those of Rome and Alexandria and inflict the like Censures on them The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in one Communion and all the Authority of the Church results from the necessary Obligations to Christian Communion and all Churches must judge for themselves by the Rules of Catholick Communion what Churches to hold Communion with and though we must expect while Bishops are men and subject to the Weaknesses Passions Mistakes of humane Nature they may be guilty of great miscarriages and deny Communion to each other upon insufficient Reasons yet there is no help for this that I know of but either the Mediation and Interposition of other Churches or an Appeal to the last Judgment That obligation all Churches are under as far as in them lies to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Unity of the Church obliges them to reject the Communion of those who violate either but it withal obliges them as they will answer it at the Tribunal of Christ the great Bishop of his Church not to make any unnecessary breaches or lightly and wantonly refuse each others Communion But by the Original Right and Power of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops in relation to the Church of England he seems to mean a Right of Appeals and proper Jurisdiction as he plainly does in what he adds a little after concerning the Independency of the Church of England on any Forraign Power For because I assert the Bishops are not wholly independent he concludes That the Church of England is not independent Reply p. 12. p. 28. but accountable to Forraign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power And some Pages after confutes this by saying That 't is notorious that the Church of England estalished by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Forraign Power whatsoever Such is the Constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledge of Bishops but such us are convened by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any appeal to any Forraign Power from the King And therefore he thinks I incur a Premunire by setting up a Forraign Jurisdiction over the Church of England Now this is so wild and absurd a Conclusion from any thing I have said that none but Mr. Lob or some few of his size could have hit on 't there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church of which every Bishop has an equal Share and Portion and therefore is a Bishop of the Catholick Church and though the Exercise of his Episcopal Office and Authority is regularly and ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet his original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church does still remain i. e. He is a Bishop in all parts of the World and may exeroise his Episcopal Authority where-ever he be as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Catholick Communion and when necessity requires is obliged to take care as far as possibly he can that the Church of Christ suffer no injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of his Colleagues ergo the Church of England is subject to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria But I believe few men can discern how such a Consequence results from such Premisses and what follows is of the same stamp All Bishops have originally equal Authority in the Church of Christ but yet are not so independent but that they are bound by the Laws of Christ to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with their Fellow Bishops and in case of Heresie Schism or notorious Impiety may be censured and deposed by their Colleagues and others ordained in their stead Ergo The Church of England is subject to the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops I have abundantly proved in the Defence that St. Cyprian owns these Premisses but denies the Conclusion and therefore either he or Mr. Lob are out in their Logick when St. Cyprian had Excommunicated two of his Presbyters Felicissimus and Fortunatus and they fled to Rome to Cornelius to make their Complaints to him St. Cyprian writes a Letter to Cornelius wherein he informs him of the whole Matter and has this remarkable passage in it That it was by a general Consent agreed among them Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ac justum ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat unusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint Cypr. ep 55. ad Cornelium and is in it self equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard there where the Crime is committed since every Pastor has a Portion of the Flock committed to him which he is to Rule and Govern so as he is to give an Account of it to his Lord and therefore those who are under our Government ought not to run about from one Bishop to another nor by their subtil and fallacious insinuations engage those Bishops who are at Vnity among themselves in contests and quarrels but should there plead their Cause where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Thus St. Cyprian rejects the Appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops to Stephen Bishop of Rome when they had been justly deposed by their Colleagues Cypr. ep 68. and Felix and Sabinus ordained Bishops in their stead Thus when Marcion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer 42. Bishop of Sinope he fled to Rome but was denyed Communion there and they gave this reason for it We cannot do this without the leave of thy venerable Father for there is but one Faith and one Consent and we cannot go contrary to thy Father our good Colleague and fellow Labourer From these instances it appears that the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge does not give Authority to every Bishop to intermedle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocess but only in case of absolute necessity for here are two things to be distinctly considered which qualifie each other and set bounds to the Ecclesiastical Government 1. That there is but one Episcopacy in which every Bishop has an equal share Christ hath committed the Care of his whole Church to the Bishops of it who are to maintain Unity and Communion among themselves and as far as it is practicable and as occasion requires govern the Church with mutual Advice and Counsel
and one Consent as if they were but one Bishop And 2. That every Bishop has a Portion of the Flock assigned to his particular Care over which in ordinary Cases he has the sole and supreme Authority for though the Church of Christ be but one Flock yet it is not committed in common to the Care of all Bishops but is divided into several Folds with particular Pastors set over them to instruct and govern and take Care of them and as every Bishop and Pastor is more peculiarly concerned than any other to render an account of that part of the Flock committed to his Charge so it is fit he should have the greatest Authority and Power over them all Bishops have an equal Power and Authority in the Church but the ordinary exercise of this is confined to their own Churches in which each of them is supreme Now the first of these the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of those larger Combinations and Confederacies of neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopalor National Churches for since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary that as far as it is practicable as it is in the Churches of the same Province or Nation they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the Peace and Unity of the Episcopal Colledge and to promote the Edification and good Government of the Church Nay this Unity of the Episcopacy is the Foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Colleagues in case of Heresie and Schism or any notorious Wickedness for they being Bishops of the universal Church have an original Right and Power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the Heresie or evil Practises of their Colleagues But the second Consideration that every Bishop has the chief Power in his own Church prescribes the Bounds and Limits of this Ecclesiastical Authority as 1. Every Bishop having the chief Power in his own Diocess though he is bound by the Laws of Catholick Communion and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy to consent with his Colleagues in all wholsome Constitutions and Rules of Discipline and Government yet he cannot be imposed on against his own Consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such Accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor Schismatically divides the Church 2. Nor can any Bishop or Bishops rescind any Censures justly passed by another Bishop against any in his own Church or receive Appeals about such Matters without his Consent for the Unity of the Episcopacy requires all Bishops to leave each other to the free Exercise of their Power and Authority in their own Churches as we see the Church of Rome acknowledged in the Case of Marcion's Appeal from his Fathers Sentence For it is an usurpation on the Authority of Bishops not to suffer them to govern their own Flock while nothing is done to the injury of the Faith and the Churches Peace and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops than for one Bishop to undo what another has done or to judge over again that Cause which has been already judged and determined where it ought to be judged as St. Cyprian tells Cornelius in the Case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus as I observed above I grant this is generally practised in Archiepiscopal and National Churches and in many Cases there is great use and reason for it but then this is not without the Consent of other Bishops those Appeals are allowed and confirmed by Provincial and National Synods to which every Bishop gives his Consent but I am now considering what the original Right of Bishops is not how far they may part with this Power for a more general good 3. As every Bishop has the chief Authority in his own Diocess so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church the supreme Power within it self from whence lies no Appeal to any Forraign Church without its own Consent The Unity of the Episcopacy requires the Union of neighbour Bishops for one Government but because all the Bishops in the World though they are of the same Communion yet cannot be united into one Government it is necessary to stop somewhere and that which in all reason must determine the bounds of such a Church must be a convenient distance of place or one Nation and one Civil Government such Churches being more easily confederated into one Body than those of different Nations Now if every Bishop be the supreme Governor of his own Church much more has a National Church the supreme Power of governing it self A National Church is bound to maintain Catholick Communion with Neighbour Churches and if it fall into Heresie or Schism Neighbour Churches may and ought to admonish and censure them and if they continue obstinate to withdraw Communion from them but while a National Church preserves the Unity of the Faith and Catholick Communion no other Church can intermeddle in its Government nor ought to receive any Appeals from its Judgment for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other but only in order to Catholick Communion These things I have discoursed more largely on purpose if it be possible to prevent the mistakes of these men who are so unwilling to see or to acknowledge the Truth and I hope I may safely conclude from the whole that there is no danger that the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria should challenge any jurisdiction over the Church of England by vertue of the original Right and Power of the Catholick Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ But however Mr. Lob is resolved to make something of it at last and if he cannot prove that I subject the Church of England to any Forraign Bishop yet it is plain that I subject it to a general Council for he says I assert that if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council that is unto a Forraign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tear up the Church of England by the Roots Reply p. 29. to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force all this by Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender Good man What a happy Reformation is here How is he now concerned for the Church of England his Majesties Supremacy the Sacredness of Civil Laws in Religious Matters and the Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet which suffers by such a Defender But where do I say That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council Truly no where but he transcribes a long Paragraph out of the Defence against the absolute independency of Bishops wherein there is this Expression And 't is very wild to imagine that any of these Persons who abuse
was so general that St. Cyprian and Optatus found the Consent of the whole Church upon it However half the World or all the known famous Churches were sufficient for Advice and Counsel though not for supreme uncontroulable Government which I never asserted to advise with all the known Churches which were within the reach of such Communication is sufficient to satisfie us how necessary they thought it to use the most effectual Means they could to preserve Catholick Communion and that they believed mutual Advice and Counsel a very proper means for that end and the Duty of all true Catholick Bishops This way St. Austin calls an Epistolare Colloquium Aug. de baptismo l. 3. cap. 2. a Conference by Letters which he thinks is not to be compared with the Plenarium Concilium as he very properly calls a general Council a full or plenary Council which is made up of wise and learned Prelates from distant parts of the World For when the Bishops of so many several Churches who may be well presumed to know the Judgment and Practise of their own Churches meet together without any private or factious Designs freely to debate and consult for the publick good of the Church the Authority of such a Council must needs be venerable and it must be some very great reason that will justifie a dissent from it Such Councils indeed are not infallible Article 21. as our Church asserts because they consist of fallible men who may be and have been deceived and therefore in Matters necessary to Salvation we must believe them no farther than they agree with the holy Scriptures though a modest man will not oppose his private judgment to the Decrees of a general Council unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expresly against it but in Rules of Discipline and Government their Authority is greater still because the Canons of general Councils are a great Medium and excellent Instrument of Catholick Communion the promoting of which is the principal end and the greatest use of general Councils and therefore though they do not command by any direct Authority and superior Jurisdiction yet they strongly oblige in order to serve the ends of Catholick Communion 2. But now suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Council how does this subvert the Kings Supremacy or incur a Premunire For let the Authority of a general Council be what it will it is wholly Spiritual as the whole Government of the Church is considered meerly as a Church or Spiritual Society but the Supremacy of the King is an external and civil Jurisdiction in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions and Mr. Lob might as well say that every man who sets up any spiritual Authority in the Church subverts the Supremacy of the King and thus the King's Supremacy makes him a Bishop and a Priest too a Scandal which Mr. Lob's Predecessors raised in Queen Elizabeths days to disswade People from the Oath of Supremacy which it seems they were not then so fond of and which the Queen confutes in her Injunctions and tells her Subjects that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority but only this under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forraign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them When Bishop Jewel writ his Apology and Defence to Scipio a Patrician of Venice who complained of the English Nation for not sending their Legates to the Council of Trent he never thought of this reason against it that it was contrary to the King's Supremacy which is owned and confirmed by the Laws of this Land and we may observe that the Statutes of Provisors and several Laws to preserve the Liberties of the Realm from the Usurpations of the Pope of Rome or any other Forraign Potentate were made and confirmed in several Kings Reigns long before Henry the 8th a particular Account of which the Reader may find in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation part 1. Book 2. p. 107. c. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th and therefore Arch-bishop Bramhall truly observes Bramhall's vindication of the Church of England That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of England and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy to acknowledge the Authority of general Councils For after the Statutes of Provisors we find the English Bishops in the Councils of Constance and Basil which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high as ever any men did For indeed since Princes have embraced the Christian Faith no Bishops excepting the Pope of Rome have pretended to call a general Council but by the Will and Authority of the Prince nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom or obtain the Authority of Laws but by the Consent of the Prince which therefore certainly can be no encroachment upon his Supremacy While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes and over all Persons in his own Hands the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights This is sufficient at present in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation that to assert the Authority of general Councils subverts the Kings Supremacy subjects the Church of England to a Forraign Court and Jurisdiction and thereby incurs the Penalty of a Praemunire whereby we see that he understands the Law as little as he does the Gospel only shews his good Will to poor Cassandrians and as much as he declames against penal Laws against Dissenters would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire 4. Mr. Lob has not done with me yet but to make me a perfect Cassandrian whether I will or not he adds as my sense Reply p. 12. That this Council of Forraign Bishops unto which they i.e. the Bishops of the Church of England are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was one and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is one Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the Care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholick Churches all this is to be found from p. 208. to the end of the Chapter This is a terrible Charge indeed and home to the Purpose and Mr. Lob is a terrible Adversary in these days if he can but Swear as well as he can Write for all this is
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
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
contained in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal Communion by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation But our Questionist should have considered that to exclude from Catholick Communion is an ambiguous Phrase and may signifie two very different things 1. Not to receive those into our Communion who are willing and desirous to communicate with us and thus no man that I know of but themselves exclude Dissenters from Catholick Communion and thereby from the ordinary means of Salvation which is to be had only in the Unity of the Church Or 2. It may signifie not owning those for the Members of the Catholick Church who divide themselves from the external and visible Communion of it while they profess the same Catholick Faith If the Bishop meant this by excluding from Catholick Communion all that I shall say to it is this that he must condemn St. Cyprian Cornelius and all the Italian and African Bishops in their dayes and St. Austin Optatus and the Catholick Church in their time for excluding the Novatians and Donatists from Catholick Communion and the hope of Salvation not for any Error or Heresie in Faith but for a Schismatical Separation from the Catholick Church and I am contented to be a Schismatick in so good Company as the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's dayes But I have proved at large in the Defence P. 171 c. that the same Faith is not sufficient to make any men Catholick Christians who separate from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but this our Author did not think fit to meddle with Mr. Lob proceeds Moreover as to external Communion sayes Bramhal there are degrees of Exclusion and did I ever deny this Do I make all the Censures of the Church equal But it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or Persons from their neighbour Churches and Christians in their Innovations and Errors most certain If they be such Innovations and Errors as make their Communion sinful but every Innovation nor every Error which does not corrupt their Religious Worship is no just cause for a Separation or for waving or withdrawing Communion But of this more hereafter He adds from Bishop Bramhal Nor is there so strict and perpetual adherence required to a particular Church as there is to the universal Church But how I am concern'd in this I cannot see for by adherence to the universal Church the Bishop seems to mean adhering to the Judgment or Decrees of the universal Church assembled in a general Council which he makes the supream Authority of the Church on Earth and therefore prefers their Decrees before the Decrees or Canons of any particular Church and I agree with him so far that the Judgment of a general Council if such a Council could be had is to be preferred before the Decrees of any particular Church and ought not without some necessary and apparent Reasons be slighted or disobeyed by particular Christians or Churches though I do not make a general Council the constitutive regent Head of the Catholick Church but if by adherence Mr. Lob will understand Communion I do assert that Communion with a particular Church which is it self in Catholick Communion is as necessary as Communion with the Catholick Church and he that separates from any such Church separates and divides himself from the Catholick Church and this I shall believe till I see better Reason for the contrary Let us now consider how he urges me with the Authority of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field I assert that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion and consequently that those Christians and Churches which do not live in Catholick Communion are no Members of the Catholick Church but are out of the Church extra Ecclesiam foris according to the Language of the primitive Fathers Whereas I acknowledge he has proved by very plain Testimonies from Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field that they own all those for Christians and Members of the visible Church who profess the Faith of Christians and are baptized though they be Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters excommunicable or excommunicated Persons and therefore either Christ must have more Churches than one which I deny or the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist in one Communion as I assert for Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are not in the same Communion and yet are all Members of the visible Church I own his Citations out of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field and therefore need not repeat them and have represented the Objection with greater Advantage and Perspicuity than he has himself for I neither design to cheat my self nor to impose upon my Readers nor to perpetuate Controversies as my Adversaries do by false Representations of Things or some shuffling and sophistical Arts to put by a Blow But all this appearing Difference is not real but verbal Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field believe Schismaticks and Hereticks to be as much out of the Church as I do and I believe them to be as much in the Church as they do When Mr. Hooker asserts That all that profess the Faith of Christ whatever they be whether Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are Members of the visible Church of Christ he understands the visible Church in a large Notion to comprehend the whole Body of profess'd Christians And therefore the Reason he assigns for it is because all Mankind are Christians or Infidels Those who believe in Christ what-ever their other Errors in Doctrine or Miscarriages in Life and Practice may be are Christians in some sense notwithstanding and therefore visible Members of the Christian Church as that comprehends all Christians but those who do not believe in Christ are Infidels Now I acknowledge as much as Mr. Hooker can do that there is a difference between a profest Christian though a Schismatick Heretick Idolater or excommunicated and an Infidel Such Persons who have been once incorporated into the Church by Baptism whatever they prove after may be restored to the Church again without being rebaptized but an Infidel cannot be admitted without Baptism which is a plain proof that the first do in some sense belong to the Body of Christ and that the other do not Baptized Christians though Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels but as wicked and apostate Christians when men are made the Members of Christ's Body by Baptism and an external profession of Christianity they can never alter this Character but shall be finally judged either condemned or rewarded as Christians and upon this account may still be said to belong to the Church of Christ Dr. Field whose Authority Mr. Lob alledges against me has plainly reconciled this appearing difference as every ordinary Reader would have seen had our Author been so honest as to have transcribed the whole Paragraph and therefore since he has only cited a part of
mention the Country-Conformist who is such an insignificant Appendage and Hanger-on as a silly flie is to a Wheel though possibly he may have no more wit than to fancy that he has raised all this dust and stir They charge me with advancing a Cassandrian design and promoting an Union with the Church of Rome rather than with Protestant Dissenters And to insinuate the belief of this into his Readers Mr. Lob endeavours to prove that Arch-Bishop Laud had this design in his head but what is this to me I am no Arch-Bishop yet and greatly suspect I never shall be if he can prove that the Arch-Bishop died like a Papist or a Phanatick with a lye in his mouth or that he attempted any reconciliation with the Church of Rome which is not consistent with the Principles or Practices of the Primitive Church I think he was very much to blame for it and am very glad he did not perfect his Design but could a Reconciliation be obtained upon the principles of Primitive and Catholick Christianity accursed be the man who would hinder this Union which I would be glad to effect not only with shedding my Blood once but if it were possible a thousand times with all the Scorn and Obloquies of the most virulent Phanaticks into the Bargain But whatever Mr. Lob may fancy I look upon this as a very hopeless and impractible design and never had such a vain Conceit in my head while I was a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iting the late Defence and had any one Whispered such an accusation in my Ear without at the same time shewing the folly and weakness of the Charge I should have been more puzzled to have found out the Rise and Occasion of it than to have answered all the Cavils against the Church of England which I have ever yet seen But though I knew nothing of a Cassandrian Design yet my Adversaries have found me out and if we will believe Mr. Lob I am got at least as far as France in my Journey to Rome surely there is some Conjuring in the Case for I don't know that ever I went a step beyond Canterbury But this is a Cause which will not bear an Ignoramus and therefore I must defend my self as well as I can and in order to that I shall 1. briefly represent the Doctrine of the Defence with respect to the Unity of Church-power and Government whereon this Charge of Cassandrianism is founded 2. Consider what the Doctrine of Cassander was in this matter 3. Examine the Arts my Adversaries have used to pervert the Sense of my words to turn them into Non-sense and Ridicule and to draw me head-long into the Popish Plot. 1. As for the first in order to prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I asserted that all the Bishops of the Church are but one 〈◊〉 invested with the same Power and Authority to Govern the Church that as St. Cyprian tells us Defence of the unreas of Separation p. 208. There is but one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power That all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual advice and consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge as Optatus calls it whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends for it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors or Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert one Episcopacy as well as one Church one Evangelical Priesthood as well as one Altar all the World over But to make this as plain as possibly I can that every one may understand it who will I shall reduce the whole state of this Controversie under some few heads 1. There is but one Episcopacy because all the Bishops of the Catholick Church have originally the same Authority and Power in Church Affairs no one has the whole but each of them has a part and equal share and therefore they are called the Episcopal Colledge and a copious Body of Bishops as all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church not because they ever do or ought to meet together for Advice and Counsel and Acts of Government from all parts of the World no more than the Catholick Church does for Acts of Worship but because they are and ought to be in Communion with each other they have all the same Power and Authority which must be exercised in one Communion 2. Though all Bishops have a Relation to the whole Church every Bishop being a Bishop of the Catholick Church yet the Rules of Order and good Government and the Edification of the Church require that the Exercise of this Power be in ordinary Cases limited and confined to a certain Part which we call a particular Church for as no particular Bishop can Instruct and Govern the Catholick Church no more than he can be in all parts of the World at the same time so every Bishop will be capable of exercising his Office to the best Advantage when his Care is confined to a certain Place and particular Church and every particular Church is likely to receive the greatest Benefit from the Care and Inspection of a fixed Pastor and Bishop 3. That the same Rules of Order and Government require that every Bishop have the chief Power of Government in his own Diocess for if every Bishop had Authority as often as he pleased to intermeddle in another Bishops Diocess and order the Affairs of his Church it must needs cause great Confusion and Distraction in all Churches and make the People very uncertain whom they are to obey and therefore it has been the constant Practice of the Apostles and all succeeding Ages to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them 4. But yet the Power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so Absolute and Independent but that he is bound to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and fellow-Fellow-Bishops for this is the Foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church and therefore he who causelesly breaks this Unity can be no Catholick Bishop and this is the Foundation of all those greater Combinations of Churches and that Authority which is regularly exercised over particular Bishops by their Colleagues For
5. To preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy it is necessary that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith but especially in matter of Weight and Consequence the same Customs and Usages and the same Laws of Discipline and Government and therefore it is highly expedient and necessary when any difficult Case happens for which they have no standing Rule to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Colleagues of the same Body and Communion And this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with Ease and Convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship this has been the Practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-Episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles days for though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church-Affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general Consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian Encroachments or Usurpations on the Episcopal Authority For 6. This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governor of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his Consent the whole Authority of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which is the great end it serves and therefore they have no proper Authority but only in such Matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy or the Peace and Communion of the Catholick Church If a Bishop be convicted of Heresie or Schism or some great Wickedness and Impiety they may depose him and forbid his People to communicate with him and ordain another in his stead because he subverts the Unity of the Faith or divides the Unity of the Church or is himself unfit for Christian Communion But if a Bishop differ from his Colleagues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such Matters Thus St. Cyprian and the African Father differed from Stephen Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues about the re-baptization of Hereticks but yet would not divide the Church nor the Unity of the Episcopacy upon that Score for any Bishop to dissent from his Colleagues and obstinately adhere to his own private Opinions without very great and necessary Reasons for doing so is great frowardness and Insolence which may be condemned and censured but while he preserves the Unity of Faith and Catholick Communion whatever Church or Council should deny Communion to him would be guilty of the Schism which plainly shews that there can be no constitutive Regent Head on Earth of a National much less of the Catholick Church since every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church and though he may and ought to take the Advice of neighbour Bishops or Councils yet he is not under their Authority any farther than the Purity of the Faith or the Unity of the Church is concerned nor yet is so absolute and independent but that he is bound to live in Communion with his Colleagues and as much as is possible govern his Church by mutual Advice and Consent and if he divide the Church by Heresie or Schism he may be deposed and cast out of Christian Communion These things I have discoursed at large upon several occasions in the Defence and proved them from primitive Practise and have now reduced them into this plain Method that if it be possible to prevent it it may not be in the Power of my Adversaries a second time to form a Popish or Cassandrian Plot out of such Anti Cassandrian Principles 2. It is time now to consider what Cassander taught about this Matter George Cassander was a very learned and moderate Papist who in Obedience to the Command of the Emperors Ferdinand and Maximilian writ his Consultation wherein he gives his judgment of every Article of the Augustan Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon and dedicated to Charles the fifth The seventh Article concerns the Church and there we must seek for his Judgment in this matter and yet there I can find nothing to Mr. Lob's purpose who has named Cassander indeed but not cited any one passage out of him Cassander expresly asserts Quod autem ad unitatem hujus externae ecclesiae requirunt obedientiam unius summi Rectoris qui Petro in regenda Christi ecclesia ejus ovibus pascendis successerit non est à consensu priscae quoque ecclesiae alienum Cass Cons ad act 7. de Pontifice Romano Constat etiam olim quatenus extat memoria ecclesiae praecipuam semper authoritatem in universa Christi ecclesia Hpiscopo Romano ut Petri successori ejus cathedram obtinenti delatam fuisse Id. Ib. That to the Vnity of the Catholick Church is required obedience to one supreme Governor who succeeds Peter in the Government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that this is agreeable to the sense of the Ancient Church And that it is evident from all the Records of the Church That the chief Authority in the Vniversal Church of Christ has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair For the Proof of which he refers us to the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus and others It is very true as Mr. Lob observes that there have been some who have advanced the Authority of a General Council above the Pope of Rome and that this is a prevailing Opinion among the French Papists and thence concludes That such as assert Reply p. 31. that a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the Vniversal Church are in the Number of French Papists which is an Argument of his great Skill in Controversie For suppose there be any such men who assert a General Council to be the Political Head or Regent Part of the Universal Church but renounce all the pretended Authority of
the whole Church and as he observes I assert in another place That every Bishop Ib. p. 11. Presbyter or Deacon by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholick Church That every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholick Church by Baptism and shuts out of the Catholick Church by Excommunication which they could not do if they were not Ministers of the Catholick Church but does this make every Bishop an universal Monarch that he is a Bishop of the universal Church Orwillâ— Mr. Lob deny that Bishops or Presbyters have a Relation to the universal Church If they be Ministers of the Church and there be but one Church they must be Ministers of the Catholick Church for particular Churches are not Churches but considered as Members of the Catholick Church and therefore the primary Relation of all Catholick Christians and Catholick Bishops is to the Catholick Church This proves indeed that the whole Catholick Church is but one Body and one Communion but it does not prove that there is but one supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. That the ordinary Power of a particular Bishop or the Exercise of the Episcopal Office is confined to a certain place or particular Church which certainly does not make them the ordinary Governors of the whole universal Church 3. I assert That though the Exercise of their Episcopal Power is ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet they continue their Relation to the whole Church that is in their Government of their particular Churches they act as Bishops and Ministers of the universal Church for they are Bishops of particular Churches not considered meerly as particular but as Members of the universal Church And if Mr. Lob meant no more but this by making the universal Church the first Seat of Government that all the Power in the Church primarily respects the universal Church though as it is distributed into different hands the Exercise of it is confined to particular Places and Churches I readily own the Charge and may do so safely without making the Church such an organized Political Body as has one Constitutive Regent Head over the Whole 4. I assert farther That Bishops being Ministers of the Catholick Church when Necessity that is when the preservation of the Catholick Faith or Catholick Communion require it may with one consent oppose the Heresie or Schisms of neighbour Bishops depose those who are incorrigible and Ordain others in their stead and as far as it is possible take care that no part of the Church of Christ suffer any injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of their Colleagues And if Mr. Lob will hence infer that every Bishop has an original Right to govern the whole universal Church he must have a Logick by himself or some great flaw in his Understanding or Conscience Every Bishop is a Bishop of the universal Church and therefore as far as the Rules of good Order and Government Catholick Peace and Communion and the possibility of things will permit he may exercise his Episcopal Office in any part of the Christian Church but this does not give him an original Right to govern the whole Church 2. Mr. Lob observes Ib. p. 11. that I say The Catholick Church is united and coupled by the Cement of Bishops who stick close together for which I produce Cyprian and therefore I hope there is no Popery in this unless St. Cyprian also were a Cassandrian or French Papist For may not Bishops stick close together in one Communion unless there be a supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Church Or can the Church be one unless the Bishops who are the supreme Ecclesiastical Governors of their several Churches be one also 3. But I assert that the Vnity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent Therefore not by one Constitutive Regent Head But he says I mention Collegium Episcopale or Episcopal Colledge So indeed I observed Optatus called the whole Body of Bishops and upon the same account St. Cyprian and St. Austin calls them Colleagues But this Episcopal Colledge he says He takes to be a Council of Bishops But that is his mistake and a very silly one it is and he might as well conclude that when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy they mean their Union in a general Council In St. Cyprian's time there never had been a general Council excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem and yet when he writ to Forraign Bishops with whom he was never joyned in Council nor ever like to be he calls them his Colleagues or those of the same Colledge with him which signifies no more but that they were of the same Power and Authority in the Church and united in the same Communion And yet Mr. Lob takes hold of this Phrase of the Episcopal Colledge to make me expresly assert the supreme Authority of general Councils p. 12. That every part of the universal Church is under the government of the universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge or in Council Which Sentence he very honestly puts into a different Character that it may be taken for mine and makes it a distinct head of accusation when I never writ nor thought any such thing but this is the dealing we must expect from those men whose Understandings and Consciences are formed only to serve a party Well but these Bishops have an original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church this has been considered already only he adds an untoward i. e. which is such another honest Exposition as turning an Episcopal Colledge into a Council For i. e. says Mr. Lob The Forraign Bishops as those of Alexandria and Rome c. have an original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church a Right and Power in relation to England Now this is very true in the sense in which I assert it The Bishop of Rome and Alexandria have such a relation to the Church of England and so have all the Bishops in the World that if they live in the same Communion with us and should come over into England with the leave of English Bishops they might exercise their Episcopal Office in any Church in England as Polycarp consecrated in the Church of Anicetus at Rome A Catholick Bishop does not lose his Character by going out of his own Church but is a Bishop in what part of the World soever he be and therefore may exercise his Episcopal Office as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Christian Communion and with the Rights and Jurisdiction of other Bishops Nay were there nothing else to alter the Case but only the local distance between Rome and England and Alexandria the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria might admonish and censure the English Bshops in case they fell into Heresie or Schism and deny them Communion in case of obstinacy or incorrigibleness and so may the English Bishops admonish
because the chief Care of his Church is committed to him and he cannot so intirely give away the Government of it to others From whence it appears that all the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Colledge as shall by a supreme Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the Form of Aristocratical Government And for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the government of a Democratical Head for if the Colledge of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt Colledge of Bishops and People Let any impartial Reader now judge wherein I contradict my self in this Scheme of Church Government I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society to have a pars Imperans Subdita for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is governed by parts I deny that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop or Colledge of Bishops as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction though contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience but yet the Episcopacy is one because all Bishops have the same Power and are bound to live in the same Communion and to govern their several Churches by mutual Advice and Consent and in order to this may unite themselves in stricter Associations and Confederacies under such Rules of Government as do not encroach upon the unalienable Rights and Power of the Episcopacy And this is sufficient to make them one Church for if the Catholick Church be one by one Catholick Communion why may not the National Church be one by one Communion And those guilty of Schism who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches though it were not backt by any Civil Authority or humane Laws And now I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey but I must beg his patience for the sake of others who are very unwilling to understand these Matters while I particularly apply what I have now discoursed in Answer to them being ashamed that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes by so frequent a Repetition of the same things but I consider it is better to do this effectually once than to be obliged to write as often as these men can spit Books The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England in Answer to which Question who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England I 1. distinguished between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question and though I know not any one thing that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th Chapter of the Defence yet this being the Chief and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on to shew their great Abilities I shall briefly review this Dispute in the same Method which I before observed that I may not confound my Readers with altering the state of the Question I distinguish between a National Church Defence p. 558. considered as a Church and as a Church incorporated with the State this Mr. H. says is no good distinction because the Church is National only under the last Consideration i. e. as incorporated with the State Reply p. 130. The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Vniversal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National Now this is said without any Reason and therefore might be as well denyed without assigning any Reason for such a Denyal but to satisfie Mr. H. in this Point I answer That the Church considered as a Church is not necessarily considered either as Universal or Particular The essential Notion of a Christian Church is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers as he hath appointed That this Church is Universal is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which unites all particular Societies of Christians into one Body that it is divided into particular Churches is owing to the Necessity of things for since all Christians in remote and distant places of the World cannot all worship God together nor live under the Care and Government of one Bishop this makes it necessary that the Episcopal Office and Power be divided into many hands and the Multitude of Christians divided into many particular Churches under their proper Pastors but in the same Communion Now if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one universal Catholick Church and a particular Communion makes a particular Church why does not a National Church-Communion make one National Church A Church is a Church considered as a Religious Body and Society of Christians as I have now described it but it is Universal National or Particular from the different degrees and kinds of Communion and therefore Churches joyned in National Communion are properly called a National Church though there were no Christian Prince to head it And that a National Church is of a distinct Consideration as it is a Church and as incorporated with the State I proved in the Defence from this Topick that de facto p. 558. there have been and may be still National Churches when the Prince and great numbers of the People are not Christians For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same Nature with what we call National Churches and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and persecuting Emperors To which Mr. H. Answers A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Churches of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too bigg and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less But what is this to the Purpose Can Mr. H. prove that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch or Metropolitan over themselves and may not the Kings of England France and Spain do so still if they please And yet I did not say that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church was a National Church but of the same Nature with a National Church that is they were a voluntary Combination of Churches founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion antecedent to any civil Conjunction by the Laws and Authority of Princes and I would fain know
there is a Government in the Church without superiority or without a constitutive Regent Head the plain meaning is this That every Bishop is the chief Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is a governed Society as every particular Church is under the Government of its own Pastor no Bishops either single or united having any direct Authority or Superiority over each other Now though in Aristocracy every individual Patrician and Senator have equal Power yet the Government is not in any of these distinct but in the whole Senate whether that signifie the Majority of Voices or the unanimous Vote of every Member of it and this makes it properly a Regent Head But to help Mr. B. to understand this if Pride and Interest will give him leave I shall particularly consider the difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head Every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church but no Senator meerly as a Senator hath any immediate Right much less the supreme Right of Government in any distinct part of the Nation For the Government of the Whole is in the Senate who appoint subordinate Governors either some of their own Members or others in dependence on themselves who act not by their own but by the Authority of the Senate Every Bishop may govern his own Church by his own prudence has his Arbitrium proprium as St. Cyprian speaks may regulate publick Worship and prescribe Rules of Discipline for his own Church without depending on the Authority of any other Bishop or Councils of Bishops nor is accountable to any while he preserves the Purity of Faith and Worship the Unity of the Church and Catholick Communion but no single Senator in an Aristocracy has any Power of making Laws himself but only in conjunction with others The Combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for the preservation of Catholick Communion which is most effectually done by mutual Advice and Counsel which I think differs a little from the Soveraign Power of an Aristocracy When Neighbour Bishops thus unite into one Body and agree upon some common rules of Worship or Discipline they govern indeed every one their particular Churches by common Advice and Consent but still by their own Episcopal Authority They do not receive any Authority from the Synod to govern their Churches but only agree among themselves upon some common rules of Government and therefore the Synod is not a Regent Head because it gives no new Authority which is quite contrary in an Aristocracy which is the Fountain of all Power for the Government of such a Nation Which shews how well skilled Mr. H. is in Politicks who thinks Reply p. 134. that if the Bishops rule by a Superiority over the People that makes it an Aristocratical Government And this may satisfie Mr. B. what I mean by a Government by Consent without Superiority or a Regent Head Which he turns also into Ridicule It is not a constitutive Supremacy but a Supremacy by consent No Sir it is no Supremacy at all but every Bishop governs his own Diocess by his own Authority but with the Advice and Consent of a Synod or Council or Neighbour Bishops A consent I say not as to the Power of governing but as to the Rules of Government And therefore I am not concerned to Dispute with him how far Consent is necessary to all Government I shall only observe how Mr. H. mistakes both the Dean and me in what we speak about Consent The Doctor he says holds that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops these are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy But indeed it is neither so nor so but Mr. H. understands neither as appears from what I have already Discoursed There is no other Consent required to become a Member of the National Church then there is to be a Member of the Catholick Church that is a Consent to be a Christian for every Christian is bound to live in Catholick Communion as a Member of the one body of Christ And if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one Catholick Church it makes all the Churches in a Nation one National Church But that stricter Combination of Churches in the same Nation under a Patriarch or Metropolitan or National Synods is a National Church Government by consent as I have already explained it which is highly useful to preserve Peace and Communion between neighbour-Churches whose neighbourhood requires a more close and intimate Union than there can be between Churches of different Nations under different Princes and at a greater distance There is but one thing more remains to be considered and so I will put an end to this Chapter and squabling Dispute And that is to vindicate the Deans Argument against the necessity of Mr. B's constitutive Regent Head of the National Church which in short was this If every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to the Catholick visible Church and so Mr. B's constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his universal Pastorship Mr. B. indeed says that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself but as the Dean adds this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is about that visible Church whereof the particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible constitutive Regent Head as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church What Mr. B. and Mr. H. answered to the Deans Argument I considered and answered in the Defence and Mr. B. thought fit to let this Dispute fall but Mr. H. who has not discretion enough to know when he is answered was resolved to try one trick more with it and see what Logick will do And he says he has discovered four Terms in the Deans Argument Reply p. 135. and if so I promise you it is a very material discovery and the Argument must be false and fallacious nay it seems I have done worse than the Dean and have put in a 5th Term this is foul play I confess but let us hear how it is I will tell them both plainly says Mr. H. who is indeed a very plain Writer the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also p. 137. That which Mr. Baxter said was
have not Episcopal Government Our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy which they own from our reformed Bishops which they maintain Communion with and therefore are as well Separatists from the reformed Presbyterian Churches as from the Church of England 2. As it is Schism without absolute necessity to cast off the Authority of our Bishops and to separate from them so it is much more so to reject Episcopal Communion and the Government of Bishops as unlawful and Antichristian which makes a very material difference between our Dissenters and those reformed Churches abroad who have no Bishops of their own There is nothing our Dissenters more vehemently oppose than Episcopal Government for which they never think they can find names bad enough Not to mention others at present this is the great design of Mr. Baxter's late History of Episcopacy to prove that Diocesan Episcopacy in the very Nature and Constitution of it overthrows the Government of Christ's Institution This is his great design in his Abridgement of Church-History to bespatter and vilifie the most renowned Bishops of the Church to reproach all their Actions to charge them with all the Heresies and Schisms which have disturbed the Church and to paint them in such frightful shapes that all Christians may flie from them as the great troublers of our Israel I cannot imagine what service he could think to do by this to common Christianity which is concerned in nothing more than in the Credit and Reputation of the chief Ministers of Religion but I must acknowledge all this was admirably calculated to serve a Faction But the Foreign Churches which have no Bishops do not condemn Episcopacy nor separate from it as an unlawful Communion and whoever does so is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church This is so plain that there needs no proof of it For let men talk never so ill of Bishops and their Government the matter of fact is evident that the Church of Christ has for many hundred years had no other Government than that of Bishops They can shew no Church till the Reformation which was governed without Bishops even such Diocesan Bishops as our Dissenters now vent their Spleen against Dr. Owen indeed and Mr. Baxter would gladly except the two first Centuries but what little reason they have for it has been already examined in the Defence but however they are all forc'd to acknowledg that in the succeeding Ages of the Church till the Reformation which was above twelve hundred years the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops as it is at this day so that by renouncing the Episcopal Communion of the Church in our Age they separate from the whole Catholick Church for so many hundred years As far as Episcopal Government is concerned they condemn the whole Catholick Church in their separation from the Church of England as governed by Diocesan Bishops nay herein they separate also from all the reformed Churches who hold Communion with the Episcopal Church of England and if this be not enough to prove them Schismaticks there is no such thing as Schism from the Church for there was no Church for near fifteen hundred years nor is there at this day which they can communicate with upon these Principles but their own beloved Conventicles for it has always been accounted as unlawful to communicate with such a Church as communicates with another Church whose Communion is sinful as it is to communicate with such a Church our selves and it must be so according to the Principles of Catholick Communion And therefore if it be unlawful to communicate with the Church of England as governed by Bishops it must be unlawful also to communicate with those Protestant Presbyterian Churches which communicate with the Church of England This I suppose may satisfie any man what little reason our Dissenters have to talk so much of Foreign reformed Churches for their case is very different that which will justifie those Foreign Churches which have no Bishops will not justifie our Dissenters who have Bishops but separate from them For though they have no Bishops they do not separate from Episcopal Churches nor condemn Episcopacy as an unlawful or Antichristian Government but hold Communion with the Church of England which our Dissenters have rent and divided by Schismatical separations 3. Let us then consider what may be said in justification of those reformed Churches which have no Bishops whether their want of Bishops does unchurch them and make it unlawful for us to hold Communion with them This is a very nice and tender point for to condemn all the reformed Churches which have no Bishops seems so hard and uncharitable that the Church of England has always declined it but then absolutely to justifie them overthrows the ancient government by Bishops and is made use of by our Dissenters to pull down Episcopacy if the present Bishops do not please them which is impossible for any Bishop to do who will be true to his own Authority and to the constitutions of our Church And therefore in stating this matter I must go a middle way neither absolutely to condemn nor absolutely to justifie them For 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government which I shall not now go about to prove I must acknowledg those Churches which have no Bishops to be very imperfect and defective and that they are bound as far as they can to endeavour to restore the Episcopal Authority and if they fail in this so far as they are chargeable with this neglect what in some cases is a pardonable defect may become especially in the Governors of such a Church a very great Crime For no Church must wantonly change a divine Institution we condemn the Church of Rome for taking away the Cup from the Laity and I think every divine Institution has something so sacred in it as not to be lightly rejected or altered without absolute necessity 2. But yet the case may be such that the want of Episcopal Government may not un-church such a society of Christians nor make it unlawful for other Christians to maintain Communion with them As will appear from these following considerations 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presently un-church those who are guilty of it 2. Especially if there be an absolute or very great necessity for doing it 3. Especially if the case be such that at least they have a presumptive allowance from the Catholick Church to do it 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presentlyun-church those who are guilty of it I need not spend many words to prove this for when the case is proposed in general I think no man will deny it The observation of all divine Institutions is necessary to the perfection of a Church but it is not so to the being of it That is though God does strictly require the observance of all his Statutes yet every positive command is not of that moment that God will disanul his Covenant with
such a People for the neglect or change of it If ever God would have done this we might most reasonably expect it under the Jewish Oeconomy in which every minute Circumstance was so strictly commanded by God as having something Sacred and Typical in it and yet it does not appear that every deviation from their Rule though in some very material parts of it did provoke God to cast them off God had appointed a certain place where they should offer their Sacrifices to him and when this place was actually fixed and determined it was unlawful for them to offer Sacrifice in any other place And yet when the Temple at Jerusalem was built which was the only place God had appointed for Sacrifice the People continued to offer Sacrifice in their high places even in the Reign of very good Kings and though this practise was condemned yet it did not un-church them God had appointed Aarons Family for the Priesthood 1 Kings 12.31 and yet Jeroboam made Priests of other Tribes and Families and the Law which expresly appoints Aaron and his Sons for the Priests Office only threatens death against Usurpers Numb 3.10 Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his Sons and they shall wait on the Priests Office and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death God did not reject the Church of Israel for the irregularities of their Priests but owned them for his Church and People many years after this till they defiled themselves with the worship of Baal and other Heathen Gods And Josephus observes that after the death of Menelaus Joseph Antiq l. 12. cap. 14. Antiochus made Alchymus High-Priest who was not of the Family of the Priests and yet I should be loth to say that such an irregular promotion did un-church the Jewish Church and whoever considers in what manner the High-Priests were advanced and deposed even in the time of our Saviour possibly may think it as inconsistent with the first Institution of that Office as the irregular Ordinations of Presbyters 2. We ought especially to consider the force and power of necessity to dispence even with divine Institutions No necessity can dispence with the eternal Laws of good and evil because no necessity can be pleaded to justifie men in sin though in some cases it may extenuate the evil and guilt of it for the internal necessity in the nature of things is stronger than any external necessity can be no external force can compel men to sin which is an Act of their own will and choice and the obligations to Vertue remain in the most extreme necessity But in positive Institutions which depend upon the Will of God we find necessity has often dispensed and that with God's allowance and approbation As to give some few examples of it 1. The necessity of the divine Worship has dispensed with positive Institutions Thus in Hezekiah's Sacrifice the Priests being too few 2 Ch ron 29.34.35.11 the Levites assisted them in doing the Priests work in slaying the Sacrifices and the like we may see in Josiah's Passeover And by the same reason we may suppose that if the Family of Aaron had failed other Families of the Tribe of Levi might have succeeded into the Priest's Office though against a positive Law For the necessity of the divine Worship is much greater and more unalterable than the confinement of the Priesthood to a certain Family and where the divine Providence makes a necessity necessity will make a Priest And therefore I think a late learned and ingenious Author who disputes so earnestly that the Power of administring Sacraments must be derived from God and that this Power now is given only by Episcopal Ordination ought to have distinguished between the ordinary and extraordinary conveyance of Power Whoever administers in holy things must derive his Power from God because he acts in God's Name and when it may be done he must derive his Power in such a way as God hath appointed by a positive Law and whoever rejects this way without necessity can have no valid Power but whatever he does is null and void as I doubt not but all Ordinations of Presbyters are in opposition to and contempt of their Bishops as I think that learned man hath sufficiently proved But the case of necessity ought to be considered it being contrary to the Nature of all positive Institutions to oblige in case of necessity and I take that to be a case of necessity when Episcopal Orders cannot be had and yet the Church must sail without them Bishops are for the Church not the Church for Bishops and when the ordinary conveyance of this Authority fails necessity legitimates other extraordinary ways We have all the reason in the World to presume in such cases that God will confirm and ratifie the choice and designation of the People much more the Ordinations of the Presbytery where Episcopal Ordination cannot be had For I see no reason why Presbyters may not do the Bishops work in case of necessity as well as Levites do the work of Priests 2. The necessity of mens lives dispense with positive Laws Upon this account our Saviour justifies David's eating the Shew-Bread when he was an hungred which was not lawful for him to eat Mark 2.24 25 26. but for the Priests and his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day Upon this Principle Matathias allowed the Jews to fight on the Sabbath-day Joseph antiq l. 12. cap. 7. in case they were assaulted by their Enemies and our Saviour resolves all such cases by that general Principle I will have mercy and not Sacrifice and certainly mercy to the Souls of men is as considerable as any temporal concernments 3. But we may further consider what force and Authority the presumptive allowance of the Church has in such cases The Christian Church in all Ages has thought fit to dispense with positive Institutions in case of necessity and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the defects and irregularities of such Administrations and therefore certainly did believe she had Power to do it And indeed if there be not sufficient Authority in the Church to provide for cases of necessity the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of men and cannot in many cases without a miracle preserve her own being and therefore if the Church may be presumed in cases of necessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministries as otherwise they are not qualified to perform this very allowance supplies the incapacity of the Person and does virtually confer that Authority on him which in other cases he had not Now it is not only highly reasonable to presume that the Catholick Church will rather allow the Ordinations of Presbyters though they are not regularly qualified for that Office where there are no Bishops to Ordain than that a considerable member of the Christian Church should want a succession of Pastors to
instruct and govern them and administer all religious Offices to them but besides the reason of the thing the practise of the Church is a sufficient ground for this presumption For we know the use of Orders is to confer Authority and Power to administer the Sacraments and yet the Church has allowed even Lay-men to baptize Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus offers tinguis sacerdos es tibi solus Tert. de exhort cast cap. 7. and if we will believe Tertullian to consecrate too in case of necessity that is where there have been no Bishops nor Presbyters to administer those Offices and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Ordain when there are no Bishops as for Lay-men to administer the Sacraments where there are no Bishops nor Presbyters I alledge Tertullian's Authority not for the sake of his reason but as a witness of primitive Practise The reasonings of particular men do not always express the sence of the Church but their own private Opinions though they may be allowed to be good Witnesses what the practise of the Church was in their days Though I confess I cannot see that any thing Tertullian says does derogate from the Evangelical Priesthood or destroy the distinction between the Clergy and Laity or encourage private Christians to invade the Ministerial Function Nonne laici sacerdotes sumus scriptum est regnum quoque nos sacerdotes Deo patri suo fecit Ibid. He says indeed that even Lay-men are Priests Christ having made us all Kings and Priests to God his Father by which he means that every Christian through our great Advocate and Mediator has now so near and free access to God Differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae Auctoritas honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus and such assurance of acceptance as was thought peculiar to Priests in former Ages Well but is there no distinction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People Yes this he owns but says it is by the appointment and constitution of the Church What does he mean by this That it is a humane arbitrary and alterable Constitution By no means But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority And therefore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ and of his Apostles who from the beginning have made this distinction as Tertullian every where confesses To what purpose then is all this Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso ubi necesse est habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis Ib. How does he hence prove that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself That he has the right of Priesthood in himself when it is necessary and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also when it is necessary For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foundations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority how can it be lawful for a private Christian upon a pretence of the general Priesthood of Christians in any case whatsoever to perform such religious Acts as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this That all Christians being an Evangelical Priesthood to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God through the merits and mediation of our great High-Priest they are not debarr'd by any personal incapacity nor by the typical and mysterious Nature of the Christian Institutions from performing any religious Office which Christ has commanded his Church but yet for the better security of publick Instructions for the more regular Administration of religious Offices for the preservation of Unity Order Discipline and Government in the Church Christ hath committed the power of Government and Discipline and publick Administration of religious Offices to Persons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church and not for any other mystical reasons in case of failure where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place and any private Christian without a regular and external Consecration to this Function may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest For there are two things wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priesthood differ which make a mighty alteration in this case The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical and Mediatory the Evangelical Priesthood is neither Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical much less to a Mediatory Priesthood but only such as have a divine appointment and designation to this Office for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery and the vertue of the Mediation is lost at least our absolute assurance of it if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission But now under the Gospel the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple without any shadows and figures and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Worship which requires peculiar and appropriate Persons and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men and therefore we need not any other Mediators of divine appointment in vertue of the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ every Christian is a Priest who may approach the Throne of Grace and offer up his prayers and thanksgivings in an acceptable manner to God Gospel-Ministers indeed are to pray for the People and to bless in God's name but they pray in no sense as Mediators but in the name of our great Mediatorâ— and that which makes their Prayers more effectual than the Prayers of a private Christian is that they are the publick Ministers of the Church and therefore offer up the Prayers of the Church which are more powerful than the Prayers of private Christians And therefore St. Austin reproves Parmenianus the Donatist for making the Bishop a Mediator between God and the People which no good Christian can endure the thoughts of but must needs account such a man rather to be Antichrist August contra ep Parmen l. 1. cap. 8. than an Apostle of Christ For all Christian men pray for each other but he who prays for all and none for him is the only and the true Mediator of whom the High Priest under the Law was a Type and therefore no man was to pray for the High-Priest But St. Paul who knew that Christ was our only Mediator who was entred into Heaven for us recommends himself to the Prayers of the Church and is so far from making himself a Mediator between God
understood how to do it The Administration of Baptism indeed is confined ordinarily to the Governors of the Church whereas the administration of Circumcision never was the peculiar Office of the Priest and the reason of this difference is plain because every Israelite by birth had a right to Circumcision and therefore there was no need of any Authority to receive them into the Church of Israel and the external Solemnity might be performed by any man but natural Generation does not give any man a right to Baptism but Faith in Christ and therefore it is fit that the Governors of the Church only should have Power to judge who are fit to be admitted into the Christian Church and therefore that the power of administring Baptism should be reserved in their hands but hence it appears that in administring the Sacraments they do not act as legal Covenanters in God's Name but as Governors of the Church 2. And this brings me to consider his Arguments from the Nature and Ends of Government which as far as I understand them amount to this That it is necessary for God to maintain and preserve the Authority of subordinate Governors That the Authority of Church Governors consists in the power of administring Sacraments which confer a Title to all the Priviledges and Graces of the Covenant That this Authority cannot be maintained if unauthorized Persons may validly administer the Sacraments and therefore we cannot suppose that God will countenance such an usurpation of Ecclesiastical Authority as to confirm and allow what is so illegally done Now in Answer to this I readily grant 1. That this is a very good Argument to prove that the Authority of administring Sacraments is in ordinary cases confined to the regular Clergy for indeed this is all the Authority Church Governors have to receive in and to put out of the Church and take away this and all Church-societies must immediately dissolve or hang together only by some arbitrary Compacts and Covenants which last as long as every man pleases But then 2. I observe that it is sufficient to secure the Authority and Government of the Church to confine the administration of Sacraments and all acts of Ecclesiastical Authority to Church-Governors where-ever there are such to be found For if no private man must presume to administer Sacraments in a constituted Church where there are Ecclesiastical Ministers though we grant Laicks the liberty of administring Sacraments where there are no regular Ministers to do it this can be no reasonable pretence for their invading the Ministerial Function or disturbing the Peace and Order of the Church where there are He who attributes the only valid Authority of administring Sacraments to the regular Clergy where there are such Persons to be found does as effectually secure the Authority of Church-Governors as he who makes it absolutely unlawful for private Christians in any case whatsoever to administer the Sacraments For the Authority of Church-governors is a meer notion without any effect where there are no such Governors and where there are their Authority is secure this way No man thinks it any injury to the Authority of Princes and Civil Governors to assert that every private man has liberty to defend his own Life and Fortune where he is not under the protection of Laws and publick Justice no more is it any invasion of the Authority of the Clergy for private Christians to do the Office of a Bishop or a Presbyter where there is no Bishop or Presbyter to do it No doubt but God is greatly concerned to maintain the Authority of Church-governors because the welfare and preservation of the Church depends on it but we cannot think the Rules of Order and Government are so strict as to dissolve the Society of the Church which it is designed to maintain If it be objected that it is very dangerous to Ecclesiastical Authority to grant the least indulgence or liberty to Laicks or an irregular Clergy in any case whatsoever to inermeddle in sacred Offices for they will always be apt to take more than is granted and thus that Liberty which is allowed in extraordinary cases will be improved into an ordinary usurpation of the Ministerial Office I answer It may be so and I know no way to prevent those ill Consequences which foolish Reasoners may draw from Truth it self nor that ill use which wild and giddy People may make of the justest Liberties but must we deny Truth or deny our own just Liberties and Rights for this reason But yet this is not the case here for there is a greater security of Ecclesiastical Authority than the Power of Sacraments its self and that is the necessary obligations to Catholick Communion which cannot be preserved without a just deference to Ecclesiastical Authority It may be lawful in some cases for Laicks to administer the Sacraments but it is never lawful for them to separate from their Governors or to oppose their Authority Should a company of private Christians on their own choice separate themselves from their Bishops and unite into a Church-Society this were a Church-Faction and Schism and all they did were null and void but if private Christians who live in Communion with their Bishops and own their Authority being reduced to that necessity that they cannot enjoy the Sacraments nor other religious Offices from Persons who have a regular Authority should administer the Sacraments themselves and celebrate religious Offices for their spiritual Comfort I cannot see that it is either Schism or Usurpation and the perpetual obligations to Catholick Communion will prevent both Indeed nothing can secure the Peace and Unity of the Church and the Authority of Ecclesiastical Governors but the necessity of Catholick Communion for the Unity of the Church and the just Authority of Bishops may be destroyed by an Episcopal as well as by a Presbyterian or a Lay Schism Thus it was by the Schism of the Donatists They were governed by Bishops as well as the Catholick Church and their Orders and Sacraments administred by them were allowed to be valid and yet they were Schismaticks and their Sacraments though valid with respect to the Authority which administred them yet without effect as administred in a Schism as I have already shewed from St. Austin And therefore that Father in his Writings against the Donatists does not oppose their Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders or of their Sacraments which is no argument against an Episcopal Schism though it be the only argument used by this learned man to shew the evil and danger of Schism but from their breach of Catholick Communion which made all their Sacraments though not invalid yet inefficacious So that Ecclesiastical Authority may be secured though we allow Laicks in case of necessity a liberty to administer Sacraments in the Unity and Communion of the Church It were easie to add a great deal more of this Nature but this is sufficient to my present design And the result of this
made the next Bishops and that his Project shall advance and not lessen the outward Power and Honour of Bishops But still we must have a care not to be cheated with a Name instead of the thing Are Mr. H.'s Bishops true Apostolical Bishops as the Bishops of the Church of England are Otherwise he may retain the Name of Bishops and yet destroy the Episcopacy of the Church of England And this is the plain truth of the Case Mr. H.'s Bishops are not Bishops of the Church but the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers acting circa sacra only by vertue of his Authority and Commission And therefore can exercise no other Authority in the Church than the King can which is not the Authority of a Bishop Mr. Humphrey's Bishops may be Lay-men as well as Ecclesiasticks for though called Bishops they cannot do any one Act of a primitive Bishop They have no Ecclesiastical Superiority over their Clergy but what the King has which used to be distinguish'd from the Authority of the Bishop They have not the Power of Ordination nor Confirmation as the King's Bishops whatever they may have as Congregational Bishops for the King has no Power to ordain or confirm They cannot excommunicate as Bishops as Mr. H. expresly asserts That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade but preserve the Power of the Keys invested in the Minister but given with the Pastor himself to the Church no more can the Diocesans that derive from him assume it to themselves and deprive the particular Churches of it And since Mr. H.'s Bishops have no proper Ecclesiastical Authority it is no wonder that they have no body to govern for these are all such Diocesan Bishops as have no Presbyters under them every Congregational Minister being a Congregational Bishop as Mr. H. owns Defence p. 260. c. These things I discoursed at large in the Defence and all that I am concerned for now is to observe how charitable Mr. H. is to the Church of England in his Materials for Union for he leaves the Church neither Bishops Presbyters nor Deacons If they can talk at this Rate when they cry out of Persecution and pretend to Petition for Peace what may we expect from them if they should be rampant once more We see they are the same men that ever they were when they covenanted against Root and Branch and have the Impudence at this time a day when they plead for Peace and Union for Toleration and Comprehension or other nameless Models to make Proposals for comprehending or tolerating any thing but the Church of England Upon these terms we may be at peace and unite with Dissenters if we will sacrifice not meerly some indifferent Ceremonies though they make a great noise about them as if they were the only Impediments but the Church of England it self to Peace and Unity which I hope will open mens eyes at length to see what these men would be at and I pray God it may be before it be too late 2. As Mr. H's Materials for Union overthrows the present Constitution of the Church of England so it sets up no National Church in the room of it This is his great design I confess to make a National Church of all the divided and separated Congregations in England which he thinks may be done by the vertue of an Act of Parliament I would says he have all our Assemblies that are tolerable to be made legal by such an Act and thereby parts of the National Church as well as the Parochial Congregations But though the Power of an Act of Parliament I confess is very great yet it cannot reconcile Contradictions nor make Division to be Union nor a great many Schismatical Conventicles which divide from one another to be one Church For a Church is a Communion of Christians a Parochial Congregation is a Parochial Communion a Diocesan Church is a Diocesan Communion a National Church is a National Communion and the Catholick Church is one Catholick Communion as I have proved at large in the Defence but Communion is always essential to the notion of a Church of what denomination soever Now suppose a Parliament should by Law establish Presbyterian and Independent Churches of all sorts as well as the Church of England yet how can an Act of Parliament make them all one National Communion when after such an Act they would remain as much divided and separated from one another and from the Church of England as they are now and the design of such an Act of Parliament is to make it lawful or legal for them to continue so Are the Presbyterian and Independent Congregations one Communion with themselves or with the Church of England now If they be why do they complain for want of Union If they be not will such an Act of Parliament which establishes the Schism and makes it a Law make them unite into one Communion No man knows indeed what may be because these men love to act in contradiction to Laws and possibly may grow out of love with Schism when it is made the Law of the Land but if they do not how are they more united into one Communion by such a Law than they are without it If their Churches Government Discipline Worship be all distinct and separate and contrary to each other what a strange kind of Communion is this Every Member of the National Church is a Member of the whole National Church but can a Presbyterian Independent or Episcopal Church be Members of one another By what name shall we call this Monster It is neither an Independent Presbyterian nor Episcopal Church but one National Church which consists of as heterogeneous parts as Nebuchadnezar's Image or like some monstrous Birth with the Head of a man the Paws of a Bear and the Tail of a Serpent Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne An Act of Parliament may give a legal establishment to all these divided Churches as the Popish and Protestant Churches of France are both established by the Laws of the Land but does this make French Papists and Protestants to be one National Church Mr. H. according to his Principles must assert them both to be but one National Church but he will have but little thanks for it neither from Papists nor Protestants Not from Papists who call the French Protestants Schismaticks and therefore do not own them to be any part of their National Church nor from the Protestants who do as much abhor to be thought Members of the Popish Church and yet this is such a legal National Church as Mr. H. contends for united under one Prince who according to his Principles is the accidental Head of this accidental National Church and yet this Union does not cure the Schism for they still are two distinct and separate Churches and are accounted Schismaticks to each other There are but two or three things so far as I can observe whereon Mr. H. founds this National Union
between all these divided and separate Churches 1. That they are all united under the King as the constitutive Regent Head of the National Church And this I grant makes them all legal Churches as he speaks or legal parts of the Church but it does not make them one Church You may as well say that England Scotland and Ireland are one Kingdom because they are united under one Prince or that all the Corporations in England are one National Corporation though they have distinct Charters and different Priviledges and Immunities Nothing is National but what extends to the whole Nation and where several Churches are established by Law there can be no one National Church though they be all under the Government of the same Prince because there is no one Church-Constitution for all the Churches in the Nation to be governed by which is the notion of a National Church in the sense we now speak of 2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches is by the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls Bishops who have an equal supervising care of them all Their work in general being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and to the Peace of one another Now that this cannot make them one National Church will appear from these Considerations 1. That these Bishops though they may be Ecclesiastical Persons yet are not properly Ecclesiastical but Civil Officers they act not by an Ecclesiastical Authority but are Ministers of the Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs as I have already shewn and therefore if their Union under one Prince cannot make them one Church much less can their Union under the King's Ministers 2. Suppose they were true Primitive Bishops yet where there are separate Churches in any Diocess they cannot all live in Communion with their Bishop and therefore cannot be one Church For Communion with the Bishop is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church as I have proved in the Defence Defence p 469. c. A supervising Power not to govern the Church according to his own Judgment and Conscience but to see that they govern themselves according to their own Forms and Models is no Episcopal Authority much less any Act of Church-Communion Those only communicate with their Bishop who submit to his Pastoral Authority and partake with him in all Religious Offices and those who do not according to the notion of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and therefore not of the same Church with him It is a very different thing to be a meer Visitor and a Bishop and it is as different a thing to be in Communion with a Bishop and to be subject to the Visitations of the King 's Ecclesiastical Minister and therefore a supervising Power cannot make those one Church who are of different Communions 3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take to make some leading Dissenters Bishops it is still more evident that they could in no sense make a National Church because the Bishops of the Church would be of different Communions For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another which unite all their Churches into a National Patriarchal Ibid. cap. 7. 8. or Catholick Church as I have proved in the Defence This is abundantly enough to shew that Mr. H.'s Episcopal Visiters cannot make a National Church 4. Another way Mr. H. proposes to unite all these Churches into one National Church is by the Vertue of occasional Communion That when a man hath his choice to be of one Church which he will in regard to fixed Communion he should occasionally come also to the other for maintaining this National Vnion But 1. No occasional Acts of Communion can unite Churches of distinct and separate Communions To be in Communion with a Church is to be a member of it no man ought to communicate with any Church of which he is not a Member and no Acts of Communion can unite Churches which do not make them Members of each other as I have also proved in the Defence and therefore such occasional Acts of Communion Ibid. p 132 c can contribute nothing to a National Union 2. Of what nature shall this occasional Communion be Shall they communicate in all Acts of Worship or only hear a Sermon now and then together If in all Acts of Worship why should there be distinct Communions at any time Why cannot he communicate always with that Church with which he can communicate in all Acts of Worship some times If our occasional Communion be only in some few less material Acts this makes no Union of Churches for if there be any Acts of Worship wherein they can at no time communicate with each other no man will say such Churches are united in one Communion 3. What is the meaning of this should would Mr. H. have an Act of Parliament to enjoyn this occasional Communion and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity For it requires Uniformity sometimes and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful why should it not be made always necessary If Mr. H. by should only intimates what he would have them do what then if they won't notwithstanding his should What will become of this National Union then This occasional Communion is either necessary to this National Union or it is not If it be not necessary why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for National Union If it be how will he prove that all Dissenters will occasionally communicate with each other and with the Church of England 3. Mr. H.'s project for Union will cure no one Schism and therefore can make no Union This is evident from what I have already discours'd for if it cannot make one Church it cannot cure the Schism where there are two distinct and separate Churches which are not Members of each other there is a Schism for Church-Unity consists in one Communion as I have abundantly proved in the Defence Defence chap. 4. Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be confirmed by Act of Parliament it would be neither better nor worse than either an Universal or a limited Toleration as they can agree that matter among themselves established by Law Nay should such an Act declare that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church the Power of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words but it cannot alter the Nature of things They would still be as many Churches as they are now but could never be one Church though they might be called a National Church as that may be made to signifie all the Churches of professed Christians in the Nation established by Law Such an Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from temporal Punishments and might deliver them from the sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors but the guilt of Schism will remain still unless he thinks that the Donatists were not Schismaticks when Julian the
A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
the Pope of Rome and all Communion with him are these men Papists or not If they be then it seems that those who renounce the Pope may be Papists still and then let Mr. Lob and his Friends look to themselves who are in as fair a way of being Papists as any men I know notwithstanding their renouncing the Pope of Rome and General Councils if they be not Papists then they are not French Papists unless French Papists be no Papists But Mr. Lob if he had been at all acquainted with these Matters would easily have perceived that all who plead for the supreme Authority of General Councils do not therein renounce the Authority of the Pope of Rome and therefore are Papists still call them French or Cassandrian Papists or what you please and that those who renounce the Authority and all dependance on the Pope can be no Papists how zealous soever they are for the Authority of General Councils It were easie to discourse largely upon this Argument but a few plain Proofs are as good as a thousand Mr. Lob instances in the Councils of Constance and Basil but if he had ever seen more than the Names of those Councils he would have found how little they served his purpose I grant they do decree that a General Council is above the Pope in determining Matters of Faith in composing Schisms and in reforming the Church in its Head and Members but still they attribute such a soveraign Authority to the Bishop of Rome as no Power on Earth can equal or match but only a General Council This is so evident and notorious that whoever casually opens these Councils can hardly miss of something to this purpose and therefore I shall only produce two or three plain and undeniable Proofs of it and refer my Readers who desire farther satisfaction to the Councils themselves When Amedeus the Duke of Savoy who called himself Felix the 5th was elected Pope by the Council of Basil they call his Office summus Apostolatus the chief Apostleship or the supreme Bishoprick Declarans eidem Electo tanquam unico vero indubitato ecclesiae Romanae Pastori ab omnibus Christi sidelibus de necessitate salutis obediendum fore debere obediri ac eisdem Christi sidelibus quacunque etiamsi Imperiali Cardinalatus Patriarchali Regali Pontificali Abbatiali seu alia quavis ecclesiaslica vel mundana prefulgiant dignitate Concil Basil sess 40. and declare to all Christian People that they must obey him as the only the true the undoubted Pastor of the Roman Church under the necessity of Salvation and that whatever their Rank and Quality be Emperors Cardinals Patriarchs Kings Bishops Abbots or whatever other Ecclesiastical or Civil Honour or Power they enjoy They acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to have the executive Ecclesiastical Power in his hands Romanus Pontifex decretorum bujufmodi Executer Conservator precipuus Ib. sess 42. summi pontificatus apicem and call the Popedom the Top of Ecclesiastical Power and Nicholas the 5th who after all this stir Libenter secundum nostrae Apostolicae authoritatis plenitudinem Bulla Nicolai Papae 5. in Conc. Bas was owned Pope by this Council in his Bull of Confirmation of the Council of Basil attributes to himself a fulness and plenitude of Power But to put this out of doubt the Council it self has adjusted this Dispute about the Authority of the Pope and a General Council for after some debate about this Matter it concludes Who now can doubt of the Power of Councils Quis jam de potestate Corciliorum super omnes alias potestates ambigere poterit tot irrefragabilibus testimoniis comprobata ex his manifeste constat anctoritates quas de summi porestate Pontificis allegastis non probare quo minus ipse Pontifex mandetis universalis ecclesiae Concilii generalis obedire teneatur sed id duntaxat probant quod omnes singulares homines particulares ecclesiae ipsi Pontifici obedire debent nisi in his quae huic sacrae synodo cuilibet alteri legitimè congregatae praejudicium generent concil Basil responsio synodalis de auctor Concil General being Superior to all other Powers which has been proved by such irrefragable Testimonies from whence it manifestly appears that those Authorities which have been alleadged for the Power of the Supream Bishop do not prove that the Pope himself is not bound to obey the Decrees of the Vniversal Church or General Council but they prove only this that all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such Matters as are prejudicial to this Holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled This is sufficient to inform Mr. Lob that men may assert the Authority of General Councils and yet if they reject the Authority of the Bishop of Rome they are not Papists nor true Catholicks in the sense of the Councils of Constance and Basil both which ascribe the soveraign Authority to the Pope in the vacancies of Councils and command all men under pain of Damnation even Emperors Patriarchs Princes Prelates to obey him in all things which are not derogatory to the Decrees or Authority of general Councils But it may be the French Church has proceeded farther in retrenching the Authority of the Pope than the Council of Constance or Basil did and therefore since Mr. Lob talks so much of French Papists I shall briefly shew his skill in this also I presume Petrus de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris who writ in Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church is a good competent Witness in this Matter and yet in his Book de Concordia sacerdotii Imperii which met with so many Censures at Rome and so difficultly passed the Test and kept him so long out of his Bishoprick he asserts the Authority of the Pope much higher than cither of those Councils and to shorten my Work I shall only set down some Propositions which he himself collected out of his Book in answer to the Roman Censure 1. 1 Supremam in rebus ecclesiasticis authoritatem per Gallias exerâ—aisse Komanum pontificem judiciis ad relationes appellationes redditis ab eo tempore quo fides Christiana in Galliis floruit ad hanc usque aetatem That the Bishop of Rome has always exercised the chief Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Gallican Churches ever since Christianity flourished there 2. 2. Papam jure divino esse universalis ecclesiae caput atque adeo Gallicanae quae illius est membrum That the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church by divine Right and therefore of the Gallican Church which is a Member of the Universal Church 3. 3 Generalia decreta a Romanis Pontificibus in Gallias aequè ac in reliquas provincias missa quae magno applausu ab Imperatoribus Romanis deinde à Francorum regibus post constitutum regnum usque ad hanc
the World and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation one National Church and all the separate Churches in the World one Catholick Church For 1. they assert that a particular Congregation associated for local presential Communion under a fixed Pastor is the only Church of Divine institution which I have at large confuted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the Defence and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet as to attempt the least Reply 2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church not by any Union among themselves but by being all united in Christ who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church there is no need they should be all united to one another to make one Catholick Church so they be all united to Christ the Head of the Church Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication 3. It hence follows that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them are original Churches of Divine Institution and no one Church or Pastor has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Politie that That should be called one Political Body which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head that is one superior Power over the whole Body either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superior Authority to govern the rest which would make the Church a Monarchy nor united all Pastors into one governing Head which should govern the whole Church and their own Members by a major Vote which is an Aristocracy nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People which is a Democracy it is evident that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head and therefore cannot be one Political National Church which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation from the National Church of England when there is and can be no such thing in a proper Ecclesiastical sense 4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King as the accidental Head of the Church who is the supreme Head and Governor of the Church in his Dominions And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation but the Laws of the Land and the Supremacy of the King it is the Creature of the supreme Power which made it and may unmake it again when it pleaseth 5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Constitution but to give a legal Establishment to the different Sects and Parties among us at least to all those which are tolerable which shall be under the Government of the King's Ministers whether Lay or Clergy in Ecclesiastical affairs and thus all the Dissenters which are now among us as much as they dissent from the present Constitution of the Church of England and from each other shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England under the King as an accidental Head and thus the Schism which we so much complain of is effectually cured according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union which shall be particularly examined in their due place This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue and that the impartial Reader may the better judge where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles upon which I oppose this As 1. That Christ hath but one Church which we call the Catholick Church and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregational Churches which are Churches not considered as independent Congregations but as Members of the Catholick Church which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence and the 1st Chap. of this Vindication 2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church as united in one Catholick Communion as I have proved in the 4th Chapter of the Defence and the 2d Chapter of this Vindication 3. That the Church is a Society under Government has a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and Christian People those who are governed 4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess 5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communion with each other that is as Members of the same great Body the Catholick Church and every Bishop as far as possibly he can must govern his particular Church and Diocess by the mutual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops 6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Churches considered as Churches or pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal Metropolitical or National Churches which signifies no more than the voluntary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association for the better Preservation of one Communion by mutual Advice and Counsel Concord and Agreement in Worship Discipline and Government 7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general Consent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Metropolitans 8. That yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion not Aristocratical because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Oases necessarily determined and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion and as far as possibly he can he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order but if they should decree any thing which he judges prejudicial to his Church he is bound not to comply with them
controversie rest there then and we will leave it to wiser men to judge between us But Mr. B. and Mr. H. do not agree about that Citation It shall not be so among you Mr. B. thinks it a hopeful Citation and is agreed with me about it Mr. H. sayes none but such a forward one would have alleadged it to this purpose let them now agree this Matter between themselves For now I shall leave Mr. B. a while to hear what Mr. H. says to the main Dispute He undertook in Answer to the Dean to produce an Argument for the Proof of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church which Mr. B. was so subtil as to prove only by a Definition His Argument was this There is a Government in the Church of England Where there is a Government H's answer to Doctor Still p. 12. there must be a Political Society every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens subdita If the Church of England then be a Political Church it must have a Regent part and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned To this I answered Defence p. 565. by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church and if all Government made a Political Society then a National Church may be owned to be a Political Society for Government by consent without superiority is Government That Church Governors united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans Christian People in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head The plain meaning of which is this That there is a Government in the Church as every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church which is but one Government because all Bishops are bound by the Laws of our Saviour to govern their particular Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel and one Consent as far as is necessary to the ends of Catholick Communion and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church or Bishop or Colledge of Bishops over all the Churches and Bishops of the Christian World which is what Mr. B. calls a constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church Here Mr. H. disputes with great Triumph and wonders I should applaud the Dean for denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church considered as a Church for that is the state of the Question which he is willing to conceal when I my self have asserted such a Head viz. Reply p. 131. a Colledge of Bishops governing by consent But his mistake in this matter has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Lob and he has added nothing new to deserve a new Consideration He says p. 132. I understand the term Political to be commensurate with Civil but I say I never did understand it so and deny the Church to be a Political Society only in Mr. B's notion of Political who asserts that every Political body must have one supreme Regent Head over the Whole which the Church has not which is one by one Communion not by one supreme Power He says I have found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not one Head as well as one that is Monarchical Yes no doubt but it is but I neither know such a Collective nor Monarchical Head But do I not assert p. 133. That a National Church is a Political Society Yes I do assert that if Government as distinguisht from one constitutive Regent Head makes a Political Society then the Church which is a governed Society is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority i. e. without one supreme Regent Head is Government But if I grant a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledge or Cyprians one Episcopacy as the governing Part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then I have found out a constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christs institution For an united Colledge of Bishops for Government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head I need give no new Answer to this having already sufficiently explained what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy and the Colledge of Bishops which is far enough from being such an Ecclesiastical constitutive Regent Head of the Church But to return to Mr. Baxter Answer to Dr. Sherl p. 205. he makes great sport with that Proposition that Government by consent without superiority over the pars Subdita or over the People who must be subject to this Government it is governing sine jure regendi But then I hope we break not the 5th Commandment by disobeying them But this I suppose was only to shew his skill in Drollery and in turning plain sence into non-sence I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sence It were well indeed for him that Bishops had no Authority to govern for then as he well observes they might be Schismaticks without sin But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfie any man though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatick Zeal And therefore he adds But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another Ans And verily doth the Church of England think that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head or summa Potestas or form of Policy Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another as such Or hath the Venetian Senate Or the Polonian Parliament men Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof but ipse dixit See how all Politicks are damned with the non-Conformists for making Aristocracy a Species of Policy But I pray you use them not all for it as hardly as you use us But really thus much of the World is governed Mr. B. I see as Mr. H. says is a man who understands Politicks and I dare not pretend to so much skill in the Roman Venetian or Polonian government but this I think I can safely say as little as I know of them that the Colledg of Bishops is neither one nor t'other nor any kind of Aristocracy for when I speak of a Government without superiority that is without a supreme constitutive Regent Head which was the Subject of the Dispute it is as wild to imagine that I mean an Aristocracy which is such a Regent Head as that by without superiority I mean governing without superiority over the pars Subdita But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently when by a perverse Comment he has made him speak or write non-sence which must be acknowledged the best way of confuting Books when he cannot confute the true and genuine sense of them But as to the thing when I say
knows not he says how Agreement and Concord differ nor among themselves and with each other Nor it may be Answer p. 212. is there any material difference between them but is this such an unpardonable fault to use Synonomous words especially when a man has to deal with such cavillers It is a good sign Mr. B. has no great matter to say when he condescends to play at so low a game 1. But he adds does this man dream that no Bishops are Christians and Catholicks that have any disagreement That is no two in the World I hope many Bishops agree better than Mr. B. thinks they do who agreeing with no body himself judges of others by his own wrangling humour But yet I believe Bishops may disagree about many things and yet preserve the Concord and Unity of the Episcopacy in one Catholick Communion St. Cyprian I am sure thought this very possible when he allows of such differences without breaking Communion and that in so high a point as the rebaptization of Hereticks 2. But is Communion of Bishops only necessary to Church-unity Why not of Presbyters also Communion of Presbyters with their Bishop is essential to the Unity of a particular Church as I had discoursed in the 6th Chapter of the Defence but the Union of one Church with another principally consists in the Agreement and Concord of Bishops who are the chief Governors of their Churches And those Presbyters who live in Communion with their Bishop are supposed to live in Communion with those who are in Communion with him Or if any Presbyter should dissent this makes no schism between the Churches only makes him himself a Schismatick 3. But says Mr. B. Who doubts but there must be Communion I am glad to hear this is out of doubt I assure him I do not doubt of it But the Question is whether it must be in or under an Aristocratical Soveraign But whose Question is this Sir It is none of mine for I always denyed it and made no question about it I suppose you would have said this should have been the Question and then you had had something to say to it It is a troublesome thing I confess to meet with a perverse Disputant who denies wrong and chooses that side of the Question which we are not prepared to oppose Well but I assert out of St. Cyprian That no man can have the Authority or Honour of a Bishop who does not preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Episcopacy that is who does not live in Vnity with his fellow-Fellow-Bishops Here Mr. B. suppresses the name of St. Cyprian whose Authority is venerable in the Christian Church and leaves out the Peace and Vnity of the Episcopacy and is resolved to confute this raw pitiful notion under the name of Sherlock not of St. Cyprian and thus he assaults it Ans But what Vnity No one that liveth not in a Vnion in the essentials of Christianity and Ministry But Chrysostom and Theophilus Alex. and Epiphanius might all be Bishops though they had much discord and condemned one another And so might Cyril and Memnon and Johan Antioch and Theodoret and the Orthodox and the Novatians and the Eastern and Western Bishops since and the Old and the New sort of English Bishops if they differ not totâ Specie I wondered this totâ Specie did not come in before For these Quarrels and Contentions of Diocesan Bishops is one principal Argument whereby Mr. B. proves that they differ totâ Specie from the true Apostolical i. e. Parochial Bishops and we have got some ground by this that he owns they may be Bishops notwithstanding they had much Discord and condemned one another As for the Novatian Bishops who were guilty of a formal Schism from the Catholick Church they may be called Bishops as the Novatian People might be called Christians which I have already given a particular Account of from St. Austin but they were not Catholick Bishops as the Novatians were not Catholick Christians though for ought I perceive Mr. B. thinks the Novatians as good Bishops as the Orthodox As for the Case of St. Chrysostom Theophilus Alexandrinus and Epiphanius that was a personal Quarrel and though this indeed destroyed that Unity which ought to have been maintained between these good men who were all of them Bishops yet it did not destroy the Peace and Vnity of the Episcopacy which was the only Unity of Bishops I asserted necessary to Catholick Communion though Mr. B. was pleased to conceal that to make his Argument appear more plausible The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in this that all Bishops live in the Communion of the same Church as members of the same Body and as near as they can govern their Churches by mutual Advice and Consent This St. Chrysostom and Theophilus and Epiphanius did in the height of their Quarrel They owned the same Church and governed their respective Churches by the same Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons which preserved served the Unity of the Episcopacy But Theophilus had a personal Quarrel against St. Chrysostom and drew Epiphanius and some other Bishops to his side and did at last prevail so far as to depose him very undeservedly This was a very great fault in these good men a very scandalous breach between these Bishops but no Schism in the Episcopacy For they still acknowledged the same Order the same Communion and the same Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline But of this more anon I observed in the Defence Defence p. 596. that there were several ways whereby this Communion among Bishops was expressed and maintained As 1. By writing Letters to and receiving Letters from one another about Church-Affairs and I instanced in their sending the names of any Bishops elected into vacant Sees that they might know who were Catholick Bishops and who not To this Mr. B. answers 1. So do the Independents and Presbyterians what do they do Write Letters No doubt of it And so did the Novatians and the Donatists and yet were Schismaticks for all that And this was one reason why the Catholick Bishops gave an account to each other who were their Colleagues that so they might be aware of the Letters of Schismaticks I hope it is no argument that Catholick Bishops cannot express and maintain Catholick Communion by such Letters because Schismaticks may in the same way maintain a Schismatical Confederacy But says Mr. B. do none this i. e. write Letters but a Soveraign Senate Yes particular Bishops did as I instanced in St. Cyprian who sent a Catalogue of the names of Catholick Bishops to Cornelius But 2. Is this the Communion that unifyeth the Church I hope it is a Church and men are members of it before they write Letters No doubt at all But did I say that the Communion of the Church consisted in writing Letters or that it was expressed and maintained by it Mr. B. is a very unhappy man at distinctions he can never find a good distinction when
his Substitute together and to impose upon his ignorant Proselytes By making indifferent things necessary to Salvation the Dean plainly meant that they taught that those things which were indeed indifferent though not acknowledged so by them had such a natural and moral or instituted vertue and efficacy to our Salvation that without observing of them no man can be saved that they are necessary to Salvation as any other necessary and essential part or duty of Religion is the neglect of which meerly upon account of such a neglect will damn us Now does the Dean does his Substitute does the Church of England teach indifferent things to be necessary in this sence to have an immediate and direct influence upon our Salvation Can any man in his wits who owns these things to be indifferent in the same breath assert them to be necessary in this sense And therefore Mr. Lob's Argument is a ridiculous Sophism or as Mr. H. speaks has four terms in it For necessary to Salvation in the Major Proposition signifies very differently from necessary to Salvation in the Minor Proposition and thus the Dean and his Substitute are reconciled But 2. How shall I bring my self off for though I do not assert a direct necessity of indifferent things to Salvation yet I bring in a necessity at a back Door and necessity is necessity and if it be a damning necessity it is no matter of what kind and nature the necessity be I make Communion with the Church of England necessary to Salvation and indifferent observances are necessary to the Communion of the Church of England and therefore are themselves necessary to Salvation But yet I doubt not to make it appear that though the Church of England does require the observance of such indifferent things from all in her Communion yet she makes these things in no sense necessary to Salvation For 1. In many cases she does not charge the bare not observing such indifferent Rites with any guilt and therefore is far enough from making them necessary to Salvation Such indifferent things are not enjoyned for their own sake but for the sake of publick Order and Decency and therefore when they can be neglected without publick Scandal and Offence without a contempt of the Government without the guilt of Schism and Separation it is no fault nor accounted such by the Church And yet did she enjoyn these things as necessary to Salvation they would equally oblige in all times and in all cases without exception 2. Though Schism be a damning sin yet the imposition of such indifferent things is no necessary cause of a Schismatical Separation Men may communicate in all or in most parts of Christian Worship with the Church of England without assenting to such unscriptural Impositions or yielding any active obedience to them and I suppose Mr. Lob will confess that there is a very material difference between an active and passive Obedience in doubtful cases The terms of Lay-Communion are as easie as ever they were in any setled and constituted Church as for publick Forms of Prayer I must except them out of the number of indifferent things for they have at least equal Authority and are infinitely more expedient not to say necessary for publick Worship than their ex tempore Prayers And then what is there required of a private Christian to do to qualifie him for Church-Communion if he does not like the Surplice he does not wear it himself and let the Minister look to that What hurt is it to Parents or their Children to submit to the Authority of the Church in using the sign of the Cross in Baptism They only offer their Children to be baptized if the Minister does something more than what they think necessary and expedient let the Church look to that which enjoyns it Private Christians who have not Authority to alter publick Constitutions are not concerned in that So that there is but one Ceremony wherein they are required to be active and that is receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper kneeling which men thus peaceably disposed may easily be satisfied in the lawfulness and fitness of and till they can be satisfied may more innocently abstain from the Lord's Table and joyn in all other parts of Christian Worship than they can separate from the Church So that these indifferent things can be no just cause for any private Christians to separate and if notwithstanding they do separate and are damned for it they must not charge these innocent Ceremonies with their Damnation And as for those who cannot conform as Ministers they may and most of them own they can conform as Lay-men and therefore these Ceremonies are no cause of their Separation 3. Suppose men do take occasion from the Disputes and Quarrels about indifferent things to separate from the Church and be damned for it yet they are not damned for not observing such indifferent Customs though that may be the remote occasion of it but for their pride and self-conceit for their disobedience to their Superiors for their dividing the unity of the Church and disturbing the peace of it Suppose two men should be so well employed as to play at push-pin and should quarrel and fight and one should be killed and the other hanged would you say this man was hanged for playing at push-pin Thus it is here it is not the occasion which peevish 〈◊〉 take to divide the Church which must be charged with their Damnation but their Pride their Faction their Obstinacy their Disobedience and ungovernable temper of mind which takes such small occasions to divide and disturb the Church If Mr. Lob does not think this enough in answer to his Argument I think he is a little unreasonable III. Our Author has another device still to prove from my own Concessions that Dissenters are not Schismaticks He says that Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson now two learned and reverend Prelates whose bare Authority I confess is more considerable to me than all our Author's Arguments in a Conference with the Papists Reply p. 82. assert That a Superiors unjust casting out of the Church is Schismatical And this I heartily assent to But according to my notion the Church of England is guilty of such impositions and does unjustly excommunicate Dissenters This I utterly deny But let us hear how Mr. Lob proves it 1. He says That the Impositions are sinful is evident in that indifferent things as has been proved are made necessary to Salvation But I presume the Reader will see that this has not been proved yet and therefore it is not evident I will only ask our Author whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excommunications mean excommunicating those who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indifferent things If they don't as it is evident they don't he only abuses them and his Readers by their Authority 2. That the Church of England excommunicates unjustly he says is very demonstrable even in that
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