word 2. Or 〈◊〉 the Churches are all called One that are under one Christian Magistrate I will confess the thing to be true that is pretended to be the reason of the name All the Churches do owe obedience to the Magistrate But he is no Essential part or Ecclesiastical Head of the Church and therefore it is very improperly denominated from him or called One on that account No more then all the Schools are one because he is their Soveraign It is the Common-wealth that is specified and individuated by the Magistrate as the Soveraign Power and not the Churches But yet it is but an improper word to call all the Churches one Church on that account which we contend not about § 7. But it is the Thing that we stick more at then the name A General Head doth properly specifie and individuate the Body Prove either 1. That the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other 2. Or an Assembly of Bishops or Presbyters is properly an Ecclesiastical Head having Authority from Jesus Christ to be the chief Ruler of all the Churches in the Land and then I will confess that we have properly and strictly a National Church But no such thing can be proved § 8 As for an Assembly I have already shewed which Bishop Vsher asserted to me that they are not superior Governors nor instituted graâ—ia Regiminis but gratia unitatis having no more Rule over particular Bishops then a Convention of Schoolmasters over a particular Schoolmaster If they say that Kings and Parliaments give Power to Convocations I answer that can be but such as they have themselves which we shall speak of anon and is nothing to this place § 9. And as for a Primate or Archbishop of Canterbury e. g. 1. It will be a hard task to prove Archbishops as such to be of Divine Institution 2. And it will be harder even Impossible to prove Archbishops of the English species as such to be of Divine institution 3. And certainly Christ hath nowhere told us that every Nation shall have such a Head nor every Province nor every County nor told us whether there shall be one over ten Nations or ten over one Their limits are not to be found in Scripture supposing there were such an office there known 4. Nor is it anywhere determined that such a City shall have the preheminence and Canterbury v. g. be Ruler of all the rest All these are of meer humane institution And therefore that which the imposers of Ceremonies call the Church of England is a meer humane thing which therefore can bind us no further then the Magistrate can authorize them to do § 10. But the stronger pretence will be that the particular Bishops of England were severally officers of Christ authorized to Govern their several flocks and therefore a Convâ—cation of these Bishops binds us in conscience gratia unitatis The People they oblige as their Rulers and the several Presbyters also as their Rulers and the several Bishops gratia unitatis for avoiding of schism § 11. Answ. This also is an insufficient evidence to prove our Consciences obliged to their Ceremonies eo nomine because of their Canons or commands For though we acknowledge a sort of Episcopacy to be warrantable yet that this sort that made the Canons in question is not warrantable I have proved at large in the former Disputation on that question Such Pastors of a Diocess as our Bishops were have no word of God to shew for their office further then as they are Presbyters but we have shewed already that their office is unlawfull And therefore though their actions as Presbyters may be valid yet their actions are Null which were done by pretence of this unlawfull sort of office they being no other way enabled thereto On this ground therefore we are not bound § 12. If it could be pretended that at least as Presbyters the Convocation represented the Presbyters of England and therefore thus their Canons binds us to the use of ceremonies Common prayer c. I should answer that 1. Even Synods of Presbyters or the Lawfullest sort of Bishops oblige but gratia unitatis 2. That the late Synod at Westminster was as truly a Representative of the Presbyters of England as the Convcaotion where such consent if any were given was retracted 3. By actuall dislike signified by disuse the Presbyters of England for the most part have retracted their Consent 4. Yea most that are now Ministers never gave such Consent 5. Even â—ll particular Pastors and Churches are free and may on just reason deny consent to such impositions § 13. There remains nothing then that with any shew of strength can be pretended as continuing our obligation to Ceremonies from Authority but that of the Civil Power that commanded them But to that I say 1. So much as was lawfull we confess that we were bound to use while we had the command of the Civil power But nothing unlawfull could be made our duty by them 2. the Civil Power hath repealed those laws that bound us to these ceremonies The Parliament repealed them the late King consented at least for the ease of tender Consciences as he spoke that men should have liberty to forbear them And the present Rulers are against them whom we see even the ceremoniouâ— obey in other matters § 14. Let those then that would subjugate our Consciences to their ceremonies make good their foundation even the Authority by which they suppose us to be obliged or they do nothing If all their impositions were proved things indifferent and lawfull that 's nothing to prove that we must use them till they prove that lawfull authority commandeth them The Civil Powers do not command them And the Ecclesiasticks that command them prove not their authority over us In the matters of God we will yield to any man that bids us do that which God hath bidden us do already But if they will exercise their power by commanding us more then God commands us and that unnecessarily we must crave a sight of their commission § 15. And if men that have no Authority over us shall pretend Authority from God and go about to exercise it by Ceremonious impositions we have the more reason to scruple obeying them even in things indifferent lest we be guilty of establishing their usurpation and pretended office in the Church and so draw on more evils then we foresee or can remove CHAP. XI Prop. 11. The Commands of Lawfull Governors about Lawfull Ceremonies must be understood and obeyed with such exceptions as do secure the End and not to the subverting of it § 1. THE proof of this is obvious These humane Ceremonies are appointed but as means to a further end But that which would cross and overthrow the end doth cease to be a Means and cannot be used sub ratione medii § 2. Order and Decency are the pretended ends of the Imposed Ceremonies and the right worshiping of God and the good of mens
among the Churches in Europe on their grounds hath any proof and therefore must not pretend to the Ministry Churches or Ordinances but we must all turn Seekers to day and Infidels to morrow by this device Sect. 30. Argument 8. The Ministry of the Priests and Levities before the incarnation of Christ and in his time was not Null though they wanted as much or more then such a succession of right Ordination therefore it is so still with the Gospel Ministery The Antecedent I shall more fully manifest neerer to the end Only now observe that when Abiathar was put out by Solomâ—n and when such as were not of the line or Genealogie of the Priests were put as polluted persons from the Priesthood Neh. 7.64 65. and 13 29 30. Ezra 2.62 yet were not any of their administrations taken to have been Null Sect. 31. Argument 9. If the Ministration or Governing acts of Vsurping Princes may be Valid and there need no proof of an uninterrupted succession to prove the validity then is it so also in the Ministry But the Antecedent is certain therefore c. The Validity of the consequence from the parity of Reason I shall manifest anon Sect. 32. Argument 10 If an uninterrupted Succession of Canonical or true Ordination be Necessary to the Being of the Church Ministry and Ordinances then Rome and England have lost their Ministry Churches and Ordinances But the Consequent will be denyed by the adversaries therefore so also must the Antecedent if they regard their standing Sect. 33. Though this be the Argument that I have the greatest advantage to press the adversary with yet because I have made it good already in two or three other writings in my Key for Catholicks and my Safe Religion and Christian Concord I shall say but little of it now But briefly this may suffice 1. For the Church of Rome if either Heresie Infidelity Sodomie Adultery Murder Simony violent intrusion ignorance impiety want of due election or of due consecration or plurality of Popes at once can prove an interruption of their succession I have shewed them already where it s proved But if none of these prove it we are safe our selves Sect. 34 But Grotius in Discus Apolog. Rivet pleads for them that if any intercision have been made at Rome it hath been made up from other Churches Answ. 1. That is not proved but nakedly affirmed 2. Nor will it serve the Papists turn that must have all Churches hold from Rome and her succession and Rome from none nor to be patcht up from their succession 3. De facto the contrary is certain For 1. Those other held their Ministry as from the universal Headship of the Pope and therefore had themselves their interruptions in the former interruptions of Rome as being but her members and therefore were not capable themselves of repairing of her breaches 2. The successors of the illegitimate Popes such as deposed Eugenius c. and men as bad as they have continued the succession And tâ—e Bishops that were consecrated by power received from the illegitimate Popes were the only persons that were the repairers of the breach And yet the Pope will hardly yield that he receiveth his power from any of these 3 There have been greater defects in the succession then this of Consecration even of due Election Capacity yea of an office it self which Christ will own The Vicechristship of the Pope is no office of Christs planting Sect. 35. And 2 For the English Prelates as they are unable to prove their uninterrupted succession so the interruption is proved in that they derived and held their Power from the Vicechrist of Rome and that qua talis for so many ages This was their own profession and all that they did was as his Ministers by his Authority which was none Sect. 36. Object But this nulled not the true Authority which they received from the Pope or Prelates as Prelates Answ. The Pope was uncapable of giving them Authority and whether the Prelates as such were so too we shall enquire anon And though I grant that where the person was fit there was yet a Ministry Valid to the Church and perhaps to themselves in the main yet that is because Canonical Ordination is not of Necessity to the Being of the Ministry but by other means they might be then Ministers though this corruption was conjunct that they received their Power imaginarily from Râ—me but that the said Canonical succession was interrupted by this Papal tenure and many a delinquency is nevertheless sure and sufficient to inforce the Argument as to them that now are our adversaries But so much shall suffice for the Non-necessity of this succession of a true and Regular Ordination CHAP. V. Ordination by such as the English Prelates not Necessary to the Being of the Ministry Sect. 1. I Have made this work unnecessary by the two former Chapters For if no Ordination be of Necessity to the Being of the Ministry nor an uninterrupted Succession Necessary then doubtless an Ordination by these Prelates in Specie is not Necessary at present or as to succession But yet ex abundati I add Sect. 2. Argument 1. Ad hominem I may well argue from the Concession of the English Prelates themselves and their most zealous adherents And their judgements were 1. That such a succession as aforesaid of right Ordination was not of Necessity And for this they that write against the Papists do commonly and confidently dispute Sect. 3. And 2. They maintained that the Protestant Churches that had no Bishops were true Churches and their Ministers true Ministers and so of their administrations This was so common with them that I do not think a dissenting vote can be found from the first Reformation till about the preparations for the Spanish match or little before Sect. 4. I have in my Christian Concord cited at large the words of many and the places of the writings of more as 1. Dr. Field 2. Bishop Downam 3. Bishop Iewel 4. Saravia 5. Bishop Alley 6. Bishop Pilkinton 7. Bishop Bridges 8. Bishop Bilson 9. Alexander Nowel 10. Grotius their friend then 11 Mr. Chysenhal 12. The Lord Digby 13. Bishop Davenant 14. Bishop Prideaux 15. Bishop Andrews 16. Chillingworth 17. To which I now add Bishop Bromâ—all of Schism 18. Dr. Fern 19. Dr. Steward in his answer to Fountains letter these of the later or present sort 20. And Bishop Vsher whose judgement of it is lately published by Dr. Bernard at his own desire 21. And Mr. Mason in a Book of of purpose for justification of the Reformed Churches hath largely pleaded this cause 22. And Dr. Bernard saith that Dr. Overall was judged not only to consent to that Book but to have a hand in it 23. And no wonder when even Bancroft himself the violentest of all the enemies of them called Puritans in those times is said by Spotswood there recited by Dr. Bernard to be of the same mind and to give it
And 2. because the way of those times did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparatives especially when the Ministers were cast out § 52. 8. But of all our Ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawfull then the Cross in Baptism The rest as I have said I should have submitted to rather then hinder the Service or Peace of the Church had I been put to it For living in those daies in a Priviledged place I had my liberty in all save Daies and the Gesture But this I durst never meddle with And yet I know that many think it as reasonable and more venerable then any of the rest Yet dare I not peremptorily say that it is unlawfull nor will I condemn either Antients or Moderns that use it nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more then my own forbearance will make only my own practice I was forced to suspend and must do if it were again imposed on me till I were better satisfied The Reasons that most move me I shall give you in the end but some of them take at the present § 53. 1. This is not the meer circumstance of a Duty but a substantial humane ordinance of worship nor is it necessary in genere that man ordain any such symbolical Mystical signs for Gods worship And therefore it is a matter totally exempt from humane Power There must be some Time some place some gesture some vesture some utensils c. But you cannot say that There must be some teaching symbols or mystical signs stated by humane institution in Gods worship There is no command to man in Scripture de genere to institute any such thing And therefore in the case of Circumstantials I shall usually of which more anon obey the Magistrate even where he doth mistake because it is his own work though he misdoe it But here his action is like that of a judge in alieno foro in another court where he hath no power and therefore his judgement is null It is not an act of Authority to make and state new mystical signs that are such in their primary use in Gods worship For there is no Power but of God And God hath given no such power They that say he hath let them prove it if they can Natural and Artificial helps we disallow not But Instituted signs that have what they have by Institution and that as a solemn stated ordinance I know not that ever God required or accepted from the invention of man I doubt this will prove a meer usurpation and nullity and worse § 54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a humane Sacrament either fully a Sacrament or so neer a kin to Sacraments as that man hath nothing to do to institute it The common prayer saith that a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace given to us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof in the Catech. Let us try by this definition whether the Cross in Baptism as used in England be a Sacrament § 55. And 1. I may take it for granted that the want of the Name makes it not to be no Sacrament And 2. whereas in the definition it is said that it is ordained by Christ himself that belongs to a Divine Sacrament only and not to a humane Sacrament devised by usurpers Otherwise you must say that there is no such thing possible as a humane Sacrament imposed by usurpers on the Church what if all the essentials of a Sacrament such as are found in Baptism and the Lords supper be invented by man and forced on the Church is it therefore no Sacrament or only no Divine Sacrament However let us not differ about bare names and words It is the same thing that you call a Sacrament when God is the ordainer and sure it will not prove it lawfull because man is the ordainer that 's it that makes it unlawfull because he wants authority and acts as an usurper The Papists affirm that man hath not power to make new Sacraments no not the Pope himself Let not us go further § 56. And 1. the outward visible sign here is the Cross made in the fore-head 2. The inward and Spiritual grace is a holy Resolution to fight manfully under the banner of Christ and to persevere therein The Cross signifieth the Instrument of the sufferings of Christ aad that we do own this Crucified Saviour and are not ashamed of him and will manfully fight under him So that here is 1. a signification of Grace to be wrought on the Soul and given us by God 2. an engagement to perform the duties of the Covenant our selves On Gods part we are to receive by this sign both Qualitative or actual Grace and Relative Grace 1. The Cross is to teach our understandings and help our memories and quicken up our dull affections by minding us of a Crucified Christ and the benefits of his Cross. § 57. That it is ordained for this use appeareth from the words anon to be recited in the use of it and by those words prefixed before the the Common prayer-book of Ceremonies why some are abolished and some retained where they say that they be not darke and dumb Ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve and that they are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified So that this and such other if there be more such are appointed by their signification to teach the Understanding and stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God Which are good works but to be done only by good means § 58. And that this is a way of working Grace in the same kind as Gods word and Sacraments do is undeniable For the word and Sacraments do work Grace but Morally by propounding the object and so objectively Teaching Remembring and Exciting and thus working on the Understanding Memory and Will and Affections However the spirit may work within its certain that the ordinances work no otherwise And not only Protestants are agreed on this but one would think that the Jesuits and all of their mind should be most of all for it For faculties they that will not confess any Physical determination of the but make all operations both of Word Sacraments and Spirit it self to be but suasory or Moral one would think should hold more tenaciously then others that Sacraments work Grace but Morally And if no Sacraments do more then objectively Teach and excite and the Cross is appointed to do as much in this then there is no difference between them to be found § 59. And then for Relative Grace it is plain that by
use them and only desire a toleration our selves because we dare not wilfully sin against our light will charity deny us this If men forbear a thing suppose indifferent for fear of Gods displeasure and damnation and profess that were it not for this they would conform to the wills of others are those Christians or men that will come behind them and drive them into hell without compassion and that for things indifferent CHAP. IX Prop. 9. There is no meer Humane Vniversal Soveraign Civil or Ecclesiastical over the whole Church and therefore none to make Laws Obligatory to the whole § 1. I ADD this because of the specious pretences of some that say we are bound to an uniformity in Ceremonies by the Church and call all Schismaticks and such as separate from the Catholick Church that disown and disuse such Ceremonies as on these pretences they obtrude And by the Church that thus obligeth us they mean either some Universal Soveraign Power or else an universal Consent of the Church essential as they call it And that Soveraign must be the Pope or a General Council § 2. If it be Universal Consent of all Believers that they suppose to be the obliging power I shall answer them 1. That Believers are not Governours and Law-givers to the Universal Church no nor to a particular Church If that point of the Separatists be so odious that asserteth the multitude of Believers to be the Governours of a particular Church and to have the power of the Keyes what then shall we think of them that give them even to such as they call the Laity themselves the Government yea in the highest point even Legislation over the Universal Church it self § 3. And 2. I add that the Dissent of those Churches that refuse your Ceremonies doth prove that there is no Universal consent If all must consent we must consent our selves before we be obliged We are as free as others we gave none power to oblige us by their consent If we had it had been Null because we had no authority so to do and could not have obliged our selves by a universal Law or perpetual contract Or if we had we had also power on just occasion to reverse a self-obligation But no such thing de facto can be pretended against us § 4. And if such an obligation by consent should be pretended 3. I would know whether it was by this or by some former generation Not by this as is certain Nor by any former For former ages had no power to bind all their successors in Ceremonies about the worship of God Shew whence they had such a power and prove it if you can we are born as free men as our ancestors were in this § 5. And 4. I would be satisfied whether every mans consent in the world be necessary to the Vniversality or not If it be then there are no Dissenters or no obligation because no Universal consent If not then how many must consent before we are obliged you have nothing to say but a Major part where you can with any shew of reason rest And 1. How shall we know in every Parish in England what mind the Major part of the Christians through the world are of in point of such or such a Ceremony 2. Yea by this rule we have reason to think that both Papists and Protestants must change their Ceremonies because the greater part of Christians in East and South and some in the West are against very many of them § 6. But if it be the Authority of a Soveraign Head that is pleaded as obliging the universal Church to an uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies we must know who that Soveraign is None that we know pretend to it but the Pope and a General Council And for the Pope we have by many volumes proved him an Usurper and no authorized Head of the Church Universal The pretended Vice-Christ is a false Christ. The first usurpers pretended but to a Soveraignty in the Roman world but had never any shew of Government over the Churches in Ethiopia India and the many Churches that were without the verge of the Roman Empâ—re § 7. And as for General Councils 1. They are no more the Visible Head and Soveraign of the Church then the Pope is This I have proved in another Disputation by it self 2. There neither is nor can be any Council truly universal as I have there also shewed It s but a delusory name 3. There never was any such in the world since the Church which before was confined to a narrow room was spread over the world Even at Nice there was no proper representative of almost any but the Churches under the Roman Emperours power Few out of the West even in the Empire and none out of almost any of the Churches without the Empire For what 's one Bishop of Persia or such another of another Countrey and perhaps those prove the Roman subjects too that are so called If there was but one from Spain and only two Presbyters of Rome from Italy and one from France if any and none from many another Countrey in the Empire no wonder if there was none from England Scotland or Ireland c. And therefore there can be no universal obligation on this account § 8. Councils are for Concord by Consultation and consent and not a Soveraign or superiour sort of Governing power And therefore we that consented not are not obliged and if we had consented we might on weighty reasons have withdrawn our consent § 9. The Orders established by General Councils have been laid aside by almost all and that without the repeal of a Council Yes such Orders are seemed to presuppose the custom of the Universal Church if not Apostolical Tradition to have been their ground § 10. Among many others let us instance only in the last Canon of the Nicene Council that forbidding Kneeling commandeth all to pray only standing on the Lords Dayes c. And this was the common use of the Church before as Tertullian and others shew and was afterwards confirmed again in a General Council And yet even the Church of Rome hath cast it off much more the Protestant Churches No General Council hath been of more authority then this of Nice No Ceremony of more common use then this standing in prayer on the Lords dayes So that it might as much as any be called the constitution and custom of the Catholick Church And yet we suppose not these now to bind us to it but have cast it off without the repeal of any other General Council And why are we more bound then by the same authority to other Ceremonies then to this And if to any then to which and to how many and where shall our consciences find rest § 11. Even the Jesuites themselves say that the General disuse of a practice established by Pope and Council is equall to an abrogation without any other repeal so it be not by the said
powers contradicted And certainly all such disuse began with a few and proceeded further we are allowed then to disuse such things § 12. It would grieve a man that loves the Church to hear the name of the Church abused by many dark though confident disputers when they are pleading for their Ceremonies and Holy dayes and laying about them with the names of Schismaticks against all that will not do as they do O say they These men will separate from the Catholick Church and how then can they be the Children of the Church And 1. Which is it that is called by them the Catholick Church Little do I know nor am able to conjecture Did the Catholick Church make the English Common-Prayer Book what were the then Bishops in England that consented in that work the whole Church of Christ on earth God forbid Or did ever any General Council authorize it I think not And if they would tell us what General Council commanded Christmas Day or Kneeling at the Sacrament c they would do us a pleasure but I think they will not § 13. And 2. What if these things had all been commanded by a General Council May not a man disuse them without separating from the Church I think as good as you are you do some things your selves that God himself hath forbidden you to do and yet will be loth to be therefore taken for men that separate either from the Church or God And when you read the Books of Heathen Philosophers when you adore not toward the East or when you pray receive the Sacrament Kneeling on the Lords Dayes would you be taken to separate from the Catholick Church for crossing its ancient customs or Canons But these perverse and factious reasonings we must hear to the dishonour of Christianity and Reason it self and that from men that scorn the supposed meanness of others yea and see poor souls seduced into separation by such empty words And this is one of the present judgements on this land CHAP. X. Prop. 10. If it be not our Lawfull Governours that command us but usurpers we are not formally bound to obey them though the things be lawfull which they command § 1. WE may be bound by some other Obligation perhaps to do the thing which they command us but we are not formally though sometime Materially bound to obey them For it is not formally obedience unless it be done eo nomine because commanded or for the Authority of the Commander If the Pope or any usurper should command me to pray or to give alms I will do it but not because he commandeth me but because God commandeth me and therefore I will not obey him but God But if a Parent or Magistrate or Pastor command it me I will do it both because it is commanded me by God and them and so I will obey both God and them If an usurper command me to do a thing in it self indifferent I will not do it because he commandeth it but yet if accidentally it become my duty by conducing to anothers good or avoiding their offence or hurt or any other accident I will use it for these ends though not for his command § 2. The Pope 1. As the Vice-christ or universall Head is an usurper and therefore hath no authority to command me or any man in that relation the smallest Ceremony 2. The Pope as Patriarch of the West is an humane creature and not of Divine institution and was indeed a sinfull institution from the first of his creation but if it had been otherwise yet since is that Patriarchship become unwarrantable since he hath forfeited it and the world hath found the mischiefs of it So that no man is therefore bound to use one lawfull Ceremony because the Pope as Patriarch of the West commandeth it 3. If this were not so yet Brittain and Ireland were from the beginning none of his Patriarchate nor did at Nice consent to it and therefore have the less appearance of any obligation § 3. The Authority of General Councils cannot be pretended as obliging men in Conscience to the English Ceremonies 1. Because indeed General Councils are not a superiour Power for proper Government of the Church having authority to command particular Bishops or Synods as their subjects but they are only necessary for Union and Communion of Churches and mutual assistance thereby and so their Canons bind but by virtue of the General commands that require us to maintain the Unity and Communion of the Churches § 4. And 2. If it were otherwise there is few if any of these Ceremonies that are commanded by any true General Council They that can prove any such thing let them do it but till we see it we will not be forward to believe it Yea 3. Some of them General Councils have made Canons against as I before shewed in the Case of Kneeling at the Sacrament on the Lords dayes And therefore the neglecters of our Ceremonies sin not against a General Council § 5. The Common plea is that we are bound to use these Ceremonies in obedience to the Church of England and that we are not true sons of this Church if we refuse it But what is it that is called by them The Church of England In a Political sense I know no such thing as a Church of England or of any Nation on earth that is There is no one Society united in any one Ecclesiastical Soveraign that can truly be called the Church of England or of any other Nation The whole Catholick Church is One as united in Christ the Head And every particular Chuâ—ch associated for personal Communion in Gods Worshâ—p is one being a part of the Catholick Church and united in and individuated by their relation to their several Pastors But a National Church under one chief Ecclesiastick Government I find no mention of in Scripture but contrarily the Churches of Judaea Galatia c. or any other Countrey where there were many are alway mentioned in the Plural number and never called one Church § 6. Yet will we quarrel with no men about meer names or words If by a National Church â— be meant any of these following we acknowledge that there is such a thing 1. If all the particular Churches in a Nation do Associate for Communion and mutuall assistance and so use to meet by their officers in one National Assembly I confess the Association usefull if not necessary and the Assemblies to be maintained and for unity sake obeyed in things lawfull And though Scripture call not such National Associations by the name of a Church in the singular number yet we shall leave men to their Liberty in such names If all the Schoolmasters in England should hold General Assemblies to agree what Books to read in their Schools c. if any man would therefore call all the Schools in England in the singular number by the name of the School of England I would not differ with him for a