own Soul to consider better of at his leisure and out of the heat of Dispute Separation from the Church of England is a Schism and Schism is as damning a sin as Idolatry Drunkenness or Adultery And here he has a notable fetch But surely if these men believed so much methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural Impositions were removed unless they have greater kindness for such trifles than they have for such immortal Souls for whom Christ dyed And methinks they should be as much concerned to take care of their own Souls as we are to take care of them and not to divide the Church for the sake of such Trifles as they call them As for removing all unscriptural Impositions as he calls them by which he means the whole Constitution of the Church of England this we cannot do without destroying all the external Solemnities of Worship and dissolving the Bands of Church-Society of which more presently And if this could be done they would be Schismaticks still unless they could perswade all the Churches in the World to do so too For they could not maintain Catholick Communion with any Church which used any unscriptural Rites and Ceremonies as most Churches in the World at this day do Nay they would be Schismaticks from the Catholick Church for many hundred years before the Reformation for their very Principles are Schismatical and it is not the removing some few Ceremonies which would cure their Schism But suppose the Church of England were out of their way would that cure their Schism would Presbyterians Independents and meer Anabaptists cement into one Communion We know how it has been formerly and have reason to guess how it would be again when they cease to be Schismaticks from the Church of England they will be Schismaticks to one another And therefore we may without breach of Charity defend our Church and they are bound in Charity to look to their own Souls And therefore I wonder what our Author means when he puts the whole Dispute upon this issue Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is and we 'll comply i. e. let them keep to a few certain and necessary things let them not impose as terms of Vnion any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture Reply p. 7â— we are satisfied the Controversie is at an end This is a certain Argument that our Author is no great Traveller not so much as in Books that he knows nothing of any Church but his own dear Conventicles unless he modestly dissembles his knowledg to serve his Cause For the terms of our Communion are as Catholick as our Church is Diocesan Episcopacy Liturgies and Ceremonies have been received in all Churches for many hundred years and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this day and this is the Constitution of the Church of England and the terms of our Communion and must be acknowledged to be Catholick Terms if by Catholick Terms he means what has actually been received by that Catholick Church and not what he fancies ought to be made the Terms of Catholick Communion Could Mr. Lob indeed have the new Modelling of the Catholick Church and make what Catholick Terms of Communion he pleased he would be satisfied and the Controversie were at an end but wiser men consider that Catholick Terms of Communion are not to be made now no more than the Catholick Faith is and therefore it is not our private Reasonings but the Practise of the Catholick Church in all Ages which will acquaint us what the Catholick Terms of Communion are and he who will not maintain Communion with the Church upon such Terms must be a Schismatick and there is an end of that Controversie And if by according to the Word of God he means that nothing must be made a Term of Catholick Communion but what is agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture I readily grant it and assert that the Church of England requires nothing as a Term of Communion but what is so But if he means that the Church must require nothing but what is expresly commanded by the Word of God I deny that this ever was a Term of Catholick Communion nay nor of any particular Church-Communion Dr. Owen himself rejects it and of late it has been thought a very great Scandal upon the Dissenters to charge them with but it is happy for a Faction to have some ignorant Writers as well as Readers for the first are bold and the other credulous and the Argument must be acknowledged to be very useful to divide and disturb the best constituted Church though wise and cunning men are ashamed to use it And that Mr. L. means this by according to the Word of God appears from an admirable Argument he uses to prove it That we our selves look on them as indifferent i. e. as what is not enjoyned us in the Word of God q. d. as what is not according to the Word of God Reply p. 79. Which also he explains by such things as are not to be found in Scripture Now we do indeed by indifferent things mean such things as are not commanded in Scripture but are left to the prudence of Governors to injoyn or alter as the Edification of the Church shall require but yet we assert indifferent things to be according to Scripture both as the use of indifferent things is allowed in Scripture and as these particular usages which are enjoyned by the Church though they may be in their own natures indifferent yet are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture for decency and order But Mr. Lob requires us to shew the Scriptures that declare the things imposed to be so necessary a part of true Religion as to be a Form of our Communion with the Catholick Church that we must not only shew Ibid. 78. that these things are agreeable to true Religion but moreover that it is such a necessary part thereof that whoever conforms not to them when imposed is ipso facto cut off from the Catholick Church Now this were something to the purpose did we assert that the bare not doing these things as for instance the not wearing the Surplice or not using the Cross in Baptism or not kneeling at the Sacrament did in their own nature ipso facto cut men off from the Catholick Church but we never said we never thought this But we say that to separate causelesly from any true and sound part of the Christian Church cuts such Separatists off from the Catholick Church and to separate where no sinful terms of Communion are imposed is a causeless Separation So that it does not lie on us to prove that every thing that is injoyned is in its own nature necessary to Catholick Communion but if they would justifie their Separation they must prove that what is enjoyned is sinful I will only ask Mr. Lob whether it be a sufficient justification
But did I ever assert that there was a Catholick Church before there was any one particular Church that is before there was any Church at all Do I not assert that the universal Church in the first beginnings of Christianity was not so large as many particular Congregations are now Defence p. 140. And therefore that the Catholick Church did subsist in a particular Congregation That though in the beginnings of Christianity the true Church of Christ was consined to one small Congregation yet it was the Catholick Church c. p. 148. If Mr. Lob does not understand this I will endeavour to help him in it if his Conscience be not more incurable than his Understanding For when I asserted that the Catholick Church is in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches I expresly declared That I did not consider the Catholick Church as actually spread over all the World but as the Root and Fountain of Vnity As St. Cyprian did For in this Sense of the word Catholick and Vniversal as it signifies the Christian Church diffused and propagated in all parts of the World it is absurd and senseless to affirm That the Church was Planted in all the World before it was Planted in any one Country but I placed the Catholicism of the Christian Church not meerly in its actual Extent but in its intrinsick Nature its Extent varies in several Ages according to the Progress or Decrease of Christianity in the World but the Nature of the Church is always the same be its Extent more or less Catholick indeed is a Name which we do not find given to the Church in Scripture nor in the most ancient Creeds but we find in Scripture that Christ has but one Church and the very Nature and Constitution of this Church is such That it was not to be confined to any one Countrey as the Jewish Church was Defence p. 147. but to diffuse and propagate it self all the World over and upon this Account as I proved in the Defence it is called the Catholick Church because though it be spread all the World over it is but one Church still That very Church which the Apostles first planted in Jerusalem and by degrees enlarged into all parts of the World The difference between the Church at its first Planting when the beginnings of it were but small and when it overspread so great a part of the World is like the difference between a Child new Born and when he is come to his full Growth and Stature he is the same Person still but increased in all parts without dividing one Member from another or multiplying it self into more Bodies or like a Grain of Mustard-Seed which from small beginnings grows into a large Tree The Catholick or universal Church is that one Church which is the one Body of Christ which was the same Church when in the beginnings of Christianity it was confined to a single Congregation at Jerusalem and when it had spread it self over all the World I would desire to know whether Christ had ever more than one Church and one Body If he had not Whether that one Church might not always be properly called the Catholick Church If it might not Then if Christ have a Catholick Church now and formerly had no Catholick Church he has a Church now which he had not at first and therefore has either changed the Church which he once had or has two Churches one which is not the Catholick Church and another which is the Catholick Church The Christian Church indeed has spread it self into many parts of the World where it was not at the first planting of the Gospel and therefore is more Catholick and Universal with respect to its extent than it was at first but the Church which is now spread all the World over is but that one Church still which began at Jerusalem and therefore the Church at Jerusalem while but one single Congregation was the Catholick Church in its Root and Fountain and principle of Unity which was all that St. Cyprian and I from him affirmed of this Matter And if particular Churches now may be Catholick Churches as maintaining Catholick unity which was the familiar Language of the primitive Fathers much more might the first Christian Church be very properly called the Catholick Church as being the Principle and Fountain of Catholick unity But of all things I hate to dispute about Words and therefore if Mr. Lob will but grant the thing I contend for let the Words shift for themselves and that is this That the Church first planted by the Apostles in Jerusalem is that one Church which was afterwards spread over all the World that when the Apostles planted Churches in other Cities Countries and Provinces they did not erect new distinct Independent Churches but only enlarged that one Church of Christ and added new Members to it Let the Church of Christ be acknowledged to be but one which propagated it self in the Unity of the same Body all the World over and I have no farther Controversie about this Matter This is the only thing I was concerned for to prove that there is but one Church all the World over and for this Reason I asserted That the Catholick Church considered as the root and fountain of Vnity was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches The Catholick Church may subsist in one particular Church otherwise the belief of the Catholick Church can be no necessary Article of our Creed for the first Christian Church was the particular Church of Jerusalem and if that were not in some sense the Catholick Church there was a Christian Church when there was no Catholick Church and may be so again if we should suppose all the World excepting one particular Church to apostatize from the Faith of Christ which yet is generally acknowledged possible to be But if particular Churches were in order of Nature antecedent to the Catholick Church then they must be true and compleat Churches without any regard to Catholick unity and then it is impossible ever after to find or make one Catholick Church The Notion and Essence of the Catholick Church as far as concerns this Controversie consists in such a Catholick unity as makes all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World one Body and Church and Members of each other Now could we suppose that there were two or three or more particular Churches before the Catholick Church as suppose the Churches of England France and Spain then we must acknowledg that a Church may be a true compleat Church without any regard to Catholick unity and then Catholick unity is not necessary to the Notion and Being of a Church and then there can be no necessity of one Catholick Church If it is possible that there should be two Christian Churches which are not of the same Communion nor Members of each other then why not a hundred a thousand c. And then there can be no one
have not Episcopal Government Our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy which they own from our reformed Bishops which they maintain Communion with and therefore are as well Separatists from the reformed Presbyterian Churches as from the Church of England 2. As it is Schism without absolute necessity to cast off the Authority of our Bishops and to separate from them so it is much more so to reject Episcopal Communion and the Government of Bishops as unlawful and Antichristian which makes a very material difference between our Dissenters and those reformed Churches abroad who have no Bishops of their own There is nothing our Dissenters more vehemently oppose than Episcopal Government for which they never think they can find names bad enough Not to mention others at present this is the great design of Mr. Baxter's late History of Episcopacy to prove that Diocesan Episcopacy in the very Nature and Constitution of it overthrows the Government of Christ's Institution This is his great design in his Abridgement of Church-History to bespatter and vilifie the most renowned Bishops of the Church to reproach all their Actions to charge them with all the Heresies and Schisms which have disturbed the Church and to paint them in such frightful shapes that all Christians may flie from them as the great troublers of our Israel I cannot imagine what service he could think to do by this to common Christianity which is concerned in nothing more than in the Credit and Reputation of the chief Ministers of Religion but I must acknowledge all this was admirably calculated to serve a Faction But the Foreign Churches which have no Bishops do not condemn Episcopacy nor separate from it as an unlawful Communion and whoever does so is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church This is so plain that there needs no proof of it For let men talk never so ill of Bishops and their Government the matter of fact is evident that the Church of Christ has for many hundred years had no other Government than that of Bishops They can shew no Church till the Reformation which was governed without Bishops even such Diocesan Bishops as our Dissenters now vent their Spleen against Dr. Owen indeed and Mr. Baxter would gladly except the two first Centuries but what little reason they have for it has been already examined in the Defence but however they are all forc'd to acknowledg that in the succeeding Ages of the Church till the Reformation which was above twelve hundred years the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops as it is at this day so that by renouncing the Episcopal Communion of the Church in our Age they separate from the whole Catholick Church for so many hundred years As far as Episcopal Government is concerned they condemn the whole Catholick Church in their separation from the Church of England as governed by Diocesan Bishops nay herein they separate also from all the reformed Churches who hold Communion with the Episcopal Church of England and if this be not enough to prove them Schismaticks there is no such thing as Schism from the Church for there was no Church for near fifteen hundred years nor is there at this day which they can communicate with upon these Principles but their own beloved Conventicles for it has always been accounted as unlawful to communicate with such a Church as communicates with another Church whose Communion is sinful as it is to communicate with such a Church our selves and it must be so according to the Principles of Catholick Communion And therefore if it be unlawful to communicate with the Church of England as governed by Bishops it must be unlawful also to communicate with those Protestant Presbyterian Churches which communicate with the Church of England This I suppose may satisfie any man what little reason our Dissenters have to talk so much of Foreign reformed Churches for their case is very different that which will justifie those Foreign Churches which have no Bishops will not justifie our Dissenters who have Bishops but separate from them For though they have no Bishops they do not separate from Episcopal Churches nor condemn Episcopacy as an unlawful or Antichristian Government but hold Communion with the Church of England which our Dissenters have rent and divided by Schismatical separations 3. Let us then consider what may be said in justification of those reformed Churches which have no Bishops whether their want of Bishops does unchurch them and make it unlawful for us to hold Communion with them This is a very nice and tender point for to condemn all the reformed Churches which have no Bishops seems so hard and uncharitable that the Church of England has always declined it but then absolutely to justifie them overthrows the ancient government by Bishops and is made use of by our Dissenters to pull down Episcopacy if the present Bishops do not please them which is impossible for any Bishop to do who will be true to his own Authority and to the constitutions of our Church And therefore in stating this matter I must go a middle way neither absolutely to condemn nor absolutely to justifie them For 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government which I shall not now go about to prove I must acknowledg those Churches which have no Bishops to be very imperfect and defective and that they are bound as far as they can to endeavour to restore the Episcopal Authority and if they fail in this so far as they are chargeable with this neglect what in some cases is a pardonable defect may become especially in the Governors of such a Church a very great Crime For no Church must wantonly change a divine Institution we condemn the Church of Rome for taking away the Cup from the Laity and I think every divine Institution has something so sacred in it as not to be lightly rejected or altered without absolute necessity 2. But yet the case may be such that the want of Episcopal Government may not un-church such a society of Christians nor make it unlawful for other Christians to maintain Communion with them As will appear from these following considerations 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presently un-church those who are guilty of it 2. Especially if there be an absolute or very great necessity for doing it 3. Especially if the case be such that at least they have a presumptive allowance from the Catholick Church to do it 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presentlyun-presentlyun-church those who are guilty of it I need not spend many words to prove this for when the case is proposed in general I think no man will deny it The observation of all divine Institutions is necessary to the perfection of a Church but it is not so to the being of it That is though God does strictly require the observance of all his Statutes yet every positive command is not of that moment that God will disanul his Covenant with
whole Discourse is that it is not in all cases and circumstances unlawful to maintain Catholick Communion with such a Church as being forced to it by necessity is neither governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters Episcopally ordained III. There still remains the third and fourth terms of Catholick Communion to be considered the Discipline of the Church and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies which I shall briefly speak to both together Now Discipline in the ancient use of the Word has a large signification and includes all religious Worship as well as Church Censures especially the Christian Sacraments for Church Discipline consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the Communion Worship and Sacraments of Christians Thus Disciplina sacerdotis in Tertullian signifies the whole exercise of the Priestly Office even the administration of Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper And by Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I mean such external circumstances and appendages of Worship Time Place Habits Postures or significant Rites as are of humane Institution and may be either enjoyned or altered by Church Governors and do actually differ according to the Customs of several Churches Now to reduce what I have to say under this Head into as narrow a compass as I can I shall premise several things which I presume will be acknowledged without a Proof by the Persons I have now to deal with 1. That it is necessary to Catholick Communion that every Church observe all the essentials of Christian Worship and particularly the Christian Sacraments as instituted by our Saviour 2. That their Worship be pure from all Idolatrous mixtures and corruptions which is a sufficient justification of our separation from the Church of Rome 3. I suppose it will be granted also that there is no Church so pure but that it has bad men and too often bad Ministers in its Communion 4. That there have in all ages been various Rites and Ceremonies used in the Christian Church and very different in different Churches This no man will deny but one who is either very ignorant himself or a very impudent imposer upon the ignorance of others 5. That among true and orthodox Churches which believe all the Fundamentals of Faith and observe all the Essentials of Worship there are different degrees of purity in Discipline and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies some more some less for the edification of the Church This having been in former Ages and being now at present the state of the Christian Church it is evident what a Catholick Christian must do who will maintain Catholick Communion with the several Christian Churches in the World As 1. He must communicate with Churches which are not so strict and regular in their Discipline as he could wish There being few Churches in the World so exact in this matter but a wise and good man may discover such defects in their Discipline as he could wish amended And he who will not communicate with any Church nor live in any Common-wealth which has any defects in its Government is not fit to live in this World where there is no absolute perfection to be found either in Church or State 2. He must communicate with such Churches wherein there are a great many bad as well as good men for this is the state of all Churches on Earth where the Tares grow up with the Wheat 3. They must communicate with Churches which observe several uncommanded and significant Ceremonies for thus most Churches in the World do and have always done 4. Nay they must communicate with Churches which have very different if not contrary Customs There being few Churches wherein the external Modes Rites and Ceremonies of Worship are in all things alike It is evident as any matter of Fact can be that no true Christian Churches in the World can communicate with each other upon any other terms than these and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of any other and to condemn these terms of Communion as unlawful makes Catholick Communion impossible Whoever separates from any Church upon a pretence of some defects and imperfections in Worship or Discipline when all the essentials of Christian Worship are preserved entire and pure without any such corrupt mixtures as make their Worship sinful whoever separates from a Church because there are a great many bad men in it or for the sake of some indifferent Customs and significant Ceremonies must for the same reason separate from all the Churches in the World even from the most Primitive and Apostolical Churches of the first ages of Christianity Now if Catholick Communion be so essential to the being and notion of the Catholick Church those Principles must be false and Schismatical which are so irreconcileable with Catholick Communion For it is plain we cannot at this day nor ever could communicate with the Catholick Church if every defect in Worship or Discipline if indifferent rites and usages in religious Worship if corrupt and vicious Members make the Communion of any Church unlawful and be a just reason for Separation This indeed has always been the pretence both of ancient and modern Schismaticks The Novatians and Donatists separated for a stricter Discipline and purer Communion and were condemned for it by the Catholick Church And St. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that neither the wickedness of the Minister nor of the People corrupt the Worship or make the Communion of such a Church sinful though through the defect of Discipline the one should not be deposed nor the other removed from Christian Communion For indeed the ancient Fathers thought Catholick Communion so absolutely necessary that very few things could come in Competition with it We have a famous example of this in St. Cyprian who disputed very earnestly for the necessity of baptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks whenever they returned to the Communion of the Church Stephen Bishop of Rome did as vehemently oppose it with some sharp reflexions upon St. Cyprian and did admit those to Communion without Baptism who had been baptized by Hereticks But St. Cyprian like a true Catholick Christian Neminem jadicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes prefat Concil Carth. declares in his Preface to the Council of Carthage that he would not deny Communion to any of his Colleagues who differed from him in this point And in his Letter to Jubaianus Nos quantum in nobis est propter Heretices cumcollegis coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. ep ad Jubai he professes that he will not quarrel with his Colleagues for the sake of Hereticks And yet as St. Austin well observes this Dispute was of great consequence to the Communion of the Church For if St. Cyprian was in the right then the Bishop of Rome August de baptismo l. 2. who received those to Communion without Baptism who had been formerly baptized
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council p. 160 Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils subverts the King's Supremacy and incurs a Premunire p. 168 Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 172 The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with considered p. 175 The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church p. 178 The distinction of a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections p. 188 Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society p. 200 Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England examined p. 209 The difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head p. 216 A Vindication of the Dean's Argument against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church p. 219 Chap. 5. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it p. 226 In what sence Catholick Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other p. 227 The several ways of maintaining Catholick Communion used in the ancient Church vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections p. 232 What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church p. 239 That there are Schisms in the Church is no Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion p. 240 Catholick Communion not impracticable in its own Nature p. 240 Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches p. 243 Not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to maintain Catholick Communion between foreign Churches p. 245 The Terms of Catholick Communion very practicable p. 247 A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines p. 248 What a Fundamental Doctrine is Salvation by Christ the general fundamental of Christianity p. 256 The Doctrine of the holy Trinity a Fundamental of Christian Faith p. 259 The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ p. 261 School subtilties about the Trinity not fundamental Doctrines nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273 The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation c. fundamental p. 274 What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self p. 281 Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals p. 300 Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine p. 305 Whether a Church which professes to believe all Fundamentals but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations may be said to err fundamentally p. 316 And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church p. 319 How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops p. 329 A great difference between the case of our Dissenters and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account p. 331 Their Case more largely considered p. 337 Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies considered as Terms of Catholick Communion p. 371 Chap. 6. An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions to prove the Dissenters according to my own Principles to be no Schismaticks and a further inquiry who is the Divider p. 382 Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholick Church p. 383 Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholick Church p. 387 Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion p. 394 Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation p. 404 Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters and may be charged with Schism upon that account p. 413 The Answer which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider vindicated from his Exceptions p. 420 Chap. 7. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined p. 442 His Materials for Vnion destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters to pull down the Church for Vnion p. 443 He sets up no National Church in the room of it p. 447 His Project will cure no Schism and therefore can make no Vnion p. 456 Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Vnion of the Nation p. 459 ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate r. is of a desperate p. 45. l. 4. r. spick p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought p. 73. Marg. for ex 52. r. ep 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit r. ingemuit p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle must be read together p. 89. l. â—2 for promising r. premising p. 106. l. 22. for of r. or p. 123. l. 2. dele also p. 139. Marg. for litera r. litura iâ— l. 9. for Cevernment r. Government p. 141. l. 24. for thatâ— r. yet p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent p. 226. l. 7. r. are l. 22. r. it p. 235. l. 20. for uses r. cases p. 243. l. 28. dele two p. 254. l. 20. for observe r. obscure p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 381. l. 29. for there r. these p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholick Church p. 393. l. 18. r. with it p. 421. l. 9. dele what p. 464. l. 29. r. help it A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of Separation CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Vnity IN my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation I have asserted and proved for any thing I see yet objected to the contrary that Christ has but one Church on Earth and that the Unity of this Church consists in one Catholick Communion Mr. B. Mr. Lob and Mr. Humphrey instead of giving a fair Answer to this have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words as I never thought of nay as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book and when they have turned every thing into non-sense and confusion by their own senseless Comments they set up a great Cry of Cassandrianism and Contradictions For my part when I read those Representations these Men had made of my Notions I wondred to find my self such a stranger to my self I was perfectly ignorant of the whole business and Intrigue and began to examine whether I had expressed any thing so unwarily as to lead them into such Mistakes but upon inquiry I found it was nothing but the last weak Efforts of a
dying Cause like the works and doublings of a Hare when she is near run down to lose the Scent For this is the constant Artifice of these men when they are no longer able to defend their Cause to start aside and by one Art or other to loose their first Question in some new Dispute Thus Mr. B. tells us for a Conclusion I intend God willing hereafter to let the Matters of meer Conformity comparatively alone and farther to examine this fundamental Difference seeing it is evident that now Satan's design is to call the French Popery by the name of the Protestant Religion Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 230. and the Protestant Religion of the true Church of England by the name of Non-conformity and Schism and to deceive the simple by a noise against the refusers of Episcopacy Liturgy and Ceremonies but that noise shall no more divert me from opposing the Foundations of Popery And I mightily commend the prudence of Mr. Baxter's Resolution for it is an easier matter to pull down a man of Clouts of his own setting up then to uphold such a decayed and ruinous Cause But I am resolved not to lose the Cause thus and therefore shall beat a little backward till we find it again and shall 1. mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion 2. Give a brief Account of the Doctrine of the defence in those Points and consider their Cavils and Exceptions against it and those perverse senses they put upon my words to form them into a Cassandrian design § 1. I shall mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse concerning Church-Unity and Communion whereby they may the better judge of the Nature and Tendancy of it Now there were two things I apparently designed in it 1. To shew how vain all those projects were of uniting Churches without curing their Separation such as Mr. Humphrey's is of making all separate Churches parts of the National Church by vertue of an Act of Parliament under the King as the Accidental Head of such an Accidental Church For if the Church must be but one and the Unity of this one Church consists in one Communion it is impossible in the nature of the thing for all the power in the World to make so many separate Churches one Church The supreme Power may grant equal Liberties and Priviledges in the Common-wealth to all these separate Churches but it can no more make them one than it can make Contradictions to be true the sin and evil of Separation still remains the removal of which is the only thing that makes Union so desirable and if an Act of Parliament could do this I confess the Proposal would be considerable If the evil and sinfulness of Separation consisted only in disobedience to humane Laws I should think it a barbarous thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare men in so great a guilt And it is impossible in such an Age as this which is distracted with so many different and contrary Perswasions to make any Laws about Religion which will meet with an universal compliance But if the evil of Separation consists in dividing the unity of the Church which no Laws can cure but those which cure Separation Mr. Humphrey's uniting Law can give no ease and security to the Souls and Consciences of men whatever it may do to their Liberties and Estates And I take the Souls of men to be of greater concernement than their Bodies and Estates and therefore should challenge the principal regard from consciencious men in their Projects of Union 2. Another design of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion was to give us the most plain and easie Notion of Schism and Separation which Mr. B. and some other late Writers have industriously endeavoured to confound that no body might know what it is Now if there be but one Catholick Church all the World over then every Separation is a Schism on one side or other for where there are two separate Churches one if not both must be schismatical because there is but one Church And if the Unity of this Church consists in one Communion which exacts a joynt discharge of all the Duties of a Church-relation in hearing and praying and receiving the Lord's Supper c. together then to forsake the Church and meet in private Conventicles in distinct and opposite Communions for Religious Worship is Separation and when it is causeless is a Schism as I particularly proved in the defence from St. Cyprian Defence p. 24◠and St. Augustin this was the ancient Notion of Schism But if there be more than one Church and one Communion if the Catholick Church consist of all the separate Churches all the World over Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 132. as Mr. Baxter asserts I would gladly know what Schism and Separation is which hath so ill a Character in Scripture and which the ancient Fathers so vehemently declaim against as one of the greatest Impieties such a wickedness as Martyrdom it self cannot expiate For if there be not one Church but a great many Churches of distinct and separate Communions those Christians who forsake one Church and form themselves into a new Church society cannot be said to divide the Church but to multiply it they become a distinct Church by themselves and if they retain all the Essentials of Christian Faith and Worship are as good and sound a part of the Catholick Church as that particular Church is from which they separate For when there is no obligation upon Christians to live in one Communion what should hinder them if they please from dividing into many If there be more Churches and Communions than one he who forsakes one Church and joyns in Communion with another cannot be said to go or to be out of the Church but only to remove from one Church to another and yet this was the ancient Character of a Schismatick that he was Extra Ecclesiam foris one who is out of the Church without doors Cypr. de imitate and is said de ecclesia recedere to go out of the Church But according to this Notion it is impossible for a man to go out of the Church unless he forsake the Communion of all the Churches in the World Nay if Church-unity does not consis tin one Communion he may do that too as Mr. B. says the Seekers do and yet while they believe in Christ continue members of the Catholick Church Take away the Notion of one Communion and there are but two things that I can think of whereon to found the charge of Schism and Separation Either 1. on a private Contract and Covenant between the Pastor and Members of a particular Church or 2. on the Authority of the Magistrate who enjoyns us to communicate with such a Church But now I observe first that the Notion of Schism was antecedent to both these The ancient Church knew no other Church-covenant but Baptism which obliges us
to Catholick Communion and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or enjoyn any Communion And yet the Church never had a greater sence of the evil of Schism in any Age and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing without any regard to private Contracts or humane Authority 2. To break our Promise and Covenant is a great evil but it is not in its own nature Schism unless there be something else to make it so besides breach of promise To disobey our Governors in lawful things is a very great evil but it is not in it self the evil of Schism but of disobedience to lawful Authority These do greatly aggravate the sin of Schism when men are guilty of it but it cannot make that to be Schism which is not and yet there is no such sin and can be no such sin as Schism if there be not one Church but men may divide into as many distinct and separate Churches as they please for if any man should say that Separation is sinful when there is no just cause or reason for Separation this supposes that there are necessary reasons against Separation when there are no just reasons for it and I would gladly hear what those reasons are against Separation when you have destroyed the Notion of one Catholick Communion But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholick Communion in the Disputes of Schism and Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation ch 5. p. 231. and thither I refer my Reader Now I shall hence briefly observe two things with reference to my present design 1. That the whole force of my reasoning aginst Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet depends on the Doctrine of one Catholick Communion and therefore I was not at all concerned to assert one visible unifying Church-Power under Christ Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 181. over all the Catholick Church as Mr. B. calls it I no where throughout my Book oppose Separation upon the Principles of an universal unifying Church-Power but only on the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore neither having any where asserted any such thing nor having any reason to do so in the service of the Cause I undertook especially having asserted the quite contrary as in due time will appear the Reader may easily perceive how injuriously my Adversaries have distorted my words to give some colour and pretence to their Calumnies 2. I observe farther That supposing there had some dubious passages about an universal Church-Power slipt from my Pen the confuting such a fancy as that is by no means a confutation of the Defence If the doctrine of one Catholick Communion hold good as it will certainly do whatever becomes of Catholick Church-Power it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for Separation and they are as very Schismaticks as ever the Novatians or Donatists were Here the Controversie began about the sinfulness of Separation very angry they were and gave a great many hard words to that excellent Person who warned them of the danger and evil of it many Books have been written about it and now they are charged as high as ever and are ferreted out of their Retreats and see the very foundations of their Cause rooted up all on a sudden they grow tame and gentle and patiently hear themselves proved Schismaticks without saying a word for themselves being more concerned it seems to oppose a French Popery which sometimes by what figure I know not they call a Cassandrian design than to vindicate their own dear selves from the charge of Schism Some possibly may think them very mortified and self-denying men others will be tempted to suspect some other Cause But Mr. B. is resolved that noise shall not divert him from opposing the foundations of Popery the plain meaning of which is this He finds it troublesom to write in a Cause where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to answer him and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself where he is secure of the victory unless Richard and Baxter should happen to quarrel he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise I suppose he means a fourth Folio he telling us that he has writ three already § 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church and one Catholick Communion which my Adversaries have so industriously misrepresented that it is necessary to set it in a new Light In the third Chapter I proved at large Defence ch 3. p. 137. c. that Christ has but one Church which is his Body and Spouse which we call the Catholick Church and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholick Church though it will appear in due time that they deny the thing That the Church is but one I proved from the express Testimony of Scripture and the ancient Fathers and by this unanswerable Argument Ib. p. 151. c. that the Christian Church is not a new Church but the old Jewish-Church reformed and spiritualized by the Laws and Institutions of Christ Christianity being nothing else but mystical Judaism The believing Jews continue still united to their own Root and the believing Gentiles are grafted on the Jewish Root and become one Church with them as St. Paul discourses Rom. 11.17 18 24. The middle Wall of Partition was broken down and the Gentiles received into the Church of God which was no longer to be confined within the bounds of Jury nor to the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham but to spread it self over all the World and therefore since the Christian Church is not a new Church but built upon the old foundations of the Jewish Church enlarged and Christianized it must continue as much one as ever the Jewish Church was I observed also from St. Cyprian whose words I had cited at large that the Catholick Church Ib. p. 144. though it consist of all particular Churches which are contained in it yet is not a meer arbitrary Combination and Confederacy of particular Churches but is the root and fountain of Unity and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and the Fountain before the Rivers that flow from it that particular Churches are made by the encrease and propagation of the Catholick Church not the Catholick Church by the propagation of particular Churches Here Mr. Lob gives us the first taste of his great understanding and skill in Controversie and what a formidable Adversary he is like to prove He says I assert Reply to the Defence p. 10. that the universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches he should have said Catholick for that was my word but then he had lost his
find he is as much blundered and confounded about the notion of Unity as he is about Communion I asserted that Catholick Unity consists in one Communion the plain sense of which is no more than this That the Catholick Church is one considered as one Body and Society wherein all Christians and Christian Churches have equal Right and Obligation to Christian Communion This Unity he turns into Union and understands it of our Union to Christ not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church and argues thus 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayers and Sacraments do Where you see he misconstrues both the terms and it would be wonderful to any Logician to hear him conclude from these premisses Ergo the Unity of the Catholick Church does not consist in its being one Body and Society and Communion of Christians If this be to write Controversies we may e'ne as well lay Wagers and cast Lots for Major Minor and Conclusion for any Propositions well shuffled will naturally fall into as good Syllogisms as these And yet Mr. B. had notice given him of this distinction between the Union of the Church to Christ and the Unity of all Churches in one Body and Society in the 8th .. Chap. of the Defence where I consider what Communion is essential to the Catholick or universal Church where the Reader may find these words which Mr. B. himself takes notice of I have already proved the Catholick Church to be one visible Body and Society Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 208 and therefore need not now add any thing more to confute that opinion that the Catholick Church is invisible which is asserted by Dr. Owen and his Independent Brethren But Mr. B. and others who acknowledge one visible Catholick Church consisting of all the particular Churches in the World do not much differ from Dr. O ' s. invisible Church while they make the Vnity of this Church to consist only in their Vnion to Christ as Head of the Church not in the Vnion of Churches as Members of the same Body For I take it not to be enough that all Churches are united to Christ unless they be all united in one Body for the whole Church cannot be the one Body of Christ unless all particular Churches are one Body And therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us how the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body I assert this is done by one Communion if he can tell any better way I would gladly learn it especially if he can tell me how all Churches can be one Body without one Communion This sudden Humiliation as Mr. B. calls it in being contented to learn of him makes him condescend to undertake this task to teach me but very much suspects my capacity to learn till I am better instructed by some Grammarians Metaphysical and Political Teachers what the meaning of Vnion and Communion is Ib. p. 209. what is the difference between Essentials and Integrals and Accidents and of Vnion and Communion in each of these and how many sorts of Vnion and Communion there are that are pertinent to our Case c. I do not wonder there are so few persons who understand Mr. B. or are capable of learning from him since there are so many things to be understood before-hand to prepare them for his Instructions as no man of sense can ever understand I ask Mr. B. one plain Question How the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body so as to become one Church In Answer to this he sends me to Grammarians and Metaphysicians to learn how many sorts of Union there are though I care not how many sorts of Union there are if he will tell me what the Unity of the Catholick Church is But he says 1. He cannot talk sense about these things without distinguishing about the unifying of the Society and the uniting a single Member to that Society But I suppose in my Question particular Churches already formed and particular Christians united to these Churches and only enquire how all these Christians and all these Churches are one Church Other men I believe could talk sense without these Distinctions which Mr. B. seems to be so fond of only to prevent his Readers from understanding sense 2. He must distinguish also an essentiating Vnion and an integrating or accidental Vnion and Communion I perceive we shall never come to the Business For I did not enquire wherein the essence of the Church consists or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its Being which I suppose he means by his essentiating integrating accidental Union and Communion but I suppose a thousand Churches or as many more as you please with all the Essentials Integrals Accidentals of a Church and enquire how these thousand Churches become one Church Possibly these Distinctions may be the way of speaking sense but I perceive they are not the way of speaking to the purpose But let us now consider the Account Mr. B. gives us of this Matter And 1. he says It is only essential to the Church that there be an organized Body of Pastors and People united to Christ the Head Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add one Body for that is the thing in Dispute whether Christ have one or a thousand Bodies if but one how all the Christians and Churches in the World make up that one Body 2. He adds In this Definition Christ only is the supream constitutive Summa Potestas or regent part the organized Body of Pastors and People but the Pars subdita and the Vnion of Christ and that Body maketh it a Church This is very well still We acknowledge Christ to be the supream Governour of his Church and that the Union of Pastors and People to Christ makes them a Church but the main Question still remains untouched What it is which makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but one Church Nor does his Similitude help him out which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application that I cannot let it pass His words are these As in the Constitution of Man 1. The rational Soul is the real Form which is Principium Motus 2. The organized Body is the constitutive Matter That there be Heart Liver Stomach is but the Bodies Organization that these parts be duly placed and united is Forma Corporis non Hominis and makes the Body but Materia disposita 3. The Vnion of Soul and Body is that Nexus like the Copula in a Proposition which may be called the relative Form or that which maketh the Soul become Forma in actu Had this Philosophy been known in
it Dr. Field of the Church 1. B. Ch. 13 I will transcribe the whole His words are these This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God and Company of his People viz Schismaticks whose departure yet is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God for whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving Truth of God Order of holy Ministry Sacraments by vertue thereof administred and a blessed Vnity and Fellowship of the People of God knit together in the bond of Peace under the command of lawful Pastors and Guides set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternal Happiness Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyned with the rest of God's People in respect of the Profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship power of Order and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have Fellowship so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church nor of that more special number of them that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church So that Dr. Field expresly acknowledges that Schismaticks may be rightly denied to be of the Church though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ may in a loose and large sense of the Word be said to belong to the Christian Church as they retain something which belongs to the Church still among them But to make this more plain and easie I shall briefly distinguish between the several Notions and Acceptations of a Church For 1. the Church sometimes signifies the number of the Elect that is all sincere Christians who are vitally united to Christ by a true and lively Faith a divine Love and Charity and all other Christian Graces and Vertues who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men and the invisible Church because we who cannot know the Hearts of men cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church 2. There is the visible Catholick Church which consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ observe his Laws and Institutions and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other This Church is called visible from its visible profession of the Christian Faith and external and visible Communion and Catholick because all such Churches all the World over are but one Communion This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ to the Communion of which all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined Now it is commonly and truly observed that there are some professed Christians who are only in this Church others who are of it and others who are out of it Those who are in the Church but not true Members of it are those professed Christians who live in the Communion of the Church but yet are either secret Hypocrites or openly wicked but not excommunicated these are in the Church by external Profession as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine till they be cut off All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession and an external Communion which is absolutely required of all Christians when it may be had and they are of the Church that is true and lively Members of it by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ None properly belong to the visible Church but those whom we call the invisible Church that is all sincere Christians for the visible and invisible are not two but one Church And the Reason of the distinction between them is because the Government of the Church being committed to men who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts and the necessity of external Affairs or the negligence of Church-Governours loosening the Reins of Discipline many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church either because they are not known or because when known they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times be cast out And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body the Spouse of Christ the Wife of the Lamb a royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People pure undefiled holy and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members not regarding what some visible Professors are who are in the Church indeed but are not of it and ought not to be in it The not observing of which has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters not to the visible but to the mystical and invisible Church which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes But then all Hereticks and Schismaticks and excommunicated Persons are out of this Church till they either return or be restored to the Communion of it For to be in the Church is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices And therefore those who either by their own Choice or by the Censures of the Church are not in Communion must be out of it And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers both ancient and modern than to meet with such Expressions as these of separating from the Church going out of it being out and being cast out of the Church which is a very strange way of speaking if Mr. Lob's Notion be true That all professed Christians what-ever they are are Members of the Catholick Church for then it is impossible for a professed Christian either to go out or to be cast out of the Catholick Church as it is for a man to go out of the World This is that one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion which I asserted and proved in the Defence from whence Hereticks and Schismaticks depart and go out and the Excommunicate are cast out But now the Difficulty is Whither these Hereticks and Schismaticks go when they go out of the Church They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers for Heresie and Schism does not make men Infidels and if they be neither in the Church nor in the World what third State shall we find for them The plain Resolution of which in short is this That they are the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks which
mention the Country-Conformist who is such an insignificant Appendage and Hanger-on as a silly flie is to a Wheel though possibly he may have no more wit than to fancy that he has raised all this dust and stir They charge me with advancing a Cassandrian design and promoting an Union with the Church of Rome rather than with Protestant Dissenters And to insinuate the belief of this into his Readers Mr. Lob endeavours to prove that Arch-Bishop Laud had this design in his head but what is this to me I am no Arch-Bishop yet and greatly suspect I never shall be if he can prove that the Arch-Bishop died like a Papist or a Phanatick with a lye in his mouth or that he attempted any reconciliation with the Church of Rome which is not consistent with the Principles or Practices of the Primitive Church I think he was very much to blame for it and am very glad he did not perfect his Design but could a Reconciliation be obtained upon the principles of Primitive and Catholick Christianity accursed be the man who would hinder this Union which I would be glad to effect not only with shedding my Blood once but if it were possible a thousand times with all the Scorn and Obloquies of the most virulent Phanaticks into the Bargain But whatever Mr. Lob may fancy I look upon this as a very hopeless and impractible design and never had such a vain Conceit in my head while I was a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iting the late Defence and had any one Whispered such an accusation in my Ear without at the same time shewing the folly and weakness of the Charge I should have been more puzzled to have found out the Rise and Occasion of it than to have answered all the Cavils against the Church of England which I have ever yet seen But though I knew nothing of a Cassandrian Design yet my Adversaries have found me out and if we will believe Mr. Lob I am got at least as far as France in my Journey to Rome surely there is some Conjuring in the Case for I don't know that ever I went a step beyond Canterbury But this is a Cause which will not bear an Ignoramus and therefore I must defend my self as well as I can and in order to that I shall 1. briefly represent the Doctrine of the Defence with respect to the Unity of Church-power and Government whereon this Charge of Cassandrianism is founded 2. Consider what the Doctrine of Cassander was in this matter 3. Examine the Arts my Adversaries have used to pervert the Sense of my words to turn them into Non-sense and Ridicule and to draw me head-long into the Popish Plot. 1. As for the first in order to prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I asserted that all the Bishops of the Church are but one 〈◊〉 invested with the same Power and Authority to Govern the Church that as St. Cyprian tells us Defence of the unreas of Separation p. 208. There is but one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power That all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual advice and consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge as Optatus calls it whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends for it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors or Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert one Episcopacy as well as one Church one Evangelical Priesthood as well as one Altar all the World over But to make this as plain as possibly I can that every one may understand it who will I shall reduce the whole state of this Controversie under some few heads 1. There is but one Episcopacy because all the Bishops of the Catholick Church have originally the same Authority and Power in Church Affairs no one has the whole but each of them has a part and equal share and therefore they are called the Episcopal Colledge and a copious Body of Bishops as all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church not because they ever do or ought to meet together for Advice and Counsel and Acts of Government from all parts of the World no more than the Catholick Church does for Acts of Worship but because they are and ought to be in Communion with each other they have all the same Power and Authority which must be exercised in one Communion 2. Though all Bishops have a Relation to the whole Church every Bishop being a Bishop of the Catholick Church yet the Rules of Order and good Government and the Edification of the Church require that the Exercise of this Power be in ordinary Cases limited and confined to a certain Part which we call a particular Church for as no particular Bishop can Instruct and Govern the Catholick Church no more than he can be in all parts of the World at the same time so every Bishop will be capable of exercising his Office to the best Advantage when his Care is confined to a certain Place and particular Church and every particular Church is likely to receive the greatest Benefit from the Care and Inspection of a fixed Pastor and Bishop 3. That the same Rules of Order and Government require that every Bishop have the chief Power of Government in his own Diocess for if every Bishop had Authority as often as he pleased to intermeddle in another Bishops Diocess and order the Affairs of his Church it must needs cause great Confusion and Distraction in all Churches and make the People very uncertain whom they are to obey and therefore it has been the constant Practice of the Apostles and all succeeding Ages to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them 4. But yet the Power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so Absolute and Independent but that he is bound to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and Fellow-Bishops for this is the Foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church and therefore he who causelesly breaks this Unity can be no Catholick Bishop and this is the Foundation of all those greater Combinations of Churches and that Authority which is regularly exercised over particular Bishops by their Colleagues For
aetatem suscepta sunt That the general Decretals of the Roman Bishops have been sent into France as well as into other Provinces and received with great Applause by the Roman Emperors and the French Kings from the first foundation of that Kingdom till this present Age. 4. 4. Nullum esle crimen cujus ratione Papa deponi possit exceptâ haereseos puolicà professae causa quod verum esse testimoniis veterum docetur praeterea hanc esse antiquam ecclesiae Gallicanae definitionem demonstratur That no Crime is a sufficient Reason for deposing the Pope except the publick Profession of Heresie and that this is true he proves by the Testimonies of the Ancients and besides shews that it has been of old the Judgment and Definition of the Gallican Church 5. 5. Papam solvere posse dispensare valide licite à canonibus conciliorum Generalium etiam sine causa dummodo haec dispensatio non tendat ad labefactandum ecclesiae statum That the Pope can effectually and lawfully dispense with the Canons of general Councils even without any Cause so long as such a Dispensation does not weaken the State of the Church 6. 6. Libertates ecclesiae Gallicanae consistere in usu praxi Canonum atque decretalium tam veterum quam recentiorum easque non pendere à sola praxi antiquorum Canonum Vbi ostendit ur necessitate cogente Pontifices variis temporibus pro bono publico ecclesiae ad novas leges condendas progressos That the Liberties of the Gallican Church consists in the Use and Practise of Canons and Decretals both Ancient and Modern and is not confined only to the Practise of Ancient Canons where he shews that at several times in case of necessity Popes have proceeded to make new Laws for the publick Good of the Church 7. 7. Papam praeter eum primatum quo universae ecclesiae praeest solum esse immediatum occidentis Galliarum Patriarcham Regibus verò non competere jus aliquod Episcopatum vel metropolim instituendi multo minus Patriarchatum Litâ—ra Censurae Romanae in prolegom ad librum de Concordia sacerd Imp. That the Pope besides his primacy over the Universal Church is the only and immediate Patriarch of the Western and Gallican Churches and that Kings have no Right or Power to erect any New Bishoprick Metropolitical Seat much less a Patriarchate This is a brief Scheme of French Popery as it respects the Government of the Church if we believe this great Arch-bishop Men may assert the Authority of a General Council without being Papists but no man can be a Papist who does not acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme Head and universal Pastor of the Christian Church whom all Princes Prelates and People are bound to obey in Communion with whom consists the Unity of the Catholick Church and to separate from whom is a Schism All Papists must own the Bishop of Rome for their universal Pastor though they are not agreed whether his Power be absolute or under the Controul of a general Council 3. Having thus prepared the way it will be no hard Matter to vindicate the doctrine of the Defence about the Unity of Church-power from those ridiculous and senseless Imputations of Cassandrianism and French Popery This Charge is managed so knavishly by Mr. Lob who hath put in words of his own to make out the Charge when my words would not do it and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter with so much confusion and yet with so much Triumph by both that there needs no other Art to expose and shame them than to set my Notions in a true light once more and to vindicate them from the artificial mis-representations of ignorance or a Scholastick Buffoonery The Sum of their Charge amounts to this that I place the supreme governing Power of the Church in a general Council and that the Unity of the Church consists in the Subjection of all particular Christians and Churches to a general Council and yet they are forced to acknowledg that I disown a Constitutive Regent Head of a National or of the Universal Church And here they cry out of Contradictions and exercise their guessing faculty what should be the meaning of it and yet hold to the Conclusion in spight of Nonsense and Contradiction that I set up one soveraign Power over the Universal Church As for Contradictions I will consider them anon but the first thing to be done is to examine what occasion I have given them to think that I place the supreme unifying Power as Mr. B. calls it of the Church in a general Council Mr. Lob lays it down as his fundamental Charge against me Reply p. 27.31 that I make the Vniversal Church the first Seat of Government Or as he learnedly speaks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is a pars imperans subdita The Bishops in their Colledge being the Governors Or pars Imperans and all others of the universal Church the subdite part which others would have called Subjects and that in the very next words he adds It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the universal Church to be a Political organized Body as indeed he doth So that it seems I deny what he says I assert which either proves that I did not understand my self or that Mr. Lob does not or will not understand me and which of these is most likely comes now to be tryed Only we must first observe what he means by the universal Church being the first Seat of Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is one supreme and soveraign Power over the Whole As a Kingdom is one Pollitical organized Body because it is under one supreme Government and all the Power of inferior Officers is derived from the King as the supreme governing Head or as the Papists make the Catholick Church one Political organized Body and the Pope or a General Council the Constitutive Regent Head of it Now then let us hear how he proves this Charge against me that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government and such a Political organized Body as he here talks of And to this purpose he alleadges several things which shall be particularly but briefly considered 1. Reply p. 27. He alleadges that I assert That all Church Officers belong to the universal Church and have one original Right to govern the whole universal Church These are none of my words nor do they represent my sense Every one who reads this Proposition as Mr. Lob has expressed it would imagine that I made every Bishop as soveraign a Monarch of the Church as the Pope of Rome is whereas all that I say in that passage he cites out of the Defence is no more but this 1. That the Apostles had a Relation to
Forgery and Villany as any man may satisfie himself who will be at the Pains to peruse that part of the Defence he directs to where I am so far from asserting the Primacy of St. Peter over all Bishops that I do expresly vindicate that passage of St. Cyprian which the Flatterers of the Pope alledge for this Primacy from signifying any such thing and for the Satisfaction of all indifferent Readers what Credit is to be given to Mr. Lob I will transcribe the whole Passage though it be somewhat long as a sufficient Confutation of this Calumny and it is this And in his Cyprian's Book of the Unity of the Church the first Argument he uses to prove the Unity of the Church is the Unity of the Apostolical Office and what that means I have already sufficiently explained and assigns this as the reason why our Saviour in a particular Manner committed the Keys to Peter when he gave the same Power to all the rest of the Apostles which he did to Peter viz. to manifest the Unity of the Apostolical Office and Power that there is but one Chair and one original of Vnity which begins in one for the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was had an equal share in the Honour and Power of the Apostolical Office but the beginning is from Vnity and the Primacy is given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ is one and the Chair one i.e. the Apostolical Office and Power they are all Pastors but there is but one Flock which is fed by all the Apostles with a joynt Consent This is the plain Scope and Design of this Passage of St. Cyprian which has been so often abused especially by the Romanists that our Saviour in naming Peter only in giving the Apostolical Power did signifie that the Apostolical Office though exercised by several Persons is but one Office and Power which is not so properly divided among the Apostles as administred by a joynt Consent and therefore giving this Power to one Apostle included the bestowing this Power on the whole Apostolical Colledge And therefore when St. Cyprian says that Christ built his Church upon Peter he does not and cannot mean the Person of Peter or any thing peculiar to him but that Apostolical Office and Power which was given to the Colledge of the Apostles in the Name of Peter as the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And when he says that Christ gave the Primacy to Peter and yet at the same time affirms that the other Apostles were equal sharers with him in Honour and Power and were all that which Peter was it can signifie no more nor no less than that Christ named Peter first or rather in stead of all the Apostles thereby to instruct them that though they were many yet their Office and Power was but one which they must exercise as one man with one Consent This I suppose is sufficient to satisfie any man how far I am from ascribing to Peter a Primacy over all the Apostles much less to the Pope over all Bishops as Peter's Successor And this is all I can find that either Mr. Lob or Mr. B. urges to prove me engaged in a Cassandrian design but now for the Contradictions I am charged with Mr. Baxter says Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 202. Dr. Sherlock if he be Dr. Stillingfleets Defender which I think is not very material to this Controversie whether he be or not saith and unsaith and would verifie Contradictions He must write us a new Dictionary to tell us in what Sense he takes common words before he can be understood He defendeth Dr. Stillingfleet's denial of any political constitutive supreme Power and yet maintaineth that the whole Church hath one Regent part which all must obey that will be Members This I confess is a Contradiction for if the whole Church hath one Regent Part it must have a constitutive Regent Head This he says I affirm but he could not tell where and therefore never pretends to cite my words for it But as he goes on he will not grant that every Political body must have a constitutive Regent Head and yet he doth but say if we deny this as if he could not or durst not tell what he grants or denies yet he grants that every Political body consists of a Pars Imperans and Subdita and that Church Governors united and governing by Consent are the Pars Imperans and Christian People the Pars Subdita but saith he all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head can you tell how his asserted and his denyed Propositions differ 1. It is not a Regent part he denyeth 2. It is not that this Regent part is one to the whole Body the Church For if it were that he would not so zealously contradict and condemn us that say the same thing as he And here Mr. B. himself has unridled this whole Mystery of Contradictions though he was not willing to understand it because then he had had nothing to object I deny that there is one constitutive Regent Head either of a National or the Universal Church but yet affirm that there is a Government in the Church and consequently that there is a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and the Christian People those who are governed now I thought Mr. B. without a new Dictionary unless it be a Dictionary to teach common sense which indeed would be the best Cure in the World for Fanaticism might have understood that when I denyed that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of the Church and at the same time asserted that the Bishops are the Regent and governing part of the Church I could not mean that the Bishops were the Governors of the Church as united into one Common Regent Head over the whole Church but they were Governors of the Catholick Church as every Bishop governed his own share and portion of it as committed to his Charge This was the State of the Controversie between Mr. B. and the Dr. Mr. Baxter will not allow a National Church to be one political Body and Society unless it have one constitutive Regent Head for he says many Churches associated for mutual Help and Concord The second true Defence in answer to Dr. Still p. 112. are but in a loose sense called a Church not in a political Sense but equivocally so called and that the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally makes it no Church but an association of many Churches But the Reader will be the better able to judge of this Dispute if I briefly explain the true Reason of all this zeal for one constitutive Regent Head of the Church which I perceive very few People understand for indeed it is a Mystery but lately discovered by Mr. Baxter and earnestly espoused by Mr. Humphry to justifie all the Schisms and Separations in
any Reason why all the Christian Churches in a Nation may not thus unite and why Churches thus united may not be called a National Church though they were not Confirmed and Establisht by humane Laws though the Prince and great part of his Subjects were Infidels Hereticks or Schismaticks But Mr. H. observes that I say Reply p. 131. I cannot tell why it is accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more than to be Vniversal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more than Vniversal and Answers But when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the Consederation of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be accidental to it I am very willing to see any thing I can but I can see nothing here but his Mistake That the Church cannot subsist without a Patriarch or Metropolitan I never said yet nor does he produce any place where I have said it for what he says are not my words but his own Comment All that I say is this that the Association and Confederacy of neighbour Churches is founded on the Law of Catholick Communion and that Catholick Communion cannot be maintained without it that such Combinations of Churches in several Nations and Provinces there were long before there were any Christian Princes and may be so still though there were no Christian Kings in the World and therefore that a Church may be National without being incorporated into the State It is true since the first Records of Church-History these greater Combinations of Churches have by mutual Consent had a Patriarch Primate or Metropolitan set over them and therefore we cannot speak of these Churches in the Ancient Language without calling them Patriarchal or Metropolitical Churches but my Argument does not proceed upon the Union of Churches under a Patriarch or Metropolitan but upon their Association for Advice and Councel and Discipline for the preservation of Catholick Communion There may be such Associations without a Patriarch or Metropolitan but the universal Church has always thought it most convenient to have one and Mr. H. is greatly mistaken to think that every thing which is not essential to a Church is accidental There are a great many prudential Constitutions in Societies which are of great use to the well-being of a Society though not of absolute necessity to its being and he would be thought a very mean Politician who should call the Results of the best Reason and Consideration and most mature advice for the publick Good accidental Constitutions The Union of neighbour Churches for Worship Discipline and Government is not accidental to the Church but the necessary Result of Catholick Communion which is a binding Law to all Churches and hereon I found a National Church The Superiority and Jurisdiction of Patriarchs or Metropolitans is not essential to the Church but a present Ecclesiastical Constitution which ought not to be called Accidental unless when they are the Results of Chance or the Effects of Folly Ignorance and Rashness like Mr. H's accidental National Church patcht up of forty separate Communions united in an accidental Head but this man I perceive is an Epicurean Divine who makes the Church as that Philosopher did the World by a fortuitous jumble of Atoms But at last Mr. H. grants me all that I ask with reference to National Churches for to prove That the Vnion of all the Christian Churches in a Nation into one Body and Society is no more an accidental Consideration of the Church than the universal Church it self is Defence p. 561. I observed That our Saviour gave Command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations and to plant Churches in them and therefore this was the Intention of our Saviour that there should be Churches in all Nations as well as in all the World and if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church then certainly much more must all the Churches in a Nation be but one which are in a nearer Capacity of Communion with each other than the Churches of all the World are and whereby Catholick Vnity and Communion may be more easily preserved than if all the Churches in a Nation were single and independent there being a more easie correspondence between Nations than between every Town and City in distant Nations To this Mr. H. replies Reply p. 131. And as for Christs Command of planting Churches in the whole World and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Vnity and Communion every where among Christians i. e. the Unity and Communion of one Body for that is my meaning it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end i. e. to maintain one Catholick Communion if he please provided only that these Forms be held only accidental Forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential Form of the Church of Christ according to divine Institution But we are not a talking of Church-forms but of Church-Communion The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution though not therefore accidental as I observed before but Catholick Communion is a divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is divine also See the Defence p. 258. though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer humane Prudence because it is not the Result of meer natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a divine Institution Now if Mr. H. will as we see at last he does own such Combinations of Churches into one Body for Catholick Communion according to our Saviours that is a divine Institution then we find a National Church antecedent to any humane Laws and of a distinct Consideration from a Church incorporated into the State But after all I wonder what Church-form Mr. H. will own to be of divine Institution since he says that Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches must be held only accidental forms according to humane prudence there is no form left that I know of but an independent Church-form to be of divine Institution and if Mr. H. will own this farewell to Catholick Communion for Independency in the very Nature of it is a Schism as I have proved in the Defence There is one thing more Mr. H. says which because it is very pleasant I reserved to the last Reply p. 130. Mr. H. proves a National Church to be an accidental Consideration of a Church because that to the being of a National Church it is necessary that all the People of the Nation should be Christians and that the King should be so also both which are very accidental things and therefore a National Church is an accidental Church now I proved in the Defence that
Logick and I do not wonder he was so often too hard for St. Matthew Hales as he himself tells us in his late additional remarks on the Life of that excellent Person whose Name and Memory is Martyred by such Historians for I think few men of understanding can deal with him But the plain English of all these hard words and Metaphysical subtilty is no more but this That in every Society there is something which makes it such a kind of Society which in allusion to Natural beings he calls the Form of it That a Political Body being a Society under one supreme Government the supreme Power must be the Form of it and therefore the National Church being a Political Society considered as a Church must have a supreme constitutive Regent Head as the Form of it The result of which reasoning is this that if the Church be such a Political Society as has a supreme Regent Head on Earth which I always denyed then it must have a supreme Regent Head Which if Mr. B. calls Disputing and Proving I suppose no body else will But this will be better understood by considering Mr. B's Reasons to prove this supreme Regent Power to be the constitutive Form of the Church which follow in the same place and are these 1. If the summa Potestas of the Church be not the constitutive Form then the Church is not a Society univocally so called as all other Political Societies are but is Equivocally called a Politie i. e. then the Church is not a Political Society with one constitutive Regent Head which I readily grant and see no inconvenience in it Though Mr. B. cunningly supposes in his Argument what he knows I denyed him that there is such a summa Potestas or supreme Regent Power over the whole Church and then indeed it were absurd to deny a constitutive Regent Head 2. Then a Bishop is no constitutive part of a Diocesan Church nor a Metropolitan of a Metropolitan Church nor a Patriarch of a Patriarchal Church nor any summa Potestas of any Church or else the Catholick and these are not univocally called Churches The Force of which reasoning is this that if there be not a supreme Regent Head over the whole Church there cannot be such a superior Governor over any part of the Church A Bishop cannot govern his own Church unless one Bishop or Colledge of Bishops be a supreme constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church For as for Metropolitans and Patriarchs I never owned their original Right to such a Superiority but ascribe it to Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are very justifiable and of great use to the Preservation of Catholick Communion And I do not see what inconvenience there is in granting that a particular and the Catholick Church are not univocally called Churches that is are not in the same sense called a Church any more than in saying that a Part and the Whole are not in the same sense called the Body of a man for the Whole contains all the Parts and a Part is only a Part of the Whole All the particular Churches in the World are univocally called Churches as being under the Government of their respective Pastors in obedience to the Laws and Institutions of our Saviour the only universal Bishop of his Church but the Catholick Church is called a Church from the Union of all particular Churches not only to Christ the supreme Regent Head of the Church but to each other in one Catholick Communion 3. If the summa Potestas be not a constitutive part of the Church Catholick it is no essential Part unless by this summa Potestas over the whole Church he means Christ which alters the state of the Question of which more presently it is so far from being an essential part of the Church Catholick that it is no part at all there being no such supreme Power over the whole Church But if so the Church must be defined without it and why do they not give us such a Definition and tell us what is the constitutive Form of it if this be not None so blind as those who will not see How often have I told him what it is which makes the Catholick Church one Catholick Church which is the constitutive Form he enquires after viz. not one Superior Power over the whole Church but one Communion 4. And then he that denyeth this summa Potestas and separateth from it denyeth or separateth from nothing essential to the Church very right Why then do they make obedience essential to a Member Obedience to what To one supreme Regent Head over the Church Who are they that make such obedience necessary to a Member Or may not every Christian be bound to obey his spiritual Guides and Pastors unless there be one supreme Regent Head over the Catholick Church Now whatever Lawyers and men acquainted with the common Terms of Law and Politicks to whom Mr. B. appeals may think of such Disputes as these I am confident be they what they will if they be men of sense they will pity the drudgery of answering such trifling Cavils Though I am glad to hear Mr. B. own it as a thing beyond Dispute that a King is the constitutive Head that is the supreme Regent Head of his Kingdom without whose supreme Government it is not a Kingdom Mr. B. proceeds But saith this Doctor It s original constitution differs from secular Forms of Government by that ancient Church-canon of our Saviours own decreeing it shall not be so among you which I alleadged to prove that the Church could not be a Political Society in Mr. B's notion of it with a supreme constitutive Regent Power over the whole To which Mr. B. answers There is some hope in this Citation It seems he thinks that by these words Christ forbad any constitutive Supreme under him in his Church Yes verily I do think so Why then does the man so fiercely dispute for it against it he means surely for that I have professedly done but never disputed for it yet If there be none we are agreed In good time why then does he and Mr. H. so rudely scorn and deride the Dean as one who has betrayed the Church by denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head I may be a young Doctor as he pleasantly adds but I perceive he grows so old that forgets what he is for or against But he is unwilling this should be my meaning because this spoils his Notion of a Political body and therefore spitefully insinuates what he says he will not impute to me that I speak of a Politie that hath the Power of the Sword and yet immediately after this Complement he pawns his own understanding for it that I must mean so I will therefore rather conclude that if he know what he saith I am uncapable of knowing rather than impute this to him or else that he takes it to be no Policy that hath not the Power of the Sword Let the
controversie rest there then and we will leave it to wiser men to judge between us But Mr. B. and Mr. H. do not agree about that Citation It shall not be so among you Mr. B. thinks it a hopeful Citation and is agreed with me about it Mr. H. sayes none but such a forward one would have alleadged it to this purpose let them now agree this Matter between themselves For now I shall leave Mr. B. a while to hear what Mr. H. says to the main Dispute He undertook in Answer to the Dean to produce an Argument for the Proof of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church which Mr. B. was so subtil as to prove only by a Definition His Argument was this There is a Government in the Church of England Where there is a Government H's answer to Doctor Still p. 12. there must be a Political Society every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens subdita If the Church of England then be a Political Church it must have a Regent part and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned To this I answered Defence p. 565. by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church and if all Government made a Political Society then a National Church may be owned to be a Political Society for Government by consent without superiority is Government That Church Governors united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans Christian People in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head The plain meaning of which is this That there is a Government in the Church as every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church which is but one Government because all Bishops are bound by the Laws of our Saviour to govern their particular Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel and one Consent as far as is necessary to the ends of Catholick Communion and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church or Bishop or Colledge of Bishops over all the Churches and Bishops of the Christian World which is what Mr. B. calls a constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church Here Mr. H. disputes with great Triumph and wonders I should applaud the Dean for denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church considered as a Church for that is the state of the Question which he is willing to conceal when I my self have asserted such a Head viz. Reply p. 131. a Colledge of Bishops governing by consent But his mistake in this matter has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Lob and he has added nothing new to deserve a new Consideration He says p. 132. I understand the term Political to be commensurate with Civil but I say I never did understand it so and deny the Church to be a Political Society only in Mr. B's notion of Political who asserts that every Political body must have one supreme Regent Head over the Whole which the Church has not which is one by one Communion not by one supreme Power He says I have found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not one Head as well as one that is Monarchical Yes no doubt but it is but I neither know such a Collective nor Monarchical Head But do I not assert p. 133. That a National Church is a Political Society Yes I do assert that if Government as distinguisht from one constitutive Regent Head makes a Political Society then the Church which is a governed Society is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority i. e. without one supreme Regent Head is Government But if I grant a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledge or Cyprians one Episcopacy as the governing Part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then I have found out a constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christs institution For an united Colledge of Bishops for Government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head I need give no new Answer to this having already sufficiently explained what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy and the Colledge of Bishops which is far enough from being such an Ecclesiastical constitutive Regent Head of the Church But to return to Mr. Baxter Answer to Dr. Sherl p. 205. he makes great sport with that Proposition that Government by consent without superiority over the pars Subdita or over the People who must be subject to this Government it is governing sine jure regendi But then I hope we break not the 5th Commandment by disobeying them But this I suppose was only to shew his skill in Drollery and in turning plain sence into non-sence I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sence It were well indeed for him that Bishops had no Authority to govern for then as he well observes they might be Schismaticks without sin But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfie any man though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatick Zeal And therefore he adds But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another Ans And verily doth the Church of England think that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head or summa Potestas or form of Policy Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another as such Or hath the Venetian Senate Or the Polonian Parliament men Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof but ipse dixit See how all Politicks are damned with the non-Conformists for making Aristocracy a Species of Policy But I pray you use them not all for it as hardly as you use us But really thus much of the World is governed Mr. B. I see as Mr. H. says is a man who understands Politicks and I dare not pretend to so much skill in the Roman Venetian or Polonian government but this I think I can safely say as little as I know of them that the Colledg of Bishops is neither one nor t'other nor any kind of Aristocracy for when I speak of a Government without superiority that is without a supreme constitutive Regent Head which was the Subject of the Dispute it is as wild to imagine that I mean an Aristocracy which is such a Regent Head as that by without superiority I mean governing without superiority over the pars Subdita But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently when by a perverse Comment he has made him speak or write non-sence which must be acknowledged the best way of confuting Books when he cannot confute the true and genuine sense of them But as to the thing when I say
this That every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a constitutive visible Head The Interposer now to take off the shame from the Doctor hath taken the right Course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term into the Argument if every Church when he should say every proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a visible subordinate constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one but that not having such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a constitutive Head I was in a horrible fright when I heard four and five terms and began to blush at it but if this be all the Business I shall be able to bear this shame very well As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence which Mr. H. takes no notice of For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church which has one constitutive Regent Head and therefore the Dean denies that a National Church is a proper Political Church considered as a Church in Mr. B's sence of the Words and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out and yet to gratifie Mr. H. we will take it in if he will but allow the Catholick Church to be as proper Political a Church as the National Church is and then the Argument runs thus If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a National constitutive Regent Head as essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a Catholick visible Regent Head essential to it And thus I think it comes much to one and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head time was when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument but learnedly disputed that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Church hath a visible Head as well as the National Church But let us briefly consider whether visible be a fourth Term or only added as a necessary Explication of Mr. B's Proposition if he mean any thing by it For I think Logicians distinguish between a fourth Term and an additional explication of the Terms Mr. B. disputes that every proper Political Church and therefore a National Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Does he mean by this constitutive Regent Head a visible Head on Earth or an invisible Head in Heaven If he means Christ as an invisible Head in Heaven then there is no Dispute between us for we will readily grant that Christ is the Head of the National as well as of the Catholick Church If he means a visible Head on Earth then Visible is no fourth Term but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head And then the Argument holds good from a National to the Catholick Church That if a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible Constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it or Mr. B's Argument is not true that every proper Political Church must have a visible Regent Head on Earth essential to it Thus I think the Dean is once more defended but I must speak one good word for my self too as Charity obliges me Mr. H. says I bring in a fifth Term subordinate visible Head But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions Mr. B. says every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head does he mean this of Christ as the supreme Head of his Church or of men whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons as a subordinate Head under Christ if the first there is no dispute between us for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church If the second a subordinate Head then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term but included in a constitutive Regent Head and I think I need not spend time to prove that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head is not a parallel case because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head as Visible and Subordinate are for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective but signifies neither determinately unless it be expressed I shall only observe how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Yes saith Mr. B. and Mr. H. so it hath for Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church Where we plainly see that in the Antecedent by a constitutive Regent Head they understand a Visible Subordinate and Mr. H. says an accidental Head of the Church and in the Consequent a supreme invisible Head of the Church which is as fallacious a way of answering as it is of arguing And now I leave the Reader to judge where the shame which Mr. H. so much talks of must at last rest But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame as Impudence is to others CHAP. V. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it IN the eighth Chapter of the Defence I briefly stated what the Communion is which is essential to the Catholick or Universal Church and what place there can be for this Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day Mr. B. in his Answer Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it but it is such a something as needs no farther answer for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church And both these I have discoursed so fully already that I cannot excuse my self to my Reader should I repeat over the same things again and therefore I shall only briefly consider some few new Objections he has started which though they are very trifling yet may disturb an injudicious Reader I asserted That Catholick Communion strictly so called Defence p. 595. consists 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other Here Mr. Baxter 1 plays the Critick He
there is want of it and never wants distinctions where there is no difference 2. The next way of maintaining Catholick Communion among Bishops I observed was by advising together about the publick affairs of the Church and Communicating Counsels with each other and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions that there might be no misunderstanding between them these last words which I have included in a Parenthesis Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation because they did too plainly discover how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholick Unity And answers 1. This Independents are ready to do What then Does it hence follow that they are Catholick Bishops Schismaticks may do many things which true Catholick Christians do and be Schismaticks still 2. How doth this differ from the former Do you not mean advising by Letters or Messengers If not is it general Councils you mean or what I told my meaning very plain Sometimes one particular Bishop writ to another Sometimes Neighbour Bishops met in Provincial Synods and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches But this is writing Letters still and how does it differ from the former Why Sir only as a Letter containing an account of the present state of the Church what Bishops die and who are ordained in their stead who are Catholicks and who are Schismaticks does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel c. but how is it we must advise with them of Armenia Abassia and the rest When Mr. B. can prove that I make it necessary to do so I will undertake to find out a way to do it but this and what follows about Provincial Counsels has been sufficiently considered above 3. Mr. B. proceeds But how Is it only publick Affairs that the Colledge adviseth you about The Man dreams who talks of the advice of the Colledge Who is it then that must dispose of the Church State and Souls of all us Individuals Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters must take care of his own Church and the Souls committed to him and that he may do this the better in all difficult 〈◊〉 especially such as concern the whole Church must take the best Advice of his Fellow-Bishops that he can where is the absurdity of all this Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is when he adds It seems it is some body below the Senate that is meant when we are told that we must obey the universal Church I thought whither it would come at last And well he might think whither it would come when he was resolved whither to carry it 3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholick Communion was by Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians who had occasion to travel from those Churches of which they were members to other Churches whither they went which were called Formed or Communicatory Letters the use of which I there explained To which Mr. Baxter answers 1. Are not all these three Proofs the same writing Letters of Church-affairs Consultation and Communication Yes writing Letters is writing Letters most certainly but I imagine there may be some difference with reference to the Subject about which men write And that Letters of recommendation differ something from Letters of advice 2. Do any of us deny his Conclusion that this proveth Communion among them Why then does he not own this Catholick Communion which I contend for and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatick No but I should prove an Episcopal Colledge as one Aristocratical supreme Regent Head I thank him for nothing I am not at leisure to write such Books on purpose for him to confute them But 3. He says these communicatory Letters the Non-conformists are greatly for that no man may be admitted to Communion in any particular Church without either a Personal understanding owning of his Baptismal Covenant or a Testimonial that he hath done it and been received into Communion with some Church with whom we have such Communion as is due between several Churches Quidlibet ex Quolibet How cleverly has Mr. B. turned these Communicatory Letters into an examination by Lay Elders or an Independent Church-covenant and the one Communion of the Catholick Church into such a Communion as is due between several Churches I could wish as heartily as Mr. B. that greater care were taken in the Discipline of the Church though they who make the greatest Complaints of the want of it are the true cause of this defect But what is this to Communicatory Letters Or what if Schismaticks are for Communicatory Letters among themselves are they ever the less Schismaticks for that All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters was this that the Ancient Church did believe that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholick Church and had a right to Christian-communion where he came which cannot be unless all Christians are one Body and all particular Churches members of one Catholick Church And here I had occasion to express my dissent from a very great man whose memory is as dear and venerable to me as to most of his particular and intimate Friends I mean Dr. Barrow and I think I express my dissent from him with all that modesty and just respect which is due to his memory I acknowledged that he had abundantly confuted that notion of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church but yet that he made Catholick Communion too arbitrary a thing like the Confederacies of Soveraign Princes I should be heartily glad to see my self confuted in this point and to find that I was mistaken in his judgment in this matter if at least it may be called his Judgment and not rather his Inadvertency I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgment of this Reverend Person for I do not find that he understands either of us I am sure he urges such things in his Defence as that great man would be ashamed of and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it And now I come to the grand difficulty of all which I did but just name in the Defence What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day If there be no Catholick Church without Catholick Communion where shall we find the Catholick Church at this day when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other This makes some men suspect that Catholick Communion is a pretty Romantick notion of a Catholick Church but so impracticable that it is of no use to us now nor will put an end to any one Controversie or Schism in the Christian Church But this difficulty when it is thorowly examin'd will vanish of it self For 1.
That there are Schisms in the Christian Church is certainly no very good Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion and yet this is the whole force of the Objection That if Catholick Communion be essential to the Catholick Church we must reduce the Catholick Church into a very narrow compass and un-Church most of the Christian Churches in the World as not maintaining this Catholick Communion If this be so I am heartily sorry for it as every good man will be for the Degeneracy and Apostacy of any part of the Christian Church But would Mr. Baxter have me frame some new Notions of Catholick-unity and Schism to justifie the many Schisms and Separations of the Christian World Must we fit our Notions of Church-unity to the present divided state of the Church or endeavour to reduce a broken and divided Church to a true Primitive state of Unity Suppose I had proved that Catholick Doctrine instead of Catholick Communion had been only essential to the being of the Catholick Church and such another Objector as Mr. B. should urge me with this inconvenience that then there are very few Churches that are true Members of the Catholick Church Because in most Ages and at this day there are such great breaches between several famous Churches about what they think the most fundamental Articles of our Faith must I therefore deny the necessity of Catholick Doctrine to a Catholick Church for fear of that inference that then there are many large and famous Churches which are not true Catholick Apostolick Churches This is the way I confess never to be without a Catholick Church to make the Catholick Church to be what the present Churches are not what they ought to be But it is the way also to make a new Christianity in every Age. And this is the more considerable because many of the Schisms which now are and have been in many Ages of the Church are owing to different apprehensions in matters of Faith which either are or have been thought to be Catholick Doctrines Such are the differences between the Greek and Latine Churches the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches So that Mr. B. must either find out a Church without Catholick Doctrine as well as without Catholick Communion or must reduce the Catholick Church almost into as narrow a compass for want of Catholick Doctrine as for want of Catholick Communion Unless he can prove that these doctrinal Disputes are not of that Moment as to cause Schisms in the Church and then he will mightily enlarge Catholick Communion and answer this formidable Objection himself II. No man can pretend that Catholick Communion is in its own nature impracticable because it was de Facto religiously observed in the Primitive Church for several Ages Thus it was in St. Cyprian's thus it was in St. Austin's time who made Catholick Communion essential to the being of a Catholick Church And that cannot reasonably be thought an impracticable Notion which has been practised in the Christian Church and which is equally necessary to be practised in all Ages III. For what should hinder all good Christians from maintaining Communion with all Christian Churches which are sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship If there be such Churches to be found in France in Germany in Holland c. What should hinder any sober Christian who travels into those Countries and understands their Language from joyning with them in all acts of Worship as Members of the same Body of Christ Those Churches which are not sound and Orthodox are not the Objects of Christian Communion and it is no breach of Catholick Communion not to communicate with them And nothing can reasonably hinder our Communion with those that are For where there are no sinful terms of Communion imposed we are bound to all Acts of Communion as opportunity serves So that those who think it such an impossible thing to maintain Catholick Communion among the Christian Churches of this Age must necessarily suppose that there are very few Churches in the World at this time which a sound and orthodox Christian can communicate with for nothing else can make Catholick Communion impossible And if this be true it is a very sad consideration and deeply to be lamented of all Christians but it is that which I cannot help Catholick Communion is very feasible when there are 〈◊〉 Catholick Churches to communicate with but when there are none it cannot be had or if there be but a few such it must be maintained among those few that are and that is true Catholick Communion which includes all true Catholick Churches be they more or less But the thing at present to be considered is this whether he who denies any Church to be a true Catholick Church which does not maintain Catholick Communion makes the Catholick Church any narrower than he does who denies the possibility of Catholick Communion because there are very few Churches which a good Christian can safely communicate with For I suppose those are no true Catholick Churches which a Catholick Christian must not communicate with and Catholick Communion may be maintained among all other Churches whose Communion is not sinful and dangerous As for instance Answer to Dr. Sherlack p. 189. Mr. Baxter reckons up twelve Sects of Christians in the World as Members of the Catholick Church his only doubt being concerning the Church of Rome I ask Mr. B. then whether these Churches be so sound and orthodox that a good Christian may communicate with them If they be then here is a possibility of maintaining Catholick Communion with all the Churches in the World at least excepting the Church of Rome If they be not how are they Catholick Churches Are those Catholick Churches which are so corrupt and unsound that a Catholick Christian must not own their Communion Catholick Communion may certainly be maintained with those Churches whose Communion is lawful and I think it as certain that those Churches cannot be Members of the Catholick Church whose Communion is unlawful IIII. We may consider farther that in this present state of things there are not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to preserve Catholick Communion between Forraign Churches and therefore Catholick Communion is not so impracticable as some may imagine The Churches of distant Nations cannot worship God together nor easily meet for Advice and Counsel but they may own and receive each others Members as occasion serves which signifies their Communion with each other Nay where there is no breach of Communion no declared disowning of each other nor express denial of any Act of Communion between distant Churches those Churches may be said to be in Communion with each other There are some Christian Churches which we know little or nothing of nor they of us but while we break not Communion with any sound part of the Christian Church and profess Communion with all that are so we may be truly said to live in Catholick
sum of Christian Religion that is certainly the most demonstrative way that can be For though I do not like the way of making fundamental Articles by deduction and consequence from such a Fundamental because as Mr. Mede observes all men may not see the necessity of such a consequence though it appear plain and evident to others yet if for instance the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ be the great fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel and if that be not Fundamental I am sure nothing is then though every true consequence from this Doctrine be not Fundamental yet whatever is necessarily included in this Doctrine without which we cannot rightly understand and believe Salvation by Christ must be as Fundamental as the Doctrine it self is unless the Letters or Words of the Article be Fundamental but not the true sence of it and within these bounds I have kept my self I have asserted no Doctrine to be Fundamental but what is necessary to our belief of Salvation by Christ which is a very different thing from drawing fundamental consequences Mr. Mede indeed assigns another ratio of fundamental Articles Ib. ep 83. in general that they be necessarii cognitu creditu ad salutem necessary to be known and to be believed to Salvation simply and absolutely and therefore no Christian which shall be saved uncapable to understand them which exactly agrees with me who make only the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ in its true and proper signification a fundamental Article But then more particularly he tells us that they must not be such truths as are meerly speculative and contained only in the understanding but of such only as have a necessary influence upon practise and not all those neither but such as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Functions of Christian Life or whereon the Acts without which a Christian lives not depend Such namely as without the knowledg and belief whereof we can neither invocate the Father aright nor have that Faith and relyance upon him and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ which is necessary to remission of sins and the hope of the Life to come Where he seems evidently to confine Fundamentals to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for nothing else is necessary to what he calls the proper acts and functions of the Christian Life But he proceeds How far this ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch I know not but believe it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and by it also those two main errors of the Socinians the one denying the divine Nature the other the satisfaction of Christ may be discerned to be Fundamental for without the belief of the first the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly that is incommunicably worshipp'd so as to have no other Gods besides him For he that believes not Christ to be consubstantial to the Father and yet honours him with the same Worship worships not the Father incommunicably which is the formalis ratio of the Worship of the true God from whom we look for eternal Life and without the belief of the second the satisfaction of Christ there can be I suppose no saving Faith nor relyance on Christ for the forgiveness of sins How well this agrees with what I have discours'd about Fundamentals every one will easily perceive Some other learned men go the same way with Mr. Mede in assigning the general Ratio or Notion of Fundamentals that they are such Doctrines as have a great influence upon a Christian Life though they do not confine it as he does to some peculiar acts of the Christian Life and he could have no reason to do so had he not some other Notion of Fundamentals in his mind than what he expressed for all the acts of Piety and Vertue are equally required of us by the Laws of the Gospel and therefore it is most reasonable in this way to extend the Notion of Fundamentals to all those Doctrines which have an universal influence upon a good Life but I have something to offer with all modesty and just respect and deference to such great names against this Notion of Fundamentals 1. That a holy Life is not the only design of the Christian Religion and therefore if we will judge of fundamental Doctrines by the end they are intended to serve we must take in the whole and entire end of the Christian Religion which is forgiveness of sins as well as holyness of Life And therefore whatever is necessary to be believed for the forgiveness of sins is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity though we could not see what direct and immediate influence it has upon the reformation of our Lives 2. The Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity hath in all ages of the Church been accounted a fundamental Article and yet nothing is more plain than that the belief of three divine Persons considered only as three Persons has no greater force in it to make men good than the belief of one supreme and eternal God It is true when we consider all these divine Persons as concerned in the Oeconomy of Man's Salvation so the belief of each Person has a distinct and powerful influence upon our minds but this is not owing immediately to the Doctrine of the Trinity but to the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Christ who was sent into the World by his Father to accomplish the Work of our redemption and when he left the World sent his holy Spirit to abide with us 3. All those Doctrines which have a powerful influence upon a good life are not in a strict and proper sence Christian Doctrines much less fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and therefore this can be no good Criterion of a Fundamental such are all the natural arguments to Religion and a vertuous Life which though they be adopted into Christianity yet will hardly pass for fundamentals of Christianity with any man who can distinguish between natural knowledg and Revelation 4. Men may live very holy lives without the knowledg or belief of many Doctrines which are excellently fitted to promote holiness and therefore every Doctrine which will advance holiness is not Fundamental and yet this general rule does not direct us how to distinguish them 5. Nay many Doctrines which are so far from being Fundamental that they are false may yet prevail with and encline some men to the practise of real holiness 6. Some Doctrines which naturally tend to debauch mens lives are not yet fundamental Errors for men may believe them and yet live well and therefore we shall still want a Rule to judg of fundamental Heresies by unless no Heresie be Fundamental but when it debauches mens lives and by the same rule no Doctrine is Fundamental but when it actually governs and reforms our lives 7. This leaves men at great liberty to believe what Doctrines they please to be Fundamental and to change even Christianity it self into a new Religion for if they think they can
such a People for the neglect or change of it If ever God would have done this we might most reasonably expect it under the Jewish Oeconomy in which every minute Circumstance was so strictly commanded by God as having something Sacred and Typical in it and yet it does not appear that every deviation from their Rule though in some very material parts of it did provoke God to cast them off God had appointed a certain place where they should offer their Sacrifices to him and when this place was actually fixed and determined it was unlawful for them to offer Sacrifice in any other place And yet when the Temple at Jerusalem was built which was the only place God had appointed for Sacrifice the People continued to offer Sacrifice in their high places even in the Reign of very good Kings and though this practise was condemned yet it did not un-church them God had appointed Aarons Family for the Priesthood 1 Kings 12.31 and yet Jeroboam made Priests of other Tribes and Families and the Law which expresly appoints Aaron and his Sons for the Priests Office only threatens death against Usurpers Numb 3.10 Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his Sons and they shall wait on the Priests Office and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death God did not reject the Church of Israel for the irregularities of their Priests but owned them for his Church and People many years after this till they defiled themselves with the worship of Baal and other Heathen Gods And Josephus observes that after the death of Menelaus Joseph Antiq l. 12. cap. 14. Antiochus made Alchymus High-Priest who was not of the Family of the Priests and yet I should be loth to say that such an irregular promotion did un-church the Jewish Church and whoever considers in what manner the High-Priests were advanced and deposed even in the time of our Saviour possibly may think it as inconsistent with the first Institution of that Office as the irregular Ordinations of Presbyters 2. We ought especially to consider the force and power of necessity to dispence even with divine Institutions No necessity can dispence with the eternal Laws of good and evil because no necessity can be pleaded to justifie men in sin though in some cases it may extenuate the evil and guilt of it for the internal necessity in the nature of things is stronger than any external necessity can be no external force can compel men to sin which is an Act of their own will and choice and the obligations to Vertue remain in the most extreme necessity But in positive Institutions which depend upon the Will of God we find necessity has often dispensed and that with God's allowance and approbation As to give some few examples of it 1. The necessity of the divine Worship has dispensed with positive Institutions Thus in Hezekiah's Sacrifice the Priests being too few 2 Ch ron 29.34.35.11 the Levites assisted them in doing the Priests work in slaying the Sacrifices and the like we may see in Josiah's Passeover And by the same reason we may suppose that if the Family of Aaron had failed other Families of the Tribe of Levi might have succeeded into the Priest's Office though against a positive Law For the necessity of the divine Worship is much greater and more unalterable than the confinement of the Priesthood to a certain Family and where the divine Providence makes a necessity necessity will make a Priest And therefore I think a late learned and ingenious Author who disputes so earnestly that the Power of administring Sacraments must be derived from God and that this Power now is given only by Episcopal Ordination ought to have distinguished between the ordinary and extraordinary conveyance of Power Whoever administers in holy things must derive his Power from God because he acts in God's Name and when it may be done he must derive his Power in such a way as God hath appointed by a positive Law and whoever rejects this way without necessity can have no valid Power but whatever he does is null and void as I doubt not but all Ordinations of Presbyters are in opposition to and contempt of their Bishops as I think that learned man hath sufficiently proved But the case of necessity ought to be considered it being contrary to the Nature of all positive Institutions to oblige in case of necessity and I take that to be a case of necessity when Episcopal Orders cannot be had and yet the Church must sail without them Bishops are for the Church not the Church for Bishops and when the ordinary conveyance of this Authority fails necessity legitimates other extraordinary ways We have all the reason in the World to presume in such cases that God will confirm and ratifie the choice and designation of the People much more the Ordinations of the Presbytery where Episcopal Ordination cannot be had For I see no reason why Presbyters may not do the Bishops work in case of necessity as well as Levites do the work of Priests 2. The necessity of mens lives dispense with positive Laws Upon this account our Saviour justifies David's eating the Shew-Bread when he was an hungred which was not lawful for him to eat Mark 2.24 25 26. but for the Priests and his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day Upon this Principle Matathias allowed the Jews to fight on the Sabbath-day Joseph antiq l. 12. cap. 7. in case they were assaulted by their Enemies and our Saviour resolves all such cases by that general Principle I will have mercy and not Sacrifice and certainly mercy to the Souls of men is as considerable as any temporal concernments 3. But we may further consider what force and Authority the presumptive allowance of the Church has in such cases The Christian Church in all Ages has thought fit to dispense with positive Institutions in case of necessity and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the defects and irregularities of such Administrations and therefore certainly did believe she had Power to do it And indeed if there be not sufficient Authority in the Church to provide for cases of necessity the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of men and cannot in many cases without a miracle preserve her own being and therefore if the Church may be presumed in cases of necessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministries as otherwise they are not qualified to perform this very allowance supplies the incapacity of the Person and does virtually confer that Authority on him which in other cases he had not Now it is not only highly reasonable to presume that the Catholick Church will rather allow the Ordinations of Presbyters though they are not regularly qualified for that Office where there are no Bishops to Ordain than that a considerable member of the Christian Church should want a succession of Pastors to
instruct and govern them and administer all religious Offices to them but besides the reason of the thing the practise of the Church is a sufficient ground for this presumption For we know the use of Orders is to confer Authority and Power to administer the Sacraments and yet the Church has allowed even Lay-men to baptize Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus offers tinguis sacerdos es tibi solus Tert. de exhort cast cap. 7. and if we will believe Tertullian to consecrate too in case of necessity that is where there have been no Bishops nor Presbyters to administer those Offices and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Ordain when there are no Bishops as for Lay-men to administer the Sacraments where there are no Bishops nor Presbyters I alledge Tertullian's Authority not for the sake of his reason but as a witness of primitive Practise The reasonings of particular men do not always express the sence of the Church but their own private Opinions though they may be allowed to be good Witnesses what the practise of the Church was in their days Though I confess I cannot see that any thing Tertullian says does derogate from the Evangelical Priesthood or destroy the distinction between the Clergy and Laity or encourage private Christians to invade the Ministerial Function Nonne laici sacerdotes sumus scriptum est regnum quoque nos sacerdotes Deo patri suo fecit Ibid. He says indeed that even Lay-men are Priests Christ having made us all Kings and Priests to God his Father by which he means that every Christian through our great Advocate and Mediator has now so near and free access to God Differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae Auctoritas honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus and such assurance of acceptance as was thought peculiar to Priests in former Ages Well but is there no distinction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People Yes this he owns but says it is by the appointment and constitution of the Church What does he mean by this That it is a humane arbitrary and alterable Constitution By no means But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority And therefore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ and of his Apostles who from the beginning have made this distinction as Tertullian every where confesses To what purpose then is all this Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso ubi necesse est habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis Ib. How does he hence prove that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself That he has the right of Priesthood in himself when it is necessary and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also when it is necessary For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foundations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority how can it be lawful for a private Christian upon a pretence of the general Priesthood of Christians in any case whatsoever to perform such religious Acts as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this That all Christians being an Evangelical Priesthood to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God through the merits and mediation of our great High-Priest they are not debarr'd by any personal incapacity nor by the typical and mysterious Nature of the Christian Institutions from performing any religious Office which Christ has commanded his Church but yet for the better security of publick Instructions for the more regular Administration of religious Offices for the preservation of Unity Order Discipline and Government in the Church Christ hath committed the power of Government and Discipline and publick Administration of religious Offices to Persons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church and not for any other mystical reasons in case of failure where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place and any private Christian without a regular and external Consecration to this Function may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest For there are two things wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priesthood differ which make a mighty alteration in this case The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical and Mediatory the Evangelical Priesthood is neither Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical much less to a Mediatory Priesthood but only such as have a divine appointment and designation to this Office for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery and the vertue of the Mediation is lost at least our absolute assurance of it if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission But now under the Gospel the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple without any shadows and figures and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Worship which requires peculiar and appropriate Persons and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men and therefore we need not any other Mediators of divine appointment in vertue of the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ every Christian is a Priest who may approach the Throne of Grace and offer up his prayers and thanksgivings in an acceptable manner to God Gospel-Ministers indeed are to pray for the People and to bless in God's name but they pray in no sense as Mediators but in the name of our great Mediatorâ— and that which makes their Prayers more effectual than the Prayers of a private Christian is that they are the publick Ministers of the Church and therefore offer up the Prayers of the Church which are more powerful than the Prayers of private Christians And therefore St. Austin reproves Parmenianus the Donatist for making the Bishop a Mediator between God and the People which no good Christian can endure the thoughts of but must needs account such a man rather to be Antichrist August contra ep Parmen l. 1. cap. 8. than an Apostle of Christ For all Christian men pray for each other but he who prays for all and none for him is the only and the true Mediator of whom the High Priest under the Law was a Type and therefore no man was to pray for the High-Priest But St. Paul who knew that Christ was our only Mediator who was entred into Heaven for us recommends himself to the Prayers of the Church and is so far from making himself a Mediator between God
and the People that he exhorts all Christians to pray for one another as members of the same Body for if Paul had been a Mediator the other Apostles had been Mediators too and so we should have a great many Mediators and not as he himself tells us one Mediator and therefore he says that the Prayers of wicked Bishops are heard for the People not for the Bishop's sake but pro devotione populorum for the Peoples Devotion or as they are the Prayers of the Church And when the Donatists proved that wicked Bishops could not minister in holy things because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest who had any blemish or defect he answers that this was only Typical of Christ Ib. cap. 7. and fulfilled only in him So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood yet indeed it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it but is instituted by Christ for Instruction Discipline and Government and the publick Administration of religious Offices It was very requisite indeed that Christ himself should invest the Governors of his Church with Authority and Power for this Office and it is necessary to the Peace Order and Unity of the Church that no man should usurp this Power and Authority to himself but receive it from the hands of those who have Power to give it and therefore this Apostolical Power excepting the case of necessity is as saored and inviolable as the Priesthood it self but in case of necessity where the succession of Apostolical Power fails or a plenary Authority to convey it it admits of a more easie redress than the failure of a Mystical or Typical Priesthood would do For there is no Office of Religion but in such a case any Christian may perform we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ and as for Authority necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church when the regular ways of conveyance fail may be very easily presumed to be approved and confirmed by God This I take to be the true sence of Tertullian's argument which I have explained the more largely because some men are very apt to abuse all such passages to the diminution of the Ministerial Office though with what little reason I think is very evident but whatever becomes of Tertullian's Argument or whether the Church proceeded upon these Principles or not in granting Liberty to Lay-men to baptize in case of necessity the Practise of the Church is plain in this matter thus it was in Tertullian's time and thus it has been in most Ages of the Church ever since and is to this day allowed in the Church of Rome and if the Church allows Lay-men in case of necessity to administer Sacraments we may reasonably presume it will in the same necessity allow of the Ordinations of Presbyters I shall only observe further that this practise of the Church in allowing the baptism of Lay-men in case of necessity seems to me utterly to overthrow those Principles which a learned Author has Published in his late Discourse of Schism Some of his Principles are these That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments That the Validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administred they being the Seals of the Covenant which as in all Covenants between man and man are void in Law if they be not applyed by Persons who have Authority to seal This Authority of applying the Seals of the Covenant can be derived only from God and that only by Episcopal Ordinations Now I must profess my dissent from this Learned man upon more accounts than one at present it may suffize that either these Principles are false or the Catholick Church has been in a dangerous mistake in allowing the Baptism of private Christians where there were no Ecclesiastical Ministers to do it For if the Validity of Baptism depends upon the Authority of him who baptizes then the Baptism of Lay-men who according to his Principles can have no such Authority must be actually void and have no saving effect and then the Catholick Church ever since Tertullian's time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation And how specious soever any Arguments may be I shall be always jealous of such a Conclusion as charges the Primitive and Catholick Church with ignorance and error so dangerous and destructive to mens Souls This learned man was aware of this Separation of Churches c. p. 143. and therefore confesses For my part I do not understand how the validity of Laicks and much more womens Baptism who by the Apostles rule are much less capable of Fcclesiastical Authority can be defended unless it may possibly be by that general delegation which may be conceived to have been granted to them by the Governors by those customs and constitutions which permit them to administer it But it would then be a further doubt how far such Persons as these are capable of such a delegation To which I do not intend at present to digress But indeed this had been no digression or the most useful digression in all his Book The matter of Fact is confessed by him that in case of necessity Laicks were allowed to baptize which overthrows his whole Hypothesis whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases whatsoever If the Church in case of necessity has permitted Laicks to baptize we may presume that in the same necessity she will allow Presbyters to Ordain if Laicks are not capable of such a delegation then the Catholick Church has erred in a fundamental Practise which is necessary to Salvation if they be then the administration of Sacraments is not in all cases absolutely confined to the Clergy for all such cases must be excepted wherein the Church has Power to dispense for this delegated Power does not make them Ecclesiastical Officers but gives Authority or Permission to Laicks in such cases to do the work of a Bishop or of other consecrated Persons And yet we find the first Foundations of a very great Church laid in this manner by Frumentius in India who was only a Laick and yet erected Churches whether those Christians Dum regni gubernacula Frumentius haberet in manibus Deo mentem ejus animos instigante requirere sollicitius caepit si qui inter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent ipsis potestatem maximam dare ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent Ruff. l. 10. Hist Eccl. whom he found there resorted to pray to God after the manner of the Church of Rome which in those days was performed with the celebration of the Eucharist and yet they had no Bishop nor Presbyter among them and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together to pray after
Schism which I assure you if it prove so will be the best Confutation of my Principles and make me greatly suspect them my self There are several insinuations of this nature scattered here and there in his reply which require no very serious answer for if he designed them for serious Arguments he is a wit indeed As to give some instances of this nature 1. He says Reply p. 13. I place Schism in a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Vniversal Church ergo not Schismaticks Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember what Mr. Lob grants that there is such a sin as Schism and that it is a very odious sin which would stand them in more stead if they seriously thought of it than his Defence and Apology will do But Dissenters he says do not divide themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church What he means by this I cannot well tell for I am sure their Principles upon which they divide from the Church of England do equally divide them from all the Churches in the World And if upon meer humour they will divide from one Church and not from another where the reason of Separation is the same they are nevertheless Schismaticks for that Let Mr. Lob tell me what Church for above twelve hundred years they could have communicated with upon so good terms as they may now with the Church of England If Diocesan Episcopacy Forms of Prayer Defects in Discipline Corrupt Members in Church Communion Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies or unscriptural Impositions as they call them be a sufficient reason to justifie Separation what Church they ever could or can to this day communicate with The Foreign Protestant Churches though they differ in some things from the Church of England not in Judgment but in Practise of which I have given some account above yet they communicate with the Church of England which according to the Laws of Catholick Communion makes it as unlawful to communicate with them as with the Church of England it self But he says Dissenters and all true Christians though I hope all true Christians are not Dissenters whether Dissenters be true Christians or not must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church How far this must be acknowledged I have examined above Schismaticks in a loose general Notion belong to the Church though they are not Members of the Catholick Church which is but one Communion and thus dissenting Separatists are Schismaticks still But though it were possible that our Dissenters might find some other Church beside their own Conventicles to communicate with yet they actually divide themselves from the Catholick Church by breaking Communion with any one sound part of it especially with such a part of the Church as they are more particularly bound to communicate with The Catholick Church is but one Communion and whoever causelesly breaks this Communion as he does who separates from any sound part of the Church is a Schismatick especially he that separates from the Church wherein he lives which is the case of our Dissenters in separating from the Church of England If you separate the Arm from the Shoulder you separate it from the whole Body the Union of every Member with the Body is its Union to that part of the Body which is next for the whole Body is nothing else but all the parts united to each other in their proper place and order And if the Church be one Body and one Communion he that separates from the Communion of the Church where he lives is a Schismatick though he may pretend to an imaginary Communion with French or Dutch Churches with the Churches of Greece or Russia But as much as Mr. Lob pretends that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead that Schism is a Separation from the Catholick Church it is plain he does not like it and therefore reproaches it as a Popish notion generally asserted by Papists I should be heartily glad to see any Papist assert this for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery but I doubt Mr. Lob wrongs the Papists and mistakes Catholick for Roman-Catholick Church They own no Catholick but the Roman-Catholick Church and know no Schism but a Separation from the Church of Rome But Mr. Lob thinks this is no great matter for I only change England for Rome and set up an English-Catholick instead of the Roman-Catholick Church which whatever other fault it have I hope he will acknowledg to be a change a little for the better but let us hear his own words He says I close with the same Popish Faction Ibid. in asserting that separating from the Church of England is a Separation from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists say within the limits of Rome What a blessed thing is Ignorance which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit What Papists are those who confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome Do not they own the Churches of Italy Spain France Germany to be Catholick Churches and would own all the Churches in the World to be so would they subject themselves to the Pope of Rome They do not desire to confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome but desire to extend it as far as England and all the World over But still Rome is the beginning of Unity and Catholicism and no Church must be owned for a Catholick Church which does not live in Communion with the Church of Rome and pay homage and subjection to the Bishop of Rome This is the Roman-Catholick Church not which is confined within the limits of Rome but which has the Bishop of Rome for its constitutive Regent Head And is not Mr. Lob a very pleasant man who would perswade the World that I am for setting up such a Catholick Church in England as the Papists have done at Rome The Papists make it Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome considered as the Head of the Church I assert it to be Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Church of England not meerly as the Church of England but as a true and sound part of the Catholick Church which we especially are bound to communicate with And is there no difference between these two But who-ever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of Salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all the while Schismaticks in a state of Damnation This no jesting matter but a sad and serious Truth which I would beg Mr. Lob as he loves his
of Separation from any Church that there are such things imposed as are not indeed expresly commanded but yet are agreeable to the Word of God and to true Religion if this be a just Cause of Separation it is impossible that any Schismatick should ever want Reasons for their Separation for there is no Church in the World but does something or other which they have no Command to do If this be no sufficient reason of Separation then it is sufficient for us to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism Can any thing be sinful which is agreeable to true Religion Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful If not it is sufficient to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion For whatever justifies the Church condemns the Schismaticks It may be it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of to determine what is in its own nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion but I can tell him de facto what is viz. a Complyance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church he who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content that Mr. Lob and his beloved Separatists should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons as equally condemn the Catholick Church and when they have the confidence to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the Practise of the Catholick Church But Mr. Lob observes that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar If any object Ibid. where are these points viz. of Invocation of Saints the worshipping of Images the abstaining from Flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where it is forbidden in Scripture If not forbidden in Scripture it is no sin to observe them for where there is no Law there is no Transgression But what of all this The Rule is a very good Rule though used in a bravado by the Jesuit Does Mr. Lob think that Popery is established by this Rule as well as indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies Do we separate from the Church of Rome only for the sake of some things which are neither forbid nor commanded in Scripture Our Dissenters I see have better thoughts of Popery than the Church of England has and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome But there is one admirable Paragraph which I cannot let pass without some short remarks and it is this To make that a part of our Religion Ib. p. 79. which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Wherein there are as many absurd Propositions included as can well be in so few words 1. He takes it for granted that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture is to make a part of Religion of it and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things not as parts of Religion but as Rules of Order and Discipline Who then makes it a part of Religion If it be made a part of Religion it must be made so by God or the Church he acknowledges God does not make it a part of Religion and the Church declares she does not how then does it come to be a part of Religion Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind Intention and Declaration In some cases indeed men may do what they never intended to do and contract a Guilt which they utterly disclaim and disown but then it is in such cases where a positive Law or the nature of the thing determines the nature of the Action whatever he who does it intends by it Thus the Papists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the consecrated Host but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that because the Law of God and the Nature of the Worship makes it so But now how can that come to be a part of Worship which is not so neither by a positive Law nor by the Nature of the thing nor by the Institution of men For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Religion which is commanded by the Church If there be the Dispute is at an end we will then own these unscriptural Ceremonies as parts of Religion and justifie our selves by the Command of God and the Authority of the Church Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion which is not so in its own Nature That is can the Nature of things make an Action to be that which in its own Nature it is not Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Religion which the Church never instituted as a part of Religion I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments against her own express Declarations to the contrary 2. Mr. Lob here supposes that nothing must be a Term of Church Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion for that is the subject of the Dispute and to make any thing a condition of Communion he thinks makes it a necessary part of true Religion And now I begin to wonder what he means by Religion or a part of Religion Is Government and Discipline Religion or a part of Religion If they be I would gladly know Mr. Lob's definition of Religion if they be not are they any Terms of Communion Or may Catholick Communion and Church-Societies be preserved without any Government and Discipline Mr. Lob is mightily out to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion but the profession of the true Religion Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty and a necessary Term of Church Communion and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship if he be of a restless turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors and their Orders and Constitutions he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion if he does not separate himself and will be damned for it too without Repentance Though a very little thing may make a
the Church doth as I would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of the state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things But now here are two great mistakes For 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation but casts them out of her own Communion that this excludes them from a state of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. The Church does not desire nor design the Damnation of any man but excommunicates them for their correction and amendment that God would give them repentance unto life And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate when God who knows every circumstance of things more particularly than Church-Governors can may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church who are cast out of visible Communion Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism Excommunication is no sin at all but a severe punishment when it is deserved and contracts the guilt of Schism when it is despised He who is unjustly cast out of the Church ought not to despise such Censures but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion But the Excommunication of the Church and the wilful Separation of Schismaticks are two as different things as can well be imagined I never asserted that Church-Censures and Excommunications always put men out of a state of Salvation but I assert that wilful Schism does 2. Nor does the Church excommunicate meerly for the sake of some little uncommanded things but for Schism and Church-factions and disobedience to Government which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society and are not the less sins because the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things To excommunicate any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion i. e. because he will not break the express Laws of God to comply with the Laws of the Church is an unjust and Schismatical Excommunication but it is necessary to the good Order and Government of any Society to Excommunicate those who will not own the just Authority of the Church be the thing never so little for which they separate For we must consider that a Church must first be Schismatical her self before she can excommunicate Schismatically Any Church which either forbids the doing what God has commanded or commands what God hath forbid is so far a Schismatick from the Catholick Church whose Communion must be regulated by the divine Laws and if she excommunicates any single Persons or Churches for not complying with these unlawful and Schismatical terms of Communion her Excommunications are Schismatical because her terms of Communion are so which is the case of the Church of Rome But it is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical can excommunicate Schismatically A man who is unjustly excommunicated is cast out of the external Communion of the Church but does not schismatically separate himself Nay though he be upon other accounts unjustly excommunicated if there be nothing unlawful in the Communion of that Church which is the unjust Excommunication which these learned Bishops assert to be schismatical or he be not excommunicated upon any such account he must patiently bear it and use all means to be restored but must not set up a distinct and opposite Communion which would be a causeless Schism For meer Excommunication though in some respects never so unjust is not a sufficient reason to justifie a formed Schism and Separation from any Church no more than any acts of injustice which private men suffer will justifie a Rebellion against their Prince God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Vertue and Innocence whether it suffer from Church or State and there only lies our last Appeal So that meer Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical or though it may occasion yet it can never justifie a Schism But now when any Church by enjoyning sinful terms of Communion separates so far from the Catholick Church and excommunicates all Persons and Churches who will not communicate with her in such unlawful things it is lawful and justifiable nay necessary for such Persons to preserve the purity of their own Communion or to form themselves into a distinct Communion in the Unity of the Catholick Church and to leave such a Church to stand by her self Here now is a formed Schism between these Churches and the Question is who is the Schismatick the excommunicating or the excommunicated Churches And the answer is very plain the excommunicating Church is the Schismatick because she has departed from Catholick Communion by imposing unlawful terms of Communion So that Excommunication can never be Schismatical but when the terms of Communion are a Schism from the Catholick Church and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this whether the enjoyning the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies be a Schism from the Catholick Church and when Mr. Lob can prove this I will readily grant the Church of England to be schismatical whether she excommunicate Dissenters or not But this will be a hard matter for him to do when the Catholick Church has always asserted the Authority of the Church in these matters and has always practised a great many uncommanded Ceremonies in all Ages but this I have discoursed sufficiently above Thus we see how Mr. Lob fails in his new attempts to prove the Church of England the Schismatick from my own Principles and Concessions Let us now consider how he justifies his old Argument to prove the Church the divider and certainly never any man was more hard put to it to make some little insignificant appearance of an Answer than he was and yet he puts a very good face on it and with a brave Confidence huffs it off as if there were nothing said that deserved an Answer And I confess it abundantly satisfies me what a vain attempt it is to convince men who are resolved not to be convinc'd If Mr. Lob or any other for him will give a fair and particular Answer to those few Pages in the Defence from p. 22. to p. 53. I promise them to be their Convert and a zealous opposer of all indifferent Ceremonies in Religion But because Mr. Lob would have the World believe that he has done this already I shall desire my Readers to look over those few Pages in the Defence and compare them with his Reply and if this could be obtained I would venture to leave it just as it is without any further remarks But least he should boast that I decline the Dispute I shall briefly consider what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers Mr. Lob undertook to prove the Church not the Dissenter to be the divider by this Argument The Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them what then must be done for Vnion Must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without
is it possible there should be any decency or uniformity of Worship any Order or Government maintained in the Church if it is in the Power of every private Christian to make the most wholsom Constitutions of a Church unlawful and sinful Impositions by his private dissent and obstinate refusal of Obedience 4. If it be lawful for the publick Authority of the Church to determine the indifferent Circumstances and external Solemnities of Worship it is necessary to make them the terms of Communion that is it can't be avoided but it must be so For when the Church determines the indifferent and undetermined Circumstances of Worship all that is meant by it is that she requires all in her Communion to worship God in such a manner which is the only sence wherein indifferent things are or can be made the terms of Communion So that the Controversie must return where it first began about the lawfulness of indifferent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship and the Power of the Church to determine them for making them terms of Communion is no new difficulty for it signifies no more than prescribing such a way of worshipping God and if it be lawful for the Church to prescribe the Modes and Circumstances of Worship she cannot mistake in making them terms of Communion For 5. If the Church have Authority to prescribe the Order and Circumstances of publick Worship it is unreasonable to think that she may not justly deny those her Communion who will not submit to her Authority and comply with her Orders and Constitutions Which is to say that she has Authority and that she has none For it is sufficiently known that the Church as such has no other Authority but to receive in or to shut out of her Communion and if she cannot assist her commanding Authority with her Authority of Censures it is little worth Nay 6. In the nature of the thing it cannot be otherwise Those who will not conform to the Constitutions of the Church must forsake her Assemblies for there is no other way of Worship to be had there And therefore we need enquire no further than whether it be lawful for the Church to prescribe a form of Worship to her self if it be she needs exercise no other Authority for those who will not conform to it will separate themselves without her Authority And as for the sin and danger of Schism let the Church look to her self that she give no just occasion for it and let scrupulous and tender Consciences look to themselves that they take no unjust Offence and this is the only remedy I know of in this case without prostituting Church-Authority and the Worship of God to a blind and factious Zeal And yet I suppose no Church is bound to own those of her Communion who separate from her Worship and despise her Authority 7. And whereas Mr. Lob founds his Objection upon making indifferent things terms of Communion every one who understands the nature of Government knows that it is an unsufferable mischief to disturb and dissolve humane Societies though for very little things Schism is a very great evil and nevertheless because the Dispute is about indifferent things the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church the decency and solemnities of Worship and the sacredness of Authority is necessary to Christian Communion without which the Church must dissolve and disband into private Conventicles as we see at this day and therefore whoever disturbs Christian Communion for indifferent things does as well deserve to be cast out of the Church as the most profligate sinners But to return to Mr. Lob. The only Objection he has against all that I urged in the Defence is that I run from Circumstances to Ceremonies and yet his Conscience tells him if ever he read the Defence Defence p. 38. that he knows the contrary for I particularly answered that Objection in the Defence and it seems I have so answered it that Mr. Lob thought it the wiser course to dissemble his knowledg of any such Answer than to attempt any Reply to it And now let any man judge what an unreasonable task Mr. Lob has put on me Reply p. 84. It lies on him says he either to prove to our Conviction that we may without sin comply with their Imposition i. e. he must so far effectually enlighten our Consciences as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully conform But how is this possible for me or any other man to do when he will not so much as see what we shew him When he is so far from an impartial Examination of the Reason of what is proposed that he will not so much as own that it was ever proposed It is not in our Power to give him eyes or to make him open his eyes when he wilfully shuts them Much less do we desire as he proceeds That they should conform against their Consciences and yield a blind obedience to such Commands we have had too much experience of such consciencious men in the Church already who have conformed against their Consciences that they might raise a Church of England-Rebellion as this Author impudently suggests and takes the first opportunity to pull down the Church and to expiate their sins of Conformity by a thorough Reformation There is something lies on them to do as well as on us and that is freely and impartially to consider what is offered for their Conviction to acknowledg themselves convinc'd when they are convinc'd to prefer the Salvation of their own Souls and the Peace of the Church before private Fame or serving a Party that is in a word to be honest and then there will be no need for the Church to part with her Impositions II. The second thing wherein I observed the force of his Argument lay was this That the Opinion of the Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for parting with them Now he does not take notice of any one word of Answer I return to this nay does not so much as represent the Reason why I place the force of his Argument in this which is that if the Opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient Reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not or a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot Instead of which he says I give this Reason for it if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some which he leaves out indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks which does not refer to the second but to the first thing wherein I placed the force of his Argument That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with Certainly never any man was in a greater
turmoil and confusion of thoughts than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time when he was resolved to answer but knew not what to say No man I fear need convince Mr. Lob that he may conform against his Conscience Make it but his Interest to conform and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd Well but however that he might seem to return some Answer to my Confutation of that Principle that the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them he just names it and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing that all indifferent things cannot be parted with without sin and this must pass for an Answer to the second And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this But let us hear what he says You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and intrinsecal thereunto and what is extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these which is off from the point in hand Had I done so I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper as not to have shewn his Readers how I did it But I have already answered that Suggestion and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary if they dare believe their own eyes But he says Ib. p. 85. I run from what is indifferent to what is necessary as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing This is another trick The case is this He charges the Church of England with being the Divider because she does not part with indifferent things which she may part with without sin I prove that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary for then it were no longer indifferent yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship not to the moral Nature but the external performance of Religious Actions and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship and yet if we must part with indifferent things meerly considered as indifferent by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all This he calls running from what is indifferent to what is necessary whereas it only proves that some things which are indifferent in their own Natures are necessary to publick Worship which was very much to my purpose though not to his I gave an Instance of this in some Actions which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances As a man who is to travel from London to York is not bound either to go thither on Foot or to ride on Horse-back or in a Coach each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or other of these ways of Motion not any one in particular is necessary but yet some or other is But says Mr. Lob One has not strength to walk Ib. p. 86. another cannot bear riding in a Coach yet to York they must go If you will keep to your point you must say to him that can't walk some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither The force of which Answer amounts to this that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself as he is to choose his own way of Travelling whether on Foot or by Horse or Coach But this also I had particularly considered and answered in the Defence though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it and I suppose should I repeat what I have said he will take as little notice of it the second time as he has done the first The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin Defence p. 44. where to seek for an Answer to it And if Mr. Lob cannot think of some better Defence he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still CHAP. VII Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined THE last thing I proposed to my self for the Conclusion of this Work was to examine Mr. Lob's Preface and Mr. H's Materials for Union But this Vindication is already much larger than I intended it and I find this Work done very sufficiently by Mr. Long in a late Treatise Entitled No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot and therefore though it were easie to enlarge upon this Subject I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union and refer those who are inquisitive for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's project 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it 3. That it cures no Schism 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation 1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter to pull down the Church of England which is established by Law and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation to make way for Union Does Mr. H. imagine that the true Sons of the Church will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers And what would the Civil State get by this to exchange the Church for Dissenters To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters and to part with a much better Church for it To attempt a Union on between Dissenters who as Mr. H. owns can never agree their Disputes and therefore can never unite though they may be tied together or comprehended in the same Vessel as Sand or Water is and to dissolve a Church which is all of a piece firmly united within it self and to its Prince But what need all this Will Mr. H. say I never designed to dissolve the Constitution of the Church of England but only to bring Dissenters into the legal Establishment Let this then be tried whether his Materials for Union do not destroy the present Constitution Root and Branch The present Constitution of our Church in Conformity to the Ancient Apostolical Government consists of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons let us try then whether we can find either of these in Mr. H.'s Materials for Union As for Deacons he has not one word of them though Mr. Lob. acknowledges they were owned for an Ecclesiastical Order by the necessary Erudition but a great Oracle thinks this Order may be spared though it has been continued in the Church ever since the Apostles days and therefore we will let this pass But we must not deny but Mr. H. owns Bishops nay proposes that some leading Dissenters themselves should be
between all these divided and separate Churches 1. That they are all united under the King as the constitutive Regent Head of the National Church And this I grant makes them all legal Churches as he speaks or legal parts of the Church but it does not make them one Church You may as well say that England Scotland and Ireland are one Kingdom because they are united under one Prince or that all the Corporations in England are one National Corporation though they have distinct Charters and different Priviledges and Immunities Nothing is National but what extends to the whole Nation and where several Churches are established by Law there can be no one National Church though they be all under the Government of the same Prince because there is no one Church-Constitution for all the Churches in the Nation to be governed by which is the notion of a National Church in the sense we now speak of 2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches is by the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls Bishops who have an equal supervising care of them all Their work in general being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and to the Peace of one another Now that this cannot make them one National Church will appear from these Considerations 1. That these Bishops though they may be Ecclesiastical Persons yet are not properly Ecclesiastical but Civil Officers they act not by an Ecclesiastical Authority but are Ministers of the Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs as I have already shewn and therefore if their Union under one Prince cannot make them one Church much less can their Union under the King's Ministers 2. Suppose they were true Primitive Bishops yet where there are separate Churches in any Diocess they cannot all live in Communion with their Bishop and therefore cannot be one Church For Communion with the Bishop is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church as I have proved in the Defence Defence p 469. c. A supervising Power not to govern the Church according to his own Judgment and Conscience but to see that they govern themselves according to their own Forms and Models is no Episcopal Authority much less any Act of Church-Communion Those only communicate with their Bishop who submit to his Pastoral Authority and partake with him in all Religious Offices and those who do not according to the notion of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and therefore not of the same Church with him It is a very different thing to be a meer Visitor and a Bishop and it is as different a thing to be in Communion with a Bishop and to be subject to the Visitations of the King 's Ecclesiastical Minister and therefore a supervising Power cannot make those one Church who are of different Communions 3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take to make some leading Dissenters Bishops it is still more evident that they could in no sense make a National Church because the Bishops of the Church would be of different Communions For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another which unite all their Churches into a National Patriarchal Ibid. cap. 7. 8. or Catholick Church as I have proved in the Defence This is abundantly enough to shew that Mr. H.'s Episcopal Visiters cannot make a National Church 4. Another way Mr. H. proposes to unite all these Churches into one National Church is by the Vertue of occasional Communion That when a man hath his choice to be of one Church which he will in regard to fixed Communion he should occasionally come also to the other for maintaining this National Vnion But 1. No occasional Acts of Communion can unite Churches of distinct and separate Communions To be in Communion with a Church is to be a member of it no man ought to communicate with any Church of which he is not a Member and no Acts of Communion can unite Churches which do not make them Members of each other as I have also proved in the Defence and therefore such occasional Acts of Communion Ibid. p 132 c can contribute nothing to a National Union 2. Of what nature shall this occasional Communion be Shall they communicate in all Acts of Worship or only hear a Sermon now and then together If in all Acts of Worship why should there be distinct Communions at any time Why cannot he communicate always with that Church with which he can communicate in all Acts of Worship some times If our occasional Communion be only in some few less material Acts this makes no Union of Churches for if there be any Acts of Worship wherein they can at no time communicate with each other no man will say such Churches are united in one Communion 3. What is the meaning of this should would Mr. H. have an Act of Parliament to enjoyn this occasional Communion and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity For it requires Uniformity sometimes and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful why should it not be made always necessary If Mr. H. by should only intimates what he would have them do what then if they won't notwithstanding his should What will become of this National Union then This occasional Communion is either necessary to this National Union or it is not If it be not necessary why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for National Union If it be how will he prove that all Dissenters will occasionally communicate with each other and with the Church of England 3. Mr. H.'s project for Union will cure no one Schism and therefore can make no Union This is evident from what I have already discours'd for if it cannot make one Church it cannot cure the Schism where there are two distinct and separate Churches which are not Members of each other there is a Schism for Church-Unity consists in one Communion as I have abundantly proved in the Defence Defence chap. 4. Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be confirmed by Act of Parliament it would be neither better nor worse than either an Universal or a limited Toleration as they can agree that matter among themselves established by Law Nay should such an Act declare that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church the Power of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words but it cannot alter the Nature of things They would still be as many Churches as they are now but could never be one Church though they might be called a National Church as that may be made to signifie all the Churches of professed Christians in the Nation established by Law Such an Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from temporal Punishments and might deliver them from the sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors but the guilt of Schism will remain still unless he thinks that the Donatists were not Schismaticks when Julian the