this Body if we will enjoy Union and Communion with Christ 3. When he places the Unity of the Catholick Church in the Union of all single Persons and Churches in and to Christ he must either mean this of an external and visible Union to Christ by an external and visible profession of Faith in him or a real internal mystical Union 1. If he mean the First an external and visible Union to Christ I observe that this can neither be made nor be known but by something which is external and visible We cannot know that any Society of men is the Church of Christ but by their external profession of Faith in him and subjection to him nor can we know that a hundred Societies are the same Church but by some common Profession and Practise and if by the Institution of our Saviour one Communion be essential to the Notion of one Church as I have abundantly proved it is then the visible Union of all Churches in and to Christ consists in their visible Communion with each other 2. If he mean a mystical internal Union I have two things to say to him 1. This makes the Catholick Church invisible for if the Unity of the Catholick Church consists only in the Union of all Churches in Christ and this Union be a mystical invisible Union then the Catholick Church it self must be invisible too 2. Though particular Christians may be thus mystically united to Christ yet no particular Churches are thus united to Christ much less all the particular Churches in the World unless you will say that none belong to the Church but those Persons who are true and sincere Christians which reduces the Church to the invisible number of the Elect and destroyes not only the Visibility but in many cases the Organization of the Church on Earth for I fear the Pastors and Governours of the visible Church are not alwayes invisibly united to Christ and therefore according to this way of arguing it is not visible whether Christ have an organical Church on Earth which shows how absurd it is to place the Unity of the Catholick Church in this invisible Union of particular Churches to Christ I may add 3. That no men are thus visibly united to Christ who are not visible Members of the Catholick Church and do not live in visible Communion with it when it may be had for otherwise we destroy the necessity of a visible Church or of a visible Profession and Practise of Christian Communion even in particular Churches Which shows that the Notion of Catholick Unity and a Catholick Church does not consist in such an invisible Union to Christ for our invisible Union to Christ necessarily supposes our visible Communion with his Church and since Christ hath but one Church it requires our visible Communion with the Catholick Church and this supposes that there is a visible Catholick Church of a distinct Consideration from the invisible Church of the Elect which therefore cannot be founded on an invisible Union to Christ but on something which is visible such an external Profession and external Communion as may be seen The sum is this No Church can be the Church of Christ but upon account of some Union to him either visible or invisible or both but that which makes all the Churches of the World the one Church and Body of Christ must be an Union amongst themselves which I have proved consists in one Catholick Communion What Mr. B. farther adds proceeding upon the same Mistake needs no particular Answer and what deserves any farther Examination will fall in under another Head But Mr. Lob I confess has pinched harder in this Cause having alleadged some venerable Names in the Church of England against me Arch-bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker Dr. Field all very great men to whose Memories I cannot but pay a just Reverence and Respect But yet if it should appear that my Notion of Catholick Communion should differ from theirs as I think it does in some Points from Arch-bishop Bramhal's while I have the Authority of Scripture and the primitive Church I think my self very safe notwithstanding the dissent of any modern Doctors of what note soever Only hence we may learn with what Judgment and Honesty Mr. Lob charges me with carrying on the Cassandrian Design when I differ from the Arch-bishop in those very Points for which he was though very unjustly charged with it But let us examine Particulars I assert that all Christians and Christian Churches in the World are one Body Society or Church and this is called Catholick Communion because it obliges them all to communicate in all the external Offices and Duties of Religion and Church-Society and Membership as occasion offers especially neighbour-Christians are bound to live together in external Communion with that Church in which they are and that whoever causelesly separates from any Church which lives in Catholick Communion is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church Mr. Lob to avoid this Reply to the Defence p. 14 alledges the Authority of Arch-bishop Bramhal and triumphs over me after his usual rate for not having con'd my Lesson well nor sufficiently digested my Notions which he supposes I learnt though very imperfectly from this great Master he tells me This great Prelate uses several distinctions about Communion which would have been for my purpose and rectification Though whoever reads my Book will find that I was not ignorant of these Distinctions but did not think them to my purpose The Bishop sayes Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England Tom. 2. Disc 2. P. 57. The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external And do I any where deny this The Question only is whether internal Communion will excuse men from the guilt of Schism who separate from the external Communion of the Church when it may be had without sin And this I deny and do not see where the Bishop asserts the contrary But let us hear what internal Communion is which he sayes consists principally in these things To believe the same entire substance of saving necessary Truth revealed by the Apostles and to be ready implicitely in the Preparation of the mind to imbrace all other supernatural Verities when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them to judge charitably of one another And do not I also expresly say Defence p. 171. that the same Faith and mutual Love and Charity are the Bonds and Ligaments of Christian Vnion p. 172. That the Vnity of Faith must be acknowledged as absolutely necessary to the Vnity of Christians for Hereticks are no Members of the Christian Church But we must exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first general Councils and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Here Mr. Lob makes a Query Whether seeing the Faith
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
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
the World and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation one National Church and all the separate Churches in the World one Catholick Church For 1. they assert that a particular Congregation associated for local presential Communion under a fixed Pastor is the only Church of Divine institution which I have at large confuted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the Defence and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet as to attempt the least Reply 2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church not by any Union among themselves but by being all united in Christ who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church there is no need they should be all united to one another to make one Catholick Church so they be all united to Christ the Head of the Church Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication 3. It hence follows that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them are original Churches of Divine Institution and no one Church or Pastor has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Politie that That should be called one Political Body which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head that is one superior Power over the whole Body either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superior Authority to govern the rest which would make the Church a Monarchy nor united all Pastors into one governing Head which should govern the whole Church and their own Members by a major Vote which is an Aristocracy nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People which is a Democracy it is evident that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head and therefore cannot be one Political National Church which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation from the National Church of England when there is and can be no such thing in a proper Ecclesiastical sense 4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King as the accidental Head of the Church who is the supreme Head and Governor of the Church in his Dominions And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation but the Laws of the Land and the Supremacy of the King it is the Creature of the supreme Power which made it and may unmake it again when it pleaseth 5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Constitution but to give a legal Establishment to the different Sects and Parties among us at least to all those which are tolerable which shall be under the Government of the King's Ministers whether Lay or Clergy in Ecclesiastical affairs and thus all the Dissenters which are now among us as much as they dissent from the present Constitution of the Church of England and from each other shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England under the King as an accidental Head and thus the Schism which we so much complain of is effectually cured according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union which shall be particularly examined in their due place This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue and that the impartial Reader may the better judge where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles upon which I oppose this As 1. That Christ hath but one Church which we call the Catholick Church and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregational Churches which are Churches not considered as independent Congregations but as Members of the Catholick Church which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence and the 1st Chap. of this Vindication 2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church as united in one Catholick Communion as I have proved in the 4th Chapter of the Defence and the 2d Chapter of this Vindication 3. That the Church is a Society under Government has a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and Christian People those who are governed 4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess 5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communion with each other that is as Members of the same great Body the Catholick Church and every Bishop as far as possibly he can must govern his particular Church and Diocess by the mutual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops 6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Churches considered as Churches or pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal Metropolitical or National Churches which signifies no more than the voluntary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association for the better Preservation of one Communion by mutual Advice and Counsel Concord and Agreement in Worship Discipline and Government 7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general Consent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Metropolitans 8. That yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion not Aristocratical because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Oases necessarily determined and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion and as far as possibly he can he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order but if they should decree any thing which he judges prejudicial to his Church he is bound not to comply with them
because the chief Care of his Church is committed to him and he cannot so intirely give away the Government of it to others From whence it appears that all the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Colledge as shall by a supreme Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the Form of Aristocratical Government And for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the government of a Democratical Head for if the Colledge of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt Colledge of Bishops and People Let any impartial Reader now judge wherein I contradict my self in this Scheme of Church Government I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society to have a pars Imperans Subdita for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is governed by parts I deny that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop or Colledge of Bishops as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction though contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience but yet the Episcopacy is one because all Bishops have the same Power and are bound to live in the same Communion and to govern their several Churches by mutual Advice and Consent and in order to this may unite themselves in stricter Associations and Confederacies under such Rules of Government as do not encroach upon the unalienable Rights and Power of the Episcopacy And this is sufficient to make them one Church for if the Catholick Church be one by one Catholick Communion why may not the National Church be one by one Communion And those guilty of Schism who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches though it were not backt by any Civil Authority or humane Laws And now I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey but I must beg his patience for the sake of others who are very unwilling to understand these Matters while I particularly apply what I have now discoursed in Answer to them being ashamed that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes by so frequent a Repetition of the same things but I consider it is better to do this effectually once than to be obliged to write as often as these men can spit Books The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England in Answer to which Question who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England I 1. distinguished between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question and though I know not any one thing that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th Chapter of the Defence yet this being the Chief and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on to shew their great Abilities I shall briefly review this Dispute in the same Method which I before observed that I may not confound my Readers with altering the state of the Question I distinguish between a National Church Defence p. 558. considered as a Church and as a Church incorporated with the State this Mr. H. says is no good distinction because the Church is National only under the last Consideration i. e. as incorporated with the State Reply p. 130. The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Vniversal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National Now this is said without any Reason and therefore might be as well denyed without assigning any Reason for such a Denyal but to satisfie Mr. H. in this Point I answer That the Church considered as a Church is not necessarily considered either as Universal or Particular The essential Notion of a Christian Church is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers as he hath appointed That this Church is Universal is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which unites all particular Societies of Christians into one Body that it is divided into particular Churches is owing to the Necessity of things for since all Christians in remote and distant places of the World cannot all worship God together nor live under the Care and Government of one Bishop this makes it necessary that the Episcopal Office and Power be divided into many hands and the Multitude of Christians divided into many particular Churches under their proper Pastors but in the same Communion Now if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one universal Catholick Church and a particular Communion makes a particular Church why does not a National Church-Communion make one National Church A Church is a Church considered as a Religious Body and Society of Christians as I have now described it but it is Universal National or Particular from the different degrees and kinds of Communion and therefore Churches joyned in National Communion are properly called a National Church though there were no Christian Prince to head it And that a National Church is of a distinct Consideration as it is a Church and as incorporated with the State I proved in the Defence from this Topick that de facto p. 558. there have been and may be still National Churches when the Prince and great numbers of the People are not Christians For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same Nature with what we call National Churches and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and persecuting Emperors To which Mr. H. Answers A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Churches of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too bigg and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less But what is this to the Purpose Can Mr. H. prove that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch or Metropolitan over themselves and may not the Kings of England France and Spain do so still if they please And yet I did not say that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church was a National Church but of the same Nature with a National Church that is they were a voluntary Combination of Churches founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion antecedent to any civil Conjunction by the Laws and Authority of Princes and I would fain know
controversie rest there then and we will leave it to wiser men to judge between us But Mr. B. and Mr. H. do not agree about that Citation It shall not be so among you Mr. B. thinks it a hopeful Citation and is agreed with me about it Mr. H. sayes none but such a forward one would have alleadged it to this purpose let them now agree this Matter between themselves For now I shall leave Mr. B. a while to hear what Mr. H. says to the main Dispute He undertook in Answer to the Dean to produce an Argument for the Proof of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church which Mr. B. was so subtil as to prove only by a Definition His Argument was this There is a Government in the Church of England Where there is a Government H's answer to Doctor Still p. 12. there must be a Political Society every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens subdita If the Church of England then be a Political Church it must have a Regent part and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned To this I answered Defence p. 565. by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church and if all Government made a Political Society then a National Church may be owned to be a Political Society for Government by consent without superiority is Government That Church Governors united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans Christian People in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head The plain meaning of which is this That there is a Government in the Church as every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church which is but one Government because all Bishops are bound by the Laws of our Saviour to govern their particular Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel and one Consent as far as is necessary to the ends of Catholick Communion and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church or Bishop or Colledge of Bishops over all the Churches and Bishops of the Christian World which is what Mr. B. calls a constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church Here Mr. H. disputes with great Triumph and wonders I should applaud the Dean for denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church considered as a Church for that is the state of the Question which he is willing to conceal when I my self have asserted such a Head viz. Reply p. 131. a Colledge of Bishops governing by consent But his mistake in this matter has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Lob and he has added nothing new to deserve a new Consideration He says p. 132. I understand the term Political to be commensurate with Civil but I say I never did understand it so and deny the Church to be a Political Society only in Mr. B's notion of Political who asserts that every Political body must have one supreme Regent Head over the Whole which the Church has not which is one by one Communion not by one supreme Power He says I have found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not one Head as well as one that is Monarchical Yes no doubt but it is but I neither know such a Collective nor Monarchical Head But do I not assert p. 133. That a National Church is a Political Society Yes I do assert that if Government as distinguisht from one constitutive Regent Head makes a Political Society then the Church which is a governed Society is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority i. e. without one supreme Regent Head is Government But if I grant a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledge or Cyprians one Episcopacy as the governing Part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then I have found out a constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christs institution For an united Colledge of Bishops for Government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head I need give no new Answer to this having already sufficiently explained what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy and the Colledge of Bishops which is far enough from being such an Ecclesiastical constitutive Regent Head of the Church But to return to Mr. Baxter Answer to Dr. Sherl p. 205. he makes great sport with that Proposition that Government by consent without superiority over the pars Subdita or over the People who must be subject to this Government it is governing sine jure regendi But then I hope we break not the 5th Commandment by disobeying them But this I suppose was only to shew his skill in Drollery and in turning plain sence into non-sence I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sence It were well indeed for him that Bishops had no Authority to govern for then as he well observes they might be Schismaticks without sin But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfie any man though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatick Zeal And therefore he adds But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another Ans And verily doth the Church of England think that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head or summa Potestas or form of Policy Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another as such Or hath the Venetian Senate Or the Polonian Parliament men Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof but ipse dixit See how all Politicks are damned with the non-Conformists for making Aristocracy a Species of Policy But I pray you use them not all for it as hardly as you use us But really thus much of the World is governed Mr. B. I see as Mr. H. says is a man who understands Politicks and I dare not pretend to so much skill in the Roman Venetian or Polonian government but this I think I can safely say as little as I know of them that the Colledg of Bishops is neither one nor t'other nor any kind of Aristocracy for when I speak of a Government without superiority that is without a supreme constitutive Regent Head which was the Subject of the Dispute it is as wild to imagine that I mean an Aristocracy which is such a Regent Head as that by without superiority I mean governing without superiority over the pars Subdita But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently when by a perverse Comment he has made him speak or write non-sence which must be acknowledged the best way of confuting Books when he cannot confute the true and genuine sense of them But as to the thing when I say
there is a Government in the Church without superiority or without a constitutive Regent Head the plain meaning is this That every Bishop is the chief Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is a governed Society as every particular Church is under the Government of its own Pastor no Bishops either single or united having any direct Authority or Superiority over each other Now though in Aristocracy every individual Patrician and Senator have equal Power yet the Government is not in any of these distinct but in the whole Senate whether that signifie the Majority of Voices or the unanimous Vote of every Member of it and this makes it properly a Regent Head But to help Mr. B. to understand this if Pride and Interest will give him leave I shall particularly consider the difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head Every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church but no Senator meerly as a Senator hath any immediate Right much less the supreme Right of Government in any distinct part of the Nation For the Government of the Whole is in the Senate who appoint subordinate Governors either some of their own Members or others in dependence on themselves who act not by their own but by the Authority of the Senate Every Bishop may govern his own Church by his own prudence has his Arbitrium proprium as St. Cyprian speaks may regulate publick Worship and prescribe Rules of Discipline for his own Church without depending on the Authority of any other Bishop or Councils of Bishops nor is accountable to any while he preserves the Purity of Faith and Worship the Unity of the Church and Catholick Communion but no single Senator in an Aristocracy has any Power of making Laws himself but only in conjunction with others The Combinations of Churches and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other but for the preservation of Catholick Communion which is most effectually done by mutual Advice and Counsel which I think differs a little from the Soveraign Power of an Aristocracy When Neighbour Bishops thus unite into one Body and agree upon some common rules of Worship or Discipline they govern indeed every one their particular Churches by common Advice and Consent but still by their own Episcopal Authority They do not receive any Authority from the Synod to govern their Churches but only agree among themselves upon some common rules of Government and therefore the Synod is not a Regent Head because it gives no new Authority which is quite contrary in an Aristocracy which is the Fountain of all Power for the Government of such a Nation Which shews how well skilled Mr. H. is in Politicks who thinks Reply p. 134. that if the Bishops rule by a Superiority over the People that makes it an Aristocratical Government And this may satisfie Mr. B. what I mean by a Government by Consent without Superiority or a Regent Head Which he turns also into Ridicule It is not a constitutive Supremacy but a Supremacy by consent No Sir it is no Supremacy at all but every Bishop governs his own Diocess by his own Authority but with the Advice and Consent of a Synod or Council or Neighbour Bishops A consent I say not as to the Power of governing but as to the Rules of Government And therefore I am not concerned to Dispute with him how far Consent is necessary to all Government I shall only observe how Mr. H. mistakes both the Dean and me in what we speak about Consent The Doctor he says holds that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops these are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy But indeed it is neither so nor so but Mr. H. understands neither as appears from what I have already Discoursed There is no other Consent required to become a Member of the National Church then there is to be a Member of the Catholick Church that is a Consent to be a Christian for every Christian is bound to live in Catholick Communion as a Member of the one body of Christ And if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one Catholick Church it makes all the Churches in a Nation one National Church But that stricter Combination of Churches in the same Nation under a Patriarch or Metropolitan or National Synods is a National Church Government by consent as I have already explained it which is highly useful to preserve Peace and Communion between neighbour-Churches whose neighbourhood requires a more close and intimate Union than there can be between Churches of different Nations under different Princes and at a greater distance There is but one thing more remains to be considered and so I will put an end to this Chapter and squabling Dispute And that is to vindicate the Deans Argument against the necessity of Mr. B's constitutive Regent Head of the National Church which in short was this If every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to the Catholick visible Church and so Mr. B's constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his universal Pastorship Mr. B. indeed says that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself but as the Dean adds this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is about that visible Church whereof the particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible constitutive Regent Head as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church What Mr. B. and Mr. H. answered to the Deans Argument I considered and answered in the Defence and Mr. B. thought fit to let this Dispute fall but Mr. H. who has not discretion enough to know when he is answered was resolved to try one trick more with it and see what Logick will do And he says he has discovered four Terms in the Deans Argument Reply p. 135. and if so I promise you it is a very material discovery and the Argument must be false and fallacious nay it seems I have done worse than the Dean and have put in a 5th Term this is foul play I confess but let us hear how it is I will tell them both plainly says Mr. H. who is indeed a very plain Writer the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also p. 137. That which Mr. Baxter said was
Catholick Church of Christs Institution whatever there may be by humane Combinations and Confederacies The Sum of all is this Christ in the Institution of his Church designed but one Church all the World over which we call the Catholick Church This Catholick Church must of necessity have a beginning somewhere as De facto it had at Jerusalem where-ever this beginning is there is the Root and Fountain of Catholick unity because all other Christians and Churches which afterwards embrace the Christian Faith are added to this Church and received into the Unity of this one Body and it is impossible that any man should be a Christian or any Society of men a Christian Church who are not received into the Unity of this Church not considered as such a particular Church but as the beginning of the Catholick Church and thus all particular Churches are united to one another and by vertue of this Catholick union are one Catholick Church He who carefully considers this will see what Reason I had to assert that the Catholick Church was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches for a Church which is one by Institution must begin in one and enlarge it self by receiving others into the Unity of the same Body which for the convenience of Worship and Discipline may form themselves into distinct but not separate Church-Societies This is an intelligible Account how all the Churches in the World come to be but one Church as proceeding from one principle of Unity from one Root and Stock and by the necessary Laws of their Constitution incorporated into one Body and closely united to each others but those who make particular Churches to be entire and compleat Churches by themselves in order of Nature and time too antecedent to the Catholick Church must either make the Catholick Church an imaginary Being a meer Ens Rationis as Mr. Lob does or else no better then an arbitrary Combination which may last as long as they please and be dissolved again when they please and yet the particular Churches remain very entire and perfect Churches without it It is certain that the Catholick Church cannot be one Church and one Body if any particular Churches by their essential Constitution are entire compleat Churches and not integral parts of the Catholick Church which they cannot be without such a necessary Union as I have now described And to conclude this Argument I shall refer Mr. Lob for better Instruction in this Matter to Mr. Baxter who in Answer to this Question Whether a single Church or the Catholick Church be first Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 202. Resolves it thus Christ was first himself and then Christians as Christians were Vnited to him and were the Catholick Church in Fieri or an Embrio And then the Pastor's Office was made as the Organical Office to make the rest And when the particular Churches are formed they are thereby parts of the Vniversal and as such are Simul et Semel such Churches and such parts Now though Mr. B. and I are not like to agree very well in our Notions of the Catholick Church a particular Account of which I shall give hereafter yet here are several things for the Instruction of Mr. Lob and to vindicate my Notion from such ridiculous Absurdity as he charges it with For 1. Mr. B. acknowledges an universal Church In fieri or Embrio before any particular organized Church before the Apostolical Office it self which is more than I say who only make the first Church The Root and Fountain of Catholick unity 2. He asserts That when particular Churches are founded they are thereby parts of the universal Church and therefore the universal Church must be in order of Nature before particular Churches which is very consistent with their being Simul semel in order of time And that he does not look upon the universal Church to be a meer Ens Rationis in an Eutopian Common-wealth but a real existent thing appears from hence that in the next Paragraph he owns Particular Churches to be integral parts of the Catholick Church CHAP. II. Concerning Catholick Communion HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick unity the next thing in order for I shall confine my self to the Method I observed in the Defence that my Readers may the better know what the present Controversie is which my Adversaries have endeavoured to conceal as well as misrepresent concerns Catholick Communion I asserted and proved at large Defence p. 169. Ch. 4. That the Vnity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I explained what this one Communion is produced variety of Proofs for it from the Authority of Scripture and Ancient Fathers and none of my Adversaries yet have had the confidence to attempt any Answer to it either by shewing that my Arguments are not cogent my Authorities from Scripture or Fathers impertinent or false Mr. Lob thinks it sufficient to start some difficult Cases and to confront me with the Authority of some late Writers of the Church of England who as he who understands neither one nor th' other imagines contradict what I say which if it were so indeed is neither a sufficient Answer to me who prefer the Authority of the Scripture and Ancient Fathers before any Modern Doctors of what Note soever nor a sufficient justification of himself and his party who are condemned by these very men whose Authority they oppose against me though they do not value it themselves An Argument Ad hominem can never establish a Cause though in some cases it may silence an Adversary and it is an evident sign of great prevarication when men fence only with such Authorities as they themselves do not think valid as it is a desperate Cause when they can neither confute the Reasons which are alledged nor oppose Reason to Reason but Mr. Lob shall have a fair hearing presently Mr. Baxter seems not to have read this Chapter which is the main seat of the Controversie but skips to the 8th Chapter where this Doctrine of one Communion is applyed to the Catholick Church and this is the Reason why he does not understand what I mean by one Communion but imagines that I have a Grammar or Dictionary by my self and will excommunicate them and make them Schismaticks for speaking as all mankind do Good man he is a little mistaken in this Matter as usually he is and as every man must be who confutes Books before he reads or understands them and replies before he knows what to answer However Answer to Dr. Sherlock c. 6. p. 208. let us hear what terrible Objections he has against this plain Proposition that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I shall transcribe his Reasons and then give a plain and easie Answer to them 1. He says This is contrary to the common course of Nature in which the Vnion of all compounded beings maketh them what they are and goeth before their Operations and
find he is as much blundered and confounded about the notion of Unity as he is about Communion I asserted that Catholick Unity consists in one Communion the plain sense of which is no more than this That the Catholick Church is one considered as one Body and Society wherein all Christians and Christian Churches have equal Right and Obligation to Christian Communion This Unity he turns into Union and understands it of our Union to Christ not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church and argues thus 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayers and Sacraments do Where you see he misconstrues both the terms and it would be wonderful to any Logician to hear him conclude from these premisses Ergo the Unity of the Catholick Church does not consist in its being one Body and Society and Communion of Christians If this be to write Controversies we may e'ne as well lay Wagers and cast Lots for Major Minor and Conclusion for any Propositions well shuffled will naturally fall into as good Syllogisms as these And yet Mr. B. had notice given him of this distinction between the Union of the Church to Christ and the Unity of all Churches in one Body and Society in the 8th .. Chap. of the Defence where I consider what Communion is essential to the Catholick or universal Church where the Reader may find these words which Mr. B. himself takes notice of I have already proved the Catholick Church to be one visible Body and Society Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 208 and therefore need not now add any thing more to confute that opinion that the Catholick Church is invisible which is asserted by Dr. Owen and his Independent Brethren But Mr. B. and others who acknowledge one visible Catholick Church consisting of all the particular Churches in the World do not much differ from Dr. O ' s. invisible Church while they make the Vnity of this Church to consist only in their Vnion to Christ as Head of the Church not in the Vnion of Churches as Members of the same Body For I take it not to be enough that all Churches are united to Christ unless they be all united in one Body for the whole Church cannot be the one Body of Christ unless all particular Churches are one Body And therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us how the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body I assert this is done by one Communion if he can tell any better way I would gladly learn it especially if he can tell me how all Churches can be one Body without one Communion This sudden Humiliation as Mr. B. calls it in being contented to learn of him makes him condescend to undertake this task to teach me but very much suspects my capacity to learn till I am better instructed by some Grammarians Metaphysical and Political Teachers what the meaning of Vnion and Communion is Ib. p. 209. what is the difference between Essentials and Integrals and Accidents and of Vnion and Communion in each of these and how many sorts of Vnion and Communion there are that are pertinent to our Case c. I do not wonder there are so few persons who understand Mr. B. or are capable of learning from him since there are so many things to be understood before-hand to prepare them for his Instructions as no man of sense can ever understand I ask Mr. B. one plain Question How the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body so as to become one Church In Answer to this he sends me to Grammarians and Metaphysicians to learn how many sorts of Union there are though I care not how many sorts of Union there are if he will tell me what the Unity of the Catholick Church is But he says 1. He cannot talk sense about these things without distinguishing about the unifying of the Society and the uniting a single Member to that Society But I suppose in my Question particular Churches already formed and particular Christians united to these Churches and only enquire how all these Christians and all these Churches are one Church Other men I believe could talk sense without these Distinctions which Mr. B. seems to be so fond of only to prevent his Readers from understanding sense 2. He must distinguish also an essentiating Vnion and an integrating or accidental Vnion and Communion I perceive we shall never come to the Business For I did not enquire wherein the essence of the Church consists or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its Being which I suppose he means by his essentiating integrating accidental Union and Communion but I suppose a thousand Churches or as many more as you please with all the Essentials Integrals Accidentals of a Church and enquire how these thousand Churches become one Church Possibly these Distinctions may be the way of speaking sense but I perceive they are not the way of speaking to the purpose But let us now consider the Account Mr. B. gives us of this Matter And 1. he says It is only essential to the Church that there be an organized Body of Pastors and People united to Christ the Head Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add one Body for that is the thing in Dispute whether Christ have one or a thousand Bodies if but one how all the Christians and Churches in the World make up that one Body 2. He adds In this Definition Christ only is the supream constitutive Summa Potestas or regent part the organized Body of Pastors and People but the Pars subdita and the Vnion of Christ and that Body maketh it a Church This is very well still We acknowledge Christ to be the supream Governour of his Church and that the Union of Pastors and People to Christ makes them a Church but the main Question still remains untouched What it is which makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but one Church Nor does his Similitude help him out which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application that I cannot let it pass His words are these As in the Constitution of Man 1. The rational Soul is the real Form which is Principium Motus 2. The organized Body is the constitutive Matter That there be Heart Liver Stomach is but the Bodies Organization that these parts be duly placed and united is Forma Corporis non Hominis and makes the Body but Materia disposita 3. The Vnion of Soul and Body is that Nexus like the Copula in a Proposition which may be called the relative Form or that which maketh the Soul become Forma in actu Had this Philosophy been known in
St. Paul's days I should not much have wondred that he warns men against vain Philosophy I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can and therefore shall not quarrel with him for saving that the Soul is Principium Motus the Beginning or first Cause and Principle of Motion to the Body though it may be some Cartesians will not like it Nor for affirming that the Union of Soul and Body is but like the Copula in a Proposition which is a speck and spang new Notion but shall only consider how he applies this to the Church Christ it seems then is the Soul and Christians the Body though in Scripture he is represented as the Head of the Body and the divine Spirit as the Soul which enlivens and animates it And if Christ be not the Head of the Body which I think the Soul was never accounted yet the Church must be without a Head or have some other Head than Christ which I suppose is the Reason why he talks so much of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church But the organized Body is the constitutive Matter of the man though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part but to let that pass Thus an organical Church is the constitutive Matter of what Of Christ or of his Church or of some third thing compounded of both That there be Heart Liver Stomach is but the Bodies Organization this is easily applied Thus Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers and People make an organical Church but that these parts be duly placed and united is Forma Corporis non Hominis is the Form of the Body not of the Man which what it means I cannot tell unless that a man would be a man though the several parts of his Body did not stand in their right places nor were united to one another so they were all united to the Soul And thus the Catholick Church is one Body by being united to Christ though the parts of it are not united to each other and much such a Body it is as the natural Body would be did the Legs and Arms grow out of the Head and every Member change places without any order or divide from each other and hang together only by a Magical kind of Union with the Soul Well but this Organization and due Position of the Parts makes the Body Materia disposita Matter fitly disposed I suppose he means for Union with the Soul But is this disposition of the Matter so necessary that a Soul cannot unite with a Body otherwise disposed without forfeiting the external Form of a Man his Senses or his Understanding And consequently that no reasonable Soul which is not under some force would unite with such a Body If this be his meaning it sits our present Case very well for then the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body without union with it self and the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist meerly in the union of all particular Churches in and to Christ without any union among themselves But how to apply the Copula in a Proposition either to the union of Soul or Body or of Christ and his Church I cannot tell and shall never be able to learn till I meet with some new Baxterian Logick as well as Grammar and Metaphysicks But to proceed as a farther Explication of this Matter he adds 3. In this Vnion there is no Summa Potestas or universal Governour Monarchical or Aristocratical but Christ In this we agree also as will appear more hereafter And now or never to the Point 4. The Body is sufficiently organized if it consists of local Churches called single or particular being Pastors and Christian People having all the Essentials of Christianity But is our Dispute then about the Organization or about the Unity of the Body The Catholick Church has no other Organization but that of particular Churches but there is something more required to make it one No says Mr. B. that which maketh this Body that is all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World to become a Church he should have said one Church is no union of the Members among themselves So that the Catholick Church may be one Body without the union of its Members among themselves i. e. it may be one without Unity But why should not union of the Members among themselves be necessary to make a Church one Because says Mr. B. that maketh them only Materia disposita i. e. Matter disposed prepared fitted but for what To be one Church I should rather think that the union of several Churches makes them one Church and does not only prepare and dispose them to be one unless he can tell how they can be more one than by Unity But however are any other Churches which have no union among themselves this Materia disposita or Matter disposed and fitted to make one Catholick Church If they be then there is no need of any Union so much as to dispose and prepare the Matter If they be not then I still enquire what that Union of Churches is which is necessary to make them fit matter for the Catholick Church But this Mr. B. has not yet vouchsafed to tell me though possibly this may be one of those things which I must learn from some Grammarians or Metaphysicians before I can be capable of his Instructions But Mr. B. tells us how the Church is one without any Union of the Members among themselves viz. by their common Vnion with Christ and then all single Persons and Churches are one Catholick Church because united in and to him as all Lines are united in the Center So that there is no necessity of any other Union between several Churches to make them one Catholick Church but that they are all united to Christ the common Center they are one Church though as distant and opposite to each other as the two Poles because they meet in the same Center But 1. This is a pretty easie way of determining Controversies to out-face all the Authority of Scripture and Antiquity by a dogmatical Assertion without offering the least Reason or shadow of Reason to confirm it I had at large proved the necessity of one Catholick Communion to make one Catholick Church and instead of answering these Proofs he asserts the contrary upon his own naked Authority and that must pass for a Confutation And 2. He takes that for granted which I can never grant him that those Churches which are divided from each other by separate and opposite Communions may yet be all united to Christ for Christ has but one Body one Spouse one Flock one Church and if we be not Members of this one Church as no Schismaticks are we are not united to Christ and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of uniting those in Christ who are not united among themselves for Christ hath not an hundred several Bodies but one Body and we must continue in the Unity of
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
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
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
their Power should not be accountable to the rest for it i.e. to the Colledge of Bishops which last words are not mine but his own Comment though Printed in a different Character as if they were mine and this Colledge of Bishops he transforms presently into a general Council and thus I subject the Arch-bishop of Canterbury whom I first equal to other Bishops as I do indeed with respect to original Right and Power wherein all Bishops are equal not with respect to Church-constitutions to some Court above any in this Realm to a general Council a Colledge of Bishops and now I am in danger again of a Praemunire But this has been already sufficiently explained in what sense I deny the Independency of Bishops and how far this is from subjecting them to any Forraign Jurisdiction whether of Forraign Prelates or a general Council though I cannot well understand how a general Council of which they themselves are part can be properly called a Forraign Court or Forraign Jurisdiction unless the Treaty at Nimengen were a Forraign Jurisdiction to all those Princes and States who sent their Plenipotentiaries thither to act for them However to satisfie Mr. Lob I shall 1. freely declare my thoughts about a general Council 2. Consider the folly of that suggestion that to assert the Authority of a general Council subverts the Kings supremacy and incurs a Praemunire 1. As for a general Council my thoughts are these which I humbly submit to my Superiors 1. That there never was nor ever can be in a strict sense a general and oecumenical Council of the whole Church unless the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem was such which yet was not general unless all the Apostles were there which I suppose will not be easily proved for it is not likely there ever should be a Convention on of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatcht from all Christian Churches all the World over can I see any reason why this should be called a general Council when it may be there are ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less Number of Bishops assembled in Council judge for all the rest who so far exceed them in Numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom Especially considering that every Bishop has the supreme Government of his own Church Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium Cypr. praef ad Concil Carthag and his Liberty and Power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Colleagues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of general Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such Matters as concern the purity of Faith and Manners or Catholick Unity in other Matters if St. Cyprians principle be true the major Number of Votes in Council cannot make a firm Decree much less can the Votes of three or four hundred Bishops give Laws to all the Bishops in the Christian Church which is a plain Demonstration that a general Council cannot be the supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. Since every Bishop from the Unity of Episcopacy and his obligations to Catholick Communion is bound as far as he can to govern his particular Church by the mutual Counsel and Consent of his Colleagues we must acknowledg that both Provincial and General Councils are of very great use though they have no proper jurisdiction and whatever Bishop should wilfully refuse to observe the Decrees and Canons of such Councils without manifest necessity for not doing it would be guilty of such pride and obstinacy as would fall very little short of the Guilt of Schism when there is a just Reason for it we may say with St. Austin Non consertimus huic concilio salvo jure unitatis Aug. de haptismo l. 7. c. 25. we do not consent to this Council but yet keep the Peace and Unity of the Church intire and will not heighten every dissent into a Schism but where there is no such reason it is no better than Schismatical pride and peevishness for any Bishop to pursue his own humour in opposition to the Decrees and Constitutions of his Colleagues for the very Consent and Agreement of Bishops among themselves is so great a good to the Church of God that That alone is sufficient to determine a good man when there are not very weighty reasons against it St. Cyprian I am sure thought it a Matter of mighty Consequence to manage all the great Affairs of the Church by mutual Advice Et dilectio communis ratio exposcit fratres charislimi nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos geruntur ut sit nobis circa utilitatem ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium Cyp. ep 29. in his Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome written after the Death of Fabian during the vacancy of that See he tells them that both mutual Love and Charity and the reason of the thing required that he should conceal nothing from them of the Affairs of his Church that so they might advise and consult with each other concerning the most useful Rules of Ecclesiastical Administrations And therefore he tells us that he put off the Consideration of the State of the Lapsed and would not innovate any thing in the ancient Rules of Discipline till God should be pleased to restore Peace to the Church Cypr. ep 40. that they might meet together for common Advice And the Roman Presbyters in answer to another Letter of St. Cyprians approve of this resolution and add a very weighty Reason for it that it is impossible that Decree should be firm and obtain a general Complyance which is not made by the Consent of many ep 31. And therefore I observed in the Defence that though they had no such thing as a general Council before the times of Constantine yet they had frequent Provincial Councils and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches with an account of their Transactions and Decrees that they might either approve them in their Councils or give them an account of their Dissent and the Reasons of it Mr. Baxter asks me whether they sent these Letters all the World over Cam quo nobis totus orois commercio formatarum in una Communionis societate concordat Opt. lib. 2. and I answer I believe they did not because I suspect it is not to be done no more than a general Council can be convened from all parts of the World but yet it is evident this Communication by Letters
Forgery and Villany as any man may satisfie himself who will be at the Pains to peruse that part of the Defence he directs to where I am so far from asserting the Primacy of St. Peter over all Bishops that I do expresly vindicate that passage of St. Cyprian which the Flatterers of the Pope alledge for this Primacy from signifying any such thing and for the Satisfaction of all indifferent Readers what Credit is to be given to Mr. Lob I will transcribe the whole Passage though it be somewhat long as a sufficient Confutation of this Calumny and it is this And in his Cyprian's Book of the Unity of the Church the first Argument he uses to prove the Unity of the Church is the Unity of the Apostolical Office and what that means I have already sufficiently explained and assigns this as the reason why our Saviour in a particular Manner committed the Keys to Peter when he gave the same Power to all the rest of the Apostles which he did to Peter viz. to manifest the Unity of the Apostolical Office and Power that there is but one Chair and one original of Vnity which begins in one for the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was had an equal share in the Honour and Power of the Apostolical Office but the beginning is from Vnity and the Primacy is given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ is one and the Chair one i.e. the Apostolical Office and Power they are all Pastors but there is but one Flock which is fed by all the Apostles with a joynt Consent This is the plain Scope and Design of this Passage of St. Cyprian which has been so often abused especially by the Romanists that our Saviour in naming Peter only in giving the Apostolical Power did signifie that the Apostolical Office though exercised by several Persons is but one Office and Power which is not so properly divided among the Apostles as administred by a joynt Consent and therefore giving this Power to one Apostle included the bestowing this Power on the whole Apostolical Colledge And therefore when St. Cyprian says that Christ built his Church upon Peter he does not and cannot mean the Person of Peter or any thing peculiar to him but that Apostolical Office and Power which was given to the Colledge of the Apostles in the Name of Peter as the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And when he says that Christ gave the Primacy to Peter and yet at the same time affirms that the other Apostles were equal sharers with him in Honour and Power and were all that which Peter was it can signifie no more nor no less than that Christ named Peter first or rather in stead of all the Apostles thereby to instruct them that though they were many yet their Office and Power was but one which they must exercise as one man with one Consent This I suppose is sufficient to satisfie any man how far I am from ascribing to Peter a Primacy over all the Apostles much less to the Pope over all Bishops as Peter's Successor And this is all I can find that either Mr. Lob or Mr. B. urges to prove me engaged in a Cassandrian design but now for the Contradictions I am charged with Mr. Baxter says Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 202. Dr. Sherlock if he be Dr. Stillingfleets Defender which I think is not very material to this Controversie whether he be or not saith and unsaith and would verifie Contradictions He must write us a new Dictionary to tell us in what Sense he takes common words before he can be understood He defendeth Dr. Stillingfleet's denial of any political constitutive supreme Power and yet maintaineth that the whole Church hath one Regent part which all must obey that will be Members This I confess is a Contradiction for if the whole Church hath one Regent Part it must have a constitutive Regent Head This he says I affirm but he could not tell where and therefore never pretends to cite my words for it But as he goes on he will not grant that every Political body must have a constitutive Regent Head and yet he doth but say if we deny this as if he could not or durst not tell what he grants or denies yet he grants that every Political body consists of a Pars Imperans and Subdita and that Church Governors united and governing by Consent are the Pars Imperans and Christian People the Pars Subdita but saith he all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head can you tell how his asserted and his denyed Propositions differ 1. It is not a Regent part he denyeth 2. It is not that this Regent part is one to the whole Body the Church For if it were that he would not so zealously contradict and condemn us that say the same thing as he And here Mr. B. himself has unridled this whole Mystery of Contradictions though he was not willing to understand it because then he had had nothing to object I deny that there is one constitutive Regent Head either of a National or the Universal Church but yet affirm that there is a Government in the Church and consequently that there is a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and the Christian People those who are governed now I thought Mr. B. without a new Dictionary unless it be a Dictionary to teach common sense which indeed would be the best Cure in the World for Fanaticism might have understood that when I denyed that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of the Church and at the same time asserted that the Bishops are the Regent and governing part of the Church I could not mean that the Bishops were the Governors of the Church as united into one Common Regent Head over the whole Church but they were Governors of the Catholick Church as every Bishop governed his own share and portion of it as committed to his Charge This was the State of the Controversie between Mr. B. and the Dr. Mr. Baxter will not allow a National Church to be one political Body and Society unless it have one constitutive Regent Head for he says many Churches associated for mutual Help and Concord The second true Defence in answer to Dr. Still p. 112. are but in a loose sense called a Church not in a political Sense but equivocally so called and that the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally makes it no Church but an association of many Churches But the Reader will be the better able to judge of this Dispute if I briefly explain the true Reason of all this zeal for one constitutive Regent Head of the Church which I perceive very few People understand for indeed it is a Mystery but lately discovered by Mr. Baxter and earnestly espoused by Mr. Humphry to justifie all the Schisms and Separations in
Logick and I do not wonder he was so often too hard for St. Matthew Hales as he himself tells us in his late additional remarks on the Life of that excellent Person whose Name and Memory is Martyred by such Historians for I think few men of understanding can deal with him But the plain English of all these hard words and Metaphysical subtilty is no more but this That in every Society there is something which makes it such a kind of Society which in allusion to Natural beings he calls the Form of it That a Political Body being a Society under one supreme Government the supreme Power must be the Form of it and therefore the National Church being a Political Society considered as a Church must have a supreme constitutive Regent Head as the Form of it The result of which reasoning is this that if the Church be such a Political Society as has a supreme Regent Head on Earth which I always denyed then it must have a supreme Regent Head Which if Mr. B. calls Disputing and Proving I suppose no body else will But this will be better understood by considering Mr. B's Reasons to prove this supreme Regent Power to be the constitutive Form of the Church which follow in the same place and are these 1. If the summa Potestas of the Church be not the constitutive Form then the Church is not a Society univocally so called as all other Political Societies are but is Equivocally called a Politie i. e. then the Church is not a Political Society with one constitutive Regent Head which I readily grant and see no inconvenience in it Though Mr. B. cunningly supposes in his Argument what he knows I denyed him that there is such a summa Potestas or supreme Regent Power over the whole Church and then indeed it were absurd to deny a constitutive Regent Head 2. Then a Bishop is no constitutive part of a Diocesan Church nor a Metropolitan of a Metropolitan Church nor a Patriarch of a Patriarchal Church nor any summa Potestas of any Church or else the Catholick and these are not univocally called Churches The Force of which reasoning is this that if there be not a supreme Regent Head over the whole Church there cannot be such a superior Governor over any part of the Church A Bishop cannot govern his own Church unless one Bishop or Colledge of Bishops be a supreme constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church For as for Metropolitans and Patriarchs I never owned their original Right to such a Superiority but ascribe it to Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are very justifiable and of great use to the Preservation of Catholick Communion And I do not see what inconvenience there is in granting that a particular and the Catholick Church are not univocally called Churches that is are not in the same sense called a Church any more than in saying that a Part and the Whole are not in the same sense called the Body of a man for the Whole contains all the Parts and a Part is only a Part of the Whole All the particular Churches in the World are univocally called Churches as being under the Government of their respective Pastors in obedience to the Laws and Institutions of our Saviour the only universal Bishop of his Church but the Catholick Church is called a Church from the Union of all particular Churches not only to Christ the supreme Regent Head of the Church but to each other in one Catholick Communion 3. If the summa Potestas be not a constitutive part of the Church Catholick it is no essential Part unless by this summa Potestas over the whole Church he means Christ which alters the state of the Question of which more presently it is so far from being an essential part of the Church Catholick that it is no part at all there being no such supreme Power over the whole Church But if so the Church must be defined without it and why do they not give us such a Definition and tell us what is the constitutive Form of it if this be not None so blind as those who will not see How often have I told him what it is which makes the Catholick Church one Catholick Church which is the constitutive Form he enquires after viz. not one Superior Power over the whole Church but one Communion 4. And then he that denyeth this summa Potestas and separateth from it denyeth or separateth from nothing essential to the Church very right Why then do they make obedience essential to a Member Obedience to what To one supreme Regent Head over the Church Who are they that make such obedience necessary to a Member Or may not every Christian be bound to obey his spiritual Guides and Pastors unless there be one supreme Regent Head over the Catholick Church Now whatever Lawyers and men acquainted with the common Terms of Law and Politicks to whom Mr. B. appeals may think of such Disputes as these I am confident be they what they will if they be men of sense they will pity the drudgery of answering such trifling Cavils Though I am glad to hear Mr. B. own it as a thing beyond Dispute that a King is the constitutive Head that is the supreme Regent Head of his Kingdom without whose supreme Government it is not a Kingdom Mr. B. proceeds But saith this Doctor It s original constitution differs from secular Forms of Government by that ancient Church-canon of our Saviours own decreeing it shall not be so among you which I alleadged to prove that the Church could not be a Political Society in Mr. B's notion of it with a supreme constitutive Regent Power over the whole To which Mr. B. answers There is some hope in this Citation It seems he thinks that by these words Christ forbad any constitutive Supreme under him in his Church Yes verily I do think so Why then does the man so fiercely dispute for it against it he means surely for that I have professedly done but never disputed for it yet If there be none we are agreed In good time why then does he and Mr. H. so rudely scorn and deride the Dean as one who has betrayed the Church by denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head I may be a young Doctor as he pleasantly adds but I perceive he grows so old that forgets what he is for or against But he is unwilling this should be my meaning because this spoils his Notion of a Political body and therefore spitefully insinuates what he says he will not impute to me that I speak of a Politie that hath the Power of the Sword and yet immediately after this Complement he pawns his own understanding for it that I must mean so I will therefore rather conclude that if he know what he saith I am uncapable of knowing rather than impute this to him or else that he takes it to be no Policy that hath not the Power of the Sword Let the
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
there is want of it and never wants distinctions where there is no difference 2. The next way of maintaining Catholick Communion among Bishops I observed was by advising together about the publick affairs of the Church and Communicating Counsels with each other and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions that there might be no misunderstanding between them these last words which I have included in a Parenthesis Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation because they did too plainly discover how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholick Unity And answers 1. This Independents are ready to do What then Does it hence follow that they are Catholick Bishops Schismaticks may do many things which true Catholick Christians do and be Schismaticks still 2. How doth this differ from the former Do you not mean advising by Letters or Messengers If not is it general Councils you mean or what I told my meaning very plain Sometimes one particular Bishop writ to another Sometimes Neighbour Bishops met in Provincial Synods and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches But this is writing Letters still and how does it differ from the former Why Sir only as a Letter containing an account of the present state of the Church what Bishops die and who are ordained in their stead who are Catholicks and who are Schismaticks does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel c. but how is it we must advise with them of Armenia Abassia and the rest When Mr. B. can prove that I make it necessary to do so I will undertake to find out a way to do it but this and what follows about Provincial Counsels has been sufficiently considered above 3. Mr. B. proceeds But how Is it only publick Affairs that the Colledge adviseth you about The Man dreams who talks of the advice of the Colledge Who is it then that must dispose of the Church State and Souls of all us Individuals Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters must take care of his own Church and the Souls committed to him and that he may do this the better in all difficult 〈◊〉 especially such as concern the whole Church must take the best Advice of his fellow-Fellow-Bishops that he can where is the absurdity of all this Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is when he adds It seems it is some body below the Senate that is meant when we are told that we must obey the universal Church I thought whither it would come at last And well he might think whither it would come when he was resolved whither to carry it 3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholick Communion was by Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians who had occasion to travel from those Churches of which they were members to other Churches whither they went which were called Formed or Communicatory Letters the use of which I there explained To which Mr. Baxter answers 1. Are not all these three Proofs the same writing Letters of Church-affairs Consultation and Communication Yes writing Letters is writing Letters most certainly but I imagine there may be some difference with reference to the Subject about which men write And that Letters of recommendation differ something from Letters of advice 2. Do any of us deny his Conclusion that this proveth Communion among them Why then does he not own this Catholick Communion which I contend for and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatick No but I should prove an Episcopal Colledge as one Aristocratical supreme Regent Head I thank him for nothing I am not at leisure to write such Books on purpose for him to confute them But 3. He says these communicatory Letters the Non-conformists are greatly for that no man may be admitted to Communion in any particular Church without either a Personal understanding owning of his Baptismal Covenant or a Testimonial that he hath done it and been received into Communion with some Church with whom we have such Communion as is due between several Churches Quidlibet ex Quolibet How cleverly has Mr. B. turned these Communicatory Letters into an examination by Lay Elders or an Independent Church-covenant and the one Communion of the Catholick Church into such a Communion as is due between several Churches I could wish as heartily as Mr. B. that greater care were taken in the Discipline of the Church though they who make the greatest Complaints of the want of it are the true cause of this defect But what is this to Communicatory Letters Or what if Schismaticks are for Communicatory Letters among themselves are they ever the less Schismaticks for that All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters was this that the Ancient Church did believe that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholick Church and had a right to Christian-communion where he came which cannot be unless all Christians are one Body and all particular Churches members of one Catholick Church And here I had occasion to express my dissent from a very great man whose memory is as dear and venerable to me as to most of his particular and intimate Friends I mean Dr. Barrow and I think I express my dissent from him with all that modesty and just respect which is due to his memory I acknowledged that he had abundantly confuted that notion of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church but yet that he made Catholick Communion too arbitrary a thing like the Confederacies of Soveraign Princes I should be heartily glad to see my self confuted in this point and to find that I was mistaken in his judgment in this matter if at least it may be called his Judgment and not rather his Inadvertency I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgment of this Reverend Person for I do not find that he understands either of us I am sure he urges such things in his Defence as that great man would be ashamed of and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it And now I come to the grand difficulty of all which I did but just name in the Defence What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day If there be no Catholick Church without Catholick Communion where shall we find the Catholick Church at this day when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other This makes some men suspect that Catholick Communion is a pretty Romantick notion of a Catholick Church but so impracticable that it is of no use to us now nor will put an end to any one Controversie or Schism in the Christian Church But this difficulty when it is thorowly examin'd will vanish of it self For 1.
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
the manner of the Church of Rome yet what that means Theodoret tells us more expresly that they met together after the manner of the Church of Rome to celebrate all religious Offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. hist Eccl. l. 1. cap. 23. which in the ancient Language peculiarly signifies the Celebration of the Eucharist Our Author acknowledges That when all diligence is used in securing Succession there may yet be real failures in it But as God only can know them so I cannot but think him obliged Separation of Churches c. p. 417. both by his Covenant for the graces conveyed in the Sacraments and by his design of establishing Government through all Ages of succession to supply those failures So that it seems there is great reason in some cases that God should supply the failures of a valid Authority that God should make and account those Sacraments valid which have not the validity of a just Authority And if this may be done in any case certainly the case of necessity is as considerable as any And the necessity of preserving the being of the Church seems to me as considerable as the preservation of Government which is only in order to the preservation of its being But this is a matter of such great moment that I cannot pass it over without a more particular Examination of some Principles on which that learned man grounds that severe conclusion of the Invalidity of all Sacraments which are not administred by Bishops or by Presbyters Episcopally Ordained which I hope I may do in such a Cause as this wherein so many foreign Churches are concerned without the least infringement of that real honour and friendship I have for him And to proceed with all possible clearness in this matter I shall reduce the state of the Controversie between us to a narrow point and briefly shew wherein we agree and wherein we differ 1. Then I readily grant that the external participation of the Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper is ordinarily necessary to Salvation 2. I grant also that the Bishops and Ministers of the Church regularly ordained have the only ordinary Power of administring Sacraments and that all Sacraments administred and received in opposition to and contempt of the ordinary Governors of the Church are invalid or inefficacious 3. But I absolutely deny that the validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons administring This is the parting point and therefore must be carefully examined And I find but two general Arguments this learned man uses for the Proof of it From the nature of the Sacraments and from the ends of Government considering God as a Covenanter and as a Governor 1. From the nature of the Sacraments or considering God as a Covenanter and so the administration of Sacraments is celebrating or making a Covenant in God's Name so as to oblige him to performance of it which no man can do unless God signifie it to be his Pleasure to empower him to do so as in Law no man can be obliged by anothers act who has not been empowered to act in his Name by his Letters of Proxy And he that presumes of himself to make a Covenant wherein God is by him engaged as a Party without being so empowered by God as what he does cannot in any legal exposition be reputed as God's act so neither can it infer any legal obligation of him to performance This Argument is drawn out to a great length but this I take to be the sum of it and it were a very strong Argument if the Foundation of it were not false but I must deny that which this Author has all along taken for granted without any Proof that the administration of the Sacraments as suppose of Baptism is the Ministers making a Covenant with the Person baptized in God's Name I know of but one Covenant which God has made with mankind in Christ Jesus and that is the Gospel-Covenant and I know of but one sealing and confirmation of this Covenant and that is by the Blood of Christ and therefore the Sacraments cannot be such Seals as ratifie and confirm the Covenant and give validity to it or pass an Obligation on God to stand to his Covenant The Christian Sacraments are necessary parts duties or conditions of the Covenant either for our admission to the Priviledges or conveyance of the Grace of the Covenant and therefore they cannot in a proper sence be Seals of or making a Covenant in God's Name All mankind are capable of being received into this Covenant the Covenant is actually made to the Christian Church and every Member of it Baptism is our admission into the Christian Church and consequently to all the priviledges of the Covenant it is very fitting that the ordinary Power of such admissions should be in the hands of Church Governors and so it is by divine appointment but all this is a very different thing from making a Covenant in God's Name which shall validly oblige God to the performance of it This it is plain no man can do without the most express Authority but the external solemnities of a Covenant which are ratified confirmed commanded by God need not in all cases such express Authority for in this case we do not presume to make a Covenant in God's Name or to oblige him by our Act but only to do what he has required and commanded to be done though not expresly commanded us in particular to do it We neither make any new terms for God which he has not already made and obliged himself to the performance of nor admit any Persons to the Priviledges of this Covenant whom God has excluded for the Covenant is made with all mankind who believe the Gospel but we only do the ordinary work of Church Governors without the regular Authority of Governors upon a reasonable presumption that God will allow of this where there are not ordinary Governors to do it Which is a reasonable presumption in all humane Governments where a regular Authority fails and cannot be supplyed in an ordinary way a Topick which this learned Author makes great and frequent use of And methinks it might satisfie any reasonable man what a vast difference there is between making a Covenant in God's Name and performing some external Solemnities of it if he only consider that Covenant which God made with Abraham and the sign of this Covenant which was Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Whatever this learned man urges to prove the necessity of a valid Authority in the Administrator to make Baptism valid will prove the same necessity of a valid Authoirty to make Circumcision valid for what Baptism is in the new Covenant that Circumcision was in God's Covenant with Abraham both equally alike Signs or Seals or external Solemnities of the Covenant and yet it is sufficiently known Buxtorfii Synagoga Judaica cap. 4. that any Israelite might circumcise that
Schism which I assure you if it prove so will be the best Confutation of my Principles and make me greatly suspect them my self There are several insinuations of this nature scattered here and there in his reply which require no very serious answer for if he designed them for serious Arguments he is a wit indeed As to give some instances of this nature 1. He says Reply p. 13. I place Schism in a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Vniversal Church ergo not Schismaticks Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember what Mr. Lob grants that there is such a sin as Schism and that it is a very odious sin which would stand them in more stead if they seriously thought of it than his Defence and Apology will do But Dissenters he says do not divide themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church What he means by this I cannot well tell for I am sure their Principles upon which they divide from the Church of England do equally divide them from all the Churches in the World And if upon meer humour they will divide from one Church and not from another where the reason of Separation is the same they are nevertheless Schismaticks for that Let Mr. Lob tell me what Church for above twelve hundred years they could have communicated with upon so good terms as they may now with the Church of England If Diocesan Episcopacy Forms of Prayer Defects in Discipline Corrupt Members in Church Communion Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies or unscriptural Impositions as they call them be a sufficient reason to justifie Separation what Church they ever could or can to this day communicate with The Foreign Protestant Churches though they differ in some things from the Church of England not in Judgment but in Practise of which I have given some account above yet they communicate with the Church of England which according to the Laws of Catholick Communion makes it as unlawful to communicate with them as with the Church of England it self But he says Dissenters and all true Christians though I hope all true Christians are not Dissenters whether Dissenters be true Christians or not must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church How far this must be acknowledged I have examined above Schismaticks in a loose general Notion belong to the Church though they are not Members of the Catholick Church which is but one Communion and thus dissenting Separatists are Schismaticks still But though it were possible that our Dissenters might find some other Church beside their own Conventicles to communicate with yet they actually divide themselves from the Catholick Church by breaking Communion with any one sound part of it especially with such a part of the Church as they are more particularly bound to communicate with The Catholick Church is but one Communion and whoever causelesly breaks this Communion as he does who separates from any sound part of the Church is a Schismatick especially he that separates from the Church wherein he lives which is the case of our Dissenters in separating from the Church of England If you separate the Arm from the Shoulder you separate it from the whole Body the Union of every Member with the Body is its Union to that part of the Body which is next for the whole Body is nothing else but all the parts united to each other in their proper place and order And if the Church be one Body and one Communion he that separates from the Communion of the Church where he lives is a Schismatick though he may pretend to an imaginary Communion with French or Dutch Churches with the Churches of Greece or Russia But as much as Mr. Lob pretends that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead that Schism is a Separation from the Catholick Church it is plain he does not like it and therefore reproaches it as a Popish notion generally asserted by Papists I should be heartily glad to see any Papist assert this for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery but I doubt Mr. Lob wrongs the Papists and mistakes Catholick for Roman-Catholick Church They own no Catholick but the Roman-Catholick Church and know no Schism but a Separation from the Church of Rome But Mr. Lob thinks this is no great matter for I only change England for Rome and set up an English-Catholick instead of the Roman-Catholick Church which whatever other fault it have I hope he will acknowledg to be a change a little for the better but let us hear his own words He says I close with the same Popish Faction Ibid. in asserting that separating from the Church of England is a Separation from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists say within the limits of Rome What a blessed thing is Ignorance which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit What Papists are those who confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome Do not they own the Churches of Italy Spain France Germany to be Catholick Churches and would own all the Churches in the World to be so would they subject themselves to the Pope of Rome They do not desire to confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome but desire to extend it as far as England and all the World over But still Rome is the beginning of Unity and Catholicism and no Church must be owned for a Catholick Church which does not live in Communion with the Church of Rome and pay homage and subjection to the Bishop of Rome This is the Roman-Catholick Church not which is confined within the limits of Rome but which has the Bishop of Rome for its constitutive Regent Head And is not Mr. Lob a very pleasant man who would perswade the World that I am for setting up such a Catholick Church in England as the Papists have done at Rome The Papists make it Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome considered as the Head of the Church I assert it to be Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Church of England not meerly as the Church of England but as a true and sound part of the Catholick Church which we especially are bound to communicate with And is there no difference between these two But who-ever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of Salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all the while Schismaticks in a state of Damnation This no jesting matter but a sad and serious Truth which I would beg Mr. Lob as he loves his
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
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
to Catholick Communion and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or enjoyn any Communion And yet the Church never had a greater sence of the evil of Schism in any Age and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing without any regard to private Contracts or humane Authority 2. To break our Promise and Covenant is a great evil but it is not in its own nature Schism unless there be something else to make it so besides breach of promise To disobey our Governors in lawful things is a very great evil but it is not in it self the evil of Schism but of disobedience to lawful Authority These do greatly aggravate the sin of Schism when men are guilty of it but it cannot make that to be Schism which is not and yet there is no such sin and can be no such sin as Schism if there be not one Church but men may divide into as many distinct and separate Churches as they please for if any man should say that Separation is sinful when there is no just cause or reason for Separation this supposes that there are necessary reasons against Separation when there are no just reasons for it and I would gladly hear what those reasons are against Separation when you have destroyed the Notion of one Catholick Communion But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholick Communion in the Disputes of Schism and Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation ch 5. p. 231. and thither I refer my Reader Now I shall hence briefly observe two things with reference to my present design 1. That the whole force of my reasoning aginst Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet depends on the Doctrine of one Catholick Communion and therefore I was not at all concerned to assert one visible unifying Church-Power under Christ Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 181. over all the Catholick Church as Mr. B. calls it I no where throughout my Book oppose Separation upon the Principles of an universal unifying Church-Power but only on the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore neither having any where asserted any such thing nor having any reason to do so in the service of the Cause I undertook especially having asserted the quite contrary as in due time will appear the Reader may easily perceive how injuriously my Adversaries have distorted my words to give some colour and pretence to their Calumnies 2. I observe farther That supposing there had some dubious passages about an universal Church-Power slipt from my Pen the confuting such a fancy as that is by no means a confutation of the Defence If the doctrine of one Catholick Communion hold good as it will certainly do whatever becomes of Catholick Church-Power it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for Separation and they are as very Schismaticks as ever the Novatians or Donatists were Here the Controversie began about the sinfulness of Separation very angry they were and gave a great many hard words to that excellent Person who warned them of the danger and evil of it many Books have been written about it and now they are charged as high as ever and are ferreted out of their Retreats and see the very foundations of their Cause rooted up all on a sudden they grow tame and gentle and patiently hear themselves proved Schismaticks without saying a word for themselves being more concerned it seems to oppose a French Popery which sometimes by what figure I know not they call a Cassandrian design than to vindicate their own dear selves from the charge of Schism Some possibly may think them very mortified and self-denying men others will be tempted to suspect some other Cause But Mr. B. is resolved that noise shall not divert him from opposing the foundations of Popery the plain meaning of which is this He finds it troublesom to write in a Cause where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to answer him and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself where he is secure of the victory unless Richard and Baxter should happen to quarrel he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise I suppose he means a fourth Folio he telling us that he has writ three already § 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church and one Catholick Communion which my Adversaries have so industriously misrepresented that it is necessary to set it in a new Light In the third Chapter I proved at large Defence ch 3. p. 137. c. that Christ has but one Church which is his Body and Spouse which we call the Catholick Church and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholick Church though it will appear in due time that they deny the thing That the Church is but one I proved from the express Testimony of Scripture and the ancient Fathers and by this unanswerable Argument Ib. p. 151. c. that the Christian Church is not a new Church but the old jewish-Jewish-Church reformed and spiritualized by the Laws and Institutions of Christ Christianity being nothing else but mystical Judaism The believing Jews continue still united to their own Root and the believing Gentiles are grafted on the Jewish Root and become one Church with them as St. Paul discourses Rom. 11.17 18 24. The middle Wall of Partition was broken down and the Gentiles received into the Church of God which was no longer to be confined within the bounds of Jury nor to the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham but to spread it self over all the World and therefore since the Christian Church is not a new Church but built upon the old foundations of the Jewish Church enlarged and Christianized it must continue as much one as ever the Jewish Church was I observed also from St. Cyprian whose words I had cited at large that the Catholick Church Ib. p. 144. though it consist of all particular Churches which are contained in it yet is not a meer arbitrary Combination and Confederacy of particular Churches but is the root and fountain of Unity and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and the Fountain before the Rivers that flow from it that particular Churches are made by the encrease and propagation of the Catholick Church not the Catholick Church by the propagation of particular Churches Here Mr. Lob gives us the first taste of his great understanding and skill in Controversie and what a formidable Adversary he is like to prove He says I assert Reply to the Defence p. 10. that the universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches he should have said Catholick for that was my word but then he had lost his
Effects The Vnion of the Soul and Body goeth before Sensation Imagination Intellection or Volition 2. It is contrary to all Artificial beings in a Clock a Watch a Coach c. The Vnion of their parts is their relative Form and goeth before the Exercise and Vse and the Effects 3. It is contrary to all Political Beings and Societies The Vnion of King and Subjects is the constitutive Form of the Kingdom and goeth before the Administration or Regiment by Legislation and Judgement and the Allegiance and Subjection before Obedience Thus the Vnion of Husband and Wife Master and Servants Captain and Souldiers Schoolmaster and Scholars as the Constitution of the Relation go before their Communion in the Exercise 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians but the Consequence is not true 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayer and Sacraments do but this is singular and false What pity is it that so many good Arguments should be lost for want of some Thing and some Body to oppose for all these Arguments proceed upon this Mistake That by Communion I mean only some transient Acts of Christian Communion such as Praying and Hearing and Receiving the Lord's Supper together that the Christian Church is united by such Acts as these whereas these Acts of Christian Communion necessarily suppose Christian Union and therefore can neither be the efficient nor formal Cause of it A man must first be united to the Church and one Church to another before they can communicate together in such Acts of Worship or have any Right to do so But then I wonder what he thought I meant by one Communion for if by Communion I meant only a transient Act of Communion by one Communion I could mean but one such transient Act. And here he might have found out greater Absurdities than before and have triumphed over this sensless Notion unmercifully for what a ridiculous conceit is it to place Christian Unity in some one transient Act But possibly Mr. B. might see this Absurdity and be merciful to it for the sake of his darling Notion of Occasional Communion which is just such a transient Act and yet as he thinks sufficient to Church Unity and to justifie any man from the Guilt of Schism and Separation But then I cannot but wonder that he should so industriously prove that the Unity of the Church cannot consist in such transient Acts of Communion for if this be true as certainly it is he may be a Schismatick from the Church of England notwithstanding he sometimes holds Occasional Communion with her But had Mr. B. carefully read and considered but the six first Lines of the 4th Chap. of the Defence where I explain what I mean by one Communion he might have spared all his Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions My words are these Defence p. 164. The 2d thing to be considered is That the Vnity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholick Vnity signifies Catholick Communion and one Communion signifies one Christian Society of which all Christians are Members From which it is plain That I did not place this one Communion in any transient Acts but in a fixed and permanent State And that this is not a new uncouth way of speaking but very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Antiquity I made appear in the same place and concluded This is sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion which in a large notion signifies the Christian Church or Society which is called Communion from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other So that when I say the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion the plain and obvious sense of it is this That all the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right and the same Obligation on them to communicate with each other as opportunity serves in all those Duties for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the Members of a particular Church are For all particular Churches are as much Members of the universal Church as particular Christians are Members of a particular Church and therefore are as much bound to communicate with each other One Communion signifies one Body and Society in which all the Members communicate with one another As to explain this by a familiar Comparison Suppose the whole World were one Family or one Kingdom in which every particular man according to his Rank and Station enjoys equal Priviledges in this case the necessity of Affairs would require that men should live in distinct Houses and distinct Countreys as now they do all the World over But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges where-ever he went as he does now in his own House and Countrey the whole World would be but one great Family or universal Kingdom And whosoever should resolve to live by himself and not to receive any others into his Family nor allow them the liberty of his House would be guilty of making a Schism in this great Family of the World and what Nation soever should deny the Rights and Priviledges of natural Subjects to the Inhabitants of other Countreys would make a Schism and rent it self from this universal Kingdom Thus it is here The Church of Christ is but one Body one Church one Houshold and Family one Kingdom and therefore though the necessity of Affairs requires that neighbour-Christians combine themselves into particular Churches and particular Congregations as the World is divided into particular Families and Kingdoms yet every Christian by vertue of his Christianity hath the same Right and Priviledge and the same Obligation to Communion as occasion serves with all the Churches of the World that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives Where-ever he removes his Dwelling whatever Church he goes to he is still in the same Family the same Kingdom and the same Church I can hardly be so charitable to Mr. B. as not to believe this to be a wilful Mistake for it is impossible for any man of common sense who had ever read what I discoursed so largely and particularly of Catholick Communion to mistake it for some transient Acts of Communion when I so frequently explained one Communion by one Body and Society And all the Arguments whereby I prove one Catholick Communion prove only that all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's Arguments I
it Dr. Field of the Church 1. B. Ch. 13 I will transcribe the whole His words are these This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God and Company of his People viz Schismaticks whose departure yet is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God for whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving Truth of God Order of holy Ministry Sacraments by vertue thereof administred and a blessed Vnity and Fellowship of the People of God knit together in the bond of Peace under the command of lawful Pastors and Guides set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternal Happiness Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyned with the rest of God's People in respect of the Profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship power of Order and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have Fellowship so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church nor of that more special number of them that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church So that Dr. Field expresly acknowledges that Schismaticks may be rightly denied to be of the Church though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ may in a loose and large sense of the Word be said to belong to the Christian Church as they retain something which belongs to the Church still among them But to make this more plain and easie I shall briefly distinguish between the several Notions and Acceptations of a Church For 1. the Church sometimes signifies the number of the Elect that is all sincere Christians who are vitally united to Christ by a true and lively Faith a divine Love and Charity and all other Christian Graces and Vertues who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men and the invisible Church because we who cannot know the Hearts of men cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church 2. There is the visible Catholick Church which consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ observe his Laws and Institutions and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other This Church is called visible from its visible profession of the Christian Faith and external and visible Communion and Catholick because all such Churches all the World over are but one Communion This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ to the Communion of which all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined Now it is commonly and truly observed that there are some professed Christians who are only in this Church others who are of it and others who are out of it Those who are in the Church but not true Members of it are those professed Christians who live in the Communion of the Church but yet are either secret Hypocrites or openly wicked but not excommunicated these are in the Church by external Profession as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine till they be cut off All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession and an external Communion which is absolutely required of all Christians when it may be had and they are of the Church that is true and lively Members of it by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ None properly belong to the visible Church but those whom we call the invisible Church that is all sincere Christians for the visible and invisible are not two but one Church And the Reason of the distinction between them is because the Government of the Church being committed to men who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts and the necessity of external Affairs or the negligence of Church-Governours loosening the Reins of Discipline many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church either because they are not known or because when known they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times be cast out And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body the Spouse of Christ the Wife of the Lamb a royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People pure undefiled holy and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members not regarding what some visible Professors are who are in the Church indeed but are not of it and ought not to be in it The not observing of which has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters not to the visible but to the mystical and invisible Church which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes But then all Hereticks and Schismaticks and excommunicated Persons are out of this Church till they either return or be restored to the Communion of it For to be in the Church is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices And therefore those who either by their own Choice or by the Censures of the Church are not in Communion must be out of it And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers both ancient and modern than to meet with such Expressions as these of separating from the Church going out of it being out and being cast out of the Church which is a very strange way of speaking if Mr. Lob's Notion be true That all professed Christians what-ever they are are Members of the Catholick Church for then it is impossible for a professed Christian either to go out or to be cast out of the Catholick Church as it is for a man to go out of the World This is that one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion which I asserted and proved in the Defence from whence Hereticks and Schismaticks depart and go out and the Excommunicate are cast out But now the Difficulty is Whither these Hereticks and Schismaticks go when they go out of the Church They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers for Heresie and Schism does not make men Infidels and if they be neither in the Church nor in the World what third State shall we find for them The plain Resolution of which in short is this That they are the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks which
is a kind of middle State between the true Catholick Church and the World of Infidels They have not wholly renounced Christianity and therefore in some sense belong to the Christian Church though they are not in it There seems to be the same difference between Hereticks and Schismaticks and Catholick Christians as there is between Rebels and dutiful Subjects They are both natural Subjects to their Prince as being born in his Territories and under the same Oaths of Allegiance Rebels are not Aliens and Foreigners but Subjects still Thus Hereticks and Schismaticks though they have corrupted the Christian Faith and divided the Church yet they have the Character of Christian Baptism and either retain the Christian Faith entire or so much of it as will denominate them Christians They may have the Power of Orders Officers rightly constituted Christian Sacraments and all the Essentials of a true Church excepting Christian Peace and Unity and Catholick Communion This was the Case of the Donatist Churches which were in all things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion Upon this score many learned men own corrupt Churches which retain the Essentials of the Christian Faith though mixed and blended with many Errors and schismatical Churches which retain the Purity of Faith and Worship to be true though not every way sound and orthodox nor Catholick Churches Which I hope will satisfie Mr. Lob how the Church of Rome may be acknowledged to be a true Church and yet both corrupt and schismatical There is one Distinction which is not so commonly observed which will make all this Dispute plain and easie And that is between the visible Church and the one true Catholick visible Church The visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians whatsoever Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters or whatever they be the one visible Catholick Church contains only those Churches which are sound in the Faith and live in Catholick Communion these visible Churches are Christian Churches by outward Profession but not Parts or Members of the one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ as Optatus observes that besides one Church which is the Catholick Church the other Churches of Hereticks are thought to be Churches but are not that is they have the visible Appearance of Churches and so are visible Churches as bad men are visible Christians by a visible profession Praeter unam quae est vera Catholica caeterae apud Hereticos putantur esse non sunt Opt. l. 1. but they are not such Churches as Christ will own Quae sit una Ecclesia quam Columbam Sponsam suam Christus appellat Id. l. 2. as he adds in another place that there is but one Church which Christ calls his Dove and Spouse So that in this Sense men may be visible Christians and Members of the visible Church and yet not Members of the one Catholick Church The not observing this occasioned St. Cyprian's and the African Fathers mistake about the Rebaptization of those who were Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks and upon this very Mistake our Dissenters at this day dispute the validity of Orders received in the Church of Rome and Mr. B. so often twits us with deriving our Succession from Rome which if it were true is no Objection against us unless he will wholly unchurch the Church of Rome and assert that which Mr. Lob charges me with that Heresie or Schism does destroy all relation to the Church for if they belong to the Church still they may retain the Power of Orders and the Administration of Sacraments among them And therefore to confirm this Notion it will not be amiss to give a plain and short Account of the State of that ancient Controversie about the Rebaptization of Hereticks as it was managed by St. Cyprian and St. Austin as far as concerns our present Dispute Now 1. Both St. Cyprian and St. Austin were agreed that there is but one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ this is so acknowledged by all men who are acquainted with their Writings especially their Tracts De unitate Ecclesiae That I shall not need to transcribe any particular Sayings to that purpose 2. They were agreed also that there is no Salvation ordinarily to be had out of the Communion of this one Catholick Church Both of them do over and over affirm this Salus inquit extra Ecclesiam non est quis negat August de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 17 and St. Austin asserts that no Body in his days denied it But 3. St. Cyprian would not allow that Hereticks or Schismaticks did in any Sense belong to the Church but denies them to be Christians and consequently that they had any Christian Sacraments among them Quisquis ille est aut qualiscunque est Christianus non est quia in Christi Ecclesia non est Cypr. E◠52. ad Anton. He would not allow Novatianus to be a Christian or to be in the Church of Christ and this was the Reason why he so vehemently urged the necessity of Baptizing those who had been Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks when they returned to the Unity of the Catholick Church because Schismaticks had no Church and therefore no Baptism it being impossible to separate the Church and Baptism according to the Judgment of the African Fathers in the Council of Carthage St. Austin on the other hand considered Mirum autem est quomodo dicatur separari à se dividi omnino non posse Baptismum Ecclesiam si enim Baptisma in Baptizato inseparabiliter manet quomodo Baptizatus separari ab Ecclesia potest Baptismus non potest August de Baptismo cont Donat. l. 5. ca. 15. See St. Hierom. contra Luciferianos in Initio that those who were Baptized in the Catholick Church did not forfeit their Baptism by turning Hereticks or Schismaticks and forsaking the Communion of the Church for no man ever disputed whether such Persons upon their Repentance might not be restored to the Communion of the Church without being re-baptized which proves that the Church did not think them Infidels for Infidels cannot be admitted into the Church without Baptism and if such men retain their Baptism when they are out of the Church then the Church and Baptism may be separated Ita posse extra Catholicam Communionem dari Baptismum quemadmodum extra eam potest haberi Sic illi qui per Sacrilegium Schismatis an Ecclesiae Communione discedunt habent utique Baptismum quem priusquam discederent acceperunt quod si foris baberi potest etiam dari cur non potest Ibid. l. 1. cap. 1. which overthrows the main Principle on which the African Bishops founded their Doctrine and Practise of re-baptizing Hereticks From hence he concludes that if men may retain their Baptism out of the Church they may give Baptism out of the Church too for the same Argument whereby they opposed the
the Case of bad men in the Church and Schismaticks out of it Arguendum est sic foris quoà Christi est agnoscendum est c. 9. according to St. Austin is much the same only with this difference Dixerit aliquis interiora Zizania facilius in frumentum converti concedo ita esse c. 10. That he allows bad men in the Church to be in a more hopeful Condition to become good than Schismaticks are But if he will allow bad men to belong to the Church he must in some sense allow Schismaticks to do so too or else he does not fairly conclude from the Validity of Sacraments administred by bad men in the Church to the Validity of Sacraments administred by Schismaticks out of the Church 3. In Answer to that captious Question of the Donatists whether Baptism administred by them did regenerate which they would make a Mark of the true Church to beget Children to God by Baptism he does acknowledg not only their Baptism but Baptismal Regeneration but then says Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est non ex hoc unde conjuncta est Separata est enim à vinculo charitatis pacis sed adjuncta est in uno Baptismate Itaque una est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum à sua unitate Separatis per hoc quod suum in eis habet ipsa utique generat non illi neque enim Separatio ecrum generat quod secum de ista tenuerunt quod si hoc dimittant omnino non generant l. 1. cap. 10. that Baptism has this Effect as it belongs to the Church not upon account of its Administration by them wherein they are separated from the Church they can do nothing but as far as they continue united as they did in the same Baptism so the Sacraments of the Church will have their Effect though their Efficacy is immediately lost in a Schism of which more presently which is a plain acknowledgment that Schismaticks are not wholly separated from the Church as retaining something which belongs to the Church And this he confirms by a mystical Interpretation of the Stories of Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael and says that the Church bears Children not only by her self but by her Maids conceived by the Divine Seed of the Sacraments l. 1. c. 10. Ergo ipsa generat per uterum suum per uterum ancillarumex ejusdem Sacramentis tanquam ex viri sui semine which how fanciful soever it may seem to be shews what St. Austin's Opinion was that Schismaticks themselves did in some sense belong to the Church 4. But then lest any man should think that it is no great hurt to separate from the Unity of the Church if Schismaticks may retain the Faith and Sacraments of the Church St. Austin adds That though Schismaticks may have the Sacraments of the Church yet they are not available to Salvation in a Schism They have Baptism and give Baptism Non recte foris habetur tamen habetur sic non recte foris datur tamen datur sicut autem per unitatis reconciliationem incipit utiliter haberi quod extra Ecclesiam inutiliter habebatur sic per eandem reconciliationem incipit utile esse quod extra illam inutiliter datum est Aug. de oapt l. 1. cap. 1. but without any profit or advantage and therefore he exhorts the Donatists and in them all other Schismaticks not to be puffed up with a Conceit of what they have but to consider what they want and how many great and excellent things profit nothing when one thing is wanting and that this one thing is Charity which principally consists in preserving Catholick Communion without which whatever they have besides cannot procure their Admission into Heaven And therefore when the Donatists pressed him with that Difficulty since he acknowledged Baptism as administred by them to be true Christian Baptism Non extolluntur ex his quae habent quid tantum per ea quae sana sunt superbos oculos ducunt Et vulnus tuum dignentur humiliter intueri nec solum quid assit sed etiam quid desit attendunt videant quam multa quam magna nihil possint si unum quidem desuerit videant qaid siti sum unum Charitatem utique non habendo etiam cum illis omnibus quae nihil eis prosunt ad aeternam salutem pervenire non possunt Ibid. cap. 9. which ought not to be repeated whether this Baptism did wash away sin For if it did then they were the true Church wherein alone Remission of sin is to be had if it did not then it is not true Christian Baptism and so those who were Baptized by the Donatists ought not to be received into the Catholick Church without Baptism St. Austin answers this two ways either 1. That Baptism though administred by Donatists being not their Baptism but the Baptism of Christ Ib. cap. 11. 12. and the Christian Church had its effect in ipso temporis puncto in the instant of its Administration to wash away sins but that the Guilt of these sins did immediately return again the Baptized Person continuing in his Schism or 2. That the Schism of the Person Baptized did hinder the efficacy of Baptism as any other sin does for the Grace of Baptism is given only to Persons who are qualified to receive it and if any such Persons offer themselves to Baptism who live in any sin unrepented of their sins are not washed away in Baptism though they receive it in the Communion of the Church But yet when they repent of their sins they are not to be rebaptized but then receive that Grace and Pardon by vertue of their former Baptism which their Hypocrisie and Impenitence hindred them of when they were baptized Thus it is with those who are baptized in a Schism their sins are not washed away by Baptism because their Schism suspends the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament but when they return to the Communion of the Church then their Baptism proves a true Laver of Regeneration From hence we easily learn what St. Austin's Judgment was in this Controversie For 1st Though he would not own That Schismaticks in a proper sense had any Church there being but one Catholick Church to which the Name of Church does properly belong as Optatus also asserts That the Churches of Schismaticks appear to be Churches but are not nor 2ly would he allow them to be Members of the Catholick Church whose Communion they have forsaken Illud quale esl ideo putetur baereticus non habere Raptismum quia non habet Ecclesiam Aug. de bapt l. 5. cap. 20. and therefore says they are out of the Church and denies that Catholicks and Schismaticks have the same Church Ita ergo potest Haereticus Catholicus Baptisma unum babere
The highest and noblest Attainments of Christianity would be no Vertues in an earthly state Were we to live always happily in this World were this the best and most perfect state we could expect it would be no Vertue but a great instance of Folly to despise the good things of this Life and to live above them For in such a State the delights and satisfactions of Flesh and Sense would be an essential part of our Happiness and whatever is so cannot and ought not to be despised It always becomes a reasonable Creature to govern all his appetites and desires by the Laws of Reason and to mortifie and subdue his inordinate Affections as that signifies to correct the Extravagancies of them but yet in an earthly state he may indulge himself to the full in all lawful Enjoyments and is not bound to lay restraints upon himself nor to endeavour to stifle and suppress his sensual Inclinations nor to deny them their proper and natural satisfactions That is he who is to live always in this World and has no bigger or diviner Happiness to expect is not bound to die to this World while he lives in it So that all those Evangelical duties of Self-denial and Mortification and Contempt of this World and heavenly Mindedness can be no Vertues nor Duties in any earthly state much less a life of Faith and hope of unseen things when we have no unseen things promised to us as the Object of our Faith and Hope but have our Portion at present and expect only a circular and endless Repetition of the same Enjoyments The Laws of Vertue must be proportioned to the State and Condition of Man-kind and must alter and vary with it that which becomes an earthly Creature who is to live always in this World and in this Body which as far as we know was the Original state of Man-kind does not become one who must put off this Body and lives in this World not as his home and place of rest but as a probation-state for a better and more spiritual Life That Vertue which teaches us how to live happily in this World and that which must prepare us for the Happiness of the next must differ as much as Earth and Heaven as Flesh and Spirit And this I take to be the true difference between Moral Vertue and Evangelical Graces the first is proportioned to the state of a reasonable Creature inhabiting an earthly Body without any expectations of a more Divine and Spiritual Life the second includes a Respect to the other World and that Angelical Happiness which Christ has promised to his sincere Disciples The Religion then of our Saviour being as much above Nature as that Glory and Happiness is which is revealed and promised in the Gospel it is necessary we should have some more divine Principle to raise us into this divine Life than meer Nature is for Nature can never act above it self and that the Gospel tells us is the holy Spirit of God whereby we are Renewed and Sanctified and have the divine Nature formed in us and this being above Nature no considering man will say that the Gift of the Holy Spirit is owing to our Natures or that God is under any natural Obligation as our Maker to bestow it on us The Result of which is this that the Gift of the Holy Spirit whereby we are born again and prepared and qualified for a divine and immortal state of Life being an act of pure Grace and wholly owing to the Mediation of Christ God may dispence it upon what terms and in what manner he pleases and we must expect it only in that way which God has appointed for the bestowing of it I need not insist now on the Pardon of our sins which all Mankind own to be an Act of Grace which we can upon no account challenge without a Promise nor upon any other Terms and Conditions nor in any other way than what is promised So that the whole Work of our Redemption is an Act of pure Grace which we cannot challenge from the natural Goodness of God nor from his natural Relation to us as we are his Creatures and therefore must thankfully accept of it in what way God pleases to give it and not quarrel with him if he do not give it to those who will not have it in his way 4. And therefore I observe in the next Place That all the Blessings of the Gospel are promised to us in a Church-state This is so fully Discourse of our Union c. to Christ Chap. 4. sect 1. 142 Defence Continuat c. 5. p. 399. and hitherto so unanswerably proved by Dr. Sherlock in his Discourse of our Union and Communion with Jesus Christ and in his Defence and Continuation of that Discourse in answer to Mr. Ferguson that would men be at the Pains to turn to those Books there need be nothing said to it here however that this Treatise may not be wholly defective in so material a Point I shall speak something briefly to it and refer those who have a mind to see this Matter more fully debated to the aforesaid Discourses 1 Then That Christ did intend to erect a Church in the World and to unite all his Disciples into one Religious Society is so universally acknowledged that it is a needless trouble to prove that which no body denies no man denies that Christ has a Church and that he intended to have one only the seekers know not where to find it now methinks if Christ have instituted a Church wherein he requires all his Disciples to communicate as Members of the same Body it goes a great way towards proving that the ordinary Means of Salvation are to be had only in the Communion of this Church for to what purpose is this Church instituted if not for a common Body and Society of those who shall be saved by Christ No Society can be founded or maintained but by such Priviledges and Immunities as make it desirable to enter into it and continue in it without this all Kingdoms and Common-wealths Cities and Families would disband for nothing can tie men together who are naturally giddy and fond of Innovations but some sensible Advantages which they cannot otherwise enjoy And therefore the Church being a spiritual Society and the great end of its Institution the Salvation of sinners it is not reasonable to think that Christ would institute a Church without obliging Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of it at the Peril of their Souls if they do not 2. And therefore I farther observe That the Gospel-Covenant is the Charter whereon the Church is founded The Blood of Christ is the Blood of the Covenant the Covenant of Grace being purchased and sealed by the Blood of Christ and therefore let us consider whether this Covenant be made with particular men considered as single and scattered Individuals or as incorporated into a Church Now in general we are told that Christ is
the Saviour of the Body and that he has redeemed his Church with his own Blood which confines the Effects and Application of his Grace and Merit and Satisfaction to his own Body which is the Church But besides this we may consider That the Jewish Church was Typical of the Christian Church nay indeed that it is the same Church still only enlarged and Chrystianized for the Christian Church is built upon the foundations not only of the Apostles but Prophets and Jews and Gentiles are united into one Church by breaking down the middle wall of partition and engrafting the Gentiles upon the same Root and Stock with them as I discoursed at large in the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet Now we know the Mosaick Covenant was made with the Children of Israel as a Nation whom God had chosen for himself of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham Natural Jews had no Title to this Covenant till they were circumcised and incorporated into the Body of Israel considered as in Covenant with God of which Circumcision was the Sign and Seal and no strangers were admitted to these priviledges of the Covenant till they were engrafted into the Body of Israel by Circumcision and became one People with them So that the Mosaick Covenant which was but the Christian Covenant in Types and Figures was confined to a particular Nation or Body of men and to all those who were incorporated into the same Body with them now it is plain that the Christian Church is incorporated into the Body of Israel and therefore the Apostles call the Christians the true Israel of God and all the Names of Israel are given to the Christian Church A chosen Generation a royal Priesthood 1 Pet. 2.9 an holy Nation a peculiar People So that the Christian Church is a Nation and People peculiar to God and chosen by him out of the rest of the World as the Jews formerly were that is united to God and to each other in the same Covenant and therefore as the Mosaical Covenant was confined to the Body of Israel that no Strangers or Aliens had any right to it so is the Gospel Covenant confined to the Communion of the Christian Church And therefore Christ is said to give himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purifie to himself a peculiar People zealous of good Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Tit. 14. as it is in St. Peter which is one of the Names of Israel as they were a Nation a peculiar Body and Society of men separated from the rest of the World 3. To confirm this we may consider that it is not enough that Christ has died for us and purchased the Pardon of our sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit unless this Pardon and Grace be applyed to us in such ways as he has appointed For it will not suffice that we make Christ our own by a fanciful Application of his Merits to our selves which would quickly overturn the Church and make the Institutions of our Saviour very useless things as we see this conceit has in a great measure done already but we must receive Christ and all his Blessings as he is pleased to bestow them Now that the holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are by the Institution of our Saviour the ordinary Conveyances and Ministries of Grace has been the universal Belief of the Christian Church in all Ages in Baptism we receive the Remission of our sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit and therefore we are said to be baptized for the Remission of sins and to be born of Water and of the Spirit and we are said to be saved by the washing of Regeneration 3 Titus 5. and the renewal of the holy Ghost In the Lord's Supper Christ gives himself to us as the Bread of Life See Dr. Sherlock's practical Discourse of religious Assemblies part 2. which is the daily Food and Nourishment of our Souls of which the Manna in the Wilderness was but a Type The Cup of Blessing which we bless is the Communion of the Blood of Christ that Blood which was shed for the remission of Sins and the Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 That is in this holy Sacrament all the Merits of Christ's Death and Sufferings are made over to worthy Communicants Here we receive the fresh Supplies of the holy Spirit Ch. 12 13. and therefore are said to drink into one Spirit but I need not insist on the proof of that which no body denies who has any Reverence for our Saviours Institutions and does not think them meer empty Shadows and insignificant Ceremonies If then our Saviour has appointed these holy Sacraments as the Means and Conveyances of Grace and these Sacraments are ineffectual to those who do not live in the Unity and Communion of the Christian Church then we cannot ordinarily expect the Application of Christ's Merits to us or the Vertue of his Death and Passion out of Catholick Communion And yet this was as generally acknowledged by the ancient Fathers as the other as I have already shown St. Cyprian would not acknowledg that Schismaticks had any Sacraments no more than that they had any Church St. Austin acknowledged that they had Sacraments but inutiliter their Schism made the Sacraments ineffectual to attain the end for which they were instituted and indeed the very Nature of the Sacraments will easily satisfie us that it must be so Baptism is the Sacrament of Pardon and Forgiveness of our Regeneration and new Birth by the holy Spirit but it is the Sacrament also of our initiation and incorporation into the Christian Church And upon this very account our sins are forgiven in Baptism and the holy Spirit is bestowed on us because it makes us the Members of Christ's Body that is of his Church to whom the Forgiveness of sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit is promised and therefore those who are baptized in a Schism and are no sooner made the Members of Christ's Church but do immediately divide and separate themselves from its Communion if they do receive remission of their Sins and the Gift of the Spirit in the instant wherein they are baptized as St. Austin supposes they may yet do immediately forfeit it again by their Schism For the same Sacrament must have its entire effect or none at all Incorporation into the Christian Church and forgiveness of sins are inseparably united in Baptism as God's and man's part is in the same Covenant Incorporation into the Christian Church which is signified represented and compleated in Baptism is our part of the Covenant our choice and resolution and actual undertaking of Christianity which is done by a Profession of our Faith in Christ and subjection to him and by uniting our selves to the Society and Fellowship of his Church by such a sacred Right as he has appointed 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
aetatem suscepta sunt That the general Decretals of the Roman Bishops have been sent into France as well as into other Provinces and received with great Applause by the Roman Emperors and the French Kings from the first foundation of that Kingdom till this present Age. 4. 4. Nullum esle crimen cujus ratione Papa deponi possit exceptâ haereseos puolicà professae causa quod verum esse testimoniis veterum docetur praeterea hanc esse antiquam ecclesiae Gallicanae definitionem demonstratur That no Crime is a sufficient Reason for deposing the Pope except the publick Profession of Heresie and that this is true he proves by the Testimonies of the Ancients and besides shews that it has been of old the Judgment and Definition of the Gallican Church 5. 5. Papam solvere posse dispensare valide licite à canonibus conciliorum Generalium etiam sine causa dummodo haec dispensatio non tendat ad labefactandum ecclesiae statum That the Pope can effectually and lawfully dispense with the Canons of general Councils even without any Cause so long as such a Dispensation does not weaken the State of the Church 6. 6. Libertates ecclesiae Gallicanae consistere in usu praxi Canonum atque decretalium tam veterum quam recentiorum easque non pendere à sola praxi antiquorum Canonum Vbi ostendit ur necessitate cogente Pontifices variis temporibus pro bono publico ecclesiae ad novas leges condendas progressos That the Liberties of the Gallican Church consists in the Use and Practise of Canons and Decretals both Ancient and Modern and is not confined only to the Practise of Ancient Canons where he shews that at several times in case of necessity Popes have proceeded to make new Laws for the publick Good of the Church 7. 7. Papam praeter eum primatum quo universae ecclesiae praeest solum esse immediatum occidentis Galliarum Patriarcham Regibus verò non competere jus aliquod Episcopatum vel metropolim instituendi multo minus Patriarchatum Litâ—ra Censurae Romanae in prolegom ad librum de Concordia sacerd Imp. That the Pope besides his primacy over the Universal Church is the only and immediate Patriarch of the Western and Gallican Churches and that Kings have no Right or Power to erect any New Bishoprick Metropolitical Seat much less a Patriarchate This is a brief Scheme of French Popery as it respects the Government of the Church if we believe this great Arch-bishop Men may assert the Authority of a General Council without being Papists but no man can be a Papist who does not acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme Head and universal Pastor of the Christian Church whom all Princes Prelates and People are bound to obey in Communion with whom consists the Unity of the Catholick Church and to separate from whom is a Schism All Papists must own the Bishop of Rome for their universal Pastor though they are not agreed whether his Power be absolute or under the Controul of a general Council 3. Having thus prepared the way it will be no hard Matter to vindicate the doctrine of the Defence about the Unity of Church-power from those ridiculous and senseless Imputations of Cassandrianism and French Popery This Charge is managed so knavishly by Mr. Lob who hath put in words of his own to make out the Charge when my words would not do it and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter with so much confusion and yet with so much Triumph by both that there needs no other Art to expose and shame them than to set my Notions in a true light once more and to vindicate them from the artificial mis-representations of ignorance or a Scholastick Buffoonery The Sum of their Charge amounts to this that I place the supreme governing Power of the Church in a general Council and that the Unity of the Church consists in the Subjection of all particular Christians and Churches to a general Council and yet they are forced to acknowledg that I disown a Constitutive Regent Head of a National or of the Universal Church And here they cry out of Contradictions and exercise their guessing faculty what should be the meaning of it and yet hold to the Conclusion in spight of Nonsense and Contradiction that I set up one soveraign Power over the Universal Church As for Contradictions I will consider them anon but the first thing to be done is to examine what occasion I have given them to think that I place the supreme unifying Power as Mr. B. calls it of the Church in a general Council Mr. Lob lays it down as his fundamental Charge against me Reply p. 27.31 that I make the Vniversal Church the first Seat of Government Or as he learnedly speaks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is a pars imperans subdita The Bishops in their Colledge being the Governors Or pars Imperans and all others of the universal Church the subdite part which others would have called Subjects and that in the very next words he adds It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the universal Church to be a Political organized Body as indeed he doth So that it seems I deny what he says I assert which either proves that I did not understand my self or that Mr. Lob does not or will not understand me and which of these is most likely comes now to be tryed Only we must first observe what he means by the universal Church being the first Seat of Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is one supreme and soveraign Power over the Whole As a Kingdom is one Pollitical organized Body because it is under one supreme Government and all the Power of inferior Officers is derived from the King as the supreme governing Head or as the Papists make the Catholick Church one Political organized Body and the Pope or a General Council the Constitutive Regent Head of it Now then let us hear how he proves this Charge against me that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government and such a Political organized Body as he here talks of And to this purpose he alleadges several things which shall be particularly but briefly considered 1. Reply p. 27. He alleadges that I assert That all Church Officers belong to the universal Church and have one original Right to govern the whole universal Church These are none of my words nor do they represent my sense Every one who reads this Proposition as Mr. Lob has expressed it would imagine that I made every Bishop as soveraign a Monarch of the Church as the Pope of Rome is whereas all that I say in that passage he cites out of the Defence is no more but this 1. That the Apostles had a Relation to
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
any Reason why all the Christian Churches in a Nation may not thus unite and why Churches thus united may not be called a National Church though they were not Confirmed and Establisht by humane Laws though the Prince and great part of his Subjects were Infidels Hereticks or Schismaticks But Mr. H. observes that I say Reply p. 131. I cannot tell why it is accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more than to be Vniversal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more than Vniversal and Answers But when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the Consederation of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be accidental to it I am very willing to see any thing I can but I can see nothing here but his Mistake That the Church cannot subsist without a Patriarch or Metropolitan I never said yet nor does he produce any place where I have said it for what he says are not my words but his own Comment All that I say is this that the Association and Confederacy of neighbour Churches is founded on the Law of Catholick Communion and that Catholick Communion cannot be maintained without it that such Combinations of Churches in several Nations and Provinces there were long before there were any Christian Princes and may be so still though there were no Christian Kings in the World and therefore that a Church may be National without being incorporated into the State It is true since the first Records of Church-History these greater Combinations of Churches have by mutual Consent had a Patriarch Primate or Metropolitan set over them and therefore we cannot speak of these Churches in the Ancient Language without calling them Patriarchal or Metropolitical Churches but my Argument does not proceed upon the Union of Churches under a Patriarch or Metropolitan but upon their Association for Advice and Councel and Discipline for the preservation of Catholick Communion There may be such Associations without a Patriarch or Metropolitan but the universal Church has always thought it most convenient to have one and Mr. H. is greatly mistaken to think that every thing which is not essential to a Church is accidental There are a great many prudential Constitutions in Societies which are of great use to the well-being of a Society though not of absolute necessity to its being and he would be thought a very mean Politician who should call the Results of the best Reason and Consideration and most mature advice for the publick Good accidental Constitutions The Union of neighbour Churches for Worship Discipline and Government is not accidental to the Church but the necessary Result of Catholick Communion which is a binding Law to all Churches and hereon I found a National Church The Superiority and Jurisdiction of Patriarchs or Metropolitans is not essential to the Church but a present Ecclesiastical Constitution which ought not to be called Accidental unless when they are the Results of Chance or the Effects of Folly Ignorance and Rashness like Mr. H's accidental National Church patcht up of forty separate Communions united in an accidental Head but this man I perceive is an Epicurean Divine who makes the Church as that Philosopher did the World by a fortuitous jumble of Atoms But at last Mr. H. grants me all that I ask with reference to National Churches for to prove That the Vnion of all the Christian Churches in a Nation into one Body and Society is no more an accidental Consideration of the Church than the universal Church it self is Defence p. 561. I observed That our Saviour gave Command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations and to plant Churches in them and therefore this was the Intention of our Saviour that there should be Churches in all Nations as well as in all the World and if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church then certainly much more must all the Churches in a Nation be but one which are in a nearer Capacity of Communion with each other than the Churches of all the World are and whereby Catholick Vnity and Communion may be more easily preserved than if all the Churches in a Nation were single and independent there being a more easie correspondence between Nations than between every Town and City in distant Nations To this Mr. H. replies Reply p. 131. And as for Christs Command of planting Churches in the whole World and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Vnity and Communion every where among Christians i. e. the Unity and Communion of one Body for that is my meaning it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end i. e. to maintain one Catholick Communion if he please provided only that these Forms be held only accidental Forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential Form of the Church of Christ according to divine Institution But we are not a talking of Church-forms but of Church-Communion The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution though not therefore accidental as I observed before but Catholick Communion is a divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is divine also See the Defence p. 258. though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer humane Prudence because it is not the Result of meer natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a divine Institution Now if Mr. H. will as we see at last he does own such Combinations of Churches into one Body for Catholick Communion according to our Saviours that is a divine Institution then we find a National Church antecedent to any humane Laws and of a distinct Consideration from a Church incorporated into the State But after all I wonder what Church-form Mr. H. will own to be of divine Institution since he says that Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches must be held only accidental forms according to humane prudence there is no form left that I know of but an independent Church-form to be of divine Institution and if Mr. H. will own this farewell to Catholick Communion for Independency in the very Nature of it is a Schism as I have proved in the Defence There is one thing more Mr. H. says which because it is very pleasant I reserved to the last Reply p. 130. Mr. H. proves a National Church to be an accidental Consideration of a Church because that to the being of a National Church it is necessary that all the People of the Nation should be Christians and that the King should be so also both which are very accidental things and therefore a National Church is an accidental Church now I proved in the Defence that
this That every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a constitutive visible Head The Interposer now to take off the shame from the Doctor hath taken the right Course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term into the Argument if every Church when he should say every proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a visible subordinate constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one but that not having such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a constitutive Head I was in a horrible fright when I heard four and five terms and began to blush at it but if this be all the Business I shall be able to bear this shame very well As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence which Mr. H. takes no notice of For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church which has one constitutive Regent Head and therefore the Dean denies that a National Church is a proper Political Church considered as a Church in Mr. B's sence of the Words and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out and yet to gratifie Mr. H. we will take it in if he will but allow the Catholick Church to be as proper Political a Church as the National Church is and then the Argument runs thus If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a National constitutive Regent Head as essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a Catholick visible Regent Head essential to it And thus I think it comes much to one and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head time was when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument but learnedly disputed that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Church hath a visible Head as well as the National Church But let us briefly consider whether visible be a fourth Term or only added as a necessary Explication of Mr. B's Proposition if he mean any thing by it For I think Logicians distinguish between a fourth Term and an additional explication of the Terms Mr. B. disputes that every proper Political Church and therefore a National Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Does he mean by this constitutive Regent Head a visible Head on Earth or an invisible Head in Heaven If he means Christ as an invisible Head in Heaven then there is no Dispute between us for we will readily grant that Christ is the Head of the National as well as of the Catholick Church If he means a visible Head on Earth then Visible is no fourth Term but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head And then the Argument holds good from a National to the Catholick Church That if a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible Constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it or Mr. B's Argument is not true that every proper Political Church must have a visible Regent Head on Earth essential to it Thus I think the Dean is once more defended but I must speak one good word for my self too as Charity obliges me Mr. H. says I bring in a fifth Term subordinate visible Head But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions Mr. B. says every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head does he mean this of Christ as the supreme Head of his Church or of men whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons as a subordinate Head under Christ if the first there is no dispute between us for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church If the second a subordinate Head then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term but included in a constitutive Regent Head and I think I need not spend time to prove that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head is not a parallel case because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head as Visible and Subordinate are for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective but signifies neither determinately unless it be expressed I shall only observe how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Yes saith Mr. B. and Mr. H. so it hath for Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church Where we plainly see that in the Antecedent by a constitutive Regent Head they understand a Visible Subordinate and Mr. H. says an accidental Head of the Church and in the Consequent a supreme invisible Head of the Church which is as fallacious a way of answering as it is of arguing And now I leave the Reader to judge where the shame which Mr. H. so much talks of must at last rest But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame as Impudence is to others CHAP. V. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it IN the eighth Chapter of the Defence I briefly stated what the Communion is which is essential to the Catholick or Universal Church and what place there can be for this Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day Mr. B. in his Answer Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it but it is such a something as needs no farther answer for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church And both these I have discoursed so fully already that I cannot excuse my self to my Reader should I repeat over the same things again and therefore I shall only briefly consider some few new Objections he has started which though they are very trifling yet may disturb an injudicious Reader I asserted That Catholick Communion strictly so called Defence p. 595. consists 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other Here Mr. Baxter 1 plays the Critick He
divine Grace and Life Can a finite Creature be a kind of universal Soul to the whole Christian Church and to every sincere member of it Can a Creature make such close Applications to our minds know our thoughts set bounds to our Passions inspire us with new affections and desires and be more intimate to us than we are to our selves If a Creature be the only instrument and principle of Grace we shall soon be tempted either to deny the grace of God or to make it only an external thing and entertain very mean conceits of it All those miraculous gifts which were bestowed on the Apostles and primitive Christians for the edification of the Church were the gifts of the Spirit all the graces of the Christian Life are the fruits of the Spirit The divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us which first gives life to our Souls and will at the last day raise our dead bodies out of the dust works which sufficiently proclaim him to be God and which we cannot heartily believe in the Gospel-notion of them if he be not Thus we see how fundamental the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is in the Christian Religion because we cannot rightly understand the Doctrine of Salvation nor the Covenant of Grace without this belief which seems to be the true reason why the more perfect discovery of this was reserved for Gospel-times and only obscurely hinted under the Law because the peculiar use of it is under the Gospel each sacred Person having a peculiar interest and concernment in the work of our Redemption And therefore all those who expresly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the holy Spirit as many ancient Hereticks did of old and as the Socinians do at this day do err fundamentally however God may be merciful to their ignorance or prejudice which it does not concern us to meddle with But though it is necessary and essential to the Christian Faith to acknowledg Father Son and holy Ghost to be one eternal God yet there are a great many little subtilties started by over-curious and busie heads which are not fundamental Doctrines and ought not to be thought so God forbid that all the nice distinctions and definitions of the Schools about Essence Subsistence Personalty about eternal Generation and Procession the difference between Filiation and Spiration c. should be reckon'd among Fundamentals of our Faith For though we understood nothing of these matters as indeed we don't and it had been happy the Church had never heard of them yet if we believe the Divinity of each Person we believe enough to understand the Doctrine of Salvation And though that fatal Dispute between the Greek and Latine Church about the Filioque be of more importance than such Scholastick subtilties yet I cannot see that it concerns the foundation of our Faith For the Grâ—ek Church did firmly believe the holy Spirit to be true God though they would not own that he proceeded from the Father and the Son but from the Father only And though we must acknowledg this to be a mistake yet it is not a fundamental mistake for the Doctrine of Salvation is secured by believing the holy Spirit to be true God without defining the manner of his Procession 2. Upon the same account that the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity is a fundamental Article of our Faith the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation also and what he did and suffered in order to our Salvation the meritorious Sacrifice of his death his Resurrection from the dead Assenscion into Heaven Intercession for us at God's right hand and that he shall come again to judge the World to reward his faithful Disciples with a glorious Resurrection and eternal Life and to punish the wicked with eternal Death must be reckoned also among the Fundamentals of Christianity because we cannot rightly understand nor rightly believe the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ without a belief of these Matters This is so obvious at the first proposal that I need not insist on the Proof of it And therefore those who deny Christ to be true and perfect man as well as those who deny him to be God err fundamentally for he could not die for us nor expiate our sins by his blood if he were not man As for the Modus of this Hypostatical union how the divine and humane nature are united in Christ it must be acknowledged to be very unconceivable by us and it is no great wonder it should be so when we do not perfectly understand any one sort of natural union not so much as how the parts of matter hang together much less how the Soul and Body is united to make one man But yet it is fundamental to the Christian Faith to believe that the divine and humane nature are united in Christ that the same Christ is both perfect God and perfect man or we must err fundamentally in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for neither God nor man distinctly and separately considered can be our Saviour according to the Gospel-notion of Salvation God cannot suffer and die and the death of a man cannot expiate sin nor his Power save us and therefore we must acknowledg that God and man is so united in Christ that the Actions and operations of each nature do as properly belong to one Christ as the distinct Operations of Body and Soul are the actions of the same man Upon this account the Catholick Church condemned the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches For Nestorius divided not only the Natures but the Persons in Christ only united them in Authority and Dignity And thus Christ was not an Incarnate God in one Person but the Man Christ was taken into a nearer relation to the second Person of the Trinity than any other Man or Creature is but not so as to become one with him which destroyes the Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of God For whatever Dignity and Honour were conferr'd upon the man Christ by his relation to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine Word yet his Blood was not the Blood of God because notwithstanding this Relation to God the Son he remained as much a distinct Person and Subsistence as any other man is The Heresie of Eutyches is certainly equally dangerous for he ran so far from the Nestorian Heresie of two Persons that he denyed two natures in Christ He did not deny but that there was a humane and divine nature before their union but he asserted such an union of natures in Christ as made a mixture and confusion of natures That Christ did not remain perfect God and perfect man after this union but the humane and divine natures were so blended together as to become one nature as well as one Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calist l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. l. 15. cap. 6. And therefore he denyed the very Body of Christ to be of the same nature with our Bodies or subject
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
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
and the People that he exhorts all Christians to pray for one another as members of the same Body for if Paul had been a Mediator the other Apostles had been Mediators too and so we should have a great many Mediators and not as he himself tells us one Mediator and therefore he says that the Prayers of wicked Bishops are heard for the People not for the Bishop's sake but pro devotione populorum for the Peoples Devotion or as they are the Prayers of the Church And when the Donatists proved that wicked Bishops could not minister in holy things because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest who had any blemish or defect he answers that this was only Typical of Christ Ib. cap. 7. and fulfilled only in him So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood yet indeed it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it but is instituted by Christ for Instruction Discipline and Government and the publick Administration of religious Offices It was very requisite indeed that Christ himself should invest the Governors of his Church with Authority and Power for this Office and it is necessary to the Peace Order and Unity of the Church that no man should usurp this Power and Authority to himself but receive it from the hands of those who have Power to give it and therefore this Apostolical Power excepting the case of necessity is as saored and inviolable as the Priesthood it self but in case of necessity where the succession of Apostolical Power fails or a plenary Authority to convey it it admits of a more easie redress than the failure of a Mystical or Typical Priesthood would do For there is no Office of Religion but in such a case any Christian may perform we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ and as for Authority necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church when the regular ways of conveyance fail may be very easily presumed to be approved and confirmed by God This I take to be the true sence of Tertullian's argument which I have explained the more largely because some men are very apt to abuse all such passages to the diminution of the Ministerial Office though with what little reason I think is very evident but whatever becomes of Tertullian's Argument or whether the Church proceeded upon these Principles or not in granting Liberty to Lay-men to baptize in case of necessity the Practise of the Church is plain in this matter thus it was in Tertullian's time and thus it has been in most Ages of the Church ever since and is to this day allowed in the Church of Rome and if the Church allows Lay-men in case of necessity to administer Sacraments we may reasonably presume it will in the same necessity allow of the Ordinations of Presbyters I shall only observe further that this practise of the Church in allowing the baptism of Lay-men in case of necessity seems to me utterly to overthrow those Principles which a learned Author has Published in his late Discourse of Schism Some of his Principles are these That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments That the Validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administred they being the Seals of the Covenant which as in all Covenants between man and man are void in Law if they be not applyed by Persons who have Authority to seal This Authority of applying the Seals of the Covenant can be derived only from God and that only by Episcopal Ordinations Now I must profess my dissent from this Learned man upon more accounts than one at present it may suffize that either these Principles are false or the Catholick Church has been in a dangerous mistake in allowing the Baptism of private Christians where there were no Ecclesiastical Ministers to do it For if the Validity of Baptism depends upon the Authority of him who baptizes then the Baptism of Lay-men who according to his Principles can have no such Authority must be actually void and have no saving effect and then the Catholick Church ever since Tertullian's time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation And how specious soever any Arguments may be I shall be always jealous of such a Conclusion as charges the Primitive and Catholick Church with ignorance and error so dangerous and destructive to mens Souls This learned man was aware of this Separation of Churches c. p. 143. and therefore confesses For my part I do not understand how the validity of Laicks and much more womens Baptism who by the Apostles rule are much less capable of Fcclesiastical Authority can be defended unless it may possibly be by that general delegation which may be conceived to have been granted to them by the Governors by those customs and constitutions which permit them to administer it But it would then be a further doubt how far such Persons as these are capable of such a delegation To which I do not intend at present to digress But indeed this had been no digression or the most useful digression in all his Book The matter of Fact is confessed by him that in case of necessity Laicks were allowed to baptize which overthrows his whole Hypothesis whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases whatsoever If the Church in case of necessity has permitted Laicks to baptize we may presume that in the same necessity she will allow Presbyters to Ordain if Laicks are not capable of such a delegation then the Catholick Church has erred in a fundamental Practise which is necessary to Salvation if they be then the administration of Sacraments is not in all cases absolutely confined to the Clergy for all such cases must be excepted wherein the Church has Power to dispense for this delegated Power does not make them Ecclesiastical Officers but gives Authority or Permission to Laicks in such cases to do the work of a Bishop or of other consecrated Persons And yet we find the first Foundations of a very great Church laid in this manner by Frumentius in India who was only a Laick and yet erected Churches whether those Christians Dum regni gubernacula Frumentius haberet in manibus Deo mentem ejus animos instigante requirere sollicitius caepit si qui inter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent ipsis potestatem maximam dare ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent Ruff. l. 10. Hist Eccl. whom he found there resorted to pray to God after the manner of the Church of Rome which in those days was performed with the celebration of the Eucharist and yet they had no Bishop nor Presbyter among them and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together to pray after
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
whole Discourse is that it is not in all cases and circumstances unlawful to maintain Catholick Communion with such a Church as being forced to it by necessity is neither governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters Episcopally ordained III. There still remains the third and fourth terms of Catholick Communion to be considered the Discipline of the Church and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies which I shall briefly speak to both together Now Discipline in the ancient use of the Word has a large signification and includes all religious Worship as well as Church Censures especially the Christian Sacraments for Church Discipline consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the Communion Worship and Sacraments of Christians Thus Disciplina sacerdotis in Tertullian signifies the whole exercise of the Priestly Office even the administration of Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper And by Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I mean such external circumstances and appendages of Worship Time Place Habits Postures or significant Rites as are of humane Institution and may be either enjoyned or altered by Church Governors and do actually differ according to the Customs of several Churches Now to reduce what I have to say under this Head into as narrow a compass as I can I shall premise several things which I presume will be acknowledged without a Proof by the Persons I have now to deal with 1. That it is necessary to Catholick Communion that every Church observe all the essentials of Christian Worship and particularly the Christian Sacraments as instituted by our Saviour 2. That their Worship be pure from all Idolatrous mixtures and corruptions which is a sufficient justification of our separation from the Church of Rome 3. I suppose it will be granted also that there is no Church so pure but that it has bad men and too often bad Ministers in its Communion 4. That there have in all ages been various Rites and Ceremonies used in the Christian Church and very different in different Churches This no man will deny but one who is either very ignorant himself or a very impudent imposer upon the ignorance of others 5. That among true and orthodox Churches which believe all the Fundamentals of Faith and observe all the Essentials of Worship there are different degrees of purity in Discipline and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies some more some less for the edification of the Church This having been in former Ages and being now at present the state of the Christian Church it is evident what a Catholick Christian must do who will maintain Catholick Communion with the several Christian Churches in the World As 1. He must communicate with Churches which are not so strict and regular in their Discipline as he could wish There being few Churches in the World so exact in this matter but a wise and good man may discover such defects in their Discipline as he could wish amended And he who will not communicate with any Church nor live in any Common-wealth which has any defects in its Government is not fit to live in this World where there is no absolute perfection to be found either in Church or State 2. He must communicate with such Churches wherein there are a great many bad as well as good men for this is the state of all Churches on Earth where the Tares grow up with the Wheat 3. They must communicate with Churches which observe several uncommanded and significant Ceremonies for thus most Churches in the World do and have always done 4. Nay they must communicate with Churches which have very different if not contrary Customs There being few Churches wherein the external Modes Rites and Ceremonies of Worship are in all things alike It is evident as any matter of Fact can be that no true Christian Churches in the World can communicate with each other upon any other terms than these and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of any other and to condemn these terms of Communion as unlawful makes Catholick Communion impossible Whoever separates from any Church upon a pretence of some defects and imperfections in Worship or Discipline when all the essentials of Christian Worship are preserved entire and pure without any such corrupt mixtures as make their Worship sinful whoever separates from a Church because there are a great many bad men in it or for the sake of some indifferent Customs and significant Ceremonies must for the same reason separate from all the Churches in the World even from the most Primitive and Apostolical Churches of the first ages of Christianity Now if Catholick Communion be so essential to the being and notion of the Catholick Church those Principles must be false and Schismatical which are so irreconcileable with Catholick Communion For it is plain we cannot at this day nor ever could communicate with the Catholick Church if every defect in Worship or Discipline if indifferent rites and usages in religious Worship if corrupt and vicious Members make the Communion of any Church unlawful and be a just reason for Separation This indeed has always been the pretence both of ancient and modern Schismaticks The Novatians and Donatists separated for a stricter Discipline and purer Communion and were condemned for it by the Catholick Church And St. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that neither the wickedness of the Minister nor of the People corrupt the Worship or make the Communion of such a Church sinful though through the defect of Discipline the one should not be deposed nor the other removed from Christian Communion For indeed the ancient Fathers thought Catholick Communion so absolutely necessary that very few things could come in Competition with it We have a famous example of this in St. Cyprian who disputed very earnestly for the necessity of baptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks whenever they returned to the Communion of the Church Stephen Bishop of Rome did as vehemently oppose it with some sharp reflexions upon St. Cyprian and did admit those to Communion without Baptism who had been baptized by Hereticks But St. Cyprian like a true Catholick Christian Neminem jadicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes prefat Concil Carth. declares in his Preface to the Council of Carthage that he would not deny Communion to any of his Colleagues who differed from him in this point And in his Letter to Jubaianus Nos quantum in nobis est propter Heretices cumcollegis coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. ep ad Jubai he professes that he will not quarrel with his Colleagues for the sake of Hereticks And yet as St. Austin well observes this Dispute was of great consequence to the Communion of the Church For if St. Cyprian was in the right then the Bishop of Rome August de baptismo l. 2. who received those to Communion without Baptism who had been formerly baptized
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
sin Or must the Dissenters sin and loose their Peace with God for Vnion And a little after he adds This is the state of the Case the Dissenters would unite but cannot the Episcopals can but will not The cannot of the Dissenters and the Episcopals will not doth make the division but who is the faulty Divider If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not when they can 't would be easie to conclude them obstinate and perverse that is in plain English Schismaticks 〈◊〉 not to do what they can for Peace But since they would but cannot without sin how can they be the Dividers This I shewed particularly Defence p. 27. c. was all trick and fallacy When he says the Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament it is false For all the Bishops and Clergy in England cannot without sin part with these indifferent Ceremonies till the Law enacting them be repealed And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Liturgies as it is plain he does the Church of England does not account these indifferent Ceremonies nor think she can part with them without sin And when he says that the Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them if by without sin he means without breaking some divine Law it is false for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors in indifferent things If he means that they must act contrary to their Conscience that is their own Opinion and Judgment of things they may be the Dividers and Schismaticks for all that unless we will say that no man but a profligate Knave who sins against his Conscience can be a Schismatick Thus as for his will not and cannot If by the Episcopals will not he means that they will not do what they may by divine and humane Laws and with a just respect to the good Order and Government and Edification of the Church and regular Administration of holy Offices they are faulty in it but may be no Schismaticks notwithstanding so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion and if by the Dissenters cannot he means their private Opinions and Perswasions which hinder their Complyance they may be the Dividers still if their perswasions be erroneous All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument I proposed another like it which as fairly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter as his did upon the Church and it was this If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Vnion but cannot who is the faulty Divider What must be done for Vnion Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin Or must the Episcopal sin and lose their Peace with God for Vnion And I added I would desire our Inquirer to think better of it and answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own Mr. Lob it seems had enough of his own Argument and durst not venture his Readers with it a second time but he repeats my Argument by it self without taking notice upon what occasion it was urged which must needs make it look oddly only wonders why I call this an Argument and that I should say that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be Reply p. 87. where it is not So that it is plain that he durst not let his Readers know that he had made any Argument like this or that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning but turns it off with without a shewing Sophistry where it is not instead of let him answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own It is apparent Mr. Lob was here convinc'd that he had reasoned foolishly but had not the honesty and ingenuity to own it For indeed the fallacy of both these Arguments consists in the different acceptation of cannot and will not in one sence they may be turned against the Church in another sence against the Dissenter with equal force and truth and therefore without a more particular explication of these ambiguous terms it is a good Argument against neither which must needs make it a very pleasant entertainment to any man who understands the Laws of reasoning to see Mr. Lob so gravely confute my Argument without taking any notice of his own when all that I pretended was that this was as good an Argument against Dissenters as his was against the Church and were both to be answered the same way by distinguishing the different significations of those terms as I have shewed above But that this Inquirer might not say that I had used some Art to wave the Dispute but had not answered his Argument I granted him his own sence of the Words and reduced the force of his Argument to these two Propositions 1. That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with 2. That the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just reason for parting with them The first I discoursed at large from this Topick That there can be no publick and solemn Worship no face or appearance of any Discipline or Government in the Church without the use of some such indifferent things For all actions must be cloathed with some such external Circumstances as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action yet are necessary to the external performance of it Which is proved at large in the Defence Defence p. 30. c. All that Mr. Lob replies to this is that the force of his Argument does not lie in this That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with How then will he prove that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies if every thing that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin I can think of no other way to prove this if he can I shall be glad to hear it But wherein then does the force of his Argument consist Why he tells us it is this Reply p. 85. That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion Though I doubt he would be troubled to apply this Proposition dexterously to the proof of his Argument yet to make as few Disputes as may be we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here and does not this come much to one Must not the Church part with any indifferent Ceremony which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion And if all indifferent
turmoil and confusion of thoughts than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time when he was resolved to answer but knew not what to say No man I fear need convince Mr. Lob that he may conform against his Conscience Make it but his Interest to conform and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd Well but however that he might seem to return some Answer to my Confutation of that Principle that the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them he just names it and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing that all indifferent things cannot be parted with without sin and this must pass for an Answer to the second And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this But let us hear what he says You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and intrinsecal thereunto and what is extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these which is off from the point in hand Had I done so I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper as not to have shewn his Readers how I did it But I have already answered that Suggestion and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary if they dare believe their own eyes But he says Ib. p. 85. I run from what is indifferent to what is necessary as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing This is another trick The case is this He charges the Church of England with being the Divider because she does not part with indifferent things which she may part with without sin I prove that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary for then it were no longer indifferent yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship not to the moral Nature but the external performance of Religious Actions and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship and yet if we must part with indifferent things meerly considered as indifferent by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all This he calls running from what is indifferent to what is necessary whereas it only proves that some things which are indifferent in their own Natures are necessary to publick Worship which was very much to my purpose though not to his I gave an Instance of this in some Actions which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances As a man who is to travel from London to York is not bound either to go thither on Foot or to ride on Horse-back or in a Coach each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or other of these ways of Motion not any one in particular is necessary but yet some or other is But says Mr. Lob One has not strength to walk Ib. p. 86. another cannot bear riding in a Coach yet to York they must go If you will keep to your point you must say to him that can't walk some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither The force of which Answer amounts to this that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself as he is to choose his own way of Travelling whether on Foot or by Horse or Coach But this also I had particularly considered and answered in the Defence though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it and I suppose should I repeat what I have said he will take as little notice of it the second time as he has done the first The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin Defence p. 44. where to seek for an Answer to it And if Mr. Lob cannot think of some better Defence he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still CHAP. VII Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined THE last thing I proposed to my self for the Conclusion of this Work was to examine Mr. Lob's Preface and Mr. H's Materials for Union But this Vindication is already much larger than I intended it and I find this Work done very sufficiently by Mr. Long in a late Treatise Entitled No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot and therefore though it were easie to enlarge upon this Subject I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union and refer those who are inquisitive for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's project 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it 3. That it cures no Schism 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation 1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter to pull down the Church of England which is established by Law and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation to make way for Union Does Mr. H. imagine that the true Sons of the Church will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers And what would the Civil State get by this to exchange the Church for Dissenters To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters and to part with a much better Church for it To attempt a Union on between Dissenters who as Mr. H. owns can never agree their Disputes and therefore can never unite though they may be tied together or comprehended in the same Vessel as Sand or Water is and to dissolve a Church which is all of a piece firmly united within it self and to its Prince But what need all this Will Mr. H. say I never designed to dissolve the Constitution of the Church of England but only to bring Dissenters into the legal Establishment Let this then be tried whether his Materials for Union do not destroy the present Constitution Root and Branch The present Constitution of our Church in Conformity to the Ancient Apostolical Government consists of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons let us try then whether we can find either of these in Mr. H.'s Materials for Union As for Deacons he has not one word of them though Mr. Lob. acknowledges they were owned for an Ecclesiastical Order by the necessary Erudition but a great Oracle thinks this Order may be spared though it has been continued in the Church ever since the Apostles days and therefore we will let this pass But we must not deny but Mr. H. owns Bishops nay proposes that some leading Dissenters themselves should be
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