A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council p. 160 Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils subverts the King's Supremacy and incurs a Premunire p. 168 Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 172 The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with considered p. 175 The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church p. 178 The distinction of a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections p. 188 Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society p. 200 Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England examined p. 209 The difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head p. 216 A Vindication of the Dean's Argument against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church p. 219 Chap. 5. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it p. 226 In what sence Catholick Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other p. 227 The several ways of maintaining Catholick Communion used in the ancient Church vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections p. 232 What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church p. 239 That there are Schisms in the Church is no Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion p. 240 Catholick Communion not impracticable in its own Nature p. 240 Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches p. 243 Not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to maintain Catholick Communion between foreign Churches p. 245 The Terms of Catholick Communion very practicable p. 247 A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines p. 248 What a Fundamental Doctrine is Salvation by Christ the general fundamental of Christianity p. 256 The Doctrine of the holy Trinity a Fundamental of Christian Faith p. 259 The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ p. 261 School subtilties about the Trinity not fundamental Doctrines nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273 The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation c. fundamental p. 274 What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self p. 281 Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals p. 300 Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine p. 305 Whether a Church which professes to believe all Fundamentals but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations may be said to err fundamentally p. 316 And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church p. 319 How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops p. 329 A great difference between the case of our Dissenters and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account p. 331 Their Case more largely considered p. 337 Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies considered as Terms of Catholick Communion p. 371 Chap. 6. An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions to prove the Dissenters according to my own Principles to be no Schismaticks and a further inquiry who is the Divider p. 382 Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholick Church p. 383 Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholick Church p. 387 Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion p. 394 Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation p. 404 Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters and may be charged with Schism upon that account p. 413 The Answer which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider vindicated from his Exceptions p. 420 Chap. 7. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined p. 442 His Materials for Vnion destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters to pull down the Church for Vnion p. 443 He sets up no National Church in the room of it p. 447 His Project will cure no Schism and therefore can make no Vnion p. 456 Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Vnion of the Nation p. 459 ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate r. is of a desperate p. 45. l. 4. r. spick p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought p. 73. Marg. for ex 52. r. ep 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit r. ingemuit p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle must be read together p. 89. l. â—2 for promising r. premising p. 106. l. 22. for of r. or p. 123. l. 2. dele also p. 139. Marg. for litera r. litura iâ— l. 9. for Cevernment r. Government p. 141. l. 24. for thatâ— r. yet p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent p. 226. l. 7. r. are l. 22. r. it p. 235. l. 20. for uses r. cases p. 243. l. 28. dele two p. 254. l. 20. for observe r. obscure p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 381. l. 29. for there r. these p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholick Church p. 393. l. 18. r. with it p. 421. l. 9. dele what p. 464. l. 29. r. help it A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of Separation CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Vnity IN my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation I have asserted and proved for any thing I see yet objected to the contrary that Christ has but one Church on Earth and that the Unity of this Church consists in one Catholick Communion Mr. B. Mr. Lob and Mr. Humphrey instead of giving a fair Answer to this have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words as I never thought of nay as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book and when they have turned every thing into non-sense and confusion by their own senseless Comments they set up a great Cry of Cassandrianism and Contradictions For my part when I read those Representations these Men had made of my Notions I wondred to find my self such a stranger to my self I was perfectly ignorant of the whole business and Intrigue and began to examine whether I had expressed any thing so unwarily as to lead them into such Mistakes but upon inquiry I found it was nothing but the last weak Efforts of a
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-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
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
Catholick Church of Christs Institution whatever there may be by humane Combinations and Confederacies The Sum of all is this Christ in the Institution of his Church designed but one Church all the World over which we call the Catholick Church This Catholick Church must of necessity have a beginning somewhere as De facto it had at Jerusalem where-ever this beginning is there is the Root and Fountain of Catholick unity because all other Christians and Churches which afterwards embrace the Christian Faith are added to this Church and received into the Unity of this one Body and it is impossible that any man should be a Christian or any Society of men a Christian Church who are not received into the Unity of this Church not considered as such a particular Church but as the beginning of the Catholick Church and thus all particular Churches are united to one another and by vertue of this Catholick union are one Catholick Church He who carefully considers this will see what Reason I had to assert that the Catholick Church was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches for a Church which is one by Institution must begin in one and enlarge it self by receiving others into the Unity of the same Body which for the convenience of Worship and Discipline may form themselves into distinct but not separate Church-Societies This is an intelligible Account how all the Churches in the World come to be but one Church as proceeding from one principle of Unity from one Root and Stock and by the necessary Laws of their Constitution incorporated into one Body and closely united to each others but those who make particular Churches to be entire and compleat Churches by themselves in order of Nature and time too antecedent to the Catholick Church must either make the Catholick Church an imaginary Being a meer Ens Rationis as Mr. Lob does or else no better then an arbitrary Combination which may last as long as they please and be dissolved again when they please and yet the particular Churches remain very entire and perfect Churches without it It is certain that the Catholick Church cannot be one Church and one Body if any particular Churches by their essential Constitution are entire compleat Churches and not integral parts of the Catholick Church which they cannot be without such a necessary Union as I have now described And to conclude this Argument I shall refer Mr. Lob for better Instruction in this Matter to Mr. Baxter who in Answer to this Question Whether a single Church or the Catholick Church be first Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 202. Resolves it thus Christ was first himself and then Christians as Christians were Vnited to him and were the Catholick Church in Fieri or an Embrio And then the Pastor's Office was made as the Organical Office to make the rest And when the particular Churches are formed they are thereby parts of the Vniversal and as such are Simul et Semel such Churches and such parts Now though Mr. B. and I are not like to agree very well in our Notions of the Catholick Church a particular Account of which I shall give hereafter yet here are several things for the Instruction of Mr. Lob and to vindicate my Notion from such ridiculous Absurdity as he charges it with For 1. Mr. B. acknowledges an universal Church In fieri or Embrio before any particular organized Church before the Apostolical Office it self which is more than I say who only make the first Church The Root and Fountain of Catholick unity 2. He asserts That when particular Churches are founded they are thereby parts of the universal Church and therefore the universal Church must be in order of Nature before particular Churches which is very consistent with their being Simul semel in order of time And that he does not look upon the universal Church to be a meer Ens Rationis in an Eutopian Common-wealth but a real existent thing appears from hence that in the next Paragraph he owns Particular Churches to be integral parts of the Catholick Church CHAP. II. Concerning Catholick Communion HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick unity the next thing in order for I shall confine my self to the Method I observed in the Defence that my Readers may the better know what the present Controversie is which my Adversaries have endeavoured to conceal as well as misrepresent concerns Catholick Communion I asserted and proved at large Defence p. 169. Ch. 4. That the Vnity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I explained what this one Communion is produced variety of Proofs for it from the Authority of Scripture and Ancient Fathers and none of my Adversaries yet have had the confidence to attempt any Answer to it either by shewing that my Arguments are not cogent my Authorities from Scripture or Fathers impertinent or false Mr. Lob thinks it sufficient to start some difficult Cases and to confront me with the Authority of some late Writers of the Church of England who as he who understands neither one nor th' other imagines contradict what I say which if it were so indeed is neither a sufficient Answer to me who prefer the Authority of the Scripture and Ancient Fathers before any Modern Doctors of what Note soever nor a sufficient justification of himself and his party who are condemned by these very men whose Authority they oppose against me though they do not value it themselves An Argument Ad hominem can never establish a Cause though in some cases it may silence an Adversary and it is an evident sign of great prevarication when men fence only with such Authorities as they themselves do not think valid as it is a desperate Cause when they can neither confute the Reasons which are alledged nor oppose Reason to Reason but Mr. Lob shall have a fair hearing presently Mr. Baxter seems not to have read this Chapter which is the main seat of the Controversie but skips to the 8th Chapter where this Doctrine of one Communion is applyed to the Catholick Church and this is the Reason why he does not understand what I mean by one Communion but imagines that I have a Grammar or Dictionary by my self and will excommunicate them and make them Schismaticks for speaking as all mankind do Good man he is a little mistaken in this Matter as usually he is and as every man must be who confutes Books before he reads or understands them and replies before he knows what to answer However Answer to Dr. Sherlock c. 6. p. 208. let us hear what terrible Objections he has against this plain Proposition that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I shall transcribe his Reasons and then give a plain and easie Answer to them 1. He says This is contrary to the common course of Nature in which the Vnion of all compounded beings maketh them what they are and goeth before their Operations and
Effects The Vnion of the Soul and Body goeth before Sensation Imagination Intellection or Volition 2. It is contrary to all Artificial beings in a Clock a Watch a Coach c. The Vnion of their parts is their relative Form and goeth before the Exercise and Vse and the Effects 3. It is contrary to all Political Beings and Societies The Vnion of King and Subjects is the constitutive Form of the Kingdom and goeth before the Administration or Regiment by Legislation and Judgement and the Allegiance and Subjection before Obedience Thus the Vnion of Husband and Wife Master and Servants Captain and Souldiers Schoolmaster and Scholars as the Constitution of the Relation go before their Communion in the Exercise 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians but the Consequence is not true 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayer and Sacraments do but this is singular and false What pity is it that so many good Arguments should be lost for want of some Thing and some Body to oppose for all these Arguments proceed upon this Mistake That by Communion I mean only some transient Acts of Christian Communion such as Praying and Hearing and Receiving the Lord's Supper together that the Christian Church is united by such Acts as these whereas these Acts of Christian Communion necessarily suppose Christian Union and therefore can neither be the efficient nor formal Cause of it A man must first be united to the Church and one Church to another before they can communicate together in such Acts of Worship or have any Right to do so But then I wonder what he thought I meant by one Communion for if by Communion I meant only a transient Act of Communion by one Communion I could mean but one such transient Act. And here he might have found out greater Absurdities than before and have triumphed over this sensless Notion unmercifully for what a ridiculous conceit is it to place Christian Unity in some one transient Act But possibly Mr. B. might see this Absurdity and be merciful to it for the sake of his darling Notion of Occasional Communion which is just such a transient Act and yet as he thinks sufficient to Church Unity and to justifie any man from the Guilt of Schism and Separation But then I cannot but wonder that he should so industriously prove that the Unity of the Church cannot consist in such transient Acts of Communion for if this be true as certainly it is he may be a Schismatick from the Church of England notwithstanding he sometimes holds Occasional Communion with her But had Mr. B. carefully read and considered but the six first Lines of the 4th Chap. of the Defence where I explain what I mean by one Communion he might have spared all his Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions My words are these Defence p. 164. The 2d thing to be considered is That the Vnity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholick Vnity signifies Catholick Communion and one Communion signifies one Christian Society of which all Christians are Members From which it is plain That I did not place this one Communion in any transient Acts but in a fixed and permanent State And that this is not a new uncouth way of speaking but very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Antiquity I made appear in the same place and concluded This is sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion which in a large notion signifies the Christian Church or Society which is called Communion from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other So that when I say the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion the plain and obvious sense of it is this That all the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right and the same Obligation on them to communicate with each other as opportunity serves in all those Duties for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the Members of a particular Church are For all particular Churches are as much Members of the universal Church as particular Christians are Members of a particular Church and therefore are as much bound to communicate with each other One Communion signifies one Body and Society in which all the Members communicate with one another As to explain this by a familiar Comparison Suppose the whole World were one Family or one Kingdom in which every particular man according to his Rank and Station enjoys equal Priviledges in this case the necessity of Affairs would require that men should live in distinct Houses and distinct Countreys as now they do all the World over But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges where-ever he went as he does now in his own House and Countrey the whole World would be but one great Family or universal Kingdom And whosoever should resolve to live by himself and not to receive any others into his Family nor allow them the liberty of his House would be guilty of making a Schism in this great Family of the World and what Nation soever should deny the Rights and Priviledges of natural Subjects to the Inhabitants of other Countreys would make a Schism and rent it self from this universal Kingdom Thus it is here The Church of Christ is but one Body one Church one Houshold and Family one Kingdom and therefore though the necessity of Affairs requires that neighbour-Christians combine themselves into particular Churches and particular Congregations as the World is divided into particular Families and Kingdoms yet every Christian by vertue of his Christianity hath the same Right and Priviledge and the same Obligation to Communion as occasion serves with all the Churches of the World that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives Where-ever he removes his Dwelling whatever Church he goes to he is still in the same Family the same Kingdom and the same Church I can hardly be so charitable to Mr. B. as not to believe this to be a wilful Mistake for it is impossible for any man of common sense who had ever read what I discoursed so largely and particularly of Catholick Communion to mistake it for some transient Acts of Communion when I so frequently explained one Communion by one Body and Society And all the Arguments whereby I prove one Catholick Communion prove only that all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's Arguments I
unam Ecclesiam non babere Ib. cap. 21. though they have the same Sacraments Non reclè foris habitur tamen habitur sic non reclè foris datur tamen datur Ib. l. 1. cap. 1. Nay 3ly He denies That Hereticks have any Sacraments of their own Magis ergò quia pro Ecclesiae honore atque unitate pugnamus non tribuamus Haereticus quicquid aâ—â—a eos ejus agnoscimus l. 4. cap. 2. but have usurped the Sacraments of the Church which are not rightly had nor rightly given out of the Communion of the Church though they are not to be repeated when they are once given but to be compleated by Reconciliation to the Church But 4ly Schismaticks retaining the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments among them though they are out of the Church are not Heathens and Infidels but in some sense Christians Itaque 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 sed gravius â—â—â—riant vulnere Schismatis l. 1. cap. 8. and therefore he acknowledges that the Donatists do cure those whom they Baptize of Infidelity and Idolatry but wound them more grievously with Schism And therefore 5ly He owns them to be united to the Catholick Church as far as they retain any thing of the Catholick Church among them such as the same common Faith and the same Sacraments but yet 6ly That what-ever they retain of the Catholick Church though they believe the same Articles of Faith observe the same Rules of Worship have the same Sacraments rightly and duly administred among them excepting their Schism yet nothing of all this will avail them to Salvation unless they return to the Communion of the Catholick Church So that though we should not agree what Name to call Schismaticks by whether Christians at large upon account of their Profession without any relation to the Church whose Communion they have forsaken or whether we say they are out of the Church as having forsaken its Communion or that in some sense they belong to the Church as retaining its Faith and Sacraments or whether we own them Members of the visible Church as that may include the whole Number of Christian Professors as distinguished from the one Catholick visible Church which contains only Catholick Christians who live in Christian unity and Communion the Difference is not great while with St. Austin we own but one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion wherein Salvation is to be had This is all I ever intended to prove and I think no body need prove more to deter any man from Schism who loves his Soul CHAP. III. Concerning the Necessity of Catholick Communion HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick Communion from the Exceptions of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob before I proceed any farther it will be highly expedient to discourse something briefly of the necessity of it for I find Mr. Lob mightily puzled to conceive that those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins and lead an holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty as they suppose many may do who separate from the Church of England and do not live in Catholick Communion according to my Notion of it should for this Reason be excluded from all the ordinary Means of Salvation They look upon the Christian Religion to be like a System of Philosophy and if men be careful to believe such Laws without any regard to a Church-state or Church-unity and Communion their Condition is very safe and they have a Right and Title to all the Promises of the Gospel Holiness of Life and a good Temper of Mind is the only thing Christ designed to promote by his Gospel and if men be holy however they came by it or whatever they are besides it matters not This is very plausible and a prevailing Notion in our days which makes a great many well-disposed men extreamly indifferent what Church they are of so they be but watchful over their Hearts and Lives in other Matters For will any man say that a holy man shall not go to Heaven when all the Promises of the Gospel are made to such Persons When Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Where is the Man who has so much Courage as to repeat the Case which St. Austin puts of a Man Constiuamus ergò aliquem castum continentem non avarum non Idolis servientem hospitalitarem indigentibus ministrantem non cujusquam inimicum non contentiosum patiemem quietum 〈◊〉 Emâ—lantem nulli invidentem sabrium fragalem sed Haereticum nulli utique dubium est 〈…〉 solum quod haereticus est Regnun Dei non â—â—ssedibit August de baptismo l. 4. cap. 18. Who is Chast Continent void of Covetousness no Idolater Hospitable and Bountisul to those in Want Enemy to no Man not Contentious but Patient Quiet without Emulation or Envy Sober Frugal but a Heretick which in St. Austin's Language in that Place signifies a Schismatick of such a Person he says That no man doubts but for this very Cause that he is a Schismatick he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God This it seems was not St. Austin's private Opinion but the received Opinion of all Christians in his days that which no Body then doubted of which makes it at least worthy of our most serious and impartial Enquiry and were men once throughly satisfied of the danger of Schism and the absolute necessity of Catholick Communion a great many wanton Scruples which now divide and subdivide the Church would vanish of themselves for they would be then afraid to venture their Souls in a Schism And therefore to make this as plain and evident as possible I can I shall proceed by these following Steps only premising That the whole design of this Discourse is pure Charity to the Souls of men not to triumph in their Ruine and Misery for God forbid I should ever rejoyce in the thoughts of any Man's Damnation for then I am sure I should never go to Heaven my self 1. I observe then in the first Place That though holiness of Life is the necessary Condition yet it is not the meritorious Cause of our Salvation Without holiness we shall never see God But that holiness carries any man to Heaven is in vertue of the meritorious Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ and therefore unless we have a Covenant-Interest in this Sacrifice nothing else can secure us of our Reward 2. That Catholick Charity which is exercised in Catholick Communion is a principal Part of Evangelical Holiness without which nothing else will be accepted by God Love and Charity is the great Gospel-Command and the peculiar Badge of the Christian Profession and Christian Charity as it is distinguished from good Nature and an obliging Temper and Conversation which is indeed a necessary moral Vertue but not that which is peculiarly called Christian Charity does unite all Christians together in one Body is such a Kindness for one another as answers to that Tenderness and Sympathy