Communion with the whole Christian Church It is true as I observed in the Defence in the Primitive Church they maintained Communion with distant Churches by Formed and Communicatory Letters by giving notice to each other of the state of their several Churches and advising and consulting about Church Affairs which was a prudent means of maintaining a stricter Communion and fair Correspondence between them and was especially necessary at that time when they lived under Pagan Emperors and the external Unity of the Church was upheld only by Ecclesiastical Authority But this was not absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion and is in a great measure impracticable now The Empire being divided into the hands of several Independent Christian Monarchs who have the supreme Power in all Ecclesiastical as well as civil Causes there can be no such actual Correspondence between the Churches of several Nations but by their consent and leave Soveraign Princes not Subjects whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons must treat with one another about the great Affairs of Church and State though with the advice of their Civil or Ecclesiastical Counsellors But still those Churches are in Communion with each other who own each other as Members of the same Body and deny no Act of Christian Communion to each other as opportunity serves And whether this be so very difficult much less impossible let any man judge V. To make this appear still more easie and practicable we may consider that the Terms of Catholick Communion are not so straight and narrow as some men make them This is the true reason of most of the Schisms in the Christian Church that some rash and inconsiderate People think that every little difference and petty controversie is a sufficient reason to divide the Church and set up distinct and separate Communions and have espoused such narrow Principles of Church Communion that it is almost impossible any two Churches should long hang together much less that all the Churches in the world should agree in such matters This Argument deserves a more particular consideration as discovering the original of Church-divisions and the cure of them and therefore I shall briefly consider upon what terms Catholick Communion may be maintained in the Christian Church Now the terms of Catholick Communion may be reduced to these four general Heads 1. Doctrine 2. Government 3. Discipline 4. Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I. As for what concerns the Doctrines of Christianity I presume my Adversaries will readily grant that an agreement in Fundamentals is a sufficient Foundation for Catholick Communion and I will as readily grant that no Church which denies any Fundamental Article of our Religion ought to be owned for a Catholick Church or received into Catholick Communion To deny Communion to any such person or Church is no schism no more than it is to cut off a rotten and gangreened Member from the Body And if it should appear that many or most Christian Churches are over-run with such Heresies as destroy the foundations of Christianity this must of necessity mightily straighten Catholick Communion not because Catholick Communion is in it self an impracticable notion but because there are but few Catholick Churches to communicate with for it is as necessary a duty not to communicate with Churches which renounce Catholick Doctrine as it is to communicate with those which own it we being under the same Obligations to maintain all fundamental Doctrines of Faith as to preserve the Peace and Communion of the Christian Church For indeed it is an ill way to preserve the Peace of the Christian Church by forfeiting our Christianity as every fundamental Heresie does or to enlarge Christian Communion by receiving those into our Communion who are no Catholick Christians And I suppose none of my adversaries will require me to give such a Catalogue of fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to qualifie any Church for Catholick Communion Both Papist and Protestants in their Disputes about Fundamentals have always waved this and there is no reason any harder terms should be put upon me and thus I might end this Dispute honourably enough for as far as respects Doctrines every man must acknowledg that Catholick Communion may be as large as Catholick Doctrine and that is as large as it ought to be But yet for the greater satisfaction of my Readers and of my self I shall discourse this matter more particularly for I confess I do not understand the reason why so many great men of our Church as have writ against the Papists since the happy reformation of Religion among us have been so tender in this point if we cannot tell what are the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity how can we be assured that we or any other Church do not err fundamentally and how can we know that the whole Church has not so erred but only by that general promise that the whole Church should not fall into fundamental errors and if we can tell what Doctrines are fundamental methinks it is not impossible if occasion were to give a Catalogue of them I am far enough from being of that mind That a Catalogue of Fundamentals is impossible because to some more is fundamental to others less to others nothing at all because God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less Which indeed does not only prove that it is impossible to assign a Catalogue of Fundamentals but that there is nothing in its own nature fundamental in Christianity but only for every man to believe as much of it as he can Yet the Caution of so many great men in this Matter makes me very sensible how nice a thing it is to talk of Fundamentals and what unpardonable arrogance it would be in any private man to be peremptory and dogmatical in assigning a Catalogue of them and therefore I shall only pretend to make some Essay of this nature which the argument I am now engaged in and the clamorous Objections of some men extort from me for if we cannot in some measure tell what are the terms of Catholick Communion Catholick Communion must needs be a very impracticable notion And to prepare the way I shall briefly observe some few things to prevent some cavilling Objections and Prejudices against the following Discourse 1. That by Fundamentals I mean such Doctrines as are essential to Christianity and distinguish the Christian Religion from all other Religions Now if we will acknowledg that Christian Religion is a fixt and certain thing we must acknowledg that there are such Fundamentals as are fixt and certain too and do not alter with mens different Apprehensions Capacities and Opportunities of Instruction and if it be possible to understand the true difference between Christianity and all other Religions it is possible to understand what the Fundamentals of Christianity are 2. The greatest difficulty which is objected against a Catalogue of Fundamentals does equally lie against the belief of Christianity it self The difficulty
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
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
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
unam Ecclesiam non babere Ib. cap. 21. though they have the same Sacraments Non reclè foris habitur tamen habitur sic non reclè foris datur tamen datur Ib. l. 1. cap. 1. Nay 3ly He denies That Hereticks have any Sacraments of their own Magis ergò quia pro Ecclesiae honore atque unitate pugnamus non tribuamus Haereticus quicquid aâ—â—a eos ejus agnoscimus l. 4. cap. 2. but have usurped the Sacraments of the Church which are not rightly had nor rightly given out of the Communion of the Church though they are not to be repeated when they are once given but to be compleated by Reconciliation to the Church But 4ly Schismaticks retaining the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments among them though they are out of the Church are not Heathens and Infidels but in some sense Christians Itaque 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 sed gravius â—â—â—riant vulnere Schismatis l. 1. cap. 8. and therefore he acknowledges that the Donatists do cure those whom they Baptize of Infidelity and Idolatry but wound them more grievously with Schism And therefore 5ly He owns them to be united to the Catholick Church as far as they retain any thing of the Catholick Church among them such as the same common Faith and the same Sacraments but yet 6ly That what-ever they retain of the Catholick Church though they believe the same Articles of Faith observe the same Rules of Worship have the same Sacraments rightly and duly administred among them excepting their Schism yet nothing of all this will avail them to Salvation unless they return to the Communion of the Catholick Church So that though we should not agree what Name to call Schismaticks by whether Christians at large upon account of their Profession without any relation to the Church whose Communion they have forsaken or whether we say they are out of the Church as having forsaken its Communion or that in some sense they belong to the Church as retaining its Faith and Sacraments or whether we own them Members of the visible Church as that may include the whole Number of Christian Professors as distinguished from the one Catholick visible Church which contains only Catholick Christians who live in Christian unity and Communion the Difference is not great while with St. Austin we own but one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion wherein Salvation is to be had This is all I ever intended to prove and I think no body need prove more to deter any man from Schism who loves his Soul CHAP. III. Concerning the Necessity of Catholick Communion HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick Communion from the Exceptions of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob before I proceed any farther it will be highly expedient to discourse something briefly of the necessity of it for I find Mr. Lob mightily puzled to conceive that those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins and lead an holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty as they suppose many may do who separate from the Church of England and do not live in Catholick Communion according to my Notion of it should for this Reason be excluded from all the ordinary Means of Salvation They look upon the Christian Religion to be like a System of Philosophy and if men be careful to believe such Laws without any regard to a Church-state or Church-unity and Communion their Condition is very safe and they have a Right and Title to all the Promises of the Gospel Holiness of Life and a good Temper of Mind is the only thing Christ designed to promote by his Gospel and if men be holy however they came by it or whatever they are besides it matters not This is very plausible and a prevailing Notion in our days which makes a great many well-disposed men extreamly indifferent what Church they are of so they be but watchful over their Hearts and Lives in other Matters For will any man say that a holy man shall not go to Heaven when all the Promises of the Gospel are made to such Persons When Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Where is the Man who has so much Courage as to repeat the Case which St. Austin puts of a Man Constiuamus ergò aliquem castum continentem non avarum non Idolis servientem hospitalitarem indigentibus ministrantem non cujusquam inimicum non contentiosum patiemem quietum 〈◊〉 Emâ—lantem nulli invidentem sabrium fragalem sed Haereticum nulli utique dubium est 〈…〉 solum quod haereticus est Regnun Dei non â—â—ssedibit August de baptismo l. 4. cap. 18. Who is Chast Continent void of Covetousness no Idolater Hospitable and Bountisul to those in Want Enemy to no Man not Contentious but Patient Quiet without Emulation or Envy Sober Frugal but a Heretick which in St. Austin's Language in that Place signifies a Schismatick of such a Person he says That no man doubts but for this very Cause that he is a Schismatick he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God This it seems was not St. Austin's private Opinion but the received Opinion of all Christians in his days that which no Body then doubted of which makes it at least worthy of our most serious and impartial Enquiry and were men once throughly satisfied of the danger of Schism and the absolute necessity of Catholick Communion a great many wanton Scruples which now divide and subdivide the Church would vanish of themselves for they would be then afraid to venture their Souls in a Schism And therefore to make this as plain and evident as possible I can I shall proceed by these following Steps only premising That the whole design of this Discourse is pure Charity to the Souls of men not to triumph in their Ruine and Misery for God forbid I should ever rejoyce in the thoughts of any Man's Damnation for then I am sure I should never go to Heaven my self 1. I observe then in the first Place That though holiness of Life is the necessary Condition yet it is not the meritorious Cause of our Salvation Without holiness we shall never see God But that holiness carries any man to Heaven is in vertue of the meritorious Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ and therefore unless we have a Covenant-Interest in this Sacrifice nothing else can secure us of our Reward 2. That Catholick Charity which is exercised in Catholick Communion is a principal Part of Evangelical Holiness without which nothing else will be accepted by God Love and Charity is the great Gospel-Command and the peculiar Badge of the Christian Profession and Christian Charity as it is distinguished from good Nature and an obliging Temper and Conversation which is indeed a necessary moral Vertue but not that which is peculiarly called Christian Charity does unite all Christians together in one Body is such a Kindness for one another as answers to that Tenderness and Sympathy
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
is this that the belief of all Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation and therefore whoever assigns a Catalogue of Fundamentals damns all those who are of a different Opinion which therefore is a work fit only for a daring and uncharitable man or haereticating Councils as Mr. Baxter calls them Now in the same manner I may argue against the necessity of the Christian Faith it self Whoever asserts it necessary to Salvation to believe in Christ damns all Jews Pagans Mahometans and all Infidels which seems at least as hard a thing as to damn all Hereticks who bear no proportion at all to the number of Infidels and yet if the Christian Faith it self be necessary to Salvation it must be necessary to Salvation to believe some Articles of the Christian Faith for we cannot believe Christianity without believing such Articles as contain the essentials of Christian Faith which do not alter with the Prejudices Prepossessions and Capacities of men no more than Christianity it self And yet neither I nor any man else have any thing to do to pass a final Sentence either upon Infidels or Hereticks but they must stand or fall to their own Master There may be a standing rule of Faith and Manners whereby men shall be judged but how far the soveraign and uncovenanted Grace of God may dispence with this rule in equitable Cases is not my business to determine But of this more hereafter 3. I observe there are some Doctrines which if they be true must be fundamental Truths if they be false must be fundamental Errors because they alter the very Foundations of Christianity and make two very different Religions of it as I shall shew in what follows There are indeed a great many erroneous Doctrines which make great alterations in the Scheme of Religion as all the Antinomian Doctrines do which yet I cannot call fundamental Errors because they make no essential difference in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is the great Fundamental of Christianity as you shall see more presently every erroneous Doctrine does not make a new Religion though it may in a great measure observe the Glory or spoil the influence of it upon mens minds 4. I observe further that there are some Doctrines which are necessary to Catholick Communion because the denial of them makes an essential difference in Christian Worship Christian Communion is principally exercised in all the Offices of Christian Worship and those who cannot Worship God together cannot maintain Christian Communion with each other Thus the belief or denial of the sacred Trinity the incarnation of Christ the satisfaction of his death c. makes an essential alteration in most of the Acts of Christian Worship And we see to this day the very Gloria Patri is an effectual bar to the Socinians from joyning in our Communion Now that which I am principally concerned for at present is such an account of Fundamentals as is necessary to maintain Catholick Communion in the Christian World To state this matter then as plainly and briefly as I can I shall 1. endeavour to fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines and consequently of fundamental Errors 2. I shall consider the Case of those men who heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and yet entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations and whether they may be said to err Fundamentally 3. How far and in what Cases we may Communicate with such men and Churches as believe all Fundamentals but yet profess such other erroneous Doctrines as seem to overthrow Foundations I think this is all that is necessary in order to clear this point of Catholick Communion as it respects Doctrines 1. To fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines now a fundamental Doctrine is such a Doctrine as is in a strict sence of the essence of Christianity A fundamental Doctrine without which the whole building and superstructure must fall The belief of which is necessary to the very being of Christianity like the first principles in any Art or Science which must be acknowledged or else there can be no such Science Now St. Paul tells us that this Foundation is Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 For other Foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ That is no man can lay any other Foundation for the Christian Religion for you destroy the Christian Religion if you leave Christ out of it And therefore the Character the same Apostle gives of Apostates from Christianity is that they hold not the Head 2 Col. 19. that is Christ And St. John makes this the sum of Christian Faith These are written 22 Joh. 31. that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name And the necessary qualification of an Apostle was to be a Witness of the Resurrection 1 Act. 22. as the last great Confirmation which was given to our Saviours Authority and the sum of St. Paul's preaching at Athens was Jesus and the Resurrection which the Philosophers of the Epicureans and Stoicks mistake for strange Gods 17 Act. 18. And the Commission Christ gave his Apostles 24 Luk. 47. was to preach Repentance and remission of Sins in his Name So that Salvation by Christ is the general fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel Take away this and you destroy the essential Character of the Christian Religion whereby it is distinguish'd from all other Religions But then as for particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith those are Fundamental which are either necessarily included in or inseparably conjoyned with this general fundamental of Salvation by Christ For we must not think it enough to believe in general that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God without a more explicite understanding of the meaning of that Proposition who this Jesus is what it is to be the Christ and the Son of God and how we are saved by him and this we must learn from the Revelations of the Gospel the more necessary connexion there is between any particular Doctrine and that great fundamental of Salvation by Christ the more necessary and fundamental it is which seems to me to be the truest and easiest Character that can be given of a fundamental Doctrine Thus far I think I am safe but it may be thought a hazardous attempt to launch out any farther or particularly to define what those particular Doctrines of Christian Religion are without which we cannot rightly believe Salvation by Christ Though I cannot see but that this may be done safely enough if we use due caution in it and I shall venture to offer something of this nature both to satisfie inquisitive men why such and such Doctrines have always been accounted fundamental by the Catholick Church and to distinguish what is fundamental from some more nice and curious speculations which is of mighty use in the present dispute about Catholick
great Prophets by Miracles and when he was persecuted for it he owned the truth to the very death and set a great example of constancy and patience and submission to God in his sufferings as other great Prophets had done before him though not in so extraordinary a manner 3. This crucified Jesus was raised by God from the dead the third day though being but a Creature or a Man he was not able to raise himself and was advanced by God to great Power and Glory 4. Which Power consists in all those Acts which are specified in the opposite Scheme with this difference that his Power is not owing to his Priesthood or Sacrifice nor has any dependance on it but he is a Saviour forgives sins c. by a Soveraign Power given him by God not by Merit or Purchase or the expiation of his Sacrifice And there is this contradiction in it that a Creature is invested with Almighty Power and this riddle in it that God should make a Creature the Saviour of mankind and this Blasphemy that God should advance a Creature to be his own Rival or Partner in divine Honour This short account makes it very evident what a fundamental difference the belief or denial of the Divinity of our Saviour makes in the whole Doctrine of Salvation by Christ The first makes it an Act of stupendious love in God in giving his own Son to be a Propitiation for our sins the second is a great act of love in saving sinners but the manner is not so full of Wonder and mysterious Goodness The first makes it an act of infinite Love and Condescention in Christ to become Man a Minister and a Servant and to submit to an accursed death for our sakes That though he were rich yet for our sakes he became poor that we through his poverty might be rich But the second infers no such thing as I can see If he were nothing greater than a man it was no condescention in him to be made a man especially if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary it was no more matter of his choice to become man than it is of any other man who is born into the World and therefore could be no Act of Love or Condescension Nay suppose that Christ were the most glorious and excellent Creature yet being a Creature there is not such a vast difference between the most perfect Creature and a perfect Man as there is between a God and the most perfect Creature it is no such mighty debasement for the most glorious Angels to appear in pure and untainted Flesh and Blood especially upon such a glorious design as the redemption of mankind Though the disguise and appearance may be thought below an Angelical Nature yet the Character with which he appears as the great Prophet and Saviour of the World is as much above it The meanest state and condition of humane nature a poor despised and laborious Life the most painful and ignominious death which makes the most excellent Creature the Saviour of mankind and advances him to be Lord and Judge of the World is so far from being an Act of condescending love in the most glorious Creature that it is above his Ambition and would be like the pride of Lucifer to be equal to God To become man to suffer and die for the redemption of the World and to be made the Lord and Judge both of the quick and of the dead can be an act of condescending love and goodness only in God So that to deny the Divinity of Christ alters the very foundations of Christianity and destroys all the powerful arguments of the Love Humility and Condescention of our Lord which are the peculiar motives of the Gospel Thus the belief of the Divinity of Christ makes God to be our Saviour the object of our Faith and Hope and Relyance the denial of it makes a Creature to be our Saviour and the object of a Religious Faith and Worship which I think differ as much as the Worship of God and of a Creature The first contains a visible union of our Nature to the Deity which is a visible demonstration of God's love and tender regard to mankind the second deprives us of this sensible Consolation The first exhibits to us a Saviour by Purchase and by Redemption which is both more endearing and a greater security to our guilty fears the second makes Christ a Saviour only as a Prophet or a King may be a Saviour who saves by wise instructions by preaching the way of Salvation or by Power The first respects the guilt of sin and the just Wrath and Displeasure of God which is the Object of our guilty fears It offers a Saviour to us who is a Mediator between God and man and powerfully intercedes for our Pardon in vertue of his meritorious Sacrifice The second has no respect to the atonement and reconciliation of God which is the only security to a guilty Conscience but only contains proposals of Peace and Reconciliation without a Sacrifice A thing which mankind will not easily believe when they are thorowly convinced of the evil of sin and the inflexible purity and holiness of the divine Nature not to take notice now how irreconcileable this is with all the ancient Types of the Law of Moses In a word he who believes Christ to be perfect God as well as perfect man is easily satisfied of his Power to save as well as of the Vertue of his Sacrifice For omnipotent Power is essential to the Notion of a God and when God becomes our Saviour he can exercise all that Power which is necessary to our Salvation but he who believes Christ to be but an exalted Creature can never understand how he can exercise omnipotent Power which is peculiar to God For I think it is somewhat harder to understand how a Creature can be made a God and be possest of divine Perfections such as omnipotent Power is than to believe that God can take a Creature into a personal union with himself This I think is sufficient to satisfie any man what a fundamental Change the denial of Christ's Divinity makes in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ It makes a new Gospel and a new Religion and therefore the Divinity of Christ must be acknowledged to be a fundamental Doctrine because the denial of it subverts Foundations Thus to proceed our Salvation by Christ does not only consist in the expiation of our sins and the proposal of terms of Reconciliation and the promise of Pardon and a Reward but in the Communications of divine Grace and Power to renew and sanctifie us and this is every where in Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit as his peculiar Office in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation and it must make a fundamental change in the Doctrine of divine Grace and assistance to deny the Divinity of the holy Spirit For can a Creature be the universal Spring and Fountain of
divine Grace and Life Can a finite Creature be a kind of universal Soul to the whole Christian Church and to every sincere member of it Can a Creature make such close Applications to our minds know our thoughts set bounds to our Passions inspire us with new affections and desires and be more intimate to us than we are to our selves If a Creature be the only instrument and principle of Grace we shall soon be tempted either to deny the grace of God or to make it only an external thing and entertain very mean conceits of it All those miraculous gifts which were bestowed on the Apostles and primitive Christians for the edification of the Church were the gifts of the Spirit all the graces of the Christian Life are the fruits of the Spirit The divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us which first gives life to our Souls and will at the last day raise our dead bodies out of the dust works which sufficiently proclaim him to be God and which we cannot heartily believe in the Gospel-notion of them if he be not Thus we see how fundamental the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is in the Christian Religion because we cannot rightly understand the Doctrine of Salvation nor the Covenant of Grace without this belief which seems to be the true reason why the more perfect discovery of this was reserved for Gospel-times and only obscurely hinted under the Law because the peculiar use of it is under the Gospel each sacred Person having a peculiar interest and concernment in the work of our Redemption And therefore all those who expresly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the holy Spirit as many ancient Hereticks did of old and as the Socinians do at this day do err fundamentally however God may be merciful to their ignorance or prejudice which it does not concern us to meddle with But though it is necessary and essential to the Christian Faith to acknowledg Father Son and holy Ghost to be one eternal God yet there are a great many little subtilties started by over-curious and busie heads which are not fundamental Doctrines and ought not to be thought so God forbid that all the nice distinctions and definitions of the Schools about Essence Subsistence Personalty about eternal Generation and Procession the difference between Filiation and Spiration c. should be reckon'd among Fundamentals of our Faith For though we understood nothing of these matters as indeed we don't and it had been happy the Church had never heard of them yet if we believe the Divinity of each Person we believe enough to understand the Doctrine of Salvation And though that fatal Dispute between the Greek and Latine Church about the Filioque be of more importance than such Scholastick subtilties yet I cannot see that it concerns the foundation of our Faith For the Grâ—ek Church did firmly believe the holy Spirit to be true God though they would not own that he proceeded from the Father and the Son but from the Father only And though we must acknowledg this to be a mistake yet it is not a fundamental mistake for the Doctrine of Salvation is secured by believing the holy Spirit to be true God without defining the manner of his Procession 2. Upon the same account that the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity is a fundamental Article of our Faith the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation also and what he did and suffered in order to our Salvation the meritorious Sacrifice of his death his Resurrection from the dead Assenscion into Heaven Intercession for us at God's right hand and that he shall come again to judge the World to reward his faithful Disciples with a glorious Resurrection and eternal Life and to punish the wicked with eternal Death must be reckoned also among the Fundamentals of Christianity because we cannot rightly understand nor rightly believe the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ without a belief of these Matters This is so obvious at the first proposal that I need not insist on the Proof of it And therefore those who deny Christ to be true and perfect man as well as those who deny him to be God err fundamentally for he could not die for us nor expiate our sins by his blood if he were not man As for the Modus of this Hypostatical union how the divine and humane nature are united in Christ it must be acknowledged to be very unconceivable by us and it is no great wonder it should be so when we do not perfectly understand any one sort of natural union not so much as how the parts of matter hang together much less how the Soul and Body is united to make one man But yet it is fundamental to the Christian Faith to believe that the divine and humane nature are united in Christ that the same Christ is both perfect God and perfect man or we must err fundamentally in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for neither God nor man distinctly and separately considered can be our Saviour according to the Gospel-notion of Salvation God cannot suffer and die and the death of a man cannot expiate sin nor his Power save us and therefore we must acknowledg that God and man is so united in Christ that the Actions and operations of each nature do as properly belong to one Christ as the distinct Operations of Body and Soul are the actions of the same man Upon this account the Catholick Church condemned the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches For Nestorius divided not only the Natures but the Persons in Christ only united them in Authority and Dignity And thus Christ was not an Incarnate God in one Person but the Man Christ was taken into a nearer relation to the second Person of the Trinity than any other Man or Creature is but not so as to become one with him which destroyes the Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of God For whatever Dignity and Honour were conferr'd upon the man Christ by his relation to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine Word yet his Blood was not the Blood of God because notwithstanding this Relation to God the Son he remained as much a distinct Person and Subsistence as any other man is The Heresie of Eutyches is certainly equally dangerous for he ran so far from the Nestorian Heresie of two Persons that he denyed two natures in Christ He did not deny but that there was a humane and divine nature before their union but he asserted such an union of natures in Christ as made a mixture and confusion of natures That Christ did not remain perfect God and perfect man after this union but the humane and divine natures were so blended together as to become one nature as well as one Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calist l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. l. 15. cap. 6. And therefore he denyed the very Body of Christ to be of the same nature with our Bodies or subject
to the same passions nay he asserts the divine nature it self to be passible And I think I need not shew how this overthrows the fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which proves it to be a fundamental Heresie I shall only observe that Leo Bishop of Rome in his Letter to Flavian who was then Bishop of Constantinople and was afterwards murdered by the Eutychian Faction in the packt Council of Ephesus confutes the Heresie of Eutyches from the very Principle Et ad resolvendum conditionis noslrae debitum natura inviolabilis naturae est unita passibili ut quod nostris remediis congruebat medlator Dei bominum homo Jesus christus mori posset ex uno non mori posset ex altero Leo ep ad Flavian on which I have all along proceeded because it destroys the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ For says he to discharge the debt and obligation of our lapsed State a nature which cannot suffer is united to a nature which can That so as our Redemption required the Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus might be capable of suffering and dying as man and exempted from all possibility of dying as God This I think is sufficient to shew how fundamental the belief of the sacred Trinity and the Incarnation of our Saviour is in the Christian Religion Salvation by Christ is a fundamental Doctrine or nothing is fundamental in the Christian Faith and yet the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is necessarily founded on the belief of the holy Trinity each sacred Person being peculiarly concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation And I confess it does mightily confirm me in this way of stating the notion of Fundamentals that it does so plainly discover the necessity of that Faith which has always been accounted sacred and inviolable by the Catholick Church This is the Faith we are baptized into according to our Saviours Command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the sum of all the ancient Creeds The Apostles Creed being little else than the explication of the form of Baptism what we are to believe of God the Father what of God the Son and what of God the Holy Ghost And when Hereticks arose who corrupted this Faith the Catholick Church expressed greater Zeal in nothing than in preserving this Faith pure and sincere This was the occasion of the first general Councils wherein Arius Nestorius Eutyches Macedonius and such other Hereticks were condemned This occasioned the Nicene Constantinopolitan and the Athanasian Creeds which contain only the Catholick exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity in opposition to these ancient Heresies And it would be very strange if that which is the chief nay almost the only Subject of all our Creeds should not be thought a fundamental of our Religion And yet it is as strange that is should be a fundamental if it be only an abstruse and difficult speculation which is of no other use nor valuable upon any other account than pure Orthodoxy which is the only reason that can be assigned why any men who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity should not express a great and warm Zeal for it because they do not observe how the whole Gospel-Doctrine of Salvation by Christ depends on it The end of Christian Faith is a holy Life and if men may lead a very holy Life without the velief of the Trinity some think this Faith cannot be absolutely necessary to Salvation but now this must be a great and dangerous mistake though we should suppose that men may live very holily without the belief of the Trinity unless we suppose also that a holy Life will carry men to Heaven without Faith in Christ or Salvation by him for we cannot rightly believe in Christ for Salvation without this Faith And thus I might shut up the Doctrine of Fundamentals for indeed I know nothing strictly fundamental in the Christian Religion but the Doctrine of the holy Trinity and the several Acts and Offices if I may so speak of each sacred Person in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation which I have already briefly hinted But having entred upon a Discourse of such vast Importance to give the greater satisfaction to inquisitive men I shall venture one step further and I think no man need go any further 3. The next inquiry therefore shall be what is fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self Now this our Saviour briefly comprehends in that Commission he gave to the Apostles to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name Luke 24.47 i. e. to preach forgiveness of sins to all true Penitents through Faith in his Name Rom. 3.24 25. or through Faith in his Blood as St. Paul expounds it Now not to dispute this point at present with the Socinians all who believe that Christ died to make atonement for our sins must acknowledg the atonement and expiation of Christs death to be a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith whereon the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is built For therefore he is our Saviour because he saves his People from their sins and how this is we are often told viz. by dying for our sins the just for the unjust that he may reconcile us to God Now if this be true as I shall at present take for granted then it must be a fundamental Doctrine upon these two accounts 1. Because the belief or the denial of the atonement of Christ's death makes a specifical change in Religion A Religion with a Sacrifice and a Religion without a Sacrifice differ in the whole kind the first respects the atonement of our past sins and our daily infirmities it respects God as the Judge and avenger of wickedness as well as the rewarder of those who diligently seek him the other is a kind of Philosophical institution to train men up in the practice of Piety and Vertue That is a Religion without a Sacrifice is at most but half as much as a Religion with a Sacrifice and that half wherein they agree of a quite different nature from each other That Religion which requires an expiatory Sacrifice to make atonement for sin and to obtain the Pardon of it does also strictly enjoyn the practiee of an universal Righteousness which is the whole of a Religion without a Sacrifice And yet this practical part of Religion is vastly altered by the belief or denial of the Sacrifice and expiation of Christ's death Those who deny the death of Christ to be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the World may pay all that Homage and Worship to God which is due to the great Creator and Benefactor of mankind and may observe all the duties of moral Righteousness but there are some new Acts of Religious Worship or some new instances of Duty or new degrees and respects of Vertuâ—â—… which necessarily result from the expiation of Christ's death which either cannot be
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
St. Paul expresly tells us Being justified freely by his Grace Rom. 3.24 25. through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood For though Faith in Christ is very often used in a very large sence for the whole Gospel of our Saviour and to comprehend all Acts of Obedience and a holy Life as the Principle from whence they flow and no other is true justifying Faith but that which includes Obedience and a holy Life Yet sometimes Faith is distinguisht from Repentance and a holy Life and so has Christ and in a peculiar manner his Blood for its Object Thus the sum of St. Paul's preaching was Repentance towards God Act. 20.21 and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ And the Commission Christ gave to his Apostles was Luke 24.47 to preach Repentance and Remission of sins in his Name that is through Faith in his Name So that Faith in Christ is distinguisht from Repentance in the work of Justification and so denotes a particular respect to the expiation of Christ's death as the meritorious Cause of Pardon Under the Law a Sacrifice was available only for those for whom it was offer'd but under the Gospel instead of offering a Sacrifice to God we must believe in that Sacrifice which is already offered which does particularly apply the merit and vertue of it to our selves as the Oblation of the Sacrifice did under the Law for if we would have Christ for our Saviour or have any interest in the expiation of his death we must choose him for our Saviour by Faith in his Blood For I cannot see but why Repentance may be as well accepted from us without a Sacrifice as without respect and relation to a Sacrifice and yet the only thing that can entitle our Repentance in particular to the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice is Faith in his Blood which I think is a plain argument that the atonement of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity because it is essential to a justifying Faith But then there are a great many other opinions relating to the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death which are true or false but not fundamental For as St. Paul observes the Foundation is Christ but yet men may build upon this Foundation either Gold and Silver or Hay and Stubble that is true or false Doctrines which are of great use in the Christian Life or of very dangerous consequence but yet while they retain the Foundation though their works perish i. e. the superstructure of their private Opinions be condemned and rejected yet they themselves may escape though with great difficulty so as by fire Thus while men heartily believe that Christ dyed for our sins and has made expiation for them by his Blood and expect the Pardon of their sins only in Christ's Name that is in vertue of his Sacrifice and Intercession they may fall into great mistakes about the Nature Extent and Application of this Sacrifice and yet not err Fundamentally though their Errors may be dangerous and always are so when they betray them to sin Of this Nature I reckon some of those unhappy Disputes which have torn and divided the Church in these late days of Liberty and Confusion Whether Christ bore our sins or only the punishment of sin whether he were the greatest sinner or only the greatest Sacrifice for sin Whether he suffered the same Punishments which all sinners should have suffered had they been damned for their sins or suffered that which was equivalent to it and which God accepted for a complete and perfect satisfaction Whether the expiation of Christ's death was so absolutely necessary to the Pardon of our sins that God could not forgive sin without it or whether God choose this way as most agreeable to the wise methods of Government and the most glorious Illustration of all his Attributes Whether the death of Christ made satisfaction to a natural vindictive Justice and was paid to God as the offended Party or as the Governor of the World Whether Christ made a general atonement for sin or satisfied only for the sins of the Elect whether all the sins of the Elect were actually laid upon Christ from Eternity and actually pardoned before they were committed or whether they are pardoned in time when we repent and believe Whether what Christ suffered for us is so imputed to us as if we our selves had done it which makes the greatest sinners perfectly Innocent and looked upon by God as never to have sinned or whether it be imputed to us only for our Pardon and Justification Whether the active as well as passive Obedience of Christ be imputed to us for Justification These and such like Doctrines some of which are of a very dangerous nature and a great state of temptation yet are not fundamental Errors because they do not destroy the Foundation the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death is acknowledged on all hands though some of these Doctrines do greatly obscure the grace of God and his stupendious wisdom in the redemption of the World by Jesus Christ and therefore must be reckon'd as Hay and Stubble built upon the Foundation which will prove a great loss and dammage to such Builders when every man's work comes to be tryed But to proceed among the fundamental Doctrines of Salvation by Christ we must reckon not only the atonement and expiation of his death but the gift of his holy Spirit to renew and sanctifie us For this makes him a complete Saviour to deliver us from the punishment of our sins and from the power and dominion of them Now that it is fundamental to the Christian Religion and to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ to believe the divine influences and assistances of the holy Spirit to work Faith and all other Christian graces in us appears from these considerations 1. The gift of the holy Spirit is the most glorious effect of Christ's Power and Intercession and therefore one of the principal fruits and benefits of his Sacrifice by which we may understand the value and necessity of it to deny the intercession of Christ whereby he daily dispenses and applyes the merits of his Sacrifice does as much alter the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ as to deny the atonement of his death and to deny the assistances of the divine Spirit is in effect to deny his Intercession of which the Communications of divine Life and Power is the principal part 2. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit turns the Gospel into a meer external Ministration which makes as fundamental a difference in the Christian Religion as there is between the Ministration of the Letter and of the Spirit 3. This in a great measure takes away the Office of the holy Spirit in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation and consequently destroyes his Worship which is peculiar to the Christian Religion The light of nature directs us only to
the Worship of one God the Christian Religion consecrates us at our baptism to the Worship of three divine Persons and one God For since each sacred Person is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of sinners each of them ought to be acknowledged and adored by us But whoever denies the efficacy of the holy Spirit in the work of Salvation destroys the foundation of his Worship too considered as a distinct Person in the Trinity 4. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit makes the Sacraments of the Christian Religion meer external Ceremonies which were instituted as the Ministries and Conveyances of Grace and so makes a fundamental change in the Institutions of Christianity 5. Nay it makes a fundamental change in the Worship of God and of our Saviour The Christian Worship principally consists in praising God and our Saviour for spiritual mercies in ascribing the glory of all the good we do to his free Grace and continual succors in begging his holy Spirit and the constant supplies of Grace that we may increase and persevere in all goodness this we have frequent examples of in the Writings of the Apostles but whoever denies the assistances of supernatural Grace both defrauds God of his Glory and himself of the benefit and comfort of it He cannot praise God for nor beg that of God which he believes God does not give which makes our Worship very defective and deprives us of the assistances of Grace which we shall never have if we never ask But then all that I can judge fundamental in this point is that the beginnings progress and perfection of all Christian graces and vertues are owing to the influences and operations of the holy Spirit But those other nice disputes about the manner of the Spirits working in us whether it be a natural or moral efficacy whether it be a sufficient or efficacious Grace resistable or irresistable how the operation of the Spirit is reconcileable with the freedom of humane action whether the habits of grace be immediately infused or acquired by frequent Acts these I say and such like Disputes are not fundamental for though it is of great moment for the government of our lives which of these we believe yet the Foundation which is the assistance of the divine Spirit is secured either way and all that men are to look to is that they do not entertain such ill notions of God's Grace as shall make them secure and careless of a holy Life All that I can think necessary to add more concerning the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is what I have already sufficiently hinted the necessity of Repentance and a holy Life There are I confess a great many dangerous Disputes about this matter what place Repentance and a holy Life have in the justification of a sinner And though it is of very great moment to understand this matter rightly and as particularly as we can for fear of that ill influence which such mistakes may have upon our lives and too apparently have upon the lives of many professed Christians yet I cannot think that man errs fundamentally who believes that God will justifie and pardon none but true penitent and reformed sinners and that not for the sake and merit of Repentance and good Works but for the sake of Christ and through Faith in his Blood though he may differ about the necessity of Repentance and Obedience and what place it has in the justification of a sinner Whether it be a necessary Condition or a necessary requisite and Qualification or a necessary concomitant and effect of Justification or whether it be necessary only to our Salvation but not to our Justification Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument or as a Condition c. For while Faith in Christ and Obedience to his Laws are both secured without either derogating from the Grace of God or the Purity of the Christian Religion other mistakes though dangerous when persued to their just Consequences and when men own and live by such Consequences yet I hope are very harmless and Innocent when they do not corrupt mens lives nor hinder the efficacy of the divine Grace Thus I have given an Essay and I hope it may pass for an Essay towards the Discovery what are fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion I have strictly confined my self to the Fundamentals of Christianity though there are some principles of natural Religion which are antecedently necessary to be believed but they are more generally known and agreed in I have had a tender regard to the weaknesses and mistakes of mankind and to the enlargement of Catholick Communion and therefore have as far as was consistent with preserving the essentials of Christianity cast most of our modern controversies out of the number of Fundamentals which if carefully considered would asswage that intemperate heat with which they are managed and more easily reconcile our differences and yet I have not rejected any Doctrine out of the number of Fundamentals which was ever defined to be such by any received general Council of the Christian Church which gives me some hope that I am come pretty near the mark But to give some new light to this matter and to prevent such objections as I can foresee there are some few things which I shall further observe before I proceed 1. The first concerns the judgment of that truly great and learned Person Mr. Joseph Mede Mede's works Epist 84 to Mr. Hartlib He seems indeed to reject this way of stating the Ratio of Fundamentals in relation to some one great Fundamental Doctrine as I have now done For in his censure of Mr. Streso's Book of Fundamentals which I have never yet seen he observes that he makes three sorts of Fundamentals The first is the Fundamentum ipsum or the Foundation it self though what that is he does not tell us and therefore how far I agree with Mr. Streso in that I know not The other two he measures by their relation to it either à parte ante and such he terms sub Fundamentales which by Mr. Mede's censure I perceive did not strictly belong to Christianity but either to the principles of natural Religion or the Jewish State or à parte post which may be called super Fundamentales which he makes such as are by immediate and necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum salutis where he observes that he had inserted some Doctrines of pure speculation among Fundamentals which I confess to be a great fault But from this imperfect account of Mr. Streso's notion I cannot guess how far my way might fall under the same censure As for those two faults he has observed in Mr. Streso's way viz. reckoning such Doctrines among the Fundamentals of Christianity as are not strictly Christian Doctrines or are matters of meer speculation I have carefully avoided them both and as for judging what particular Doctrines are fundamental to Christianity from some general comprehensive Fundamental which contains the
sum of Christian Religion that is certainly the most demonstrative way that can be For though I do not like the way of making fundamental Articles by deduction and consequence from such a Fundamental because as Mr. Mede observes all men may not see the necessity of such a consequence though it appear plain and evident to others yet if for instance the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ be the great fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel and if that be not Fundamental I am sure nothing is then though every true consequence from this Doctrine be not Fundamental yet whatever is necessarily included in this Doctrine without which we cannot rightly understand and believe Salvation by Christ must be as Fundamental as the Doctrine it self is unless the Letters or Words of the Article be Fundamental but not the true sence of it and within these bounds I have kept my self I have asserted no Doctrine to be Fundamental but what is necessary to our belief of Salvation by Christ which is a very different thing from drawing fundamental consequences Mr. Mede indeed assigns another ratio of fundamental Articles Ib. ep 83. in general that they be necessarii cognitu creditu ad salutem necessary to be known and to be believed to Salvation simply and absolutely and therefore no Christian which shall be saved uncapable to understand them which exactly agrees with me who make only the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ in its true and proper signification a fundamental Article But then more particularly he tells us that they must not be such truths as are meerly speculative and contained only in the understanding but of such only as have a necessary influence upon practise and not all those neither but such as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Functions of Christian Life or whereon the Acts without which a Christian lives not depend Such namely as without the knowledg and belief whereof we can neither invocate the Father aright nor have that Faith and relyance upon him and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ which is necessary to remission of sins and the hope of the Life to come Where he seems evidently to confine Fundamentals to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for nothing else is necessary to what he calls the proper acts and functions of the Christian Life But he proceeds How far this ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch I know not but believe it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and by it also those two main errors of the Socinians the one denying the divine Nature the other the satisfaction of Christ may be discerned to be Fundamental for without the belief of the first the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly that is incommunicably worshipp'd so as to have no other Gods besides him For he that believes not Christ to be consubstantial to the Father and yet honours him with the same Worship worships not the Father incommunicably which is the formalis ratio of the Worship of the true God from whom we look for eternal Life and without the belief of the second the satisfaction of Christ there can be I suppose no saving Faith nor relyance on Christ for the forgiveness of sins How well this agrees with what I have discours'd about Fundamentals every one will easily perceive Some other learned men go the same way with Mr. Mede in assigning the general Ratio or Notion of Fundamentals that they are such Doctrines as have a great influence upon a Christian Life though they do not confine it as he does to some peculiar acts of the Christian Life and he could have no reason to do so had he not some other Notion of Fundamentals in his mind than what he expressed for all the acts of Piety and Vertue are equally required of us by the Laws of the Gospel and therefore it is most reasonable in this way to extend the Notion of Fundamentals to all those Doctrines which have an universal influence upon a good Life but I have something to offer with all modesty and just respect and deference to such great names against this Notion of Fundamentals 1. That a holy Life is not the only design of the Christian Religion and therefore if we will judge of fundamental Doctrines by the end they are intended to serve we must take in the whole and entire end of the Christian Religion which is forgiveness of sins as well as holyness of Life And therefore whatever is necessary to be believed for the forgiveness of sins is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity though we could not see what direct and immediate influence it has upon the reformation of our Lives 2. The Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity hath in all ages of the Church been accounted a fundamental Article and yet nothing is more plain than that the belief of three divine Persons considered only as three Persons has no greater force in it to make men good than the belief of one supreme and eternal God It is true when we consider all these divine Persons as concerned in the Oeconomy of Man's Salvation so the belief of each Person has a distinct and powerful influence upon our minds but this is not owing immediately to the Doctrine of the Trinity but to the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Christ who was sent into the World by his Father to accomplish the Work of our redemption and when he left the World sent his holy Spirit to abide with us 3. All those Doctrines which have a powerful influence upon a good life are not in a strict and proper sence Christian Doctrines much less fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and therefore this can be no good Criterion of a Fundamental such are all the natural arguments to Religion and a vertuous Life which though they be adopted into Christianity yet will hardly pass for fundamentals of Christianity with any man who can distinguish between natural knowledg and Revelation 4. Men may live very holy lives without the knowledg or belief of many Doctrines which are excellently fitted to promote holiness and therefore every Doctrine which will advance holiness is not Fundamental and yet this general rule does not direct us how to distinguish them 5. Nay many Doctrines which are so far from being Fundamental that they are false may yet prevail with and encline some men to the practise of real holiness 6. Some Doctrines which naturally tend to debauch mens lives are not yet fundamental Errors for men may believe them and yet live well and therefore we shall still want a Rule to judg of fundamental Heresies by unless no Heresie be Fundamental but when it debauches mens lives and by the same rule no Doctrine is Fundamental but when it actually governs and reforms our lives 7. This leaves men at great liberty to believe what Doctrines they please to be Fundamental and to change even Christianity it self into a new Religion for if they think they can
in their natural Consequences are very apt to tempt men to sin and to encourage them in it yet when withal they heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith this true Faith is so directly contrary to the ill consequences of their Errors that they do not see the ill consequences of such Doctrines or are sufficiently antidoted against the poyson of them nay many times it so happens that men are so far from seeing the ill Consequences of their Doctrines that they draw only good Consequences from them which may make them as good or better men than many are who have a better Faith Thus to instance at present in some very popular and prevailing Doctrines not disputing whether they be true or false The Doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation the Inconditionality of the Covenant of Grace the no-necessity of holiness to our justification the absolute impotency of humane nature to do the least good the irresistibility of the divine Grace and such like Antinomian Doctrines are charged by their Adversaries with as dismal consequences as any Doctrines are capable of even to the overthrow of all Religion and I doubt not but have very ill effects upon mens minds who are not throughly possest with some other Principles to qualifie and allay them But yet if after all this these men do firmly believe the infinite goodness and justice of God the inflexible holiness and purity of his nature his irreconcileable enmity to all sin and that they shall never go to Heaven without holiness it is impossible they should make any ill use of these Doctrines to encourage themselves in sin and on the other hand if they believe right or wrong that these Doctrines do mightily advance the grace of God in the Salvation of sinners it may increase their love to God inflame their Devotions and make them very active in all holy obedience For when men are possest with a prevailing sence of the grace and love of God and our Saviour they may spare a great many other arguments to obedience Now we must not hence infer that it is indifferent whether men believe right or wrong for every practical Error is a state of Temptation and erroneous Doctrines do oftner hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous perswasion as is lamentably seen in the lives of too many men But the only inference I draw from hence is this that every Error though in it self of dangerous consequence is not a sufficient reason to deny Communion to such a Church as notwithstanding such Errors professes all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith if we can maintain Communion with her without professing her Errors 2. While the fundamental Doctrines of Faith are secure no corrupt Doctrines are a sufficient reason to break Communion which do not corrupt the Christian Worship The principal Acts of Christian Communion consist in Christian Worship and if any Church have so corrupted divine Worship that a good Christian must not joyn in it we must of necessity abstain from their Communion though we are not equally bound to deny them ours For there are some Fundamentals of Worship as well as Faith as the Worship of one God through one Mediator Jesus Christ and when any Church corrupts the Worship of God in its vital and essential parts as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and Images and the consecrated Host it is necessary then to withdraw our selves from such a corrupt Communion But then as for those Doctrines which though they may be corrupt and erroneous are neither fundamental Errors nor introduce any such fundamental Corruptions into religious Worship I can see no imaginable reason why they should break Communion between neighbour Churches if no Churches must communicate with each other which do not exactly agree in all the Disputes and Controversies of Religion it will be hard to find any two Churches in the World that can maintain this Christian Communion Certainly Catholick Communion requires us to communicate with all those Churches with whom we can communicate without sin and therefore when a Church denies no fundamental Article of Faith nor corrupts the Christian Worship in any fundamental and essential part of it nor requires us to believe any Doctrine which we believe to be erroneous as the necessary terms of Communion with her that is when we may communicate with her without doing any thing that is evil nothing can justifie our breach of Communion As for instance I take the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation to be a very great Error and if they should deny Communion to me unless I would profess my belief of it I should judge it a sufficient reason to withdraw Communion from them yet if no such Condition be imposed on me I would make no scruple to communicate with them because though Consubstantiation be an Error yet it does not corrupt their Worship as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does the Worship of the Church of Rome The Lutheran Churches observe the Institution of our Saviour without any Idolatrous Worship of the Host their Doctrine makes no change in their Worship and therefore can be no reason to withdraw our Communion The Errors of any Church cannot make its Communion sinful unless they make its Worship so Were Transubstantiation it self as absurd a Doctrine as it is a meer speculation without any influence upon Worship did the Church of Rome strictly observe the Institutions of our Saviour in celebrating the Lord's Supper without either taking from it or adding a new Idolatrous Worship to it they might enjoy their Opinion if they pleased so they would let me enjoy mine and I would not break with them meerly upon this score Nothing can be vainer than to dream of reconciling all the Disputes of Christendom and of making all men or all Churches of a mind in every thing and if Catholick Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a different belief and perswasion in some controverted points we must never hope for any such thing And if it may be our only Inquiry is what difference and variety of Opinions is consistent with Catholick Communion and I know no other answer to it but this that we may safely communicate with any Church how different soever our Opinions in other matters may be while we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship Those animosities indeed which the heats of disputation occasion too often not only between private men but Christian Churches set them at a much greater distance from each other than the most distant Opinions but yet that this is practicable to maintain Christian Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions is evident not only from the intrinsick reason of the thing but from manifest experience We know how many Sects there were in the Jewish Church especially those two famous Sects of the Pharisees and
Sadduces and yet they lived in the Communion of the same Church offered the same Sacrifices worshipped God at the same Temple and observed the same Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and confined their Disputes to their several Schools The Jewish and the Heathen Converts in the time of the Apostles differed about a very material point the observation of the Law of Moses and yet according to St. Paul's exhortation and command they lived in the Communion of the same Church and in the joynt exercise of all the Acts of Christian Worship Defence p. 443. c. as I discours'd at large in the Defence How many different Opinions are there among the Doctors and Churches of the Roman Communion the Franciscans Dominicans Jesuits The same points are disputed among them and that with as great warmth and keenness as there are between the Arminians and Calvinists and abundance more Nay the Italian and Spanish and French Churches differ upon those great points of Infallibility and the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and yet all live in the Communion of the same Church And I cannot see but that all the Christian Churches in the World excepting the Church of Rome might maintain Catholick Communion upon as easie terms The breaches between the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches have been often times composed especially between the Polonian Churches an account of which we have at large in Pareus his Irenicum which is a plain argument that it is not meerly the difference of Opinions but the distempers of mens minds if such agreement and concord be not perpetual so that no doctrinal Disputes ought to divide the Communion of the Christian Church but such as subvert the foundations of our Faith or corrupt the essentials of Christian Worship and this may suffice for the first inquiry what are the terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Doctrines from which it evidently appears that Catholick Communion is neither in its self an impracticable notion nor the practise of it very difficult to all good Christians II. It is time now to consider the next Inquiry what are the necessary terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Church-government And the only Question I shall endeavour to resolve under this Head is this Whether and in what Cases it is lawful to communicate with a Church which is not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters who were ordained by Bishops The reason of this Inquiry is plainly this It is sufficiently known that there are several Protestant Churches of great note governed without Bishops by a Colledge of Presbyters who have no other Orders but what they received from Presbyters Now if Episcopacy be so essential to the Constitution of a Church that we must not own any Church which has no Bishops we must renounce the Communion of the Protestant Churches of France and Holland and Geneva and some others which is both a very invidious and uncharitable thing and a great injury to the Reformed Profession and does mightily streighten Catholick Communion If Episcopacy be not so essential to the Constitution of a Church but that we may communicate with those Churches which have no Bishops why do we reject our Dissenters at home and condemn them of Schism for rejecting the Episcopal Authority and forming themselves into Church-societies without Bishops Why are we not as kind to our own Friends Neighbours and Countrey-men as we are to Foreign Churches Now though the Church of England has always asserted the Authority of Bishops and condemned those of her own Communion who have separated from their Bishops yet she has been so far from condemning Foreign reformed Churches for the want of Bishops that she has always lived in Communion with them and defended them against their accusers and I resolve to steer by this Compass so to vindicate the Reformed Churches as neither to injure the Episcopal Authority nor to justifie our Schisms at home And to do this with all possible plainness I shall proceed by these steps 1. I observe there is a vast difference between separating from Episcopal Communion where Episcopacy is the setled Government of the Church and living without Episcopal Government where we cannot have it which makes a great difference between our Dissenters and some Foreign Churches Some of the Foreign Protestant Churches indeed have no Protestant Bishops nor ever had and it may be could not have but Episcopacy has been the establisht Government of the Church of England ever since the Reformation and for any Christians to separate from their Bishops was always accounted Schism by the Christian Church unless there were some very necessary reasons to justifie such a Separation but in some cases not to have Bishops may be no Schism If any man should object that the Case of our Dissenters and the reformed Churches is the very same for the Foreign Churches had Bishops also of the Roman Communion but separated from them upon account of those intolerable Corruptions which made their Communion unlawful and many of them set up no Bishops of their own and thus our Dissenters separate from the Church of England and her Bishops upon account of the corruptions in her Worship and are as excusable as the French Protestant Churches for setting up a Government without Bishops I answer Not to take notice now what a vast difference there is between separating from the Church of Rome and from the Church of England there is one very obvious difference in this very matter which takes off the whole objection For our Dissenters make Diocesan Episcopacy to be one reason of their Separation which no reformed Church ever did before The Reformed Churches abroad separated from Popish Bishops our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy it self All the reformed Churches abroad owned Episcopacy though they disowned Popish Bishops several of them retain both the name and thing as the Churches of Sweden and Denmark Others retain the Office though they have changed the name as several Lutheran Churches which have their superintendents Generales and Generalissimi who answer to our Bishops and Arch-bishops and as for those Churches which have them not they never reject Episcopal Communion but all of them have owned Communion with the Church of England reverenced our Bishops highly commended the Constitution of our Church censured and condemned our Schismaticks and declared their judgments in favour of Episcopacy and wished the restitution of it and the most some of their most learned men have pretended to was only to justifie the Lawfulness of a Presbyterian parity Durel's Church-government Saywell's Evangelical and Catholick Unity c. p. 228 c. It were easie here to fill up several Pages with the judgment of the most famous Divines abroad but this has been so often done by others and very lately by Dr. Saywell that I shall refer my Readers to them for satisfaction in this point And is not this a very material difference between our Dissenters and the reformed Churches abroad which
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
things must not cannot be parted with without sin then some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion But here are two things Mr. Lob craftily or ignorantly insinuates which must not pass without remark 1. He will not venture his Argument meerly upon indifferent things he has had enough of that already but on making indifferent things necessary parts of Religion whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action but to the external performance of it as I shewed at large 2. He insinuates a proof of this that these indifferent things are made necessary parts of Religion because they are made terms of Communion Whereas the terms of Communion are of two forts either the essentials of Faith and Worship and what is in this sence made a term of Communion is indeed a necessary part of Religion but the Church of England never made indifferent things terms of Communion in this notion of it but does expresly declare against it But 2. The external Circumstances of Worship and the Rules of Decency and Order are terms of Communion also because some such external Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship are necessary to the external solemnities and decency of Worship and it is fit that they should not be left at liberty but determined by the publick Authority of the Church and of the State in a Christian Kingdom to which all private Christians are bound to submit as I discoursed in the Defence But the great difficulty seems to lie here that any man should be denied the benefits of Christian Communion and excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation for not complying with some indifferent things which God has no where commanded and which no Christian had been bound to observe had they not been commanded by the Church which seems to make these indifferent things as necessary as the most substantial parts of Worship Now as great as this difficulty may seem to be it is but turning the Tables and there are as great difficulties on the other side For 1. It is as unaccountable to me that any Christian should exclude himself from the Communion of the Christian Church and the ordinary means of Salvation for such things as have neither any moral evil in them nor are forbid by any positive Law of God which makes the not doing such things to be more necessary than the Communion of the Church or the Worship of God it self Now 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul as the Church is 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding himself from Christian Communion for not doing what God has not forbid than the Church has for casting them out of Communion for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages though not commanded by God For 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the divine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful which God has not forbid than it is to enjoyn the observance of that which God has not commanded The first alters the nature of things makes that sinful which God has not made sinful The second only determins the circumstances of Action which God had not determined but left to the Determination of humane Prudence or Ecclesiastical Authority And 4. Which is likely to be the best justification the Opinion of a private man in opposition to the Authority and to the disturbance of the Peace and Communion of the Church or the publick Judgment and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Discipline and Government and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members Let Mr. Lob consider how to justifie themselves in making that unlawful which God has not forbid and separating from the Communion of the Church for that reason and I will more easily justifie the Church in denying Communion to those who refuse to comply with innocent but uncommanded Rites But 2. This Difficulty is the same in all Communions as well as in the Communion of the Church of England Neither Presbyterians nor Independents will allow disorderly Members in their Communion who will not submit to the Constitutions of their several Churches and thereby they make the Peculiarities of their Churches necessary terms of their Communion They will no more suffer a man to receive the Sacrament kneeling nor to pray in a Surplice nor to baptize with the sign of the Cross in their Churches than the Church of England will suffer her Members to neglect these Ceremonies and therefore they make the not doing such indifferent things as necessary terms of Communion as the Church of England does the doing of them and do as strictly enjoyn Conformity to their own way and modes of Worship as the Church of England does to hers and therefore the Church may as easily defend her self from this difficulty as the Conventicles can But the bare retorting of a difficulty does not answer it though such men ought in modesty to be silent till they can answer for themselves and then they will be ashamed to urge this Argument against the Church And it is a sign such men think but of one side who use such Arguments against their Adversaries as recoil upon themselves But indeed the Difficulty it self when it is fairly stated is no difficulty as will appear in these following Propositions some of which are already proved in the Defence and therefore to save my self the trouble of transcribing I shall only direct my Reader where to find them proved The Difficulty is why those things which are acknowledged to be indifferent should be so strictly enjoyned as to exclude those from Christian Communion who will not or cannot comply with them Now to this I answer by these steps 1. That some things Defence p. 30. c. which are indifferent in their own nature are yet necessary solemnities of Worship without which the publick Worship of God cannot be performed at all or can have no face or appearance of Worship as I have proved in the Defence 2. The Peace Ib. p. 44 45 and Order and Unity of the Church and the due care of the divine Worship requires that the external Circumstances of publick Worship should be determined and not left to the choice of every private Christian 3. Since some external Circumstances and Solemnities of Worship must be determined and yet are not determined by any positive Law of God it is plain that they are left to the determination of the publick Authority of the Church which must determine all private Christians For every thing of a publick nature wherein a whole Society is concerned must be determined and over-ruled by publick Authority or no Society can subsist Every private Christian in his private Capacity may choose for himself every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Family as far as concerns the Government of it and the supreme Authority of every Society must choose for the Society For how
Apostate with an uniting Design granted a general Toleration So that this Project may secure the Estates but cannot secure the Souls of Dissenters Schism will damn men though they should get it established by Act of Parliament but Mr. H. and I I perceive have very different designs and therefore no wonder if our Materials for Union differ He is concerned for this World I am concerned for the next He would secure Dissenters from all Trouble and Molestation here which I am by no means against as far as it may be done with the security of the Church and State and honour of Religion but if it were in my Power I would Sacrifice my ease and quiet and all that is dear to me in this World to secure their immortal Interests which no humane Power can secure while they live in Schism But Mr. H. thinks he has found out a device to cure the Schism viz. That it should be decreed in the Convocation that neither Church should un-church one another This is a wonderful Power he gives to the Decree of a Convocation that Churches which separate from each others Communion yet shall not un-church one another For what does he mean by un-churching To assert the Communion of any Church to be sinful and unlawful I think is to un-church it that is to make it no Church to us and whoever separates from any Church though he be never so silent does by his Separation either condemn the Communion of that Church to be unlawful or condemn himself of Schism for nothing can justifie a Separation but sinful terms of Communion How is it possible then that two Churches which separate from each other should not un-church one another or un-church themselves There is but one Church and one Communion and therefore where there are two separate Churches and two Communions they cannot both be true Catholick Churches and Mr. H.'s contrivance to declare these separate Churches to be all true Catholick Churches by the Decree of Convocation is like his Act of Parliament to make all the separate and divided Churches one National Church 4. Mr. H.'s Project is not a very likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation and if it be not good for this it is certainly good for nothing We see how troubled and disturbed the State of the Nation is at this day occasioned by the Disputes of Religion how envenomed their Spirits are how furious and factious their Zeal now not to enlarge upon this unpleasant Theme which possibly may be called railing I would only ask Mr. H. whether such an Act of Parliament as he dreams of would heal any differences in Religion would make the Dissenters think better of one another or of the Church of England than now they do Would make them more Loyal in their Principles more Charitable to one another more cool and temperate in their Zeal Whether such an Act could set bounds to the several Sects among us and make them contented with their own private Perswasions and with the Liberties and Priviledges which the Law grants them without encroaching upon their Neighbours or affecting Rule and Dominion and using all imaginable Arts to make Proselytes and enlarge their Party This is the Original of all our Disturbance now and what hope is there when the Cause remains that the Effect will cease If men still have the same fondness for their own Opinions and Churches the same Aversion to others the same Zeal to promote a Party if still they think themselves as much bound as ever to advance the Cause of God and to set Christ on his Throne according to their old pretence how fond is it to imagine that we shall enjoy more Peace and Security than we do now If it be answered that the Dissenters are at present uneasie and troublesom because the Laws are against them and they are in constant danger of the execution of them to the loss of their Liberties and the impoverishing their Families but if they had the same favour and the same security from the Government as others have they would be as quiet and peaceable and as dutiful Subjects as others are I reply 1. It does not seem very probable that those who are so Insolent Daring and Factious when the Laws and Government are against them should grow modest and governable when the Law is on their side If they cannot be governed with the Bridle in their mouths it is hard trusting to their good Nature For 2. We have had sufficient experience how busie turbulent and factious the Spirit of Fanaticism has always been and we see no Symptoms of their changing for the better 3. We know by experience how impossibly it is to oblige these men by any favours The kindness and moderation of Government is always thought a just debt to their great merit and desert or the effect of fear and weakness or the over-ruling Power of God who turns the hearts of Governors to favour his People even against their own Inclinations and therefore no thanks is due to them 4. These men never yet let slip an advantage and opportunity to disturb Government or to serve their Cause Every thing that is granted them gives them only a new confidence to ask and to demand more And if ever they can stand upon equal ground with the Church of England they will as boldly challenge a Superiority and be as much disobliged if they be denyed If once they get a legal Rite to their Conventicles they will next demand the Temples and Tythes too and declaim against the Magistrates as Sacrilegious Usurpers if they be denyed Their Discipline will not long be confined within their own Conventicles will reach Bishops and Princes too whose Authority shall be no longer owned than they submit to the Scepter of Christ These things are not yet forgot among us and I suppose it will be hard to perswade any Prince to make a second Experiment when he paid so dear for the first 5. We have made a sad Experiment already how tame and gentle Dissenters prove when the restraints of Laws are gone When the Church of England was dissolved and the enclosures flung open and every man did as he list there was no more Peace than there is now only instead of railing at the Church of England they railed at one another But enough of this Mr. H. thinks all this will be prevented by his Episcopal Visiters who are to see that the Churches of both sorts walk according to their own Order and the Peace of one another But 1. Who shall undertake that all these Churches shall quietly submit to these Visiters and quietly obey their Orders any more than they do to the Visitation of their Ordinaries now And what means of Union is there left if they don 't 2. Who shall undertake that these Visiters themselves shall not prove factious and partial and secretly foment instead of suppressing Disputes and Quarrels between the Churches for the Visiters are to be of all sorts too as well as the Churches Independent Presbyterian and Episcopal Visiters by the name of the King's Bishops or Ecclesiastical Officers now I doubt Episcopal Churches would find no great comfort in the Visitation of such Independent and Presbyterian Visiters as Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter I confess for my own part I should not much care to come under their Visitation And I will not answer for all Episcopal Visiters that they shall always carry an equal hand to Dissenters As for Instance Mr. H. says That no Members of either Church should depart from one Church to another without a sufficient peaceable Reason Now who must be Judge of this but the Visiter Suppose then a Member of a Presbyterian Church think fit to return to the Episcopal Church do you think that a Presbyterian Visiter will be casily satisfied that he has a peaceable and sufficient Reason for this Will not every Visiter be greatly enclined to favour and enlarge the Communion of that Church to which he himself belongs And what Quarrels is this like to occasion between the several Churches It may be much greater than any thing else has yet done But the great Tryal of Skill will be in the promoting of these Visiters For though the King have the Nomination and Appointment of them their Ordination being only a broad Seal a new way of Consecrating Bishops yet what Art will be used by the different Churches in the Diocess to get a Visiter of their own Communion What a task will the King have to please all these several Interests What a noise and clamour will the Dissenters raise who know how to take every occasion for that if they have not a dissenting Visiter Nay it will not be enough then that he is a Dissenter in general but he must be a Presbyterian or Independent Dissenter according to the Interests of these several Churches This will be a perpetual occasion of Quarrel and every Party will think themselves injured and disobliged who have not a Visiter of their own Communion These are Mr. H.'s Materials for Union and if Princes and Parliaments think fit to make the Experiment I cannot help it But I will venture to turn Prophet for once and foretel that they will soon find Reason to repent the Experiment FINIS
obey God without such Doctrines nay without the belief of Christianity it self I cannot see why they should believe Christianity it self to be a fundamental Doctrine to them 8. I readily grant that no Doctrine can be a fundamental Article of Faith which has not one way or other an influence upon a Christian life But then all the peculiar Arguments of the Gospel all the principles of pure evangelical Obedience as well as all the Fundamentals of Faith are contained in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ That it self is the great motive of the Gospel and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and perswasives to Vertue Take away the Doctrine of Salvation and no other consideration can have any force and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian nay there are no other Gospel-Motives but what are contained in it Whatever is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation is a Fundamental Article and a powerful Motive of Christianity and nothing else is either So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals though they were to be tryed by their tendency to promote real Righteousness as to consider what is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is an acknowledged Fundamental and contains in it all the principles of a Christian Life 2. I desire it may be further observed that when I discourse of Fundamentals I do not reject all other Doctrines besides what are strictly Fundamental as useless in the Christian Life or unfit terms of Church Communion God affords us more than what is barely necessary for our spiritual as well as for our natural life and expects from us that we should make daily improvements in Knowledg and Vertue And if this be the duty of private Christians it is much more the duty of particular Churches to arrive at the greatest perfection of Knowledg and to instruct her Children not only in those Doctrines which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity but in all those great truths which advance our Progress in the Christian Life And therefore no doubt but every Church has Authority over her own Members to require as the terms of Communion an explicite assent to many great and useful truths and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors which are not in a strict sence Fundamental or else she has no Authority to teach the whole mind and will of God nor to preserve the purity of Christian Doctrine For there are many Doctrines of vast use in the Christian Life and many very fatal and pernicious Errors which are not properly Fundamental and yet it may be have occasioned the final Damnation of many more than ever fundamental Errors have done And if the Church be bound to take care of mens Souls she is bound also to root out such pernicious Doctrines But the use I designed the Doctrine of Fundamentals for in this place is the preservation of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches which have no Power and Authority over each other For though a Church have entertained many corrupt and dangerous Doctrines yet if she profess to believe all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith we have no Authority upon the account of Doctrines to divide from her Communion We must not indeed communicate in her Errors though not Fundamental and no Church but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Communion upon other Churches but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith she is so far a true Church and if there be nothing to hinder it may and ought to be received into Catholick Communion 3. When I assert that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental by Fundamentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledg without which no man can understand and believe like a Christian which plainly proves that they are necessary to the very being of a Christian Church and therefore necessary to Catholick Communion Which is all I am concerned to prove But if any man should put hard Cases to me with respect to the final Salvation of particular Christians and inquire how far the explicite knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction and scarce understand any thing distinctly of the Christian Religion or what shall become of those who through the prejudices and prepossessions of Education deny any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith as the Divinity of Christ or his satisfaction for sins and yet are otherwise very pious devout and useful men I say I do not think my self bound to answer these Questions nor to search into the secret Counsels of God to determine how he will judge the World or what allowances he will make in some favourable Cases but yet I have some few things to offer which possibly may give some satisfaction to modest Inquirers 1. We must not deny the necessity of Christian Faith and Knowledg for the sake of any difficult Cases for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity it self or of Faith in Christ to the Salvation of sinners and thus our Charity to other men will make us our selves the greatest Hereticks of all And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledg is necessary to Salvation certainly the knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is which are therefore commonly described by this Character the knowledg and belief of which is necessary to Salvation And if Infidelity be a damning sin why should not a fundamental Heresie be so which is infidelity with respect to some essential and saving Doctrine of Christianity and in its consequence overthrows some material and essential part of the Christian Faith 2. There is a vast difference between the Case of those men who for want of good Instruction have not an explicite understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and of those who deny any Fundamental As for the first a very little indistinct knowledg of Christ if it govern their lives and teach them to live in Obedience to their Saviour will carry them safely to Heaven for God requires little of those to whom little is given Now there is no man that deserves the name of a Christian who has not learnt his Creed who does not know and believe that Jesus Christ came into the World to die for sin and to save sinners and that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins if we repent of them and live a new life now such a general knowledg as this without any fundamental Error to spoil the vertue and efficacy of it may suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life which are absolutely necessary to a state of Salvation such as Repentance from dead works and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much and the Jewish Converts who embraced the Faith upon St. Peters preaching to them