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
neither of these was necessary to make a Church National and all the Answer he gives to it is this When we speak of a National Church our own is always to be understood about which the Dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account that is that the People and the Prince are Christians and the Supposition hereof is necessary to it And a little after he tells us By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and those only are combined under the Government through the supreme Magistrate to Church-purposes This is such a loose description of a National Church as may serve almost any purpose But the whole force of his Reasoning is this that the National Church of England and so other National Churches under Christian Princes is incorporated into the State ergo it is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State and the Supposition of this is necessary to make it a National Church the last Result of which is no more but this Bellarmine thou liest I had asserted and proved that a National Church may be considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State in Answer to this Mr. H. says that the Church of England is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State which is the thing he ought to have proved but he thought it more convenient only to affirm it how easie is it to answer Books if bold denyals or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer Or does Mr. H. indeed think that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws and Sanctions and humane Authority therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's that Christianity it self can be a Law to us only considered as the Law of the Land because it is now made the Law of the Land And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land so must the Christian Church be too the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion the Sacraments and Promises the Remission of sins and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion as a new Christian Church and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church which is not a Church nor that to be one National Church which is not one National Communion one Communion being necessary to make any Church one whether it be the Universal National or particular Church But of this more hereafter Having thus vindicated a National Church and proved it to be a Church before and after its incorporation into the State the next inquiry is whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society now this Dispute will quickly be at an end if we do but recover the true State of the Controversie Mr. B. asked what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England the Dean denyed that there is any such Head of the Church of England considered as a Church though the King be the supreme Head and Governor of the Church as it is incorporated into the State Mr. B. replyes that the Church must have such a constitutive Regent Head because every political Society must have one constitutive Regent Head or else it is not one Politie to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head then the Church is not a Political Society for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole That the Church is one not by one superior Power over the whole an informing specifying unifying supreme Power as Mr. B. calls it but by one Communion Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me p. 184. instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society as has one constitutive Regent Head he produces his Definition of Politica and observes that Politie is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Politie and Spalatensis 's learned Volumns are de Republica Ecclesiastica But what is this to the purpose Does Hooker set up one constitutive Regent Head over the Church Do any of them prove that Civil and Ecclesiastical Politie is the same thing Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Common-wealth differ as much as the Church and the State And therefore he must still prove that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom so it is to the Unity of the Church which will be a fair Advance towards Popery And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this but a down right Affirmation without any Proof That the Regent part is the Informing part if it have not one Regent part it is not one Society as Political If it have none it is no Politie if it have many it is many This I grant is true of such Societies as are one by one supreme unifying Power but it is not true of such a Society as is one not by one supreme Power over the Whole but by one Communion And such a Society the Church is as I largely proved in the Defence and therefore the Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of Politie In another place Mr. B. suspects Ib. p. 203. that the Reason of my Opposition to a constitutive Regent Head is that I do not understand the Terms and therefore he takes pains to instruct me what a Regent Head signifies and what Constitutive signifies But he has as ill luck at guessing as he has at reasoning For the quite contrary is true I did understand the Terms but did not like the Thing and therefore opposed it But do I not know That Head is commonly taken for Synonimal with summa potestas or the supreme Power Yes I do and deny that there is such a visible Regent Head over a National Church considered as a Church Or do I not know That a constitutive Cause in the common Sence of Logicians signifieth the essentiating Cause as distinct from the efficient and final Yes I know this too well A Political Society either hath Matter and Form or not If yea what is the Form if not the Regent part in relation to the Body Its species is the specifying Form quae dat esse nomen and in existence it is the unifying or individuating Form But if it have no Form it is nothing and hath no name This is a formidable man at Metaphysicks and
observed at all or not in their true meaning and signification by those who deny it as to give some few instances of it The love of God as our Redeemer and Saviour who gave his own Son for our Ransom to die for our sins and to make atonement and expiation by his Blood is very different from the love of God as our Creator and Benefactor nay as our Redeemer by Covenant Promise and Power it is a more transporting and sensible Passion and the peculiar Worship of the Gospel which those cannot give to God who deny the expiation of Christ's death The Worship of a God Incarnate a God in our nature and likeness a God who is our Saviour Mediator and Advocate through his own Blood vastly differs from the Worship of a pure infinite eternal Spirit or from the Worship of an exalted Creature And this is the peculiar Worship of the Lord's Supper that great and venerable Mystery of our Religion which is a thin and empty Ceremony without it To pray to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ and in vertue of his Sacrifice vastly differs from a natural hope and trust in God's mercy or in his bare promise or in the Power and Interest of a great Favourite though appointed to be our Mediator not in vertue of his Sacrifice but by Royal Favour Not but that God's Promise of Pardon and acceptance confirmed to us by such a powerful Favourite whom God himself hath appointed to be our Advocate may give us sufficient security that God will hear and answer our Prayers but this assurance is of a different nature from the vertue of a Sacrifice and affects our minds in a different manner and excites different Passions and very different acts of Devotion and makes our Worship differ as much as a Mediator by Sacrifice does from a Mediator by Interest and Power As for the other parts of Religion which concern our Conversation with men or the Government of our own Appetites and Passions there seems to be some new instances or new degrees of Vertue which have a necessary dependance on the Sacrifice of Christ's death as the example or reason of them As that high degree of brotherly love which Christ requires of us as the Badg of our Discipleship to love one another as he hath loved us to forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us all Acts of kindness and charity to our poor Brethren as knowing the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he were rich yet for your sakes he became poor that you through his poverty may be rich the force and prevalency of which example and of which reason I think is greatly abated by denying the expiation of Christ's death However I think it is very plain that the true principle of Gospel-obedience that which makes all our actions in a strict and proper sence Christian Graces and Vertues has a necessary respect to the expiation of Christ's death We must cheerfully obey the Will of God not only considered as our Creator but as a Redeemer we must give up our selves to Christ as the purchase of his Blood for we are not our own but bought with a price and therefore must glorifie God both with our Bodies and with our Spirits which are God's we must yield our selves willing Captives to the conquering and constraining Power of his Love the Love of Christ constrains us for we thus judg that if Christ dyed for all then were all dead and that he dyed for us that we who live might not henceforth live unto our selves but unto him who dyed for us If Christ did not redeem and purchase us by his Blood all this signifies nothing it is all but Phrase and Metaphor and Allusion which cannot form a principle of Action And yet the Apostles of Christ do not so much insist on the Authority of God as our Maker and Governor as on his purchase as Redeemer on the love of our dying Lord who is our Priest our Sacrifice and Mediator and were it possible to obey the Gospel without any regard to the redemption of Christ and that stupendious love of God in it it were not true Evangelical obedience no more than it is obedience to God to do what he commands for some private end and reason of our own without any regard to his Authority and Government So that whether the Doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death be true or false it is certainly fundamental either way either a fundamental Article of Faith or a fundamental Error because it alters Foundations and changes the whole frame of Christian Religion If Christ have made atonement and expiation for our sins Christianity is one thing if he have not it is quite another thing as different as it is possible which I think is a plain argument that the expiation of Christ's Blood is a fundamental or foundation Doctrine since the whole Fabrick of Christian Religion as it is taught in the Gospel is built on it 2. There is one consideration more which will confirm this that the atonement and expiation of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine because the Blood of Christ that is the expiation of his Blood is the peculiar object of justifying Faith now certainly that must be fundamental which is essential to justifying Faith Salvation or Justification by Christ being the sum of the Gospel whatever is essential to justifying Faith is certainly a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity if there be any such thing as Fundamentals Repentance in its full Extent and Latitude as it includes not only a sorrow for our past sins but the reformation of our lives and an actual obedience to all the Laws of the Gospel is a necessary condition of our Pardon and Justification or necessarily required in those whom God will justifie But Repentance and a new Life cannot justifie us No Religion that ever was in the World taught men certainly to expect Pardon of sin meerly upon their Repentance And it is plain that mankind never did for both Heathens and Jews thought the expiation of Sacrifices as necessary and more prevalent than meer Repentance to obtain their Pardon And the reason why God hath appointed us no Sacrifice but a broken heart or the living Sacrifice of an obedient Soul and Body to offer to him is because he has provided an expiatory Sacrifice himself hath given his own Son to be a Sacrifice for us and the Pardon of our sins is every where attributed to the death of Christ as the meritorious Cause But then as Christ hath dyed for our sins and redeemed us with his Blood and God for Christ's sake will pardon and justifie all repenting sinners so we must consider that meer repentance can no more apply or appropiate the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's death to us for our Pardon than it can justifie us without a Sacrifice That is the peculiar Office of Faith in Christ or Faith in his Blood as
and the People that he exhorts all Christians to pray for one another as members of the same Body for if Paul had been a Mediator the other Apostles had been Mediators too and so we should have a great many Mediators and not as he himself tells us one Mediator and therefore he says that the Prayers of wicked Bishops are heard for the People not for the Bishop's sake but pro devotione populorum for the Peoples Devotion or as they are the Prayers of the Church And when the Donatists proved that wicked Bishops could not minister in holy things because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest who had any blemish or defect he answers that this was only Typical of Christ Ib. cap. 7. and fulfilled only in him So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood yet indeed it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it but is instituted by Christ for Instruction Discipline and Government and the publick Administration of religious Offices It was very requisite indeed that Christ himself should invest the Governors of his Church with Authority and Power for this Office and it is necessary to the Peace Order and Unity of the Church that no man should usurp this Power and Authority to himself but receive it from the hands of those who have Power to give it and therefore this Apostolical Power excepting the case of necessity is as saored and inviolable as the Priesthood it self but in case of necessity where the succession of Apostolical Power fails or a plenary Authority to convey it it admits of a more easie redress than the failure of a Mystical or Typical Priesthood would do For there is no Office of Religion but in such a case any Christian may perform we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ and as for Authority necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church when the regular ways of conveyance fail may be very easily presumed to be approved and confirmed by God This I take to be the true sence of Tertullian's argument which I have explained the more largely because some men are very apt to abuse all such passages to the diminution of the Ministerial Office though with what little reason I think is very evident but whatever becomes of Tertullian's Argument or whether the Church proceeded upon these Principles or not in granting Liberty to Lay-men to baptize in case of necessity the Practise of the Church is plain in this matter thus it was in Tertullian's time and thus it has been in most Ages of the Church ever since and is to this day allowed in the Church of Rome and if the Church allows Lay-men in case of necessity to administer Sacraments we may reasonably presume it will in the same necessity allow of the Ordinations of Presbyters I shall only observe further that this practise of the Church in allowing the baptism of Lay-men in case of necessity seems to me utterly to overthrow those Principles which a learned Author has Published in his late Discourse of Schism Some of his Principles are these That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments That the Validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administred they being the Seals of the Covenant which as in all Covenants between man and man are void in Law if they be not applyed by Persons who have Authority to seal This Authority of applying the Seals of the Covenant can be derived only from God and that only by Episcopal Ordinations Now I must profess my dissent from this Learned man upon more accounts than one at present it may suffize that either these Principles are false or the Catholick Church has been in a dangerous mistake in allowing the Baptism of private Christians where there were no Ecclesiastical Ministers to do it For if the Validity of Baptism depends upon the Authority of him who baptizes then the Baptism of Lay-men who according to his Principles can have no such Authority must be actually void and have no saving effect and then the Catholick Church ever since Tertullian's time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation And how specious soever any Arguments may be I shall be always jealous of such a Conclusion as charges the Primitive and Catholick Church with ignorance and error so dangerous and destructive to mens Souls This learned man was aware of this Separation of Churches c. p. 143. and therefore confesses For my part I do not understand how the validity of Laicks and much more womens Baptism who by the Apostles rule are much less capable of Fcclesiastical Authority can be defended unless it may possibly be by that general delegation which may be conceived to have been granted to them by the Governors by those customs and constitutions which permit them to administer it But it would then be a further doubt how far such Persons as these are capable of such a delegation To which I do not intend at present to digress But indeed this had been no digression or the most useful digression in all his Book The matter of Fact is confessed by him that in case of necessity Laicks were allowed to baptize which overthrows his whole Hypothesis whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases whatsoever If the Church in case of necessity has permitted Laicks to baptize we may presume that in the same necessity she will allow Presbyters to Ordain if Laicks are not capable of such a delegation then the Catholick Church has erred in a fundamental Practise which is necessary to Salvation if they be then the administration of Sacraments is not in all cases absolutely confined to the Clergy for all such cases must be excepted wherein the Church has Power to dispense for this delegated Power does not make them Ecclesiastical Officers but gives Authority or Permission to Laicks in such cases to do the work of a Bishop or of other consecrated Persons And yet we find the first Foundations of a very great Church laid in this manner by Frumentius in India who was only a Laick and yet erected Churches whether those Christians Dum regni gubernacula Frumentius haberet in manibus Deo mentem ejus animos instigante requirere sollicitius caepit si qui inter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent ipsis potestatem maximam dare ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent Ruff. l. 10. Hist Eccl. whom he found there resorted to pray to God after the manner of the Church of Rome which in those days was performed with the celebration of the Eucharist and yet they had no Bishop nor Presbyter among them and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together to pray after