Schism detected in both extreams, or, Two sorts of sinful separation the first part detecteth the schismatical principles of a resolver of three cases about church-communion, the second part confuteth the separation pleaded for in a book famed to be written by Mr. Raphson.

CHAP. I.

SAITH THE RESOLVER,

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

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

of the Association: Therefore this is none at all; and so the beginning tells us what to expect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. But I'le bring other Arguments that prevail more with me. The Sa∣cred Scriptures oft tell us of many Churches, therefore there are many. Act. 9. 31. The Churches had rest; and 15. 4. Confirming the Churches; 16. 5. So were the Churches established in the Faith; Rom. 16. 4. All the Churches of the Gentiles: So ver. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 17. So ordain I in all Churches; 11. 16. Nei∣ther the Churches of God (have such Custom;) 14. 33. As in all the Churches of the Saints; 34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches. So 16. 1. 19. & 2 Cor. 8. 1. The Grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia: 18. Whose Praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches. So 19. 23, 24. and 11. 8. 28. The care of all the Churches; 12. 13. Inferior to the other Churches. Gal. 1. 2, 22. 1 Thes. 2. 14. 2 Thes. 1. 4. Rev. 1. 4. To the seven Churches, ver. 11. 20. Angels and Candlesticks of the seven Churches. And 2. 7, 11, 17, 29. and 3. 6, 13, 22, 23. and 22. 16. His Concordance might have shew'd him all these in order, Phil. 4. 15. No Church communicated with me (con∣cerning giving and receiving) but ye only. The dispute now must be, whether

the Apostles or this Resolver be to be believed: They say there are many Churches, parts of One; he saith, There is but one, and it's Schismatical to divide it into distinct memberships or Bodyes, &c. It's no Schisme here to say, I am for Paul and the Holy Scripture: Let who will believe the contradictor.

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

But on Earth there are many such Societyes, &c. Ergo, &c.

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

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

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

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

may be part of a whole Village, and a whole Vicinage be part of a whole City, and a whole Colledge be part of a whole University; and a whole City part of a whole Kingdom; and a whole Kingdom part of the whole Earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. What the meaning of this great, Decantate Word [Separate] is;

must anon be enquired: But, may not Churches be distinct and not culpa∣bly separate? He confesseth afterwards both local distinction and se∣paration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. It is granted that the whole Essence of the Genus and Species is found in every individual of that Species, Natural or Politick; but did we ever hear,

till Mr. Cheny and this Doctor said it, that Politick Bodies differ not nume∣ro as well as Natural? The Kingdom of England and of France are two; the Church of Rome and Constantinople long strove which should be uppermost, but who ever said that they were not two?

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

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

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

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

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

Do you yet see no Priviledges that one hath Proper, and not common to all? none that make a difference in specie, but both ••••••••umerical and gradual. 1. All Churches have not Bishop Jewel, Bishop Andrews, Doctor Stilling∣fleet, Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers: Air Churches be not taught all that's in this Resolver. 2. All Churches have not men of the same sound∣ness

nor excellency of Parts: It was once taken for lawful to account them specially worthy of double honour who laboured in the Word and Doctrine, and to esteem men for their works sake. Paul saith of Timothy, I have no man like minded. If those that heard not a Sermon in many years differed not from your Congregation, why do you preach?

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

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

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

8. Do you think that the Church, e. g. Of Hippo, that was in Austins dayes, was the same numerical single Church with that which is there now,

(were there any) or with the Diocesan Church of London? if not, then at least distance of time, and change of Persons maketh divers Particular Churches; and it's no more against the unity of the Church Universal to have divers particular Churches in it in the same Age, than in divers Ages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and Parish Ministers, did not dream that it was any violation of Bap∣tism.

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

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

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

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

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

10. How are your Parish or Diocesan Church members known to your selves or any others? Are all that dwell in the Parish or Diocess your Church members? Then Atheists, Sadducees, Hobbists, and all vicious men and thou∣sands that never communicate, are such: Yea those that you call Separatists.

If it be every transient Communicant, have you a proper Pastoral care of every Travellers Soul that so communicates with you? You after plead that his very ordinary Communion maketh him not a member, if he be unwil∣ling to be one. And is not his consent then necessary? Or if ordinary Com∣munion be the test (how few then of great Parishes are of the Church) yet that is because such Communion signifieth their Consent to your over-sight of them.

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

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

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

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

Ans. What Reader doth this man presume upon that will not ask him, how he proveth 1. That Gods Law or Charter to his Church doth not re∣quire

them to congregate in distinct single Churches (as London Charter doth to erect several Companies, and the Universities several Colledges?) 2. And that God hath not in his Word given order or command for such single Churches: But that the Apostles and Titus by fixing Elders to their several Churches and Cities, separated from the Universal Church? 3. And that their subordinate Churches have not need of distinct subordinate con∣sent and duty: And that our Diocesan Churches all separate from the Uni∣versal? Did he think these things need no proof at all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 12. Next Pag. 10. He will tell us what Communion is, and in many

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§. 16. Pag. 14. When he denyed any Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches distinguish't from the Universal (as all National, Dio∣cesan and Parochial are, as parts from the whole) he presently confuteth all again, saying [The exercise of Church Communion, as to most of the parti∣cular

duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congrega∣tion (for we cannot actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, &c. but with some particular Church.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§. 18. P. 20. Saith he [There is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for

private Christians, but to communicatee in all Religious Offices and all Acts Go∣vernment and Discipline with Christians those with whom they live.

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

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

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

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

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

§. 21. P. 27. See how openly he recanteth most aforesaid:

There is a sence indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church con∣sidered as distinct from all other particular Churches: But that principally con∣sists in Government and Discipline. Every Christian is a member of the Whole

Christian Church, and in Communion with it, but he is under the immediate in∣struction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters, and is bound to perso∣nal Communion with them; and this constitutes a particular Church, in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the Directi∣on and conduct of a particular Bishop.

]

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