subordinate Head and all but the named parts are denyed As if he would have more than the genus proximum and differentia specificans in a definition yea even the genus supremum and Christ shall be the specifying Head or none § XXVI He saith So the same thing shall be contrary to itself As if 1. Christ and a Bishop in formal relation were proved to be the same 2. Or things subordinate were contrary which he denyeth himself § XXVII He saith Christs Church in this world is but one Answ If there be but one particular Church 1. Then numerically the Church of London and Basil are one And then if I separate not from the Church at Basil I separate not from the Church of London 2. If de specie there be but one then a Patriarchal Diocesane Parochial Presbyterian and Democratical Church are but of one species And why then did you use so many words to tell us of the need of Bishops over Bishops and of the several sorts of supra-ordinate Church-Rulers Then a National Church and a Parish-Church are but one § XXVIII He addeth Quae conveniunt uno tertio conveniunt inter se but the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio c. Answ As if Convenientia generica were convenientia totalis vel specifica or Convenientia partialis totalis Accidentalis Essentialis were all one What pretty Logick is here to prove a King and a Constable all one because they are both Men both Christians and both Rulers I hope then a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one that in your sorry sense agree in uno tertio But let us hear the inferred Charge against us § XXIX An Addition of Homogeneous Particles saith he makes no essential differences Answ Christ and a Bishop are heterogeneous Yea a Diocesane and a Parish-Priest have you proved that they are not or that they are § XXX It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself saith he Answ O Temerity in the dark that is unless his Church-relation be the same with the Bishops As if the King be contrary to himself if his Kingdom and a Corporation or School be not of the same species § XXXI He saith If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand An. Do you mean in you or in me or all others Do you resolve to cast away all Religion if Christ and a Bishop be not the same informing regent parts of the Church Universal and particular Think better of it first for Religion is more necessary than so Do you think that the Christian world which hath ever been of the opinion which you detest had never any Religion Nor hath now any Which way do Churches that are parts of the Universal cast out all Religion § XXXII If Christ set up two essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world Answ And must Christ bear such a charge as well as I I should sooner have expected it from a Turk or Jew than from you § XXXIII He saith Why then do you blame turning parish-Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them but parts of a Diocesane as a Troop of an Army Answ Putide putares When shall we meet with a true Sentence It is not for making them parts of a Diocesane Church as Troops of an Army but for making them no Political true Churches but disbanding all the Troops by making them no Troops but such parts of a Regiment as Squadrons are It is for putting down Inferiour Bishops and not for being themselves Bishops over them yet on this doth he ground his charge of my deceiving men and wronging God and his Church c. § XXXIV He addeth Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope c. that do you c. for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastours are parts of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up an Universal Head besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and lay the Concord of all the Churches on it Answ If you are sani Cerebri this is so gross that your putarem hath no excuse Had you not your self repeated my definition and carpt at those very words Headed only by Christ and many times your self repeated it as my opinion 2. Or had you tryed your wrangling wit to have proved that if Christ only be asserted to be the Head I thereby assert another Head or that If I make Bishops particular specifying Heads I therefore assert a humane Universal Head you had some cloak for your putarem But now If you next print that I said that a Dog is a man I will no more wonder at it than at this See Reader how my Church-Concord is oppugned and by what weapons Satan doth that work As if he that saith the King only is the specifying Head of the Kingdom and the Captain of his Troop or the Diocesans of a Diocess were a Traytor and did assert another Head of the Kingdom than the King § XXXV Do but grant the Papists saith he this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal as Cities of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes Headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an universal Monarch on earth c. Answ 1. Affirmanti incumbit probatio Did you think we must take your bare word in so great a case Do you say one word to prove your affirmation Must we all turn Papists upon your immodest naked saying it is so 2. But your immodesty is in this excessive to me that have written two Books against Johnson alias Terret and the later but lately and largely to prove that the Church hath no Universal Head but Christ notwithstanding the particular Regency of the Bishops and for you to give me not a word of answer to them and bid me now prove it if you can when I have voluminously proved it This is such dealing as I will not name 3. But I am heartily sorry what ever did it that you are got so neer to Popery As if you will be a Papist unless all the writers of the Christian world are deceived and if the particular Church be a part of the Universal which â—â—â—â— dare boldly swear it is and sober men doubt not XXXVI He adds Indeed you have gone beâ—ond Bellarmine in setting up Papal Monarchy Your â—ther assertion sets up Atheism by making the holy God the authour and founder of two essential different Churches or Church-Forms Answ Putares But if all the Christian world be of the same mind do they all set up Atheism and are you only free As for Tho. Hooker whom you cited though it be twenty four years or thereabouts since I read Mr. Hudson and him and will not tast away my time in perusing them my memory doubts not that it was only a Universal Church made one by one universal
respectively P. 7. Some are as Colonels of Regiments others as Captains of Troops the Body is but One the Members many P. 13. The New Testament saith The Churches of Galatia Gal. 1. 2. the Churches of Judea Asia Yet One body All the faithful make One heavenly City one Church of the first born so that Gods Church on Earth is Many Churches and yet but One Church Do you not think now that we are agreed But hear him judge himself P. 15. I will shew one common Errour or mistake in multitudes of our able Divines That those we call particular Churches are counted Parts and Members of the Church Universal This I deny Mr. Baxter makes the Church of England or the Churches of England to be an integral part of the Church Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom So the Independents I overthrow this Errour by this Argument One and the same thing cannot be both a Body and a Member a whole and a part a society and one single person But that which we call a single or particular Church is not a Member but a Body it is not a limb or part of a Church but a whole and entire Church It hath a whole within it London is not a Member of England but a City and aggregation of Members It 's no less than a flat contradiction in terms what Dr. Ames saith Medul l. 1. c. 32. that a particular Church est Membrum ex aggregatione variorum Membrorum singulorum compositum contrary to common reason and plain Scripture P. 18. A bare Member in the Body hath no Authority but acteth by mere natural life and appetite and is not endued with rational authority nor can be capable of any That which we call a single Church is a Catholick or Universal Church It hath an Universal Head To be a Christian is to be of an universal impartial spirit where there is an All there is an Universal But every single Church hath an All within it the Pastor and all his flock The Church Universal and particular do only differ as to place and number A Church of godly Ministers and people in France Holland and England differ but as to place Every Church of Christians must needs be a Church Universal not a limb or member of another Church but a true body or entire Christian society P. 20. Christs Body is One not as one is opposed to Multitude but to division contrariety and destruction § 4. P. 21. This leads me to shew the unsoundness of another part of Mr. Baxters Doctrine and some others with him He saith There are two essentially different Policies or Forms of Church-Government of Christs Institution never to be altered by man 1. The Form of the Universal Church as Headed by Christ himself which all Christians own as they are Christians in their Baptism 2. Particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors and are parts of the Universal as a Troop of an Army or a City of a Kingdom And he defines the Universal Church to be The universality of Baptized Christians headed by Christ himself These his sayings contain many Errours I will first note them out and then confute and prove them to be Errours 1. It is an Errour in the art of defining to put in those words Headed by Christ himself 2. It is another Errour to define the Universal Church without Guides and Ministers as one essential constituent part 3. It is another Errour to say that the Universal Church and Churches particular differ essentially 1. It is an Errour in the art of desining to say Headed by Christ himself that 's supposed but need not be in the definition He finds fault himself with such a defect in the definition of a particular Church Grant them to be Christians and you grant they own Christ 2. It is an Errour to define the Universal Church without Pastors So doth the Assemblies Confession and Mr. Hudson His definition of the Church without Pastors is as if he defined a living healthful man without a stomach liver or lungs P. 24. 3. If there be an essential difference between Church and Church what then is the difference between the Church and the World Heaven and Hell the righteous and the wicked How can any man know which is the right Church We shall never be able to confute Popery nor Infidelity by this Doctrine For this Doctrine supposeth two essentially different Churches The Universal Church without Pastors and of this Christ is Head himself Particular Churches of which Christ is no Head but particular Pastors are the Heads By this Doctrine the same thing shall be contrary to it self Christs Church in this world is but one And can one and the same thing have two different Essences beings and definitions Quae conveniunt uno tertio c. But the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio They stand on one foundation are directed by one rule quickned by one spirit an addition of homogeneous Particles makes no essential difference It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself and that the essentiating principles of Church holiness order and government are black and white darkness and light P. 25. If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand Two essentially different Forms of Churches will infer two sorts of Holiness the one repugnant to the other yet subordinata non pugnant If Christ set up two repugnant or essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world O dreadful § 5. P. 92. A word more ad hominem of that opinion That particular Churches are parts of the Universal as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom This is Mr. Baxters opinion why then do you blame the turning all the Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them to be but parts of the Diocesan as a Troop is of an Army c. who sees not that your Doctrine doth the same that you condemn c. If they are but parts and Members of another Church the Universal then they are not Churches It is not unlikely but you can find somewhat to say in defence of this your self-contradicting Doctrine but I believe it will match your wit were it ten times more and prove too hard for you Look to it if your disputations against Prelacie stand down goes this main assertion of yours If your disputations against Prelacie be found to have a hollow and false bottom then you have made you work for repentance you have greatly injured the Church of God and particularly the Church of England and have deceived a great many Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope to be to all the Pastors Churches and Christians through the world That do you make this which you call the Church Universal for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastors are parts and members of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up
humane policie that he denied and that they differed but about words Did ever Christian before you deny particular Churches to be distinct policies and parts of the Universal Have we so many Books written of Ecclesiastical Policie and is there no such thing or no Churches that are Politick Societies § XXXVII He adds According to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all Answ Then all the world of Christians are so for as far as writings notifie they are generally of this mind Alas Brother did you shew this to any man before you Printed it for their honour I must think you did not and for your sake I wish you had § XXXVIII He adds Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita but you oppose the same thing against it self Answ Thus do men humble themselves by forsaking humility Had it not been better for your to have let your Logick alone than to bewray that which you might have concealed Are not diversa distinguishable as well as opposita And is there no diversity in parte essentiae as in subalternis where there is not a diversity in totâ essentia as there is in summis generibus is there not both diversity and opposition inter totum partem and between the species of an universal and particular Society Are they not Relative opposita May you not distinguish Army and Regiment and Troop Kingdom and City Christ and a Bishop c. § XXXIX He adds You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church Answ And do not all Christians Is it all the Christian world § XL. You plainly saith he leave out of your description the differing form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood c. Answ Anne putares 1. Have I so oft exprest it and yet will you say so 2. But it was in descriptions indeed and I was far from your Logical belief that Neighbourhood is the differencing form And I hope no one else is of your mind 1. If Neighbourhood be the differencing form then all Christian Neighbours are particular Churches But that is false Ergo. 1. Those that dwell together only for Trade are not therefore Churches 2. Those that hold that there are no particular Churches or Pastors but that all Christians are as Priests 3. Those that hold that the Minister of the Parish where they live is no true Minister nor the Parish a true Church 4. Those that profess themselves Members of no particular Church 5. Those that profess to be no Members of that Church but of another 6. Papists and Sectaries that stand in opposition to that Church 7. Those that dwell near another Parish-Church and many miles from their own are not Members by proximity 8. Those that are Excommunicated which is de facto all professed Non-Conformists 9. In places where the Magistrate tyeth not Churches to Parish-bounds persons of the same street and house may be of several Churches 10. No man that consenteth not is a Church-Member 11. And who knoweth not that proximity is but dispositio materiae and not the differencing form All these singular novelties should have had better proof than these dry assertions contrary to all Christian sense § XLI This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot saith he and the more I strive the more I am overcome Answ If you are so far gone I shall hereafter I think without any striving with my self let that which is within you talk on and not resist you For who can hold that which will away But I wish you the benefit of some stiptick remedy and a sober mind § XLII I prove to you saith he when there is nothing like one proving word c. you make the Lord Jesus the authour and founder of subverting principles Answ Read the Ninth Commandment I conclude with these requests to him as my true friend viz. to consider Qu. 1. Whether a man so far from persecution and yet condemning us of Atheism blaspheming and destroying all Religion c. be not much more uncharitable than they that charge no such thing upon us but trouble us for refusing Forms are Ceremonies or is it not the same spirit Qu. 2. Whether he justifie not the silencing and ruining of all whom he so accuseth should not such impious Atheists be silenced Qu. 3. If he knew that the generality of the Christian world in all ages hold what he thus censureth what will he call it to charge all Christians so far with Atheism and casting out all Religion and making God and Christ a deceiver If he knew it not what will he call it to venture thus to publish such an accusation before he knew that which an ordinary Inhabitant of the world might so easily have known As if he had published All that say a City is specified by its subordinate Form of Government and is a part of the Kingdom specified by the Monarch are Traytors and depose the King or make him a deceiver and no King and deny all obedience What will you call this dealing Qu. 4. Was it well done to write such a Book while he understood so very little of the very plainest passages which he wrote against Qu. 5. Was it excusable to confess some errour of the last and to add far worse and after warning a second time so to speak evil of what he understood not Qu. 6. Was it humility to make ostentation of the Logick he understood not Qu. 7. Doth not the extreme bold confidence of the falsest of his own conceptions shew a very unhumbled overvaluing of his own understanding To be ignorant is common to Mankind yea and to be much ignorant of our ignorance and to think that we know more than we do But to have so little sense of this calamity and so little suspicion of ones own understanding as to be confident to such a height of accusation of the grossest falshoods where a lad of fourteen years old that had read any thing of Logick and Politicks might have better taught him that I say not the reason and use of Mankind this seemeth somewhat beyond the common measure of self-conceitedness Qu. 8. Whether the great number of asserted untruths here shew not some want of necessary tenderness or care of writing CHAP. IV. Mr. Chenies Accusations of me about Church-Covenants and rigid Independencie and the odiousness hereof considered § 1. WHen he had said that it leads to two contrary Gods which is to make no true God p. 69. He proceedeth Mr. B. hath devised and framed two Covenants the one to make a man a Member of the Church Universal the other of the particular p. 97. I will shew 1. That this is the same with the upstart way of the Independents 2. The unsoundness of it p. 101. Mr. B. and the Independents now are contrary to
in how few months all the Writers of the three first Centuries may be read over I pray you here leave every one to his liberty of judging Among you it shall be a greater honour to know them than a dishonour to be ignorant of them Among us it shall be a greater dishonour to be ignorant of them than an honour to know them Could you endure any to differ from you this Comprimize might serve But the next time falsifie not my words As for your intimation of some that cannot read them do you not believe your self that its true of ten Conformists for one Non-conformist I remember but one Nonconformable Minister in Worcester shire that was not of an University and I conjecture that he can read the Fathers But by your speeches what stranger would not take it to be used by you for their ordinary Character which you durst not charge on One by name in all the County that is an Ordained Minister when I provoked you Doth not this savour of Factious malignity As to the prepostecus method of Reading late Writers before the Faâ—hers which you talk of 1. Papists and Protestants in all Universities have most usually done so as far as I can hear 2. Some take both together 3. I suppose that if one Book be read this Month and another the next it is not like to make any great alteration in knowledge which goeth first 4. Methinks still you cross your own intention and tell men that those Non-conformists honour the Fathers more than you for the most judicious or necessary Authors should be read with greatest judgment and mature judgment is usually the greatest If you would have Boys learn the Fathers at School as they do Tulli's Offices before their larger Catechisms they would be lost as Tulli's Offices usually is And that which they have once read though without judgment they would think they need not read again 5. Do you believe that Lads that never read any Method of Theology or Catechism could draw a good Catechism or Method out of the Fathers first suppose them to have begun at lem Romanus and taken in Dionis Areop and Ignatius yea and Martialis Apost at a venture true or false and to have ended at the Nicene Council yea or any where short of Augustine What a Method think you would they draw up Yea if they must go further and read all Chrysostom with his Enemy Epiphanius and Augustine with his Hilary Prosper and Fulgentius how would the Lads reconcile their Doctrinal Disagreements and then draw one Method out of both Parties 6. Do you not condemn the Church of England which did not send men first to the Fathers for a Method but drew them up Catechism first and then a Book of Articles or Confession and Nowell's Catechism is Authorised by them and then an Apology and a Book of Homilies c. And commandeth not subscription to the Fathers but to these And commanded no Commentary of the Fathers to be kept in the Churches but Erasmus's Paraphrase 7. And in good sadness can you that have read both believe that the Writings of the Fathers are as methodical as accurate as sound as full as useful to form a true Body of Theology in the Mind as the later Writers are Can you believe this Is there any thing among them to these uses like Melancthon's Calvin's Inst Polanus Ludov. Crocius Georgius Sohnius Amesius Theses Salmuenses Synops Theol. Leidensium Camero c. Or if you had rather like Arminius Episcopius Dr. Hammond especially like Bishop Andrews Dr. Field Bishop Davenant c. Are the best of their Practical Writings even Macarius Ephrem Syrus c. Comparable to abundance used now Whether such Non-conformists as Hildersham Perkins Rogers Burroughs c. or such Conformists as Sibbes Preston Gurnal the Practice of Piety Hammond c. Do you think that the surest and readiest way for Youth to come to understand and believe the Doctrine of the Trinity of the Godhead of Christ and the Holy Ghost of the Hypostatical Union of the twofold Nature and Will of Christ c. is to read first all the first Writers that say little or nothing of them and those that say much amiss of some of them and then to read all the odious Wars at the Ephesine Council at the Councils of Arimin Sermium and many more And to read all the contentious Writings hereabout of Cyril Alexand Theodoret Epiphanius and down to Damascene Is not one Joshua Placaeus pro deitate Christi worth all that ever was then wrote I confess above all their Subjects the times engaged them in the largest Defences of the Christian Religion against the Heathens In which Euseb in Praeparat Demonstrate Evang. Augustine have done well But so far short of what is done of late by Grotius du Plessis Vander Meulin Camero yea Savonarola Vives and many more as that all laid together I am not for your Method Take out but Justin Tertullian and Cyprian in the three first Centuries and Basil Nazianz. Nyssen Hierom and Chrysostom and Augustin after and I will not tell you what you will leave us If Origen must be taken in let them first fight it out to decide it whether he be a Hererick For Halloix and our Conforming Originists tell us that Theoph. Alexand. and Epiphanius ended not the Controversie by the banishment of Chrisostom 8. And if all the Naevi of the ancient Fathers were in our modern Divines which not only Scultetus and other Protestants have gathered but even Baronius Sixtus Senensis Possevine Bellarmine c. What would you call them What Hereticks should we be Was there ever so great Error charged on any one of the 1800 Ministers for their silencing as is visible in Dionys Constitut Can. Apostol Irenaeus Clem. Alex. Tatianus Arnebius Lactantius c. But I forgat how much Dalaeus de usu Patr. hath said more on this Subject If we had to do with Men that could let men live by them that obey them not even in the method of their Studies this much also might compremise this difference You shall set your Pupils first to read all the Fathers and make out of them such a Religion as they are able or perhaps too many But then you must not be their Collector as you teach them For 't is as good to take a Method from a Book as from your Mouth And We will teach Ours first to understand the Catechism Ursine Polanus Amesius c. with the Scriptures and to read the Fathers in order when they have judgment to know how to use them and let the issue shew which is the wiser way But I pray you while you read the Fathers to your Scholars call them not blew Aprons nor Tub-Preachers nor Fanaticks as out as you find them to have wanted the Languages or Academical Education lest it hinder your success But I think all this quarrel with the Method of our Studies is for the Interest
Heylin charge them on some called Disciplinarians in the last age Ergo I may charge them on the present Non-conformists yea on the whole Chorus yea on their Discipline that desired Bishop Usher's Episcopacy Let it be so that you may be your self As to what you say against the Genevian Principles as against Government c. I answer 1. Why did you not name some one of those Principles and try by what Consequence it inferreth all the Villanies which you name Do not the Papists say the same of the Protestants 2. And next why did you not prove that we hold those rebellious Genevian Principles Were it Christian dealing in me if I should say Because Prins History of Prelates Treasons proveth that multitudes of Prelates have been Traytors therefore our present Prelates are such too But we see what Instruments the Prince of Malice and Calumny useth You tell me that you shall the less believe Confessions because the Parliaments Declarations so differed from their practice Ans 1. But will you falsly accuse the part that is good for the part that is evil Most Christians live not according to the Christian Profession Is the Christian Profession therefore bad and the cause of all their Villanies Will you judge fidem ex homine Will you charge all that upon a mans Religion objectively considered which you find amiss in his life 2. Do you not know that our Question now is not what the men are but what their Principles and Discipline and that it is not the Professio profitens but the Professio professa which is to be disputed of And by what means shall any Church or Party under Heaven defend their Religion against such a Censurer and Disputant as you are They will say that they have the true Religion you will say no for you are not true to your Religion They will say that their Articles are true you will say no they are false because you live not according to them which implieth that they are true and good or else what fault were it to contradict them in practice The Protestant will say Our Religion is sound and agreeable to Gods Word you teach the Papists to answer no it 's false for there are vicious Livers among you And I pray you what number of Sinners must go to prove a Religion Creed or Articles false Must it be all or the major part or will any one serve Must the Kingdom try by the Pole or Vote whether the Vicious or the Vertuous are the greater number among them before they can prove their Religion true Doth the Act go to the Essence of the Object 3. But if it must needs be so I pray dispute no more against the Non-conformists or dispute against them better by your Lives than you have done Will you teach them to argue the XXXIX Articles the Liturgy and Book of Ordination are not true or to be subscribed because the Conformists live thus or thus You know Foreigners and Posterity know not which of the Histories of this Age are true or false Suppose that they should read Mr. White 's Centuries of Drunkards c. ejected from the Ministry and the Records of the Country Committees saying So many and so many were upon Oath proved scandalous Drunkards c. And Ralph Wallis naming so many Drunkards and scandalous Conformists now Would you have them question the Principles and Discipline of the Church of England till they can prove these Histories false I profess to you resolvedly that if I must needs judge that Church or Party to have the soundest Principles and Discipline who have the best lives I should far and very far prefer the Presbyterians Independents and much more the Conciliators before the Prelatists and yet not extenuate any of their Faults But all this is nothing to you that go another way to work Why tell you of mens Professions when you see their contrary Practice When as it is not the Practice only but the Profession that is the Principles and Discipline that you accused And so when their Principles are in question why do we talk to you of their Principles And how silly a shift is all this covered with Because the Parliament promised to make the King the most glorious King if he would return to them c. But 1. Is a Promise and Disciplinarian Principles of the same nature when we question their truth The Promise is not true unless it agree with the Mind of the Promiser of which God is the Iudge till Performance shew it But Principles may be true though he that profess them be never so false 2. And I pray remember that the Parliament were pulled to pieces and conquered by Souldiers even for resolving to close with the King before the King could be cut off But as for the first War I have told you the Authors of it To your next If we must call none Episcopal men that are not faithful to their Principles Then I know not indeed whom I may call such If Parties must be notified by their Fidelity we should have agreed thus to sense the Word before we had disputed for other men speak not thus Did you think I cited Moulin against Philanax to prove that our Principles are better than the Papists Have you read him all and understand him no better I cited him as fully proving historically that the Places now charged with Presbyterianism and Rebellion Geneva Holland c. had changed this Government before or on other accounts Flanders and Brabant joyned with Holland in the change the main Body being Papists who after fell off when the Prince of Orange mentioned Liberty of Religion And for Geneva pag. 27. he faith My business being to vindicate the Reformation from the charge of Rebellion I must take from the Reformers of Geneva that Aspersion that they expelled their Bishop and that they altered the Constitution of that State and both these ascribed to Calvin It is a Tradition received in England as a currant and undoubted Truth A fair Credit to the Prelatists Honesty and historical Veracity And upon that ground many fine and judicious Inferences are built But it is like the Story of the Phoenix and the singing of Swans never the truer What credit can be given to Histories of things bapned in the Indies 2000 years ago if in things done so lately and so near us gross Mistakes go for uncontrolable Truths You know with whom I say it is utterly false that Calvin was one of the Planters of the reformed Religion at Geneva False also that he or the Reformers at Geneva turned their Bishop out of doors And false also that the Bishop went away upon the quarrel of Religion The Bishop was fled eight Months before the Reformation seeing his Conspiracy discovered to oppress the Liberties of the City by the help of the Duke of Savoy for which his Secretary was hanged after he was gone the said Bishop being hated before for the Rape of a Virgin
only to the Ministry in general but in settled Churches it is usually inconvenient And he that is ordained to a fixed Church doth at once become a Minister in the universal Church and may act as a Minister and not as a Layman when called elsewhere and also a fixed Minister of a particular Church even as he that is baptized into a particular Church is a member of both Though Baptism and Ordination qua tales enter but into the Universal XXXVII It is not this or that mode of signification of consent that is necessary to either relation of Pastor or Flock but Consent signified intelligibly where Laws and Custome order it that actual ordinary attendance in publick worship and communion and submission to necessary ministration shall be the signification all that so do express consent by it And therefore our ordinary Parish-Assembling and Communion being express consent to the mutual relation have that which is necessary ad esse to true Churches and they slander them that say they are not such But ad melius esse more may oft-times be profitable 1. Because that is the best means which is best fitted to the end But the end of Signes being Notification that is caeteris paribus the best which is most notifying as that is the best Language which is most significant and intelligible Why should playing in the dark or dealing under-board be preferred in the greatest things 2. It oft falls out that some that live in the Parish are known Church-Papists Church-Atheists Infidels will tell in their meetings to their companions I believe not the words of the Parish-Priest It is his Trade to talk for gain I will do what the Law requires of me for my safety but I will have no more to do with him nor do I take him for a true Pastor that hath any Authority but by Law nor for any Pastor to me And 3. there are many Hereticks and Schismaticks engaged Members of other Churches who yet to avoid suffering will do that in the Parish-Church which the Law requireth 4. And the Antient Churches used express Consent yea and Election So for the Minister he is no Pastor without his signified consent but actual Ministration may be such a signification This is enough to reconcile the difference about Church-covenants XXXVIII They that rail against a more express consent in cases truly dubious as if it were tyranny and destructive to Christianity do suppose that if the King and Law commanded such a thing they commanded Tyrannically that which destroyeth Christianity and contradict themselves when they say that Rulers may make various orders of Church-governours and determine of undetermined Modes XXXIX As it is not needful and usual to set up a Coordinate Imperium artificum vel Philosophorum in Imperio Civili so it seemeth also of an Imperium Religiosum The first Question is whether Christ hath Instituted such The second whether he hath given power to Men to make it There is not in any Kingdom that I hear of but somewhat towards it in China such a Society of Physicians Astronomers Navigators Lawyers Schoolmasters Philosophers c. who set up a Co-ordinate Empire or Government that shall have all degrees of self-governing power as a National Socity with one Supreme either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Head according to the order of Civil-government Nor doth any reproach Schools Colledges Hospitals or any trading Societies that they are confused Independent and ungoverned because they have no common Governour but God and the King nor any particular Governour but the Principal or Master and Fellows of the Society nor any National association besides their subjection to one King and their voluntary correspondence for concord and mutual assistance with one another And much less is there any Co-ordinate Political Regiment of any of these through all the world under one visible humane Head personal or collective And yet many think that there is such a Society and Regiment for Religion National say some Universal say others That all that will serve God and be saved must be under one Co-ordinate power over all the Kingdom or World besides Christ and the Supreme Magistrate and they contend whether this power be Monarchical or Aristocratical c. I am so far Independent as to think that Christ hath Instituted no such Universal or National Power and Head of Religion but that 1. his own Universal Kingdom 2. And particular Churches under their several Bishops and Teachers 3. And Synods for concord and mutual help 4. And Christian Magistrates to rule all by the Sword 5. With the improvement of Mens eminent gifts and opportunities that these be Instituted by Christ I doubt not 6. And whether some should succeed the Apostles excepting their extraordinary powers in having a visiting instructing ordering care of many Churches and their Bishops and Teachers I confess my self uncertain and therefore will never strive against such nor deny due obedience to them who shew a true call to such an employment Nay if Christ have made no such Institution yet 1. if the Christian Magistrate 2. or the Churches by consent choose some faithful Ministers to such a power onely to direct instruct guide admonish reprove exhort the Bishops and Teachers of the particular Churches without any other force than the Apostles used and not destroying any of their proper power and duty or that Church-order which the Apostles setled I am no opposer of any such though my uncertainty disables me from subscribing and swearing to the right of their Authority The Scots themselves even by Knox's consent set up Super-intendents over many Churches John Spotswood Super-intendent of Lothian and so others And the power of a President Principal or Rector of a Colledge of Physicians Philosophers or Divines doth not make him of any other Order or species of Office and Profession than the rest But if any affirm more than this I will learn but cannot yet swear or subscribe it XL. Those that are for the obligation of the Jewish order I have fully spoke to in my first Plea for Peace Those that are only for the power of man to make such several Orders or Ranks of Governours in the Church as are in Armies and Kingdoms 1. Must tell us what sort of power may be given them 2. And who must give it And 1. No men can Institute a power of the same species or another species from that which we call the Sacred Ministry or as the Fathers the Sacerdotal but what is subordinate about the Accidentals of Religion and the Church 1. Not the same species because it is Instituted by God already No Man can create a creature already created 2. Not of another supra-ordinate or co-ordinate for 1. they can prove no power given them to do it 2. And that were to accuse Christ of insufficient doing his undertaken work and being less faithful in his house than Moses 3. And it will infer Mans introduction of a new co-ordinate
an Universal Head or Government over all the Pastors Churches and Christians in the world besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and you lay the concord of all the Churches upon it Do but grant the Papists this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal Church as a City is of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an Universal Ecclesiastical Monarch on Earth either personal or collective who must have the Supreme power P. 96. But indeed you have gone beyond Bellarmine in seting up Papal Monarchy Your other assertion sets up Atheism by making the Holy God the Author and Founder of two essentially different Churches or Church-Forms According to Bellarmines assertion for the Pope there would be Pastors c. But according to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all P. 224 225. Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita But in this your division the Membra dividentia are not inter se opposita you oppose the same thing against itself You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church The whole or the Universal Church at Corinth is sound and good You plainly leave out of your description the differencing Form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood or dwelling or abiding in this or that place you make a new essential of Church-Membership and Church-Communion and lay the peace of all the Churches on it and say it is Divine sure harmless fitted to the interest of all good men This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot The more I strive the more I am overcome Mr. Cawdrey was lately with me and we had Conference about this point suspecting mine own judgment I have conferred with divers about your other Notions two Churches or two Church-Forms differing essentially and they cannot apprehend how it can stand you make the Universal Church-Form and the particular Church-Form to differ essentially and this by Divine Law I prove to you from the nature of the thing it self and the express word of God that the Universal Church of God at Corinth and the particular Church of God at Corinth are one and the same To oppose the Universal and particular Church and say they differ essentially is to oppose the same thing against itself and make the Lord Jesus Christ the Authour and Founder of selfsubverting Principles P. 226 227. As for that other point of the Church particular being part of the Church Universal it is to say that the whole Church at Corinth is a part of the whole Church which is absurd Reader I must not Transcribe the whole Book the rest is too like this exercise your patience in receiving a short Answer to the several parts which seemeth needful CHAP. IV. A Defence against the foresaid Accusations § 1. WHat Christians heart can choose but mourn for the Church of God and the puzzling confounding temptations of the ignorant that must hear men charged thus publickly with Atheism and the overthrow of all Religion for that which the Christian world agreeth in and this by Preachers of professed humility sincerity and zeal How shall the unlearned know when they are safe yea what snares are thus laid to rob men of their time as well as their Faith and Charity I must not give such lines their proper names but I will say that it remembreth me of Isa 1. 6. and it cryeth out unclean unclean How few words of Truth and soberness and soundness can you number among all these Had he written and published it in his sleep as some talk and walk it were some excuse But for a Man a Minister awake and after publick admonition deliberately on consultation a second time to talk at this rate in the Press And yet cannot we be endured without their Ceremonies c. When the Friendly Debater and Mr. Shurlocke have compared such Books as this with those that they reprehended perhaps they will say Iliacos intramuros c. To begin at the end I am sorry to read what he saith of the Divers he Conferred with c. 1. I never till now read or heard Papist Protestant or any Christian of his mind And alas are divers of it now Are Conformists come to that Either they were at Manhood or in breeches at least or not If not he should have chosen other Counsellers If yea were they Laymen or Clergymen He was to blame if he took up with the former alone in such a case If the later he greatly disgraceth them But we must say somewhat of our Atheistical Errours The beginning of his words which say the same thing which he so abominateth I will not charge with contradiction in sence from the rest for if he mean the same thing by One and Two A Church and no Church A part and no part Yea and Nay they are no contradictions in sence And indeed I cannot perceive that he understandeth what he readeth and answereth nor well what he saith And therefore I am not sure when I understand him but I will review some of the things that his words seem to accuse in order § I. The Universal Church as I defined it is a True Church Proved Where there is a true Church-Head and a Body of all Christians on earth united and subjected to that Head by mutual consent and Covenant there is a true Universal Church but such is that which I named and defined as the Church Universal Ergo. The Major is from the definition to the thing denominated As to the Minor 1. That Christ is the True Head 2. And all Christians the Universal true body visible as Baptized and mystical as Heart-Covenanters 3. And that mutual Covenanting is a sufficient bond for this Church-union the Christian Reader will chide me if I stay to prove § 11. Particular Churches existent are true Churches in Essence Proved to him 1. He oft confesseth this and the former 2. A true pars dirigens pars subdita necessarily qualified ad esse and united in those relations for Church-ends are a true particular Church But such are many existent particular Churches and all that I defined Ergo. 1. That a true Bishop at least with his Presbyters is a true pars dirigens 2. And a qualified flock a true pars subdita 3. And that such are found united in these relations I will take for granted with the Reader except Mr. Ch. And the Major is the definition § III. That the Relative union of the governing Part or nearest Head to the Governed body is the specifying form The proof being de Ente politico notione Logicâ is the consent of all Politicks Logicks and use of speech by the professours
of both known to us in the world I oft enough distinguishing de nomine aequivoco have told men that it is not every Christian Assembly that we speak of but societas politica And all Politicks call the form of the Government the specifying form of the Politick Society throughout the known world So Monarchy Aristocracie Democracie are specifying forms of Republicks And Schools Armies Navies have divers Relative forms specifyed by the union of the various Regent Relative parts to the rest § IV. The Form is a chief essential part § V. Therefore divers specifying forms prove divers essences in specie § VI. It is not the generical form that specifieth Else all things that are ejusdem generis should be ejusdem speciei All bodies are not Animate nor all Animals Men nor all Men Bishops or Physicians § VII The Genus denominated without defining it with the specifying form or difference makes the Definition of the Species Else the Definition of the species infima would be confounded by the conjunct definitions of all the superiour Genera He that defineth a King must not put in it the definition of Homo of Animal of Vivens of Corpus and Anima of substantia § VIII The highest species must be defined by its proper highest form though not the subordinate species The King must be put in the definition of a Kingdom but not of a City Country Church Family School he is there supposed in a Kingdom And so of others § IX The higher Genera must not be named in the definition of the species but the next which is the superiour species Therefore Mr. Ch. mistook his Art of defining when he said I mist it by naming Christ as the Head of the Church Universal and adding that I blame my self that defining of a particular Church As in Relations it is not the ultimate end but the nearest that must be in the definition so is it not the highest but the next Genus that must be named In defining all the lower species the higher Genera are but implyed in the naming of genus proximum and not named § X. The Relation of Jesus Christ and of a humane Bishop are not the same Relation in specie though both be called Heads or Rulers Proved There is not the same subjectum nor the same fundamentum vel ratio fundandi nor the same Correlate for all the Christian world and a Diocese are not the same nor the same nearest terminus Ergo not the same Relation § XI Therefore the Universal Church Headed by Christ onely and a particular Church subordinately Headed by a Bishop or Clergy-head are essentially divers and two Proved Where the formal specifying Head or Regent part is two or divers and the Body divers c. there the societies are divers in specie or essentially But so it is here Ergo. That One and One are Two I will not undertake to prove to Mr. Ch. nor think it needful to prove to others nor yet that Christ is One and a Bishop one and not the same That Christ is the formal Head of the Universal Church all Christians confess and therefore to be named in the definition whether Mr. Ch. will or not and not supposed Baptismal Union and subjecting to him maketh us Christians and not supposeth us such in visible Church-state That Christ is not the formal specifying Head of a particular Church as such but of the Universal and so the Supream Head only of the particular is proved before 1. Because the specifying forma totius heterogenei is not the specifying form of the parts 2. Else all that Christ is Supreme Ruler to should be such particular Political Churches which is false It is not true of single persons of Christian Armies Troops Markets Parliaments Courts c. as such 3. Christ himself by his Apostles hath ordained a subordinate humane species of Church-heads or Rulers 4. From parity of cases Natural and Political The forma animalis is not forma hominis nor forma hominis forma oculi manus pedis c. The General is the formal Head of the Army but not of a Regiment but the Colonel Nor the Colonel of a Troop but the Captain nor the King of a City but the Maior or other subordinate head Nor the King or Maior of a Family School Colledge but the Pater-familias the Master the Rector c. Depose the subordinate Head and it's part of the Kingdom still but no Family School Colledge Troop Regiment c. All Mankind that profess dealing in such subjects as far as I know are agreed in all this As to the Body related also a Diocess is not all the Christian world § XII Every true particular or single Church is part of the Universal which is Headed only by Christ That it is part of the Universal I know not that ever man denyed till now that a conformable pious Divine maketh this with the former Atheistical making God and Christ a deceiver driving all Religion out of the world Popery worse c. Proved Quae unita totum constituunt sunt partes At Ecclesiae omnes particulares cum membris caeteris Christo Capite totam seu Universam Ecclesiam Redemptorum constituunt Ergo sunt Ecclesiae Universae partes Ecclesia universa constat ex horum unione Ergo haec omnia sunt ejus partes Again If the single Churches be no parts of the Universal either they are Co-ordinate Churches with the Universal or there is no Universal If the Universal be All without them than they are none If not then it is not Universal if there be other Churches which are no parts of it Again If they be no parts of the Church Universal they are no parts of the Body or peculiar people or Kingdom of Christ for that is but one 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 15 16. 5. c. But they are parts of the Body of Christ Ergo. § XIII To say that the whole Church e. g. at Corinth and the whole Church in the world are the same and what 's predicated of one is also of the other is a saying not to be justly denominated The subjectum relatum correlatum fundamentum terminus proximus and so the relation are divers The whole Church and its Head and a part and its subordinate Head are not the same The Kingdom and the City the City and a Parish or Ward the University and a Colledge the Man and a hand c. are not the same § XIV To say as he doth that a Family is not a part of the street or that of the City and London no Member or part of the Kingdom is stuff that I will not name an ill foundation for the charge of Atheism Blasphemy and all Impiety But I am out of all fear that he should make one Proselyte that 's sani cerebri If any accuse him of less than denying God and Christ even but of Deposing the King from most of his Kingdoms and saying that London and
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all