what the Church of England is, and all is worſe than nothing: Inſtead of telling me what is the Conſtitutive, Formal, Regent part, he tells me of Biſhops, Paſtors, Convocation, King, &c. as if he defined a Man to be one that hath a Head, Eyes, Liver, Stomack, &c. II. It grieveth me to read what he ſaith of Popery. 1. His Suppoſition that Popery is ſound, if the Particular Church be a part of the Univerſal, having its ſubordinate form of Government under Chriſt's. 2. His Suppoſition of the Emperour of Conſtantinople's turning Chriſtian, and becoming the Univerſal Prince and Biſhop of his Empire, as a lawful thing. 3. His Suppoſition of the Pope's reſigning his Place to St. Peter, if he were alive, &c. 4. His Note that to claim but St. p. 75Peter's Place is not to claim Chriſt's, with more ſuch, are unwiſe Temptations to Strangers to fear leſt London-Air have done him hurt. III. His many words about the Princes power to chuſe Paſtors for all his Subjects, and that if faithful, he is no Chriſtian that refuſeth to accept them. 1. Is all a bare ſaying over what he thinketh; taking little or no notice of my Diſcourſe on that ſubject in my firſt Plea; where all that's againſt us is anſwered before, and I will not repeat it. 2. And it ſhamefully condemneth his foreſaid Condemnations. Is not Conſent then neceſſary to the impoſed Paſtor, if not conſenting Unchriſten men? 3. It ſuppoſeth that the political Controverſie [Whether the King be authorized by God to chuſe what paſtoral Guide all the Subjects ſhall truſt their Souls with?] (any more than what Tutor, Phyſician, Wife, Diet, they ſhall take) is an eſſential of Chriſtianity, and yet it is not in the Creed, &c. When yet it is notorious that all Churches for moſt Ages ſince Chriſt, if not almoſt all in the world to this day, were and are of the contrary minde, and ſo are all unchriſtened by him. 4. And though I urge him, he will not anſwer what I ſaid of the Queſtion, Who ſhall judge whether the Miniſter be faithful? 5. If the Patron preſent a weak ignorant man, that is faithful, but of little uſe comparatively; and people that feel their need, and regard Eternity, chuſe before him ſuch a one as Hilderſham, Rogers, Dod, Preſton, &c. he declareth them not onelyonly Sinners, but Rebels againſt Chriſt, and no Chriſtians. IV. His recitals of the particular Controverſies in the p. 76end, take ſo little notice of my former Anſwer to him, and do but pour out much of the ſame, that I reſolve hereafter to take as little notice of what he ſhall ſay that ringeth on like a Bell, and hath all Tongue and no Ears. He is full of his own, that muſt come out, he cannot ſtop it; and his Oyl increaſeth by pouring out: He is fuller than before, and hath no room for the reception of what he greately needeth.