The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things…

Why do ⟨p. 307⟩the same men speak so much against schismatical rending mens selves from the true Churches, and gathering other Churches, if there be no such thing? The Laws change not, which oblige them. 6. They that are against schism and singularity, should be against this opinion, because (as it is utterly absurd, so) it is notoriously contrary to the Judgment of all the Christian world in all ages to this day, as acquaintance with Church history may fully inform them. They have ever taken mutual consent between the Pastors and the flock to be necessary to the being of a particular Church; and that whatever they were obliged to, they were not actually related to each other as Pastor and flock till they consented: And therefore have noted schismatical Churches in the same Cities that have been no parts of the Church which they disowned.

§ 8. But it is objected, that this unchurcheth our Parish-Churches, and all the Churches in the world.

Ans. Not one: But the contrary would. Our Parish Churches are associated by mutual consent: The Pastor expresseth his consent openly at his institution, induction and officiating: The Flocks show their consent by actual submitting to his Ministerial Office: They hear him, and communicate ordinarily with him, and seek Ministerial help from him; though all that are in the Parish do not so, those do it that are indeed his flock, or Church. They do not perhaps by word or writing covenant to submit to him as their Pastor, but they do it by actual signification of consent to the relation. And the Bishops in Consecration enter into a Covenant to watch over the flock (as do the Priests) and the Priests promise (if not swear, in ⟨p. 308⟩England) to obey them: This is a Covenant.