Anti-sozzo, sive, Sherlocismus enervatus in vindication of some great truths opposed, and opposition to some great errors maintained by Mr. William Sherlock.

Sect. 1. Of our Union to Christ, and Communion with him.

OUR Author will not in Courtesie, or can∣not for Shame deny, that the Scripture does mention such a Relation between Christ and Christians, as may be express'd by an Union; and that these Phrases of [Being in Christ,] and [Abiding in Christ,] can signifie no less. Now this Union to Christ being a very suspicious Phrase, he is deeply concern'd, to mollifie it with some such Healing Explication, that it may not prejudice, or however not utterly destroy his main design. To in∣terpret it according to the sound of words, is to blow up himsels, with his whole Cause; and there∣fore it is judg'd a safer way, to accommodate the Expression, if it will be tractable, or to force it, if it proves obstinate, to a Complyance with his own espoused Notions, and preconceived Opinions: And now we see, that the True Reason why he so zea∣lously declaimed against that way of Interpreting Scripture in the last Section, was that he might without suspition serve himself of it in this. Some do not like his Tottering and Staggering way of wording his Matters: It may be express'd by an Uni∣on, and it can signifie no less than an Union: A form

of speech invented doubtless to let us know, how unable he is to deny, and yet how loath he is to confess the plainest Truth. I have not forgot that he told us, p. 108. That the Scripture describes the Profession of Christianity, a sincere Belief and Obe∣dience to the Gospel, by [Having Christ, and Being in Christ;] but now he is graciously pleased to Mount them a little higher, and is gently content, that they should signifie no less than an Union with Christ.

Four Notable Observations he makes to us in this one Section.

[1] That those Metaphors which describe the Re∣lation between Christ and Christians, do primarily referre to the Christian Church, and not to every Individual Christian. I am sorry that it must still be my great unhappiness to dissent from him, but seeing all Accommodation is desperate, we must bear the shock of his Reasonings as well as we can: Christ (says he) is called a Head, but he is the Head of his Church, which is his Body, as the Husband is the Head of his Wife; No particular Christian is the Body of Christ, but onely a Member in this Body. This indeed would do pretty well, but that it wants two small Circumstances, Truth and Pertinency; which being so inconsiderable, we may well spare in any of His Writings. And,

1. Methinks I want that sorry circumstance of Truth in his Argument. Christ is the Head of his Church, as the Husband is Head of his Wife; but the Headship of the Husband over the Wife, will not exactly measure the Headship of Christ over Be∣lievers; we must call in assistance from another Si∣militude, that of the Head in the Natural Body over

the Members: Christ is a Head of Influence, as well as Authority; he communicates Grace to Obey, as well as commands Obedience. And this is that the Apostle would teach us, Eph. 4. 15, 16.—The head, even Christ, from whom all the Body fitly joyn∣ed together and compact, by that which every joynt supplyeth, according to the effectual working, in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the Body, to the edifying of it sel•…•… in love. Here's an effectual Operation in every part, the Growth and Increase of every individual Member, by virtue of that In∣fluence which the Head communicates to it: And now to make the Husbands headship over the Wife, to represent the whole of Christs Headship, is craftily to seduce us from the Consideration of that Grace which from Christ we receive, to help us in time of need. The Holy Ghost has singled out the most per, and perspicuous Metaphors, that outward things would afford, to instruct us in the Nature of that Union, and Relation that Believers have to Christ, the Priviledges and Advantages which they receive thereby, and those Duties which indispensably arise from thence; and yet such is the incorrigible and untractable Nature of all outward things, such is their shortness, poverty, and narrowness, that they do not yield a Similitude that will adaequately, and commensurately express the total of Christs Grace, Mercy and Authority, or of our mutual Obligati∣ons and Duty. Much of the Poverty and Beggar∣liness of the Mosaical Types, lay in this, (those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gal. 4. 9.) that they could not repre∣sent Jesus Christ to the life, whom yet it was their design in some measure to shadow out. And when I have named a shadow, I have given a sufficient Reason

of my Assertion; for though a shadow may describe the general Lineaments of its Body, yet it will not paraphrase upon the Complexion: To supply this defect, it has pleased the Wisdom of God to insti∣tute that numerous train of Types, that so what could not be express'd by any one, might yet in par∣cels be described by Another. Hence is it, that one Type represents the Death of Christ as a Sacrifice for Sin; as the Goat of the Sin-offering, Lev. 16. 15. Another, the Intercession of Christ at the right hand of the Father; as Aarons appearing in the Most Holy place upon the Feast of Expiation: The same Wisdom has it pleased the Spirit of God to exe•…•…cise, in describing to us the Union and Relation betwixt Christ and Believers; for, seeing that no one single Metaphor, however borrowed from the nearest, and most intimous Relation upon Earth, could possibly convey to our understandings all that Mercy, Grace and Love, which from Christ issues to all that are in Covenant with him; nor all that Reverence, Love and Duty, which from Believers is due to a Re∣deemer; therefore has he chosen out many, that so by putting together the Mercy and Duty which is comprehended in each, we might spell out the Mean∣ing of what is wrapt up in that Relation wherein we stand to him. But,

2. It wants Pertinency as well as Truth: For, what if no particular Christian be the Body of Christ. yet is he a Member of that Body; and Christ, as Head of that Body, is related in particular to him, without the Intervention of the Body. A Body is nothing else but the result of all the Integral parts put together in their due Scite, and proper Order: and the Church is nothing else but the aggregate of

many Christians united under their proper Pastor: And as the Head in the Natural Body is immediate∣ly related to all the parts, so is Christ immediately related to every true Christian. If then he will ar∣gue thus, No particular Christian is the Body, there∣fore Christ is primarily related to the Body; any one with as much honesty may inferre, Every particu∣lar Christian is a Member of Christ, therefore, Christ is primarily related to every particular Chri∣stian: And thus the Conclusion will be as far to seek as ever; Whether this Metaphor of a Head does primarily referre to the whole Body, or particular Members. But let us go on: Christ is called a Hus∣band, (says he) but then the whole Church, not every particular Christian, is his Spouse, as St. Paul tells the Church of Corinth, 2 Cor. 11. 2. I have espoused you to one Husband, that I may present you a chaste Virgin to Christ. To which renowned Argument, I have many things to oppose. 1. If the Church of Corinth was the Spouse of Christ, then the Church of Ephesus, that of Coloss, that at Philippi, and to be sure the Church of Rome, will put in their claims with equal right to that Title; and then what be∣comes of what he asserts, p. 14•…•…. Christ is a great Enemy to Poligamy, and has but one Spouse. Is it not great pity a Conceit so ingenious, should have its Neck broken at the first Encounter? And, 2. If Christ hath but one Spouse, and yet every particular Church be his Spouse; it▪s but crumbling the Meta∣phor into more minute particles, and then he may be a Husband to every individual Believer. 3. The Text proves not that Christ has but one Spouse, but that the Church hath but one Husband; I have espoused you to one Husband. 4. Though the Me∣taphor

may perhaps more fitly express Christs Re∣lation to particular Churches, than particular Be∣lievers; yet this hinders not, but that Christ may be primarily related to particular Believers: For the Metaphor does not express the Order of Christs Relation, but the Relation it self. The word Church is onely a Term of Art, which expresses the same Persons collectively, who distributively taken, are each immediately related to Christ. Again, Christ (says he) is a Shepheard, and the Christian Church is his Flock, for the Relation between Shepheard and Sheep, doth primarily concern the whole Flock. This is but one Doctors opinion at most, and will hardly mount it up to the Credit of Probability. For, 1. A Shepheard may be related to one single Sheep; and that one is enough to keep alive, and maintain the Relation; one Sheep will denominate him a Shepheard, though there must be more than one to constitute a Flock. As there was a first Man, related to God, as a Creature to his Creator, be∣fore there was A Church; so there was a first Dis∣ciple, a first Believer, or Convert, and that one un∣der the Pastoral Charge and care of Christ the great Shepheard, ipso facto, as a sincere Convert, and sound Believer, and yet that Individual would not make a Society under Bishops or Pastors. 2. A Flock is made up of many Sheep; now that which constitutes, is at least in order of Nature before the thing constituted: The whole is made up of parts; and I have been taught to presume, that the parts are in order of Nature before the whole: A Shep∣heard does not muster a company of howling Wolves, and roaring Lyons, and then by that Col∣lection make them a Flock of Sheep; but he gathers

particular Sheep together, unites them into one Fold, and thereby they become a Flock. The way of Christ is not, to amass a Medley of debauched Var∣lets and Scoundrels, and by making them a Church, make them Christians; but he seeks out for his own Service, particular Christians, and out of these Ma∣terials he forms his Church. Again: Christ (says he) is the Rock upon which his Church is built, and the Christian Church is a Holy Temple. Let him take it •…•…or granted, if it will do him any service; but is this Rock, this Foundation, this Corner-stone, related primarily to the Building, or to the particu∣lar Stones? The Apostle Peter, who was a wise Master-builder in Church-work, understood the Me∣thod much better: 1 Pet. 2. 5. To whom coming as to a Living Stone; ye also as lively Stones, are built up a spiritual House: Hence ordinary under∣standings would conclude, that the building did not make the materials, but the materials made the building; the Spiritual House did not make the Lively Stones, but the Lively Stones made the Spiritual House: Such Language the Apostle durst use; these lively Stones were first united to the living Corner-stone, and the product of all was, a beauti∣full Fabrick: And thus was Solomon's Temple built; the materials were exactly fitted, and squared for their respective uses and places, and there was no∣thing to doe but to joyn them together, and out of those (after seven years Labour) there grew up a Holy Temple: Had He built of Bricks, the Edifice would never have converted them into hewen Stones; and had he used onely Sycamores, they had never been turned into Cedars by being Sleepers in the wall. I must therefore abate him an Ace or two of

his general Conclusion: All these Metaphors in their first, and most proper use, referre to the whole Society of Christians. In Isa. 9. 6. Christ is called the Everlasting Father, which Metaphor (if it be a Metaphor) does primarily express the Relation of Christ to every adopted child, and not the Relation of Christ to Children in gross, and in the Lump: A Father is as really so to one child, as to Twenty; he may be a Father to more, but not more a Father. It will sound harshly in the Ears of any that have not lost them under the Cataracts of Nilus: to say, That Father does not primarily describe the Rela∣tion of Philip (v. g.) to Alexander, Iohn, &c. but to children, in the first place, and then at second hand, and through a remove or two, to Alexander and Iohn. Thus is the Everlasting Father prima∣rily related to every childe, by virtue of his Adopti∣on, and Regeneration; and secondarily to them all as brethren, related to one another, living under the same Discipline, and Laws of the Family.

[2] He observes further to us for our Learning: That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their Union to the Christian Church: Which he as Learnedly proves from 1 Cor. 12. 27. Ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in Parti∣cular. Where the strength of this Argument lies, I confess, I see not: That the Church of Corinth was the Body of Christ, That I plainly see: That every particular Member of that Church, was a Member of Christ; I think I see that too: But that it was therefore a Member of Christ, because it was Uni∣ted to that Body of the Church of Corinth; I own my Dulness, that I cannot see: And I have some scruples that makes me Halt, and not so Nimbly

go on both Feet into our Authors Opinion. For, 1. If particular Christians by being United to the Body, become the Members of Christ, then what Me∣dium of Union have these particular Churches to Unite them to Christ? We poor Folks of the Laity have an Expedient found out to Unite us to Christ, namely, by Uniting us to the Church under the Bi∣shops, and Pastors: But what shall become of the Bishops and Pastors themselves? What Provision is made for them? VVhich way shall they be Uni∣ted to Christ? Some (indeed) talk of Uniting them by their Metropolitans, and them again by their Patriarchs, and then these by the Pope: But who shall Unite him, poor man? I see here's a Design laid to prove the Pope to be Antichrist. 2. VVhen a Church is first Collected, I am perplexing my self how the first Convert, the first Believer comes to be United to Christ, when there is never a Church ex∣isting by which he should be United: And it trou∣bles me to think, what a long while that unhappy Creature may be Holy, and very Religious, and yet cannot be united to Christ, because others will not consent to become a Church; and thus he must necessarily perish, though he be thus Holy, and Devout, because others will not go to Heaven with him. But, 3. VVe must suppose, that Baptism U∣nites us to the Visible Church: Now, either this single Person was United to Christ before his Bap∣tism, or not: If he was, then the Cause is lost; for then Union with the Visible Church, is not the only Means of our Union to Christ. If not, then, 1. What a sad Generation of Wretches must be the Ingredients of a Church? And some will define it, as others have made it; A Cage of unclean Birds,

and a Hold of every filthy and unclean Spirit. And then, 2. It will be the unquestionable Duty of the Pastors of the Church, to admit into the Society, the most Profligate Rascals, that offer themselves: For what would you have them do? Shall they be so Barbarous and Inhumane, such bloody Murtherers of Souls, to deny them the only Means of their Uni∣on to Christ? And what would you have the poor wicked wretches do? Repent, and believe, and turn from their sins? Alas! all's to no purpose, they can never be United to Christ, without the only Means of Union; were they as Meek as Moses, as Patient as Iob, as Believing as Abraham, they are never the nearer Christ; and therefore as good come Loaden with all their Villanies, and Triumph∣ing in their Rogueries, and be but united to the Church, and all in good time, they may come to be United to Christ: But surely the Church of England has Instructed her Children otherwise. I shall not press our Author with the Articles, be∣cause he's no great admirer of them; but because he so adores the Catechism, I shall remit him thi∣ther for Satisfaction. Qu. What is required of Persons to be Baptised? Ans.

Repentance, where∣by they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they sted∣fastly believe the Promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.

If now such a Faith, such a Repentance, as are here described, must qualifie a Person for Baptism, that he may be United there∣by to the Church, and so to Christ; I would gladly learn, whether such a faith, and such a repentance, will not serve to Unite him to Christ, antecedent to his Baptism? And if not, whether the Church can contribute any more to his Union with him?

Another Reason of our Authors, proceeds thus: The Church is Christs Flock, and every Christian who is of this Fold, is one of Christs Sheep. In good time! but is he therefore, and onely therefore, one of Christs Sheep because he is one of this Fold? Or rather taken into the Fold, because he was first one of Christs Sheep? But if indeed this be the real way to Create sheep, by taking any thing that has four Legs into the Fold, it will be a Noble piece of Charity to revive the Tribute of Wolves; and if the Breed should be worn out in England, we know from whence to recruite the Sheepfold; but still he proceeds, and I perceive he has a mind to prove something if he knew what. The Church is Christs Spouse, every Christian is a Member of that Socie∣ty, which Christ owns for his Spouse, but every Chri∣stian is not Christs Spouse. No? Why not? Now comes the Knocking-argument: He is a great ene∣my to Poligamy, and hath but one Spouse. Won∣derful! So is Christ a great Enemy to Monsters, and Prodigies, and has but one Body: And yet for all this, our Author could allow the Church of Co∣rinth, to be his Spouse, to be his Body, and then I will allow the Church of Smyrna, to have been his Body, and his Spouse, and others (as their affecti∣ons lead them) will no doubt allow other particu∣lar Churches to be his Body, his Spouse; and then Christ shall have as many particular Bodies, and Spouses, as there are particular Churches upon the Face of the Earth; and so this Doughty argument Vanishes into Smoak, and nothing: and in lieu of it, I will offer him another. It's impossible to be United to Christ, without the only Means of Uni∣on, but it's possible to be United to Christ, without

being United to a particular Church, therefore to be United to a particular Church, is not the only Means of Uniting us to Christ. The former Pro∣position we will for once humbly beg at his hands, and do not doubt but he will charitably grant it; the second is Evidenced from hence: When particular Churches are broken in pieces by Persecution, or otherwise, yet the true believing Members are not thereby separated from Christ; they cease not to be Christs Friends, because the World is their Ene∣my: Yea indeed (says our Author, pag. 165.) If there be no Visible Society (as it may happen in time of Persecution) it must of necessity alter the Case. That is in plain English; his Discourse had been Strong, if it had not been Weak; and our Union to the Church had been the only Means of our Union to Christ, but for one ill favoured Business, that there is another Means of our union to him, and we may be united to him without it. I grant (indeed) with much readiness, that it is our unquestionable Duty, and when all Circumstances concur, our In∣dispensible Duty for every Christian to joyn himself to some particular Church; the Command of Christ has made it so: The Edifying our own Souls in Faith, Love, Comfort, adds to that necessity; the Glori∣fying of our God, and our Redeemer, in a visible Profession of, and Subjection to all his Ordinances, heightens that Necessity; the enjoyment of many Gos∣pel Ordinances which presuppose a Church-state, add more weight to the Necessity, and that our Uni∣on with Christ has more Bonds laid upon it, by this means, I freely own; but that our Union with the Church, is the only means to Unite us to Christ, I must see better Arguments to prove it, before I

know how to believe it: Our Union with Christ, is by Invisible and Internal Ligaments, and if there were no other, than what a Visible Church can af∣ford, I do not see, but all Christians are Obliged to be Hypocrites. The great Promises of the Gospel, those of Justification, Adoption, and Sanctification, are made to Individuals, and how to apply them to whole Churches, otherwise than by the Individuals, is unconceivable: They are single Persons, that are Justified, Sanctified, Adopted, Pardoned, and Saved, and not a Complex Notion, which is only an Operation of the Mind conceiving of singular things, as they relate one to another.

There is yet one Text of Scripture, which our Author has reserved as the Triarij to the main Bat∣tle; and though his Jelites be Cut off, and his Body shaken, yet so long as his Reserves are entire, and unbroken, he cannot be totally Routed. The place is, Iohn 15. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman.—Abide in me, and I in you. As the Branch cannot bear Fruit ex∣cept it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. Now because he lays such a Stress upon, and places all his Hopes and Confidence in this place, I shall particularly Examine, 1. His Interpretati∣on. 2. His Reasons for that Interpretation. 3. The Use he makes of this Interpretation.

(1.) For his Interpretation, it has more Faces than Ianus; and more Colours than the Rainbow. I am the true Vine: Where [I] signifies Christ to∣gether with his Church: There's one Face. But pag. 146. He repents that ever he took the Person of Christ into the Paraphrase, for fear some ill dispo∣sed persons should make an ill use on▪t, and there∣fore he Glosses it thus: I am the true Vine, that

is the Church: So [I] is grown a Church. But yet that neither will not answer all his Occasions, nor stop all Gaps, and therefore it must put on another shape: pag. 147. When Christ speaks in the first Person [I] he cannot mean this of his own Per∣son, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion: And yet for all this it will not do the Feat, but it must pass through one Metamorphosis more, and it sig∣nifies, a sincere and hearty Belief of the Gospel. So here we have got the Act and the Object Mar∣ried together in this one word [I:] A man would conclude he had found at last Aristotles Materia Prima, it's Omnium formarum capax: Nothing in Act, but every thing in Power, a piece of soft Wax, that's plyable to any Impression, a mere blanck Pa∣per, you may Write down your own Conditions: But what is meant by the Vine? Why that's the Church too, pag. 146. That is, the Church, which is founded on the belief of my Gospel, is the only true Church: Or, I am the Vine, that is, the Church is the Church; but let us proceed. He that abideth in me: [In me] that is, the Christian Church: [I in him,] that is, the Christian Doctrine; For without me, you can do uothing: That is, without a sincere belief of my Gospel. And now he presumes he has laid his Mat∣ters so Closely, Evenly, and Regularly together, that he may defie the Cunning of the most expert Caviller to disturb them. And yet to deal openly with him, he has not lead me Captive by his fair Colours and regular Proportions. For, 1. I find his way of Interpretation meerly Arbitrary, such as has no other Foundation but the Soveraign will of the Commentator; he deals with Scripture as if it were his perfect Vassal, and he the absolute Mo∣narch

of the Word of God; and that his Para∣phrase knew no other Language than his Car tel est nostre plaisir: For such is our Will and Pleasure▪ Let the Reader take but a taste: He that abideth in me, and I in him. Where [Me] must signifie the Christian Church, and [I] the Christian Doctrine. For we must know for our Learning, that [Me] in the Ablative case, must always signifie a Church; but [I] in the Nominative case, that's the Christian Doctrine. And if any peevish Fellow shall Object that it's a huge Wonder that such a slight Variation of the Case, should alter the Signification. Every puisny Shool-Boy will inform him, that the varying the Case, does wonderfully alter the Case. Now had it been Referred to a Hundred Systematical, Heavy-headed Divines, they would have conclu∣ded, One and All; that if [I] signifie a Doctrine, [Me] will signifie the same: And if [Me[ signi∣fie a Church, [I] will signifie neither better nor worse, but a Church too; but when a Zaphnath Paaneah, a Revealer of Secrets, shall take the Mat∣ter in hand, he will shew you the difference. 2. An∣other Exception I have against this Interpretation, is, That Christ has often spoke in the first Person, He has compared himself to many other things, and yet never intended any thing by [I] but his own Self, Iohn 10. 11. I am the good Shepherd. And besides that, we have had our Authours Suffrage to it, the thing it self makes it evident that Christ speakes there neither of Church, nor Doctrine. The Fold, must signifie the Church: The Pasture, will answer the Doctrine, and Christians they are the Sheep, but Christ himself is the Shepherd. And yet one significati∣on more for this poor [I] will do the business, let it signifie the Pastors and Bishops, and that will heal all.

And I do not doubt when he has need of them, he can fi•…•…d a Dozen more significations of that one word, that one Letter [I.] Again, Iohn 10. 7. Christ says, I am the Door. Now the Church is evidently the House, or Temple, and so [I] will not do very well for Church, in that place: And the Doctrine, is the Orders, and Rules for Government of the House; and therefore we had not best make [I] signifie Doctrine neither, in this place: Oh! but then (and it was well thought on) Baptism is a Sacrament of Admission into the Church, and then it will run as Glib upon the Tongue as may be, I am the Door; that is, Baptism is the Door. But what shall we say to Iohn 6. 48. I am the Bread of Life. Oh! that is wondrous easie, and the Interpretation natu∣ral, and without straining; that is, My Doctrine is the Bread of Life, which answers the Manna. But then Christ tells us, ver. 51. That the Bread which he will give is his Flesh, which he will give for the Life of the World. What shall become of us now? Why our Author must take advice with his Pillow about this Difficulty, and let it signifie any thing in the World; Black or Blew, provided it do not signifie the Person of Christ, and the Interpre∣tation is authentick, and by to Morrow-morning, shall shine with it's own Light. 3. This Interpre∣tation avows false Doctrine. He had told us: That by He that abideth in me, is meant, he that abideth in the Christian Church. And our Saviour assures us, ver. 5. That without [Me] ye can do nothing. Now in just proportion to his Interpretation, the sence must run thus: Without you be in the Christi∣an Church, it's impossible ye should do any th•…•…ng that is good. And how notoriously false this is of a par∣ticular Church, is evident, how many particular

Churches have been dissolved; The Shepheard smit∣ten, and the Sheep scattered, and yet the Indivi•…•…u∣als have brought forth Fruit in patience. Our Au∣thor should have considered this a little better: Why so he has. Without me ye can do nothing; that is, Without such a sincere and hearty belief of my Gos∣pel. Well, but we were told, that by [Me] was meant the Church: And we took it for granted, that if we met with it in the Ablative case, it ought to signifie the Church; And must it now signifie the Doctrine? How often has the Wind turned in half an hour? Oh! but you are to understand, that, then it was in the 4th. ver. Abide in me: But this is in the 5th. verse, Without me. And so the Rule will be this; That whensoever you find it in the Ab∣lative case, in the 4th. verse of any Chapter, then it signifies the Church; but if it fall out to be the Ab∣lative case, and the 5th. verse, then believe it, you shall do well to Interpret it by Gospel or Doctrine: But still here's an odd Scruple behind; For what will become of ver. 4? Abide in Me, and and I in you: As the Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. Now our Authors Gloss is this, [abide in Me,] continue in the Church; and [I in you,] let my Doctrine continue in you. And then the fol∣lowing words must be thus Paraphrased: As the Branch cannot bear Fruit of it self, except it abide in the Vine, no more can ye except ye [abide in the Church:] Which spoken of a particular Church, is utterly false; and there's no help left, but only this standing Rule: That [Me] in the beginning of a verse, signifies a Church; but in the latter end of a verse, it always signifies a Doctrine. And then the 5th.

verse too, will be as plain as a Pike-staff: He that abideth in me, that is, in the Church; and I in him, that is, the Doctrine in him; the same bringeth forth much Fruit: for without me; that is, with∣out a sincere and hearty belief of my Doctrine (or to disguise it a little, say Gospel) it's impossible you should do any thing that is good: And surely, never was a small piece of Armour better placed, nor to better purpose, by the Wit of Man. I have done with his Interpretation, but that I cannot forbear to give the Reader the Summe of what he has said: That Church which owns my Doctrine, is the true Vine: and all you who make a publick profession of Fait•…•…o in me, (i. e. of a belief of my Gospel) and live in Communion with one another, are the Bran∣ches of this Vine; and whoever of you continue sted∣fast in this Profession, and Communion, and do not only make a visible profession of Faith in me, but suf∣fer my Doctrine and Precepts to dwell and abide in you too, to Govern your Wills and Affections, and direct your Conversations in the World, all such of you will be very Fruitful in good Works. And it's very likely to be true, for it would be a great won∣der if they whose Wills, and Affections, and Con∣versations, are Govern'd by the Word of Christ, should do nothing that's good; because most things in the World, are what they are, excepting only Christs Person, which shall signifie, Many, Divers, Contrary Things, and in short, any Thing besides Himself.

(2.) His Interpretation being so Arbitrary, Pre∣carious, Self-Inconsistent, and Ridiculously false, I need not much trouble my self with his Reasons; nor should I, but that they also discover its •…•…∣ness.

Reason 1. The Iewish Church is frequently in the Old Testament called a Vine, Isa. 5. 1. I will sing to my Beloved a Song concerning his Vineyard. My Beloved had a Vineyard: Iudge between me and my Vineyard. And now he must be very blind, that does not see the Church is compared to a Vine; though some will be so Peevish, as to fancy some small difference between a Vine, and a Vineyard. But yet it is called a Vine, Jer. 2. 21. Very true: Ergo, What? Why therefore Christ is not com∣pared to a Vine, in the New Testament. And therefore it must signifie Doctrine, Gospel, Religi∣on, and Twenty things more. But, 1. Tell me se∣riously: Did God, or any of the Prophets, ever say, I am the Vine; and then teach the Iews to dis∣cant thus upon it? That is, The Church which is founded on the belief of Moses his Doctrine, is the only true Church. When the Prophet will describe the Church by a Vine, he tells you expresly what he intends; and there's an end of all Controversie: And so would our Saviour if ever he intended to be understood, till a happy Head should, after Sixteen Hundred Years, light upon the Mystery. Ay, but the Christian Church is expresly called an Olive Tree, and the Members of it called Branches, Rom. 11. 17, 18. Expresly? And must we then split against that Rock, and Interpret the place, by the express the sound of words? Two things let him consider at his Leisure, 1. Whether it be the Christian Church that is there compared to the Olive-Tree. 2. Whether it be said, that Christ is the Olive-Tree: Which expression if he can produce, and then make it out, that [I] am the Olive-Tree, signifies the Church is so; we will then freely confess he has bid∣den

fair towards a probability for the truth of his Interpretation. 2. Because God is called the Hus∣bandman, who takes care to Dress this Vine, which cannot be understood of Christ, but of the Church. This Reason seems to carry some civility towards Jesus Christ, and therefore deserves a fairer Treat∣ment than the strength of it can challenge. Let this suffice: The Father is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Husband∣mand, in respect of the Branches of the Vine, ver. 2. Every branch that beareth Fruit he purgeth, that it may bring forth more Fruit; and every branch that beareth not Fruit, he taketh away. 3. Christ speaks of such branches in him as bear no fruit: Now there can be no such branches in the Person of Christ, for our very Union to Him will make us Fruitful. Ans. Many things are said to be, which only seem to be. There's nothing more ordinary than for ap∣pearances, to wear the Livery of Realityes: Hypo∣crites are said to be in Christ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who are not so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 8. 15, 16. Simon Magus is said to believe, who yet was in the Gall of Bitter∣ness, and in the bond of Iniquity: Rotten, Dead Branches may have a visible station in the Vine, and yet derive no nourishment from the Vine; and visi∣ble Professors may be said to be in Christ, in a judgment of Charity, which thinks no evil where none appears; and hopeth all things, where there is ground of hope. Our Saviour prescribes a Rule how we must judge, who have no direct Cognizance of the heart; when he himself takes other Mea∣sures of Men, and needeth not that any should testi∣fie of Man, for he knows what is in Man. 4. To confirm all this, and prevent Objections, It's evident (says he) from the Chapter, that Christ when he

speaks in the First Person [I,] and [in Me,] can∣not mean this of his own Person, but of his Church, Doctrine, and Religion. But where lies the Evi∣dence of this great Demonstration? Why Christ says, I am the true Vine, and ye are the Branches; He that abideth in me, and I in him, bringeth forth much Fruit, for without me you can do nothing. Well, what of all this? Why, our Author would willingly Learn what sence can be made of all this, if we understand it of the Person of Christ: And I will as willingly Teach him, if he be not too proud to Learn, I Iesus Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, am very fitly compared to a Vine; and ye my Disciples are as fitly compared to the Branches of a Vine. Now he that really abideth in me by a true lively faith, and I in him by the Quic∣kening Operations of my Spirit, the same bringeth forth much Fruit of holy Obedience; for without de∣rivation of Grace from Me your Root, you can do nothing that is truly good, and acceptable to God. Oh! but he has two or three formidable Objecti∣ons against this Interpretation. 1. It's not very In∣telligible, How we can be, or abide in Christs Per∣son? No more it is: If we bring Capernaitical un∣derstandings along with us, who Puzled their Heads with a gross Notion of Carnal eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of Christ. If by [being in Christ] were understood, a Local, Physical, or Na∣tural being in Him, it were somewhat Unintelli∣gible, but when no more is meant by it, but that every true Believer is by Constitution of the Co∣venant of Grace, one Person morally with Christ; so considered and dealt with by God, there's no more insuperable Difficulty, than what unbelief

will create in the clearest Truths of the Gospel. But, 2. It's more unintelligible still; How we can be in the Person of Christ, and the Person of Christ at the same time be in us; Which is a new piece of Philosophy, called Penetration of Dimensions. But there's no great danger in that: Christ may dwell in us by his Spirit, and we in him by Faith, and yet Faith and the Spirit, never disturb each other in their Motions; but what the Dimensions of the Soul, in its actings of Faith, or of the Spirit in it's work∣ing of Grace are, this I confess, is to me unintelli∣gible: And that a Christian should be in the Church, and the Church at the same time be in a Chri∣stian, had been equally Unintelligible, and as much danger of the Penetration of Dimensions: But that our Author stumbled upon a happy Expedient; that [I] should signifie a Doctrine, and [Me] a Church, to heal the Contradiction. 3. That our Fruitfulness should depend on our Union to Christ, is as hard to my understanding. Truly, I cannot help that, I have no Medicine to cure Crazed Intel∣lectuals: He that cannot understand that Believers do receive Actual assistance from Christ by his Spi∣rit, to help them in the way of their Duty, and to encourage them against the Difficulties they meet withal in their Duties, cannot (I presume) under∣stand very many Lines in the Gospel.

(3.) Our last Task is, to Examine what improve∣ment he has made of this Interpretation, and in short it is this: That the Union of particular Chri∣stians to Christ, consists in their Union to the Chri∣stian Church. And now I am abundantly satisfied, that our Author is a very Philomel, Vox & prae∣terea nihil; One, whose Volubility of Tongue,

and Pen, supplies the place of Argument, and De∣monstration: I hope our Author will not meet with many Readers, who have so far parted with their Memories, as not to remember what that was he Propounded to himself to Evince, viz. That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by means of their Union with the Christian Church: And yet now when he comes to cast up his Accounts, we have gotten another Conclusion; That the Union of particular Christians to Christ, consists in their Union to the Christian Church. Surely, the Pur∣blind will espie some small difference: Eating is a means to Living, yet none but a Swine of Epicu∣rus his Stye, will say, that Living consists in Eating. The High-road is a means to bring the Traveller Home; yet it will be hard to perswade us, that being at Home, consists in Travelling: Trading is a mean to Riches, yet Riches do not formally con∣sist in Trading: The end may possibly be separated from the Means, but nothing can be separated from that thing wherein it consists. But let that pass: If he has proved either the one, or the other, I am con∣tent he be reputed an Artist. The thing he has a good will to prove, is: That the Union of parti∣cular Christians to Christ, is either by means of their Union to the Christian Church; or else that it consists in it. Now for the Proof of this: He has told us, That the Church is the Body of Christ: The Church is the Temple of Christ: The Church is the Spouse of Christ: The Church is the Flock of Christ. And had it been referred to a thousand Per∣sons, not one but would have thought, that, that Christ who is the Head of that Body, is a Person: He that is the Husband of that Spouse, is a Person:

He that is the Shepheard of the Flock, is a Person: and He that Dwells in that Temple, is a Person: But things are not so far gone, but our Author shall have his Opinion, and choose what he will abide by; for my part I am much unconcern'd, let him please himself, he shall not displease me at all. Say then: Shall it be Christs Doctrinal, or Christs Ecclesiasti∣cal, that is the Head of this Body? The Husband of this Spouse? The Shepheard of this Flock? I can rest satisfied. But then the Sence runs thus: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Head of the Church: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Husband of the Church: A Doctrine, or a Church, is the Shep∣heard of the Church. If this does not please him, let him try the other way, and allow it to be a Person that is all these. A Person, that is the Head, Husband, and Shepheard of the Church: And now I must plainly acquaint him, That he has Entangled his Af∣fairs in such confusion, that he will never be able to Extricate them. For, 1. If the Person of Christ be here intended, then it seems at last, what∣ever the means be of that Union, yet there is an U∣nion to the Person of Christ; and whereinsoever that Union consists, yet such an Uunion there is: How absurd would it be, to enquire whether our Union to Christ's Person, consists in our Union with a particular Church? If, Union to Christs Person be a Non-entity? Or, Whether our Union with a particular Church, be the means to our Union with Christ? If there be no such thing? And then, 2. He is as much concern'd, as his poor Neighbours, to salve the Difficulties of being in Christs Person; and yet at the same time, Christs Person being in us; of the depending of our Fruitfulness upon that

Union, with whatever other Incongruities a strong Fancy may impute to it. And then 3. If the Person of Christ be intended in the Question, then his last and tedious Argument from Iohn 15. 1. which he has managed with so much Industry, upon which he has bestowed so much Cost, and in which he places so much Confidence, concludes something very near to Nothing: For the Abstract of his Medium is this, that Christians are in the Church; which will never conclude, that therefore our Union to a particular Church is the Means of our Union to Christ, much less, that our Union to Christ consists in it.

From the Scriptures we are posted over to the Ancient Fathers; who (if we may believe him) In∣terpret all those Metaphors which decypher the Union between Christ and Christians to signifie, the Love and Unity of Christians among themselves. He that will reproach his own Mother, will not much Re∣verence the Fathers: They do indeed argue from the Unity between Christ and Christians, to an ab∣solute Necessity of Unity between Christians them∣selves, they are members of one body, under one common Head, and therefore it presses sore upon them, that there be no intestine Broyls among them∣selves: they are Sheep of the same Fold, under one Shepheard, and it were unnatural for Sheep to devour one another, which is the Province of Wolves; they are subjects in the same spiritual Kingdom, under Christ the Sovereign Monarch of the Church, and therefore all heats and animosities, all seuds and broyls, are alien from that place and Relation they fill up towards Christ, and each other: So the Fa∣thers, so the Scriptures argue: Mal. 2. 10. Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?

why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother? The Process of the Argument is very clear, if we be Children of one Father, we ought to love our Brethren; but to conclude from thence, that A Childs Relation to his Father consists in the Love and Unity of the Children among themselves, is some∣what more than ridiculous. Thus from the Union between Christ and Christians, there is an unan∣swerable Argument drawn for the Unity of Christi∣ans amongst themselves; but that the Union of Chri∣stians with Christ, does formally consist in their mu∣tual Agreement and Concord each with other, is a piece of Logick for which we are indebted to our Author; but thus Chrysostom expounds Eph. 2. 19, 20, 21. where the Apostle speaks of that spiritual building which is erected on the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Iesus Christ [himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] being the chief Corner-stone, to signi∣fie the Unity of the Church in all Ages, that both the Iewish, and the Christian Church are united in Christ, as the several parts of the building are kept together by the Corner-stone. Now though Chry∣sostom be little beholden to our Author for traducing his honest meaning, yet we are all beholden to Chrysostom. For then, 1. There have not been so many sorts of Churches in the World, as he would perswade us, but both Iews and Christians consti∣tute one universal catholick Church, though differ∣ing in the Oeconomy, and some variety of Admi∣nistration; both the Jewish and Christian Church are the several parts of one and the same Building. And then, 2. The Iews, we may presume knew something at least of Christ, what he was to be to them, what he was to doe for them, if they and we,

Jews and Gentiles in all Ages are United in him. To the same purpose St. Ambrose: (Yes I believe it; as little to our Authors purpose as St. Chrysostom:) Duos Populos in se suscepit Christus Salvator, & fecit unum in Domino, sicut Lapis Angularis duas parietes continet in Unitate Domûs firmatas: which our Author Englishes thus: Christ united two Peo∣ple, in himself, and made them one in the Lord, as the Corner-stone unites two Walls in a building, and makes it but one house. Now if we cannot agree about the Construing a piece of familiar Latine, we shall strangely differ in the Interpretation of its de∣sign and tendency: And here Ambrose is less be∣holden to our Author than Chrysostom; for, that he may not cross our Authors sence, he is made to speak Non-sence. Christ united two people, and made them one: That is, he made them one, and made them one; or he united them, and united them; for, what uniting should be, but making one, I can∣not divine. But Ambrose his Latine runs thus: Duos populos in se suscepit, & fecit unum in Domino. He took two people upon himself, and (so) made them one in the Lord: He bore their Iniquities, carryed their sins in his body upon the Cross, and thereby reconciled them to God, and then their reconcilia∣tion to one Another would be easie: but our Author, (who is never wanting to his Concerns) was not at leisure to take notice of that: However (says he) this is the plain design of the place, to prove, that Christ hath taken away the enmity which was between Iew and Gentile, and hath reconciled them both to God. Well, I can be content it should be the Plain design, but not the Main design, not the whole de∣sign of the place: Some men think themselves won∣drous

witty in the Contrivance, that they have found out some Reconciling work for Christs Death: But then it must not be, to reconcile God and Sinners, but to remove an old grudge between Iew and Gen∣tile; (which is an Invention of the latter dayes, utter∣ly unknown to the Ancient Fathers, and the whole Catholick Church,) that they might not seem to say, there's no Reconciliation by the Blood of Christ: I would turn over our Author for satisfaction in this point to the Reason, not the Authority of Dr. E. Stillingfl. against Crellius, p. 558. A Difference be∣ing supposed between God and Man, on the account of sin, no reconciliation can be imagined but what is mutual: For, did Man only fall out with God, and had not God just reason to be displeased with Men, for their Apostacy from him? If not, what made him so severely punish the Old World, for their Impieties, by a Deluge? what made him leave such Monuments of his Anger against the Sins of the World, in succeeding Ages, &c? Well then, supposing God to be averse from men by reason of their sins; shall this displeasure alwayes continue, or not? If it alwayes continues, men must certainly suffer the desert of their sin: If it doth not alwayes continue, then God may be said to be reconciled, in the same sence that an offended party is capable of being re∣conciled to him who hath provoked him. Now there are two wayes, whereby a party justly offended, may be said to be reconciled to him that hath offended him: First, when he is not onely willing to admit of Terms of Agreement, but doth declare his Acceptance of the Mediation of a third Person, and that he is so well satisfied with what he hath done in order to it, that he appoints it to be published to all the world, to assure

the Offender, that if the Breach continues, the fault lyes wholly upon himself: The Second is, when the Offender doth accept the Terms of the Agreement offer'd: And these two we assert, must necessarily be distinguished in the Reconciliation between God and us: For, upon the Death and Sufferings of Christ, God declares to the World, that he is so well satisfied with what Christ hath done and suffer'd, in order to the Reconciliation between himself and us, that now be publishes Remission of sins to the World, upon those Terms which the Mediator hath declared by his own Doctrine; but because Remission of sins doth not im∣mediately follow upon the Death of Christ, without supposition of any act on our part, therefore the state of Favour doth commence from the performance of those Conditions that are required of us, &c. And now let the Authority of the Church of England in∣terpose: Art. 31. [Of the one Oblation of Christ, fi∣nished upon the Cross:] The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole World, both Original and Actual, and there is none other Satis∣faction for sin but that alone. But we shall be soundly pelted with the Fathers, and therefore he cites a great many more from Chrysostom, and from all concludes: That according to the sence of this Holy man, particular Christians are united to Christ by Means of their Union to the Christian Church; otherwise I cannot understand how our Union to Christ, can be an Argument to Union and Concord among our selves. But if that be the worst on't, that he cannot understand it, Charity commands me to relieve his labouring understanding: It's a good Argument, that Children should entirely love one

another, because they are Children of the same Fa∣ther; and yet for all that, they become not Chil∣dren to their Father, by means of their Union one to another as Brethren; but they are therefore Bre∣thren, because they are Children of the same Fa∣ther. It's an Argument, that Subjects should study and follow the things that make for Peace among themselves, because they are all Subjects to the same Prince, aud his honour, the strength, and se∣curity of his Kingdom, lyes much in it; and yet their Union among themselves is not the Means whereby they become related to their Prince; but because they are all Subjects to him, they become fellow-subjects each with other. And now methinks, a very ordinary pair of Brains might have under∣stood, how our Union to Christ is an Argument to Christians to unite amongst themselves, though by their union amongst themselves they had not been united to Christ: And thus he might as well have quoted the Ancient Father Mercurius Gallo-Belgi∣cus, as either Ambrose or Chrysostom; but that we are all mightily concerned to know, that he reads the Fathers, to very little purpose.

But from hence he will give us a very seasonable word of Exhortation: That they would seriously con∣sider it, who boast of their Union to Christ, and yet rend his Church into a thousand little Factions: I am glad however that they are not great Factions: And I would have them seriously consider it also, who broach such Doctrines, so contrary to the main de∣sign of the Gospel, that if owned by any Church, must necessitate an absolute and total separation, if we will be true to Christ. There have been ma∣ny sad Controversies amongst us, but they have been

about Mint, Anise, and Cummin, in comparison of the great and weighty things of the Gospel; but the Question now must be, Whether Christ be a true and proper High-priest, whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉 death upon the Cross be a proper Sacrifice offer'd unto God, to re∣concile him to sinners? The Question is now, Whe∣ther we must hold Communion with God in Prayer or no? Whether Faith and Repentance will unite us to Christ? Nay, whether there be any such thing as an Union with Christs Person or no? Nay, upon the Matter, whether there be a Person of Christ or no? or that all must not be interpreted into Do∣ctrine, Church, Office, and I cannot tell what? Some I perceive are hugely afraid, least differences should be accommodated; they dread The tombe of Con∣troversies almost as much as their Own; they are more solicitous how Quarrels may live, than about their own Deaths; and therefore fearing those small∣er Bones of Contention would not set the World together by the ears long, they have thrown more considerable ones before us; to entail Contentions upon Posterity, and propagate Divisions to Eter∣nity. It's the Interest of some men, to make loud clamours against Divisions, variety of Opinions, dif∣ference in Judgements, and yet to take special care that there shall never want matter for them; to complain of the Fire, and yet pour in Oyl to quench it; and if they may but warm their own hands, can sing over the flames which they have kindled, and do still foment. It has been the Policy of Rome, to build partition-walls of Separation, and then to rail at all that cannot leap over them; to thresh the Wheat out of the Floor, and then rage at it for Di∣viding from the Chaffe; to beat their Servants out

of doors, and then send Huy-and-cry after them, with all the Marks and Descriptions of Run-awayes. Thus far our Author has led us out of the way, and it will be high time to return.

The Fathers may now go to bed, and sleep, our Author will give them no further trouble: Autho∣rity is but an inartificial Argument, and now have at us with down-right Demonstration, and Club-law. Those Sacraments our Saviour hath instituted, are a plain demonstration, that our Union with Christ consists in our union with the Christian Church.

1. For Baptism. Baptisme is the Sacrament of our Admission into the Visible Church; but in Baptisme we make a publick Profession of our Faith in Christ; Therefore the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their Union with the Church. This is that plain Demonstration we are threatned with; and in a while, if our Author does but eat a dish of Beans and Bacon, it will be a plain Demon∣stration: In Baptism we make a visible Profession of our Faith in Christ; and if this Profession be true, such a one as the Church of England requires as pre∣requisite to Baptism, we are thereby United to Christ antecedently to our Baptism. If Baptism finds us not in Christ, it puts us not into Christ: If it finds us not qualified for a Church state, it makes us not so; it is a Symbol, but it supposes the thing signified, and conferrs it not: It is a Seal, but presupposes a Co∣venant: But that we are admitted into the visible Church by it, he will prove; and indeed he is ex∣cellent at proving what none deny; and very un∣toward at proving the thing in Question; but hear his proof; 1 Cor. 12. 13. By one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body. In which (says he) the

Apostle seems to allude to Baptism; which conferres the same Holy Spirit on us All, and thereby makes us all Members of that one Body, which is his Church. I think he is resolved never to produce a pertinent Scripture, to prove the plainest Truth: For, 1. here's but an Allusion at most; and has he scolded all this while against Allusions, Allegories, and must he lay the main stress of his Argument upon an Allusion? 2. It but seems to Allude neither, and that weakens the Credit of it exceedingly: An Allusion, a seem∣ing Allusion; A shadow, the dream of a shadow: Any thing or Nothing will serve his turn for plain demon∣stration; when a Mans Name is up for a demon∣strative Man, he may lye in bed till noon. 3. This Baptisme (says he) conferres the same Holy Spirit upon us all: But the Apostle sayes no such matter, but the contrary; by the Spirit we are baptized; and not by Baptism receive the Spirit: Thus the Spirit Unites us to Christ; then comes Baptism, which looks backward as a Seal of what we have received, and forward to our visible state in the Church; and hence it appears, that our Union to Christ, is the Reason of our Union to the Church; and not our Union to the Church, the Means to unite us to Christ. 4. Baptism admitts not into a particular Church, but the visible Church at large, and then it will be harder still for our Author to prove from thence, that the Union of particular Christians to Christ, is by Means of their union with a particular Church under the Bishops and Pastors: But if Allusions will not pass currant; Then (sayes he) more expressely in Eph. 4. 4, 5. There is one Body, and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism: That is, the Christian

Baptism is but one; and is A Sacrament of Union; making us all the Members of that one Body of Christ; this is called being Baptized into Christ: i. e. Ad∣mitted into the Christian Church by a visible Pro∣fession of our Faith in Christ: Now for a small mat∣ter I could grant him all this, and yet despair of seeing his Conclusion: Baptism is but one; be it so: It's a Sacrament of Union; take it for granted: It makes us all Members of that one Body of Christ, which is his visible Church; let it be supposed: But still I wait for proof of this, That by Baptism we are all really united to Christ. But here are some things very pretty: 1. Baptism is but one, and is a Sacrament of Union: Very good; and so is the Spirit but one, and therefore he is the Means of Union. 2. By Baptism we are made Members of the one Body of Christ; that is, of the Visible Church: but is there no means to make us Members of the Invisible Church? 3. This is called, being Bapti∣zed into Christ. But is there no other way of uni∣ting us to Christ, but by Baptism. 4. We are ad∣mitted into the Christian Church by a publick Pro∣fession of our Faith in Christ: Very true; we are solemnly admitted into a Visible Station in the Vi∣sible Church, thereby alwayes supposing Repen∣tance, whereby we forsake sin; and Faith, whereby we steadfastly believe the Promises of God made to us in that Sacrament, which has already united us to Christ.

2. The Lords Supper is a Sacrament of Union, and signifies that neer Conjunction between Christ and Christians: Signifies it? It presupposes an Union both with Christ, and a particular Church: All are supposed, in one sence or other, to be in

the Church, to be in Christ, that are admitted to it: Read over the Exhortation in the Liturgy at your best leisure. My duty is, to exhort you to consider the Dignity of this Mystery.—And so to search and examine your Consciences, that you should come holy and clean, to a most Holy Feast: for otherwise, receiving of the Holy Communion doth nothing else but encrease your Damnation. Again, in the other Exhortation: For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart, and lively Faith, we receive that holy Sacrament, (for Then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood, Then we dwell in Christ, and he in us,) so the danger is great, &c. and therefore, if any of you be a Blasphemer of God, N. B. an hinderer, or a slanderer of his Word, N. B. an Adulterer, or be in Malice, N. B. or Envy, or any other grievous crime, bewail your sins, and come not to this holy Table, least the Devil enter into you, as he did into Iudas. But what can be more evi∣dent? our Author supposes we are united to the Church, united to Christ by Baptism; and therefore surely this other Sacrament confirms our Union, and does not first Create it.

I have long waited for an Argument to enforce his Conclusion, and now we shall have it: The In∣tention of our Lord and Saviour in what he did and suffer'd for us, was not to reform and save some single Persons, but to erect a Church, and to combine all his Disciples into a publick Society. A fairer Truth never dropt from his Pen, which some will like the better, because it is so handsom and proper a Confutation of the whole Section: For, if this be Christs design to combine all his Disciples into a publick Society, then sure they were his Disciples,

related to him as their Lord and Master before such combination: Now to be a true Disciple of Christ, is no such slighty and trivial matter, that we may be such a one, and yet not united really to Christ: It implyes Self-denyal, taking up the Cross, and fol∣lowing Christ; and that will go a great way to an Union with Christ; and yet of such as these it's granted, the Christian Society must be composed: But he copes up all this with a little Reason: And therefore our Saviour does not own any Relation to particular men, as such, but as they are Members of his Body. As such? Now for an Explication of the Quà: He owns no Relation to particular men as such; that is, as particular men: No, I am very well satisfied of that; for then he should own a Re∣lation to all particular men; for, à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia: But does he own a Relation to particular Believers, as Believers? will he own a Relation to a Disciple, as a Disciple? I am sure he has promis'd to own those, that own them as Disci∣ples; and I am as sure, that if a particular Church be a combination of Disciples, he will own his Disciples wherever he finds them; so that I was just a concluding the clear contrary, if our Author had not given me timely Notice, That because Christ does combine all his Disciples into publick Societies, that therefore he does own, and is so re∣lated to, united with, and will have a special care of, his Disciples, as they are such: and he has eviden∣ced his owning of them, and care for them; that he unites them into such Societies, wherein they may mutually discharge all Christian Offices to each other; edifie one another in Love, and be meet helps to one anothers Salvation. That Christ there∣fore

owns a Relation to particular men, though not as men, but as holy men, is evident, Heb. 2. 11. Both he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them Brethren: Nor was he ashamed to own Paul to be a chosen Vessel to himself, upon his par∣ticular Conversion, nor to bestow the Holy Ghost upon him, and yet all this before Baptism, before his publick profession of the Christian Religion, and admission into the Visible Church.

At length we are assaulted with a kind of Argu∣ment from 1 Iohn 1. 1, 2, 3. That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truely our fellow∣ship is with the Father, and with his Son Iesus Christ. Here are so many sad misadventures in this one Ar∣gument, that I know not where to begin; and ha∣ving begun, it will be as difficult to know where to make an end of pointing at them.

1. His Gloss is very Notable: That which we have seen and heard: That is, (says he) The whole Doctrine, and History of the Gospel. And thus we have gained one signification more of Christ, that we never heard of before: Christ is now not onely a Doctrine, a Church, an Office, but a History too, and ere long he will cut him short by an Aphaeresis, and and make him a Story.

2. That his Gloss might pass without suspicion, he has concealed the Apostles words, v. 1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and seen with our eyes, which we have looken upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Life: This was certainly the same Person, of whom the same Apostle, Ioh. 1. 1. affirms, That he was in the

beginning with God; whom being made flesh, he saw, and looked upon with his eyes; whom he touched with his hands: the same Person who lay in the Bosom of the Father, and manifested that Eternal Life that was in the Father: And yet as he has handled the Matter, it shall be the handling of a History, the handling of a Doctrine. Really the Socinians are well-bred Gentlemen to our Author: for though they contend hotly about the Beginning, in which Christ is said to be, yet they confess it was the Person of Christ who was in the beginning. But,

3. Our Author has quite lost his Question; how∣ever it gave him the slip, I cannot tell, but gone it is to Iamaica: For the Question was about the Means of our Union to Christ? and the Answer is, about the Means of our Fellowship with Christ: The Enquiry was, Which way we are related to Christ? and he answers very gravely, to the Way of our enjoying the Priviledges that flow from that Relation: Alas, if he had but once asked it, we would, for a word of his Mouth, have granted his Petition; That our Union with a particular Church, is a Means to let us into Communion and Fellow∣ship with Iesus Christ; to admit us into many glo∣rious Priviledges, and happy advantages, which can∣not possibly otherwise be obtained; only we would say, there must be a previous Union, an antecedent Re∣lation to Christ, as the Foundation of our Enfran∣chisement in that Church, whereby we are ensta∣ted, and installed in all those Priviledges.

4. The Communion we enjoy with the Church, will not prove that we are united to Christ thereby, any more than it will prove, that a Servant becomes

related to his Master by Means of his Relation to his Fellow-servants, because they eat, and drink, and work together; which is no tremendous De∣monstration.

5. Those words, That ye may have Fellowship with us, are very ill glossed: That is, become mem∣bers of the Church of Christ; for the Apostle writes unto them as Members of the Christian Church actually; otherwise the whole Epistle is unintelli∣gible: chap. 2. 12. I write unto you little Children, because your sins are forgiven you for his Names sake: I write unto you Fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning: I write un∣to you young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.

6. Those words, That ye may have fellowship with us, doe not denote, that the Fellowship of particular Believers must of necessity be with the Church immediately, and then with the Father and Christ, at the second hand; but that the Fellowship of the Apostle and all Believers, is joyntly and equally with the Father, and with Christ: His de∣sire was, that others might enjoy the same Com∣munion with both, that he enjoyed. And now the Reader will easily see the dreadfull Mischief of not stating the Question, and distinguishing its Terms at the first: It was obvious to every Man, (and I was aware of it) into what Confusions he would lead us, by the Ambiguity of Church, Union, Means, Communion; but I resolved he should run his Trundle, and when he had tyred himself in a Labyrinth of Errour, it would be a more seasonable time to talk with him.

His last Argument (which is therefore the best, because it is last) is taken from Excommunication.

Now, This (says he) is a plain Demonstration: That our Union to Christ, is not an Union to his Person, but consists in the Spiritual communion with the Christian Church: Otherwise this External com∣munion with the Church, could be no visible signifi∣cation of our Union to Christ; nor could our Exci∣sion from the visible Church, signifie our Separation from him. This is another plain Demonstration, if you will take his word for it. Two things call for our Consideration: 1. What he would prove. 2. How he proves it.

(1) What he would prove: And I assure you, that is grown a great Secret of late: One while he would prove, That our Union with a particular Church, was the means of our Union to Christ; and within an hour after, he would prove: That our Union with Christ, consists in our union with the Chri∣stian Church: And now he will prove (or it shall cost him a fall) that our Union to Christ, is not an Union to his Person. And thus here's another Hare risen up before us, which whilst we pursue, it's ten to one we shall lose them all. If I might counsel our Author, before I would be Tormented with a Fu∣gitive, Vagabond, Protean Question, that's never two Hours in one mind, nor ever tarries two Hours in one place, I would clap it in Irons, and Chain it to a Post. For if the Reader will give me Credit in so small a Matter, I verily thought for some while, that he had been Hammering out a Proof; That our Union to Christ, is by means of our union to the Church. At last, I perceived another Conclusion just Peep out of the shell; That our Union to Christ, consists in our union with the Church: And all along,

I Dream't, that, that Christ about whom the Que∣stion was; He that was the Shepheard, to whom the Sheep are United; the Husband, to whom the Spause is United; the King of the Church, to whom all Christians are United; had been a real, and very Person, and that it had been supposed that Christians are some way or other, United to him; Only all the Question was, Whether they were so United by Means of the Church, or no? For if we are not united to Christ at all, it s a needless En∣quiry, How, or by what means we are United to him? Or, wherein that Union consists? For this takes away the Subject of the Question: What is it then, wherein this Union with Christ consists? Why, It consists in a sincere and Spirituall commu∣nion with the Christian Church. And now the Que∣stion must be Trimed over again: Whether our U∣nion with the Church, consists in a sincere communi∣on with the Church? That is, this Face of the Que∣stion will do best in this place; for I always observe, our Author Writes just from Hand to Mouth; and if he can but make a Rubbing shift for the present Page, let the next take care for it self.

(2) And now let us hear his plain Demonstrati∣on. Otherwise (says he) this External commu∣nion with the Church, could be no visible signification of our Union to Christ. A notable Argument (no doubt) if any Living-body understood it. In the words fore-going, he tells us: He means by Union with Christ, a sincere and Spiritual communion with the Church: And then the old question would have stood thus: Whether our union with a particular Church, be the means of our sincere and spiritual communion with the Church: And if he had thus spoke out, I am assured he had met with no Opposition: But he intend∣ed

another thing then, and entertain'd new Councels upon new Successes, and greater hopes from atchieved Victories. But still the Reader is Importunate for the Demonstration: Then take it, and make your best on't: External communion with the Church, is a visible signification of our Union to the Church; (that he means by Christ) and therefore our Union to Christ, consists in a sincere and Spiritual com∣munion with the Christian Church. And if he had told us plainly, that there is no such thing as Union with Christ; but that the Phrase of Union with Christ is an empty Name, and has no more in it, than union with a Church; it had been easie to have understood the strength of his Will, and the weak∣ness of his Reason, without half this Circumlocntion.

[3.] His next Observation is; That the Union between Christ, and the Christian Church, is not a Natural, but a Political Union: That is (says he) such an union as is between a Prince and his Sub∣jects. It was but just now, that he told us, That our Union with Christ, is not an union with his Per∣son; and yet now he will explain the Nature of this Union, between Christ and the Church. And indeed, he has so Bewildred himself, that it needs a great deal of Explication, and I doubt, all will be too little to deliver it from Non-sence: For his Explication must be this:

The Union between the Church and the Christian Church, is not a Natural, but a Political Union; such an union as is between a Prince and his Subjects.

Now this has two Faults in it: First, That if it were true, it would Over-turn his whole Design; which I can be very well content withall. And, Secondly, (which is the Misery on't) its False, and there∣fore

will neither Overthrow, nor Support his De∣sign: And therefore his Interest will lie in this one •…•…hing, (if he could but see it) to Prove his Asser∣tion to be False, that there may be some hopes left of his conclusion.

(1.) As it stands, it apparently Overthrows his whole Design. For if this Politick Union be such a one as is between a Prince, and his Subjects: Then, 1. There is such a thing alive again in the World, as Union with, and Relation to Christs Person: For surely, Subjects are Related to, and united with the Person of their Prince. 2. Then this Union to Christ, denotes Primarily a Rela∣tion to, and Union with the Person of Christ; and only Secondarily, an Union with, and Relation to his Laws and Commands, and the rest of our fel∣low Subjects. For I think, the Reason why Sub∣jects give Obedience to any Laws, is, because they are the Laws of him who is the Legislator: The Reason why the Sheep are subject to Pastoral Or∣ders, is, because they are the Orders, and Insti∣tuted by him who is their Shepheard, and has a right to Enjoyn them: And the Reason why the Wife subjects her self to the Commands of her Husband, is, because she is united to him, upon those Terms in the Marriage-covenant. All Duty is founded in Relation; It's impossible to conceive Conjugal Duty, without a Preconception of Con∣jugal Relation: If therefore such be our Rela∣tion to Christ; such our union to Him; as of Sheep to Shepheard, Wife to Husband, Subjects to a Prince; then are we first Related to his Person, and as far as such Relation will Unite, united to his Person; and then his Negative is blown up:

That our Union to Christ is not an union to his Person, but consists in our communion with his Church. Which is, as if he should say, Our Re∣lation to our Prince, is no Relation to his Person; but consists in our Union to the Common-wealth; which is a neat Engine to hook in Democracy.

But (2) It s False, which is the worst on't; our uuion to Christ is not fully explain'd by a Political union. It's true, It is not a Natural union; but yet it's well Explain'd by, and bears a full Analogy with a Natural union: The Relation is not Natu∣ral, but Spiritual; and yet it has pleased the Holy Ghost to express the Spiritual Relation, by the Natural. The Relation between a Prince and his Subjects, expresses something of that Relation that is between Christ and Believers, but not the whole: All the Similitudes used in Scripture, to Illustrate the Relation between Christ and Christians, have something in common with each other. All imply absolute Soveraignty, and Authority, contempered with tenderness of Affection on Christs part; and all imply an absolute Subjection to be given to Him, with delight and complacency on our parts; yet some of them express a nearer union, and more endeared Affections than others: That of a Master, Lord, and King, express Authority, and Power, yet not that Intimacy, and union, which is expres∣sed by that of Husband, and Wife: That of a King, implies Christ to be a Head of Government; but that of the Head in the Natural Body, implies the Communications of Grace, of Strength, Coun∣sel, and Power to Obey; and withal, that there's such an Intimate union between Christ and true Believers, that the Members in the Natural are

not more (though in another way) united to the Head, and one to another, than Christ and Christi∣ans are in this, which may be called a Mystical uni∣on; for Christ and Believers are hereupon called, One Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 12. As the Body is one, and hath many Members, even so is Christ: That is, so is the Lord Christ and his Church. When therefore (he says)

That Christ is called a Head, and the Church his Body; a Husband, and the Church his Spouse; which two Metaphors signi∣fie the same thing, and are both of them Names of Power and Authority:

It is something of the Truth, but not the whole Truth, nor nothing else but the Truth. Something of truth there is in it: Christs Headship, denotes Authority: But then it's not the entire Truth: Christs Headship denotes more than bare Authority: And then there's something more than the Truth: Those two Metaphors do not denote the same thing: That of the Husband over the Wife, denotes Power mixed, and sweetly tem∣pered with Love, and Pity: But that of the Head over the Members, denotes a continual Influx of all saving Grace into his Members. I wish therefore, he would leave Trifling with his Hackney Fallacy; That because Christ is a Head of Authority, He is not an Head of Influence: For he that can assert, that the Union and Relation between Christ and Christians, has no Spiritual correspondency with a Natural Union; (which yet is Explicated by it) may when he sees his own time, deny, That the Union between Christ and Christians, has any Ana∣logi•…•…with a Political union, though he has (Pro hâc vice) Explicated the Union by it.

There is one thing more, wherein our Author

shows himself a great Divine, and a mighty States∣man; for the very sound of Political Union, is e∣nough to Inspire a Man that is prepared for such Im∣pulses.

Our Union to Christ (says he) consists in our Belief of his Revelations, Obedience to his Laws, and Subjection to his Authority: As Obedience to our Prince, is the strongest Bond of a Political Union, which is Dissolved and Broken by Rebellion and Disobedience.

But this is nei∣ther truly Asserted, nor wisely Explained. 1. Not truly asserted: For our Union to Christ, does not consist in that Obedience, which we give him as our Lord, our Shepheard, our Husband; but in that Act of Obedience whereby at first we take him for our Lord, Shepheard, and Husband; and give up our selves sincerely to him again, to be his Sheep, Subjects, Spouse. 2. Nor wisely Explicated: For if Relation to a Prince, does formally consist in Obedience, and that Union be dissolved by Rebel∣lion; then whenever a Rebel shakes hands with Actual subjection, he absolves himself from the du∣ty to Obey, which would save the horrible Charges of the Popes Bull. Our Author has acquainted the World with a very fine way, how to live a Tray∣tor Twenty years, and yet never commit but one single sin at first, but all the after acts will be Re∣gular: For if Rebellion dissolve, and break in pieces the Union between Prince and Subject, then he ceases any longer to be a Subject; and by conse∣quence whatever sins he commits, must be called by other Names, for it can be no Rebellion: When the Relation ceases, Duty ceases; Obedience is a con∣serving cause of Union, but the Union lies not in it: He that does not perform his Duty, yet is un∣der

an Obligation to perform his Duty; the Union continues, though many acts unsuitable to the Uni∣on are committed. But should we be so charitable as to grant him all this, he will be weary on't in a while; as little Children, that make a heavy and piteous moan for a Gewgaw, and when they have it, throw it away.

Thus after all his Rodomontade, That this Union is a Political union, such as is between Prince, and Subjects; as if his Book could never have been Li∣censed, if he had talk'd of any thing below Crowns and Diadems, and the Roman Empire: Yet pag. 162. he tells us, That God has laid aside, in a great Measure, that severe Name of a King, and calls himself our Father, to signifie that Liberty we en∣joy under the Gospel, in Opposition to the Bondage, and Servitude of the Law of Moses. Well, whatever opinion he has of Monarchy, the severity of it's Name, the Bondage and Servitude that it brings Men under; I know many, who if they might choose, had rather come under that severe Name of King, as to their Religious concerns, than feel the more smooth, and Debonair Treatment, of some Spiritual Fathers.

It's very Tiresome to Travel out of the way, for the further we go on, the further we have to come back; and yet thus has our Author seduced his Reader, but now we shall come to a vein of Mat∣ter; for having reduced all the benefit Believers have from Christ as their Head, to Political Go∣vernment, there is but one thing more, which if he can cleverly compass, the day is his own; and this is to strip Christ of that little Power and Authority he had left him: To this end we must observe further:

That though Christ be our Lord and Governour, he does not Govern us immediately by Himself, for he is Ascended into Heaven, where he power∣fully Intercedes for his Church, and by a Vigi∣lent Providence, superintends the affairs of it; but he has left the Visible and External conduct and Government of it, to Bishops and Pastors, who preside in his Name,

and by his Authority. To which I answer:

1. That Christs committing the External conduct of his Churches to his own Officers, may very well consist with his own Internal and Invisible con∣duct of his Peoples Souls, and their Spiritual con∣cerns.

2. Whatever Authority Christ has vested his Officers with, he has Devested himself of none, he continues sole Head of the Church still; All Power is committed to him in Heaven, and in Earth: And though there are some that would ease him of the Trouble, yet I have not heard that he has laid down his Commission, nor taken any into joynt Commission with himself.

3. Christ has given an Authority in the Churches to all his own Officers, but he has not given to any of them his Authority: And indeed, unless he could Communicate to them his Power, as well as his Autho∣rity, it would signifie little. But, I hope, they know their places better than so; they are Servants of Jesus Christ, tied up to their Instructions, as all Ambassadors are, though they come in the Name of their Prince; and their Commission runs, to teach us to Observe whatsoever Christ has Commanded in the Scripture.

4. As to the External Conduct of the Church,

Christ has left it as much to Princes, as to Bishops, and more; for several Reasons that I know of, but one is this: That every Supreme Magistrate is next and immediately under Christ, Supreme Head and Governour of the Church, within his own Domini∣ons. Well, but what Reason does he favour us with? Why Christ doth not immediately Govern us Himself.

1. He is ascended into Heaven: Well: Yet he knows how to be present with all and every one of his, to the end of the World: And, Where two or three meet together in his Name, he will be in the midst of them: He has sent Vicariam vim Spiritus sancti, who does Manage for him a Spiritual Go∣vernment in the Souls of all the Elect: And since I have named two such dangerous words, as Sancti∣fication, and Election, I had best bethink my self of good Security; and that I have from the Church Catechism. Quest. What dost thou learn chiefly in these Articles of thy Belief? Answ.—

I learn to believe in God the Holy Ghost, who San∣ctifieth me,

and all the Elect People of God.

2. He powerfully Intercedes for his Church. Why sure Intercession with the Father, is not In∣consistent with immediate Rule and Government over his Saints. But,

3. By his vigilant Providence, he Superintends all the Affairs of it: Why then he Governs it: Nay, Soft a-while: He will allow Christ a Trans∣marine Superintendency, but no proper Episcopal Iurisdiction: That is, he may be a Spectator, or a By-stander, and look on to see how Squares go, but must not meddle with the Immediate Government of us; for he has put that out of his Hands, and

left it to the Bishops and Pastors: Which I confess, is the worst News that I have heard this Seven years. But now for the Conclusion: This is (says he) a plain Demonstration, That the Union of par∣ticular Christians to Christ, is by union with the Christian Church. Shortly, If our Author does but give a grave Nod, it will amount to a Demon∣stration; but if he should please to give a Lusty Hum, it will be a plain Demonstration: Though others are so perverse, they will not own it for a probable Conjecture; for the Spiritual subjection of the Soul and Conscience, is immediately to Christ: As the Emperour once said, Non tibi sed Petro; so may every Christian, Non tibi sed Christo. What∣ever Command the Officers of Christ bring us in his Name, their Commission is Patent, and we must search the Scriptures to see whether it be so or no; if it carrys the Signature of Christs Authority, we Obey him in hearing them; and if they have, or pretend to have any private Instructions, or Cabala, we may fairly demur to them, or bring a Quo War∣ranto against them.

And now at last, he will leave his Imperious Di∣ctates, and come to Disputation:

If our Union to Christ, consist in our Subjection to him as our Lord and Master, Head and Husband, it fol∣lows that we cannot be United to Christ, (that is, cannot own his Authority) till we Unite our selves to the publick Societies of Christians.

But the former is true. Ergo, &c. To the Consequence of the former Proposition, all I say, is, It's Feeble and very Sick. Our union to Christ may consist in our subjection to him as King, Lord, and Husband, and yet we may be united to him thus, before our

Actual union to a particular Society. Well, he will prove it thus: This Authority of Christ is not Exercised immediately by Himself, but by the Bi∣shops, and Pastours of the Church. To which I return:

1. If he means that only Christ exercises not a Visible Authority by himself, but by the Guides and Pastors of the Church, it may be true; but then it will prove no more than this. That we are visible Pro∣fessors of Christs Name, by our Uniting to a parti∣cular Church, under the Guides and Officers there∣of, which is not the thing in Question.

2. If he means that Christ exercises not any in∣ward Authority over the Soul, immediately by Him∣self; I must return to my former Answer, which is a peremptory denial.

3. Whether this Authority be exercised immedi∣ately by Christ, or not? Our Union with Christ may be immediate: For our acceptation of Christ as Lord, King, and Husband, is the Bond of our U∣nion, and the Exercise of all Authority of a Supe∣riour in those Relations, must still of necessity pre∣suppose the Union, and Relation. But as to our Antecedent: That our Union to Christ, consists in our Subjection to him as our Lord, Head, and Hus∣band: Which is very true, of that Act of Subje∣ction whereby at first we accept of him to be all these to us, and give up our selves to be all the other to him; but very false of those subsequent Acts of Obedience which flow from, but do not Constitute the Relation: And therefore it was prudently done, to Explain Union to Christ, by owning his Autho∣rity. For however it be false, yet every one will not spie that, who Rides on a Trotting Horse; and

it will serve to make a Semblance of saying some∣thing. It's true, we cannot own Christs Authority, if we Derogate from his Commands; but yet our union with Christ, and our relation to him▪ must precede our owning his Authority over us. And for this, our Author has fitted us with a Similitude, which may befriend Us as well as it's owner. As no man can be said to submit himself to his Prince, who denies Subjection to Subordinate Magistrates, who Act by his Commission: For the union of Bodies Politick, consists in Order and Government, when all the Members keep their proper places, and are knit together by a faithful Discharge of their Du∣ties. I could not hope for more Weakness in an Adversary, than I shall be sure to find in this Simili∣tude.

First, None can be said to submit to his Prince, who denies Subjection to Subordinate Magistrates: And thus none can be said to submit himself to Christ, who denies Obedience to his Officers, who act in his Name.

Secondly, As Submission to Subordinate Magi∣strates, is not that wherein our Relation to our Prince con•…•…ists, but an effect of it; so a due subjection to our spiritual Guides, is not that wherein our Union to Christ consists, but a Consequent of it: We first owe a subjection to Christ, and from thence to them who Command us in his Name. Thus the Apostle, 2 Cor. 8. 5. They first gave themselves to the Lord, and to us, by the Will of God.

Thirdly, No man can be said to Submit, who Re∣bels. (A weighty truth:) But he may be said to owe submission, though he rebells: His Prince has

not lost his right to Command, though he (like a Villain) want•…•… Grace to Obey.

Fourthly, It's very Childish, and spoken like a Green headed Statesman, That the union of Bodies Politick, consists in Order and Government. For, Order and Government, are for the preservation of the Union, and not the first union of these Bodies Politick. The union of Prince and People, consists in their first relation to one another as such; and the exercise of Government, is to secure that union, and the advantages of it: If union consists in Order and Government, then Disorder and ill Govern∣ment would dissolve the union, and relation, and by consequence discharge all Subjects from a Con∣science of their Duty; which is very dangerous Do∣ctrine, and a wide Gap to all Rebellion: What a pitiful plight were Princes in, if the Foundations of Government, the Essential reasons of the Peoples subjection, were to be Discanted upon by every Churchman. The Childs relation to his Father, does not consist in his filial Obedience, but is the rea∣son of it: The Subjects relation to his Prince, does not consist in Subjection, but is the true Ground of it: The Wife, her relation to her Husband, does not consist in her submission to her Husband, but is the Spring of it: A disobedient Child is a Child still, he cannot shake off the relation; a rebellious per∣son, though he deserves not the honourable Title of a Subject, yet he is a Subject, and cannot put off that relation: An untoward Wife, is a Wife still; and every act, nay, many acts of Disobedi∣ence cannot dissolve the Copula: For otherwise, the way to be rid of a relation, would be to Violate

the Duties of it; and then all future Disobedience would be no sin: Because, when the union is once Null, and the relation dissolved, there's no Founda∣tion upon which the Superiour can build a claim to Duty; and this would be a short Cut, and save abundance of time and Charges, in sueing out a Di∣vorce: For, let but the Wife disobey, and the union which consists in Obedience, Vanishes.

A little Divertisment will now be seasonable, both for our Author and his Readers; and therefore he will give us a plain Account of the only cause that can justifie Separation. In the mean time it seems, there is a Cause, though but one only Cause that will justifie it; and separation will not always argue S•…•…hism: And now all you that would know the one, the on∣ly one Cause in all the World, that can justifie a Se∣paration from a true Church, draw near and give your attention.

1. When any Church prevaricates in the Laws of Christ. Prevaricates? How many thousands of Schismaticks will shrowd themselves under the Co∣vert of that one Word? He has opened a Gate, at which three Coachful of Separatists, may Drive all-a-Brest. If then a Church shall pretend to give us the Laws of Christ in Scriptis, (such was the Knavery of a Cardinal in the Consistory, before the Conventicle of Trent) and yet by Preaching and Practice, destroy those very Laws, or the Ends of them; if the Church of Rome shall talk Big words of Holy Mother Church, and yet embrace in her arms as her Children, the vilest Varlets, and shut out none but the Good, unless now and then an old Fornica∣tor, or some such like Vermine, that want Money

to Buy off, or Commute for Penance; this is an un∣worthy Prevarication, and if it shall certainly ap∣pear, will justifie a separation.

2. When it corrupts Religion: And this will go a great way (I promise you) in some particular Churches. Corruption may be by Addition, Sub∣straction, Multiplication, or Division: The end of the Keys may be perverted, those shut out whom Christ would receive: and they admitted whom Christ would exclude: It may strike with the back of the spiritual Sword when it should use the edge, and wound with the edge when it should sleep in the Scabbard; Christs Religion may be corrupted by mingling our own inventions, with this pure and plain institutions: and then we have a cause, or a piece of a cause that paves our way for separation, as broad as that by which Israel departed out of Egypt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 five in a rank.

3. When it undermines the fundamental design of Religion which is to make men good, and vertuoùs. So that though they do not openly assault it by batte∣ry, and escalado, yet if they shall secretly under∣mine Godliness, by denying the office of the holy spirit in Creating men to good, and vertuous works, and teach men to trust to their own natural strength, and shall craftily oppose the Doctrine of the Scrip∣tures and the Church of England: That the condi∣tion of man after the fall is such, that he cannot turn by his own natural strength, without the Grace of God preventing him, that he may have a good will: or if they shall disown the satisfaction of Christs death up∣on the cross to Gods holiness, and his justice found∣ed thereon, which is the bottom of our return to God

and of our holy walking with him, why then fare∣well! as far as the shooes of the Gospel will carry you.

4. When we cannot obey our spiritual rulers with∣out disobeying the Laws of Christ: when Christs commands, and they forbid; when he forbids, and they command; then we have our pasport to be gone, and travel to the utmost ends of the Earth: These are those four things, all in one that will justi∣fie a separation from a particular society, and if our Authour would preach this Doctrine to his Parisho∣ners, he might leave it to them to make the Applica∣tion.

But now on the otherside, if the Church we live in acknowledges the Authority, and submits to the Laws of Christ, we are bound to live in Communion with it. Very true, but not true for our Authors Reason, because this Unites us to Christ, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but go on! when nothing is made the con∣dition of our Communion, which is expressely forbid∣den by the Laws of the supreme Lord, we acknow∣ledge his Authority in our subjection to our spiritual guides. Now here are many things might be oppo∣sed.

1. Let it be considered whether an implicite pro∣hibition from the supreme Lord be not sufficient to make a condition of Communion unlawful? and I cannot but wonder that our Authour in this case is all for an expresse prohibition, when perhaps that may signifie a Command if he follows but his own rule, not to interpret phrases by the sound of words. But,

2. In submitting to such conditions of Communion as are not expressely forbidden, the Question is, whe∣ther

herein we submit to Christs authority? and this I confesse I stick at: And the Reason of my doubt∣ful hesitation is this. Because it supposes an acknow∣ledgment of Christs Authority, where he has not in∣terposed his Authority: supposes him to speak, where he is silent, and to Command obedience where he commands nothing; nay where he has for∣bidden, though not expressely forbidden that conditi∣on: Now as I am not bound to obey an inferiour Magistrate, unlesse his particular command be war∣ranted by his Commission, though it be not forbidden in his Commission▪ so it seems I am not bound to Obey a particular Church, in a particular imposed condition, if not authorised by Christs instructions, though it be not forbidden there, at least no such re∣fusal of obedience can be interpreted to be a disown∣ing of Christs Authority, because he is supposed to have determined neither Pro nor Con. If we turn back to p. 164. Our Authour has these words: No man can be said to submit himself to his prince, who denies subjection to those subordinate Magistrates who act by his Commission: so no man can be said to resist his Prince who gives subjection to all inferiour officers in all things wherein they act by his Commi∣ssion; for he may passe for a very tolerable good Subject who does all things that are commanded him, so in this case; no man can be said to Obey Christ who denies subjection to the Pastors of the Church who act according to their instructions from the supreme Lord of the Church: nor any be said to resist Christs authority, though they refuse com∣plyance in those things to the Officers of the Church, wherein they act besides their Commission. But let

us a while wholly set aside the consideration of the lawfulness or unlawfullness of these new conditions of Communion: yet still me thinks there's a great deal of disingenuity in the Pastors of a Church, to make new Terms of Communion with them, for if it be so necessary as is pretended, to our Union with Christ, that we be United to the Church: and then again so necessary to our Salvation to be United to Christ: and then further so necessary to our Union with the Church, to submit to those conditions that the Pastors shall appoint, every new condition is a Bar to, and a Clog upon our Salvation. We must come up to the condition e're we can be United to the Church, and we must be United to the Church, e're we can be United to Christ, and we must be United to Christ, e're we can be saved: That condition therefore how small soever it be in it self, how indif∣ferent soever in its own Nature is thereby made ne∣cessary to Salvation, because indispensably required to that which is so: Now I will not clamour, and make a noise at this as an evil thing, but yet me∣thinks it does not look as if it had over much good Nature in't, for a Church to deal thus with the peo∣ple. The Church received a Religion from Christ at first, that had no incumbrance upon it, and that the Church should leave it deeplyer engaged than she found it, I think is not very handsome: if the Church found the door wide open; why does shee set it on half-charrs: when she could march in with a full body, why should others be forced to crowd in and wedge themselves through a narrow wicket sidelings? why should the Pastors bind heavy burdens on others fhoulders, when Christ laid none upon theirs? or

why should they raise the Markets so high in the lat∣ter age, when they had it so cheap in the primitive times? It was a good plain saying of King Iames to the pragmatical Spalatensis, when he would be new modelling affairs at Winsor. Extraneus es! Relin∣que res sicut eas invenisti. Come Reader, there's no false Latine in't, had former Ages heard and ta∣ken the advice, we could have been content with the Primitive light, though we had wanted sumptuous Candlesticks; the power of Religion, had made a∣mends for its plainnesse; and golden Officers, recom∣pensed woodden chalices: Thus far at our Authors invitation we have step't out of the way, and are now ready to return with him into it.

The next thing considerable wherein he ingages, is a description of the New nature, whereof the Holy Ghost makes frequent mention, as that from which all new Obedience must proceed.

This New Nature, (says he) the Scripture repre∣sents under several Notions.

• 1. By the subjection of our minds and Spirits to Christ.
• 2. By a participation of the same Nature, which is the necessary effect of the subjection of our minds to him.

If a man would study to be cross all his days, and resolve to trade in no figure but Hysteron Prote∣ron, he might hardly hope to equalize our Author in this discourse. For,

1. What subjection of mind, and Spirit, can be given to Christ, without a new Nature, from whence that Act of subjection should proceed? the most inward Acts of Obedience are yet but Acts: the

most spiritual and refined workings of the soul are still but works, and have alwayes for their root and prin∣cipal, a good and an honest; a new, and a renew∣ed heart and Nature. Thus we see 'tis in Nature: there must be a principle of motion, before there can be natural motion, all the rest is violent, and against the hair. And this order our Saviour has described in the most plain, and familiar way to gratifie our un∣derstandings that they could desire. Math. 12. 33. Either make the tree good and the fruit good; or the evil and the fruit evil, and Math. 7. 17. 18. Do men gather Grapes of thornes, or Figs of Thistles. Even so every good Tree bringeth forth good Fruit, and a corrupt Tree brings forth evil fruit: But our Authour has found out a way called Transmutation of spe∣cies: to make a Thorn become a Vine, and to Transubstantiate a Thistle into a Figtree: I know the Reader has a grudging of the old curiosity to see the experiment: The operation therefore is this, teach a Thistle to produce Figs for one seven years, and you shall see it become as very a Fig-tree as any is in the world, thus let the natural and unregenerate man perform multiplyed Acts of the best obedience he can, and without any efficacious working of the Holy Ghost he shal acquire a new heart, which I shall believe at the same time, when I see a thousand Cy∣phers give themselves the significancy of one figure. Our Blessed Saviour has long ago determined this to our hand. John 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Let the Egyptian Pollinctors practise upon it, let them sweeten perfume, and season it with the spicery of India, and all the balm of Gilead, it will be but flesh still, all its operations carnal.

2. It will be of good use in this matter to enquire, wherein lay the Image of God in Adam, what relati∣on it had to his obedience, and thence perhaps we may get some light what order the Image of God in us observes: That it mainly consists in righteous∣ness and true holinesse, no man can doubt that reads the Apostles description, Eph. 4. 24. but now it is evi∣dent that Adam did not procure this Image of God, by repeated Acts of obedience, it was not the result of many particular duties, it was no acquired habit, but it was concreated with him, as a condition due and meet for a Creature made to such sublime, and glorious ends as the enjoyment of his God, and from this Nature, this Image of God, proceeded all that Obedience which he payed, all that which God required, and accepted. And if this be so, it's evident that all who are renewed, who are born again, who are Created unto good works go through the same method. So the Apostle Col. 3. 10. And have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the Image of him, that Created him: The order of Gods working is conformable to his promise, we may be sure he will do both what, and how he has promised, Ezek. 36. 26. A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your Flesh, and give you an heart of Flesh; and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them: where the order and method of God in this great work is laid down, with such a convincing evidence that he must have no eyes or shut those he has who does not see it. And,

1. God promises that he will remove the great principle of resistance, that which makes head, and opposition to the Commands of God: the stony, hard, inflexible-Heart.

2, That he will bestow another, a better, a new heart, a soft Spirit, a heart of Flesh: that may com∣ply and close in with Gods Commands.

3. That from this new heart, all new obedience, all service acceptable to God must proceed as from its spring or root. I will put my Spirit into you, and cause you to walk in my Statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments,

4. That all obedience, inward and outward obedi∣ence: keeping the Commandements of God with the heart, and doing them in the practice of our lives, yet all must proceed from this new heart, this new Spi∣rit, which God promised, to put within them.

But he comes to close Argument, we are exhort∣ed that the same mind be in us that was in Christ, Phil. 2. 5. And to be his disciples is to learn of him, who was meek, and lowly in spirit, Math. 11. 29. We question not that, its our duty to imitate Christ; to copy out all his imitable excellencies, and if he can prove that we can do this, viz. imitate Christ in Acts of self denyal, taking up the Crosse, bear∣ing reproach, forgiving enemies, without a better heart, and Nature, than we brought into the world with us, he will then begin to speak to the purpose: But (says our Authour) Christ transcribed his own nature into his Laws, and therefore a sincere obedi∣ence to his Laws is a conformity to his Nature, To which I answer,

1. He that transcribed his Nature into his own

Laws, must yet transcribe it once more, even into the heart of a son of Adam, e're he can give to him that new Obedience which is acceptable to him: It was not enough that God wrote his Lawes in Stone, unless they be written upon the Tables of the heart with the finger of God.

2. Obedience to the Laws of Christ does increase our conformity to the Nature of Christ, but still there must be a renewed heart and Nature, upon which all progressive conformity to Christ in obedi∣ence must proceed.

3. Transcribing of Christs Nature into his Lawes is a Metaphorical expression, which our Authour may explain how he pleases, but I observe alwayes, when he can cloath an Argument with Metaphors, he is then secure: yet still he presses upon▪ us from, Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. That is (says he) Unlesse he have the same Temper, and disposition of mind that Christ had: Now let the Reader look well about him, and he shall see rare sights: we do all remember that to be United to Christ, or to be one of Christs, signifie to be United to a particular Church: And now we are told: That by having the Spirit of Christ, is meant being of the same temper and disposition: and now from hence we have these consecta∣ries.

1. That if any man be not of the same Temper with Christ, that is be not holy, as he is holy: he cannot be United to a particular Church: And our Saviour has vouched for it, John 3. 5. Except a man be regenerate and born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. We must be like minded

with Christ, and thereby become one of his: and what is now become of the great Proposi∣tion that has filled so many pages. That the only means of Uniting as to Christ is by our U∣nion with a particular Church.

2. He tells us that Union to Christ is descri∣bed by having the Spirit: and then having the Spirit is interpreted by being of the same Tem∣per with Christ: so now we have got another Doctrine: That our Union to Christ consists in being of the same Temper, and disposition with him. But,

3. We have here an excellent expedient to discharge the World both of the Person of Christ, and of the Spirit too: For as he can in∣terpret Christs Person into Doctrine, office Church, Religion, Bishops, Baptism; so he has interpreted the Spirit into Temper, dispo∣sition; and when an exigency calls for it, he may explicate it by a strong wind, or a vapour, and then his work is done. But,

3. For the explicating of the new Nature, he tells us there is a closer Union which results from this, which consists in a mutual, and reci∣procal love, which I am glad of, amongst other Reasons for this; that now it will be lawfull to Love Christ, without persecution, pro∣vided alwayes we do not over love him, nor be passionately in love with him: but yet there are a few inconveniences which attend this explication. For,

1. If we be United, and closely United to Christ by Love, then a Political Union, is not the onely one betwixt Christ and Christians. And,

2. Then it seems (for all the sorrow) a Christi∣an may be United to Christ without being U∣nited to a particular Church: for we therefore love Christians because we love Christ, and are taken with the imperfect holiness which is copied out into their Natures, and lives, be∣cause we are surprized first with a delightful ad∣miration of Him who is the grand exemplar of all perfect Holinesse, 1 John 5. 1. He that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is be∣gotten of him. 3. Why may not this Union with Christ signifie an Union with the Church as well as the other? and then to love Christ sig∣nifies no more than to love his Church, and so we are but where we were.

4. Its very strange, that our Love should re∣sult from our obedience, and subjection, where∣as its hard to conceive how the soul should give subjection without Love, and if it should give any, a forced subjection without its principle of Love, would find as cold a well-come in Christs heart, as that cold heart it came from: our Sa∣viour had described obedience as the result of love. John 14. 15. If ye Love me keep my Commandements. No (says our Authour) keep my Commandements, and then you will fall in Love with me: but let him give light to his own Notions: when we are transformed in∣to the Image of Christ, he loves Us as being like him; and we love him too, as partaking of his Nature. He loves us, as the price of his blood, as his own workmanship created to good works, and we love him, as our Saviour, and Redeem∣er,

now love is the great Cement of Union which unites interest, and thereby does more firmly unite hearts. It is not then quite so bad as was pretended, to Love the Lord Jesus Christ, provided we have but our Authours license to love him: but now the Question will be this: whether our Union to Christ consists in a mutual and reciprocal love? And if our Authour▪ had been judge a little while since, he would have resolved it in the Negative, That our Union to Christ consists in our Union to a particular Church: and that it is a political union, such a one as is between Prince, and Subject, and con∣sists in a belief of his revelations, obedience to his Laws, and subjection to his Authority. I shall only note a few things, and dismisse it.

1. That there is a love of Benevolence and good Will, a designing, purposing love in Christ towards us, before we bear his Image and Su∣perscription: this love he bears towards those that are unlike him, Rom. 5▪ 8. God Com∣mendeth his love to us, that when we were yet sin∣ners Christ dyed for us: verse 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.

2. There must of necessity be the interventi∣on of an Union, a likenesse, a Conformity of Natures, before there can be supposed a love of mutual complacency, and reciprocal delight in each other, for this love, this delight, must have something to work upon. As there must be a Conjugal Relation, before the Husband can

take delight in his Wife, as his Wife; and the Wife in her Husband as her Husband.

3. That this love of good will in Christ, is the Original Reason of our transformation into the Image of Christ; whereby we become meet objects for that other love of Compla∣cency.

4. Its true that we love him, as partaking of his Nature; but then its also as true that those Acts of love to, and delight in Christ, proceed from that New Nature which we derive from him.

5. The Love wherewith Christ Loves us, as the price of his blood, is a differing love from that wherewith he loves us as his workmanship created in Christ Jesus to good works.

6. I rejoyce however that we are owned to be Christs workmanship Created to good works: which it were not so, we had more reason to love our selves, to admire and deifie our own natural Abilities, which effected that glorious workman∣ship: And I see of late our Authour, takes to the Church Catechism; which had he attended to in time, had saved him half the Labour of his Book:- My good Child! know that thou art not able to do these things of thy self (to love God, to believe in him, to fear him, with all thy heart with all thy mind, withal thy strength, to wor∣ship him to give him thankes to put thy whole Trust in him, &c.) nor to walk in the Commande∣ments of God and serve him without his special Grace, which thou must learn at all times to call for by diligent prayer.

7. The more we exercise our selves in the Love of Christ, the more like him we grow; and the stronger bonds are layd upon our Souls, to maintain the Union inviolable; but still there must precede an Union, which is the true Foundation of the Exercise of this Love of Delight and mutual Complacency. Ay but (says he) Love is the great Cement of Union, which unites Interests, and thereby more firm∣ly unites hearts. Let him call it the Cement, or the Soder, or the Glew, it's all one to me; I conceive that Interest is the Cement of Love, and not Love the Cement of Interest: Men love because it's their Interest so to doe; but whether that Love that flutters up and down the world, a thing so unstable and desultory that we cannot tell where to have it, be a fit Pattern for the heigths, and lengths, and depths, and breadth of the Love of Christ, ora just Measure of it, I very much question.

Many things we meet with that are full of delight, but one may take a Surfeit of Sweet∣meats, and therefore I shall onely trouble the Reader with his Concluding Argument, taken from the Sacraments: Which are (says he) the Instruments and Symbols of our Union with Christ. And if by Christ he understands the Church, it's not worth the while to make a Controversie on't; we will grant, That Uni∣on with the Church consists in Union with it; and the surest Means to be United to the Church, is to be United to it; and this way seldom fails: But if he had a mind to con∣clude

something else, he had done like a Neigh∣bour to have informed us; for I must needs confess, I am in the dark: But yet we shall not lose all our labour: For these Sacraments represent both our external and real Union with him. And it's worth all our pains and pati∣ence, to hear one of his Lectures upon this Subject:

First, for our External Union; Baptism is a publick Profession of the Christian Religion, that we believe the Gospel, own his Authority, and submit to his Government:

Secondly, These Sacraments signifie our Reall Union to Christ: Thus Baptism signifies our Profession of becoming New men, our profes∣sion of Conformity to Christ in his Death and Resurrection. Now look how much Conformity to Christs Death and Resurrection, is better than owning his Authority, and submitting to his Government, just so much is our Real Uni∣on, better than our external, which if one so exactly versed in the essential differences of things as our Author▪ had not told us other wise, ordinary Capacities had judged to be both one: That little advantage there is, the External Union carries it: For as to our External Union, Baptism (he tells us) is a Profession of it; but as to our Real Union, Baptism onely signifies a profession of it; and then it will be somewhat better to make a Profession of submission to Christs Government, than to make a signification of a Profession of Conformity to his Death. I shall therefore

rather acquiesce in the Judgement of the Ca∣techism about the Signification of Baptism, than in our Authors; which makes this Que∣stion: What is the inward and spiritual Grace? Ans. A death unto sin, and a New Birth un∣to Righteousness; for being by Nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of Grace.

[4] His last, and most famous Observa∣tion is: That Fellowship and Communion with God signifies, what he calls a Political Union: And would we knew what that was: why it is this: To be in fellowship with God and Christ signifies to be of that Society which puts us into a peculiar Relation to God; that God is our Father, and we his Children, that Christ is our Head and Husband, and Lord, and Master; and we his Disciples, and fol∣lowers, his Spouse, and Body. It's below the generosity of the Eagle, to catch Flies; an Employment more suitable to the impertinent humour of Domitian; and therefore it may be expected, that our Author should scorn to play so mean a Game, as to impose upon our weakness with the Ambiguity of a poor word. [To be in Fellowship,] carries a sound to a mere English Ear very like to [Union,] but if we examine either the Synonymous word [Communion,] or the Greek words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which are rendred Fellowship and Communion; and how those words are used in Scripture, we may abundantly satisfie our selves, that they signifie something very distinct

from, Union or Relation. Fellowship, and Communion, are words of the same import; and the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indifferently render'd by either of them: 1 Ioh. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And truely our Fellowship, &c. And v. 6. If we say, that we have fellowship with him. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 2 Cor. 3. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The Communion of the Holy Ghost; and the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is once translated Fellowship: 2 Cor. 6. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For what Fellow∣ship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Now, what the general Nature of Fellowship, Communion, or Participation, and Communi∣cation, is; the Apostle will clear up to us, Phil. 4. 15. Now ye Philippians know; That no Church communicated with me, as con∣cerning Giving, and Receiving, but ye onely; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which he ex∣plains, (if there be need of that,) v. 16. Ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Com∣munion therefore, or Communication, is the Mutual bestowing of those good things which are in each others power, grounded upon some Union, and Relation between the Parties. And this is more fully expressed by that Scrip∣ture phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: To have, hold, exercise, or maintain Communion, or Com∣munication of all those good things which may be expected from each other in a Re∣lation: 1 Ioh. 1. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I must profess my self therefore wholly dissatisfied with our Authors New Notion of Commu∣nion,

That it signifies the same thing with Uni∣on: That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are Terms ade∣quately Measuring each other: There must be first a Relation, before there can be a com∣municating of those good things which pre∣suppose the Relation. Thus the Love of a Father to his Child, his Care over him, his Bounty to him, is founded in his Relation to him, as his Son; and the Childs filial Love, Duty, Fear, are all b•…•…tomed upon the Re∣lation which he holds to his Father. Thus we conceive first a Real Union between the Head and the Members, before we can conceive the Head should communicate spirits to all the parts, to quicken them to Motion. And this the Apostle expresses, Col. 2. 19. That they who do not, Hold the Head, [that are not united to Christ,] can never receive from him those supplies, or Communications of Spiritual Nourishment, that they may encrease with the encrease of God. And thus must there be an Union between the Husband and the Wife, before there can be a Communication of what is in each others power: That is, they must give what they are, before they can give what they have: And this Order and Method is well observed in the Liturgy, (though our Author is pleased to make him∣self very merry with it) where the Man first takes the Woman to be his wedded Wife; and then assigns, or makes over what he has to her Use; with all my worldly Goods I thee endow: For he that gives Himself, will ne∣ver

stick at a'l the Rest. And thus the first thing that God gives to his in Covenant, is Himself: Heb. 8. 10. I will be their God; and then follows the Communication of all his Covenant Mercies. v. 12. I will be mercifull to their Iniquities, and remember their sins no more: And in the same Order the Soul pro∣ceeds in its Restipulation with God: 2 Cor. 8. 5. First gave their •…•…wn selves to the Lord. Now as the Union, or Relation is for kind, so also are the Communications that flow from, or follow upon the Relation and Union. If the Union be a more general Union, the Relation a more common Relation, the Com∣munications in due proportion will be more general, and Common; we are Related to all men, none are so remote, but they are our Neighbours; but yet we have a more special and peculiar Relation to all Christians: And hence is it, that the Apostle apportions out to us, the Nature of those good things that we ought to commuicate to both, Gal. 6. 10. Doe good to all, but especially to them that are of the houshold of Faith. The great God as Crea∣tor, is Related to all; and therefore does good to all. Psal. 36. 6. Thou preservest Man and Beast: Yet, as he stands more nearly related as a Father to some, than others, so he com∣mnicates more choyse and peculiar Favours to them: Hence is that Prayer of David, Psal. 106. 4. Remember me, O Lord, with the fa∣vour thou bearest to thine own People; O visit me with thy Salvation; that I may see the

Good of thy Elect ones. And because the Elect∣ing Love of the Father, and the Redeeming Love of the Son, are exactly parallel, there∣fore has Christ a general 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as a special 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ 1 Tim. 4. 10. He is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that Be∣lieve: It was never doubted, but the Relati∣on of a Master to his Servant ought to pro∣duce suitable Communications to that Relation: And yet those of a Fathe•…•… to his Child, are of another and sweeter Nature, those of the Hus∣band to the Wife, yet more endearing; and those of the Head to the Members still more intimous and intrinsecal: Now that Commu∣nion is a Communication of Good things flow∣ing from Union, the Apostle will not suffer us to doubt; Gal. 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the Word, communicate unto him that teacheth in All Good things: Where the Relation be∣tween the Teacher and the Disciple, is the Foun∣dation of that Communication of all good things; but if indeed our Author will abide by his No∣tion, That Union and Communion are both one; Then if his Parishioners do but hear him preach, they may spare the Impertinency of Tythes, it is but Actum Agere, and Commu•…•…ion is satis∣fied in the Notion of Union; so that they have here a general Release of all Minute and Praedial Tythes, under his own hand, from the beginning of the World to this Day.

The Sophistry of our Authors Argument from 1 Joh. 1. 3. we have already considered and discovered: He leads us now to 1 Cor.

1. 9. God is faithfull, by whom ye are called into the Fellowship of his Son Jesus: All the advantage he can expect from these words, is upon a presumption of his Readers Sim∣plicity, that he will not spye small faults; to be called into fellowship with Christ, cajouls the Ear into a Conceit of Union: But that which spoyls all is, our Translation reads un∣to the Fellowship, or Communication, or Par∣ticipation of his Son, and the Mischief on't is, the Greek reads, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But let us see however, how he will improve it: Where (says he) the Fellowship of Christ can signifie no more than fellowship with the Church, be∣cause the Apostle addes in the next Verse, [I beseech you brethren, that you all speak the same thing, that there be no Divisions among you.] I confess he has a heavy hand at Reasoning, and it goes hard with us that must continually feel the weight of it: But yet,

1. The Apostles Argument will conclude as strongly from the Communications of Grace from Christ, unto Peace among our selves, as from Union, q. d. You have all been made par∣takers of the Communications of Grace and Peace from Christ; you have many mercies in hand, and more in hope, much in possessi∣on, but infinitely more in Reversion, and will you run into Factions among your selves? But,

2. The very plain Truth is: The Apostle argues neither the one way nor the other;

Verse 9. has no such Influence upon Verse 10. but the Rise of his Discourse is from Verse 3. Grace be unto you, and Peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Where you have:

First, The Union and Relation. God our Father: Our Lord and Saviour.

Secondly, The Communion that flows from that Relation: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Peace, i. e. All new Covenant-Mercies: And because what∣ever Grace, or Peace, comes from the Fa∣ther as the Fountain and Spring, from the Son in a way of Purchase and Procurement, comes also from the Holy Ghost, by way of Imme∣diate Efficiency; therefore it's called also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 2 Cor. 13. 14. The Grace of our Lord Jesus, the Love of God, and the Communion, or Communication of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. You all, that is, The Church of God at Corinth, with all the Saints in Achaia, Chap. 1. ver. 1. who are suppo∣sed to be already United to Christ, both in our Authors false Notion, and in the true. Now this Communication, he calls, The Grace of God given them, or Communicated to them by Jesus Christ, Verse 4. And shews the Mea∣sure of it, Verse 5. Ye are enriched in every thing by Him. And Verse 8. He shews that God would confirm them in, as well as enrich them with his Grace to the end: And for a Proof of this, he minds them of the Faithful∣ness, and Steddiness of God in his Covenant. Verse 9. God is Faithful, by whom ye are

called unto the Communication of our Lord Jesus Christ. The end of your Effectual calling to an Union with Christ, is a Communication of this Grace and Peace from Christ. And then,

Thirdly, Our Authors Memory is very Trea∣cherous. For first he observes: That Commu∣nion with God, signifies a Political Union; and that Political Union, was such a one as is be∣tween a Prince and his Subjects, pag. 156. And that, certainly, has the Persons of both, for the Terms of the Relation. And pag. 185. He observes, That our Fellowship with the Fa∣ther and the Son, is founded on our Fellowship with the Christian Church, and therefore fellow∣ship with the Father and the Son; and fellow∣ship with the Christian Church, are two things really distinct, for it would be harsh to say, a thing is founded on it self. And yet after all this: Fellowship with Christ can signifie no more than Fellowship with the Church. And thus, the short and long of the Business, is this, Uni∣on with Christ, is Union with the Church: And Communion with Christ, is Communion with the Church: And Union with the Church, is Communion with the Church. Quod erat De∣monstrandum.

But we are terribly Threatned with an Ar∣gument, from 2 Cor. 6. 14. Be ye not une∣qually Yoaked together with Unbelievers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Where the Apo∣stle refers to a Levitical Ordinance, Deut. 22. 10. Thou shalt not Plow with an Ox, and an Ass. In proportion to which, the Apostle for∣bids

Believers to joyn in the same special League and Covenant, with Unbelievers. Now the Reason why he disswades them from such an unequal union, is, because the end of all union, is a Communion, or Communication, each to, and with other in that Union. But to be sure, where there are such Contrarieties of Interests and Inclinations, in the Persons joyned toge∣ther, there can be no assistance to the same common VVork: The Cedar in Lebanon, and the Thistle in Lebanon, are not qualified for a Match, for they will never serve and accom∣modate each other in the Duties of the Relati∣on. When the Wise God chose a VVife for Adam, he provided one that was Homogene∣ous with him, Bone of his Bone, and Flesh of his Flesh, that she might be a Meet-help for him. But now (says the Apostle) If you joyn your selves with Unbelievers; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: VVhat participation of good things can you expect from them, whose Religion is as contrary to yours, as Righteousness is to Unrighteousness? And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; VVhat Communication can there be between Light and Darkness? Pa∣gans can Communicate nothing to you but their uncleanness, and I would not have you commu∣nicate with the unfruitful Works of Darkness, Ephes. 5. 11. Again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: VVhat Concord hath Christ with Belial? VVhat Symphony or Harmony, can there be in your Conversations? You will be always Jarring? There will be no Melody or Musick in your Converses: VVhen you would be praising

to their Idols: so that never was there greater Confusion of Tongues at Babel, than there will be in your Society. And then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Portion can a Believer have with an Unbeliever? He will not, ought not partake of the Lords Table with you; and you will not, ought not partake of the Table of Devils with him. For, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; what Consent, or Suffrage will the one give to the other? The living God will not vote for dead and dumb Idols: The Arke will never endure Dagon: How absurd there∣fore must it be, to enter into a Relation with them, with whom you can enjoy no Fellowship in that Relation?

One Reserve he has still left from the Lords Supper, whereby our Fellowship with God and Christ, are expressed, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ?

Now (says he) it's called a Communion, be∣cause it signifies,

• 1. A Communion of Christians with each other.
• 2. A Fellowship with God.

That is, it's called a Communion because it's no Communion, but onely the sign of a Communion. There is indeed an outward and visible sign; and there is also an inward and invisible Grace, really exhibited and com∣municated from Christ by the Ordinance, to the worthy Receiver. And thus much he might have learn'd from the Church Catechism:

Qu. What is the inward part, or thing signified?

Ans. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken, and received of the Faithfull in the Lords Supper.

Qu. What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers Thereby?

Ans. The strengthning and refreshing of our Souls, by the Body and Blood of Christ; As our Bodies are by the Bread and Wine.

And the Liturgy in the Office of the Supper, expresses, not onely a Communication of reall Nourishment from Christ, to our Souls; but a mutual communication of our Praise and Thanksgiving to God for Christ, and to Christ for his Flesh and Blood; which compleats the Communion: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for Thee, preserve thy Body and Soul into Everlasting Life; and Take, and Eat this, in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee; and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith, and be Thankfull.

But to put this out of doubt, That all Com∣munion is grounded upon Union, I will quote our Author to our Author; for Nothing cuts the Diamond like it self. God (says he) enter∣tains us at his Table as his own children. Why then, let it be referred to the Man that comes next; Whether sitting at Gods Table, does not presuppose us to be Children? Surely, we are not therefore Children because we sit at the Table; but we therefore sit at the Table, be∣cause we are Children. Again, p. 152. Our Author (whose word ought to go far with him∣self) assures us, That Baptism is the Sacrament

of our Admission into the Church. There's our Union then however; and the Lords Supper finding us already united, affords us a commu∣nion, or a participation of those Priviledges, which flow from that Union. So that, whe∣ther our Union to Christ, consist in our Union to the Church, or no; yet still there must be an Union to the Church, before we can hold Com∣munion with it, in those Mercies and Blessings which Christ has entailed upon it.

And thus has our Author made a quick dispatch of Communion with Christ in the Lords Supper; could he but as fairly dispatch it out of all other Exercises of Religion, he might seriously Triumph, that he had cut off the Neck of all Religion at one Blow: Well, success waits upon the Bold Undertaker, and there's no hurt in a daring Attempt. Prayer (says he) and Meditation, and such like Acts of Devotion, are no where called Communion with God. Our Author is just now turning Quaker.

Thou man, where dost thou read, that the People of God put off their Hats, or wore Ribbands and Lace?

But to satisfie him, Prayer and Meditation are not called, nor are they Communion with God; but Means whereby, and Wayes of Gods appointment where∣in, we hold Communion with him: In these and other Ordinances we communicate to him the Actings of our Faith, Fear, Love, delight, Praise, &c. and by these he communicates to us of his Grace, Strength, Favour, Mercy, to help us in the time of our Need. In Prayer we pour

out our hearts before him, Psal. 62. 8. In Prayer and Meditation, We lift up our Souls to the Lord, Psal. 25. 1. Hence that frequent Ex∣pression of the Ancient Christians, Sursum Cor∣da, continued in the Liturgy: Lift up your hearts: Ans. We lift them up to the Lord: But a few dribling Objections he has against this also.

1 Object. Communion does not consist in Transient Acts.

Ans. 1. Communion does consist in those permanent Effects conveyed by transient Acts; the Effect of Prayer abides, when the Act is over.

2. The Lords Supper is a Transient Act, both in opposition to Permanent and Imma∣nent, and yet there is a real Communion be∣tween Christ and Believers therein.

2 Object. You will not say, a poor Man has Communion with his Prince, when he puts up a Petition to him, to begg his Charity.

Ans. It's more than our Author can tell, whether we will say so or no. If a Prince com∣mands his Subjects, to make their Addresses to him, in all their streights; promising, that the great distance between them shall not preju∣dice their Supplications, and shall appoint a Person near and dear to himself, to receive from them, and present to him all their Petitions, that in his Name they may find Acceptation and An∣swer; if now his poor Subjects shall give faith to his Promises, make use of his Indulgence, own their Relation to him, and improve the

Mediation of that Master of Requests, and upon the Relief of their Wants, Redress of their Grievances, shall return their humble and hearty thanks; and learn to love their Prince more, to serve him better, to become more loyal Subjects; methinks here's that which may be called Communion grounded upon Union.

3 Obj. To Pray to God, is an Act of Homage which we owe to him as our Creator and Father.

Ans. I looked every moment when he should Confute himself; for now he will not deny, that Relation to God as our Creator and Father, precedes this Communion: It's a Duty (says he) that results from Relation. Therefore, (say I) It's not the Relation it self: And there∣fore I shall still conclude, that Communion does properly denote the Communication of good things, bottom'd upon that Union and Relation we have to and with each other; and that our Author has most wretchedly abused his Time, and his Reader, in a weak Endeavour to prove, That Communion consists in Union; and has merited the Character of Hanno the Carthagi∣nian (given him by the great Historian,) That he was a Person very skilfull in the Art of seem∣ing Reverend.