Communion with the whole Christian Church It is true as I observed in the Defence in the Primitive Church they maintained Communion with distant Churches by Formed and Communicatory Letters by giving notice to each other of the state of their several Churches and advising and consulting about Church Affairs which was a prudent means of maintaining a stricter Communion and fair Correspondence between them and was especially necessary at that time when they lived under Pagan Emperors and the external Unity of the Church was upheld only by Ecclesiastical Authority But this was not absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion and is in a great measure impracticable now The Empire being divided into the hands of several Independent Christian Monarchs who have the supreme Power in all Ecclesiastical as well as civil Causes there can be no such actual Correspondence between the Churches of several Nations but by their consent and leave Soveraign Princes not Subjects whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons must treat with one another about the great Affairs of Church and State though with the advice of their Civil or Ecclesiastical Counsellors But still those Churches are in Communion with each other who own each other as Members of the same Body and deny no Act of Christian Communion to each other as opportunity serves And whether this be so very difficult much less impossible let any man judge V. To make this appear still more easie and practicable we may consider that the Terms of Catholick Communion are not so straight and narrow as some men make them This is the true reason of most of the Schisms in the Christian Church that some rash and inconsiderate People think that every little difference and petty controversie is a sufficient reason to divide the Church and set up distinct and separate Communions and have espoused such narrow Principles of Church Communion that it is almost impossible any two Churches should long hang together much less that all the Churches in the world should agree in such matters This Argument deserves a more particular consideration as discovering the original of Church-divisions and the cure of them and therefore I shall briefly consider upon what terms Catholick Communion may be maintained in the Christian Church Now the terms of Catholick Communion may be reduced to these four general Heads 1. Doctrine 2. Government 3. Discipline 4. Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I. As for what concerns the Doctrines of Christianity I presume my Adversaries will readily grant that an agreement in Fundamentals is a sufficient Foundation for Catholick Communion and I will as readily grant that no Church which denies any Fundamental Article of our Religion ought to be owned for a Catholick Church or received into Catholick Communion To deny Communion to any such person or Church is no schism no more than it is to cut off a rotten and gangreened Member from the Body And if it should appear that many or most Christian Churches are over-run with such Heresies as destroy the foundations of Christianity this must of necessity mightily straighten Catholick Communion not because Catholick Communion is in it self an impracticable notion but because there are but few Catholick Churches to communicate with for it is as necessary a duty not to communicate with Churches which renounce Catholick Doctrine as it is to communicate with those which own it we being under the same Obligations to maintain all fundamental Doctrines of Faith as to preserve the Peace and Communion of the Christian Church For indeed it is an ill way to preserve the Peace of the Christian Church by forfeiting our Christianity as every fundamental Heresie does or to enlarge Christian Communion by receiving those into our Communion who are no Catholick Christians And I suppose none of my adversaries will require me to give such a Catalogue of fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to qualifie any Church for Catholick Communion Both Papist and Protestants in their Disputes about Fundamentals have always waved this and there is no reason any harder terms should be put upon me and thus I might end this Dispute honourably enough for as far as respects Doctrines every man must acknowledg that Catholick Communion may be as large as Catholick Doctrine and that is as large as it ought to be But yet for the greater satisfaction of my Readers and of my self I shall discourse this matter more particularly for I confess I do not understand the reason why so many great men of our Church as have writ against the Papists since the happy reformation of Religion among us have been so tender in this point if we cannot tell what are the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity how can we be assured that we or any other Church do not err fundamentally and how can we know that the whole Church has not so erred but only by that general promise that the whole Church should not fall into fundamental errors and if we can tell what Doctrines are fundamental methinks it is not impossible if occasion were to give a Catalogue of them I am far enough from being of that mind That a Catalogue of Fundamentals is impossible because to some more is fundamental to others less to others nothing at all because God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less Which indeed does not only prove that it is impossible to assign a Catalogue of Fundamentals but that there is nothing in its own nature fundamental in Christianity but only for every man to believe as much of it as he can Yet the Caution of so many great men in this Matter makes me very sensible how nice a thing it is to talk of Fundamentals and what unpardonable arrogance it would be in any private man to be peremptory and dogmatical in assigning a Catalogue of them and therefore I shall only pretend to make some Essay of this nature which the argument I am now engaged in and the clamorous Objections of some men extort from me for if we cannot in some measure tell what are the terms of Catholick Communion Catholick Communion must needs be a very impracticable notion And to prepare the way I shall briefly observe some few things to prevent some cavilling Objections and Prejudices against the following Discourse 1. That by Fundamentals I mean such Doctrines as are essential to Christianity and distinguish the Christian Religion from all other Religions Now if we will acknowledg that Christian Religion is a fixt and certain thing we must acknowledg that there are such Fundamentals as are fixt and certain too and do not alter with mens different Apprehensions Capacities and Opportunities of Instruction and if it be possible to understand the true difference between Christianity and all other Religions it is possible to understand what the Fundamentals of Christianity are 2. The greatest difficulty which is objected against a Catalogue of Fundamentals does equally lie against the belief of Christianity it self The difficulty
is this that the belief of all Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation and therefore whoever assigns a Catalogue of Fundamentals damns all those who are of a different Opinion which therefore is a work fit only for a daring and uncharitable man or haereticating Councils as Mr. Baxter calls them Now in the same manner I may argue against the necessity of the Christian Faith it self Whoever asserts it necessary to Salvation to believe in Christ damns all Jews Pagans Mahometans and all Infidels which seems at least as hard a thing as to damn all Hereticks who bear no proportion at all to the number of Infidels and yet if the Christian Faith it self be necessary to Salvation it must be necessary to Salvation to believe some Articles of the Christian Faith for we cannot believe Christianity without believing such Articles as contain the essentials of Christian Faith which do not alter with the Prejudices Prepossessions and Capacities of men no more than Christianity it self And yet neither I nor any man else have any thing to do to pass a final Sentence either upon Infidels or Hereticks but they must stand or fall to their own Master There may be a standing rule of Faith and Manners whereby men shall be judged but how far the soveraign and uncovenanted Grace of God may dispence with this rule in equitable Cases is not my business to determine But of this more hereafter 3. I observe there are some Doctrines which if they be true must be fundamental Truths if they be false must be fundamental Errors because they alter the very Foundations of Christianity and make two very different Religions of it as I shall shew in what follows There are indeed a great many erroneous Doctrines which make great alterations in the Scheme of Religion as all the Antinomian Doctrines do which yet I cannot call fundamental Errors because they make no essential difference in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is the great Fundamental of Christianity as you shall see more presently every erroneous Doctrine does not make a new Religion though it may in a great measure observe the Glory or spoil the influence of it upon mens minds 4. I observe further that there are some Doctrines which are necessary to Catholick Communion because the denial of them makes an essential difference in Christian Worship Christian Communion is principally exercised in all the Offices of Christian Worship and those who cannot Worship God together cannot maintain Christian Communion with each other Thus the belief or denial of the sacred Trinity the incarnation of Christ the satisfaction of his death c. makes an essential alteration in most of the Acts of Christian Worship And we see to this day the very Gloria Patri is an effectual bar to the Socinians from joyning in our Communion Now that which I am principally concerned for at present is such an account of Fundamentals as is necessary to maintain Catholick Communion in the Christian World To state this matter then as plainly and briefly as I can I shall 1. endeavour to fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines and consequently of fundamental Errors 2. I shall consider the Case of those men who heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and yet entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations and whether they may be said to err Fundamentally 3. How far and in what Cases we may Communicate with such men and Churches as believe all Fundamentals but yet profess such other erroneous Doctrines as seem to overthrow Foundations I think this is all that is necessary in order to clear this point of Catholick Communion as it respects Doctrines 1. To fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines now a fundamental Doctrine is such a Doctrine as is in a strict sence of the essence of Christianity A fundamental Doctrine without which the whole building and superstructure must fall The belief of which is necessary to the very being of Christianity like the first principles in any Art or Science which must be acknowledged or else there can be no such Science Now St. Paul tells us that this Foundation is Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 For other Foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ That is no man can lay any other Foundation for the Christian Religion for you destroy the Christian Religion if you leave Christ out of it And therefore the Character the same Apostle gives of Apostates from Christianity is that they hold not the Head 2 Col. 19. that is Christ And St. John makes this the sum of Christian Faith These are written 22 Joh. 31. that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name And the necessary qualification of an Apostle was to be a Witness of the Resurrection 1 Act. 22. as the last great Confirmation which was given to our Saviours Authority and the sum of St. Paul's preaching at Athens was Jesus and the Resurrection which the Philosophers of the Epicureans and Stoicks mistake for strange Gods 17 Act. 18. And the Commission Christ gave his Apostles 24 Luk. 47. was to preach Repentance and remission of Sins in his Name So that Salvation by Christ is the general fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel Take away this and you destroy the essential Character of the Christian Religion whereby it is distinguish'd from all other Religions But then as for particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith those are Fundamental which are either necessarily included in or inseparably conjoyned with this general fundamental of Salvation by Christ For we must not think it enough to believe in general that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God without a more explicite understanding of the meaning of that Proposition who this Jesus is what it is to be the Christ and the Son of God and how we are saved by him and this we must learn from the Revelations of the Gospel the more necessary connexion there is between any particular Doctrine and that great fundamental of Salvation by Christ the more necessary and fundamental it is which seems to me to be the truest and easiest Character that can be given of a fundamental Doctrine Thus far I think I am safe but it may be thought a hazardous attempt to launch out any farther or particularly to define what those particular Doctrines of Christian Religion are without which we cannot rightly believe Salvation by Christ Though I cannot see but that this may be done safely enough if we use due caution in it and I shall venture to offer something of this nature both to satisfie inquisitive men why such and such Doctrines have always been accounted fundamental by the Catholick Church and to distinguish what is fundamental from some more nice and curious speculations which is of mighty use in the present dispute about Catholick
and were immediately baptized in great numbers cannot be supposed at that time to know more and yet this was accepted from them at that time and in that state of things and by the same reason will be accepted from those who want the opportunities of better instruction And if there be any baptized and nominal Christians who do not know thus much it is a great scandal to the Christian Church but I know not how we are more concerned for their Salvation than for Pagans and Infidels But as for those who deny any fundamental Article they are got above this state of a general and implicite Faith in Christ and err not for want of instruction but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith and understand what has been and is the general Faith of Christians in such matters for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholick Doctrines it appears they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledg that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sence of the universal Church which is such unpardonable immodesty as admits of no excuse if they lose themselves in the Mazes and Labyrinths of their own making and mistake their way to Heaven And though such Persons may be otherwise very pious and useful men yet I do not see why we should deny the necessity of believing the Fundamentals of Christian Faith any more for their sakes than for the sake of devout and vertuous Jews and Heathens 2. Having thus as plainly as I can stated and notion of Fundamentals the next inquiry is concerning those Churches which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations and whether such Churches may be said to err Fundamentally I will but briefly touch on this head and though I might give too many instances of it I shall at present confine my self to the Church of Rome I know no fundamental Article of our Faith that is expresly denyed by the Church of Rome She receives all the ancient Creeds professes the Faith of the holy Trinity the Incarnation the satisfaction of Christ's death his Intercession for us at the right hand of God but then she teaches such other corrupt Doctrines as all the wit of man cannot reconcile with this Faith As to shew this briefly with reference to the satisfaction and intercession of Christ The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass which is offered for the quick and for the dead For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day which represents the Sacrifice of Christ to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law which could not take away sin nor make the comers thereunto perfect and therefore were repeated again every year Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions especially the fire of Purgatory the merits of good Works and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints which compose the Treasury of the Church and may be applyed by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary could hardly think that she did believe that there is but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus But I need not enumerate many particulars the truth of this being too evident and notorious The great Question then is this whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors for this sounds like a contradiction that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors And indeed if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article so it is plain that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors but if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines which contradict each other when the Contradiction is not in express terms but consequential For all men or Churches do not see or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts but especially in our present Dispute about Catholick Communion as will appear by considering 3. How far and in what Cases we may communicate with such a Church as believes all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and yet teaches such Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations This is a very material difference between a Church which denies any fundamental Article of Faith and a Church which believes all Fundamentals but superadds some corrupt Doctrines which in their Consequences destroy Foundations that the first is never capable of Catholick Communion because she denies Catholick Doctrine which is the necessary condition of Catholick Communion but the second in some cases may be because she retains all saving knowledg i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation though intermixt with dangerous Errors Now to state this matter how far we may communicate with such a Church as professes all the fundamental Articles of Faith but yet superadds other very corrupt and dangerous Doctrines we may consider these two things 1. I think I need not tell any man that we must not purchase the Communion of such a Church by professing our Assent to any corrupt Doctrine though it be not a fundamental Error No one Church ought thus to impose upon another nor does any Church pretend to it but only the Church of Rome Every Church is bound to preserve her own Faith as pure and perfect as she can but she has not that Authority over any other Church as to impose upon their Faith An orthodox Church may and ought to admonish neighbour Churches of any doctrinal Corruptions but must not reject their Communion for every Error though of dangerous Consequence if it be not Fundamental The belief of all fundamental Articles of Faith does mightily qualifie the evil and malignant influence of many very corrupt Doctrines which is the true reason why many men are observed to live much better than they believe because though they have entertained a great many corrupt Doctrines which
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council p. 160 Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils subverts the King's Supremacy and incurs a Premunire p. 168 Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 172 The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with considered p. 175 The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church p. 178 The distinction of a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections p. 188 Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society p. 200 Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England examined p. 209 The difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head p. 216 A Vindication of the Dean's Argument against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church p. 219 Chap. 5. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it p. 226 In what sence Catholick Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other p. 227 The several ways of maintaining Catholick Communion used in the ancient Church vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections p. 232 What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church p. 239 That there are Schisms in the Church is no Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion p. 240 Catholick Communion not impracticable in its own Nature p. 240 Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches p. 243 Not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to maintain Catholick Communion between foreign Churches p. 245 The Terms of Catholick Communion very practicable p. 247 A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines p. 248 What a Fundamental Doctrine is Salvation by Christ the general fundamental of Christianity p. 256 The Doctrine of the holy Trinity a Fundamental of Christian Faith p. 259 The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ p. 261 School subtilties about the Trinity not fundamental Doctrines nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273 The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation c. fundamental p. 274 What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self p. 281 Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals p. 300 Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine p. 305 Whether a Church which professes to believe all Fundamentals but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations may be said to err fundamentally p. 316 And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church p. 319 How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops p. 329 A great difference between the case of our Dissenters and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account p. 331 Their Case more largely considered p. 337 Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies considered as Terms of Catholick Communion p. 371 Chap. 6. An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions to prove the Dissenters according to my own Principles to be no Schismaticks and a further inquiry who is the Divider p. 382 Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholick Church p. 383 Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholick Church p. 387 Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion p. 394 Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation p. 404 Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters and may be charged with Schism upon that account p. 413 The Answer which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider vindicated from his Exceptions p. 420 Chap. 7. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined p. 442 His Materials for Vnion destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters to pull down the Church for Vnion p. 443 He sets up no National Church in the room of it p. 447 His Project will cure no Schism and therefore can make no Vnion p. 456 Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Vnion of the Nation p. 459 ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate r. is of a desperate p. 45. l. 4. r. spick p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought p. 73. Marg. for ex 52. r. ep 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit r. ingemuit p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle must be read together p. 89. l. â—2 for promising r. premising p. 106. l. 22. for of r. or p. 123. l. 2. dele also p. 139. Marg. for litera r. litura iâ— l. 9. for Cevernment r. Government p. 141. l. 24. for thatâ— r. yet p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent p. 226. l. 7. r. are l. 22. r. it p. 235. l. 20. for uses r. cases p. 243. l. 28. dele two p. 254. l. 20. for observe r. obscure p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 381. l. 29. for there r. these p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholick Church p. 393. l. 18. r. with it p. 421. l. 9. dele what p. 464. l. 29. r. help it A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of Separation CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Vnity IN my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation I have asserted and proved for any thing I see yet objected to the contrary that Christ has but one Church on Earth and that the Unity of this Church consists in one Catholick Communion Mr. B. Mr. Lob and Mr. Humphrey instead of giving a fair Answer to this have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words as I never thought of nay as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book and when they have turned every thing into non-sense and confusion by their own senseless Comments they set up a great Cry of Cassandrianism and Contradictions For my part when I read those Representations these Men had made of my Notions I wondred to find my self such a stranger to my self I was perfectly ignorant of the whole business and Intrigue and began to examine whether I had expressed any thing so unwarily as to lead them into such Mistakes but upon inquiry I found it was nothing but the last weak Efforts of a
Communion And not to pretend to give a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentals I shall only give a taste of this in some few particulars which have given occasion to the fiercest Disputes in the Christian Church 1. I shall begin with the Doctrine of the holy Trinity which hath in all Ages been accounted a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith and hath as good reason to be thought so as any other since we are baptized into this belief For to baptize into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost according to the most proper signification of the words and the exposition of the Catholick Church signifies to baptize into the Faith and Worship of the sacred Trinity as I think I could easily shew at large were it proper upon this occasion And how essential this belief is to the right understanding of the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Jesus Christ which is the comprehensive fundamental of Christian Religion will easily be acknowledged by any man who carefully considers how each Person in the ever blessed Trinity is concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation The Father in infinite pity and compassion to fallen man gives his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish but have everlasting Life He gives him to become man and to die as a Sacrifice for sin and to seal a Covenant of Grace and Mercy in his blood The Son moved by the same love and pity gives himself becomes man dies for the attonement and expiation of our sins rises again from the dead and takes possession of his mediatory Kingdom becomes the Lord and Judge both of the quick and the dead and according to his promise sends his Spirit upon his Apostles in miraculous gifts and powers to qualifie them for the work of the Ministry and bestows the same holy Spirit upon the whole Christian Church and every sincere member of it as an abiding principle of Sanctification and a new Life The holy Spirit accordingly comes and dwells in his Church and in good men as in his Temple sanctifies them in this World to be vessels of Honour and will hereafter raise their dead bodies into immortal Life So that each Person in the Sacred Trinity is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of Mankind and we cannot truly believe the great fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ without the belief of the holy Trinity of Father Son and holy Ghost one eternal and infinite God The God-head of the Father is acknowledged by all but whoever denies the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost overthrows the whole Doctrine of Salvation by Christ as it is taught in the new Testament and makes it quite another thing and a very little thing too as to shew this briefly He who makes Christ to be either the most excellent Creature as the Arians did or a meer man as the Socinians do mightily lessen the Grace and goodness of God to sinners which is represented as such a stupendious act of Love that God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son now if this only begotten Son be only the most glorious and excellent Creature especially if he be but a meer man the love and the design is not so stupendious and astonishing for God has an equal propriety in all his Creatures and it is no such prizing Mystery that a good God should give one of his Creatures though never so excellent especially if he be but one excellent man for the redmption of so many Millions especially when he promises to reward this undertaking with such a superexcellent degree of Glory and Power The love of God in redeeming us by what means soever is very great but his love in giving his only begotten Son for our redemption where Christ himself lays the emphasis if this only begotten Son be but a Creature or a man is not so wonderful Thus it sounds very odly for a Creature to be the Saviour of mankind to be the object of a religious Faith and Hope and Trust and Dependance The Worship of Christ cannot be divine Worship if he be not God and a made God is a contradiction in the terms unless we mean only a titular God and a titular God cannot be the Object of Religious Worship It is unintelligible how the blood of a Creature can make a proper atonement and expiation for sin and therefore the Socinians who deny Christ to be God are very consistent with themselves in denying his satisfaction A Creature is not capable of infinite and omnipotent Power no more than a finite Nature as the most excellent created Nature is can be the Subject of infinite perfections and therefore if Christ be not God he cannot have all Power in Heaven and Earth committed to him he cannot have it in his own Person because he is not capable of it and cannot exercise it He can at most only bear the name but the Government of the World must be in another hand which is able to manage it Let us then now consider what a fundamental difference the denyal of the divinity of our Saviour makes in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which I shall represent by drawing two Schemes of the Doctrine of Salvation one proceeding upon the belief of the Divinity of our Saviour the other upon supposition that he is only an excellent Creature or meer man Christ the eternal Son of God 1. God out of infinite love to fallen man gave his eternal and only begotten Son to be our Saviour 2. This eternal Son of God in the fulness of time appeared in the World in humane nature preached the Gospel confirmed his Authority by miracles which he wrought by his own divine Power purchased and redeemed his Church by his own Blood by which he made a full and perfect expiation for our sins and sealed the Covenant of Grace and Pardon 3. This incarnate God according to his promise on the third day raised himself from the dead by his own divine Power and took possession of his mediatory Kingdom as the reward and the purchase of his death 4. Which consists in his Power to forgive sins as a Priest in vertue of his Sacrifice offered on the Cross to give Commission to his Apostles to preach Repentance and forgiveness of sins in his Name to send the holy Spirit into the World to protect his Church from all Enemies and finally to judge the World to raise the dead topunish the wicked and unbelievers and to reward his true and faithful Disciples and all this by his own Power and Authority inherent in himself though received from his Father Christ an excellent Creature or meer man 1. God sent his most excellent Creature or created a most excellent man to redeem sinners 2. This glorious and excellent Creature or this excellent man was at the prefixt time born into the World and preached the Gospel and God confirmed his Authority as he did the Authority of other
divine Grace and Life Can a finite Creature be a kind of universal Soul to the whole Christian Church and to every sincere member of it Can a Creature make such close Applications to our minds know our thoughts set bounds to our Passions inspire us with new affections and desires and be more intimate to us than we are to our selves If a Creature be the only instrument and principle of Grace we shall soon be tempted either to deny the grace of God or to make it only an external thing and entertain very mean conceits of it All those miraculous gifts which were bestowed on the Apostles and primitive Christians for the edification of the Church were the gifts of the Spirit all the graces of the Christian Life are the fruits of the Spirit The divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us which first gives life to our Souls and will at the last day raise our dead bodies out of the dust works which sufficiently proclaim him to be God and which we cannot heartily believe in the Gospel-notion of them if he be not Thus we see how fundamental the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is in the Christian Religion because we cannot rightly understand the Doctrine of Salvation nor the Covenant of Grace without this belief which seems to be the true reason why the more perfect discovery of this was reserved for Gospel-times and only obscurely hinted under the Law because the peculiar use of it is under the Gospel each sacred Person having a peculiar interest and concernment in the work of our Redemption And therefore all those who expresly deny the Divinity of the Son and of the holy Spirit as many ancient Hereticks did of old and as the Socinians do at this day do err fundamentally however God may be merciful to their ignorance or prejudice which it does not concern us to meddle with But though it is necessary and essential to the Christian Faith to acknowledg Father Son and holy Ghost to be one eternal God yet there are a great many little subtilties started by over-curious and busie heads which are not fundamental Doctrines and ought not to be thought so God forbid that all the nice distinctions and definitions of the Schools about Essence Subsistence Personalty about eternal Generation and Procession the difference between Filiation and Spiration c. should be reckon'd among Fundamentals of our Faith For though we understood nothing of these matters as indeed we don't and it had been happy the Church had never heard of them yet if we believe the Divinity of each Person we believe enough to understand the Doctrine of Salvation And though that fatal Dispute between the Greek and Latine Church about the Filioque be of more importance than such Scholastick subtilties yet I cannot see that it concerns the foundation of our Faith For the Grâ—ek Church did firmly believe the holy Spirit to be true God though they would not own that he proceeded from the Father and the Son but from the Father only And though we must acknowledg this to be a mistake yet it is not a fundamental mistake for the Doctrine of Salvation is secured by believing the holy Spirit to be true God without defining the manner of his Procession 2. Upon the same account that the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity is a fundamental Article of our Faith the Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation also and what he did and suffered in order to our Salvation the meritorious Sacrifice of his death his Resurrection from the dead Assenscion into Heaven Intercession for us at God's right hand and that he shall come again to judge the World to reward his faithful Disciples with a glorious Resurrection and eternal Life and to punish the wicked with eternal Death must be reckoned also among the Fundamentals of Christianity because we cannot rightly understand nor rightly believe the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ without a belief of these Matters This is so obvious at the first proposal that I need not insist on the Proof of it And therefore those who deny Christ to be true and perfect man as well as those who deny him to be God err fundamentally for he could not die for us nor expiate our sins by his blood if he were not man As for the Modus of this Hypostatical union how the divine and humane nature are united in Christ it must be acknowledged to be very unconceivable by us and it is no great wonder it should be so when we do not perfectly understand any one sort of natural union not so much as how the parts of matter hang together much less how the Soul and Body is united to make one man But yet it is fundamental to the Christian Faith to believe that the divine and humane nature are united in Christ that the same Christ is both perfect God and perfect man or we must err fundamentally in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for neither God nor man distinctly and separately considered can be our Saviour according to the Gospel-notion of Salvation God cannot suffer and die and the death of a man cannot expiate sin nor his Power save us and therefore we must acknowledg that God and man is so united in Christ that the Actions and operations of each nature do as properly belong to one Christ as the distinct Operations of Body and Soul are the actions of the same man Upon this account the Catholick Church condemned the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches For Nestorius divided not only the Natures but the Persons in Christ only united them in Authority and Dignity And thus Christ was not an Incarnate God in one Person but the Man Christ was taken into a nearer relation to the second Person of the Trinity than any other Man or Creature is but not so as to become one with him which destroyes the Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of God For whatever Dignity and Honour were conferr'd upon the man Christ by his relation to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine Word yet his Blood was not the Blood of God because notwithstanding this Relation to God the Son he remained as much a distinct Person and Subsistence as any other man is The Heresie of Eutyches is certainly equally dangerous for he ran so far from the Nestorian Heresie of two Persons that he denyed two natures in Christ He did not deny but that there was a humane and divine nature before their union but he asserted such an union of natures in Christ as made a mixture and confusion of natures That Christ did not remain perfect God and perfect man after this union but the humane and divine natures were so blended together as to become one nature as well as one Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. Calist l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. l. 15. cap. 6. And therefore he denyed the very Body of Christ to be of the same nature with our Bodies or subject
to the same passions nay he asserts the divine nature it self to be passible And I think I need not shew how this overthrows the fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which proves it to be a fundamental Heresie I shall only observe that Leo Bishop of Rome in his Letter to Flavian who was then Bishop of Constantinople and was afterwards murdered by the Eutychian Faction in the packt Council of Ephesus confutes the Heresie of Eutyches from the very Principle Et ad resolvendum conditionis noslrae debitum natura inviolabilis naturae est unita passibili ut quod nostris remediis congruebat medlator Dei bominum homo Jesus christus mori posset ex uno non mori posset ex altero Leo ep ad Flavian on which I have all along proceeded because it destroys the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ For says he to discharge the debt and obligation of our lapsed State a nature which cannot suffer is united to a nature which can That so as our Redemption required the Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus might be capable of suffering and dying as man and exempted from all possibility of dying as God This I think is sufficient to shew how fundamental the belief of the sacred Trinity and the Incarnation of our Saviour is in the Christian Religion Salvation by Christ is a fundamental Doctrine or nothing is fundamental in the Christian Faith and yet the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is necessarily founded on the belief of the holy Trinity each sacred Person being peculiarly concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation And I confess it does mightily confirm me in this way of stating the notion of Fundamentals that it does so plainly discover the necessity of that Faith which has always been accounted sacred and inviolable by the Catholick Church This is the Faith we are baptized into according to our Saviours Command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost This is the sum of all the ancient Creeds The Apostles Creed being little else than the explication of the form of Baptism what we are to believe of God the Father what of God the Son and what of God the Holy Ghost And when Hereticks arose who corrupted this Faith the Catholick Church expressed greater Zeal in nothing than in preserving this Faith pure and sincere This was the occasion of the first general Councils wherein Arius Nestorius Eutyches Macedonius and such other Hereticks were condemned This occasioned the Nicene Constantinopolitan and the Athanasian Creeds which contain only the Catholick exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity in opposition to these ancient Heresies And it would be very strange if that which is the chief nay almost the only Subject of all our Creeds should not be thought a fundamental of our Religion And yet it is as strange that is should be a fundamental if it be only an abstruse and difficult speculation which is of no other use nor valuable upon any other account than pure Orthodoxy which is the only reason that can be assigned why any men who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity should not express a great and warm Zeal for it because they do not observe how the whole Gospel-Doctrine of Salvation by Christ depends on it The end of Christian Faith is a holy Life and if men may lead a very holy Life without the velief of the Trinity some think this Faith cannot be absolutely necessary to Salvation but now this must be a great and dangerous mistake though we should suppose that men may live very holily without the belief of the Trinity unless we suppose also that a holy Life will carry men to Heaven without Faith in Christ or Salvation by him for we cannot rightly believe in Christ for Salvation without this Faith And thus I might shut up the Doctrine of Fundamentals for indeed I know nothing strictly fundamental in the Christian Religion but the Doctrine of the holy Trinity and the several Acts and Offices if I may so speak of each sacred Person in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation which I have already briefly hinted But having entred upon a Discourse of such vast Importance to give the greater satisfaction to inquisitive men I shall venture one step further and I think no man need go any further 3. The next inquiry therefore shall be what is fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self Now this our Saviour briefly comprehends in that Commission he gave to the Apostles to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name Luke 24.47 i. e. to preach forgiveness of sins to all true Penitents through Faith in his Name Rom. 3.24 25. or through Faith in his Blood as St. Paul expounds it Now not to dispute this point at present with the Socinians all who believe that Christ died to make atonement for our sins must acknowledg the atonement and expiation of Christs death to be a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith whereon the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is built For therefore he is our Saviour because he saves his People from their sins and how this is we are often told viz. by dying for our sins the just for the unjust that he may reconcile us to God Now if this be true as I shall at present take for granted then it must be a fundamental Doctrine upon these two accounts 1. Because the belief or the denial of the atonement of Christ's death makes a specifical change in Religion A Religion with a Sacrifice and a Religion without a Sacrifice differ in the whole kind the first respects the atonement of our past sins and our daily infirmities it respects God as the Judge and avenger of wickedness as well as the rewarder of those who diligently seek him the other is a kind of Philosophical institution to train men up in the practice of Piety and Vertue That is a Religion without a Sacrifice is at most but half as much as a Religion with a Sacrifice and that half wherein they agree of a quite different nature from each other That Religion which requires an expiatory Sacrifice to make atonement for sin and to obtain the Pardon of it does also strictly enjoyn the practiee of an universal Righteousness which is the whole of a Religion without a Sacrifice And yet this practical part of Religion is vastly altered by the belief or denial of the Sacrifice and expiation of Christ's death Those who deny the death of Christ to be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the World may pay all that Homage and Worship to God which is due to the great Creator and Benefactor of mankind and may observe all the duties of moral Righteousness but there are some new Acts of Religious Worship or some new instances of Duty or new degrees and respects of Vertuâ—â—… which necessarily result from the expiation of Christ's death which either cannot be
obey God without such Doctrines nay without the belief of Christianity it self I cannot see why they should believe Christianity it self to be a fundamental Doctrine to them 8. I readily grant that no Doctrine can be a fundamental Article of Faith which has not one way or other an influence upon a Christian life But then all the peculiar Arguments of the Gospel all the principles of pure evangelical Obedience as well as all the Fundamentals of Faith are contained in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ That it self is the great motive of the Gospel and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and perswasives to Vertue Take away the Doctrine of Salvation and no other consideration can have any force and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian nay there are no other Gospel-Motives but what are contained in it Whatever is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation is a Fundamental Article and a powerful Motive of Christianity and nothing else is either So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals though they were to be tryed by their tendency to promote real Righteousness as to consider what is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is an acknowledged Fundamental and contains in it all the principles of a Christian Life 2. I desire it may be further observed that when I discourse of Fundamentals I do not reject all other Doctrines besides what are strictly Fundamental as useless in the Christian Life or unfit terms of Church Communion God affords us more than what is barely necessary for our spiritual as well as for our natural life and expects from us that we should make daily improvements in Knowledg and Vertue And if this be the duty of private Christians it is much more the duty of particular Churches to arrive at the greatest perfection of Knowledg and to instruct her Children not only in those Doctrines which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity but in all those great truths which advance our Progress in the Christian Life And therefore no doubt but every Church has Authority over her own Members to require as the terms of Communion an explicite assent to many great and useful truths and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors which are not in a strict sence Fundamental or else she has no Authority to teach the whole mind and will of God nor to preserve the purity of Christian Doctrine For there are many Doctrines of vast use in the Christian Life and many very fatal and pernicious Errors which are not properly Fundamental and yet it may be have occasioned the final Damnation of many more than ever fundamental Errors have done And if the Church be bound to take care of mens Souls she is bound also to root out such pernicious Doctrines But the use I designed the Doctrine of Fundamentals for in this place is the preservation of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches which have no Power and Authority over each other For though a Church have entertained many corrupt and dangerous Doctrines yet if she profess to believe all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith we have no Authority upon the account of Doctrines to divide from her Communion We must not indeed communicate in her Errors though not Fundamental and no Church but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Communion upon other Churches but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith she is so far a true Church and if there be nothing to hinder it may and ought to be received into Catholick Communion 3. When I assert that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental by Fundamentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledg without which no man can understand and believe like a Christian which plainly proves that they are necessary to the very being of a Christian Church and therefore necessary to Catholick Communion Which is all I am concerned to prove But if any man should put hard Cases to me with respect to the final Salvation of particular Christians and inquire how far the explicite knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction and scarce understand any thing distinctly of the Christian Religion or what shall become of those who through the prejudices and prepossessions of Education deny any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith as the Divinity of Christ or his satisfaction for sins and yet are otherwise very pious devout and useful men I say I do not think my self bound to answer these Questions nor to search into the secret Counsels of God to determine how he will judge the World or what allowances he will make in some favourable Cases but yet I have some few things to offer which possibly may give some satisfaction to modest Inquirers 1. We must not deny the necessity of Christian Faith and Knowledg for the sake of any difficult Cases for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity it self or of Faith in Christ to the Salvation of sinners and thus our Charity to other men will make us our selves the greatest Hereticks of all And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledg is necessary to Salvation certainly the knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is which are therefore commonly described by this Character the knowledg and belief of which is necessary to Salvation And if Infidelity be a damning sin why should not a fundamental Heresie be so which is infidelity with respect to some essential and saving Doctrine of Christianity and in its consequence overthrows some material and essential part of the Christian Faith 2. There is a vast difference between the Case of those men who for want of good Instruction have not an explicite understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and of those who deny any Fundamental As for the first a very little indistinct knowledg of Christ if it govern their lives and teach them to live in Obedience to their Saviour will carry them safely to Heaven for God requires little of those to whom little is given Now there is no man that deserves the name of a Christian who has not learnt his Creed who does not know and believe that Jesus Christ came into the World to die for sin and to save sinners and that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins if we repent of them and live a new life now such a general knowledg as this without any fundamental Error to spoil the vertue and efficacy of it may suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life which are absolutely necessary to a state of Salvation such as Repentance from dead works and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much and the Jewish Converts who embraced the Faith upon St. Peters preaching to them
in their natural Consequences are very apt to tempt men to sin and to encourage them in it yet when withal they heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith this true Faith is so directly contrary to the ill consequences of their Errors that they do not see the ill consequences of such Doctrines or are sufficiently antidoted against the poyson of them nay many times it so happens that men are so far from seeing the ill Consequences of their Doctrines that they draw only good Consequences from them which may make them as good or better men than many are who have a better Faith Thus to instance at present in some very popular and prevailing Doctrines not disputing whether they be true or false The Doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation the Inconditionality of the Covenant of Grace the no-necessity of holiness to our justification the absolute impotency of humane nature to do the least good the irresistibility of the divine Grace and such like Antinomian Doctrines are charged by their Adversaries with as dismal consequences as any Doctrines are capable of even to the overthrow of all Religion and I doubt not but have very ill effects upon mens minds who are not throughly possest with some other Principles to qualifie and allay them But yet if after all this these men do firmly believe the infinite goodness and justice of God the inflexible holiness and purity of his nature his irreconcileable enmity to all sin and that they shall never go to Heaven without holiness it is impossible they should make any ill use of these Doctrines to encourage themselves in sin and on the other hand if they believe right or wrong that these Doctrines do mightily advance the grace of God in the Salvation of sinners it may increase their love to God inflame their Devotions and make them very active in all holy obedience For when men are possest with a prevailing sence of the grace and love of God and our Saviour they may spare a great many other arguments to obedience Now we must not hence infer that it is indifferent whether men believe right or wrong for every practical Error is a state of Temptation and erroneous Doctrines do oftner hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous perswasion as is lamentably seen in the lives of too many men But the only inference I draw from hence is this that every Error though in it self of dangerous consequence is not a sufficient reason to deny Communion to such a Church as notwithstanding such Errors professes all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith if we can maintain Communion with her without professing her Errors 2. While the fundamental Doctrines of Faith are secure no corrupt Doctrines are a sufficient reason to break Communion which do not corrupt the Christian Worship The principal Acts of Christian Communion consist in Christian Worship and if any Church have so corrupted divine Worship that a good Christian must not joyn in it we must of necessity abstain from their Communion though we are not equally bound to deny them ours For there are some Fundamentals of Worship as well as Faith as the Worship of one God through one Mediator Jesus Christ and when any Church corrupts the Worship of God in its vital and essential parts as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and Images and the consecrated Host it is necessary then to withdraw our selves from such a corrupt Communion But then as for those Doctrines which though they may be corrupt and erroneous are neither fundamental Errors nor introduce any such fundamental Corruptions into religious Worship I can see no imaginable reason why they should break Communion between neighbour Churches if no Churches must communicate with each other which do not exactly agree in all the Disputes and Controversies of Religion it will be hard to find any two Churches in the World that can maintain this Christian Communion Certainly Catholick Communion requires us to communicate with all those Churches with whom we can communicate without sin and therefore when a Church denies no fundamental Article of Faith nor corrupts the Christian Worship in any fundamental and essential part of it nor requires us to believe any Doctrine which we believe to be erroneous as the necessary terms of Communion with her that is when we may communicate with her without doing any thing that is evil nothing can justifie our breach of Communion As for instance I take the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation to be a very great Error and if they should deny Communion to me unless I would profess my belief of it I should judge it a sufficient reason to withdraw Communion from them yet if no such Condition be imposed on me I would make no scruple to communicate with them because though Consubstantiation be an Error yet it does not corrupt their Worship as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does the Worship of the Church of Rome The Lutheran Churches observe the Institution of our Saviour without any Idolatrous Worship of the Host their Doctrine makes no change in their Worship and therefore can be no reason to withdraw our Communion The Errors of any Church cannot make its Communion sinful unless they make its Worship so Were Transubstantiation it self as absurd a Doctrine as it is a meer speculation without any influence upon Worship did the Church of Rome strictly observe the Institutions of our Saviour in celebrating the Lord's Supper without either taking from it or adding a new Idolatrous Worship to it they might enjoy their Opinion if they pleased so they would let me enjoy mine and I would not break with them meerly upon this score Nothing can be vainer than to dream of reconciling all the Disputes of Christendom and of making all men or all Churches of a mind in every thing and if Catholick Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a different belief and perswasion in some controverted points we must never hope for any such thing And if it may be our only Inquiry is what difference and variety of Opinions is consistent with Catholick Communion and I know no other answer to it but this that we may safely communicate with any Church how different soever our Opinions in other matters may be while we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship Those animosities indeed which the heats of disputation occasion too often not only between private men but Christian Churches set them at a much greater distance from each other than the most distant Opinions but yet that this is practicable to maintain Christian Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions is evident not only from the intrinsick reason of the thing but from manifest experience We know how many Sects there were in the Jewish Church especially those two famous Sects of the Pharisees and
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
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
That there are Schisms in the Christian Church is certainly no very good Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion and yet this is the whole force of the Objection That if Catholick Communion be essential to the Catholick Church we must reduce the Catholick Church into a very narrow compass and un-Church most of the Christian Churches in the World as not maintaining this Catholick Communion If this be so I am heartily sorry for it as every good man will be for the Degeneracy and Apostacy of any part of the Christian Church But would Mr. Baxter have me frame some new Notions of Catholick-unity and Schism to justifie the many Schisms and Separations of the Christian World Must we fit our Notions of Church-unity to the present divided state of the Church or endeavour to reduce a broken and divided Church to a true Primitive state of Unity Suppose I had proved that Catholick Doctrine instead of Catholick Communion had been only essential to the being of the Catholick Church and such another Objector as Mr. B. should urge me with this inconvenience that then there are very few Churches that are true Members of the Catholick Church Because in most Ages and at this day there are such great breaches between several famous Churches about what they think the most fundamental Articles of our Faith must I therefore deny the necessity of Catholick Doctrine to a Catholick Church for fear of that inference that then there are many large and famous Churches which are not true Catholick Apostolick Churches This is the way I confess never to be without a Catholick Church to make the Catholick Church to be what the present Churches are not what they ought to be But it is the way also to make a new Christianity in every Age. And this is the more considerable because many of the Schisms which now are and have been in many Ages of the Church are owing to different apprehensions in matters of Faith which either are or have been thought to be Catholick Doctrines Such are the differences between the Greek and Latine Churches the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches So that Mr. B. must either find out a Church without Catholick Doctrine as well as without Catholick Communion or must reduce the Catholick Church almost into as narrow a compass for want of Catholick Doctrine as for want of Catholick Communion Unless he can prove that these doctrinal Disputes are not of that Moment as to cause Schisms in the Church and then he will mightily enlarge Catholick Communion and answer this formidable Objection himself II. No man can pretend that Catholick Communion is in its own nature impracticable because it was de Facto religiously observed in the Primitive Church for several Ages Thus it was in St. Cyprian's thus it was in St. Austin's time who made Catholick Communion essential to the being of a Catholick Church And that cannot reasonably be thought an impracticable Notion which has been practised in the Christian Church and which is equally necessary to be practised in all Ages III. For what should hinder all good Christians from maintaining Communion with all Christian Churches which are sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship If there be such Churches to be found in France in Germany in Holland c. What should hinder any sober Christian who travels into those Countries and understands their Language from joyning with them in all acts of Worship as Members of the same Body of Christ Those Churches which are not sound and Orthodox are not the Objects of Christian Communion and it is no breach of Catholick Communion not to communicate with them And nothing can reasonably hinder our Communion with those that are For where there are no sinful terms of Communion imposed we are bound to all Acts of Communion as opportunity serves So that those who think it such an impossible thing to maintain Catholick Communion among the Christian Churches of this Age must necessarily suppose that there are very few Churches in the World at this time which a sound and orthodox Christian can communicate with for nothing else can make Catholick Communion impossible And if this be true it is a very sad consideration and deeply to be lamented of all Christians but it is that which I cannot help Catholick Communion is very feasible when there are 〈◊〉 Catholick Churches to communicate with but when there are none it cannot be had or if there be but a few such it must be maintained among those few that are and that is true Catholick Communion which includes all true Catholick Churches be they more or less But the thing at present to be considered is this whether he who denies any Church to be a true Catholick Church which does not maintain Catholick Communion makes the Catholick Church any narrower than he does who denies the possibility of Catholick Communion because there are very few Churches which a good Christian can safely communicate with For I suppose those are no true Catholick Churches which a Catholick Christian must not communicate with and Catholick Communion may be maintained among all other Churches whose Communion is not sinful and dangerous As for instance Answer to Dr. Sherlack p. 189. Mr. Baxter reckons up twelve Sects of Christians in the World as Members of the Catholick Church his only doubt being concerning the Church of Rome I ask Mr. B. then whether these Churches be so sound and orthodox that a good Christian may communicate with them If they be then here is a possibility of maintaining Catholick Communion with all the Churches in the World at least excepting the Church of Rome If they be not how are they Catholick Churches Are those Catholick Churches which are so corrupt and unsound that a Catholick Christian must not own their Communion Catholick Communion may certainly be maintained with those Churches whose Communion is lawful and I think it as certain that those Churches cannot be Members of the Catholick Church whose Communion is unlawful IIII. We may consider farther that in this present state of things there are not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to preserve Catholick Communion between Forraign Churches and therefore Catholick Communion is not so impracticable as some may imagine The Churches of distant Nations cannot worship God together nor easily meet for Advice and Counsel but they may own and receive each others Members as occasion serves which signifies their Communion with each other Nay where there is no breach of Communion no declared disowning of each other nor express denial of any Act of Communion between distant Churches those Churches may be said to be in Communion with each other There are some Christian Churches which we know little or nothing of nor they of us but while we break not Communion with any sound part of the Christian Church and profess Communion with all that are so we may be truly said to live in Catholick
great Prophets by Miracles and when he was persecuted for it he owned the truth to the very death and set a great example of constancy and patience and submission to God in his sufferings as other great Prophets had done before him though not in so extraordinary a manner 3. This crucified Jesus was raised by God from the dead the third day though being but a Creature or a Man he was not able to raise himself and was advanced by God to great Power and Glory 4. Which Power consists in all those Acts which are specified in the opposite Scheme with this difference that his Power is not owing to his Priesthood or Sacrifice nor has any dependance on it but he is a Saviour forgives sins c. by a Soveraign Power given him by God not by Merit or Purchase or the expiation of his Sacrifice And there is this contradiction in it that a Creature is invested with Almighty Power and this riddle in it that God should make a Creature the Saviour of mankind and this Blasphemy that God should advance a Creature to be his own Rival or Partner in divine Honour This short account makes it very evident what a fundamental difference the belief or denial of the Divinity of our Saviour makes in the whole Doctrine of Salvation by Christ The first makes it an Act of stupendious love in God in giving his own Son to be a Propitiation for our sins the second is a great act of love in saving sinners but the manner is not so full of Wonder and mysterious Goodness The first makes it an act of infinite Love and Condescention in Christ to become Man a Minister and a Servant and to submit to an accursed death for our sakes That though he were rich yet for our sakes he became poor that we through his poverty might be rich But the second infers no such thing as I can see If he were nothing greater than a man it was no condescention in him to be made a man especially if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary it was no more matter of his choice to become man than it is of any other man who is born into the World and therefore could be no Act of Love or Condescension Nay suppose that Christ were the most glorious and excellent Creature yet being a Creature there is not such a vast difference between the most perfect Creature and a perfect Man as there is between a God and the most perfect Creature it is no such mighty debasement for the most glorious Angels to appear in pure and untainted Flesh and Blood especially upon such a glorious design as the redemption of mankind Though the disguise and appearance may be thought below an Angelical Nature yet the Character with which he appears as the great Prophet and Saviour of the World is as much above it The meanest state and condition of humane nature a poor despised and laborious Life the most painful and ignominious death which makes the most excellent Creature the Saviour of mankind and advances him to be Lord and Judge of the World is so far from being an Act of condescending love in the most glorious Creature that it is above his Ambition and would be like the pride of Lucifer to be equal to God To become man to suffer and die for the redemption of the World and to be made the Lord and Judge both of the quick and of the dead can be an act of condescending love and goodness only in God So that to deny the Divinity of Christ alters the very foundations of Christianity and destroys all the powerful arguments of the Love Humility and Condescention of our Lord which are the peculiar motives of the Gospel Thus the belief of the Divinity of Christ makes God to be our Saviour the object of our Faith and Hope and Relyance the denial of it makes a Creature to be our Saviour and the object of a Religious Faith and Worship which I think differ as much as the Worship of God and of a Creature The first contains a visible union of our Nature to the Deity which is a visible demonstration of God's love and tender regard to mankind the second deprives us of this sensible Consolation The first exhibits to us a Saviour by Purchase and by Redemption which is both more endearing and a greater security to our guilty fears the second makes Christ a Saviour only as a Prophet or a King may be a Saviour who saves by wise instructions by preaching the way of Salvation or by Power The first respects the guilt of sin and the just Wrath and Displeasure of God which is the Object of our guilty fears It offers a Saviour to us who is a Mediator between God and man and powerfully intercedes for our Pardon in vertue of his meritorious Sacrifice The second has no respect to the atonement and reconciliation of God which is the only security to a guilty Conscience but only contains proposals of Peace and Reconciliation without a Sacrifice A thing which mankind will not easily believe when they are thorowly convinced of the evil of sin and the inflexible purity and holiness of the divine Nature not to take notice now how irreconcileable this is with all the ancient Types of the Law of Moses In a word he who believes Christ to be perfect God as well as perfect man is easily satisfied of his Power to save as well as of the Vertue of his Sacrifice For omnipotent Power is essential to the Notion of a God and when God becomes our Saviour he can exercise all that Power which is necessary to our Salvation but he who believes Christ to be but an exalted Creature can never understand how he can exercise omnipotent Power which is peculiar to God For I think it is somewhat harder to understand how a Creature can be made a God and be possest of divine Perfections such as omnipotent Power is than to believe that God can take a Creature into a personal union with himself This I think is sufficient to satisfie any man what a fundamental Change the denial of Christ's Divinity makes in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ It makes a new Gospel and a new Religion and therefore the Divinity of Christ must be acknowledged to be a fundamental Doctrine because the denial of it subverts Foundations Thus to proceed our Salvation by Christ does not only consist in the expiation of our sins and the proposal of terms of Reconciliation and the promise of Pardon and a Reward but in the Communications of divine Grace and Power to renew and sanctifie us and this is every where in Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit as his peculiar Office in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation and it must make a fundamental change in the Doctrine of divine Grace and assistance to deny the Divinity of the holy Spirit For can a Creature be the universal Spring and Fountain of
observed at all or not in their true meaning and signification by those who deny it as to give some few instances of it The love of God as our Redeemer and Saviour who gave his own Son for our Ransom to die for our sins and to make atonement and expiation by his Blood is very different from the love of God as our Creator and Benefactor nay as our Redeemer by Covenant Promise and Power it is a more transporting and sensible Passion and the peculiar Worship of the Gospel which those cannot give to God who deny the expiation of Christ's death The Worship of a God Incarnate a God in our nature and likeness a God who is our Saviour Mediator and Advocate through his own Blood vastly differs from the Worship of a pure infinite eternal Spirit or from the Worship of an exalted Creature And this is the peculiar Worship of the Lord's Supper that great and venerable Mystery of our Religion which is a thin and empty Ceremony without it To pray to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ and in vertue of his Sacrifice vastly differs from a natural hope and trust in God's mercy or in his bare promise or in the Power and Interest of a great Favourite though appointed to be our Mediator not in vertue of his Sacrifice but by Royal Favour Not but that God's Promise of Pardon and acceptance confirmed to us by such a powerful Favourite whom God himself hath appointed to be our Advocate may give us sufficient security that God will hear and answer our Prayers but this assurance is of a different nature from the vertue of a Sacrifice and affects our minds in a different manner and excites different Passions and very different acts of Devotion and makes our Worship differ as much as a Mediator by Sacrifice does from a Mediator by Interest and Power As for the other parts of Religion which concern our Conversation with men or the Government of our own Appetites and Passions there seems to be some new instances or new degrees of Vertue which have a necessary dependance on the Sacrifice of Christ's death as the example or reason of them As that high degree of brotherly love which Christ requires of us as the Badg of our Discipleship to love one another as he hath loved us to forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us all Acts of kindness and charity to our poor Brethren as knowing the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he were rich yet for your sakes he became poor that you through his poverty may be rich the force and prevalency of which example and of which reason I think is greatly abated by denying the expiation of Christ's death However I think it is very plain that the true principle of Gospel-obedience that which makes all our actions in a strict and proper sence Christian Graces and Vertues has a necessary respect to the expiation of Christ's death We must cheerfully obey the Will of God not only considered as our Creator but as a Redeemer we must give up our selves to Christ as the purchase of his Blood for we are not our own but bought with a price and therefore must glorifie God both with our Bodies and with our Spirits which are God's we must yield our selves willing Captives to the conquering and constraining Power of his Love the Love of Christ constrains us for we thus judg that if Christ dyed for all then were all dead and that he dyed for us that we who live might not henceforth live unto our selves but unto him who dyed for us If Christ did not redeem and purchase us by his Blood all this signifies nothing it is all but Phrase and Metaphor and Allusion which cannot form a principle of Action And yet the Apostles of Christ do not so much insist on the Authority of God as our Maker and Governor as on his purchase as Redeemer on the love of our dying Lord who is our Priest our Sacrifice and Mediator and were it possible to obey the Gospel without any regard to the redemption of Christ and that stupendious love of God in it it were not true Evangelical obedience no more than it is obedience to God to do what he commands for some private end and reason of our own without any regard to his Authority and Government So that whether the Doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death be true or false it is certainly fundamental either way either a fundamental Article of Faith or a fundamental Error because it alters Foundations and changes the whole frame of Christian Religion If Christ have made atonement and expiation for our sins Christianity is one thing if he have not it is quite another thing as different as it is possible which I think is a plain argument that the expiation of Christ's Blood is a fundamental or foundation Doctrine since the whole Fabrick of Christian Religion as it is taught in the Gospel is built on it 2. There is one consideration more which will confirm this that the atonement and expiation of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine because the Blood of Christ that is the expiation of his Blood is the peculiar object of justifying Faith now certainly that must be fundamental which is essential to justifying Faith Salvation or Justification by Christ being the sum of the Gospel whatever is essential to justifying Faith is certainly a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity if there be any such thing as Fundamentals Repentance in its full Extent and Latitude as it includes not only a sorrow for our past sins but the reformation of our lives and an actual obedience to all the Laws of the Gospel is a necessary condition of our Pardon and Justification or necessarily required in those whom God will justifie But Repentance and a new Life cannot justifie us No Religion that ever was in the World taught men certainly to expect Pardon of sin meerly upon their Repentance And it is plain that mankind never did for both Heathens and Jews thought the expiation of Sacrifices as necessary and more prevalent than meer Repentance to obtain their Pardon And the reason why God hath appointed us no Sacrifice but a broken heart or the living Sacrifice of an obedient Soul and Body to offer to him is because he has provided an expiatory Sacrifice himself hath given his own Son to be a Sacrifice for us and the Pardon of our sins is every where attributed to the death of Christ as the meritorious Cause But then as Christ hath dyed for our sins and redeemed us with his Blood and God for Christ's sake will pardon and justifie all repenting sinners so we must consider that meer repentance can no more apply or appropiate the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's death to us for our Pardon than it can justifie us without a Sacrifice That is the peculiar Office of Faith in Christ or Faith in his Blood as
St. Paul expresly tells us Being justified freely by his Grace Rom. 3.24 25. through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood For though Faith in Christ is very often used in a very large sence for the whole Gospel of our Saviour and to comprehend all Acts of Obedience and a holy Life as the Principle from whence they flow and no other is true justifying Faith but that which includes Obedience and a holy Life Yet sometimes Faith is distinguisht from Repentance and a holy Life and so has Christ and in a peculiar manner his Blood for its Object Thus the sum of St. Paul's preaching was Repentance towards God Act. 20.21 and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ And the Commission Christ gave to his Apostles was Luke 24.47 to preach Repentance and Remission of sins in his Name that is through Faith in his Name So that Faith in Christ is distinguisht from Repentance in the work of Justification and so denotes a particular respect to the expiation of Christ's death as the meritorious Cause of Pardon Under the Law a Sacrifice was available only for those for whom it was offer'd but under the Gospel instead of offering a Sacrifice to God we must believe in that Sacrifice which is already offered which does particularly apply the merit and vertue of it to our selves as the Oblation of the Sacrifice did under the Law for if we would have Christ for our Saviour or have any interest in the expiation of his death we must choose him for our Saviour by Faith in his Blood For I cannot see but why Repentance may be as well accepted from us without a Sacrifice as without respect and relation to a Sacrifice and yet the only thing that can entitle our Repentance in particular to the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice is Faith in his Blood which I think is a plain argument that the atonement of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity because it is essential to a justifying Faith But then there are a great many other opinions relating to the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death which are true or false but not fundamental For as St. Paul observes the Foundation is Christ but yet men may build upon this Foundation either Gold and Silver or Hay and Stubble that is true or false Doctrines which are of great use in the Christian Life or of very dangerous consequence but yet while they retain the Foundation though their works perish i. e. the superstructure of their private Opinions be condemned and rejected yet they themselves may escape though with great difficulty so as by fire Thus while men heartily believe that Christ dyed for our sins and has made expiation for them by his Blood and expect the Pardon of their sins only in Christ's Name that is in vertue of his Sacrifice and Intercession they may fall into great mistakes about the Nature Extent and Application of this Sacrifice and yet not err Fundamentally though their Errors may be dangerous and always are so when they betray them to sin Of this Nature I reckon some of those unhappy Disputes which have torn and divided the Church in these late days of Liberty and Confusion Whether Christ bore our sins or only the punishment of sin whether he were the greatest sinner or only the greatest Sacrifice for sin Whether he suffered the same Punishments which all sinners should have suffered had they been damned for their sins or suffered that which was equivalent to it and which God accepted for a complete and perfect satisfaction Whether the expiation of Christ's death was so absolutely necessary to the Pardon of our sins that God could not forgive sin without it or whether God choose this way as most agreeable to the wise methods of Government and the most glorious Illustration of all his Attributes Whether the death of Christ made satisfaction to a natural vindictive Justice and was paid to God as the offended Party or as the Governor of the World Whether Christ made a general atonement for sin or satisfied only for the sins of the Elect whether all the sins of the Elect were actually laid upon Christ from Eternity and actually pardoned before they were committed or whether they are pardoned in time when we repent and believe Whether what Christ suffered for us is so imputed to us as if we our selves had done it which makes the greatest sinners perfectly Innocent and looked upon by God as never to have sinned or whether it be imputed to us only for our Pardon and Justification Whether the active as well as passive Obedience of Christ be imputed to us for Justification These and such like Doctrines some of which are of a very dangerous nature and a great state of temptation yet are not fundamental Errors because they do not destroy the Foundation the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death is acknowledged on all hands though some of these Doctrines do greatly obscure the grace of God and his stupendious wisdom in the redemption of the World by Jesus Christ and therefore must be reckon'd as Hay and Stubble built upon the Foundation which will prove a great loss and dammage to such Builders when every man's work comes to be tryed But to proceed among the fundamental Doctrines of Salvation by Christ we must reckon not only the atonement and expiation of his death but the gift of his holy Spirit to renew and sanctifie us For this makes him a complete Saviour to deliver us from the punishment of our sins and from the power and dominion of them Now that it is fundamental to the Christian Religion and to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ to believe the divine influences and assistances of the holy Spirit to work Faith and all other Christian graces in us appears from these considerations 1. The gift of the holy Spirit is the most glorious effect of Christ's Power and Intercession and therefore one of the principal fruits and benefits of his Sacrifice by which we may understand the value and necessity of it to deny the intercession of Christ whereby he daily dispenses and applyes the merits of his Sacrifice does as much alter the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ as to deny the atonement of his death and to deny the assistances of the divine Spirit is in effect to deny his Intercession of which the Communications of divine Life and Power is the principal part 2. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit turns the Gospel into a meer external Ministration which makes as fundamental a difference in the Christian Religion as there is between the Ministration of the Letter and of the Spirit 3. This in a great measure takes away the Office of the holy Spirit in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation and consequently destroyes his Worship which is peculiar to the Christian Religion The light of nature directs us only to
the Worship of one God the Christian Religion consecrates us at our baptism to the Worship of three divine Persons and one God For since each sacred Person is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of sinners each of them ought to be acknowledged and adored by us But whoever denies the efficacy of the holy Spirit in the work of Salvation destroys the foundation of his Worship too considered as a distinct Person in the Trinity 4. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit makes the Sacraments of the Christian Religion meer external Ceremonies which were instituted as the Ministries and Conveyances of Grace and so makes a fundamental change in the Institutions of Christianity 5. Nay it makes a fundamental change in the Worship of God and of our Saviour The Christian Worship principally consists in praising God and our Saviour for spiritual mercies in ascribing the glory of all the good we do to his free Grace and continual succors in begging his holy Spirit and the constant supplies of Grace that we may increase and persevere in all goodness this we have frequent examples of in the Writings of the Apostles but whoever denies the assistances of supernatural Grace both defrauds God of his Glory and himself of the benefit and comfort of it He cannot praise God for nor beg that of God which he believes God does not give which makes our Worship very defective and deprives us of the assistances of Grace which we shall never have if we never ask But then all that I can judge fundamental in this point is that the beginnings progress and perfection of all Christian graces and vertues are owing to the influences and operations of the holy Spirit But those other nice disputes about the manner of the Spirits working in us whether it be a natural or moral efficacy whether it be a sufficient or efficacious Grace resistable or irresistable how the operation of the Spirit is reconcileable with the freedom of humane action whether the habits of grace be immediately infused or acquired by frequent Acts these I say and such like Disputes are not fundamental for though it is of great moment for the government of our lives which of these we believe yet the Foundation which is the assistance of the divine Spirit is secured either way and all that men are to look to is that they do not entertain such ill notions of God's Grace as shall make them secure and careless of a holy Life All that I can think necessary to add more concerning the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is what I have already sufficiently hinted the necessity of Repentance and a holy Life There are I confess a great many dangerous Disputes about this matter what place Repentance and a holy Life have in the justification of a sinner And though it is of very great moment to understand this matter rightly and as particularly as we can for fear of that ill influence which such mistakes may have upon our lives and too apparently have upon the lives of many professed Christians yet I cannot think that man errs fundamentally who believes that God will justifie and pardon none but true penitent and reformed sinners and that not for the sake and merit of Repentance and good Works but for the sake of Christ and through Faith in his Blood though he may differ about the necessity of Repentance and Obedience and what place it has in the justification of a sinner Whether it be a necessary Condition or a necessary requisite and Qualification or a necessary concomitant and effect of Justification or whether it be necessary only to our Salvation but not to our Justification Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument or as a Condition c. For while Faith in Christ and Obedience to his Laws are both secured without either derogating from the Grace of God or the Purity of the Christian Religion other mistakes though dangerous when persued to their just Consequences and when men own and live by such Consequences yet I hope are very harmless and Innocent when they do not corrupt mens lives nor hinder the efficacy of the divine Grace Thus I have given an Essay and I hope it may pass for an Essay towards the Discovery what are fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion I have strictly confined my self to the Fundamentals of Christianity though there are some principles of natural Religion which are antecedently necessary to be believed but they are more generally known and agreed in I have had a tender regard to the weaknesses and mistakes of mankind and to the enlargement of Catholick Communion and therefore have as far as was consistent with preserving the essentials of Christianity cast most of our modern controversies out of the number of Fundamentals which if carefully considered would asswage that intemperate heat with which they are managed and more easily reconcile our differences and yet I have not rejected any Doctrine out of the number of Fundamentals which was ever defined to be such by any received general Council of the Christian Church which gives me some hope that I am come pretty near the mark But to give some new light to this matter and to prevent such objections as I can foresee there are some few things which I shall further observe before I proceed 1. The first concerns the judgment of that truly great and learned Person Mr. Joseph Mede Mede's works Epist 84 to Mr. Hartlib He seems indeed to reject this way of stating the Ratio of Fundamentals in relation to some one great Fundamental Doctrine as I have now done For in his censure of Mr. Streso's Book of Fundamentals which I have never yet seen he observes that he makes three sorts of Fundamentals The first is the Fundamentum ipsum or the Foundation it self though what that is he does not tell us and therefore how far I agree with Mr. Streso in that I know not The other two he measures by their relation to it either à parte ante and such he terms sub Fundamentales which by Mr. Mede's censure I perceive did not strictly belong to Christianity but either to the principles of natural Religion or the Jewish State or à parte post which may be called super Fundamentales which he makes such as are by immediate and necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum salutis where he observes that he had inserted some Doctrines of pure speculation among Fundamentals which I confess to be a great fault But from this imperfect account of Mr. Streso's notion I cannot guess how far my way might fall under the same censure As for those two faults he has observed in Mr. Streso's way viz. reckoning such Doctrines among the Fundamentals of Christianity as are not strictly Christian Doctrines or are matters of meer speculation I have carefully avoided them both and as for judging what particular Doctrines are fundamental to Christianity from some general comprehensive Fundamental which contains the
sum of Christian Religion that is certainly the most demonstrative way that can be For though I do not like the way of making fundamental Articles by deduction and consequence from such a Fundamental because as Mr. Mede observes all men may not see the necessity of such a consequence though it appear plain and evident to others yet if for instance the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ be the great fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel and if that be not Fundamental I am sure nothing is then though every true consequence from this Doctrine be not Fundamental yet whatever is necessarily included in this Doctrine without which we cannot rightly understand and believe Salvation by Christ must be as Fundamental as the Doctrine it self is unless the Letters or Words of the Article be Fundamental but not the true sence of it and within these bounds I have kept my self I have asserted no Doctrine to be Fundamental but what is necessary to our belief of Salvation by Christ which is a very different thing from drawing fundamental consequences Mr. Mede indeed assigns another ratio of fundamental Articles Ib. ep 83. in general that they be necessarii cognitu creditu ad salutem necessary to be known and to be believed to Salvation simply and absolutely and therefore no Christian which shall be saved uncapable to understand them which exactly agrees with me who make only the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ in its true and proper signification a fundamental Article But then more particularly he tells us that they must not be such truths as are meerly speculative and contained only in the understanding but of such only as have a necessary influence upon practise and not all those neither but such as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Functions of Christian Life or whereon the Acts without which a Christian lives not depend Such namely as without the knowledg and belief whereof we can neither invocate the Father aright nor have that Faith and relyance upon him and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ which is necessary to remission of sins and the hope of the Life to come Where he seems evidently to confine Fundamentals to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ for nothing else is necessary to what he calls the proper acts and functions of the Christian Life But he proceeds How far this ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch I know not but believe it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and by it also those two main errors of the Socinians the one denying the divine Nature the other the satisfaction of Christ may be discerned to be Fundamental for without the belief of the first the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly that is incommunicably worshipp'd so as to have no other Gods besides him For he that believes not Christ to be consubstantial to the Father and yet honours him with the same Worship worships not the Father incommunicably which is the formalis ratio of the Worship of the true God from whom we look for eternal Life and without the belief of the second the satisfaction of Christ there can be I suppose no saving Faith nor relyance on Christ for the forgiveness of sins How well this agrees with what I have discours'd about Fundamentals every one will easily perceive Some other learned men go the same way with Mr. Mede in assigning the general Ratio or Notion of Fundamentals that they are such Doctrines as have a great influence upon a Christian Life though they do not confine it as he does to some peculiar acts of the Christian Life and he could have no reason to do so had he not some other Notion of Fundamentals in his mind than what he expressed for all the acts of Piety and Vertue are equally required of us by the Laws of the Gospel and therefore it is most reasonable in this way to extend the Notion of Fundamentals to all those Doctrines which have an universal influence upon a good Life but I have something to offer with all modesty and just respect and deference to such great names against this Notion of Fundamentals 1. That a holy Life is not the only design of the Christian Religion and therefore if we will judge of fundamental Doctrines by the end they are intended to serve we must take in the whole and entire end of the Christian Religion which is forgiveness of sins as well as holyness of Life And therefore whatever is necessary to be believed for the forgiveness of sins is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity though we could not see what direct and immediate influence it has upon the reformation of our Lives 2. The Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity hath in all ages of the Church been accounted a fundamental Article and yet nothing is more plain than that the belief of three divine Persons considered only as three Persons has no greater force in it to make men good than the belief of one supreme and eternal God It is true when we consider all these divine Persons as concerned in the Oeconomy of Man's Salvation so the belief of each Person has a distinct and powerful influence upon our minds but this is not owing immediately to the Doctrine of the Trinity but to the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Christ who was sent into the World by his Father to accomplish the Work of our redemption and when he left the World sent his holy Spirit to abide with us 3. All those Doctrines which have a powerful influence upon a good life are not in a strict and proper sence Christian Doctrines much less fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and therefore this can be no good Criterion of a Fundamental such are all the natural arguments to Religion and a vertuous Life which though they be adopted into Christianity yet will hardly pass for fundamentals of Christianity with any man who can distinguish between natural knowledg and Revelation 4. Men may live very holy lives without the knowledg or belief of many Doctrines which are excellently fitted to promote holiness and therefore every Doctrine which will advance holiness is not Fundamental and yet this general rule does not direct us how to distinguish them 5. Nay many Doctrines which are so far from being Fundamental that they are false may yet prevail with and encline some men to the practise of real holiness 6. Some Doctrines which naturally tend to debauch mens lives are not yet fundamental Errors for men may believe them and yet live well and therefore we shall still want a Rule to judg of fundamental Heresies by unless no Heresie be Fundamental but when it debauches mens lives and by the same rule no Doctrine is Fundamental but when it actually governs and reforms our lives 7. This leaves men at great liberty to believe what Doctrines they please to be Fundamental and to change even Christianity it self into a new Religion for if they think they can
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
Schism yet a Schism is a great and damning sin and the less the Cause is the greater is the Sin For the guilt of Schism and Disobedience is not estimated from the intrinsick value of the thing in which they disobey and for which they separate but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedience 3. But the sting of all is in the Tail He says That to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Which few words contain several very absurd and contradictory Propositions and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false the Absurdities are notorious 1. That it is worse to make such uncommanded things Terms of Communion than parts of Worship and yet the only reason Mr. Lob and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion is because they imagine them to be made parts of Worship for if they be not parts of Worship what is the evil of them Why should men separate for the Surplice or Cross in Baptism c. When there is no evil in these things The only evil they charge them with being only this that we make new Sacraments and new parts of Worship by humane Authority 2. This supposes that that may be a part of Worship which is not a Term of Communion Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship and a term of Communion But this is a new Notion which I believe mankind was not instructed in before to make that no term of Communion which we make a part of Worship which signifies to live in Christian Communion together without an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship 3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false than the Foundation of all this that the terms of Communion are more sacred than the Worship of God That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship than a new term of Communion That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence as the conditions of Union between Christians and yet the only reason why Christians are to unite into one Body is to worship God together Methinks this should make our new Projectors careful what they do and make Mr. H. seriously reflect upon what he has done who has proposed such new materials for Union as were never known in the Christian Church before 11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism is made up as he says Reply p. 80. of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion but the Application and Conclusion which is the only thing considerable is his own Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is that Separation is lawful in case men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account But the Church of England according to my notion makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation Ergo we may yea we must separate or 't is our duty and therefore not our sin to separate i.e. we are no Schismaticks Wonderful subtil The Dean's Rule I own and will stand to that if men make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we may lawfully separate from them where the Dean makes two things necessary to justifie a Separation 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation that is that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision was But yet 2. This of it self is not sufficient to justifie a Separation unless these men divide the Church upon this account This Mr. Lob thought fit to leave out of his Argument because it would have spoiled his Argument to have put it in The bare asserting indifferent things to be necessary to Salvation if they do not divide the Church upon it will not justifie a Separation This many believing Jews did They thought Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses necessary to Salvation and yet St. Paul commands Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and to maintain one Communion and St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with them to avoid any scandal But when some false Apostles did not only assert the necessity of such things to Salvation but would impose this upon all Christians or break Communion with them when they separated from the Church it was very lawful to separate from them And therefore we must correct Mr. Lob's Major Proposition thus From such as make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we must separate This is Dr. Stillingfleets Let us now consider his Minor Proposition which he says is mine But the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation This is the Dr's Substitutes notion God forbid My notion I never had such a thought in my life Well! But if Mr. Lob can prove this against me I know no help for it I 'le make my Defence as well as I can But let us hear what he says He attempts two or three ways to prove this but blunders in each the first way is this Ibid. That which is necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is according to his Doctrine necessary to Salvation Now this I deny Communion with the Catholick Church is necessary to Salvation but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is not therefore in its own nature necessary to Salvation It may be necessary in order to Catholick Communion to comply with many inconvenient though not sinful terms of Communion and all wise and good men have thought themselves bound to do so when there is no other Remedy does it hence follow then that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salvation But to proceed But indifferent things says Mr. Lob are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church in that according to him they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church according to his constant judgment Ergo I confess what he means by this I cannot well understand I suppose it may be this That I make Communion with the Catholick Church and consequently with the Church of England as a sound and orthodox part of the Catholick Church to be necessary to Salvation But the observation of some indifferent things is de facto necessary to the Communion of the Church of England because the Church enjoyns the Observation of some indifferent things Ergo indifferent things are made necessary to Salvation Now 1. I would only ask Mr. Lob in his ear whether his own Conscience don't tell him that he has prevaricated here whether he has not used that term Necessary to Salvation in different senses on purpose to abuse the Dean and