But did I ever assert that there was a Catholick Church before there was any one particular Church that is before there was any Church at all Do I not assert that the universal Church in the first beginnings of Christianity was not so large as many particular Congregations are now Defence p. 140. And therefore that the Catholick Church did subsist in a particular Congregation That though in the beginnings of Christianity the true Church of Christ was consined to one small Congregation yet it was the Catholick Church c. p. 148. If Mr. Lob does not understand this I will endeavour to help him in it if his Conscience be not more incurable than his Understanding For when I asserted that the Catholick Church is in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches I expresly declared That I did not consider the Catholick Church as actually spread over all the World but as the Root and Fountain of Vnity As St. Cyprian did For in this Sense of the word Catholick and Vniversal as it signifies the Christian Church diffused and propagated in all parts of the World it is absurd and senseless to affirm That the Church was Planted in all the World before it was Planted in any one Country but I placed the Catholicism of the Christian Church not meerly in its actual Extent but in its intrinsick Nature its Extent varies in several Ages according to the Progress or Decrease of Christianity in the World but the Nature of the Church is always the same be its Extent more or less Catholick indeed is a Name which we do not find given to the Church in Scripture nor in the most ancient Creeds but we find in Scripture that Christ has but one Church and the very Nature and Constitution of this Church is such That it was not to be confined to any one Countrey as the Jewish Church was Defence p. 147. but to diffuse and propagate it self all the World over and upon this Account as I proved in the Defence it is called the Catholick Church because though it be spread all the World over it is but one Church still That very Church which the Apostles first planted in Jerusalem and by degrees enlarged into all parts of the World The difference between the Church at its first Planting when the beginnings of it were but small and when it overspread so great a part of the World is like the difference between a Child new Born and when he is come to his full Growth and Stature he is the same Person still but increased in all parts without dividing one Member from another or multiplying it self into more Bodies or like a Grain of Mustard-Seed which from small beginnings grows into a large Tree The Catholick or universal Church is that one Church which is the one Body of Christ which was the same Church when in the beginnings of Christianity it was confined to a single Congregation at Jerusalem and when it had spread it self over all the World I would desire to know whether Christ had ever more than one Church and one Body If he had not Whether that one Church might not always be properly called the Catholick Church If it might not Then if Christ have a Catholick Church now and formerly had no Catholick Church he has a Church now which he had not at first and therefore has either changed the Church which he once had or has two Churches one which is not the Catholick Church and another which is the Catholick Church The Christian Church indeed has spread it self into many parts of the World where it was not at the first planting of the Gospel and therefore is more Catholick and Universal with respect to its extent than it was at first but the Church which is now spread all the World over is but that one Church still which began at Jerusalem and therefore the Church at Jerusalem while but one single Congregation was the Catholick Church in its Root and Fountain and principle of Unity which was all that St. Cyprian and I from him affirmed of this Matter And if particular Churches now may be Catholick Churches as maintaining Catholick unity which was the familiar Language of the primitive Fathers much more might the first Christian Church be very properly called the Catholick Church as being the Principle and Fountain of Catholick unity But of all things I hate to dispute about Words and therefore if Mr. Lob will but grant the thing I contend for let the Words shift for themselves and that is this That the Church first planted by the Apostles in Jerusalem is that one Church which was afterwards spread over all the World that when the Apostles planted Churches in other Cities Countries and Provinces they did not erect new distinct Independent Churches but only enlarged that one Church of Christ and added new Members to it Let the Church of Christ be acknowledged to be but one which propagated it self in the Unity of the same Body all the World over and I have no farther Controversie about this Matter This is the only thing I was concerned for to prove that there is but one Church all the World over and for this Reason I asserted That the Catholick Church considered as the root and fountain of Vnity was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches The Catholick Church may subsist in one particular Church otherwise the belief of the Catholick Church can be no necessary Article of our Creed for the first Christian Church was the particular Church of Jerusalem and if that were not in some sense the Catholick Church there was a Christian Church when there was no Catholick Church and may be so again if we should suppose all the World excepting one particular Church to apostatize from the Faith of Christ which yet is generally acknowledged possible to be But if particular Churches were in order of Nature antecedent to the Catholick Church then they must be true and compleat Churches without any regard to Catholick unity and then it is impossible ever after to find or make one Catholick Church The Notion and Essence of the Catholick Church as far as concerns this Controversie consists in such a Catholick unity as makes all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World one Body and Church and Members of each other Now could we suppose that there were two or three or more particular Churches before the Catholick Church as suppose the Churches of England France and Spain then we must acknowledg that a Church may be a true compleat Church without any regard to Catholick unity and then Catholick unity is not necessary to the Notion and Being of a Church and then there can be no necessity of one Catholick Church If it is possible that there should be two Christian Churches which are not of the same Communion nor Members of each other then why not a hundred a thousand c. And then there can be no one
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
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
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
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council p. 160 Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils subverts the King's Supremacy and incurs a Premunire p. 168 Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 172 The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with considered p. 175 The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church p. 178 The distinction of a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections p. 188 Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society p. 200 Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England examined p. 209 The difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head p. 216 A Vindication of the Dean's Argument against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church p. 219 Chap. 5. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it p. 226 In what sence Catholick Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other p. 227 The several ways of maintaining Catholick Communion used in the ancient Church vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections p. 232 What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church p. 239 That there are Schisms in the Church is no Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion p. 240 Catholick Communion not impracticable in its own Nature p. 240 Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches p. 243 Not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to maintain Catholick Communion between foreign Churches p. 245 The Terms of Catholick Communion very practicable p. 247 A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines p. 248 What a Fundamental Doctrine is Salvation by Christ the general fundamental of Christianity p. 256 The Doctrine of the holy Trinity a Fundamental of Christian Faith p. 259 The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ p. 261 School subtilties about the Trinity not fundamental Doctrines nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273 The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation c. fundamental p. 274 What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self p. 281 Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals p. 300 Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine p. 305 Whether a Church which professes to believe all Fundamentals but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations may be said to err fundamentally p. 316 And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church p. 319 How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops p. 329 A great difference between the case of our Dissenters and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account p. 331 Their Case more largely considered p. 337 Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies considered as Terms of Catholick Communion p. 371 Chap. 6. An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions to prove the Dissenters according to my own Principles to be no Schismaticks and a further inquiry who is the Divider p. 382 Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholick Church p. 383 Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholick Church p. 387 Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion p. 394 Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation p. 404 Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters and may be charged with Schism upon that account p. 413 The Answer which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider vindicated from his Exceptions p. 420 Chap. 7. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined p. 442 His Materials for Vnion destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters to pull down the Church for Vnion p. 443 He sets up no National Church in the room of it p. 447 His Project will cure no Schism and therefore can make no Vnion p. 456 Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Vnion of the Nation p. 459 ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate r. is of a desperate p. 45. l. 4. r. spick p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought p. 73. Marg. for ex 52. r. ep 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit r. ingemuit p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle must be read together p. 89. l. â—2 for promising r. premising p. 106. l. 22. for of r. or p. 123. l. 2. dele also p. 139. Marg. for litera r. litura iâ— l. 9. for Cevernment r. Government p. 141. l. 24. for thatâ— r. yet p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent p. 226. l. 7. r. are l. 22. r. it p. 235. l. 20. for uses r. cases p. 243. l. 28. dele two p. 254. l. 20. for observe r. obscure p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 381. l. 29. for there r. these p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholick Church p. 393. l. 18. r. with it p. 421. l. 9. dele what p. 464. l. 29. r. help it A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of Separation CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Vnity IN my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation I have asserted and proved for any thing I see yet objected to the contrary that Christ has but one Church on Earth and that the Unity of this Church consists in one Catholick Communion Mr. B. Mr. Lob and Mr. Humphrey instead of giving a fair Answer to this have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words as I never thought of nay as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book and when they have turned every thing into non-sense and confusion by their own senseless Comments they set up a great Cry of Cassandrianism and Contradictions For my part when I read those Representations these Men had made of my Notions I wondred to find my self such a stranger to my self I was perfectly ignorant of the whole business and Intrigue and began to examine whether I had expressed any thing so unwarily as to lead them into such Mistakes but upon inquiry I found it was nothing but the last weak Efforts of a
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
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
of Separation from any Church that there are such things imposed as are not indeed expresly commanded but yet are agreeable to the Word of God and to true Religion if this be a just Cause of Separation it is impossible that any Schismatick should ever want Reasons for their Separation for there is no Church in the World but does something or other which they have no Command to do If this be no sufficient reason of Separation then it is sufficient for us to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism Can any thing be sinful which is agreeable to true Religion Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful If not it is sufficient to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion For whatever justifies the Church condemns the Schismaticks It may be it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of to determine what is in its own nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion but I can tell him de facto what is viz. a Complyance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church he who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content that Mr. Lob and his beloved Separatists should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons as equally condemn the Catholick Church and when they have the confidence to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the Practise of the Catholick Church But Mr. Lob observes that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar If any object Ibid. where are these points viz. of Invocation of Saints the worshipping of Images the abstaining from Flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where it is forbidden in Scripture If not forbidden in Scripture it is no sin to observe them for where there is no Law there is no Transgression But what of all this The Rule is a very good Rule though used in a bravado by the Jesuit Does Mr. Lob think that Popery is established by this Rule as well as indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies Do we separate from the Church of Rome only for the sake of some things which are neither forbid nor commanded in Scripture Our Dissenters I see have better thoughts of Popery than the Church of England has and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome But there is one admirable Paragraph which I cannot let pass without some short remarks and it is this To make that a part of our Religion Ib. p. 79. which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Wherein there are as many absurd Propositions included as can well be in so few words 1. He takes it for granted that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture is to make a part of Religion of it and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things not as parts of Religion but as Rules of Order and Discipline Who then makes it a part of Religion If it be made a part of Religion it must be made so by God or the Church he acknowledges God does not make it a part of Religion and the Church declares she does not how then does it come to be a part of Religion Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind Intention and Declaration In some cases indeed men may do what they never intended to do and contract a Guilt which they utterly disclaim and disown but then it is in such cases where a positive Law or the nature of the thing determines the nature of the Action whatever he who does it intends by it Thus the Papists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the consecrated Host but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that because the Law of God and the Nature of the Worship makes it so But now how can that come to be a part of Worship which is not so neither by a positive Law nor by the Nature of the thing nor by the Institution of men For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Religion which is commanded by the Church If there be the Dispute is at an end we will then own these unscriptural Ceremonies as parts of Religion and justifie our selves by the Command of God and the Authority of the Church Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion which is not so in its own Nature That is can the Nature of things make an Action to be that which in its own Nature it is not Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Religion which the Church never instituted as a part of Religion I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments against her own express Declarations to the contrary 2. Mr. Lob here supposes that nothing must be a Term of Church Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion for that is the subject of the Dispute and to make any thing a condition of Communion he thinks makes it a necessary part of true Religion And now I begin to wonder what he means by Religion or a part of Religion Is Government and Discipline Religion or a part of Religion If they be I would gladly know Mr. Lob's definition of Religion if they be not are they any Terms of Communion Or may Catholick Communion and Church-Societies be preserved without any Government and Discipline Mr. Lob is mightily out to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion but the profession of the true Religion Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty and a necessary Term of Church Communion and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship if he be of a restless turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors and their Orders and Constitutions he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion if he does not separate himself and will be damned for it too without Repentance Though a very little thing may make a
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
the Church doth as I would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of the state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things But now here are two great mistakes For 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation but casts them out of her own Communion that this excludes them from a state of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. The Church does not desire nor design the Damnation of any man but excommunicates them for their correction and amendment that God would give them repentance unto life And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate when God who knows every circumstance of things more particularly than Church-Governors can may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church who are cast out of visible Communion Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism Excommunication is no sin at all but a severe punishment when it is deserved and contracts the guilt of Schism when it is despised He who is unjustly cast out of the Church ought not to despise such Censures but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion But the Excommunication of the Church and the wilful Separation of Schismaticks are two as different things as can well be imagined I never asserted that Church-Censures and Excommunications always put men out of a state of Salvation but I assert that wilful Schism does 2. Nor does the Church excommunicate meerly for the sake of some little uncommanded things but for Schism and Church-factions and disobedience to Government which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society and are not the less sins because the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things To excommunicate any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion i. e. because he will not break the express Laws of God to comply with the Laws of the Church is an unjust and Schismatical Excommunication but it is necessary to the good Order and Government of any Society to Excommunicate those who will not own the just Authority of the Church be the thing never so little for which they separate For we must consider that a Church must first be Schismatical her self before she can excommunicate Schismatically Any Church which either forbids the doing what God has commanded or commands what God hath forbid is so far a Schismatick from the Catholick Church whose Communion must be regulated by the divine Laws and if she excommunicates any single Persons or Churches for not complying with these unlawful and Schismatical terms of Communion her Excommunications are Schismatical because her terms of Communion are so which is the case of the Church of Rome But it is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical can excommunicate Schismatically A man who is unjustly excommunicated is cast out of the external Communion of the Church but does not schismatically separate himself Nay though he be upon other accounts unjustly excommunicated if there be nothing unlawful in the Communion of that Church which is the unjust Excommunication which these learned Bishops assert to be schismatical or he be not excommunicated upon any such account he must patiently bear it and use all means to be restored but must not set up a distinct and opposite Communion which would be a causeless Schism For meer Excommunication though in some respects never so unjust is not a sufficient reason to justifie a formed Schism and Separation from any Church no more than any acts of injustice which private men suffer will justifie a Rebellion against their Prince God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Vertue and Innocence whether it suffer from Church or State and there only lies our last Appeal So that meer Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical or though it may occasion yet it can never justifie a Schism But now when any Church by enjoyning sinful terms of Communion separates so far from the Catholick Church and excommunicates all Persons and Churches who will not communicate with her in such unlawful things it is lawful and justifiable nay necessary for such Persons to preserve the purity of their own Communion or to form themselves into a distinct Communion in the Unity of the Catholick Church and to leave such a Church to stand by her self Here now is a formed Schism between these Churches and the Question is who is the Schismatick the excommunicating or the excommunicated Churches And the answer is very plain the excommunicating Church is the Schismatick because she has departed from Catholick Communion by imposing unlawful terms of Communion So that Excommunication can never be Schismatical but when the terms of Communion are a Schism from the Catholick Church and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this whether the enjoyning the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies be a Schism from the Catholick Church and when Mr. Lob can prove this I will readily grant the Church of England to be schismatical whether she excommunicate Dissenters or not But this will be a hard matter for him to do when the Catholick Church has always asserted the Authority of the Church in these matters and has always practised a great many uncommanded Ceremonies in all Ages but this I have discoursed sufficiently above Thus we see how Mr. Lob fails in his new attempts to prove the Church of England the Schismatick from my own Principles and Concessions Let us now consider how he justifies his old Argument to prove the Church the divider and certainly never any man was more hard put to it to make some little insignificant appearance of an Answer than he was and yet he puts a very good face on it and with a brave Confidence huffs it off as if there were nothing said that deserved an Answer And I confess it abundantly satisfies me what a vain attempt it is to convince men who are resolved not to be convinc'd If Mr. Lob or any other for him will give a fair and particular Answer to those few Pages in the Defence from p. 22. to p. 53. I promise them to be their Convert and a zealous opposer of all indifferent Ceremonies in Religion But because Mr. Lob would have the World believe that he has done this already I shall desire my Readers to look over those few Pages in the Defence and compare them with his Reply and if this could be obtained I would venture to leave it just as it is without any further remarks But least he should boast that I decline the Dispute I shall briefly consider what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers Mr. Lob undertook to prove the Church not the Dissenter to be the divider by this Argument The Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them what then must be done for Vnion Must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without
made the next Bishops and that his Project shall advance and not lessen the outward Power and Honour of Bishops But still we must have a care not to be cheated with a Name instead of the thing Are Mr. H.'s Bishops true Apostolical Bishops as the Bishops of the Church of England are Otherwise he may retain the Name of Bishops and yet destroy the Episcopacy of the Church of England And this is the plain truth of the Case Mr. H.'s Bishops are not Bishops of the Church but the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers acting circa sacra only by vertue of his Authority and Commission And therefore can exercise no other Authority in the Church than the King can which is not the Authority of a Bishop Mr. Humphrey's Bishops may be Lay-men as well as Ecclesiasticks for though called Bishops they cannot do any one Act of a primitive Bishop They have no Ecclesiastical Superiority over their Clergy but what the King has which used to be distinguish'd from the Authority of the Bishop They have not the Power of Ordination nor Confirmation as the King's Bishops whatever they may have as Congregational Bishops for the King has no Power to ordain or confirm They cannot excommunicate as Bishops as Mr. H. expresly asserts That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade but preserve the Power of the Keys invested in the Minister but given with the Pastor himself to the Church no more can the Diocesans that derive from him assume it to themselves and deprive the particular Churches of it And since Mr. H.'s Bishops have no proper Ecclesiastical Authority it is no wonder that they have no body to govern for these are all such Diocesan Bishops as have no Presbyters under them every Congregational Minister being a Congregational Bishop as Mr. H. owns Defence p. 260. c. These things I discoursed at large in the Defence and all that I am concerned for now is to observe how charitable Mr. H. is to the Church of England in his Materials for Union for he leaves the Church neither Bishops Presbyters nor Deacons If they can talk at this Rate when they cry out of Persecution and pretend to Petition for Peace what may we expect from them if they should be rampant once more We see they are the same men that ever they were when they covenanted against Root and Branch and have the Impudence at this time a day when they plead for Peace and Union for Toleration and Comprehension or other nameless Models to make Proposals for comprehending or tolerating any thing but the Church of England Upon these terms we may be at peace and unite with Dissenters if we will sacrifice not meerly some indifferent Ceremonies though they make a great noise about them as if they were the only Impediments but the Church of England it self to Peace and Unity which I hope will open mens eyes at length to see what these men would be at and I pray God it may be before it be too late 2. As Mr. H's Materials for Union overthrows the present Constitution of the Church of England so it sets up no National Church in the room of it This is his great design I confess to make a National Church of all the divided and separated Congregations in England which he thinks may be done by the vertue of an Act of Parliament I would says he have all our Assemblies that are tolerable to be made legal by such an Act and thereby parts of the National Church as well as the Parochial Congregations But though the Power of an Act of Parliament I confess is very great yet it cannot reconcile Contradictions nor make Division to be Union nor a great many Schismatical Conventicles which divide from one another to be one Church For a Church is a Communion of Christians a Parochial Congregation is a Parochial Communion a Diocesan Church is a Diocesan Communion a National Church is a National Communion and the Catholick Church is one Catholick Communion as I have proved at large in the Defence but Communion is always essential to the notion of a Church of what denomination soever Now suppose a Parliament should by Law establish Presbyterian and Independent Churches of all sorts as well as the Church of England yet how can an Act of Parliament make them all one National Communion when after such an Act they would remain as much divided and separated from one another and from the Church of England as they are now and the design of such an Act of Parliament is to make it lawful or legal for them to continue so Are the Presbyterian and Independent Congregations one Communion with themselves or with the Church of England now If they be why do they complain for want of Union If they be not will such an Act of Parliament which establishes the Schism and makes it a Law make them unite into one Communion No man knows indeed what may be because these men love to act in contradiction to Laws and possibly may grow out of love with Schism when it is made the Law of the Land but if they do not how are they more united into one Communion by such a Law than they are without it If their Churches Government Discipline Worship be all distinct and separate and contrary to each other what a strange kind of Communion is this Every Member of the National Church is a Member of the whole National Church but can a Presbyterian Independent or Episcopal Church be Members of one another By what name shall we call this Monster It is neither an Independent Presbyterian nor Episcopal Church but one National Church which consists of as heterogeneous parts as Nebuchadnezar's Image or like some monstrous Birth with the Head of a man the Paws of a Bear and the Tail of a Serpent Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne An Act of Parliament may give a legal establishment to all these divided Churches as the Popish and Protestant Churches of France are both established by the Laws of the Land but does this make French Papists and Protestants to be one National Church Mr. H. according to his Principles must assert them both to be but one National Church but he will have but little thanks for it neither from Papists nor Protestants Not from Papists who call the French Protestants Schismaticks and therefore do not own them to be any part of their National Church nor from the Protestants who do as much abhor to be thought Members of the Popish Church and yet this is such a legal National Church as Mr. H. contends for united under one Prince who according to his Principles is the accidental Head of this accidental National Church and yet this Union does not cure the Schism for they still are two distinct and separate Churches and are accounted Schismaticks to each other There are but two or three things so far as I can observe whereon Mr. H. founds this National Union
turmoil and confusion of thoughts than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time when he was resolved to answer but knew not what to say No man I fear need convince Mr. Lob that he may conform against his Conscience Make it but his Interest to conform and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd Well but however that he might seem to return some Answer to my Confutation of that Principle that the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them he just names it and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing that all indifferent things cannot be parted with without sin and this must pass for an Answer to the second And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this But let us hear what he says You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and intrinsecal thereunto and what is extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these which is off from the point in hand Had I done so I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper as not to have shewn his Readers how I did it But I have already answered that Suggestion and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary if they dare believe their own eyes But he says Ib. p. 85. I run from what is indifferent to what is necessary as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing This is another trick The case is this He charges the Church of England with being the Divider because she does not part with indifferent things which she may part with without sin I prove that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary for then it were no longer indifferent yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship not to the moral Nature but the external performance of Religious Actions and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship and yet if we must part with indifferent things meerly considered as indifferent by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all This he calls running from what is indifferent to what is necessary whereas it only proves that some things which are indifferent in their own Natures are necessary to publick Worship which was very much to my purpose though not to his I gave an Instance of this in some Actions which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances As a man who is to travel from London to York is not bound either to go thither on Foot or to ride on Horse-back or in a Coach each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or other of these ways of Motion not any one in particular is necessary but yet some or other is But says Mr. Lob One has not strength to walk Ib. p. 86. another cannot bear riding in a Coach yet to York they must go If you will keep to your point you must say to him that can't walk some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither The force of which Answer amounts to this that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself as he is to choose his own way of Travelling whether on Foot or by Horse or Coach But this also I had particularly considered and answered in the Defence though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it and I suppose should I repeat what I have said he will take as little notice of it the second time as he has done the first The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin Defence p. 44. where to seek for an Answer to it And if Mr. Lob cannot think of some better Defence he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still CHAP. VII Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined THE last thing I proposed to my self for the Conclusion of this Work was to examine Mr. Lob's Preface and Mr. H's Materials for Union But this Vindication is already much larger than I intended it and I find this Work done very sufficiently by Mr. Long in a late Treatise Entitled No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot and therefore though it were easie to enlarge upon this Subject I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union and refer those who are inquisitive for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's project 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it 3. That it cures no Schism 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation 1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter to pull down the Church of England which is established by Law and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation to make way for Union Does Mr. H. imagine that the true Sons of the Church will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers And what would the Civil State get by this to exchange the Church for Dissenters To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters and to part with a much better Church for it To attempt a Union on between Dissenters who as Mr. H. owns can never agree their Disputes and therefore can never unite though they may be tied together or comprehended in the same Vessel as Sand or Water is and to dissolve a Church which is all of a piece firmly united within it self and to its Prince But what need all this Will Mr. H. say I never designed to dissolve the Constitution of the Church of England but only to bring Dissenters into the legal Establishment Let this then be tried whether his Materials for Union do not destroy the present Constitution Root and Branch The present Constitution of our Church in Conformity to the Ancient Apostolical Government consists of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons let us try then whether we can find either of these in Mr. H.'s Materials for Union As for Deacons he has not one word of them though Mr. Lob. acknowledges they were owned for an Ecclesiastical Order by the necessary Erudition but a great Oracle thinks this Order may be spared though it has been continued in the Church ever since the Apostles days and therefore we will let this pass But we must not deny but Mr. H. owns Bishops nay proposes that some leading Dissenters themselves should be