Christian Church considered as a Church is not armed with any secular coercive Power and if it have no spiritual Power neither how shall it maintain and preserve it self against all the oppositions of Men and Devils and yet it can have no spiritual Power if men may as well be saved out of the Church as in it For who then will regard the Unity of the Church value its Censures or reverence its Authority and Government Spiritual Power is exercised upon the Souls and Consciences of men and respects the Happiness of the other World as temporal Power Governs the outward man and respects this present Life now all the Power Christ hath given to his Church is that which we call the Power of the Keys to take in or to shut out of the Church which is no Power at all if the Communion of the Church be so indifferent a thing that men may be as safe out of the Church as in it All the Censures of the Christian Church which are purely Spiritual only respect Church-communion and therefore their Authority too depends upon the necessity of this Communion Some were cast out of the Church others received into the Number of Penitents of which Albaspinaeus reckons four degrees in the Primitive Church which were the different Degrees of their Separation from Christian Communion now how easily may a man who believes no necessity of Catholick Communion despise all this Authority and all these Censures and there can be no necessity of it if our Souls be not greatly endangered by the want of it And yet our Saviour calls this Power of receiving in and shutting out of the Church The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 16 Mat. 19 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now how can the Keys of the Church to let in or to shut out be called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unless there be a necessary Relation between the Communion of the Church on Earth which is also called the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that those who are in the Communion of the Church and have a Right to be in it have a Title also to the Kingdom of Heaven and that those who are out of the Church either by their own Choice or by a just Censure have no Title to the Kingdom of Heaven and shall never enter into it That the Church on Earth and the Church in Heaven is but one Communion and that no men are transplanted into the Church in Heaven but from the Communion of the Church on Earth upon which account the Peace of the Church which was given to dying Persons under Censures was called the Viaticum or a kind of Pass into the other World And when our Saviour so expresly asserts whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven if by binding and loosing we will understand putting out or receiving into the Church it makes the Communion of the Church absolutely necessary to Salvation And I farther observe that what in St. Matthew is called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and binding and loosing is in St. John called retaining or remitting sins Whosoever sins ye remit Joh. 20.23 they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained And therefore if we expound this remitting and retaining sins by binding and loosing in the exercise of the Keys as in all reason we must then to remit sins is to restore men to the Peace and Communion of the Church and to retain them is to cast men out of the Church or to keep them under Church-censures which is a plain demonstration that sins are forgiven only in the Communion of the Church So that whatever other Reasons our Lord might have in confining Salvation ordinarily to the Communion of the Church among which the Promoting of Catholick Love and Charity among his Disciples and Followers is none of the least which as I observed before cannot be maintained and preserved in a Schism yet here is one manifest Reason for it that the Authority and Discipline and Government of the Church without which the Church cannot well subsist does wholly depend on it If Christ have instituted a Church and invested it with such Authority and Power as is necessary to preserve it self and to promote the great ends of Church-Society and the Church as a spiritual Society can have no other Power and has no other given it by Christ but what results from the necessity of Catholick Communion we need not wonder that the pardon of Sin and the assistances of the divine Grace and everlasting Life should be confined to the Communion of the Church because the Church cannot Preserve it self nor Govern its own Members can neither Instruct Reprove nor Censure with any Authority and Effect without this which by the way shows us how effectually those men who separate from the Church upon a pretence of purer Worship and a purer Discipline overthrow and contradict their own pretences and tear up the very foundations of all Church-authority for if separation from the Church be so slight and indifferent a Matter there can be no Authority in the Church for any man who is uneasie or humersom or ungovernable in the Communion of the Church may leave it if he pleases and joyn himself to some other Communion or set up a new Communion of his own without any danger and in this Case nothing can keep People together but some great Art and Cunning in their Guides or some secular Advantages or arbitrary Covenants and I think the Independents have great reason on their side to found a particular Church on a particular Church Covenant if there be no necessity of Catholick Communion as I have now described it for if there be no essential and inherent Authority in the Church there can be no other than what depends upon private Contracts Now may we not as well wonder why humane Laws inflict such severe Punishments upon Rebels whatever other good qualities they may have as that Christ should so severely punish Schismaticks who may upon other Accounts pass in the World for very good men the Reason of both is the same Government in Church and State is of such mighty Consequence to the temporal and spiritual Happiness of Mankind and Rebellion and Schism so destructive to all Government that those men deserve the severest Punishments who disturb the Peace and Establishment of Church or State and Schism is so much worse than Rebellion as the happiness of the Souls of men is of much greater Concernment than their temporal Ease and Felicity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power ANd now I am come to the main seat of the Controversie between me and Mr. Lob Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Baxter not to
this Body if we will enjoy Union and Communion with Christ 3. When he places the Unity of the Catholick Church in the Union of all single Persons and Churches in and to Christ he must either mean this of an external and visible Union to Christ by an external and visible profession of Faith in him or a real internal mystical Union 1. If he mean the First an external and visible Union to Christ I observe that this can neither be made nor be known but by something which is external and visible We cannot know that any Society of men is the Church of Christ but by their external profession of Faith in him and subjection to him nor can we know that a hundred Societies are the same Church but by some common Profession and Practise and if by the Institution of our Saviour one Communion be essential to the Notion of one Church as I have abundantly proved it is then the visible Union of all Churches in and to Christ consists in their visible Communion with each other 2. If he mean a mystical internal Union I have two things to say to him 1. This makes the Catholick Church invisible for if the Unity of the Catholick Church consists only in the Union of all Churches in Christ and this Union be a mystical invisible Union then the Catholick Church it self must be invisible too 2. Though particular Christians may be thus mystically united to Christ yet no particular Churches are thus united to Christ much less all the particular Churches in the World unless you will say that none belong to the Church but those Persons who are true and sincere Christians which reduces the Church to the invisible number of the Elect and destroyes not only the Visibility but in many cases the Organization of the Church on Earth for I fear the Pastors and Governours of the visible Church are not alwayes invisibly united to Christ and therefore according to this way of arguing it is not visible whether Christ have an organical Church on Earth which shows how absurd it is to place the Unity of the Catholick Church in this invisible Union of particular Churches to Christ I may add 3. That no men are thus visibly united to Christ who are not visible Members of the Catholick Church and do not live in visible Communion with it when it may be had for otherwise we destroy the necessity of a visible Church or of a visible Profession and Practise of Christian Communion even in particular Churches Which shows that the Notion of Catholick Unity and a Catholick Church does not consist in such an invisible Union to Christ for our invisible Union to Christ necessarily supposes our visible Communion with his Church and since Christ hath but one Church it requires our visible Communion with the Catholick Church and this supposes that there is a visible Catholick Church of a distinct Consideration from the invisible Church of the Elect which therefore cannot be founded on an invisible Union to Christ but on something which is visible such an external Profession and external Communion as may be seen The sum is this No Church can be the Church of Christ but upon account of some Union to him either visible or invisible or both but that which makes all the Churches of the World the one Church and Body of Christ must be an Union amongst themselves which I have proved consists in one Catholick Communion What Mr. B. farther adds proceeding upon the same Mistake needs no particular Answer and what deserves any farther Examination will fall in under another Head But Mr. Lob I confess has pinched harder in this Cause having alleadged some venerable Names in the Church of England against me Arch-bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker Dr. Field all very great men to whose Memories I cannot but pay a just Reverence and Respect But yet if it should appear that my Notion of Catholick Communion should differ from theirs as I think it does in some Points from Arch-bishop Bramhal's while I have the Authority of Scripture and the primitive Church I think my self very safe notwithstanding the dissent of any modern Doctors of what note soever Only hence we may learn with what Judgment and Honesty Mr. Lob charges me with carrying on the Cassandrian Design when I differ from the Arch-bishop in those very Points for which he was though very unjustly charged with it But let us examine Particulars I assert that all Christians and Christian Churches in the World are one Body Society or Church and this is called Catholick Communion because it obliges them all to communicate in all the external Offices and Duties of Religion and Church-Society and Membership as occasion offers especially neighbour-Christians are bound to live together in external Communion with that Church in which they are and that whoever causelesly separates from any Church which lives in Catholick Communion is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church Mr. Lob to avoid this Reply to the Defence p. 14 alledges the Authority of Arch-bishop Bramhal and triumphs over me after his usual rate for not having con'd my Lesson well nor sufficiently digested my Notions which he supposes I learnt though very imperfectly from this great Master he tells me This great Prelate uses several distinctions about Communion which would have been for my purpose and rectification Though whoever reads my Book will find that I was not ignorant of these Distinctions but did not think them to my purpose The Bishop sayes Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England Tom. 2. Disc 2. P. 57. The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external And do I any where deny this The Question only is whether internal Communion will excuse men from the guilt of Schism who separate from the external Communion of the Church when it may be had without sin And this I deny and do not see where the Bishop asserts the contrary But let us hear what internal Communion is which he sayes consists principally in these things To believe the same entire substance of saving necessary Truth revealed by the Apostles and to be ready implicitely in the Preparation of the mind to imbrace all other supernatural Verities when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them to judge charitably of one another And do not I also expresly say Defence p. 171. that the same Faith and mutual Love and Charity are the Bonds and Ligaments of Christian Vnion p. 172. That the Vnity of Faith must be acknowledged as absolutely necessary to the Vnity of Christians for Hereticks are no Members of the Christian Church But we must exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first general Councils and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Here Mr. Lob makes a Query Whether seeing the Faith
Administration of Baptism by Hereticks if it have any force must prove also that they forfeit their own and from those Answers he returns to many Difficulties wherewith he was prest we may learn his Judgment in our present Dispute in what sense Hereticks and Schismaticks belong to the Church which will give some light also to St. Austin's whole Dispute with the Donatists which I hope will not be ungrateful to an inquisitive Reader As 1. One great Difficulty is How those who are not in the Church can administer those Sacraments which belong particularly to the Church How there can be the same common Sacraments to those who are in the Church and to those who are out of it To which he answers that though Schismaticks do forsake the Communion of the Church yet they do not forsake the Church in every thing In quo enim nobiscum sentiunt in eo etiam nobiscum sunt in eo autem à nobis recesserunt in quo à nobis dissentiunt si ergo qui recessit abunitate aliud aliquid agere voluerit quà m quod in unitate percepit in eo recedit disjungitur quod autem ita vult agere ut in unitate agitur ubi hoc accepit didicit in eo manet atque conjungitur August de bapt l. 1. cap. 1. and as much as they retain of the Church so much they belong to it and whatever they find of the Church among Schismaticks they are bound to approve and allow though done in a Schism and therefore they dare not reject the Baptism of Schismaticks when Persons so Baptized return to the Communion of the Church so that though St. Austin will not allow Schismaticks to be in the Catholick Church whose Communion they have forsaken yet they retaining something which belongs to the Church Vt ergo utraque Sententia vera sit sicut vera est illa ubi ait qui non est mecum adversum me est qui mecum non colligit spargit illa ubi ait nolite prohibere qui enim contra vos non est pro vobis est quid restat inteligendum nisi quia ille in tanti nominis veneratione confirmandus fuit ubi non erat contra Ecclesiam sed pro Ecclesia in illa tamen separatione bulpandus ubi si colligeret spargeret si forte veniret ad Ecclesiam non illud quod babebat ibi acciperet sed in quo aberraverat emendaret Ib. cap. 7. the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments they still have some relation to the Church and are not to be accounted Heathens and Infidels and to this he applies that saying of our Saviour He that is not against us is with us that is he is so far with us as he is not against us and therefore is not to be rejected in every thing he does but only in those things wherein he departs from us And therefore though Schismaticks are not in the Church as having forsaken the Communion of it yet so far as their Faith and Worship is truly Christian they must be acknowledged to belong to the visible Church as the visible professors of Christianity Thus St. Austin thinks the vessels of Honour and the vessels of Dishonour by which the Apostle means such Hereticks or Separatists as Hymeneus and Philetus 2 Tim. 2. may be said to be in the same House Dicit Apostolus Paulus de quibusdam qui circa veritatem aberraverant fidem quorundam subvertebant quos cum evitandos esse diceret in una tamen domo magna eos fuisse significat sed tanquam vasa in contumeliam credo quod nondum foris exierant aut si jam exierant quomodo eos dicit in eadem magna domo cum vasis honorabilibus nisi forte propter ipsa Sacramenta Ib. l. 3. cap. 19. upon account of the same Sacraments 2. Sometimes he seems to make Schismaticks to belong to the Church as other wicked men do who have not forsaken the visible Communion of it for otherwise I cannot understand his Answer to that great Objection against the Baptism of Schismaticks that Schism is so great a Sacriledge and Impiety and Schismaticks such Rebels against Christ that we cannot think he will approve their Baptism that they are Carnal and therefore cannot give the Spirit which is conferred in Baptism Nunquid ergo ad eandem columbam pertinent omnes avari de quibus in eadem Catholica graviter idem Cyprianus ingenuit nam ut opinor raptores non columbae sed accipitrices dici possunt quomodo ergo Baptizabant qui fundes insidiosis fraudibus capiebant c. Ib. l. 3. cap. 17. to which he commonly answers That the Case is much the same with reference to Baptism administred by bad men in the Church those who are Carnal Covetous Unjust c. And therefore he makes Hereticks and Schismaticks to be only Pseudo-Christiani or false and counterfeit Christians as all bad men are and bad men no more to belong to the Church than Schismaticks do Those who are Enemies to brotherly love Hujus autem fraternae charitatis inimici sive aperte foris sint sive intus esse videantur Pseudo-Christiani sunt Antichristi cum intus videntur ab illa invisibili charitatis compage Separati sunt Ib. cap. 19. whether they be without as Schismaticks are or seem to be within as those who still live in visible Catholick Communion they are all counterfeit Christians and Antichrists And therefore he must allow Schismaticks in some sense to belong to the Church as other bad men do they have indeed made a more visible and open Separation from the Church Si nihil potest ratum firmum esse apud Deum quod illi faciunt quos Dominus hostes adversarios suos esse dicit cur firmus est Baptismus quem tradunt homicidae An hostes adversarios domini non dicimus homicidas qui autem odit fratrem snum homicida est l. 5. cap. 21. but yet have not renounced Christianity And therefore he observes that if those who are without cannot have any thing that belongs to Christ Hoc tamen puto me non temere dicere si foris nemo potest habere aliquid quod Christi est nec intus quisquam potest habere aliquid quod Diaboli est si enim hortus ille clausus potuit habere spinas Diaboli cur non extra hortum potuit manare fons Chrisli Ib. l. 4. cap. 7. neither can those who are within have any thing that belongs to the Devil for if this enclosed Garden may have the Thorns and Thistles of the Devil grow in it why may not the fountain of Christ flow without the Garden in which he alludes to the Rivers of Paradice which did not only water the Garden but divided themselves into all the World as he discourses elsewhere Sicut ergo intus quod Diaboli est 〈◊〉 So that
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
5. To preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy it is necessary that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith but especially in matter of Weight and Consequence the same Customs and Usages and the same Laws of Discipline and Government and therefore it is highly expedient and necessary when any difficult Case happens for which they have no standing Rule to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Colleagues of the same Body and Communion And this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with Ease and Convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship this has been the Practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-Episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles days for though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church-Affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general Consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian Encroachments or Usurpations on the Episcopal Authority For 6. This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governor of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his Consent the whole Authority of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which is the great end it serves and therefore they have no proper Authority but only in such Matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy or the Peace and Communion of the Catholick Church If a Bishop be convicted of Heresie or Schism or some great Wickedness and Impiety they may depose him and forbid his People to communicate with him and ordain another in his stead because he subverts the Unity of the Faith or divides the Unity of the Church or is himself unfit for Christian Communion But if a Bishop differ from his Colleagues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such Matters Thus St. Cyprian and the African Father differed from Stephen Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues about the re-baptization of Hereticks but yet would not divide the Church nor the Unity of the Episcopacy upon that Score for any Bishop to dissent from his Colleagues and obstinately adhere to his own private Opinions without very great and necessary Reasons for doing so is great frowardness and Insolence which may be condemned and censured but while he preserves the Unity of Faith and Catholick Communion whatever Church or Council should deny Communion to him would be guilty of the Schism which plainly shews that there can be no constitutive Regent Head on Earth of a National much less of the Catholick Church since every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church and though he may and ought to take the Advice of neighbour Bishops or Councils yet he is not under their Authority any farther than the Purity of the Faith or the Unity of the Church is concerned nor yet is so absolute and independent but that he is bound to live in Communion with his Colleagues and as much as is possible govern his Church by mutual Advice and Consent and if he divide the Church by Heresie or Schism he may be deposed and cast out of Christian Communion These things I have discoursed at large upon several occasions in the Defence and proved them from primitive Practise and have now reduced them into this plain Method that if it be possible to prevent it it may not be in the Power of my Adversaries a second time to form a Popish or Cassandrian Plot out of such Anti Cassandrian Principles 2. It is time now to consider what Cassander taught about this Matter George Cassander was a very learned and moderate Papist who in Obedience to the Command of the Emperors Ferdinand and Maximilian writ his Consultation wherein he gives his judgment of every Article of the Augustan Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon and dedicated to Charles the fifth The seventh Article concerns the Church and there we must seek for his Judgment in this matter and yet there I can find nothing to Mr. Lob's purpose who has named Cassander indeed but not cited any one passage out of him Cassander expresly asserts Quod autem ad unitatem hujus externae ecclesiae requirunt obedientiam unius summi Rectoris qui Petro in regenda Christi ecclesia ejus ovibus pascendis successerit non est à consensu priscae quoque ecclesiae alienum Cass Cons ad act 7. de Pontifice Romano Constat etiam olim quatenus extat memoria ecclesiae praecipuam semper authoritatem in universa Christi ecclesia Hpiscopo Romano ut Petri successori ejus cathedram obtinenti delatam fuisse Id. Ib. That to the Vnity of the Catholick Church is required obedience to one supreme Governor who succeeds Peter in the Government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that this is agreeable to the sense of the Ancient Church And that it is evident from all the Records of the Church That the chief Authority in the Vniversal Church of Christ has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair For the Proof of which he refers us to the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus and others It is very true as Mr. Lob observes that there have been some who have advanced the Authority of a General Council above the Pope of Rome and that this is a prevailing Opinion among the French Papists and thence concludes That such as assert Reply p. 31. that a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the Vniversal Church are in the Number of French Papists which is an Argument of his great Skill in Controversie For suppose there be any such men who assert a General Council to be the Political Head or Regent Part of the Universal Church but renounce all the pretended Authority of
the Pope of Rome and all Communion with him are these men Papists or not If they be then it seems that those who renounce the Pope may be Papists still and then let Mr. Lob and his Friends look to themselves who are in as fair a way of being Papists as any men I know notwithstanding their renouncing the Pope of Rome and General Councils if they be not Papists then they are not French Papists unless French Papists be no Papists But Mr. Lob if he had been at all acquainted with these Matters would easily have perceived that all who plead for the supreme Authority of General Councils do not therein renounce the Authority of the Pope of Rome and therefore are Papists still call them French or Cassandrian Papists or what you please and that those who renounce the Authority and all dependance on the Pope can be no Papists how zealous soever they are for the Authority of General Councils It were easie to discourse largely upon this Argument but a few plain Proofs are as good as a thousand Mr. Lob instances in the Councils of Constance and Basil but if he had ever seen more than the Names of those Councils he would have found how little they served his purpose I grant they do decree that a General Council is above the Pope in determining Matters of Faith in composing Schisms and in reforming the Church in its Head and Members but still they attribute such a soveraign Authority to the Bishop of Rome as no Power on Earth can equal or match but only a General Council This is so evident and notorious that whoever casually opens these Councils can hardly miss of something to this purpose and therefore I shall only produce two or three plain and undeniable Proofs of it and refer my Readers who desire farther satisfaction to the Councils themselves When Amedeus the Duke of Savoy who called himself Felix the 5th was elected Pope by the Council of Basil they call his Office summus Apostolatus the chief Apostleship or the supreme Bishoprick Declarans eidem Electo tanquam unico vero indubitato ecclesiae Romanae Pastori ab omnibus Christi sidelibus de necessitate salutis obediendum fore debere obediri ac eisdem Christi sidelibus quacunque etiamsi Imperiali Cardinalatus Patriarchali Regali Pontificali Abbatiali seu alia quavis ecclesiaslica vel mundana prefulgiant dignitate Concil Basil sess 40. and declare to all Christian People that they must obey him as the only the true the undoubted Pastor of the Roman Church under the necessity of Salvation and that whatever their Rank and Quality be Emperors Cardinals Patriarchs Kings Bishops Abbots or whatever other Ecclesiastical or Civil Honour or Power they enjoy They acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to have the executive Ecclesiastical Power in his hands Romanus Pontifex decretorum bujufmodi Executer Conservator precipuus Ib. sess 42. summi pontificatus apicem and call the Popedom the Top of Ecclesiastical Power and Nicholas the 5th who after all this stir Libenter secundum nostrae Apostolicae authoritatis plenitudinem Bulla Nicolai Papae 5. in Conc. Bas was owned Pope by this Council in his Bull of Confirmation of the Council of Basil attributes to himself a fulness and plenitude of Power But to put this out of doubt the Council it self has adjusted this Dispute about the Authority of the Pope and a General Council for after some debate about this Matter it concludes Who now can doubt of the Power of Councils Quis jam de potestate Corciliorum super omnes alias potestates ambigere poterit tot irrefragabilibus testimoniis comprobata ex his manifeste constat anctoritates quas de summi porestate Pontificis allegastis non probare quo minus ipse Pontifex mandetis universalis ecclesiae Concilii generalis obedire teneatur sed id duntaxat probant quod omnes singulares homines particulares ecclesiae ipsi Pontifici obedire debent nisi in his quae huic sacrae synodo cuilibet alteri legitimè congregatae praejudicium generent concil Basil responsio synodalis de auctor Concil General being Superior to all other Powers which has been proved by such irrefragable Testimonies from whence it manifestly appears that those Authorities which have been alleadged for the Power of the Supream Bishop do not prove that the Pope himself is not bound to obey the Decrees of the Vniversal Church or General Council but they prove only this that all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such Matters as are prejudicial to this Holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled This is sufficient to inform Mr. Lob that men may assert the Authority of General Councils and yet if they reject the Authority of the Bishop of Rome they are not Papists nor true Catholicks in the sense of the Councils of Constance and Basil both which ascribe the soveraign Authority to the Pope in the vacancies of Councils and command all men under pain of Damnation even Emperors Patriarchs Princes Prelates to obey him in all things which are not derogatory to the Decrees or Authority of general Councils But it may be the French Church has proceeded farther in retrenching the Authority of the Pope than the Council of Constance or Basil did and therefore since Mr. Lob talks so much of French Papists I shall briefly shew his skill in this also I presume Petrus de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris who writ in Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church is a good competent Witness in this Matter and yet in his Book de Concordia sacerdotii Imperii which met with so many Censures at Rome and so difficultly passed the Test and kept him so long out of his Bishoprick he asserts the Authority of the Pope much higher than cither of those Councils and to shorten my Work I shall only set down some Propositions which he himself collected out of his Book in answer to the Roman Censure 1. 1 Supremam in rebus ecclesiasticis authoritatem per Gallias exerâ—aisse Komanum pontificem judiciis ad relationes appellationes redditis ab eo tempore quo fides Christiana in Galliis floruit ad hanc usque aetatem That the Bishop of Rome has always exercised the chief Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Gallican Churches ever since Christianity flourished there 2. 2. Papam jure divino esse universalis ecclesiae caput atque adeo Gallicanae quae illius est membrum That the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church by divine Right and therefore of the Gallican Church which is a Member of the Universal Church 3. 3 Generalia decreta a Romanis Pontificibus in Gallias aequè ac in reliquas provincias missa quae magno applausu ab Imperatoribus Romanis deinde à Francorum regibus post constitutum regnum usque ad hanc
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
those of Rome and Alexandria and inflict the like Censures on them The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in one Communion and all the Authority of the Church results from the necessary Obligations to Christian Communion and all Churches must judge for themselves by the Rules of Catholick Communion what Churches to hold Communion with and though we must expect while Bishops are men and subject to the Weaknesses Passions Mistakes of humane Nature they may be guilty of great miscarriages and deny Communion to each other upon insufficient Reasons yet there is no help for this that I know of but either the Mediation and Interposition of other Churches or an Appeal to the last Judgment That obligation all Churches are under as far as in them lies to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Unity of the Church obliges them to reject the Communion of those who violate either but it withal obliges them as they will answer it at the Tribunal of Christ the great Bishop of his Church not to make any unnecessary breaches or lightly and wantonly refuse each others Communion But by the Original Right and Power of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops in relation to the Church of England he seems to mean a Right of Appeals and proper Jurisdiction as he plainly does in what he adds a little after concerning the Independency of the Church of England on any Forraign Power For because I assert the Bishops are not wholly independent he concludes That the Church of England is not independent Reply p. 12. p. 28. but accountable to Forraign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power And some Pages after confutes this by saying That 't is notorious that the Church of England estalished by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Forraign Power whatsoever Such is the Constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledge of Bishops but such us are convened by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any appeal to any Forraign Power from the King And therefore he thinks I incur a Premunire by setting up a Forraign Jurisdiction over the Church of England Now this is so wild and absurd a Conclusion from any thing I have said that none but Mr. Lob or some few of his size could have hit on 't there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church of which every Bishop has an equal Share and Portion and therefore is a Bishop of the Catholick Church and though the Exercise of his Episcopal Office and Authority is regularly and ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet his original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church does still remain i. e. He is a Bishop in all parts of the World and may exeroise his Episcopal Authority where-ever he be as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Catholick Communion and when necessity requires is obliged to take care as far as possibly he can that the Church of Christ suffer no injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of his Colleagues ergo the Church of England is subject to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria But I believe few men can discern how such a Consequence results from such Premisses and what follows is of the same stamp All Bishops have originally equal Authority in the Church of Christ but yet are not so independent but that they are bound by the Laws of Christ to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with their Fellow Bishops and in case of Heresie Schism or notorious Impiety may be censured and deposed by their Colleagues and others ordained in their stead Ergo The Church of England is subject to the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops I have abundantly proved in the Defence that St. Cyprian owns these Premisses but denies the Conclusion and therefore either he or Mr. Lob are out in their Logick when St. Cyprian had Excommunicated two of his Presbyters Felicissimus and Fortunatus and they fled to Rome to Cornelius to make their Complaints to him St. Cyprian writes a Letter to Cornelius wherein he informs him of the whole Matter and has this remarkable passage in it That it was by a general Consent agreed among them Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ac justum ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat unusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint Cypr. ep 55. ad Cornelium and is in it self equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard there where the Crime is committed since every Pastor has a Portion of the Flock committed to him which he is to Rule and Govern so as he is to give an Account of it to his Lord and therefore those who are under our Government ought not to run about from one Bishop to another nor by their subtil and fallacious insinuations engage those Bishops who are at Vnity among themselves in contests and quarrels but should there plead their Cause where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Thus St. Cyprian rejects the Appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops to Stephen Bishop of Rome when they had been justly deposed by their Colleagues Cypr. ep 68. and Felix and Sabinus ordained Bishops in their stead Thus when Marcion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer 42. Bishop of Sinope he fled to Rome but was denyed Communion there and they gave this reason for it We cannot do this without the leave of thy venerable Father for there is but one Faith and one Consent and we cannot go contrary to thy Father our good Colleague and fellow Labourer From these instances it appears that the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge does not give Authority to every Bishop to intermedle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocess but only in case of absolute necessity for here are two things to be distinctly considered which qualifie each other and set bounds to the Ecclesiastical Government 1. That there is but one Episcopacy in which every Bishop has an equal share Christ hath committed the Care of his whole Church to the Bishops of it who are to maintain Unity and Communion among themselves and as far as it is practicable and as occasion requires govern the Church with mutual Advice and Counsel
and one Consent as if they were but one Bishop And 2. That every Bishop has a Portion of the Flock assigned to his particular Care over which in ordinary Cases he has the sole and supreme Authority for though the Church of Christ be but one Flock yet it is not committed in common to the Care of all Bishops but is divided into several Folds with particular Pastors set over them to instruct and govern and take Care of them and as every Bishop and Pastor is more peculiarly concerned than any other to render an account of that part of the Flock committed to his Charge so it is fit he should have the greatest Authority and Power over them all Bishops have an equal Power and Authority in the Church but the ordinary exercise of this is confined to their own Churches in which each of them is supreme Now the first of these the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of those larger Combinations and Confederacies of neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopalor National Churches for since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary that as far as it is practicable as it is in the Churches of the same Province or Nation they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the Peace and Unity of the Episcopal Colledge and to promote the Edification and good Government of the Church Nay this Unity of the Episcopacy is the Foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Colleagues in case of Heresie and Schism or any notorious Wickedness for they being Bishops of the universal Church have an original Right and Power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the Heresie or evil Practises of their Colleagues But the second Consideration that every Bishop has the chief Power in his own Church prescribes the Bounds and Limits of this Ecclesiastical Authority as 1. Every Bishop having the chief Power in his own Diocess though he is bound by the Laws of Catholick Communion and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy to consent with his Colleagues in all wholsome Constitutions and Rules of Discipline and Government yet he cannot be imposed on against his own Consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such Accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor Schismatically divides the Church 2. Nor can any Bishop or Bishops rescind any Censures justly passed by another Bishop against any in his own Church or receive Appeals about such Matters without his Consent for the Unity of the Episcopacy requires all Bishops to leave each other to the free Exercise of their Power and Authority in their own Churches as we see the Church of Rome acknowledged in the Case of Marcion's Appeal from his Fathers Sentence For it is an usurpation on the Authority of Bishops not to suffer them to govern their own Flock while nothing is done to the injury of the Faith and the Churches Peace and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops than for one Bishop to undo what another has done or to judge over again that Cause which has been already judged and determined where it ought to be judged as St. Cyprian tells Cornelius in the Case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus as I observed above I grant this is generally practised in Archiepiscopal and National Churches and in many Cases there is great use and reason for it but then this is not without the Consent of other Bishops those Appeals are allowed and confirmed by Provincial and National Synods to which every Bishop gives his Consent but I am now considering what the original Right of Bishops is not how far they may part with this Power for a more general good 3. As every Bishop has the chief Authority in his own Diocess so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church the supreme Power within it self from whence lies no Appeal to any Forraign Church without its own Consent The Unity of the Episcopacy requires the Union of neighbour Bishops for one Government but because all the Bishops in the World though they are of the same Communion yet cannot be united into one Government it is necessary to stop somewhere and that which in all reason must determine the bounds of such a Church must be a convenient distance of place or one Nation and one Civil Government such Churches being more easily confederated into one Body than those of different Nations Now if every Bishop be the supreme Governor of his own Church much more has a National Church the supreme Power of governing it self A National Church is bound to maintain Catholick Communion with Neighbour Churches and if it fall into Heresie or Schism Neighbour Churches may and ought to admonish and censure them and if they continue obstinate to withdraw Communion from them but while a National Church preserves the Unity of the Faith and Catholick Communion no other Church can intermeddle in its Government nor ought to receive any Appeals from its Judgment for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other but only in order to Catholick Communion These things I have discoursed more largely on purpose if it be possible to prevent the mistakes of these men who are so unwilling to see or to acknowledge the Truth and I hope I may safely conclude from the whole that there is no danger that the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria should challenge any jurisdiction over the Church of England by vertue of the original Right and Power of the Catholick Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ But however Mr. Lob is resolved to make something of it at last and if he cannot prove that I subject the Church of England to any Forraign Bishop yet it is plain that I subject it to a general Council for he says I assert that if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council that is unto a Forraign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tear up the Church of England by the Roots Reply p. 29. to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force all this by Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender Good man What a happy Reformation is here How is he now concerned for the Church of England his Majesties Supremacy the Sacredness of Civil Laws in Religious Matters and the Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet which suffers by such a Defender But where do I say That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council Truly no where but he transcribes a long Paragraph out of the Defence against the absolute independency of Bishops wherein there is this Expression And 't is very wild to imagine that any of these Persons who abuse
their Power should not be accountable to the rest for it i.e. to the Colledge of Bishops which last words are not mine but his own Comment though Printed in a different Character as if they were mine and this Colledge of Bishops he transforms presently into a general Council and thus I subject the Arch-bishop of Canterbury whom I first equal to other Bishops as I do indeed with respect to original Right and Power wherein all Bishops are equal not with respect to Church-constitutions to some Court above any in this Realm to a general Council a Colledge of Bishops and now I am in danger again of a Praemunire But this has been already sufficiently explained in what sense I deny the Independency of Bishops and how far this is from subjecting them to any Forraign Jurisdiction whether of Forraign Prelates or a general Council though I cannot well understand how a general Council of which they themselves are part can be properly called a Forraign Court or Forraign Jurisdiction unless the Treaty at Nimengen were a Forraign Jurisdiction to all those Princes and States who sent their Plenipotentiaries thither to act for them However to satisfie Mr. Lob I shall 1. freely declare my thoughts about a general Council 2. Consider the folly of that suggestion that to assert the Authority of a general Council subverts the Kings supremacy and incurs a Praemunire 1. As for a general Council my thoughts are these which I humbly submit to my Superiors 1. That there never was nor ever can be in a strict sense a general and oecumenical Council of the whole Church unless the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem was such which yet was not general unless all the Apostles were there which I suppose will not be easily proved for it is not likely there ever should be a Convention on of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatcht from all Christian Churches all the World over can I see any reason why this should be called a general Council when it may be there are ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less Number of Bishops assembled in Council judge for all the rest who so far exceed them in Numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom Especially considering that every Bishop has the supreme Government of his own Church Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium Cypr. praef ad Concil Carthag and his Liberty and Power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Colleagues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of general Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such Matters as concern the purity of Faith and Manners or Catholick Unity in other Matters if St. Cyprians principle be true the major Number of Votes in Council cannot make a firm Decree much less can the Votes of three or four hundred Bishops give Laws to all the Bishops in the Christian Church which is a plain Demonstration that a general Council cannot be the supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. Since every Bishop from the Unity of Episcopacy and his obligations to Catholick Communion is bound as far as he can to govern his particular Church by the mutual Counsel and Consent of his Colleagues we must acknowledg that both Provincial and General Councils are of very great use though they have no proper jurisdiction and whatever Bishop should wilfully refuse to observe the Decrees and Canons of such Councils without manifest necessity for not doing it would be guilty of such pride and obstinacy as would fall very little short of the Guilt of Schism when there is a just Reason for it we may say with St. Austin Non consertimus huic concilio salvo jure unitatis Aug. de haptismo l. 7. c. 25. we do not consent to this Council but yet keep the Peace and Unity of the Church intire and will not heighten every dissent into a Schism but where there is no such reason it is no better than Schismatical pride and peevishness for any Bishop to pursue his own humour in opposition to the Decrees and Constitutions of his Colleagues for the very Consent and Agreement of Bishops among themselves is so great a good to the Church of God that That alone is sufficient to determine a good man when there are not very weighty reasons against it St. Cyprian I am sure thought it a Matter of mighty Consequence to manage all the great Affairs of the Church by mutual Advice Et dilectio communis ratio exposcit fratres charislimi nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos geruntur ut sit nobis circa utilitatem ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium Cyp. ep 29. in his Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome written after the Death of Fabian during the vacancy of that See he tells them that both mutual Love and Charity and the reason of the thing required that he should conceal nothing from them of the Affairs of his Church that so they might advise and consult with each other concerning the most useful Rules of Ecclesiastical Administrations And therefore he tells us that he put off the Consideration of the State of the Lapsed and would not innovate any thing in the ancient Rules of Discipline till God should be pleased to restore Peace to the Church Cypr. ep 40. that they might meet together for common Advice And the Roman Presbyters in answer to another Letter of St. Cyprians approve of this resolution and add a very weighty Reason for it that it is impossible that Decree should be firm and obtain a general Complyance which is not made by the Consent of many ep 31. And therefore I observed in the Defence that though they had no such thing as a general Council before the times of Constantine yet they had frequent Provincial Councils and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches with an account of their Transactions and Decrees that they might either approve them in their Councils or give them an account of their Dissent and the Reasons of it Mr. Baxter asks me whether they sent these Letters all the World over Cam quo nobis totus orois commercio formatarum in una Communionis societate concordat Opt. lib. 2. and I answer I believe they did not because I suspect it is not to be done no more than a general Council can be convened from all parts of the World but yet it is evident this Communication by Letters
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
the World and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation one National Church and all the separate Churches in the World one Catholick Church For 1. they assert that a particular Congregation associated for local presential Communion under a fixed Pastor is the only Church of Divine institution which I have at large confuted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the Defence and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet as to attempt the least Reply 2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church not by any Union among themselves but by being all united in Christ who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church there is no need they should be all united to one another to make one Catholick Church so they be all united to Christ the Head of the Church Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication 3. It hence follows that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them are original Churches of Divine Institution and no one Church or Pastor has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Politie that That should be called one Political Body which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head that is one superior Power over the whole Body either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superior Authority to govern the rest which would make the Church a Monarchy nor united all Pastors into one governing Head which should govern the whole Church and their own Members by a major Vote which is an Aristocracy nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People which is a Democracy it is evident that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head and therefore cannot be one Political National Church which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation from the National Church of England when there is and can be no such thing in a proper Ecclesiastical sense 4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King as the accidental Head of the Church who is the supreme Head and Governor of the Church in his Dominions And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation but the Laws of the Land and the Supremacy of the King it is the Creature of the supreme Power which made it and may unmake it again when it pleaseth 5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Constitution but to give a legal Establishment to the different Sects and Parties among us at least to all those which are tolerable which shall be under the Government of the King's Ministers whether Lay or Clergy in Ecclesiastical affairs and thus all the Dissenters which are now among us as much as they dissent from the present Constitution of the Church of England and from each other shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England under the King as an accidental Head and thus the Schism which we so much complain of is effectually cured according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union which shall be particularly examined in their due place This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue and that the impartial Reader may the better judge where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles upon which I oppose this As 1. That Christ hath but one Church which we call the Catholick Church and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregational Churches which are Churches not considered as independent Congregations but as Members of the Catholick Church which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence and the 1st Chap. of this Vindication 2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church as united in one Catholick Communion as I have proved in the 4th Chapter of the Defence and the 2d Chapter of this Vindication 3. That the Church is a Society under Government has a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and Christian People those who are governed 4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess 5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communion with each other that is as Members of the same great Body the Catholick Church and every Bishop as far as possibly he can must govern his particular Church and Diocess by the mutual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops 6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Churches considered as Churches or pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal Metropolitical or National Churches which signifies no more than the voluntary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association for the better Preservation of one Communion by mutual Advice and Counsel Concord and Agreement in Worship Discipline and Government 7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general Consent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Metropolitans 8. That yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion not Aristocratical because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Oases necessarily determined and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion and as far as possibly he can he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order but if they should decree any thing which he judges prejudicial to his Church he is bound not to comply with them
because the chief Care of his Church is committed to him and he cannot so intirely give away the Government of it to others From whence it appears that all the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Colledge as shall by a supreme Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the Form of Aristocratical Government And for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the government of a Democratical Head for if the Colledge of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt Colledge of Bishops and People Let any impartial Reader now judge wherein I contradict my self in this Scheme of Church Government I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society to have a pars Imperans Subdita for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is governed by parts I deny that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop or Colledge of Bishops as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction though contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience but yet the Episcopacy is one because all Bishops have the same Power and are bound to live in the same Communion and to govern their several Churches by mutual Advice and Consent and in order to this may unite themselves in stricter Associations and Confederacies under such Rules of Government as do not encroach upon the unalienable Rights and Power of the Episcopacy And this is sufficient to make them one Church for if the Catholick Church be one by one Catholick Communion why may not the National Church be one by one Communion And those guilty of Schism who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches though it were not backt by any Civil Authority or humane Laws And now I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey but I must beg his patience for the sake of others who are very unwilling to understand these Matters while I particularly apply what I have now discoursed in Answer to them being ashamed that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes by so frequent a Repetition of the same things but I consider it is better to do this effectually once than to be obliged to write as often as these men can spit Books The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England in Answer to which Question who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England I 1. distinguished between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question and though I know not any one thing that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th Chapter of the Defence yet this being the Chief and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on to shew their great Abilities I shall briefly review this Dispute in the same Method which I before observed that I may not confound my Readers with altering the state of the Question I distinguish between a National Church Defence p. 558. considered as a Church and as a Church incorporated with the State this Mr. H. says is no good distinction because the Church is National only under the last Consideration i. e. as incorporated with the State Reply p. 130. The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Vniversal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National Now this is said without any Reason and therefore might be as well denyed without assigning any Reason for such a Denyal but to satisfie Mr. H. in this Point I answer That the Church considered as a Church is not necessarily considered either as Universal or Particular The essential Notion of a Christian Church is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers as he hath appointed That this Church is Universal is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which unites all particular Societies of Christians into one Body that it is divided into particular Churches is owing to the Necessity of things for since all Christians in remote and distant places of the World cannot all worship God together nor live under the Care and Government of one Bishop this makes it necessary that the Episcopal Office and Power be divided into many hands and the Multitude of Christians divided into many particular Churches under their proper Pastors but in the same Communion Now if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one universal Catholick Church and a particular Communion makes a particular Church why does not a National Church-Communion make one National Church A Church is a Church considered as a Religious Body and Society of Christians as I have now described it but it is Universal National or Particular from the different degrees and kinds of Communion and therefore Churches joyned in National Communion are properly called a National Church though there were no Christian Prince to head it And that a National Church is of a distinct Consideration as it is a Church and as incorporated with the State I proved in the Defence from this Topick that de facto p. 558. there have been and may be still National Churches when the Prince and great numbers of the People are not Christians For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same Nature with what we call National Churches and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and persecuting Emperors To which Mr. H. Answers A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Churches of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too bigg and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less But what is this to the Purpose Can Mr. H. prove that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch or Metropolitan over themselves and may not the Kings of England France and Spain do so still if they please And yet I did not say that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church was a National Church but of the same Nature with a National Church that is they were a voluntary Combination of Churches founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion antecedent to any civil Conjunction by the Laws and Authority of Princes and I would fain know
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
there is a Government in the Church without superiority or without a constitutive Regent Head the plain meaning is this That every Bishop is the chief Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is a governed Society as every particular Church is under the Government of its own Pastor no Bishops either single or united having any direct Authority or Superiority over each other Now though in Aristocracy every individual Patrician and Senator have equal Power yet the Government is not in any of these distinct but in the whole Senate whether that signifie the Majority of Voices or the unanimous Vote of every Member of it and this makes it properly a Regent Head But to help Mr. B. to understand this if Pride and Interest will give him leave I shall particularly consider the difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head Every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church but no Senator meerly as a Senator hath any immediate Right much less the supreme Right of Government in any distinct part of the Nation For the Government of the Whole is in the Senate who appoint subordinate Governors either some of their own Members or others in dependence on themselves who act not by their own but by the Authority of the Senate Every Bishop may govern his own Church by his own prudence has his Arbitrium proprium as St. Cyprian speaks may regulate publick Worship and prescribe Rules of Discipline for his own Church without depending on the Authority of any other Bishop or Councils of Bishops nor is accountable to any while he preserves the Purity of Faith and Worship the Unity of the Church and Catholick Communion but no single Senator in an Aristocracy has any Power of making Laws himself but only in conjunction with others The Combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for the preservation of Catholick Communion which is most effectually done by mutual Advice and Counsel which I think differs a little from the Soveraign Power of an Aristocracy When Neighbour Bishops thus unite into one Body and agree upon some common rules of Worship or Discipline they govern indeed every one their particular Churches by common Advice and Consent but still by their own Episcopal Authority They do not receive any Authority from the Synod to govern their Churches but only agree among themselves upon some common rules of Government and therefore the Synod is not a Regent Head because it gives no new Authority which is quite contrary in an Aristocracy which is the Fountain of all Power for the Government of such a Nation Which shews how well skilled Mr. H. is in Politicks who thinks Reply p. 134. that if the Bishops rule by a Superiority over the People that makes it an Aristocratical Government And this may satisfie Mr. B. what I mean by a Government by Consent without Superiority or a Regent Head Which he turns also into Ridicule It is not a constitutive Supremacy but a Supremacy by consent No Sir it is no Supremacy at all but every Bishop governs his own Diocess by his own Authority but with the Advice and Consent of a Synod or Council or Neighbour Bishops A consent I say not as to the Power of governing but as to the Rules of Government And therefore I am not concerned to Dispute with him how far Consent is necessary to all Government I shall only observe how Mr. H. mistakes both the Dean and me in what we speak about Consent The Doctor he says holds that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops these are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy But indeed it is neither so nor so but Mr. H. understands neither as appears from what I have already Discoursed There is no other Consent required to become a Member of the National Church then there is to be a Member of the Catholick Church that is a Consent to be a Christian for every Christian is bound to live in Catholick Communion as a Member of the one body of Christ And if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one Catholick Church it makes all the Churches in a Nation one National Church But that stricter Combination of Churches in the same Nation under a Patriarch or Metropolitan or National Synods is a National Church Government by consent as I have already explained it which is highly useful to preserve Peace and Communion between neighbour-Churches whose neighbourhood requires a more close and intimate Union than there can be between Churches of different Nations under different Princes and at a greater distance There is but one thing more remains to be considered and so I will put an end to this Chapter and squabling Dispute And that is to vindicate the Deans Argument against the necessity of Mr. B's constitutive Regent Head of the National Church which in short was this If every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to the Catholick visible Church and so Mr. B's constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his universal Pastorship Mr. B. indeed says that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself but as the Dean adds this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is about that visible Church whereof the particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible constitutive Regent Head as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church What Mr. B. and Mr. H. answered to the Deans Argument I considered and answered in the Defence and Mr. B. thought fit to let this Dispute fall but Mr. H. who has not discretion enough to know when he is answered was resolved to try one trick more with it and see what Logick will do And he says he has discovered four Terms in the Deans Argument Reply p. 135. and if so I promise you it is a very material discovery and the Argument must be false and fallacious nay it seems I have done worse than the Dean and have put in a 5th Term this is foul play I confess but let us hear how it is I will tell them both plainly says Mr. H. who is indeed a very plain Writer the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also p. 137. That which Mr. Baxter said was
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
obey God without such Doctrines nay without the belief of Christianity it self I cannot see why they should believe Christianity it self to be a fundamental Doctrine to them 8. I readily grant that no Doctrine can be a fundamental Article of Faith which has not one way or other an influence upon a Christian life But then all the peculiar Arguments of the Gospel all the principles of pure evangelical Obedience as well as all the Fundamentals of Faith are contained in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ That it self is the great motive of the Gospel and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and perswasives to Vertue Take away the Doctrine of Salvation and no other consideration can have any force and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian nay there are no other Gospel-Motives but what are contained in it Whatever is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation is a Fundamental Article and a powerful Motive of Christianity and nothing else is either So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals though they were to be tryed by their tendency to promote real Righteousness as to consider what is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is an acknowledged Fundamental and contains in it all the principles of a Christian Life 2. I desire it may be further observed that when I discourse of Fundamentals I do not reject all other Doctrines besides what are strictly Fundamental as useless in the Christian Life or unfit terms of Church Communion God affords us more than what is barely necessary for our spiritual as well as for our natural life and expects from us that we should make daily improvements in Knowledg and Vertue And if this be the duty of private Christians it is much more the duty of particular Churches to arrive at the greatest perfection of Knowledg and to instruct her Children not only in those Doctrines which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity but in all those great truths which advance our Progress in the Christian Life And therefore no doubt but every Church has Authority over her own Members to require as the terms of Communion an explicite assent to many great and useful truths and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors which are not in a strict sence Fundamental or else she has no Authority to teach the whole mind and will of God nor to preserve the purity of Christian Doctrine For there are many Doctrines of vast use in the Christian Life and many very fatal and pernicious Errors which are not properly Fundamental and yet it may be have occasioned the final Damnation of many more than ever fundamental Errors have done And if the Church be bound to take care of mens Souls she is bound also to root out such pernicious Doctrines But the use I designed the Doctrine of Fundamentals for in this place is the preservation of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches which have no Power and Authority over each other For though a Church have entertained many corrupt and dangerous Doctrines yet if she profess to believe all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith we have no Authority upon the account of Doctrines to divide from her Communion We must not indeed communicate in her Errors though not Fundamental and no Church but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Communion upon other Churches but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith she is so far a true Church and if there be nothing to hinder it may and ought to be received into Catholick Communion 3. When I assert that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental by Fundamentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledg without which no man can understand and believe like a Christian which plainly proves that they are necessary to the very being of a Christian Church and therefore necessary to Catholick Communion Which is all I am concerned to prove But if any man should put hard Cases to me with respect to the final Salvation of particular Christians and inquire how far the explicite knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction and scarce understand any thing distinctly of the Christian Religion or what shall become of those who through the prejudices and prepossessions of Education deny any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith as the Divinity of Christ or his satisfaction for sins and yet are otherwise very pious devout and useful men I say I do not think my self bound to answer these Questions nor to search into the secret Counsels of God to determine how he will judge the World or what allowances he will make in some favourable Cases but yet I have some few things to offer which possibly may give some satisfaction to modest Inquirers 1. We must not deny the necessity of Christian Faith and Knowledg for the sake of any difficult Cases for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity it self or of Faith in Christ to the Salvation of sinners and thus our Charity to other men will make us our selves the greatest Hereticks of all And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledg is necessary to Salvation certainly the knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is which are therefore commonly described by this Character the knowledg and belief of which is necessary to Salvation And if Infidelity be a damning sin why should not a fundamental Heresie be so which is infidelity with respect to some essential and saving Doctrine of Christianity and in its consequence overthrows some material and essential part of the Christian Faith 2. There is a vast difference between the Case of those men who for want of good Instruction have not an explicite understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and of those who deny any Fundamental As for the first a very little indistinct knowledg of Christ if it govern their lives and teach them to live in Obedience to their Saviour will carry them safely to Heaven for God requires little of those to whom little is given Now there is no man that deserves the name of a Christian who has not learnt his Creed who does not know and believe that Jesus Christ came into the World to die for sin and to save sinners and that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins if we repent of them and live a new life now such a general knowledg as this without any fundamental Error to spoil the vertue and efficacy of it may suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life which are absolutely necessary to a state of Salvation such as Repentance from dead works and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much and the Jewish Converts who embraced the Faith upon St. Peters preaching to them
and were immediately baptized in great numbers cannot be supposed at that time to know more and yet this was accepted from them at that time and in that state of things and by the same reason will be accepted from those who want the opportunities of better instruction And if there be any baptized and nominal Christians who do not know thus much it is a great scandal to the Christian Church but I know not how we are more concerned for their Salvation than for Pagans and Infidels But as for those who deny any fundamental Article they are got above this state of a general and implicite Faith in Christ and err not for want of instruction but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith and understand what has been and is the general Faith of Christians in such matters for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholick Doctrines it appears they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledg that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sence of the universal Church which is such unpardonable immodesty as admits of no excuse if they lose themselves in the Mazes and Labyrinths of their own making and mistake their way to Heaven And though such Persons may be otherwise very pious and useful men yet I do not see why we should deny the necessity of believing the Fundamentals of Christian Faith any more for their sakes than for the sake of devout and vertuous Jews and Heathens 2. Having thus as plainly as I can stated and notion of Fundamentals the next inquiry is concerning those Churches which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations and whether such Churches may be said to err Fundamentally I will but briefly touch on this head and though I might give too many instances of it I shall at present confine my self to the Church of Rome I know no fundamental Article of our Faith that is expresly denyed by the Church of Rome She receives all the ancient Creeds professes the Faith of the holy Trinity the Incarnation the satisfaction of Christ's death his Intercession for us at the right hand of God but then she teaches such other corrupt Doctrines as all the wit of man cannot reconcile with this Faith As to shew this briefly with reference to the satisfaction and intercession of Christ The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass which is offered for the quick and for the dead For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day which represents the Sacrifice of Christ to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law which could not take away sin nor make the comers thereunto perfect and therefore were repeated again every year Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions especially the fire of Purgatory the merits of good Works and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints which compose the Treasury of the Church and may be applyed by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary could hardly think that she did believe that there is but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus But I need not enumerate many particulars the truth of this being too evident and notorious The great Question then is this whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors for this sounds like a contradiction that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors And indeed if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article so it is plain that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors but if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines which contradict each other when the Contradiction is not in express terms but consequential For all men or Churches do not see or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts but especially in our present Dispute about Catholick Communion as will appear by considering 3. How far and in what Cases we may communicate with such a Church as believes all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and yet teaches such Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations This is a very material difference between a Church which denies any fundamental Article of Faith and a Church which believes all Fundamentals but superadds some corrupt Doctrines which in their Consequences destroy Foundations that the first is never capable of Catholick Communion because she denies Catholick Doctrine which is the necessary condition of Catholick Communion but the second in some cases may be because she retains all saving knowledg i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation though intermixt with dangerous Errors Now to state this matter how far we may communicate with such a Church as professes all the fundamental Articles of Faith but yet superadds other very corrupt and dangerous Doctrines we may consider these two things 1. I think I need not tell any man that we must not purchase the Communion of such a Church by professing our Assent to any corrupt Doctrine though it be not a fundamental Error No one Church ought thus to impose upon another nor does any Church pretend to it but only the Church of Rome Every Church is bound to preserve her own Faith as pure and perfect as she can but she has not that Authority over any other Church as to impose upon their Faith An orthodox Church may and ought to admonish neighbour Churches of any doctrinal Corruptions but must not reject their Communion for every Error though of dangerous Consequence if it be not Fundamental The belief of all fundamental Articles of Faith does mightily qualifie the evil and malignant influence of many very corrupt Doctrines which is the true reason why many men are observed to live much better than they believe because though they have entertained a great many corrupt Doctrines which
in their natural Consequences are very apt to tempt men to sin and to encourage them in it yet when withal they heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith this true Faith is so directly contrary to the ill consequences of their Errors that they do not see the ill consequences of such Doctrines or are sufficiently antidoted against the poyson of them nay many times it so happens that men are so far from seeing the ill Consequences of their Doctrines that they draw only good Consequences from them which may make them as good or better men than many are who have a better Faith Thus to instance at present in some very popular and prevailing Doctrines not disputing whether they be true or false The Doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation the Inconditionality of the Covenant of Grace the no-necessity of holiness to our justification the absolute impotency of humane nature to do the least good the irresistibility of the divine Grace and such like Antinomian Doctrines are charged by their Adversaries with as dismal consequences as any Doctrines are capable of even to the overthrow of all Religion and I doubt not but have very ill effects upon mens minds who are not throughly possest with some other Principles to qualifie and allay them But yet if after all this these men do firmly believe the infinite goodness and justice of God the inflexible holiness and purity of his nature his irreconcileable enmity to all sin and that they shall never go to Heaven without holiness it is impossible they should make any ill use of these Doctrines to encourage themselves in sin and on the other hand if they believe right or wrong that these Doctrines do mightily advance the grace of God in the Salvation of sinners it may increase their love to God inflame their Devotions and make them very active in all holy obedience For when men are possest with a prevailing sence of the grace and love of God and our Saviour they may spare a great many other arguments to obedience Now we must not hence infer that it is indifferent whether men believe right or wrong for every practical Error is a state of Temptation and erroneous Doctrines do oftner hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous perswasion as is lamentably seen in the lives of too many men But the only inference I draw from hence is this that every Error though in it self of dangerous consequence is not a sufficient reason to deny Communion to such a Church as notwithstanding such Errors professes all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith if we can maintain Communion with her without professing her Errors 2. While the fundamental Doctrines of Faith are secure no corrupt Doctrines are a sufficient reason to break Communion which do not corrupt the Christian Worship The principal Acts of Christian Communion consist in Christian Worship and if any Church have so corrupted divine Worship that a good Christian must not joyn in it we must of necessity abstain from their Communion though we are not equally bound to deny them ours For there are some Fundamentals of Worship as well as Faith as the Worship of one God through one Mediator Jesus Christ and when any Church corrupts the Worship of God in its vital and essential parts as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and Images and the consecrated Host it is necessary then to withdraw our selves from such a corrupt Communion But then as for those Doctrines which though they may be corrupt and erroneous are neither fundamental Errors nor introduce any such fundamental Corruptions into religious Worship I can see no imaginable reason why they should break Communion between neighbour Churches if no Churches must communicate with each other which do not exactly agree in all the Disputes and Controversies of Religion it will be hard to find any two Churches in the World that can maintain this Christian Communion Certainly Catholick Communion requires us to communicate with all those Churches with whom we can communicate without sin and therefore when a Church denies no fundamental Article of Faith nor corrupts the Christian Worship in any fundamental and essential part of it nor requires us to believe any Doctrine which we believe to be erroneous as the necessary terms of Communion with her that is when we may communicate with her without doing any thing that is evil nothing can justifie our breach of Communion As for instance I take the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation to be a very great Error and if they should deny Communion to me unless I would profess my belief of it I should judge it a sufficient reason to withdraw Communion from them yet if no such Condition be imposed on me I would make no scruple to communicate with them because though Consubstantiation be an Error yet it does not corrupt their Worship as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does the Worship of the Church of Rome The Lutheran Churches observe the Institution of our Saviour without any Idolatrous Worship of the Host their Doctrine makes no change in their Worship and therefore can be no reason to withdraw our Communion The Errors of any Church cannot make its Communion sinful unless they make its Worship so Were Transubstantiation it self as absurd a Doctrine as it is a meer speculation without any influence upon Worship did the Church of Rome strictly observe the Institutions of our Saviour in celebrating the Lord's Supper without either taking from it or adding a new Idolatrous Worship to it they might enjoy their Opinion if they pleased so they would let me enjoy mine and I would not break with them meerly upon this score Nothing can be vainer than to dream of reconciling all the Disputes of Christendom and of making all men or all Churches of a mind in every thing and if Catholick Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a different belief and perswasion in some controverted points we must never hope for any such thing And if it may be our only Inquiry is what difference and variety of Opinions is consistent with Catholick Communion and I know no other answer to it but this that we may safely communicate with any Church how different soever our Opinions in other matters may be while we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship Those animosities indeed which the heats of disputation occasion too often not only between private men but Christian Churches set them at a much greater distance from each other than the most distant Opinions but yet that this is practicable to maintain Christian Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions is evident not only from the intrinsick reason of the thing but from manifest experience We know how many Sects there were in the Jewish Church especially those two famous Sects of the Pharisees and
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-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
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
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
Schism yet a Schism is a great and damning sin and the less the Cause is the greater is the Sin For the guilt of Schism and Disobedience is not estimated from the intrinsick value of the thing in which they disobey and for which they separate but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedience 3. But the sting of all is in the Tail He says That to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Which few words contain several very absurd and contradictory Propositions and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false the Absurdities are notorious 1. That it is worse to make such uncommanded things Terms of Communion than parts of Worship and yet the only reason Mr. Lob and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion is because they imagine them to be made parts of Worship for if they be not parts of Worship what is the evil of them Why should men separate for the Surplice or Cross in Baptism c. When there is no evil in these things The only evil they charge them with being only this that we make new Sacraments and new parts of Worship by humane Authority 2. This supposes that that may be a part of Worship which is not a Term of Communion Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship and a term of Communion But this is a new Notion which I believe mankind was not instructed in before to make that no term of Communion which we make a part of Worship which signifies to live in Christian Communion together without an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship 3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false than the Foundation of all this that the terms of Communion are more sacred than the Worship of God That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship than a new term of Communion That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence as the conditions of Union between Christians and yet the only reason why Christians are to unite into one Body is to worship God together Methinks this should make our new Projectors careful what they do and make Mr. H. seriously reflect upon what he has done who has proposed such new materials for Union as were never known in the Christian Church before 11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism is made up as he says Reply p. 80. of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion but the Application and Conclusion which is the only thing considerable is his own Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is that Separation is lawful in case men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account But the Church of England according to my notion makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation Ergo we may yea we must separate or 't is our duty and therefore not our sin to separate i.e. we are no Schismaticks Wonderful subtil The Dean's Rule I own and will stand to that if men make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we may lawfully separate from them where the Dean makes two things necessary to justifie a Separation 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation that is that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision was But yet 2. This of it self is not sufficient to justifie a Separation unless these men divide the Church upon this account This Mr. Lob thought fit to leave out of his Argument because it would have spoiled his Argument to have put it in The bare asserting indifferent things to be necessary to Salvation if they do not divide the Church upon it will not justifie a Separation This many believing Jews did They thought Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses necessary to Salvation and yet St. Paul commands Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and to maintain one Communion and St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with them to avoid any scandal But when some false Apostles did not only assert the necessity of such things to Salvation but would impose this upon all Christians or break Communion with them when they separated from the Church it was very lawful to separate from them And therefore we must correct Mr. Lob's Major Proposition thus From such as make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we must separate This is Dr. Stillingfleets Let us now consider his Minor Proposition which he says is mine But the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation This is the Dr's Substitutes notion God forbid My notion I never had such a thought in my life Well! But if Mr. Lob can prove this against me I know no help for it I 'le make my Defence as well as I can But let us hear what he says He attempts two or three ways to prove this but blunders in each the first way is this Ibid. That which is necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is according to his Doctrine necessary to Salvation Now this I deny Communion with the Catholick Church is necessary to Salvation but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is not therefore in its own nature necessary to Salvation It may be necessary in order to Catholick Communion to comply with many inconvenient though not sinful terms of Communion and all wise and good men have thought themselves bound to do so when there is no other Remedy does it hence follow then that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salvation But to proceed But indifferent things says Mr. Lob are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church in that according to him they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church according to his constant judgment Ergo I confess what he means by this I cannot well understand I suppose it may be this That I make Communion with the Catholick Church and consequently with the Church of England as a sound and orthodox part of the Catholick Church to be necessary to Salvation But the observation of some indifferent things is de facto necessary to the Communion of the Church of England because the Church enjoyns the Observation of some indifferent things Ergo indifferent things are made necessary to Salvation Now 1. I would only ask Mr. Lob in his ear whether his own Conscience don't tell him that he has prevaricated here whether he has not used that term Necessary to Salvation in different senses on purpose to abuse the Dean and
things must not cannot be parted with without sin then some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion But here are two things Mr. Lob craftily or ignorantly insinuates which must not pass without remark 1. He will not venture his Argument meerly upon indifferent things he has had enough of that already but on making indifferent things necessary parts of Religion whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action but to the external performance of it as I shewed at large 2. He insinuates a proof of this that these indifferent things are made necessary parts of Religion because they are made terms of Communion Whereas the terms of Communion are of two forts either the essentials of Faith and Worship and what is in this sence made a term of Communion is indeed a necessary part of Religion but the Church of England never made indifferent things terms of Communion in this notion of it but does expresly declare against it But 2. The external Circumstances of Worship and the Rules of Decency and Order are terms of Communion also because some such external Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship are necessary to the external solemnities and decency of Worship and it is fit that they should not be left at liberty but determined by the publick Authority of the Church and of the State in a Christian Kingdom to which all private Christians are bound to submit as I discoursed in the Defence But the great difficulty seems to lie here that any man should be denied the benefits of Christian Communion and excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation for not complying with some indifferent things which God has no where commanded and which no Christian had been bound to observe had they not been commanded by the Church which seems to make these indifferent things as necessary as the most substantial parts of Worship Now as great as this difficulty may seem to be it is but turning the Tables and there are as great difficulties on the other side For 1. It is as unaccountable to me that any Christian should exclude himself from the Communion of the Christian Church and the ordinary means of Salvation for such things as have neither any moral evil in them nor are forbid by any positive Law of God which makes the not doing such things to be more necessary than the Communion of the Church or the Worship of God it self Now 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul as the Church is 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding himself from Christian Communion for not doing what God has not forbid than the Church has for casting them out of Communion for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages though not commanded by God For 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the divine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful which God has not forbid than it is to enjoyn the observance of that which God has not commanded The first alters the nature of things makes that sinful which God has not made sinful The second only determins the circumstances of Action which God had not determined but left to the Determination of humane Prudence or Ecclesiastical Authority And 4. Which is likely to be the best justification the Opinion of a private man in opposition to the Authority and to the disturbance of the Peace and Communion of the Church or the publick Judgment and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Discipline and Government and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members Let Mr. Lob consider how to justifie themselves in making that unlawful which God has not forbid and separating from the Communion of the Church for that reason and I will more easily justifie the Church in denying Communion to those who refuse to comply with innocent but uncommanded Rites But 2. This Difficulty is the same in all Communions as well as in the Communion of the Church of England Neither Presbyterians nor Independents will allow disorderly Members in their Communion who will not submit to the Constitutions of their several Churches and thereby they make the Peculiarities of their Churches necessary terms of their Communion They will no more suffer a man to receive the Sacrament kneeling nor to pray in a Surplice nor to baptize with the sign of the Cross in their Churches than the Church of England will suffer her Members to neglect these Ceremonies and therefore they make the not doing such indifferent things as necessary terms of Communion as the Church of England does the doing of them and do as strictly enjoyn Conformity to their own way and modes of Worship as the Church of England does to hers and therefore the Church may as easily defend her self from this difficulty as the Conventicles can But the bare retorting of a difficulty does not answer it though such men ought in modesty to be silent till they can answer for themselves and then they will be ashamed to urge this Argument against the Church And it is a sign such men think but of one side who use such Arguments against their Adversaries as recoil upon themselves But indeed the Difficulty it self when it is fairly stated is no difficulty as will appear in these following Propositions some of which are already proved in the Defence and therefore to save my self the trouble of transcribing I shall only direct my Reader where to find them proved The Difficulty is why those things which are acknowledged to be indifferent should be so strictly enjoyned as to exclude those from Christian Communion who will not or cannot comply with them Now to this I answer by these steps 1. That some things Defence p. 30. c. which are indifferent in their own nature are yet necessary solemnities of Worship without which the publick Worship of God cannot be performed at all or can have no face or appearance of Worship as I have proved in the Defence 2. The Peace Ib. p. 44 45 and Order and Unity of the Church and the due care of the divine Worship requires that the external Circumstances of publick Worship should be determined and not left to the choice of every private Christian 3. Since some external Circumstances and Solemnities of Worship must be determined and yet are not determined by any positive Law of God it is plain that they are left to the determination of the publick Authority of the Church which must determine all private Christians For every thing of a publick nature wherein a whole Society is concerned must be determined and over-ruled by publick Authority or no Society can subsist Every private Christian in his private Capacity may choose for himself every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Family as far as concerns the Government of it and the supreme Authority of every Society must choose for the Society For how