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
have not Episcopal Government Our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy which they own from our reformed Bishops which they maintain Communion with and therefore are as well Separatists from the reformed Presbyterian Churches as from the Church of England 2. As it is Schism without absolute necessity to cast off the Authority of our Bishops and to separate from them so it is much more so to reject Episcopal Communion and the Government of Bishops as unlawful and Antichristian which makes a very material difference between our Dissenters and those reformed Churches abroad who have no Bishops of their own There is nothing our Dissenters more vehemently oppose than Episcopal Government for which they never think they can find names bad enough Not to mention others at present this is the great design of Mr. Baxter's late History of Episcopacy to prove that Diocesan Episcopacy in the very Nature and Constitution of it overthrows the Government of Christ's Institution This is his great design in his Abridgement of Church-History to bespatter and vilifie the most renowned Bishops of the Church to reproach all their Actions to charge them with all the Heresies and Schisms which have disturbed the Church and to paint them in such frightful shapes that all Christians may flie from them as the great troublers of our Israel I cannot imagine what service he could think to do by this to common Christianity which is concerned in nothing more than in the Credit and Reputation of the chief Ministers of Religion but I must acknowledge all this was admirably calculated to serve a Faction But the Foreign Churches which have no Bishops do not condemn Episcopacy nor separate from it as an unlawful Communion and whoever does so is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church This is so plain that there needs no proof of it For let men talk never so ill of Bishops and their Government the matter of fact is evident that the Church of Christ has for many hundred years had no other Government than that of Bishops They can shew no Church till the Reformation which was governed without Bishops even such Diocesan Bishops as our Dissenters now vent their Spleen against Dr. Owen indeed and Mr. Baxter would gladly except the two first Centuries but what little reason they have for it has been already examined in the Defence but however they are all forc'd to acknowledg that in the succeeding Ages of the Church till the Reformation which was above twelve hundred years the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops as it is at this day so that by renouncing the Episcopal Communion of the Church in our Age they separate from the whole Catholick Church for so many hundred years As far as Episcopal Government is concerned they condemn the whole Catholick Church in their separation from the Church of England as governed by Diocesan Bishops nay herein they separate also from all the reformed Churches who hold Communion with the Episcopal Church of England and if this be not enough to prove them Schismaticks there is no such thing as Schism from the Church for there was no Church for near fifteen hundred years nor is there at this day which they can communicate with upon these Principles but their own beloved Conventicles for it has always been accounted as unlawful to communicate with such a Church as communicates with another Church whose Communion is sinful as it is to communicate with such a Church our selves and it must be so according to the Principles of Catholick Communion And therefore if it be unlawful to communicate with the Church of England as governed by Bishops it must be unlawful also to communicate with those Protestant Presbyterian Churches which communicate with the Church of England This I suppose may satisfie any man what little reason our Dissenters have to talk so much of Foreign reformed Churches for their case is very different that which will justifie those Foreign Churches which have no Bishops will not justifie our Dissenters who have Bishops but separate from them For though they have no Bishops they do not separate from Episcopal Churches nor condemn Episcopacy as an unlawful or Antichristian Government but hold Communion with the Church of England which our Dissenters have rent and divided by Schismatical separations 3. Let us then consider what may be said in justification of those reformed Churches which have no Bishops whether their want of Bishops does unchurch them and make it unlawful for us to hold Communion with them This is a very nice and tender point for to condemn all the reformed Churches which have no Bishops seems so hard and uncharitable that the Church of England has always declined it but then absolutely to justifie them overthrows the ancient government by Bishops and is made use of by our Dissenters to pull down Episcopacy if the present Bishops do not please them which is impossible for any Bishop to do who will be true to his own Authority and to the constitutions of our Church And therefore in stating this matter I must go a middle way neither absolutely to condemn nor absolutely to justifie them For 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government which I shall not now go about to prove I must acknowledg those Churches which have no Bishops to be very imperfect and defective and that they are bound as far as they can to endeavour to restore the Episcopal Authority and if they fail in this so far as they are chargeable with this neglect what in some cases is a pardonable defect may become especially in the Governors of such a Church a very great Crime For no Church must wantonly change a divine Institution we condemn the Church of Rome for taking away the Cup from the Laity and I think every divine Institution has something so sacred in it as not to be lightly rejected or altered without absolute necessity 2. But yet the case may be such that the want of Episcopal Government may not un-church such a society of Christians nor make it unlawful for other Christians to maintain Communion with them As will appear from these following considerations 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presently un-church those who are guilty of it 2. Especially if there be an absolute or very great necessity for doing it 3. Especially if the case be such that at least they have a presumptive allowance from the Catholick Church to do it 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presentlyun-church those who are guilty of it I need not spend many words to prove this for when the case is proposed in general I think no man will deny it The observation of all divine Institutions is necessary to the perfection of a Church but it is not so to the being of it That is though God does strictly require the observance of all his Statutes yet every positive command is not of that moment that God will disanul his Covenant with
Schism which I assure you if it prove so will be the best Confutation of my Principles and make me greatly suspect them my self There are several insinuations of this nature scattered here and there in his reply which require no very serious answer for if he designed them for serious Arguments he is a wit indeed As to give some instances of this nature 1. He says Reply p. 13. I place Schism in a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Vniversal Church ergo not Schismaticks Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember what Mr. Lob grants that there is such a sin as Schism and that it is a very odious sin which would stand them in more stead if they seriously thought of it than his Defence and Apology will do But Dissenters he says do not divide themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church What he means by this I cannot well tell for I am sure their Principles upon which they divide from the Church of England do equally divide them from all the Churches in the World And if upon meer humour they will divide from one Church and not from another where the reason of Separation is the same they are nevertheless Schismaticks for that Let Mr. Lob tell me what Church for above twelve hundred years they could have communicated with upon so good terms as they may now with the Church of England If Diocesan Episcopacy Forms of Prayer Defects in Discipline Corrupt Members in Church Communion Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies or unscriptural Impositions as they call them be a sufficient reason to justifie Separation what Church they ever could or can to this day communicate with The Foreign Protestant Churches though they differ in some things from the Church of England not in Judgment but in Practise of which I have given some account above yet they communicate with the Church of England which according to the Laws of Catholick Communion makes it as unlawful to communicate with them as with the Church of England it self But he says Dissenters and all true Christians though I hope all true Christians are not Dissenters whether Dissenters be true Christians or not must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church How far this must be acknowledged I have examined above Schismaticks in a loose general Notion belong to the Church though they are not Members of the Catholick Church which is but one Communion and thus dissenting Separatists are Schismaticks still But though it were possible that our Dissenters might find some other Church beside their own Conventicles to communicate with yet they actually divide themselves from the Catholick Church by breaking Communion with any one sound part of it especially with such a part of the Church as they are more particularly bound to communicate with The Catholick Church is but one Communion and whoever causelesly breaks this Communion as he does who separates from any sound part of the Church is a Schismatick especially he that separates from the Church wherein he lives which is the case of our Dissenters in separating from the Church of England If you separate the Arm from the Shoulder you separate it from the whole Body the Union of every Member with the Body is its Union to that part of the Body which is next for the whole Body is nothing else but all the parts united to each other in their proper place and order And if the Church be one Body and one Communion he that separates from the Communion of the Church where he lives is a Schismatick though he may pretend to an imaginary Communion with French or Dutch Churches with the Churches of Greece or Russia But as much as Mr. Lob pretends that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead that Schism is a Separation from the Catholick Church it is plain he does not like it and therefore reproaches it as a Popish notion generally asserted by Papists I should be heartily glad to see any Papist assert this for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery but I doubt Mr. Lob wrongs the Papists and mistakes Catholick for Roman-Catholick Church They own no Catholick but the Roman-Catholick Church and know no Schism but a Separation from the Church of Rome But Mr. Lob thinks this is no great matter for I only change England for Rome and set up an English-Catholick instead of the Roman-Catholick Church which whatever other fault it have I hope he will acknowledg to be a change a little for the better but let us hear his own words He says I close with the same Popish Faction Ibid. in asserting that separating from the Church of England is a Separation from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists say within the limits of Rome What a blessed thing is Ignorance which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit What Papists are those who confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome Do not they own the Churches of Italy Spain France Germany to be Catholick Churches and would own all the Churches in the World to be so would they subject themselves to the Pope of Rome They do not desire to confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome but desire to extend it as far as England and all the World over But still Rome is the beginning of Unity and Catholicism and no Church must be owned for a Catholick Church which does not live in Communion with the Church of Rome and pay homage and subjection to the Bishop of Rome This is the Roman-Catholick Church not which is confined within the limits of Rome but which has the Bishop of Rome for its constitutive Regent Head And is not Mr. Lob a very pleasant man who would perswade the World that I am for setting up such a Catholick Church in England as the Papists have done at Rome The Papists make it Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome considered as the Head of the Church I assert it to be Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Church of England not meerly as the Church of England but as a true and sound part of the Catholick Church which we especially are bound to communicate with And is there no difference between these two But who-ever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of Salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all the while Schismaticks in a state of Damnation This no jesting matter but a sad and serious Truth which I would beg Mr. Lob as he loves his
A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
the whole Church and as he observes I assert in another place That every Bishop Ib. p. 11. Presbyter or Deacon by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholick Church That every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholick Church by Baptism and shuts out of the Catholick Church by Excommunication which they could not do if they were not Ministers of the Catholick Church but does this make every Bishop an universal Monarch that he is a Bishop of the universal Church Orwillâ— Mr. Lob deny that Bishops or Presbyters have a Relation to the universal Church If they be Ministers of the Church and there be but one Church they must be Ministers of the Catholick Church for particular Churches are not Churches but considered as Members of the Catholick Church and therefore the primary Relation of all Catholick Christians and Catholick Bishops is to the Catholick Church This proves indeed that the whole Catholick Church is but one Body and one Communion but it does not prove that there is but one supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. That the ordinary Power of a particular Bishop or the Exercise of the Episcopal Office is confined to a certain place or particular Church which certainly does not make them the ordinary Governors of the whole universal Church 3. I assert That though the Exercise of their Episcopal Power is ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet they continue their Relation to the whole Church that is in their Government of their particular Churches they act as Bishops and Ministers of the universal Church for they are Bishops of particular Churches not considered meerly as particular but as Members of the universal Church And if Mr. Lob meant no more but this by making the universal Church the first Seat of Government that all the Power in the Church primarily respects the universal Church though as it is distributed into different hands the Exercise of it is confined to particular Places and Churches I readily own the Charge and may do so safely without making the Church such an organized Political Body as has one Constitutive Regent Head over the Whole 4. I assert farther That Bishops being Ministers of the Catholick Church when Necessity that is when the preservation of the Catholick Faith or Catholick Communion require it may with one consent oppose the Heresie or Schisms of neighbour Bishops depose those who are incorrigible and Ordain others in their stead and as far as it is possible take care that no part of the Church of Christ suffer any injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of their Colleagues And if Mr. Lob will hence infer that every Bishop has an original Right to govern the whole universal Church he must have a Logick by himself or some great flaw in his Understanding or Conscience Every Bishop is a Bishop of the universal Church and therefore as far as the Rules of good Order and Government Catholick Peace and Communion and the possibility of things will permit he may exercise his Episcopal Office in any part of the Christian Church but this does not give him an original Right to govern the whole Church 2. Mr. Lob observes Ib. p. 11. that I say The Catholick Church is united and coupled by the Cement of Bishops who stick close together for which I produce Cyprian and therefore I hope there is no Popery in this unless St. Cyprian also were a Cassandrian or French Papist For may not Bishops stick close together in one Communion unless there be a supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Church Or can the Church be one unless the Bishops who are the supreme Ecclesiastical Governors of their several Churches be one also 3. But I assert that the Vnity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent Therefore not by one Constitutive Regent Head But he says I mention Collegium Episcopale or Episcopal Colledge So indeed I observed Optatus called the whole Body of Bishops and upon the same account St. Cyprian and St. Austin calls them Colleagues But this Episcopal Colledge he says He takes to be a Council of Bishops But that is his mistake and a very silly one it is and he might as well conclude that when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy they mean their Union in a general Council In St. Cyprian's time there never had been a general Council excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem and yet when he writ to Forraign Bishops with whom he was never joyned in Council nor ever like to be he calls them his Colleagues or those of the same Colledge with him which signifies no more but that they were of the same Power and Authority in the Church and united in the same Communion And yet Mr. Lob takes hold of this Phrase of the Episcopal Colledge to make me expresly assert the supreme Authority of general Councils p. 12. That every part of the universal Church is under the government of the universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge or in Council Which Sentence he very honestly puts into a different Character that it may be taken for mine and makes it a distinct head of accusation when I never writ nor thought any such thing but this is the dealing we must expect from those men whose Understandings and Consciences are formed only to serve a party Well but these Bishops have an original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church this has been considered already only he adds an untoward i. e. which is such another honest Exposition as turning an Episcopal Colledge into a Council For i. e. says Mr. Lob The Forraign Bishops as those of Alexandria and Rome c. have an original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church a Right and Power in relation to England Now this is very true in the sense in which I assert it The Bishop of Rome and Alexandria have such a relation to the Church of England and so have all the Bishops in the World that if they live in the same Communion with us and should come over into England with the leave of English Bishops they might exercise their Episcopal Office in any Church in England as Polycarp consecrated in the Church of Anicetus at Rome A Catholick Bishop does not lose his Character by going out of his own Church but is a Bishop in what part of the World soever he be and therefore may exercise his Episcopal Office as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Christian Communion and with the Rights and Jurisdiction of other Bishops Nay were there nothing else to alter the Case but only the local distance between Rome and England and Alexandria the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria might admonish and censure the English Bshops in case they fell into Heresie or Schism and deny them Communion in case of obstinacy or incorrigibleness and so may the English Bishops admonish
those of Rome and Alexandria and inflict the like Censures on them The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in one Communion and all the Authority of the Church results from the necessary Obligations to Christian Communion and all Churches must judge for themselves by the Rules of Catholick Communion what Churches to hold Communion with and though we must expect while Bishops are men and subject to the Weaknesses Passions Mistakes of humane Nature they may be guilty of great miscarriages and deny Communion to each other upon insufficient Reasons yet there is no help for this that I know of but either the Mediation and Interposition of other Churches or an Appeal to the last Judgment That obligation all Churches are under as far as in them lies to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Unity of the Church obliges them to reject the Communion of those who violate either but it withal obliges them as they will answer it at the Tribunal of Christ the great Bishop of his Church not to make any unnecessary breaches or lightly and wantonly refuse each others Communion But by the Original Right and Power of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops in relation to the Church of England he seems to mean a Right of Appeals and proper Jurisdiction as he plainly does in what he adds a little after concerning the Independency of the Church of England on any Forraign Power For because I assert the Bishops are not wholly independent he concludes That the Church of England is not independent Reply p. 12. p. 28. but accountable to Forraign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power And some Pages after confutes this by saying That 't is notorious that the Church of England estalished by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Forraign Power whatsoever Such is the Constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledge of Bishops but such us are convened by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any appeal to any Forraign Power from the King And therefore he thinks I incur a Premunire by setting up a Forraign Jurisdiction over the Church of England Now this is so wild and absurd a Conclusion from any thing I have said that none but Mr. Lob or some few of his size could have hit on 't there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church of which every Bishop has an equal Share and Portion and therefore is a Bishop of the Catholick Church and though the Exercise of his Episcopal Office and Authority is regularly and ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet his original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church does still remain i. e. He is a Bishop in all parts of the World and may exeroise his Episcopal Authority where-ever he be as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Catholick Communion and when necessity requires is obliged to take care as far as possibly he can that the Church of Christ suffer no injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of his Colleagues ergo the Church of England is subject to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria But I believe few men can discern how such a Consequence results from such Premisses and what follows is of the same stamp All Bishops have originally equal Authority in the Church of Christ but yet are not so independent but that they are bound by the Laws of Christ to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with their Fellow Bishops and in case of Heresie Schism or notorious Impiety may be censured and deposed by their Colleagues and others ordained in their stead Ergo The Church of England is subject to the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops I have abundantly proved in the Defence that St. Cyprian owns these Premisses but denies the Conclusion and therefore either he or Mr. Lob are out in their Logick when St. Cyprian had Excommunicated two of his Presbyters Felicissimus and Fortunatus and they fled to Rome to Cornelius to make their Complaints to him St. Cyprian writes a Letter to Cornelius wherein he informs him of the whole Matter and has this remarkable passage in it That it was by a general Consent agreed among them Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ac justum ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat unusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint Cypr. ep 55. ad Cornelium and is in it self equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard there where the Crime is committed since every Pastor has a Portion of the Flock committed to him which he is to Rule and Govern so as he is to give an Account of it to his Lord and therefore those who are under our Government ought not to run about from one Bishop to another nor by their subtil and fallacious insinuations engage those Bishops who are at Vnity among themselves in contests and quarrels but should there plead their Cause where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Thus St. Cyprian rejects the Appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops to Stephen Bishop of Rome when they had been justly deposed by their Colleagues Cypr. ep 68. and Felix and Sabinus ordained Bishops in their stead Thus when Marcion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer 42. Bishop of Sinope he fled to Rome but was denyed Communion there and they gave this reason for it We cannot do this without the leave of thy venerable Father for there is but one Faith and one Consent and we cannot go contrary to thy Father our good Colleague and fellow Labourer From these instances it appears that the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge does not give Authority to every Bishop to intermedle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocess but only in case of absolute necessity for here are two things to be distinctly considered which qualifie each other and set bounds to the Ecclesiastical Government 1. That there is but one Episcopacy in which every Bishop has an equal share Christ hath committed the Care of his whole Church to the Bishops of it who are to maintain Unity and Communion among themselves and as far as it is practicable and as occasion requires govern the Church with mutual Advice and Counsel
and one Consent as if they were but one Bishop And 2. That every Bishop has a Portion of the Flock assigned to his particular Care over which in ordinary Cases he has the sole and supreme Authority for though the Church of Christ be but one Flock yet it is not committed in common to the Care of all Bishops but is divided into several Folds with particular Pastors set over them to instruct and govern and take Care of them and as every Bishop and Pastor is more peculiarly concerned than any other to render an account of that part of the Flock committed to his Charge so it is fit he should have the greatest Authority and Power over them all Bishops have an equal Power and Authority in the Church but the ordinary exercise of this is confined to their own Churches in which each of them is supreme Now the first of these the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of those larger Combinations and Confederacies of neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopalor National Churches for since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary that as far as it is practicable as it is in the Churches of the same Province or Nation they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the Peace and Unity of the Episcopal Colledge and to promote the Edification and good Government of the Church Nay this Unity of the Episcopacy is the Foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Colleagues in case of Heresie and Schism or any notorious Wickedness for they being Bishops of the universal Church have an original Right and Power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the Heresie or evil Practises of their Colleagues But the second Consideration that every Bishop has the chief Power in his own Church prescribes the Bounds and Limits of this Ecclesiastical Authority as 1. Every Bishop having the chief Power in his own Diocess though he is bound by the Laws of Catholick Communion and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy to consent with his Colleagues in all wholsome Constitutions and Rules of Discipline and Government yet he cannot be imposed on against his own Consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such Accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor Schismatically divides the Church 2. Nor can any Bishop or Bishops rescind any Censures justly passed by another Bishop against any in his own Church or receive Appeals about such Matters without his Consent for the Unity of the Episcopacy requires all Bishops to leave each other to the free Exercise of their Power and Authority in their own Churches as we see the Church of Rome acknowledged in the Case of Marcion's Appeal from his Fathers Sentence For it is an usurpation on the Authority of Bishops not to suffer them to govern their own Flock while nothing is done to the injury of the Faith and the Churches Peace and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops than for one Bishop to undo what another has done or to judge over again that Cause which has been already judged and determined where it ought to be judged as St. Cyprian tells Cornelius in the Case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus as I observed above I grant this is generally practised in Archiepiscopal and National Churches and in many Cases there is great use and reason for it but then this is not without the Consent of other Bishops those Appeals are allowed and confirmed by Provincial and National Synods to which every Bishop gives his Consent but I am now considering what the original Right of Bishops is not how far they may part with this Power for a more general good 3. As every Bishop has the chief Authority in his own Diocess so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church the supreme Power within it self from whence lies no Appeal to any Forraign Church without its own Consent The Unity of the Episcopacy requires the Union of neighbour Bishops for one Government but because all the Bishops in the World though they are of the same Communion yet cannot be united into one Government it is necessary to stop somewhere and that which in all reason must determine the bounds of such a Church must be a convenient distance of place or one Nation and one Civil Government such Churches being more easily confederated into one Body than those of different Nations Now if every Bishop be the supreme Governor of his own Church much more has a National Church the supreme Power of governing it self A National Church is bound to maintain Catholick Communion with Neighbour Churches and if it fall into Heresie or Schism Neighbour Churches may and ought to admonish and censure them and if they continue obstinate to withdraw Communion from them but while a National Church preserves the Unity of the Faith and Catholick Communion no other Church can intermeddle in its Government nor ought to receive any Appeals from its Judgment for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other but only in order to Catholick Communion These things I have discoursed more largely on purpose if it be possible to prevent the mistakes of these men who are so unwilling to see or to acknowledge the Truth and I hope I may safely conclude from the whole that there is no danger that the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria should challenge any jurisdiction over the Church of England by vertue of the original Right and Power of the Catholick Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ But however Mr. Lob is resolved to make something of it at last and if he cannot prove that I subject the Church of England to any Forraign Bishop yet it is plain that I subject it to a general Council for he says I assert that if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council that is unto a Forraign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tear up the Church of England by the Roots Reply p. 29. to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force all this by Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender Good man What a happy Reformation is here How is he now concerned for the Church of England his Majesties Supremacy the Sacredness of Civil Laws in Religious Matters and the Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet which suffers by such a Defender But where do I say That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council Truly no where but he transcribes a long Paragraph out of the Defence against the absolute independency of Bishops wherein there is this Expression And 't is very wild to imagine that any of these Persons who abuse
was so general that St. Cyprian and Optatus found the Consent of the whole Church upon it However half the World or all the known famous Churches were sufficient for Advice and Counsel though not for supreme uncontroulable Government which I never asserted to advise with all the known Churches which were within the reach of such Communication is sufficient to satisfie us how necessary they thought it to use the most effectual Means they could to preserve Catholick Communion and that they believed mutual Advice and Counsel a very proper means for that end and the Duty of all true Catholick Bishops This way St. Austin calls an Epistolare Colloquium Aug. de baptismo l. 3. cap. 2. a Conference by Letters which he thinks is not to be compared with the Plenarium Concilium as he very properly calls a general Council a full or plenary Council which is made up of wise and learned Prelates from distant parts of the World For when the Bishops of so many several Churches who may be well presumed to know the Judgment and Practise of their own Churches meet together without any private or factious Designs freely to debate and consult for the publick good of the Church the Authority of such a Council must needs be venerable and it must be some very great reason that will justifie a dissent from it Such Councils indeed are not infallible Article 21. as our Church asserts because they consist of fallible men who may be and have been deceived and therefore in Matters necessary to Salvation we must believe them no farther than they agree with the holy Scriptures though a modest man will not oppose his private judgment to the Decrees of a general Council unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expresly against it but in Rules of Discipline and Government their Authority is greater still because the Canons of general Councils are a great Medium and excellent Instrument of Catholick Communion the promoting of which is the principal end and the greatest use of general Councils and therefore though they do not command by any direct Authority and superior Jurisdiction yet they strongly oblige in order to serve the ends of Catholick Communion 2. But now suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Council how does this subvert the Kings Supremacy or incur a Premunire For let the Authority of a general Council be what it will it is wholly Spiritual as the whole Government of the Church is considered meerly as a Church or Spiritual Society but the Supremacy of the King is an external and civil Jurisdiction in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions and Mr. Lob might as well say that every man who sets up any spiritual Authority in the Church subverts the Supremacy of the King and thus the King's Supremacy makes him a Bishop and a Priest too a Scandal which Mr. Lob's Predecessors raised in Queen Elizabeths days to disswade People from the Oath of Supremacy which it seems they were not then so fond of and which the Queen confutes in her Injunctions and tells her Subjects that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority but only this under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forraign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them When Bishop Jewel writ his Apology and Defence to Scipio a Patrician of Venice who complained of the English Nation for not sending their Legates to the Council of Trent he never thought of this reason against it that it was contrary to the King's Supremacy which is owned and confirmed by the Laws of this Land and we may observe that the Statutes of Provisors and several Laws to preserve the Liberties of the Realm from the Usurpations of the Pope of Rome or any other Forraign Potentate were made and confirmed in several Kings Reigns long before Henry the 8th a particular Account of which the Reader may find in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation part 1. Book 2. p. 107. c. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th and therefore Arch-bishop Bramhall truly observes Bramhall's vindication of the Church of England That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of England and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy to acknowledge the Authority of general Councils For after the Statutes of Provisors we find the English Bishops in the Councils of Constance and Basil which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high as ever any men did For indeed since Princes have embraced the Christian Faith no Bishops excepting the Pope of Rome have pretended to call a general Council but by the Will and Authority of the Prince nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom or obtain the Authority of Laws but by the Consent of the Prince which therefore certainly can be no encroachment upon his Supremacy While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes and over all Persons in his own Hands the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights This is sufficient at present in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation that to assert the Authority of general Councils subverts the Kings Supremacy subjects the Church of England to a Forraign Court and Jurisdiction and thereby incurs the Penalty of a Praemunire whereby we see that he understands the Law as little as he does the Gospel only shews his good Will to poor Cassandrians and as much as he declames against penal Laws against Dissenters would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire 4. Mr. Lob has not done with me yet but to make me a perfect Cassandrian whether I will or not he adds as my sense Reply p. 12. That this Council of Forraign Bishops unto which they i.e. the Bishops of the Church of England are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was one and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is one Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the Care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholick Churches all this is to be found from p. 208. to the end of the Chapter This is a terrible Charge indeed and home to the Purpose and Mr. Lob is a terrible Adversary in these days if he can but Swear as well as he can Write for all this is
Sadduces and yet they lived in the Communion of the same Church offered the same Sacrifices worshipped God at the same Temple and observed the same Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and confined their Disputes to their several Schools The Jewish and the Heathen Converts in the time of the Apostles differed about a very material point the observation of the Law of Moses and yet according to St. Paul's exhortation and command they lived in the Communion of the same Church and in the joynt exercise of all the Acts of Christian Worship Defence p. 443. c. as I discours'd at large in the Defence How many different Opinions are there among the Doctors and Churches of the Roman Communion the Franciscans Dominicans Jesuits The same points are disputed among them and that with as great warmth and keenness as there are between the Arminians and Calvinists and abundance more Nay the Italian and Spanish and French Churches differ upon those great points of Infallibility and the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and yet all live in the Communion of the same Church And I cannot see but that all the Christian Churches in the World excepting the Church of Rome might maintain Catholick Communion upon as easie terms The breaches between the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches have been often times composed especially between the Polonian Churches an account of which we have at large in Pareus his Irenicum which is a plain argument that it is not meerly the difference of Opinions but the distempers of mens minds if such agreement and concord be not perpetual so that no doctrinal Disputes ought to divide the Communion of the Christian Church but such as subvert the foundations of our Faith or corrupt the essentials of Christian Worship and this may suffice for the first inquiry what are the terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Doctrines from which it evidently appears that Catholick Communion is neither in its self an impracticable notion nor the practise of it very difficult to all good Christians II. It is time now to consider the next Inquiry what are the necessary terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Church-government And the only Question I shall endeavour to resolve under this Head is this Whether and in what Cases it is lawful to communicate with a Church which is not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters who were ordained by Bishops The reason of this Inquiry is plainly this It is sufficiently known that there are several Protestant Churches of great note governed without Bishops by a Colledge of Presbyters who have no other Orders but what they received from Presbyters Now if Episcopacy be so essential to the Constitution of a Church that we must not own any Church which has no Bishops we must renounce the Communion of the Protestant Churches of France and Holland and Geneva and some others which is both a very invidious and uncharitable thing and a great injury to the Reformed Profession and does mightily streighten Catholick Communion If Episcopacy be not so essential to the Constitution of a Church but that we may communicate with those Churches which have no Bishops why do we reject our Dissenters at home and condemn them of Schism for rejecting the Episcopal Authority and forming themselves into Church-societies without Bishops Why are we not as kind to our own Friends Neighbours and Countrey-men as we are to Foreign Churches Now though the Church of England has always asserted the Authority of Bishops and condemned those of her own Communion who have separated from their Bishops yet she has been so far from condemning Foreign reformed Churches for the want of Bishops that she has always lived in Communion with them and defended them against their accusers and I resolve to steer by this Compass so to vindicate the Reformed Churches as neither to injure the Episcopal Authority nor to justifie our Schisms at home And to do this with all possible plainness I shall proceed by these steps 1. I observe there is a vast difference between separating from Episcopal Communion where Episcopacy is the setled Government of the Church and living without Episcopal Government where we cannot have it which makes a great difference between our Dissenters and some Foreign Churches Some of the Foreign Protestant Churches indeed have no Protestant Bishops nor ever had and it may be could not have but Episcopacy has been the establisht Government of the Church of England ever since the Reformation and for any Christians to separate from their Bishops was always accounted Schism by the Christian Church unless there were some very necessary reasons to justifie such a Separation but in some cases not to have Bishops may be no Schism If any man should object that the Case of our Dissenters and the reformed Churches is the very same for the Foreign Churches had Bishops also of the Roman Communion but separated from them upon account of those intolerable Corruptions which made their Communion unlawful and many of them set up no Bishops of their own and thus our Dissenters separate from the Church of England and her Bishops upon account of the corruptions in her Worship and are as excusable as the French Protestant Churches for setting up a Government without Bishops I answer Not to take notice now what a vast difference there is between separating from the Church of Rome and from the Church of England there is one very obvious difference in this very matter which takes off the whole objection For our Dissenters make Diocesan Episcopacy to be one reason of their Separation which no reformed Church ever did before The Reformed Churches abroad separated from Popish Bishops our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy it self All the reformed Churches abroad owned Episcopacy though they disowned Popish Bishops several of them retain both the name and thing as the Churches of Sweden and Denmark Others retain the Office though they have changed the name as several Lutheran Churches which have their superintendents Generales and Generalissimi who answer to our Bishops and Arch-bishops and as for those Churches which have them not they never reject Episcopal Communion but all of them have owned Communion with the Church of England reverenced our Bishops highly commended the Constitution of our Church censured and condemned our Schismaticks and declared their judgments in favour of Episcopacy and wished the restitution of it and the most some of their most learned men have pretended to was only to justifie the Lawfulness of a Presbyterian parity Durel's Church-government Saywell's Evangelical and Catholick Unity c. p. 228 c. It were easie here to fill up several Pages with the judgment of the most famous Divines abroad but this has been so often done by others and very lately by Dr. Saywell that I shall refer my Readers to them for satisfaction in this point And is not this a very material difference between our Dissenters and the reformed Churches abroad which
own Soul to consider better of at his leisure and out of the heat of Dispute Separation from the Church of England is a Schism and Schism is as damning a sin as Idolatry Drunkenness or Adultery And here he has a notable fetch But surely if these men believed so much methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural Impositions were removed unless they have greater kindness for such trifles than they have for such immortal Souls for whom Christ dyed And methinks they should be as much concerned to take care of their own Souls as we are to take care of them and not to divide the Church for the sake of such Trifles as they call them As for removing all unscriptural Impositions as he calls them by which he means the whole Constitution of the Church of England this we cannot do without destroying all the external Solemnities of Worship and dissolving the Bands of Church-Society of which more presently And if this could be done they would be Schismaticks still unless they could perswade all the Churches in the World to do so too For they could not maintain Catholick Communion with any Church which used any unscriptural Rites and Ceremonies as most Churches in the World at this day do Nay they would be Schismaticks from the Catholick Church for many hundred years before the Reformation for their very Principles are Schismatical and it is not the removing some few Ceremonies which would cure their Schism But suppose the Church of England were out of their way would that cure their Schism would Presbyterians Independents and meer Anabaptists cement into one Communion We know how it has been formerly and have reason to guess how it would be again when they cease to be Schismaticks from the Church of England they will be Schismaticks to one another And therefore we may without breach of Charity defend our Church and they are bound in Charity to look to their own Souls And therefore I wonder what our Author means when he puts the whole Dispute upon this issue Let their terms be as Catholick as they pretend their Church is and we 'll comply i. e. let them keep to a few certain and necessary things let them not impose as terms of Vnion any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture Reply p. 7â— we are satisfied the Controversie is at an end This is a certain Argument that our Author is no great Traveller not so much as in Books that he knows nothing of any Church but his own dear Conventicles unless he modestly dissembles his knowledg to serve his Cause For the terms of our Communion are as Catholick as our Church is Diocesan Episcopacy Liturgies and Ceremonies have been received in all Churches for many hundred years and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this day and this is the Constitution of the Church of England and the terms of our Communion and must be acknowledged to be Catholick Terms if by Catholick Terms he means what has actually been received by that Catholick Church and not what he fancies ought to be made the Terms of Catholick Communion Could Mr. Lob indeed have the new Modelling of the Catholick Church and make what Catholick Terms of Communion he pleased he would be satisfied and the Controversie were at an end but wiser men consider that Catholick Terms of Communion are not to be made now no more than the Catholick Faith is and therefore it is not our private Reasonings but the Practise of the Catholick Church in all Ages which will acquaint us what the Catholick Terms of Communion are and he who will not maintain Communion with the Church upon such Terms must be a Schismatick and there is an end of that Controversie And if by according to the Word of God he means that nothing must be made a Term of Catholick Communion but what is agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture I readily grant it and assert that the Church of England requires nothing as a Term of Communion but what is so But if he means that the Church must require nothing but what is expresly commanded by the Word of God I deny that this ever was a Term of Catholick Communion nay nor of any particular Church-Communion Dr. Owen himself rejects it and of late it has been thought a very great Scandal upon the Dissenters to charge them with but it is happy for a Faction to have some ignorant Writers as well as Readers for the first are bold and the other credulous and the Argument must be acknowledged to be very useful to divide and disturb the best constituted Church though wise and cunning men are ashamed to use it And that Mr. L. means this by according to the Word of God appears from an admirable Argument he uses to prove it That we our selves look on them as indifferent i. e. as what is not enjoyned us in the Word of God q. d. as what is not according to the Word of God Reply p. 79. Which also he explains by such things as are not to be found in Scripture Now we do indeed by indifferent things mean such things as are not commanded in Scripture but are left to the prudence of Governors to injoyn or alter as the Edification of the Church shall require but yet we assert indifferent things to be according to Scripture both as the use of indifferent things is allowed in Scripture and as these particular usages which are enjoyned by the Church though they may be in their own natures indifferent yet are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture for decency and order But Mr. Lob requires us to shew the Scriptures that declare the things imposed to be so necessary a part of true Religion as to be a Form of our Communion with the Catholick Church that we must not only shew Ibid. 78. that these things are agreeable to true Religion but moreover that it is such a necessary part thereof that whoever conforms not to them when imposed is ipso facto cut off from the Catholick Church Now this were something to the purpose did we assert that the bare not doing these things as for instance the not wearing the Surplice or not using the Cross in Baptism or not kneeling at the Sacrament did in their own nature ipso facto cut men off from the Catholick Church but we never said we never thought this But we say that to separate causelesly from any true and sound part of the Christian Church cuts such Separatists off from the Catholick Church and to separate where no sinful terms of Communion are imposed is a causeless Separation So that it does not lie on us to prove that every thing that is injoyned is in its own nature necessary to Catholick Communion but if they would justifie their Separation they must prove that what is enjoyned is sinful I will only ask Mr. Lob whether it be a sufficient justification
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
his Substitute together and to impose upon his ignorant Proselytes By making indifferent things necessary to Salvation the Dean plainly meant that they taught that those things which were indeed indifferent though not acknowledged so by them had such a natural and moral or instituted vertue and efficacy to our Salvation that without observing of them no man can be saved that they are necessary to Salvation as any other necessary and essential part or duty of Religion is the neglect of which meerly upon account of such a neglect will damn us Now does the Dean does his Substitute does the Church of England teach indifferent things to be necessary in this sence to have an immediate and direct influence upon our Salvation Can any man in his wits who owns these things to be indifferent in the same breath assert them to be necessary in this sense And therefore Mr. Lob's Argument is a ridiculous Sophism or as Mr. H. speaks has four terms in it For necessary to Salvation in the Major Proposition signifies very differently from necessary to Salvation in the Minor Proposition and thus the Dean and his Substitute are reconciled But 2. How shall I bring my self off for though I do not assert a direct necessity of indifferent things to Salvation yet I bring in a necessity at a back Door and necessity is necessity and if it be a damning necessity it is no matter of what kind and nature the necessity be I make Communion with the Church of England necessary to Salvation and indifferent observances are necessary to the Communion of the Church of England and therefore are themselves necessary to Salvation But yet I doubt not to make it appear that though the Church of England does require the observance of such indifferent things from all in her Communion yet she makes these things in no sense necessary to Salvation For 1. In many cases she does not charge the bare not observing such indifferent Rites with any guilt and therefore is far enough from making them necessary to Salvation Such indifferent things are not enjoyned for their own sake but for the sake of publick Order and Decency and therefore when they can be neglected without publick Scandal and Offence without a contempt of the Government without the guilt of Schism and Separation it is no fault nor accounted such by the Church And yet did she enjoyn these things as necessary to Salvation they would equally oblige in all times and in all cases without exception 2. Though Schism be a damning sin yet the imposition of such indifferent things is no necessary cause of a Schismatical Separation Men may communicate in all or in most parts of Christian Worship with the Church of England without assenting to such unscriptural Impositions or yielding any active obedience to them and I suppose Mr. Lob will confess that there is a very material difference between an active and passive Obedience in doubtful cases The terms of Lay-Communion are as easie as ever they were in any setled and constituted Church as for publick Forms of Prayer I must except them out of the number of indifferent things for they have at least equal Authority and are infinitely more expedient not to say necessary for publick Worship than their ex tempore Prayers And then what is there required of a private Christian to do to qualifie him for Church-Communion if he does not like the Surplice he does not wear it himself and let the Minister look to that What hurt is it to Parents or their Children to submit to the Authority of the Church in using the sign of the Cross in Baptism They only offer their Children to be baptized if the Minister does something more than what they think necessary and expedient let the Church look to that which enjoyns it Private Christians who have not Authority to alter publick Constitutions are not concerned in that So that there is but one Ceremony wherein they are required to be active and that is receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper kneeling which men thus peaceably disposed may easily be satisfied in the lawfulness and fitness of and till they can be satisfied may more innocently abstain from the Lord's Table and joyn in all other parts of Christian Worship than they can separate from the Church So that these indifferent things can be no just cause for any private Christians to separate and if notwithstanding they do separate and are damned for it they must not charge these innocent Ceremonies with their Damnation And as for those who cannot conform as Ministers they may and most of them own they can conform as Lay-men and therefore these Ceremonies are no cause of their Separation 3. Suppose men do take occasion from the Disputes and Quarrels about indifferent things to separate from the Church and be damned for it yet they are not damned for not observing such indifferent Customs though that may be the remote occasion of it but for their pride and self-conceit for their disobedience to their Superiors for their dividing the unity of the Church and disturbing the peace of it Suppose two men should be so well employed as to play at push-pin and should quarrel and fight and one should be killed and the other hanged would you say this man was hanged for playing at push-pin Thus it is here it is not the occasion which peevish 〈◊〉 take to divide the Church which must be charged with their Damnation but their Pride their Faction their Obstinacy their Disobedience and ungovernable temper of mind which takes such small occasions to divide and disturb the Church If Mr. Lob does not think this enough in answer to his Argument I think he is a little unreasonable III. Our Author has another device still to prove from my own Concessions that Dissenters are not Schismaticks He says that Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson now two learned and reverend Prelates whose bare Authority I confess is more considerable to me than all our Author's Arguments in a Conference with the Papists Reply p. 82. assert That a Superiors unjust casting out of the Church is Schismatical And this I heartily assent to But according to my notion the Church of England is guilty of such impositions and does unjustly excommunicate Dissenters This I utterly deny But let us hear how Mr. Lob proves it 1. He says That the Impositions are sinful is evident in that indifferent things as has been proved are made necessary to Salvation But I presume the Reader will see that this has not been proved yet and therefore it is not evident I will only ask our Author whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excommunications mean excommunicating those who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indifferent things If they don't as it is evident they don't he only abuses them and his Readers by their Authority 2. That the Church of England excommunicates unjustly he says is very demonstrable even in that
turmoil and confusion of thoughts than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time when he was resolved to answer but knew not what to say No man I fear need convince Mr. Lob that he may conform against his Conscience Make it but his Interest to conform and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd Well but however that he might seem to return some Answer to my Confutation of that Principle that the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them he just names it and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing that all indifferent things cannot be parted with without sin and this must pass for an Answer to the second And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this But let us hear what he says You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and intrinsecal thereunto and what is extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these which is off from the point in hand Had I done so I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper as not to have shewn his Readers how I did it But I have already answered that Suggestion and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary if they dare believe their own eyes But he says Ib. p. 85. I run from what is indifferent to what is necessary as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing This is another trick The case is this He charges the Church of England with being the Divider because she does not part with indifferent things which she may part with without sin I prove that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary for then it were no longer indifferent yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship not to the moral Nature but the external performance of Religious Actions and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship and yet if we must part with indifferent things meerly considered as indifferent by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all This he calls running from what is indifferent to what is necessary whereas it only proves that some things which are indifferent in their own Natures are necessary to publick Worship which was very much to my purpose though not to his I gave an Instance of this in some Actions which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances As a man who is to travel from London to York is not bound either to go thither on Foot or to ride on Horse-back or in a Coach each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or other of these ways of Motion not any one in particular is necessary but yet some or other is But says Mr. Lob One has not strength to walk Ib. p. 86. another cannot bear riding in a Coach yet to York they must go If you will keep to your point you must say to him that can't walk some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither The force of which Answer amounts to this that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself as he is to choose his own way of Travelling whether on Foot or by Horse or Coach But this also I had particularly considered and answered in the Defence though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it and I suppose should I repeat what I have said he will take as little notice of it the second time as he has done the first The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin Defence p. 44. where to seek for an Answer to it And if Mr. Lob cannot think of some better Defence he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still CHAP. VII Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined THE last thing I proposed to my self for the Conclusion of this Work was to examine Mr. Lob's Preface and Mr. H's Materials for Union But this Vindication is already much larger than I intended it and I find this Work done very sufficiently by Mr. Long in a late Treatise Entitled No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot and therefore though it were easie to enlarge upon this Subject I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union and refer those who are inquisitive for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's project 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it 3. That it cures no Schism 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation 1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter to pull down the Church of England which is established by Law and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation to make way for Union Does Mr. H. imagine that the true Sons of the Church will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers And what would the Civil State get by this to exchange the Church for Dissenters To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters and to part with a much better Church for it To attempt a Union on between Dissenters who as Mr. H. owns can never agree their Disputes and therefore can never unite though they may be tied together or comprehended in the same Vessel as Sand or Water is and to dissolve a Church which is all of a piece firmly united within it self and to its Prince But what need all this Will Mr. H. say I never designed to dissolve the Constitution of the Church of England but only to bring Dissenters into the legal Establishment Let this then be tried whether his Materials for Union do not destroy the present Constitution Root and Branch The present Constitution of our Church in Conformity to the Ancient Apostolical Government consists of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons let us try then whether we can find either of these in Mr. H.'s Materials for Union As for Deacons he has not one word of them though Mr. Lob. acknowledges they were owned for an Ecclesiastical Order by the necessary Erudition but a great Oracle thinks this Order may be spared though it has been continued in the Church ever since the Apostles days and therefore we will let this pass But we must not deny but Mr. H. owns Bishops nay proposes that some leading Dissenters themselves should be
made the next Bishops and that his Project shall advance and not lessen the outward Power and Honour of Bishops But still we must have a care not to be cheated with a Name instead of the thing Are Mr. H.'s Bishops true Apostolical Bishops as the Bishops of the Church of England are Otherwise he may retain the Name of Bishops and yet destroy the Episcopacy of the Church of England And this is the plain truth of the Case Mr. H.'s Bishops are not Bishops of the Church but the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers acting circa sacra only by vertue of his Authority and Commission And therefore can exercise no other Authority in the Church than the King can which is not the Authority of a Bishop Mr. Humphrey's Bishops may be Lay-men as well as Ecclesiasticks for though called Bishops they cannot do any one Act of a primitive Bishop They have no Ecclesiastical Superiority over their Clergy but what the King has which used to be distinguish'd from the Authority of the Bishop They have not the Power of Ordination nor Confirmation as the King's Bishops whatever they may have as Congregational Bishops for the King has no Power to ordain or confirm They cannot excommunicate as Bishops as Mr. H. expresly asserts That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade but preserve the Power of the Keys invested in the Minister but given with the Pastor himself to the Church no more can the Diocesans that derive from him assume it to themselves and deprive the particular Churches of it And since Mr. H.'s Bishops have no proper Ecclesiastical Authority it is no wonder that they have no body to govern for these are all such Diocesan Bishops as have no Presbyters under them every Congregational Minister being a Congregational Bishop as Mr. H. owns Defence p. 260. c. These things I discoursed at large in the Defence and all that I am concerned for now is to observe how charitable Mr. H. is to the Church of England in his Materials for Union for he leaves the Church neither Bishops Presbyters nor Deacons If they can talk at this Rate when they cry out of Persecution and pretend to Petition for Peace what may we expect from them if they should be rampant once more We see they are the same men that ever they were when they covenanted against Root and Branch and have the Impudence at this time a day when they plead for Peace and Union for Toleration and Comprehension or other nameless Models to make Proposals for comprehending or tolerating any thing but the Church of England Upon these terms we may be at peace and unite with Dissenters if we will sacrifice not meerly some indifferent Ceremonies though they make a great noise about them as if they were the only Impediments but the Church of England it self to Peace and Unity which I hope will open mens eyes at length to see what these men would be at and I pray God it may be before it be too late 2. As Mr. H's Materials for Union overthrows the present Constitution of the Church of England so it sets up no National Church in the room of it This is his great design I confess to make a National Church of all the divided and separated Congregations in England which he thinks may be done by the vertue of an Act of Parliament I would says he have all our Assemblies that are tolerable to be made legal by such an Act and thereby parts of the National Church as well as the Parochial Congregations But though the Power of an Act of Parliament I confess is very great yet it cannot reconcile Contradictions nor make Division to be Union nor a great many Schismatical Conventicles which divide from one another to be one Church For a Church is a Communion of Christians a Parochial Congregation is a Parochial Communion a Diocesan Church is a Diocesan Communion a National Church is a National Communion and the Catholick Church is one Catholick Communion as I have proved at large in the Defence but Communion is always essential to the notion of a Church of what denomination soever Now suppose a Parliament should by Law establish Presbyterian and Independent Churches of all sorts as well as the Church of England yet how can an Act of Parliament make them all one National Communion when after such an Act they would remain as much divided and separated from one another and from the Church of England as they are now and the design of such an Act of Parliament is to make it lawful or legal for them to continue so Are the Presbyterian and Independent Congregations one Communion with themselves or with the Church of England now If they be why do they complain for want of Union If they be not will such an Act of Parliament which establishes the Schism and makes it a Law make them unite into one Communion No man knows indeed what may be because these men love to act in contradiction to Laws and possibly may grow out of love with Schism when it is made the Law of the Land but if they do not how are they more united into one Communion by such a Law than they are without it If their Churches Government Discipline Worship be all distinct and separate and contrary to each other what a strange kind of Communion is this Every Member of the National Church is a Member of the whole National Church but can a Presbyterian Independent or Episcopal Church be Members of one another By what name shall we call this Monster It is neither an Independent Presbyterian nor Episcopal Church but one National Church which consists of as heterogeneous parts as Nebuchadnezar's Image or like some monstrous Birth with the Head of a man the Paws of a Bear and the Tail of a Serpent Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne An Act of Parliament may give a legal establishment to all these divided Churches as the Popish and Protestant Churches of France are both established by the Laws of the Land but does this make French Papists and Protestants to be one National Church Mr. H. according to his Principles must assert them both to be but one National Church but he will have but little thanks for it neither from Papists nor Protestants Not from Papists who call the French Protestants Schismaticks and therefore do not own them to be any part of their National Church nor from the Protestants who do as much abhor to be thought Members of the Popish Church and yet this is such a legal National Church as Mr. H. contends for united under one Prince who according to his Principles is the accidental Head of this accidental National Church and yet this Union does not cure the Schism for they still are two distinct and separate Churches and are accounted Schismaticks to each other There are but two or three things so far as I can observe whereon Mr. H. founds this National Union
Metaphysical subtilty about Universals of which more presently well what hurt is there in that assertion why first the Allusions I use for the illustration of this of the Sun being before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and a Fountain before its Rivers are not ad rem that is not to the purpose nor to the Matter in hand for I know not what force English Readers may imagine to be concealed in ad rem unless I translate it but he knew very well that these are not my Allusions as he calls them but St. Cyprians ' whose Authority is much more considerable But suppose they had been my own as I see no Reason to be ashamed of them what is their fault why I should have given some instance of some one Vniversal that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars Now suppose I think that the Sun and Root and Fountain are such Universals with respect to their Beams Branches and Rivers or suppose there were never an adaequate Example in nature of this besides the Catholick Church what were this ad rem if it appears that the Catholick Church be such an Universal Yes if that could be proved indeed it were somewhat to the purpose but that says Mr. Lob is impossible it being in the sense of most evident that Universale is unum in multis that is Ibid. in many particulars which Vniversal hath no real Existence but in particulars but abstracted from all particulars â— 't is only an Ens Rationis having its being in the Eutopian Common-wealth whence we distinguish between the consideration of Vniversal as Formal and as Fundamental Fundamental and it is Quid singulare but formally and so 't is abstracted from all singulars the particulars being the foundation of the Vniversal the root from which the Vniversal doth proceed Now if it be the particulars that are the foundation of the Vniversal how can the Vniversal be the foundation of the particulars No way in the World Sir Quod erat demonstrandum This is a very Learned and Scholastick Period and therefore deserves a just regard And 1. I thank our Author for letting me know where to find those pretty things called Ens rationis which it seems have their Being in the Eutopian Common-wealth though all Authors are not agreed in this matter for some think it as probable that they have their Being in the Cassandrian design but that makes no great difference for Learned Geographers say that is the next County to Eutopia But yet it is a material discovery Mr. Lob hath made for by this means we may know where to find the Catholick Church For 2. the Catholick Church being an Universal is no better than an Ens rationis a meer Metaphysical Notion and therefore must have its Being also in the Eutopian Common-wealth I wish Mr. Lob does not at last prove the Creed where we find the Catholick Church to be a meer Eutopian Common-wealth for giving entertainment to such an Ens Rationis Well but Universals have a real existence in particulars right but not as Universals but as Particulars humane nature has a real existence in Peter James and John because they are all men but humane nature considered as Universal is in neither of them unless you will make as many Universal humane natures as there are men in the World thus there are a great many particular Churches actually existent but the Catholick Church considered as Catholick and Universal is a meer figment and notion no where existing but in Eutopia And if this be all Mr. Lob means by his Universal Church that it is a meer Logical notion I readily grant that he has not only proved that Particular Churches are before the Universal Church but that the Universal Church has no actual Being at all nor can ever have any and therefore it is a vain thing to dispute which of them exists first when one of them does not exist at all any where but in Eutopia But all this is nothing to me who never troubled my head about the existence of an Ens Rationis in a Fayry Land but assert such an Universal Church as has an actual being and existence which always is or may be visible in the World an Universal Church which is the object of Sense not the creature of fancy and imagination This I take to be the general sense of all Christians of what Communion soever they are if they understand any thing of these matters that the Universal Church is a real thing which does actually exist not as Logical Notions do but as a Church and Society of Christians For the Universal Church is the Body and the Spouse of Christ and it is a new fangled Heresie to assert the Body and the Spouse of Christ to be an Ens Rationis as the Doâ—â—… formerly asserted his Natural Body to be only an empty Apparition Hitherto particular Churches have been acknowledged to be Members of the Universal Church but no man in his Wits ever dream't before that a thing which actually exists could be a Member of that which has no real existence that the Church of England suppose or the Church of France should be Members of an imaginary Universal Church which has no Being any where but in Eutopia And therefore to help out our Author here who has so miserably lost himself in Logick and Metaphysicks I observe that the Catholick Church is such an Universal as a whole is with respect to its parts not as a Species is with respect to the Individuals contained under it or to speak more plain as our natural Body is with respect to its particular Members not as humane Nature is with respect to particular men And therefore the most common Reason assigned both by Ancient and Modern Divines why the Church is called Catholick and Universal is not because it is an universal Notion Necessario consequitur unam duntaxat esse Ecclesiam quam propterea Catholicam nuncupamus quod sit Vniversalis diffundatur per omnes mundi partes ad omnia se tempora extendat nullis vel locis inclusa vel temporibus Helv. conf cap. 17. made by a mental Abstraction from particulars but because it diffuses it self all the World over and propagates it self into all parts without Division or Multiplication into new distinct Churches but continuing one and the same Church from the Beginning fills the World with Christians living in this one Communion and Society Having thus redeemed the universal Church from its invisible and imaginary State in the Eutopian Common-wealth and brought it back into the World again let us now consider how the Church becomes Catholick and Universal and which is first in order of Nature the Catholick Church or particular Churches Mr. Lob asks me Where this universal Church should be when Antecedent to any particular Church Reply p. 10. Truly I suppose it must be where he has placed it after there are particular Churches viz. in Eutopia
But did I ever assert that there was a Catholick Church before there was any one particular Church that is before there was any Church at all Do I not assert that the universal Church in the first beginnings of Christianity was not so large as many particular Congregations are now Defence p. 140. And therefore that the Catholick Church did subsist in a particular Congregation That though in the beginnings of Christianity the true Church of Christ was consined to one small Congregation yet it was the Catholick Church c. p. 148. If Mr. Lob does not understand this I will endeavour to help him in it if his Conscience be not more incurable than his Understanding For when I asserted that the Catholick Church is in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches I expresly declared That I did not consider the Catholick Church as actually spread over all the World but as the Root and Fountain of Vnity As St. Cyprian did For in this Sense of the word Catholick and Vniversal as it signifies the Christian Church diffused and propagated in all parts of the World it is absurd and senseless to affirm That the Church was Planted in all the World before it was Planted in any one Country but I placed the Catholicism of the Christian Church not meerly in its actual Extent but in its intrinsick Nature its Extent varies in several Ages according to the Progress or Decrease of Christianity in the World but the Nature of the Church is always the same be its Extent more or less Catholick indeed is a Name which we do not find given to the Church in Scripture nor in the most ancient Creeds but we find in Scripture that Christ has but one Church and the very Nature and Constitution of this Church is such That it was not to be confined to any one Countrey as the Jewish Church was Defence p. 147. but to diffuse and propagate it self all the World over and upon this Account as I proved in the Defence it is called the Catholick Church because though it be spread all the World over it is but one Church still That very Church which the Apostles first planted in Jerusalem and by degrees enlarged into all parts of the World The difference between the Church at its first Planting when the beginnings of it were but small and when it overspread so great a part of the World is like the difference between a Child new Born and when he is come to his full Growth and Stature he is the same Person still but increased in all parts without dividing one Member from another or multiplying it self into more Bodies or like a Grain of Mustard-Seed which from small beginnings grows into a large Tree The Catholick or universal Church is that one Church which is the one Body of Christ which was the same Church when in the beginnings of Christianity it was confined to a single Congregation at Jerusalem and when it had spread it self over all the World I would desire to know whether Christ had ever more than one Church and one Body If he had not Whether that one Church might not always be properly called the Catholick Church If it might not Then if Christ have a Catholick Church now and formerly had no Catholick Church he has a Church now which he had not at first and therefore has either changed the Church which he once had or has two Churches one which is not the Catholick Church and another which is the Catholick Church The Christian Church indeed has spread it self into many parts of the World where it was not at the first planting of the Gospel and therefore is more Catholick and Universal with respect to its extent than it was at first but the Church which is now spread all the World over is but that one Church still which began at Jerusalem and therefore the Church at Jerusalem while but one single Congregation was the Catholick Church in its Root and Fountain and principle of Unity which was all that St. Cyprian and I from him affirmed of this Matter And if particular Churches now may be Catholick Churches as maintaining Catholick unity which was the familiar Language of the primitive Fathers much more might the first Christian Church be very properly called the Catholick Church as being the Principle and Fountain of Catholick unity But of all things I hate to dispute about Words and therefore if Mr. Lob will but grant the thing I contend for let the Words shift for themselves and that is this That the Church first planted by the Apostles in Jerusalem is that one Church which was afterwards spread over all the World that when the Apostles planted Churches in other Cities Countries and Provinces they did not erect new distinct Independent Churches but only enlarged that one Church of Christ and added new Members to it Let the Church of Christ be acknowledged to be but one which propagated it self in the Unity of the same Body all the World over and I have no farther Controversie about this Matter This is the only thing I was concerned for to prove that there is but one Church all the World over and for this Reason I asserted That the Catholick Church considered as the root and fountain of Vnity was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches The Catholick Church may subsist in one particular Church otherwise the belief of the Catholick Church can be no necessary Article of our Creed for the first Christian Church was the particular Church of Jerusalem and if that were not in some sense the Catholick Church there was a Christian Church when there was no Catholick Church and may be so again if we should suppose all the World excepting one particular Church to apostatize from the Faith of Christ which yet is generally acknowledged possible to be But if particular Churches were in order of Nature antecedent to the Catholick Church then they must be true and compleat Churches without any regard to Catholick unity and then it is impossible ever after to find or make one Catholick Church The Notion and Essence of the Catholick Church as far as concerns this Controversie consists in such a Catholick unity as makes all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World one Body and Church and Members of each other Now could we suppose that there were two or three or more particular Churches before the Catholick Church as suppose the Churches of England France and Spain then we must acknowledg that a Church may be a true compleat Church without any regard to Catholick unity and then Catholick unity is not necessary to the Notion and Being of a Church and then there can be no necessity of one Catholick Church If it is possible that there should be two Christian Churches which are not of the same Communion nor Members of each other then why not a hundred a thousand c. And then there can be no one
this Body if we will enjoy Union and Communion with Christ 3. When he places the Unity of the Catholick Church in the Union of all single Persons and Churches in and to Christ he must either mean this of an external and visible Union to Christ by an external and visible profession of Faith in him or a real internal mystical Union 1. If he mean the First an external and visible Union to Christ I observe that this can neither be made nor be known but by something which is external and visible We cannot know that any Society of men is the Church of Christ but by their external profession of Faith in him and subjection to him nor can we know that a hundred Societies are the same Church but by some common Profession and Practise and if by the Institution of our Saviour one Communion be essential to the Notion of one Church as I have abundantly proved it is then the visible Union of all Churches in and to Christ consists in their visible Communion with each other 2. If he mean a mystical internal Union I have two things to say to him 1. This makes the Catholick Church invisible for if the Unity of the Catholick Church consists only in the Union of all Churches in Christ and this Union be a mystical invisible Union then the Catholick Church it self must be invisible too 2. Though particular Christians may be thus mystically united to Christ yet no particular Churches are thus united to Christ much less all the particular Churches in the World unless you will say that none belong to the Church but those Persons who are true and sincere Christians which reduces the Church to the invisible number of the Elect and destroyes not only the Visibility but in many cases the Organization of the Church on Earth for I fear the Pastors and Governours of the visible Church are not alwayes invisibly united to Christ and therefore according to this way of arguing it is not visible whether Christ have an organical Church on Earth which shows how absurd it is to place the Unity of the Catholick Church in this invisible Union of particular Churches to Christ I may add 3. That no men are thus visibly united to Christ who are not visible Members of the Catholick Church and do not live in visible Communion with it when it may be had for otherwise we destroy the necessity of a visible Church or of a visible Profession and Practise of Christian Communion even in particular Churches Which shows that the Notion of Catholick Unity and a Catholick Church does not consist in such an invisible Union to Christ for our invisible Union to Christ necessarily supposes our visible Communion with his Church and since Christ hath but one Church it requires our visible Communion with the Catholick Church and this supposes that there is a visible Catholick Church of a distinct Consideration from the invisible Church of the Elect which therefore cannot be founded on an invisible Union to Christ but on something which is visible such an external Profession and external Communion as may be seen The sum is this No Church can be the Church of Christ but upon account of some Union to him either visible or invisible or both but that which makes all the Churches of the World the one Church and Body of Christ must be an Union amongst themselves which I have proved consists in one Catholick Communion What Mr. B. farther adds proceeding upon the same Mistake needs no particular Answer and what deserves any farther Examination will fall in under another Head But Mr. Lob I confess has pinched harder in this Cause having alleadged some venerable Names in the Church of England against me Arch-bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker Dr. Field all very great men to whose Memories I cannot but pay a just Reverence and Respect But yet if it should appear that my Notion of Catholick Communion should differ from theirs as I think it does in some Points from Arch-bishop Bramhal's while I have the Authority of Scripture and the primitive Church I think my self very safe notwithstanding the dissent of any modern Doctors of what note soever Only hence we may learn with what Judgment and Honesty Mr. Lob charges me with carrying on the Cassandrian Design when I differ from the Arch-bishop in those very Points for which he was though very unjustly charged with it But let us examine Particulars I assert that all Christians and Christian Churches in the World are one Body Society or Church and this is called Catholick Communion because it obliges them all to communicate in all the external Offices and Duties of Religion and Church-Society and Membership as occasion offers especially neighbour-Christians are bound to live together in external Communion with that Church in which they are and that whoever causelesly separates from any Church which lives in Catholick Communion is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church Mr. Lob to avoid this Reply to the Defence p. 14 alledges the Authority of Arch-bishop Bramhal and triumphs over me after his usual rate for not having con'd my Lesson well nor sufficiently digested my Notions which he supposes I learnt though very imperfectly from this great Master he tells me This great Prelate uses several distinctions about Communion which would have been for my purpose and rectification Though whoever reads my Book will find that I was not ignorant of these Distinctions but did not think them to my purpose The Bishop sayes Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England Tom. 2. Disc 2. P. 57. The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church is partly internal partly external And do I any where deny this The Question only is whether internal Communion will excuse men from the guilt of Schism who separate from the external Communion of the Church when it may be had without sin And this I deny and do not see where the Bishop asserts the contrary But let us hear what internal Communion is which he sayes consists principally in these things To believe the same entire substance of saving necessary Truth revealed by the Apostles and to be ready implicitely in the Preparation of the mind to imbrace all other supernatural Verities when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them to judge charitably of one another And do not I also expresly say Defence p. 171. that the same Faith and mutual Love and Charity are the Bonds and Ligaments of Christian Vnion p. 172. That the Vnity of Faith must be acknowledged as absolutely necessary to the Vnity of Christians for Hereticks are no Members of the Christian Church But we must exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation either Eastern or Western or Southern or Northern Christians which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers established in the first general Councils and comprehended in the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds Here Mr. Lob makes a Query Whether seeing the Faith
the World and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation one National Church and all the separate Churches in the World one Catholick Church For 1. they assert that a particular Congregation associated for local presential Communion under a fixed Pastor is the only Church of Divine institution which I have at large confuted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the Defence and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet as to attempt the least Reply 2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church not by any Union among themselves but by being all united in Christ who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church there is no need they should be all united to one another to make one Catholick Church so they be all united to Christ the Head of the Church Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication 3. It hence follows that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them are original Churches of Divine Institution and no one Church or Pastor has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Politie that That should be called one Political Body which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head that is one superior Power over the whole Body either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superior Authority to govern the rest which would make the Church a Monarchy nor united all Pastors into one governing Head which should govern the whole Church and their own Members by a major Vote which is an Aristocracy nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People which is a Democracy it is evident that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head and therefore cannot be one Political National Church which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation from the National Church of England when there is and can be no such thing in a proper Ecclesiastical sense 4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King as the accidental Head of the Church who is the supreme Head and Governor of the Church in his Dominions And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation but the Laws of the Land and the Supremacy of the King it is the Creature of the supreme Power which made it and may unmake it again when it pleaseth 5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Constitution but to give a legal Establishment to the different Sects and Parties among us at least to all those which are tolerable which shall be under the Government of the King's Ministers whether Lay or Clergy in Ecclesiastical affairs and thus all the Dissenters which are now among us as much as they dissent from the present Constitution of the Church of England and from each other shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England under the King as an accidental Head and thus the Schism which we so much complain of is effectually cured according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union which shall be particularly examined in their due place This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue and that the impartial Reader may the better judge where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles upon which I oppose this As 1. That Christ hath but one Church which we call the Catholick Church and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregational Churches which are Churches not considered as independent Congregations but as Members of the Catholick Church which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence and the 1st Chap. of this Vindication 2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church as united in one Catholick Communion as I have proved in the 4th Chapter of the Defence and the 2d Chapter of this Vindication 3. That the Church is a Society under Government has a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and Christian People those who are governed 4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess 5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communion with each other that is as Members of the same great Body the Catholick Church and every Bishop as far as possibly he can must govern his particular Church and Diocess by the mutual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops 6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Churches considered as Churches or pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal Metropolitical or National Churches which signifies no more than the voluntary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association for the better Preservation of one Communion by mutual Advice and Counsel Concord and Agreement in Worship Discipline and Government 7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general Consent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Metropolitans 8. That yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion not Aristocratical because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Oases necessarily determined and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion and as far as possibly he can he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order but if they should decree any thing which he judges prejudicial to his Church he is bound not to comply with them
because the chief Care of his Church is committed to him and he cannot so intirely give away the Government of it to others From whence it appears that all the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Colledge as shall by a supreme Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the Form of Aristocratical Government And for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the government of a Democratical Head for if the Colledge of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt Colledge of Bishops and People Let any impartial Reader now judge wherein I contradict my self in this Scheme of Church Government I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society to have a pars Imperans Subdita for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is governed by parts I deny that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop or Colledge of Bishops as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction though contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience but yet the Episcopacy is one because all Bishops have the same Power and are bound to live in the same Communion and to govern their several Churches by mutual Advice and Consent and in order to this may unite themselves in stricter Associations and Confederacies under such Rules of Government as do not encroach upon the unalienable Rights and Power of the Episcopacy And this is sufficient to make them one Church for if the Catholick Church be one by one Catholick Communion why may not the National Church be one by one Communion And those guilty of Schism who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches though it were not backt by any Civil Authority or humane Laws And now I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey but I must beg his patience for the sake of others who are very unwilling to understand these Matters while I particularly apply what I have now discoursed in Answer to them being ashamed that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes by so frequent a Repetition of the same things but I consider it is better to do this effectually once than to be obliged to write as often as these men can spit Books The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England in Answer to which Question who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England I 1. distinguished between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question and though I know not any one thing that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th Chapter of the Defence yet this being the Chief and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on to shew their great Abilities I shall briefly review this Dispute in the same Method which I before observed that I may not confound my Readers with altering the state of the Question I distinguish between a National Church Defence p. 558. considered as a Church and as a Church incorporated with the State this Mr. H. says is no good distinction because the Church is National only under the last Consideration i. e. as incorporated with the State Reply p. 130. The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Vniversal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National Now this is said without any Reason and therefore might be as well denyed without assigning any Reason for such a Denyal but to satisfie Mr. H. in this Point I answer That the Church considered as a Church is not necessarily considered either as Universal or Particular The essential Notion of a Christian Church is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers as he hath appointed That this Church is Universal is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which unites all particular Societies of Christians into one Body that it is divided into particular Churches is owing to the Necessity of things for since all Christians in remote and distant places of the World cannot all worship God together nor live under the Care and Government of one Bishop this makes it necessary that the Episcopal Office and Power be divided into many hands and the Multitude of Christians divided into many particular Churches under their proper Pastors but in the same Communion Now if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one universal Catholick Church and a particular Communion makes a particular Church why does not a National Church-Communion make one National Church A Church is a Church considered as a Religious Body and Society of Christians as I have now described it but it is Universal National or Particular from the different degrees and kinds of Communion and therefore Churches joyned in National Communion are properly called a National Church though there were no Christian Prince to head it And that a National Church is of a distinct Consideration as it is a Church and as incorporated with the State I proved in the Defence from this Topick that de facto p. 558. there have been and may be still National Churches when the Prince and great numbers of the People are not Christians For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same Nature with what we call National Churches and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and persecuting Emperors To which Mr. H. Answers A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Churches of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too bigg and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less But what is this to the Purpose Can Mr. H. prove that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch or Metropolitan over themselves and may not the Kings of England France and Spain do so still if they please And yet I did not say that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church was a National Church but of the same Nature with a National Church that is they were a voluntary Combination of Churches founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion antecedent to any civil Conjunction by the Laws and Authority of Princes and I would fain know
neither of these was necessary to make a Church National and all the Answer he gives to it is this When we speak of a National Church our own is always to be understood about which the Dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account that is that the People and the Prince are Christians and the Supposition hereof is necessary to it And a little after he tells us By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and those only are combined under the Government through the supreme Magistrate to Church-purposes This is such a loose description of a National Church as may serve almost any purpose But the whole force of his Reasoning is this that the National Church of England and so other National Churches under Christian Princes is incorporated into the State ergo it is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State and the Supposition of this is necessary to make it a National Church the last Result of which is no more but this Bellarmine thou liest I had asserted and proved that a National Church may be considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State in Answer to this Mr. H. says that the Church of England is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State which is the thing he ought to have proved but he thought it more convenient only to affirm it how easie is it to answer Books if bold denyals or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer Or does Mr. H. indeed think that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws and Sanctions and humane Authority therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's that Christianity it self can be a Law to us only considered as the Law of the Land because it is now made the Law of the Land And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land so must the Christian Church be too the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion the Sacraments and Promises the Remission of sins and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion as a new Christian Church and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church which is not a Church nor that to be one National Church which is not one National Communion one Communion being necessary to make any Church one whether it be the Universal National or particular Church But of this more hereafter Having thus vindicated a National Church and proved it to be a Church before and after its incorporation into the State the next inquiry is whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society now this Dispute will quickly be at an end if we do but recover the true State of the Controversie Mr. B. asked what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England the Dean denyed that there is any such Head of the Church of England considered as a Church though the King be the supreme Head and Governor of the Church as it is incorporated into the State Mr. B. replyes that the Church must have such a constitutive Regent Head because every political Society must have one constitutive Regent Head or else it is not one Politie to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head then the Church is not a Political Society for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole That the Church is one not by one superior Power over the whole an informing specifying unifying supreme Power as Mr. B. calls it but by one Communion Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me p. 184. instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society as has one constitutive Regent Head he produces his Definition of Politica and observes that Politie is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Politie and Spalatensis 's learned Volumns are de Republica Ecclesiastica But what is this to the purpose Does Hooker set up one constitutive Regent Head over the Church Do any of them prove that Civil and Ecclesiastical Politie is the same thing Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Common-wealth differ as much as the Church and the State And therefore he must still prove that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom so it is to the Unity of the Church which will be a fair Advance towards Popery And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this but a down right Affirmation without any Proof That the Regent part is the Informing part if it have not one Regent part it is not one Society as Political If it have none it is no Politie if it have many it is many This I grant is true of such Societies as are one by one supreme unifying Power but it is not true of such a Society as is one not by one supreme Power over the Whole but by one Communion And such a Society the Church is as I largely proved in the Defence and therefore the Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of Politie In another place Mr. B. suspects Ib. p. 203. that the Reason of my Opposition to a constitutive Regent Head is that I do not understand the Terms and therefore he takes pains to instruct me what a Regent Head signifies and what Constitutive signifies But he has as ill luck at guessing as he has at reasoning For the quite contrary is true I did understand the Terms but did not like the Thing and therefore opposed it But do I not know That Head is commonly taken for Synonimal with summa potestas or the supreme Power Yes I do and deny that there is such a visible Regent Head over a National Church considered as a Church Or do I not know That a constitutive Cause in the common Sence of Logicians signifieth the essentiating Cause as distinct from the efficient and final Yes I know this too well A Political Society either hath Matter and Form or not If yea what is the Form if not the Regent part in relation to the Body Its species is the specifying Form quae dat esse nomen and in existence it is the unifying or individuating Form But if it have no Form it is nothing and hath no name This is a formidable man at Metaphysicks and
controversie rest there then and we will leave it to wiser men to judge between us But Mr. B. and Mr. H. do not agree about that Citation It shall not be so among you Mr. B. thinks it a hopeful Citation and is agreed with me about it Mr. H. sayes none but such a forward one would have alleadged it to this purpose let them now agree this Matter between themselves For now I shall leave Mr. B. a while to hear what Mr. H. says to the main Dispute He undertook in Answer to the Dean to produce an Argument for the Proof of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church which Mr. B. was so subtil as to prove only by a Definition His Argument was this There is a Government in the Church of England Where there is a Government H's answer to Doctor Still p. 12. there must be a Political Society every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens subdita If the Church of England then be a Political Church it must have a Regent part and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned To this I answered Defence p. 565. by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church and if all Government made a Political Society then a National Church may be owned to be a Political Society for Government by consent without superiority is Government That Church Governors united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans Christian People in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head The plain meaning of which is this That there is a Government in the Church as every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church which is but one Government because all Bishops are bound by the Laws of our Saviour to govern their particular Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel and one Consent as far as is necessary to the ends of Catholick Communion and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church or Bishop or Colledge of Bishops over all the Churches and Bishops of the Christian World which is what Mr. B. calls a constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church Here Mr. H. disputes with great Triumph and wonders I should applaud the Dean for denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church considered as a Church for that is the state of the Question which he is willing to conceal when I my self have asserted such a Head viz. Reply p. 131. a Colledge of Bishops governing by consent But his mistake in this matter has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Lob and he has added nothing new to deserve a new Consideration He says p. 132. I understand the term Political to be commensurate with Civil but I say I never did understand it so and deny the Church to be a Political Society only in Mr. B's notion of Political who asserts that every Political body must have one supreme Regent Head over the Whole which the Church has not which is one by one Communion not by one supreme Power He says I have found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not one Head as well as one that is Monarchical Yes no doubt but it is but I neither know such a Collective nor Monarchical Head But do I not assert p. 133. That a National Church is a Political Society Yes I do assert that if Government as distinguisht from one constitutive Regent Head makes a Political Society then the Church which is a governed Society is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority i. e. without one supreme Regent Head is Government But if I grant a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledge or Cyprians one Episcopacy as the governing Part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then I have found out a constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christs institution For an united Colledge of Bishops for Government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head I need give no new Answer to this having already sufficiently explained what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy and the Colledge of Bishops which is far enough from being such an Ecclesiastical constitutive Regent Head of the Church But to return to Mr. Baxter Answer to Dr. Sherl p. 205. he makes great sport with that Proposition that Government by consent without superiority over the pars Subdita or over the People who must be subject to this Government it is governing sine jure regendi But then I hope we break not the 5th Commandment by disobeying them But this I suppose was only to shew his skill in Drollery and in turning plain sence into non-sence I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sence It were well indeed for him that Bishops had no Authority to govern for then as he well observes they might be Schismaticks without sin But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfie any man though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatick Zeal And therefore he adds But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another Ans And verily doth the Church of England think that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head or summa Potestas or form of Policy Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another as such Or hath the Venetian Senate Or the Polonian Parliament men Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof but ipse dixit See how all Politicks are damned with the non-Conformists for making Aristocracy a Species of Policy But I pray you use them not all for it as hardly as you use us But really thus much of the World is governed Mr. B. I see as Mr. H. says is a man who understands Politicks and I dare not pretend to so much skill in the Roman Venetian or Polonian government but this I think I can safely say as little as I know of them that the Colledg of Bishops is neither one nor t'other nor any kind of Aristocracy for when I speak of a Government without superiority that is without a supreme constitutive Regent Head which was the Subject of the Dispute it is as wild to imagine that I mean an Aristocracy which is such a Regent Head as that by without superiority I mean governing without superiority over the pars Subdita But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently when by a perverse Comment he has made him speak or write non-sence which must be acknowledged the best way of confuting Books when he cannot confute the true and genuine sense of them But as to the thing when I say
of Separation from any Church that there are such things imposed as are not indeed expresly commanded but yet are agreeable to the Word of God and to true Religion if this be a just Cause of Separation it is impossible that any Schismatick should ever want Reasons for their Separation for there is no Church in the World but does something or other which they have no Command to do If this be no sufficient reason of Separation then it is sufficient for us to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism Can any thing be sinful which is agreeable to true Religion Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful If not it is sufficient to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion For whatever justifies the Church condemns the Schismaticks It may be it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of to determine what is in its own nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion but I can tell him de facto what is viz. a Complyance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church he who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content that Mr. Lob and his beloved Separatists should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons as equally condemn the Catholick Church and when they have the confidence to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the Practise of the Catholick Church But Mr. Lob observes that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar If any object Ibid. where are these points viz. of Invocation of Saints the worshipping of Images the abstaining from Flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where it is forbidden in Scripture If not forbidden in Scripture it is no sin to observe them for where there is no Law there is no Transgression But what of all this The Rule is a very good Rule though used in a bravado by the Jesuit Does Mr. Lob think that Popery is established by this Rule as well as indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies Do we separate from the Church of Rome only for the sake of some things which are neither forbid nor commanded in Scripture Our Dissenters I see have better thoughts of Popery than the Church of England has and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome But there is one admirable Paragraph which I cannot let pass without some short remarks and it is this To make that a part of our Religion Ib. p. 79. which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Wherein there are as many absurd Propositions included as can well be in so few words 1. He takes it for granted that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture is to make a part of Religion of it and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things not as parts of Religion but as Rules of Order and Discipline Who then makes it a part of Religion If it be made a part of Religion it must be made so by God or the Church he acknowledges God does not make it a part of Religion and the Church declares she does not how then does it come to be a part of Religion Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind Intention and Declaration In some cases indeed men may do what they never intended to do and contract a Guilt which they utterly disclaim and disown but then it is in such cases where a positive Law or the nature of the thing determines the nature of the Action whatever he who does it intends by it Thus the Papists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the consecrated Host but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that because the Law of God and the Nature of the Worship makes it so But now how can that come to be a part of Worship which is not so neither by a positive Law nor by the Nature of the thing nor by the Institution of men For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Religion which is commanded by the Church If there be the Dispute is at an end we will then own these unscriptural Ceremonies as parts of Religion and justifie our selves by the Command of God and the Authority of the Church Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion which is not so in its own Nature That is can the Nature of things make an Action to be that which in its own Nature it is not Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Religion which the Church never instituted as a part of Religion I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments against her own express Declarations to the contrary 2. Mr. Lob here supposes that nothing must be a Term of Church Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion for that is the subject of the Dispute and to make any thing a condition of Communion he thinks makes it a necessary part of true Religion And now I begin to wonder what he means by Religion or a part of Religion Is Government and Discipline Religion or a part of Religion If they be I would gladly know Mr. Lob's definition of Religion if they be not are they any Terms of Communion Or may Catholick Communion and Church-Societies be preserved without any Government and Discipline Mr. Lob is mightily out to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion but the profession of the true Religion Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty and a necessary Term of Church Communion and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship if he be of a restless turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors and their Orders and Constitutions he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion if he does not separate himself and will be damned for it too without Repentance Though a very little thing may make a
the Church doth as I would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of the state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things But now here are two great mistakes For 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation but casts them out of her own Communion that this excludes them from a state of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. The Church does not desire nor design the Damnation of any man but excommunicates them for their correction and amendment that God would give them repentance unto life And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate when God who knows every circumstance of things more particularly than Church-Governors can may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church who are cast out of visible Communion Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism Excommunication is no sin at all but a severe punishment when it is deserved and contracts the guilt of Schism when it is despised He who is unjustly cast out of the Church ought not to despise such Censures but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion But the Excommunication of the Church and the wilful Separation of Schismaticks are two as different things as can well be imagined I never asserted that Church-Censures and Excommunications always put men out of a state of Salvation but I assert that wilful Schism does 2. Nor does the Church excommunicate meerly for the sake of some little uncommanded things but for Schism and Church-factions and disobedience to Government which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society and are not the less sins because the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things To excommunicate any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion i. e. because he will not break the express Laws of God to comply with the Laws of the Church is an unjust and Schismatical Excommunication but it is necessary to the good Order and Government of any Society to Excommunicate those who will not own the just Authority of the Church be the thing never so little for which they separate For we must consider that a Church must first be Schismatical her self before she can excommunicate Schismatically Any Church which either forbids the doing what God has commanded or commands what God hath forbid is so far a Schismatick from the Catholick Church whose Communion must be regulated by the divine Laws and if she excommunicates any single Persons or Churches for not complying with these unlawful and Schismatical terms of Communion her Excommunications are Schismatical because her terms of Communion are so which is the case of the Church of Rome But it is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical can excommunicate Schismatically A man who is unjustly excommunicated is cast out of the external Communion of the Church but does not schismatically separate himself Nay though he be upon other accounts unjustly excommunicated if there be nothing unlawful in the Communion of that Church which is the unjust Excommunication which these learned Bishops assert to be schismatical or he be not excommunicated upon any such account he must patiently bear it and use all means to be restored but must not set up a distinct and opposite Communion which would be a causeless Schism For meer Excommunication though in some respects never so unjust is not a sufficient reason to justifie a formed Schism and Separation from any Church no more than any acts of injustice which private men suffer will justifie a Rebellion against their Prince God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Vertue and Innocence whether it suffer from Church or State and there only lies our last Appeal So that meer Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical or though it may occasion yet it can never justifie a Schism But now when any Church by enjoyning sinful terms of Communion separates so far from the Catholick Church and excommunicates all Persons and Churches who will not communicate with her in such unlawful things it is lawful and justifiable nay necessary for such Persons to preserve the purity of their own Communion or to form themselves into a distinct Communion in the Unity of the Catholick Church and to leave such a Church to stand by her self Here now is a formed Schism between these Churches and the Question is who is the Schismatick the excommunicating or the excommunicated Churches And the answer is very plain the excommunicating Church is the Schismatick because she has departed from Catholick Communion by imposing unlawful terms of Communion So that Excommunication can never be Schismatical but when the terms of Communion are a Schism from the Catholick Church and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this whether the enjoyning the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies be a Schism from the Catholick Church and when Mr. Lob can prove this I will readily grant the Church of England to be schismatical whether she excommunicate Dissenters or not But this will be a hard matter for him to do when the Catholick Church has always asserted the Authority of the Church in these matters and has always practised a great many uncommanded Ceremonies in all Ages but this I have discoursed sufficiently above Thus we see how Mr. Lob fails in his new attempts to prove the Church of England the Schismatick from my own Principles and Concessions Let us now consider how he justifies his old Argument to prove the Church the divider and certainly never any man was more hard put to it to make some little insignificant appearance of an Answer than he was and yet he puts a very good face on it and with a brave Confidence huffs it off as if there were nothing said that deserved an Answer And I confess it abundantly satisfies me what a vain attempt it is to convince men who are resolved not to be convinc'd If Mr. Lob or any other for him will give a fair and particular Answer to those few Pages in the Defence from p. 22. to p. 53. I promise them to be their Convert and a zealous opposer of all indifferent Ceremonies in Religion But because Mr. Lob would have the World believe that he has done this already I shall desire my Readers to look over those few Pages in the Defence and compare them with his Reply and if this could be obtained I would venture to leave it just as it is without any further remarks But least he should boast that I decline the Dispute I shall briefly consider what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers Mr. Lob undertook to prove the Church not the Dissenter to be the divider by this Argument The Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them what then must be done for Vnion Must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without
sin Or must the Dissenters sin and loose their Peace with God for Vnion And a little after he adds This is the state of the Case the Dissenters would unite but cannot the Episcopals can but will not The cannot of the Dissenters and the Episcopals will not doth make the division but who is the faulty Divider If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not when they can 't would be easie to conclude them obstinate and perverse that is in plain English Schismaticks 〈◊〉 not to do what they can for Peace But since they would but cannot without sin how can they be the Dividers This I shewed particularly Defence p. 27. c. was all trick and fallacy When he says the Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament it is false For all the Bishops and Clergy in England cannot without sin part with these indifferent Ceremonies till the Law enacting them be repealed And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Liturgies as it is plain he does the Church of England does not account these indifferent Ceremonies nor think she can part with them without sin And when he says that the Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them if by without sin he means without breaking some divine Law it is false for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors in indifferent things If he means that they must act contrary to their Conscience that is their own Opinion and Judgment of things they may be the Dividers and Schismaticks for all that unless we will say that no man but a profligate Knave who sins against his Conscience can be a Schismatick Thus as for his will not and cannot If by the Episcopals will not he means that they will not do what they may by divine and humane Laws and with a just respect to the good Order and Government and Edification of the Church and regular Administration of holy Offices they are faulty in it but may be no Schismaticks notwithstanding so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion and if by the Dissenters cannot he means their private Opinions and Perswasions which hinder their Complyance they may be the Dividers still if their perswasions be erroneous All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument I proposed another like it which as fairly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter as his did upon the Church and it was this If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Vnion but cannot who is the faulty Divider What must be done for Vnion Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin Or must the Episcopal sin and lose their Peace with God for Vnion And I added I would desire our Inquirer to think better of it and answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own Mr. Lob it seems had enough of his own Argument and durst not venture his Readers with it a second time but he repeats my Argument by it self without taking notice upon what occasion it was urged which must needs make it look oddly only wonders why I call this an Argument and that I should say that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be Reply p. 87. where it is not So that it is plain that he durst not let his Readers know that he had made any Argument like this or that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning but turns it off with without a shewing Sophistry where it is not instead of let him answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own It is apparent Mr. Lob was here convinc'd that he had reasoned foolishly but had not the honesty and ingenuity to own it For indeed the fallacy of both these Arguments consists in the different acceptation of cannot and will not in one sence they may be turned against the Church in another sence against the Dissenter with equal force and truth and therefore without a more particular explication of these ambiguous terms it is a good Argument against neither which must needs make it a very pleasant entertainment to any man who understands the Laws of reasoning to see Mr. Lob so gravely confute my Argument without taking any notice of his own when all that I pretended was that this was as good an Argument against Dissenters as his was against the Church and were both to be answered the same way by distinguishing the different significations of those terms as I have shewed above But that this Inquirer might not say that I had used some Art to wave the Dispute but had not answered his Argument I granted him his own sence of the Words and reduced the force of his Argument to these two Propositions 1. That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with 2. That the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just reason for parting with them The first I discoursed at large from this Topick That there can be no publick and solemn Worship no face or appearance of any Discipline or Government in the Church without the use of some such indifferent things For all actions must be cloathed with some such external Circumstances as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action yet are necessary to the external performance of it Which is proved at large in the Defence Defence p. 30. c. All that Mr. Lob replies to this is that the force of his Argument does not lie in this That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with How then will he prove that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies if every thing that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin I can think of no other way to prove this if he can I shall be glad to hear it But wherein then does the force of his Argument consist Why he tells us it is this Reply p. 85. That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion Though I doubt he would be troubled to apply this Proposition dexterously to the proof of his Argument yet to make as few Disputes as may be we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here and does not this come much to one Must not the Church part with any indifferent Ceremony which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion And if all indifferent
things must not cannot be parted with without sin then some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion But here are two things Mr. Lob craftily or ignorantly insinuates which must not pass without remark 1. He will not venture his Argument meerly upon indifferent things he has had enough of that already but on making indifferent things necessary parts of Religion whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action but to the external performance of it as I shewed at large 2. He insinuates a proof of this that these indifferent things are made necessary parts of Religion because they are made terms of Communion Whereas the terms of Communion are of two forts either the essentials of Faith and Worship and what is in this sence made a term of Communion is indeed a necessary part of Religion but the Church of England never made indifferent things terms of Communion in this notion of it but does expresly declare against it But 2. The external Circumstances of Worship and the Rules of Decency and Order are terms of Communion also because some such external Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship are necessary to the external solemnities and decency of Worship and it is fit that they should not be left at liberty but determined by the publick Authority of the Church and of the State in a Christian Kingdom to which all private Christians are bound to submit as I discoursed in the Defence But the great difficulty seems to lie here that any man should be denied the benefits of Christian Communion and excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation for not complying with some indifferent things which God has no where commanded and which no Christian had been bound to observe had they not been commanded by the Church which seems to make these indifferent things as necessary as the most substantial parts of Worship Now as great as this difficulty may seem to be it is but turning the Tables and there are as great difficulties on the other side For 1. It is as unaccountable to me that any Christian should exclude himself from the Communion of the Christian Church and the ordinary means of Salvation for such things as have neither any moral evil in them nor are forbid by any positive Law of God which makes the not doing such things to be more necessary than the Communion of the Church or the Worship of God it self Now 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul as the Church is 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding himself from Christian Communion for not doing what God has not forbid than the Church has for casting them out of Communion for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages though not commanded by God For 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the divine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful which God has not forbid than it is to enjoyn the observance of that which God has not commanded The first alters the nature of things makes that sinful which God has not made sinful The second only determins the circumstances of Action which God had not determined but left to the Determination of humane Prudence or Ecclesiastical Authority And 4. Which is likely to be the best justification the Opinion of a private man in opposition to the Authority and to the disturbance of the Peace and Communion of the Church or the publick Judgment and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Discipline and Government and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members Let Mr. Lob consider how to justifie themselves in making that unlawful which God has not forbid and separating from the Communion of the Church for that reason and I will more easily justifie the Church in denying Communion to those who refuse to comply with innocent but uncommanded Rites But 2. This Difficulty is the same in all Communions as well as in the Communion of the Church of England Neither Presbyterians nor Independents will allow disorderly Members in their Communion who will not submit to the Constitutions of their several Churches and thereby they make the Peculiarities of their Churches necessary terms of their Communion They will no more suffer a man to receive the Sacrament kneeling nor to pray in a Surplice nor to baptize with the sign of the Cross in their Churches than the Church of England will suffer her Members to neglect these Ceremonies and therefore they make the not doing such indifferent things as necessary terms of Communion as the Church of England does the doing of them and do as strictly enjoyn Conformity to their own way and modes of Worship as the Church of England does to hers and therefore the Church may as easily defend her self from this difficulty as the Conventicles can But the bare retorting of a difficulty does not answer it though such men ought in modesty to be silent till they can answer for themselves and then they will be ashamed to urge this Argument against the Church And it is a sign such men think but of one side who use such Arguments against their Adversaries as recoil upon themselves But indeed the Difficulty it self when it is fairly stated is no difficulty as will appear in these following Propositions some of which are already proved in the Defence and therefore to save my self the trouble of transcribing I shall only direct my Reader where to find them proved The Difficulty is why those things which are acknowledged to be indifferent should be so strictly enjoyned as to exclude those from Christian Communion who will not or cannot comply with them Now to this I answer by these steps 1. That some things Defence p. 30. c. which are indifferent in their own nature are yet necessary solemnities of Worship without which the publick Worship of God cannot be performed at all or can have no face or appearance of Worship as I have proved in the Defence 2. The Peace Ib. p. 44 45 and Order and Unity of the Church and the due care of the divine Worship requires that the external Circumstances of publick Worship should be determined and not left to the choice of every private Christian 3. Since some external Circumstances and Solemnities of Worship must be determined and yet are not determined by any positive Law of God it is plain that they are left to the determination of the publick Authority of the Church which must determine all private Christians For every thing of a publick nature wherein a whole Society is concerned must be determined and over-ruled by publick Authority or no Society can subsist Every private Christian in his private Capacity may choose for himself every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Family as far as concerns the Government of it and the supreme Authority of every Society must choose for the Society For how
between all these divided and separate Churches 1. That they are all united under the King as the constitutive Regent Head of the National Church And this I grant makes them all legal Churches as he speaks or legal parts of the Church but it does not make them one Church You may as well say that England Scotland and Ireland are one Kingdom because they are united under one Prince or that all the Corporations in England are one National Corporation though they have distinct Charters and different Priviledges and Immunities Nothing is National but what extends to the whole Nation and where several Churches are established by Law there can be no one National Church though they be all under the Government of the same Prince because there is no one Church-Constitution for all the Churches in the Nation to be governed by which is the notion of a National Church in the sense we now speak of 2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches is by the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls Bishops who have an equal supervising care of them all Their work in general being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and to the Peace of one another Now that this cannot make them one National Church will appear from these Considerations 1. That these Bishops though they may be Ecclesiastical Persons yet are not properly Ecclesiastical but Civil Officers they act not by an Ecclesiastical Authority but are Ministers of the Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs as I have already shewn and therefore if their Union under one Prince cannot make them one Church much less can their Union under the King's Ministers 2. Suppose they were true Primitive Bishops yet where there are separate Churches in any Diocess they cannot all live in Communion with their Bishop and therefore cannot be one Church For Communion with the Bishop is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church as I have proved in the Defence Defence p 469. c. A supervising Power not to govern the Church according to his own Judgment and Conscience but to see that they govern themselves according to their own Forms and Models is no Episcopal Authority much less any Act of Church-Communion Those only communicate with their Bishop who submit to his Pastoral Authority and partake with him in all Religious Offices and those who do not according to the notion of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and therefore not of the same Church with him It is a very different thing to be a meer Visitor and a Bishop and it is as different a thing to be in Communion with a Bishop and to be subject to the Visitations of the King 's Ecclesiastical Minister and therefore a supervising Power cannot make those one Church who are of different Communions 3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take to make some leading Dissenters Bishops it is still more evident that they could in no sense make a National Church because the Bishops of the Church would be of different Communions For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another which unite all their Churches into a National Patriarchal Ibid. cap. 7. 8. or Catholick Church as I have proved in the Defence This is abundantly enough to shew that Mr. H.'s Episcopal Visiters cannot make a National Church 4. Another way Mr. H. proposes to unite all these Churches into one National Church is by the Vertue of occasional Communion That when a man hath his choice to be of one Church which he will in regard to fixed Communion he should occasionally come also to the other for maintaining this National Vnion But 1. No occasional Acts of Communion can unite Churches of distinct and separate Communions To be in Communion with a Church is to be a member of it no man ought to communicate with any Church of which he is not a Member and no Acts of Communion can unite Churches which do not make them Members of each other as I have also proved in the Defence and therefore such occasional Acts of Communion Ibid. p 132 c can contribute nothing to a National Union 2. Of what nature shall this occasional Communion be Shall they communicate in all Acts of Worship or only hear a Sermon now and then together If in all Acts of Worship why should there be distinct Communions at any time Why cannot he communicate always with that Church with which he can communicate in all Acts of Worship some times If our occasional Communion be only in some few less material Acts this makes no Union of Churches for if there be any Acts of Worship wherein they can at no time communicate with each other no man will say such Churches are united in one Communion 3. What is the meaning of this should would Mr. H. have an Act of Parliament to enjoyn this occasional Communion and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity For it requires Uniformity sometimes and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful why should it not be made always necessary If Mr. H. by should only intimates what he would have them do what then if they won't notwithstanding his should What will become of this National Union then This occasional Communion is either necessary to this National Union or it is not If it be not necessary why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for National Union If it be how will he prove that all Dissenters will occasionally communicate with each other and with the Church of England 3. Mr. H.'s project for Union will cure no one Schism and therefore can make no Union This is evident from what I have already discours'd for if it cannot make one Church it cannot cure the Schism where there are two distinct and separate Churches which are not Members of each other there is a Schism for Church-Unity consists in one Communion as I have abundantly proved in the Defence Defence chap. 4. Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be confirmed by Act of Parliament it would be neither better nor worse than either an Universal or a limited Toleration as they can agree that matter among themselves established by Law Nay should such an Act declare that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church the Power of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words but it cannot alter the Nature of things They would still be as many Churches as they are now but could never be one Church though they might be called a National Church as that may be made to signifie all the Churches of professed Christians in the Nation established by Law Such an Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from temporal Punishments and might deliver them from the sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors but the guilt of Schism will remain still unless he thinks that the Donatists were not Schismaticks when Julian the
Apostate with an uniting Design granted a general Toleration So that this Project may secure the Estates but cannot secure the Souls of Dissenters Schism will damn men though they should get it established by Act of Parliament but Mr. H. and I I perceive have very different designs and therefore no wonder if our Materials for Union differ He is concerned for this World I am concerned for the next He would secure Dissenters from all Trouble and Molestation here which I am by no means against as far as it may be done with the security of the Church and State and honour of Religion but if it were in my Power I would Sacrifice my ease and quiet and all that is dear to me in this World to secure their immortal Interests which no humane Power can secure while they live in Schism But Mr. H. thinks he has found out a device to cure the Schism viz. That it should be decreed in the Convocation that neither Church should un-church one another This is a wonderful Power he gives to the Decree of a Convocation that Churches which separate from each others Communion yet shall not un-church one another For what does he mean by un-churching To assert the Communion of any Church to be sinful and unlawful I think is to un-church it that is to make it no Church to us and whoever separates from any Church though he be never so silent does by his Separation either condemn the Communion of that Church to be unlawful or condemn himself of Schism for nothing can justifie a Separation but sinful terms of Communion How is it possible then that two Churches which separate from each other should not un-church one another or un-church themselves There is but one Church and one Communion and therefore where there are two separate Churches and two Communions they cannot both be true Catholick Churches and Mr. H.'s contrivance to declare these separate Churches to be all true Catholick Churches by the Decree of Convocation is like his Act of Parliament to make all the separate and divided Churches one National Church 4. Mr. H.'s Project is not a very likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation and if it be not good for this it is certainly good for nothing We see how troubled and disturbed the State of the Nation is at this day occasioned by the Disputes of Religion how envenomed their Spirits are how furious and factious their Zeal now not to enlarge upon this unpleasant Theme which possibly may be called railing I would only ask Mr. H. whether such an Act of Parliament as he dreams of would heal any differences in Religion would make the Dissenters think better of one another or of the Church of England than now they do Would make them more Loyal in their Principles more Charitable to one another more cool and temperate in their Zeal Whether such an Act could set bounds to the several Sects among us and make them contented with their own private Perswasions and with the Liberties and Priviledges which the Law grants them without encroaching upon their Neighbours or affecting Rule and Dominion and using all imaginable Arts to make Proselytes and enlarge their Party This is the Original of all our Disturbance now and what hope is there when the Cause remains that the Effect will cease If men still have the same fondness for their own Opinions and Churches the same Aversion to others the same Zeal to promote a Party if still they think themselves as much bound as ever to advance the Cause of God and to set Christ on his Throne according to their old pretence how fond is it to imagine that we shall enjoy more Peace and Security than we do now If it be answered that the Dissenters are at present uneasie and troublesom because the Laws are against them and they are in constant danger of the execution of them to the loss of their Liberties and the impoverishing their Families but if they had the same favour and the same security from the Government as others have they would be as quiet and peaceable and as dutiful Subjects as others are I reply 1. It does not seem very probable that those who are so Insolent Daring and Factious when the Laws and Government are against them should grow modest and governable when the Law is on their side If they cannot be governed with the Bridle in their mouths it is hard trusting to their good Nature For 2. We have had sufficient experience how busie turbulent and factious the Spirit of Fanaticism has always been and we see no Symptoms of their changing for the better 3. We know by experience how impossibly it is to oblige these men by any favours The kindness and moderation of Government is always thought a just debt to their great merit and desert or the effect of fear and weakness or the over-ruling Power of God who turns the hearts of Governors to favour his People even against their own Inclinations and therefore no thanks is due to them 4. These men never yet let slip an advantage and opportunity to disturb Government or to serve their Cause Every thing that is granted them gives them only a new confidence to ask and to demand more And if ever they can stand upon equal ground with the Church of England they will as boldly challenge a Superiority and be as much disobliged if they be denyed If once they get a legal Rite to their Conventicles they will next demand the Temples and Tythes too and declaim against the Magistrates as Sacrilegious Usurpers if they be denyed Their Discipline will not long be confined within their own Conventicles will reach Bishops and Princes too whose Authority shall be no longer owned than they submit to the Scepter of Christ These things are not yet forgot among us and I suppose it will be hard to perswade any Prince to make a second Experiment when he paid so dear for the first 5. We have made a sad Experiment already how tame and gentle Dissenters prove when the restraints of Laws are gone When the Church of England was dissolved and the enclosures flung open and every man did as he list there was no more Peace than there is now only instead of railing at the Church of England they railed at one another But enough of this Mr. H. thinks all this will be prevented by his Episcopal Visiters who are to see that the Churches of both sorts walk according to their own Order and the Peace of one another But 1. Who shall undertake that all these Churches shall quietly submit to these Visiters and quietly obey their Orders any more than they do to the Visitation of their Ordinaries now And what means of Union is there left if they don 't 2. Who shall undertake that these Visiters themselves shall not prove factious and partial and secretly foment instead of suppressing Disputes and Quarrels between the Churches for the Visiters are to be of all sorts too as well as the Churches Independent Presbyterian and Episcopal Visiters by the name of the King's Bishops or Ecclesiastical Officers now I doubt Episcopal Churches would find no great comfort in the Visitation of such Independent and Presbyterian Visiters as Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter I confess for my own part I should not much care to come under their Visitation And I will not answer for all Episcopal Visiters that they shall always carry an equal hand to Dissenters As for Instance Mr. H. says That no Members of either Church should depart from one Church to another without a sufficient peaceable Reason Now who must be Judge of this but the Visiter Suppose then a Member of a Presbyterian Church think fit to return to the Episcopal Church do you think that a Presbyterian Visiter will be casily satisfied that he has a peaceable and sufficient Reason for this Will not every Visiter be greatly enclined to favour and enlarge the Communion of that Church to which he himself belongs And what Quarrels is this like to occasion between the several Churches It may be much greater than any thing else has yet done But the great Tryal of Skill will be in the promoting of these Visiters For though the King have the Nomination and Appointment of them their Ordination being only a broad Seal a new way of Consecrating Bishops yet what Art will be used by the different Churches in the Diocess to get a Visiter of their own Communion What a task will the King have to please all these several Interests What a noise and clamour will the Dissenters raise who know how to take every occasion for that if they have not a dissenting Visiter Nay it will not be enough then that he is a Dissenter in general but he must be a Presbyterian or Independent Dissenter according to the Interests of these several Churches This will be a perpetual occasion of Quarrel and every Party will think themselves injured and disobliged who have not a Visiter of their own Communion These are Mr. H.'s Materials for Union and if Princes and Parliaments think fit to make the Experiment I cannot help it But I will venture to turn Prophet for once and foretel that they will soon find Reason to repent the Experiment FINIS