contained in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal Communion by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation But our Questionist should have considered that to exclude from Catholick Communion is an ambiguous Phrase and may signifie two very different things 1. Not to receive those into our Communion who are willing and desirous to communicate with us and thus no man that I know of but themselves exclude Dissenters from Catholick Communion and thereby from the ordinary means of Salvation which is to be had only in the Unity of the Church Or 2. It may signifie not owning those for the Members of the Catholick Church who divide themselves from the external and visible Communion of it while they profess the same Catholick Faith If the Bishop meant this by excluding from Catholick Communion all that I shall say to it is this that he must condemn St. Cyprian Cornelius and all the Italian and African Bishops in their dayes and St. Austin Optatus and the Catholick Church in their time for excluding the Novatians and Donatists from Catholick Communion and the hope of Salvation not for any Error or Heresie in Faith but for a Schismatical Separation from the Catholick Church and I am contented to be a Schismatick in so good Company as the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's dayes But I have proved at large in the Defence P. 171 c. that the same Faith is not sufficient to make any men Catholick Christians who separate from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but this our Author did not think fit to meddle with Mr. Lob proceeds Moreover as to external Communion sayes Bramhal there are degrees of Exclusion and did I ever deny this Do I make all the Censures of the Church equal But it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or Persons from their neighbour Churches and Christians in their Innovations and Errors most certain If they be such Innovations and Errors as make their Communion sinful but every Innovation nor every Error which does not corrupt their Religious Worship is no just cause for a Separation or for waving or withdrawing Communion But of this more hereafter He adds from Bishop Bramhal Nor is there so strict and perpetual adherence required to a particular Church as there is to the universal Church But how I am concern'd in this I cannot see for by adherence to the universal Church the Bishop seems to mean adhering to the Judgment or Decrees of the universal Church assembled in a general Council which he makes the supream Authority of the Church on Earth and therefore prefers their Decrees before the Decrees or Canons of any particular Church and I agree with him so far that the Judgment of a general Council if such a Council could be had is to be preferred before the Decrees of any particular Church and ought not without some necessary and apparent Reasons be slighted or disobeyed by particular Christians or Churches though I do not make a general Council the constitutive regent Head of the Catholick Church but if by adherence Mr. Lob will understand Communion I do assert that Communion with a particular Church which is it self in Catholick Communion is as necessary as Communion with the Catholick Church and he that separates from any such Church separates and divides himself from the Catholick Church and this I shall believe till I see better Reason for the contrary Let us now consider how he urges me with the Authority of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field I assert that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion and consequently that those Christians and Churches which do not live in Catholick Communion are no Members of the Catholick Church but are out of the Church extra Ecclesiam foris according to the Language of the primitive Fathers Whereas I acknowledge he has proved by very plain Testimonies from Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field that they own all those for Christians and Members of the visible Church who profess the Faith of Christians and are baptized though they be Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters excommunicable or excommunicated Persons and therefore either Christ must have more Churches than one which I deny or the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist in one Communion as I assert for Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are not in the same Communion and yet are all Members of the visible Church I own his Citations out of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field and therefore need not repeat them and have represented the Objection with greater Advantage and Perspicuity than he has himself for I neither design to cheat my self nor to impose upon my Readers nor to perpetuate Controversies as my Adversaries do by false Representations of Things or some shuffling and sophistical Arts to put by a Blow But all this appearing Difference is not real but verbal Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field believe Schismaticks and Hereticks to be as much out of the Church as I do and I believe them to be as much in the Church as they do When Mr. Hooker asserts That all that profess the Faith of Christ whatever they be whether Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are Members of the visible Church of Christ he understands the visible Church in a large Notion to comprehend the whole Body of profess'd Christians And therefore the Reason he assigns for it is because all Mankind are Christians or Infidels Those who believe in Christ what-ever their other Errors in Doctrine or Miscarriages in Life and Practice may be are Christians in some sense notwithstanding and therefore visible Members of the Christian Church as that comprehends all Christians but those who do not believe in Christ are Infidels Now I acknowledge as much as Mr. Hooker can do that there is a difference between a profest Christian though a Schismatick Heretick Idolater or excommunicated and an Infidel Such Persons who have been once incorporated into the Church by Baptism whatever they prove after may be restored to the Church again without being rebaptized but an Infidel cannot be admitted without Baptism which is a plain proof that the first do in some sense belong to the Body of Christ and that the other do not Baptized Christians though Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels but as wicked and apostate Christians when men are made the Members of Christ's Body by Baptism and an external profession of Christianity they can never alter this Character but shall be finally judged either condemned or rewarded as Christians and upon this account may still be said to belong to the Church of Christ Dr. Field whose Authority Mr. Lob alledges against me has plainly reconciled this appearing difference as every ordinary Reader would have seen had our Author been so honest as to have transcribed the whole Paragraph and therefore since he has only cited a part of
to Catholick Communion and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or enjoyn any Communion And yet the Church never had a greater sence of the evil of Schism in any Age and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing without any regard to private Contracts or humane Authority 2. To break our Promise and Covenant is a great evil but it is not in its own nature Schism unless there be something else to make it so besides breach of promise To disobey our Governors in lawful things is a very great evil but it is not in it self the evil of Schism but of disobedience to lawful Authority These do greatly aggravate the sin of Schism when men are guilty of it but it cannot make that to be Schism which is not and yet there is no such sin and can be no such sin as Schism if there be not one Church but men may divide into as many distinct and separate Churches as they please for if any man should say that Separation is sinful when there is no just cause or reason for Separation this supposes that there are necessary reasons against Separation when there are no just reasons for it and I would gladly hear what those reasons are against Separation when you have destroyed the Notion of one Catholick Communion But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholick Communion in the Disputes of Schism and Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation ch 5. p. 231. and thither I refer my Reader Now I shall hence briefly observe two things with reference to my present design 1. That the whole force of my reasoning aginst Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet depends on the Doctrine of one Catholick Communion and therefore I was not at all concerned to assert one visible unifying Church-Power under Christ Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 181. over all the Catholick Church as Mr. B. calls it I no where throughout my Book oppose Separation upon the Principles of an universal unifying Church-Power but only on the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore neither having any where asserted any such thing nor having any reason to do so in the service of the Cause I undertook especially having asserted the quite contrary as in due time will appear the Reader may easily perceive how injuriously my Adversaries have distorted my words to give some colour and pretence to their Calumnies 2. I observe farther That supposing there had some dubious passages about an universal Church-Power slipt from my Pen the confuting such a fancy as that is by no means a confutation of the Defence If the doctrine of one Catholick Communion hold good as it will certainly do whatever becomes of Catholick Church-Power it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for Separation and they are as very Schismaticks as ever the Novatians or Donatists were Here the Controversie began about the sinfulness of Separation very angry they were and gave a great many hard words to that excellent Person who warned them of the danger and evil of it many Books have been written about it and now they are charged as high as ever and are ferreted out of their Retreats and see the very foundations of their Cause rooted up all on a sudden they grow tame and gentle and patiently hear themselves proved Schismaticks without saying a word for themselves being more concerned it seems to oppose a French Popery which sometimes by what figure I know not they call a Cassandrian design than to vindicate their own dear selves from the charge of Schism Some possibly may think them very mortified and self-denying men others will be tempted to suspect some other Cause But Mr. B. is resolved that noise shall not divert him from opposing the foundations of Popery the plain meaning of which is this He finds it troublesom to write in a Cause where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to answer him and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself where he is secure of the victory unless Richard and Baxter should happen to quarrel he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise I suppose he means a fourth Folio he telling us that he has writ three already § 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church and one Catholick Communion which my Adversaries have so industriously misrepresented that it is necessary to set it in a new Light In the third Chapter I proved at large Defence ch 3. p. 137. c. that Christ has but one Church which is his Body and Spouse which we call the Catholick Church and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholick Church though it will appear in due time that they deny the thing That the Church is but one I proved from the express Testimony of Scripture and the ancient Fathers and by this unanswerable Argument Ib. p. 151. c. that the Christian Church is not a new Church but the old Jewish-Church reformed and spiritualized by the Laws and Institutions of Christ Christianity being nothing else but mystical Judaism The believing Jews continue still united to their own Root and the believing Gentiles are grafted on the Jewish Root and become one Church with them as St. Paul discourses Rom. 11.17 18 24. The middle Wall of Partition was broken down and the Gentiles received into the Church of God which was no longer to be confined within the bounds of Jury nor to the carnal Seed and Posterity of Abraham but to spread it self over all the World and therefore since the Christian Church is not a new Church but built upon the old foundations of the Jewish Church enlarged and Christianized it must continue as much one as ever the Jewish Church was I observed also from St. Cyprian whose words I had cited at large that the Catholick Church Ib. p. 144. though it consist of all particular Churches which are contained in it yet is not a meer arbitrary Combination and Confederacy of particular Churches but is the root and fountain of Unity and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches as the Sun is before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and the Fountain before the Rivers that flow from it that particular Churches are made by the encrease and propagation of the Catholick Church not the Catholick Church by the propagation of particular Churches Here Mr. Lob gives us the first taste of his great understanding and skill in Controversie and what a formidable Adversary he is like to prove He says I assert Reply to the Defence p. 10. that the universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches he should have said Catholick for that was my word but then he had lost his
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
it Dr. Field of the Church 1. B. Ch. 13 I will transcribe the whole His words are these This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God and Company of his People viz Schismaticks whose departure yet is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God for whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving Truth of God Order of holy Ministry Sacraments by vertue thereof administred and a blessed Vnity and Fellowship of the People of God knit together in the bond of Peace under the command of lawful Pastors and Guides set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternal Happiness Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyned with the rest of God's People in respect of the Profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship power of Order and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have Fellowship so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church nor of that more special number of them that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church So that Dr. Field expresly acknowledges that Schismaticks may be rightly denied to be of the Church though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ may in a loose and large sense of the Word be said to belong to the Christian Church as they retain something which belongs to the Church still among them But to make this more plain and easie I shall briefly distinguish between the several Notions and Acceptations of a Church For 1. the Church sometimes signifies the number of the Elect that is all sincere Christians who are vitally united to Christ by a true and lively Faith a divine Love and Charity and all other Christian Graces and Vertues who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men and the invisible Church because we who cannot know the Hearts of men cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church 2. There is the visible Catholick Church which consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ observe his Laws and Institutions and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other This Church is called visible from its visible profession of the Christian Faith and external and visible Communion and Catholick because all such Churches all the World over are but one Communion This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ to the Communion of which all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined Now it is commonly and truly observed that there are some professed Christians who are only in this Church others who are of it and others who are out of it Those who are in the Church but not true Members of it are those professed Christians who live in the Communion of the Church but yet are either secret Hypocrites or openly wicked but not excommunicated these are in the Church by external Profession as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine till they be cut off All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession and an external Communion which is absolutely required of all Christians when it may be had and they are of the Church that is true and lively Members of it by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ None properly belong to the visible Church but those whom we call the invisible Church that is all sincere Christians for the visible and invisible are not two but one Church And the Reason of the distinction between them is because the Government of the Church being committed to men who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts and the necessity of external Affairs or the negligence of Church-Governours loosening the Reins of Discipline many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church either because they are not known or because when known they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times be cast out And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body the Spouse of Christ the Wife of the Lamb a royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People pure undefiled holy and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members not regarding what some visible Professors are who are in the Church indeed but are not of it and ought not to be in it The not observing of which has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters not to the visible but to the mystical and invisible Church which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes But then all Hereticks and Schismaticks and excommunicated Persons are out of this Church till they either return or be restored to the Communion of it For to be in the Church is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices And therefore those who either by their own Choice or by the Censures of the Church are not in Communion must be out of it And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers both ancient and modern than to meet with such Expressions as these of separating from the Church going out of it being out and being cast out of the Church which is a very strange way of speaking if Mr. Lob's Notion be true That all professed Christians what-ever they are are Members of the Catholick Church for then it is impossible for a professed Christian either to go out or to be cast out of the Catholick Church as it is for a man to go out of the World This is that one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion which I asserted and proved in the Defence from whence Hereticks and Schismaticks depart and go out and the Excommunicate are cast out But now the Difficulty is Whither these Hereticks and Schismaticks go when they go out of the Church They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers for Heresie and Schism does not make men Infidels and if they be neither in the Church nor in the World what third State shall we find for them The plain Resolution of which in short is this That they are the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks which
Forgery and Villany as any man may satisfie himself who will be at the Pains to peruse that part of the Defence he directs to where I am so far from asserting the Primacy of St. Peter over all Bishops that I do expresly vindicate that passage of St. Cyprian which the Flatterers of the Pope alledge for this Primacy from signifying any such thing and for the Satisfaction of all indifferent Readers what Credit is to be given to Mr. Lob I will transcribe the whole Passage though it be somewhat long as a sufficient Confutation of this Calumny and it is this And in his Cyprian's Book of the Unity of the Church the first Argument he uses to prove the Unity of the Church is the Unity of the Apostolical Office and what that means I have already sufficiently explained and assigns this as the reason why our Saviour in a particular Manner committed the Keys to Peter when he gave the same Power to all the rest of the Apostles which he did to Peter viz. to manifest the Unity of the Apostolical Office and Power that there is but one Chair and one original of Vnity which begins in one for the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was had an equal share in the Honour and Power of the Apostolical Office but the beginning is from Vnity and the Primacy is given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ is one and the Chair one i.e. the Apostolical Office and Power they are all Pastors but there is but one Flock which is fed by all the Apostles with a joynt Consent This is the plain Scope and Design of this Passage of St. Cyprian which has been so often abused especially by the Romanists that our Saviour in naming Peter only in giving the Apostolical Power did signifie that the Apostolical Office though exercised by several Persons is but one Office and Power which is not so properly divided among the Apostles as administred by a joynt Consent and therefore giving this Power to one Apostle included the bestowing this Power on the whole Apostolical Colledge And therefore when St. Cyprian says that Christ built his Church upon Peter he does not and cannot mean the Person of Peter or any thing peculiar to him but that Apostolical Office and Power which was given to the Colledge of the Apostles in the Name of Peter as the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And when he says that Christ gave the Primacy to Peter and yet at the same time affirms that the other Apostles were equal sharers with him in Honour and Power and were all that which Peter was it can signifie no more nor no less than that Christ named Peter first or rather in stead of all the Apostles thereby to instruct them that though they were many yet their Office and Power was but one which they must exercise as one man with one Consent This I suppose is sufficient to satisfie any man how far I am from ascribing to Peter a Primacy over all the Apostles much less to the Pope over all Bishops as Peter's Successor And this is all I can find that either Mr. Lob or Mr. B. urges to prove me engaged in a Cassandrian design but now for the Contradictions I am charged with Mr. Baxter says Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 202. Dr. Sherlock if he be Dr. Stillingfleets Defender which I think is not very material to this Controversie whether he be or not saith and unsaith and would verifie Contradictions He must write us a new Dictionary to tell us in what Sense he takes common words before he can be understood He defendeth Dr. Stillingfleet's denial of any political constitutive supreme Power and yet maintaineth that the whole Church hath one Regent part which all must obey that will be Members This I confess is a Contradiction for if the whole Church hath one Regent Part it must have a constitutive Regent Head This he says I affirm but he could not tell where and therefore never pretends to cite my words for it But as he goes on he will not grant that every Political body must have a constitutive Regent Head and yet he doth but say if we deny this as if he could not or durst not tell what he grants or denies yet he grants that every Political body consists of a Pars Imperans and Subdita and that Church Governors united and governing by Consent are the Pars Imperans and Christian People the Pars Subdita but saith he all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head can you tell how his asserted and his denyed Propositions differ 1. It is not a Regent part he denyeth 2. It is not that this Regent part is one to the whole Body the Church For if it were that he would not so zealously contradict and condemn us that say the same thing as he And here Mr. B. himself has unridled this whole Mystery of Contradictions though he was not willing to understand it because then he had had nothing to object I deny that there is one constitutive Regent Head either of a National or the Universal Church but yet affirm that there is a Government in the Church and consequently that there is a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and the Christian People those who are governed now I thought Mr. B. without a new Dictionary unless it be a Dictionary to teach common sense which indeed would be the best Cure in the World for Fanaticism might have understood that when I denyed that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of the Church and at the same time asserted that the Bishops are the Regent and governing part of the Church I could not mean that the Bishops were the Governors of the Church as united into one Common Regent Head over the whole Church but they were Governors of the Catholick Church as every Bishop governed his own share and portion of it as committed to his Charge This was the State of the Controversie between Mr. B. and the Dr. Mr. Baxter will not allow a National Church to be one political Body and Society unless it have one constitutive Regent Head for he says many Churches associated for mutual Help and Concord The second true Defence in answer to Dr. Still p. 112. are but in a loose sense called a Church not in a political Sense but equivocally so called and that the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally makes it no Church but an association of many Churches But the Reader will be the better able to judge of this Dispute if I briefly explain the true Reason of all this zeal for one constitutive Regent Head of the Church which I perceive very few People understand for indeed it is a Mystery but lately discovered by Mr. Baxter and earnestly espoused by Mr. Humphry to justifie all the Schisms and Separations in
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
any Reason why all the Christian Churches in a Nation may not thus unite and why Churches thus united may not be called a National Church though they were not Confirmed and Establisht by humane Laws though the Prince and great part of his Subjects were Infidels Hereticks or Schismaticks But Mr. H. observes that I say Reply p. 131. I cannot tell why it is accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more than to be Vniversal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more than Vniversal and Answers But when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the Consederation of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be accidental to it I am very willing to see any thing I can but I can see nothing here but his Mistake That the Church cannot subsist without a Patriarch or Metropolitan I never said yet nor does he produce any place where I have said it for what he says are not my words but his own Comment All that I say is this that the Association and Confederacy of neighbour Churches is founded on the Law of Catholick Communion and that Catholick Communion cannot be maintained without it that such Combinations of Churches in several Nations and Provinces there were long before there were any Christian Princes and may be so still though there were no Christian Kings in the World and therefore that a Church may be National without being incorporated into the State It is true since the first Records of Church-History these greater Combinations of Churches have by mutual Consent had a Patriarch Primate or Metropolitan set over them and therefore we cannot speak of these Churches in the Ancient Language without calling them Patriarchal or Metropolitical Churches but my Argument does not proceed upon the Union of Churches under a Patriarch or Metropolitan but upon their Association for Advice and Councel and Discipline for the preservation of Catholick Communion There may be such Associations without a Patriarch or Metropolitan but the universal Church has always thought it most convenient to have one and Mr. H. is greatly mistaken to think that every thing which is not essential to a Church is accidental There are a great many prudential Constitutions in Societies which are of great use to the well-being of a Society though not of absolute necessity to its being and he would be thought a very mean Politician who should call the Results of the best Reason and Consideration and most mature advice for the publick Good accidental Constitutions The Union of neighbour Churches for Worship Discipline and Government is not accidental to the Church but the necessary Result of Catholick Communion which is a binding Law to all Churches and hereon I found a National Church The Superiority and Jurisdiction of Patriarchs or Metropolitans is not essential to the Church but a present Ecclesiastical Constitution which ought not to be called Accidental unless when they are the Results of Chance or the Effects of Folly Ignorance and Rashness like Mr. H's accidental National Church patcht up of forty separate Communions united in an accidental Head but this man I perceive is an Epicurean Divine who makes the Church as that Philosopher did the World by a fortuitous jumble of Atoms But at last Mr. H. grants me all that I ask with reference to National Churches for to prove That the Vnion of all the Christian Churches in a Nation into one Body and Society is no more an accidental Consideration of the Church than the universal Church it self is Defence p. 561. I observed That our Saviour gave Command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations and to plant Churches in them and therefore this was the Intention of our Saviour that there should be Churches in all Nations as well as in all the World and if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church then certainly much more must all the Churches in a Nation be but one which are in a nearer Capacity of Communion with each other than the Churches of all the World are and whereby Catholick Vnity and Communion may be more easily preserved than if all the Churches in a Nation were single and independent there being a more easie correspondence between Nations than between every Town and City in distant Nations To this Mr. H. replies Reply p. 131. And as for Christs Command of planting Churches in the whole World and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Vnity and Communion every where among Christians i. e. the Unity and Communion of one Body for that is my meaning it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end i. e. to maintain one Catholick Communion if he please provided only that these Forms be held only accidental Forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential Form of the Church of Christ according to divine Institution But we are not a talking of Church-forms but of Church-Communion The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution though not therefore accidental as I observed before but Catholick Communion is a divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is divine also See the Defence p. 258. though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer humane Prudence because it is not the Result of meer natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a divine Institution Now if Mr. H. will as we see at last he does own such Combinations of Churches into one Body for Catholick Communion according to our Saviours that is a divine Institution then we find a National Church antecedent to any humane Laws and of a distinct Consideration from a Church incorporated into the State But after all I wonder what Church-form Mr. H. will own to be of divine Institution since he says that Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches must be held only accidental forms according to humane prudence there is no form left that I know of but an independent Church-form to be of divine Institution and if Mr. H. will own this farewell to Catholick Communion for Independency in the very Nature of it is a Schism as I have proved in the Defence There is one thing more Mr. H. says which because it is very pleasant I reserved to the last Reply p. 130. Mr. H. proves a National Church to be an accidental Consideration of a Church because that to the being of a National Church it is necessary that all the People of the Nation should be Christians and that the King should be so also both which are very accidental things and therefore a National Church is an accidental Church now I proved in the Defence that
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
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
St. Paul's days I should not much have wondred that he warns men against vain Philosophy I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can and therefore shall not quarrel with him for saving that the Soul is Principium Motus the Beginning or first Cause and Principle of Motion to the Body though it may be some Cartesians will not like it Nor for affirming that the Union of Soul and Body is but like the Copula in a Proposition which is a speck and spang new Notion but shall only consider how he applies this to the Church Christ it seems then is the Soul and Christians the Body though in Scripture he is represented as the Head of the Body and the divine Spirit as the Soul which enlivens and animates it And if Christ be not the Head of the Body which I think the Soul was never accounted yet the Church must be without a Head or have some other Head than Christ which I suppose is the Reason why he talks so much of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church But the organized Body is the constitutive Matter of the man though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part but to let that pass Thus an organical Church is the constitutive Matter of what Of Christ or of his Church or of some third thing compounded of both That there be Heart Liver Stomach is but the Bodies Organization this is easily applied Thus Apostles Prophets Pastors and Teachers and People make an organical Church but that these parts be duly placed and united is Forma Corporis non Hominis is the Form of the Body not of the Man which what it means I cannot tell unless that a man would be a man though the several parts of his Body did not stand in their right places nor were united to one another so they were all united to the Soul And thus the Catholick Church is one Body by being united to Christ though the parts of it are not united to each other and much such a Body it is as the natural Body would be did the Legs and Arms grow out of the Head and every Member change places without any order or divide from each other and hang together only by a Magical kind of Union with the Soul Well but this Organization and due Position of the Parts makes the Body Materia disposita Matter fitly disposed I suppose he means for Union with the Soul But is this disposition of the Matter so necessary that a Soul cannot unite with a Body otherwise disposed without forfeiting the external Form of a Man his Senses or his Understanding And consequently that no reasonable Soul which is not under some force would unite with such a Body If this be his meaning it sits our present Case very well for then the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body without union with it self and the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist meerly in the union of all particular Churches in and to Christ without any union among themselves But how to apply the Copula in a Proposition either to the union of Soul or Body or of Christ and his Church I cannot tell and shall never be able to learn till I meet with some new Baxterian Logick as well as Grammar and Metaphysicks But to proceed as a farther Explication of this Matter he adds 3. In this Vnion there is no Summa Potestas or universal Governour Monarchical or Aristocratical but Christ In this we agree also as will appear more hereafter And now or never to the Point 4. The Body is sufficiently organized if it consists of local Churches called single or particular being Pastors and Christian People having all the Essentials of Christianity But is our Dispute then about the Organization or about the Unity of the Body The Catholick Church has no other Organization but that of particular Churches but there is something more required to make it one No says Mr. B. that which maketh this Body that is all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World to become a Church he should have said one Church is no union of the Members among themselves So that the Catholick Church may be one Body without the union of its Members among themselves i. e. it may be one without Unity But why should not union of the Members among themselves be necessary to make a Church one Because says Mr. B. that maketh them only Materia disposita i. e. Matter disposed prepared fitted but for what To be one Church I should rather think that the union of several Churches makes them one Church and does not only prepare and dispose them to be one unless he can tell how they can be more one than by Unity But however are any other Churches which have no union among themselves this Materia disposita or Matter disposed and fitted to make one Catholick Church If they be then there is no need of any Union so much as to dispose and prepare the Matter If they be not then I still enquire what that Union of Churches is which is necessary to make them fit matter for the Catholick Church But this Mr. B. has not yet vouchsafed to tell me though possibly this may be one of those things which I must learn from some Grammarians or Metaphysicians before I can be capable of his Instructions But Mr. B. tells us how the Church is one without any Union of the Members among themselves viz. by their common Vnion with Christ and then all single Persons and Churches are one Catholick Church because united in and to him as all Lines are united in the Center So that there is no necessity of any other Union between several Churches to make them one Catholick Church but that they are all united to Christ the common Center they are one Church though as distant and opposite to each other as the two Poles because they meet in the same Center But 1. This is a pretty easie way of determining Controversies to out-face all the Authority of Scripture and Antiquity by a dogmatical Assertion without offering the least Reason or shadow of Reason to confirm it I had at large proved the necessity of one Catholick Communion to make one Catholick Church and instead of answering these Proofs he asserts the contrary upon his own naked Authority and that must pass for a Confutation And 2. He takes that for granted which I can never grant him that those Churches which are divided from each other by separate and opposite Communions may yet be all united to Christ for Christ has but one Body one Spouse one Flock one Church and if we be not Members of this one Church as no Schismaticks are we are not united to Christ and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of uniting those in Christ who are not united among themselves for Christ hath not an hundred several Bodies but one Body and we must continue in the Unity of
is a kind of middle State between the true Catholick Church and the World of Infidels They have not wholly renounced Christianity and therefore in some sense belong to the Christian Church though they are not in it There seems to be the same difference between Hereticks and Schismaticks and Catholick Christians as there is between Rebels and dutiful Subjects They are both natural Subjects to their Prince as being born in his Territories and under the same Oaths of Allegiance Rebels are not Aliens and Foreigners but Subjects still Thus Hereticks and Schismaticks though they have corrupted the Christian Faith and divided the Church yet they have the Character of Christian Baptism and either retain the Christian Faith entire or so much of it as will denominate them Christians They may have the Power of Orders Officers rightly constituted Christian Sacraments and all the Essentials of a true Church excepting Christian Peace and Unity and Catholick Communion This was the Case of the Donatist Churches which were in all things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion Upon this score many learned men own corrupt Churches which retain the Essentials of the Christian Faith though mixed and blended with many Errors and schismatical Churches which retain the Purity of Faith and Worship to be true though not every way sound and orthodox nor Catholick Churches Which I hope will satisfie Mr. Lob how the Church of Rome may be acknowledged to be a true Church and yet both corrupt and schismatical There is one Distinction which is not so commonly observed which will make all this Dispute plain and easie And that is between the visible Church and the one true Catholick visible Church The visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians whatsoever Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters or whatever they be the one visible Catholick Church contains only those Churches which are sound in the Faith and live in Catholick Communion these visible Churches are Christian Churches by outward Profession but not Parts or Members of the one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ as Optatus observes that besides one Church which is the Catholick Church the other Churches of Hereticks are thought to be Churches but are not that is they have the visible Appearance of Churches and so are visible Churches as bad men are visible Christians by a visible profession Praeter unam quae est vera Catholica caeterae apud Hereticos putantur esse non sunt Opt. l. 1. but they are not such Churches as Christ will own Quae sit una Ecclesia quam Columbam Sponsam suam Christus appellat Id. l. 2. as he adds in another place that there is but one Church which Christ calls his Dove and Spouse So that in this Sense men may be visible Christians and Members of the visible Church and yet not Members of the one Catholick Church The not observing this occasioned St. Cyprian's and the African Fathers mistake about the Rebaptization of those who were Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks and upon this very Mistake our Dissenters at this day dispute the validity of Orders received in the Church of Rome and Mr. B. so often twits us with deriving our Succession from Rome which if it were true is no Objection against us unless he will wholly unchurch the Church of Rome and assert that which Mr. Lob charges me with that Heresie or Schism does destroy all relation to the Church for if they belong to the Church still they may retain the Power of Orders and the Administration of Sacraments among them And therefore to confirm this Notion it will not be amiss to give a plain and short Account of the State of that ancient Controversie about the Rebaptization of Hereticks as it was managed by St. Cyprian and St. Austin as far as concerns our present Dispute Now 1. Both St. Cyprian and St. Austin were agreed that there is but one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ this is so acknowledged by all men who are acquainted with their Writings especially their Tracts De unitate Ecclesiae That I shall not need to transcribe any particular Sayings to that purpose 2. They were agreed also that there is no Salvation ordinarily to be had out of the Communion of this one Catholick Church Both of them do over and over affirm this Salus inquit extra Ecclesiam non est quis negat August de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 17 and St. Austin asserts that no Body in his days denied it But 3. St. Cyprian would not allow that Hereticks or Schismaticks did in any Sense belong to the Church but denies them to be Christians and consequently that they had any Christian Sacraments among them Quisquis ille est aut qualiscunque est Christianus non est quia in Christi Ecclesia non est Cypr. E◠52. ad Anton. He would not allow Novatianus to be a Christian or to be in the Church of Christ and this was the Reason why he so vehemently urged the necessity of Baptizing those who had been Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks when they returned to the Unity of the Catholick Church because Schismaticks had no Church and therefore no Baptism it being impossible to separate the Church and Baptism according to the Judgment of the African Fathers in the Council of Carthage St. Austin on the other hand considered Mirum autem est quomodo dicatur separari à se dividi omnino non posse Baptismum Ecclesiam si enim Baptisma in Baptizato inseparabiliter manet quomodo Baptizatus separari ab Ecclesia potest Baptismus non potest August de Baptismo cont Donat. l. 5. ca. 15. See St. Hierom. contra Luciferianos in Initio that those who were Baptized in the Catholick Church did not forfeit their Baptism by turning Hereticks or Schismaticks and forsaking the Communion of the Church for no man ever disputed whether such Persons upon their Repentance might not be restored to the Communion of the Church without being re-baptized which proves that the Church did not think them Infidels for Infidels cannot be admitted into the Church without Baptism and if such men retain their Baptism when they are out of the Church then the Church and Baptism may be separated Ita posse extra Catholicam Communionem dari Baptismum quemadmodum extra eam potest haberi Sic illi qui per Sacrilegium Schismatis an Ecclesiae Communione discedunt habent utique Baptismum quem priusquam discederent acceperunt quod si foris baberi potest etiam dari cur non potest Ibid. l. 1. cap. 1. which overthrows the main Principle on which the African Bishops founded their Doctrine and Practise of re-baptizing Hereticks From hence he concludes that if men may retain their Baptism out of the Church they may give Baptism out of the Church too for the same Argument whereby they opposed the
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
that purpose Forgiveness of sin and the Gift of the holy Spirit is God's part of the Covenant who has promised to forgive the Sins and renew and sanctifie those with his Spirit who thus solemnly devote themselves to the Faith and Obedience of a crucified Jesus and therefore these two can never be separated unless God will perform his Part of the Covenant whether we perform ours or not Thus the holy Supper of our Lord does as plainly represent the Unity of the Christian Church and the Communion of all Christians with each other as it does their Union to Christ and participation of the Merits of his Death and Sufferings For the Apostle tells us there is but one Bread as there is but one Body For we being many 1 Cor. 10.17 are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread And upon this account it is called the Communion of the Body of Christ and therefore the Body of Christ cannot be received in a Schism for where there is a Schism it is no longer one Bread and Body nor the Communion of Christ's Body when it is divided into different and opposite Communions That which is the common Bread of all Christians must be received in Unity and one Communion for it loses its Nature Vertue and Efficacy in a Schism Thus the Paschal Lamb which was a Type of Christ's Death and Passion and of the Christian Feast of the Lord's Supper as it was to be eaten by the whole Body of Israel so every particular Lamb was to be eaten in one House and nothing to be carried out of it The like may be said of all the other Means of Grace which cannot avail any man who does not live in the Peace and Communion of the Church Our Prayers are effectual only in the Merits of Christ's Sacrifice and Intercession and if such men have no interest in the Sacrifice of Christ as they cannot have if they have no Title to the Supper of our Lord which is the Christian Feast upon the Sacrifice of the Cross and applies the Merits and Vertue of it to us then their Prayers cannot be prevalent neither and if our Saviour would not allow any man to offer any Sacrifice to God who had a private quarrel with his Brother till he had reconciled himself to him how unlikely is it that God will hear the Prayers of those men who are at variance with the Church of God and divide the Communion of it As for hearing and reading Paul may Plant and Apollos may Water but it is God that gives the Increase and if God deny his Grace and Spirit to such external Ministries they can avail nothing and yet we have already heard how little reason such men have to expect it St. Paul tells us that Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry 4 Ephes 11 12. but the end of all is For the edifying of the body of Christ So that all Ministerial Gifts are for the edification of Christ's Body which supposes that their efficacy and influence is confined to the Communion of the Church and does not reach the Conventicles of Schismaticks And he adds But speaking the truth in love may grow up into him in all things which is Christ the Head from whom the whole body fitly joyned together and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth v. 15 16. according to the effectual working in the Measure of every Part maketh increase of the Body to the edifying of it self in Love So that the Increase and Edification of Christians is in the Unity of the Church and consists in the encrease of brotherly Love and Christian Charity Vertues which cannot be learn't in a Schism nor preserved in it a bitter zeal and envenomed Passions and uncharitable Censures and Surmises and evil speaking and an insolent contempt of all who are not of their Party and Faction being the most usual fruits of a Schismatical Reformation All the Metaphors whereby the conveyance of Grace from Christ to his Church is represented in Scripture do plainly signifie that this is done in Unity such as the influences which the Body receives from the Head or the Branches from the Vine which do not reach those Members which are separated from the Body nor those Branches which are broken off from the Vine The result of what I have said is this If Holiness be not the meritorious Cause but only the condition of our Salvation and therefore cannot save us separated from rhe Merits of Christ if Catholick Unity that is Christian Charity be one main essential part of Evangelical Holiness without which nothing else will be accepted by God if the Work of our Redemption from first to last be an Act of free Grace which we cannot challenge from God as due to our Natures nor as a necessary Effect of his own Goodness considered as our Maker and therefore is as entirely at God's choice in what way and upon what conditions he will dispence it as it was whether he would do any such thing at all if we must expect to receive the Blessings of the Gospel only in such ways as God hath appointed and if Christ hath confined all the Grace of the Gospel to a Church-state this is sufficient to satisfie any unprejudiced man how necessary Catholick-unity and Communion is without which we cannot upon any good grounds hope for the pardon of our Sins the influences of God's Grace or eternal Life 4. But there are some men who will never be satisfied by the most clear and demonstrative Proofs that a thing is so unless they can see the Reason why it should be so a way which of late has mightily prevailed and has in a great measure thrust all revealed and instituted Religion out of the World We cannot always give the natural Reasons of things not because there are none but because they lie too deep for us to discover them and if we cannot fathom Nature which is more exposed to our view and observation how unreasonable is it to think to fathom the unsearchable Counsels of God in such Matters as wholly depend upon his Soveraign Will and have no apparent Cause but his own good pleasure Matters of Revelation can be discovered only by Revelation and in such Acts of soveraign Grace it is abundantly sufficient if God tell us what he will do for us and in what way he will do it without assigning the Reason why he does so But yet to satisfie these men as much as may be let them but assign a Reason why Christ would have a Church and why he would have but one Church and I will give them a manifest and necessary Reason why Salvation should be confined to the Communion of this Church and that is because it is impossible to preserve the Unity Discipline or Government of the Church without it The
Christian Church considered as a Church is not armed with any secular coercive Power and if it have no spiritual Power neither how shall it maintain and preserve it self against all the oppositions of Men and Devils and yet it can have no spiritual Power if men may as well be saved out of the Church as in it For who then will regard the Unity of the Church value its Censures or reverence its Authority and Government Spiritual Power is exercised upon the Souls and Consciences of men and respects the Happiness of the other World as temporal Power Governs the outward man and respects this present Life now all the Power Christ hath given to his Church is that which we call the Power of the Keys to take in or to shut out of the Church which is no Power at all if the Communion of the Church be so indifferent a thing that men may be as safe out of the Church as in it All the Censures of the Christian Church which are purely Spiritual only respect Church-communion and therefore their Authority too depends upon the necessity of this Communion Some were cast out of the Church others received into the Number of Penitents of which Albaspinaeus reckons four degrees in the Primitive Church which were the different Degrees of their Separation from Christian Communion now how easily may a man who believes no necessity of Catholick Communion despise all this Authority and all these Censures and there can be no necessity of it if our Souls be not greatly endangered by the want of it And yet our Saviour calls this Power of receiving in and shutting out of the Church The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 16 Mat. 19 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now how can the Keys of the Church to let in or to shut out be called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unless there be a necessary Relation between the Communion of the Church on Earth which is also called the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that those who are in the Communion of the Church and have a Right to be in it have a Title also to the Kingdom of Heaven and that those who are out of the Church either by their own Choice or by a just Censure have no Title to the Kingdom of Heaven and shall never enter into it That the Church on Earth and the Church in Heaven is but one Communion and that no men are transplanted into the Church in Heaven but from the Communion of the Church on Earth upon which account the Peace of the Church which was given to dying Persons under Censures was called the Viaticum or a kind of Pass into the other World And when our Saviour so expresly asserts whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven if by binding and loosing we will understand putting out or receiving into the Church it makes the Communion of the Church absolutely necessary to Salvation And I farther observe that what in St. Matthew is called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and binding and loosing is in St. John called retaining or remitting sins Whosoever sins ye remit Joh. 20.23 they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained And therefore if we expound this remitting and retaining sins by binding and loosing in the exercise of the Keys as in all reason we must then to remit sins is to restore men to the Peace and Communion of the Church and to retain them is to cast men out of the Church or to keep them under Church-censures which is a plain demonstration that sins are forgiven only in the Communion of the Church So that whatever other Reasons our Lord might have in confining Salvation ordinarily to the Communion of the Church among which the Promoting of Catholick Love and Charity among his Disciples and Followers is none of the least which as I observed before cannot be maintained and preserved in a Schism yet here is one manifest Reason for it that the Authority and Discipline and Government of the Church without which the Church cannot well subsist does wholly depend on it If Christ have instituted a Church and invested it with such Authority and Power as is necessary to preserve it self and to promote the great ends of Church-Society and the Church as a spiritual Society can have no other Power and has no other given it by Christ but what results from the necessity of Catholick Communion we need not wonder that the pardon of Sin and the assistances of the divine Grace and everlasting Life should be confined to the Communion of the Church because the Church cannot Preserve it self nor Govern its own Members can neither Instruct Reprove nor Censure with any Authority and Effect without this which by the way shows us how effectually those men who separate from the Church upon a pretence of purer Worship and a purer Discipline overthrow and contradict their own pretences and tear up the very foundations of all Church-authority for if separation from the Church be so slight and indifferent a Matter there can be no Authority in the Church for any man who is uneasie or humersom or ungovernable in the Communion of the Church may leave it if he pleases and joyn himself to some other Communion or set up a new Communion of his own without any danger and in this Case nothing can keep People together but some great Art and Cunning in their Guides or some secular Advantages or arbitrary Covenants and I think the Independents have great reason on their side to found a particular Church on a particular Church Covenant if there be no necessity of Catholick Communion as I have now described it for if there be no essential and inherent Authority in the Church there can be no other than what depends upon private Contracts Now may we not as well wonder why humane Laws inflict such severe Punishments upon Rebels whatever other good qualities they may have as that Christ should so severely punish Schismaticks who may upon other Accounts pass in the World for very good men the Reason of both is the same Government in Church and State is of such mighty Consequence to the temporal and spiritual Happiness of Mankind and Rebellion and Schism so destructive to all Government that those men deserve the severest Punishments who disturb the Peace and Establishment of Church or State and Schism is so much worse than Rebellion as the happiness of the Souls of men is of much greater Concernment than their temporal Ease and Felicity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power ANd now I am come to the main seat of the Controversie between me and Mr. Lob Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Baxter not to
5. To preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy it is necessary that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith but especially in matter of Weight and Consequence the same Customs and Usages and the same Laws of Discipline and Government and therefore it is highly expedient and necessary when any difficult Case happens for which they have no standing Rule to advise and consult with each other not as with superior Governors who are to determine them and give Laws to them but as with Friends and Colleagues of the same Body and Communion And this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour Bishops at as great a distance as the thing is practicable with Ease and Convenience as the Bishops of the same Province or the same Nation to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy to meet in Synods and Provincial or National Councils to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship this has been the Practice of the Church from the very beginning and seems to be the true Original of Archi-Episcopal and Metropolitical Churches which were so early that it is most probable they had their beginning in the Apostles days for though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church-Affairs yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops and their Chairs by a general Consent and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons for the preservation of Catholick Unity and Communion without any Antichristian Encroachments or Usurpations on the Episcopal Authority For 6. This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops Every Bishop is the proper Governor of his own Diocess still and cannot be regularly imposed on against his Consent the whole Authority of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which is the great end it serves and therefore they have no proper Authority but only in such Matters as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy or the Peace and Communion of the Catholick Church If a Bishop be convicted of Heresie or Schism or some great Wickedness and Impiety they may depose him and forbid his People to communicate with him and ordain another in his stead because he subverts the Unity of the Faith or divides the Unity of the Church or is himself unfit for Christian Communion But if a Bishop differ from his Colleagues assembled in Synods or Provincial Councils or one National or Provincial Council differ from another in Matters of Prudence and Rules of Discipline without either corrupting the Faith or dividing the Church if we believe St. Cyprian in his Preface to the Council of Carthage they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts nor to offer any force to him in such Matters Thus St. Cyprian and the African Father differed from Stephen Bishop of Rome and his Colleagues about the re-baptization of Hereticks but yet would not divide the Church nor the Unity of the Episcopacy upon that Score for any Bishop to dissent from his Colleagues and obstinately adhere to his own private Opinions without very great and necessary Reasons for doing so is great frowardness and Insolence which may be condemned and censured but while he preserves the Unity of Faith and Catholick Communion whatever Church or Council should deny Communion to him would be guilty of the Schism which plainly shews that there can be no constitutive Regent Head on Earth of a National much less of the Catholick Church since every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church and though he may and ought to take the Advice of neighbour Bishops or Councils yet he is not under their Authority any farther than the Purity of the Faith or the Unity of the Church is concerned nor yet is so absolute and independent but that he is bound to live in Communion with his Colleagues and as much as is possible govern his Church by mutual Advice and Consent and if he divide the Church by Heresie or Schism he may be deposed and cast out of Christian Communion These things I have discoursed at large upon several occasions in the Defence and proved them from primitive Practise and have now reduced them into this plain Method that if it be possible to prevent it it may not be in the Power of my Adversaries a second time to form a Popish or Cassandrian Plot out of such Anti Cassandrian Principles 2. It is time now to consider what Cassander taught about this Matter George Cassander was a very learned and moderate Papist who in Obedience to the Command of the Emperors Ferdinand and Maximilian writ his Consultation wherein he gives his judgment of every Article of the Augustan Confession which was drawn up by Melancthon and dedicated to Charles the fifth The seventh Article concerns the Church and there we must seek for his Judgment in this matter and yet there I can find nothing to Mr. Lob's purpose who has named Cassander indeed but not cited any one passage out of him Cassander expresly asserts Quod autem ad unitatem hujus externae ecclesiae requirunt obedientiam unius summi Rectoris qui Petro in regenda Christi ecclesia ejus ovibus pascendis successerit non est à consensu priscae quoque ecclesiae alienum Cass Cons ad act 7. de Pontifice Romano Constat etiam olim quatenus extat memoria ecclesiae praecipuam semper authoritatem in universa Christi ecclesia Hpiscopo Romano ut Petri successori ejus cathedram obtinenti delatam fuisse Id. Ib. That to the Vnity of the Catholick Church is required obedience to one supreme Governor who succeeds Peter in the Government of Christ's Church and in the Office of feeding his Sheep and that this is agreeable to the sense of the Ancient Church And that it is evident from all the Records of the Church That the chief Authority in the Vniversal Church of Christ has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome as Peter's Successor who sits in his Chair For the Proof of which he refers us to the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Optatus and others It is very true as Mr. Lob observes that there have been some who have advanced the Authority of a General Council above the Pope of Rome and that this is a prevailing Opinion among the French Papists and thence concludes That such as assert Reply p. 31. that a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the Vniversal Church are in the Number of French Papists which is an Argument of his great Skill in Controversie For suppose there be any such men who assert a General Council to be the Political Head or Regent Part of the Universal Church but renounce all the pretended Authority of
those of Rome and Alexandria and inflict the like Censures on them The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in one Communion and all the Authority of the Church results from the necessary Obligations to Christian Communion and all Churches must judge for themselves by the Rules of Catholick Communion what Churches to hold Communion with and though we must expect while Bishops are men and subject to the Weaknesses Passions Mistakes of humane Nature they may be guilty of great miscarriages and deny Communion to each other upon insufficient Reasons yet there is no help for this that I know of but either the Mediation and Interposition of other Churches or an Appeal to the last Judgment That obligation all Churches are under as far as in them lies to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Unity of the Church obliges them to reject the Communion of those who violate either but it withal obliges them as they will answer it at the Tribunal of Christ the great Bishop of his Church not to make any unnecessary breaches or lightly and wantonly refuse each others Communion But by the Original Right and Power of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops in relation to the Church of England he seems to mean a Right of Appeals and proper Jurisdiction as he plainly does in what he adds a little after concerning the Independency of the Church of England on any Forraign Power For because I assert the Bishops are not wholly independent he concludes That the Church of England is not independent Reply p. 12. p. 28. but accountable to Forraign Bishops if at any time they abuse their Power And some Pages after confutes this by saying That 't is notorious that the Church of England estalished by Law is a particular National Church independent on any Forraign Power whatsoever Such is the Constitution of our Church that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power he is not accountable to any Colledge of Bishops but such us are convened by his Majesties Authority and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure he cannot make any appeal to any Forraign Power from the King And therefore he thinks I incur a Premunire by setting up a Forraign Jurisdiction over the Church of England Now this is so wild and absurd a Conclusion from any thing I have said that none but Mr. Lob or some few of his size could have hit on 't there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church of which every Bishop has an equal Share and Portion and therefore is a Bishop of the Catholick Church and though the Exercise of his Episcopal Office and Authority is regularly and ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet his original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church does still remain i. e. He is a Bishop in all parts of the World and may exeroise his Episcopal Authority where-ever he be as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Catholick Communion and when necessity requires is obliged to take care as far as possibly he can that the Church of Christ suffer no injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of his Colleagues ergo the Church of England is subject to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria But I believe few men can discern how such a Consequence results from such Premisses and what follows is of the same stamp All Bishops have originally equal Authority in the Church of Christ but yet are not so independent but that they are bound by the Laws of Christ to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with their Fellow Bishops and in case of Heresie Schism or notorious Impiety may be censured and deposed by their Colleagues and others ordained in their stead Ergo The Church of England is subject to the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria or other Forraign Bishops I have abundantly proved in the Defence that St. Cyprian owns these Premisses but denies the Conclusion and therefore either he or Mr. Lob are out in their Logick when St. Cyprian had Excommunicated two of his Presbyters Felicissimus and Fortunatus and they fled to Rome to Cornelius to make their Complaints to him St. Cyprian writes a Letter to Cornelius wherein he informs him of the whole Matter and has this remarkable passage in it That it was by a general Consent agreed among them Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis aequum sit pariter ac justum ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat unusquisque gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus oportet utique eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem suâ subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam suam ubi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possint Cypr. ep 55. ad Cornelium and is in it self equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard there where the Crime is committed since every Pastor has a Portion of the Flock committed to him which he is to Rule and Govern so as he is to give an Account of it to his Lord and therefore those who are under our Government ought not to run about from one Bishop to another nor by their subtil and fallacious insinuations engage those Bishops who are at Vnity among themselves in contests and quarrels but should there plead their Cause where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime Thus St. Cyprian rejects the Appeal of Basilides and Martialis two Spanish Bishops to Stephen Bishop of Rome when they had been justly deposed by their Colleagues Cypr. ep 68. and Felix and Sabinus ordained Bishops in their stead Thus when Marcion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. haer 42. Bishop of Sinope he fled to Rome but was denyed Communion there and they gave this reason for it We cannot do this without the leave of thy venerable Father for there is but one Faith and one Consent and we cannot go contrary to thy Father our good Colleague and fellow Labourer From these instances it appears that the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge does not give Authority to every Bishop to intermedle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocess but only in case of absolute necessity for here are two things to be distinctly considered which qualifie each other and set bounds to the Ecclesiastical Government 1. That there is but one Episcopacy in which every Bishop has an equal share Christ hath committed the Care of his whole Church to the Bishops of it who are to maintain Unity and Communion among themselves and as far as it is practicable and as occasion requires govern the Church with mutual Advice and Counsel
and one Consent as if they were but one Bishop And 2. That every Bishop has a Portion of the Flock assigned to his particular Care over which in ordinary Cases he has the sole and supreme Authority for though the Church of Christ be but one Flock yet it is not committed in common to the Care of all Bishops but is divided into several Folds with particular Pastors set over them to instruct and govern and take Care of them and as every Bishop and Pastor is more peculiarly concerned than any other to render an account of that part of the Flock committed to his Charge so it is fit he should have the greatest Authority and Power over them all Bishops have an equal Power and Authority in the Church but the ordinary exercise of this is confined to their own Churches in which each of them is supreme Now the first of these the Unity of the Episcopacy is the foundation of those larger Combinations and Confederacies of neighbour Churches which make Archiepiscopalor National Churches for since there is but one Episcopacy it is highly reasonable and necessary that as far as it is practicable as it is in the Churches of the same Province or Nation they should all act and govern their respective Churches as one Bishop with one consent which is the most effectual way to secure the Peace and Unity of the Episcopal Colledge and to promote the Edification and good Government of the Church Nay this Unity of the Episcopacy is the Foundation of that Authority which neighbour Bishops have over their Colleagues in case of Heresie and Schism or any notorious Wickedness for they being Bishops of the universal Church have an original Right and Power to take care that no part of the Church which is within their reach and inspection suffer by the Heresie or evil Practises of their Colleagues But the second Consideration that every Bishop has the chief Power in his own Church prescribes the Bounds and Limits of this Ecclesiastical Authority as 1. Every Bishop having the chief Power in his own Diocess though he is bound by the Laws of Catholick Communion and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy to consent with his Colleagues in all wholsome Constitutions and Rules of Discipline and Government yet he cannot be imposed on against his own Consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops nor can justly be deposed upon such Accounts while he neither corrupts the Faith nor Schismatically divides the Church 2. Nor can any Bishop or Bishops rescind any Censures justly passed by another Bishop against any in his own Church or receive Appeals about such Matters without his Consent for the Unity of the Episcopacy requires all Bishops to leave each other to the free Exercise of their Power and Authority in their own Churches as we see the Church of Rome acknowledged in the Case of Marcion's Appeal from his Fathers Sentence For it is an usurpation on the Authority of Bishops not to suffer them to govern their own Flock while nothing is done to the injury of the Faith and the Churches Peace and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops than for one Bishop to undo what another has done or to judge over again that Cause which has been already judged and determined where it ought to be judged as St. Cyprian tells Cornelius in the Case of Felicissimus and Fortunatus as I observed above I grant this is generally practised in Archiepiscopal and National Churches and in many Cases there is great use and reason for it but then this is not without the Consent of other Bishops those Appeals are allowed and confirmed by Provincial and National Synods to which every Bishop gives his Consent but I am now considering what the original Right of Bishops is not how far they may part with this Power for a more general good 3. As every Bishop has the chief Authority in his own Diocess so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church the supreme Power within it self from whence lies no Appeal to any Forraign Church without its own Consent The Unity of the Episcopacy requires the Union of neighbour Bishops for one Government but because all the Bishops in the World though they are of the same Communion yet cannot be united into one Government it is necessary to stop somewhere and that which in all reason must determine the bounds of such a Church must be a convenient distance of place or one Nation and one Civil Government such Churches being more easily confederated into one Body than those of different Nations Now if every Bishop be the supreme Governor of his own Church much more has a National Church the supreme Power of governing it self A National Church is bound to maintain Catholick Communion with Neighbour Churches and if it fall into Heresie or Schism Neighbour Churches may and ought to admonish and censure them and if they continue obstinate to withdraw Communion from them but while a National Church preserves the Unity of the Faith and Catholick Communion no other Church can intermeddle in its Government nor ought to receive any Appeals from its Judgment for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other but only in order to Catholick Communion These things I have discoursed more largely on purpose if it be possible to prevent the mistakes of these men who are so unwilling to see or to acknowledge the Truth and I hope I may safely conclude from the whole that there is no danger that the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria should challenge any jurisdiction over the Church of England by vertue of the original Right and Power of the Catholick Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ But however Mr. Lob is resolved to make something of it at last and if he cannot prove that I subject the Church of England to any Forraign Bishop yet it is plain that I subject it to a general Council for he says I assert that if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council that is unto a Forraign Power whereby he doth his utmost to tear up the Church of England by the Roots Reply p. 29. to subvert his Majesties Supremacy as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force all this by Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender Good man What a happy Reformation is here How is he now concerned for the Church of England his Majesties Supremacy the Sacredness of Civil Laws in Religious Matters and the Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet which suffers by such a Defender But where do I say That if any Bishops abuse their Power they are accountable to a general Council Truly no where but he transcribes a long Paragraph out of the Defence against the absolute independency of Bishops wherein there is this Expression And 't is very wild to imagine that any of these Persons who abuse
their Power should not be accountable to the rest for it i.e. to the Colledge of Bishops which last words are not mine but his own Comment though Printed in a different Character as if they were mine and this Colledge of Bishops he transforms presently into a general Council and thus I subject the Arch-bishop of Canterbury whom I first equal to other Bishops as I do indeed with respect to original Right and Power wherein all Bishops are equal not with respect to Church-constitutions to some Court above any in this Realm to a general Council a Colledge of Bishops and now I am in danger again of a Praemunire But this has been already sufficiently explained in what sense I deny the Independency of Bishops and how far this is from subjecting them to any Forraign Jurisdiction whether of Forraign Prelates or a general Council though I cannot well understand how a general Council of which they themselves are part can be properly called a Forraign Court or Forraign Jurisdiction unless the Treaty at Nimengen were a Forraign Jurisdiction to all those Princes and States who sent their Plenipotentiaries thither to act for them However to satisfie Mr. Lob I shall 1. freely declare my thoughts about a general Council 2. Consider the folly of that suggestion that to assert the Authority of a general Council subverts the Kings supremacy and incurs a Praemunire 1. As for a general Council my thoughts are these which I humbly submit to my Superiors 1. That there never was nor ever can be in a strict sense a general and oecumenical Council of the whole Church unless the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem was such which yet was not general unless all the Apostles were there which I suppose will not be easily proved for it is not likely there ever should be a Convention on of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatcht from all Christian Churches all the World over can I see any reason why this should be called a general Council when it may be there are ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less Number of Bishops assembled in Council judge for all the rest who so far exceed them in Numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom Especially considering that every Bishop has the supreme Government of his own Church Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium Cypr. praef ad Concil Carthag and his Liberty and Power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Colleagues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of general Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such Matters as concern the purity of Faith and Manners or Catholick Unity in other Matters if St. Cyprians principle be true the major Number of Votes in Council cannot make a firm Decree much less can the Votes of three or four hundred Bishops give Laws to all the Bishops in the Christian Church which is a plain Demonstration that a general Council cannot be the supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. Since every Bishop from the Unity of Episcopacy and his obligations to Catholick Communion is bound as far as he can to govern his particular Church by the mutual Counsel and Consent of his Colleagues we must acknowledg that both Provincial and General Councils are of very great use though they have no proper jurisdiction and whatever Bishop should wilfully refuse to observe the Decrees and Canons of such Councils without manifest necessity for not doing it would be guilty of such pride and obstinacy as would fall very little short of the Guilt of Schism when there is a just Reason for it we may say with St. Austin Non consertimus huic concilio salvo jure unitatis Aug. de haptismo l. 7. c. 25. we do not consent to this Council but yet keep the Peace and Unity of the Church intire and will not heighten every dissent into a Schism but where there is no such reason it is no better than Schismatical pride and peevishness for any Bishop to pursue his own humour in opposition to the Decrees and Constitutions of his Colleagues for the very Consent and Agreement of Bishops among themselves is so great a good to the Church of God that That alone is sufficient to determine a good man when there are not very weighty reasons against it St. Cyprian I am sure thought it a Matter of mighty Consequence to manage all the great Affairs of the Church by mutual Advice Et dilectio communis ratio exposcit fratres charislimi nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos geruntur ut sit nobis circa utilitatem ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium Cyp. ep 29. in his Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome written after the Death of Fabian during the vacancy of that See he tells them that both mutual Love and Charity and the reason of the thing required that he should conceal nothing from them of the Affairs of his Church that so they might advise and consult with each other concerning the most useful Rules of Ecclesiastical Administrations And therefore he tells us that he put off the Consideration of the State of the Lapsed and would not innovate any thing in the ancient Rules of Discipline till God should be pleased to restore Peace to the Church Cypr. ep 40. that they might meet together for common Advice And the Roman Presbyters in answer to another Letter of St. Cyprians approve of this resolution and add a very weighty Reason for it that it is impossible that Decree should be firm and obtain a general Complyance which is not made by the Consent of many ep 31. And therefore I observed in the Defence that though they had no such thing as a general Council before the times of Constantine yet they had frequent Provincial Councils and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches with an account of their Transactions and Decrees that they might either approve them in their Councils or give them an account of their Dissent and the Reasons of it Mr. Baxter asks me whether they sent these Letters all the World over Cam quo nobis totus orois commercio formatarum in una Communionis societate concordat Opt. lib. 2. and I answer I believe they did not because I suspect it is not to be done no more than a general Council can be convened from all parts of the World but yet it is evident this Communication by Letters
was so general that St. Cyprian and Optatus found the Consent of the whole Church upon it However half the World or all the known famous Churches were sufficient for Advice and Counsel though not for supreme uncontroulable Government which I never asserted to advise with all the known Churches which were within the reach of such Communication is sufficient to satisfie us how necessary they thought it to use the most effectual Means they could to preserve Catholick Communion and that they believed mutual Advice and Counsel a very proper means for that end and the Duty of all true Catholick Bishops This way St. Austin calls an Epistolare Colloquium Aug. de baptismo l. 3. cap. 2. a Conference by Letters which he thinks is not to be compared with the Plenarium Concilium as he very properly calls a general Council a full or plenary Council which is made up of wise and learned Prelates from distant parts of the World For when the Bishops of so many several Churches who may be well presumed to know the Judgment and Practise of their own Churches meet together without any private or factious Designs freely to debate and consult for the publick good of the Church the Authority of such a Council must needs be venerable and it must be some very great reason that will justifie a dissent from it Such Councils indeed are not infallible Article 21. as our Church asserts because they consist of fallible men who may be and have been deceived and therefore in Matters necessary to Salvation we must believe them no farther than they agree with the holy Scriptures though a modest man will not oppose his private judgment to the Decrees of a general Council unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expresly against it but in Rules of Discipline and Government their Authority is greater still because the Canons of general Councils are a great Medium and excellent Instrument of Catholick Communion the promoting of which is the principal end and the greatest use of general Councils and therefore though they do not command by any direct Authority and superior Jurisdiction yet they strongly oblige in order to serve the ends of Catholick Communion 2. But now suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Council how does this subvert the Kings Supremacy or incur a Premunire For let the Authority of a general Council be what it will it is wholly Spiritual as the whole Government of the Church is considered meerly as a Church or Spiritual Society but the Supremacy of the King is an external and civil Jurisdiction in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions and Mr. Lob might as well say that every man who sets up any spiritual Authority in the Church subverts the Supremacy of the King and thus the King's Supremacy makes him a Bishop and a Priest too a Scandal which Mr. Lob's Predecessors raised in Queen Elizabeths days to disswade People from the Oath of Supremacy which it seems they were not then so fond of and which the Queen confutes in her Injunctions and tells her Subjects that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority but only this under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forraign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them When Bishop Jewel writ his Apology and Defence to Scipio a Patrician of Venice who complained of the English Nation for not sending their Legates to the Council of Trent he never thought of this reason against it that it was contrary to the King's Supremacy which is owned and confirmed by the Laws of this Land and we may observe that the Statutes of Provisors and several Laws to preserve the Liberties of the Realm from the Usurpations of the Pope of Rome or any other Forraign Potentate were made and confirmed in several Kings Reigns long before Henry the 8th a particular Account of which the Reader may find in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation part 1. Book 2. p. 107. c. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th and therefore Arch-bishop Bramhall truly observes Bramhall's vindication of the Church of England That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of England and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy to acknowledge the Authority of general Councils For after the Statutes of Provisors we find the English Bishops in the Councils of Constance and Basil which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high as ever any men did For indeed since Princes have embraced the Christian Faith no Bishops excepting the Pope of Rome have pretended to call a general Council but by the Will and Authority of the Prince nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom or obtain the Authority of Laws but by the Consent of the Prince which therefore certainly can be no encroachment upon his Supremacy While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes and over all Persons in his own Hands the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights This is sufficient at present in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation that to assert the Authority of general Councils subverts the Kings Supremacy subjects the Church of England to a Forraign Court and Jurisdiction and thereby incurs the Penalty of a Praemunire whereby we see that he understands the Law as little as he does the Gospel only shews his good Will to poor Cassandrians and as much as he declames against penal Laws against Dissenters would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire 4. Mr. Lob has not done with me yet but to make me a perfect Cassandrian whether I will or not he adds as my sense Reply p. 12. That this Council of Forraign Bishops unto which they i.e. the Bishops of the Church of England are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was one and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is one Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the Care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholick Churches all this is to be found from p. 208. to the end of the Chapter This is a terrible Charge indeed and home to the Purpose and Mr. Lob is a terrible Adversary in these days if he can but Swear as well as he can Write for all this is
neither of these was necessary to make a Church National and all the Answer he gives to it is this When we speak of a National Church our own is always to be understood about which the Dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account that is that the People and the Prince are Christians and the Supposition hereof is necessary to it And a little after he tells us By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and those only are combined under the Government through the supreme Magistrate to Church-purposes This is such a loose description of a National Church as may serve almost any purpose But the whole force of his Reasoning is this that the National Church of England and so other National Churches under Christian Princes is incorporated into the State ergo it is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State and the Supposition of this is necessary to make it a National Church the last Result of which is no more but this Bellarmine thou liest I had asserted and proved that a National Church may be considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State in Answer to this Mr. H. says that the Church of England is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State which is the thing he ought to have proved but he thought it more convenient only to affirm it how easie is it to answer Books if bold denyals or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer Or does Mr. H. indeed think that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws and Sanctions and humane Authority therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's that Christianity it self can be a Law to us only considered as the Law of the Land because it is now made the Law of the Land And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land so must the Christian Church be too the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion the Sacraments and Promises the Remission of sins and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion as a new Christian Church and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church which is not a Church nor that to be one National Church which is not one National Communion one Communion being necessary to make any Church one whether it be the Universal National or particular Church But of this more hereafter Having thus vindicated a National Church and proved it to be a Church before and after its incorporation into the State the next inquiry is whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society now this Dispute will quickly be at an end if we do but recover the true State of the Controversie Mr. B. asked what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England the Dean denyed that there is any such Head of the Church of England considered as a Church though the King be the supreme Head and Governor of the Church as it is incorporated into the State Mr. B. replyes that the Church must have such a constitutive Regent Head because every political Society must have one constitutive Regent Head or else it is not one Politie to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head then the Church is not a Political Society for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole That the Church is one not by one superior Power over the whole an informing specifying unifying supreme Power as Mr. B. calls it but by one Communion Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me p. 184. instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society as has one constitutive Regent Head he produces his Definition of Politica and observes that Politie is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Politie and Spalatensis 's learned Volumns are de Republica Ecclesiastica But what is this to the purpose Does Hooker set up one constitutive Regent Head over the Church Do any of them prove that Civil and Ecclesiastical Politie is the same thing Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Common-wealth differ as much as the Church and the State And therefore he must still prove that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom so it is to the Unity of the Church which will be a fair Advance towards Popery And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this but a down right Affirmation without any Proof That the Regent part is the Informing part if it have not one Regent part it is not one Society as Political If it have none it is no Politie if it have many it is many This I grant is true of such Societies as are one by one supreme unifying Power but it is not true of such a Society as is one not by one supreme Power over the Whole but by one Communion And such a Society the Church is as I largely proved in the Defence and therefore the Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of Politie In another place Mr. B. suspects Ib. p. 203. that the Reason of my Opposition to a constitutive Regent Head is that I do not understand the Terms and therefore he takes pains to instruct me what a Regent Head signifies and what Constitutive signifies But he has as ill luck at guessing as he has at reasoning For the quite contrary is true I did understand the Terms but did not like the Thing and therefore opposed it But do I not know That Head is commonly taken for Synonimal with summa potestas or the supreme Power Yes I do and deny that there is such a visible Regent Head over a National Church considered as a Church Or do I not know That a constitutive Cause in the common Sence of Logicians signifieth the essentiating Cause as distinct from the efficient and final Yes I know this too well A Political Society either hath Matter and Form or not If yea what is the Form if not the Regent part in relation to the Body Its species is the specifying Form quae dat esse nomen and in existence it is the unifying or individuating Form But if it have no Form it is nothing and hath no name This is a formidable man at Metaphysicks and
this That every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a constitutive visible Head The Interposer now to take off the shame from the Doctor hath taken the right Course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term into the Argument if every Church when he should say every proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a visible subordinate constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one but that not having such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a constitutive Head I was in a horrible fright when I heard four and five terms and began to blush at it but if this be all the Business I shall be able to bear this shame very well As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence which Mr. H. takes no notice of For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church which has one constitutive Regent Head and therefore the Dean denies that a National Church is a proper Political Church considered as a Church in Mr. B's sence of the Words and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out and yet to gratifie Mr. H. we will take it in if he will but allow the Catholick Church to be as proper Political a Church as the National Church is and then the Argument runs thus If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a National constitutive Regent Head as essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a Catholick visible Regent Head essential to it And thus I think it comes much to one and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head time was when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument but learnedly disputed that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Church hath a visible Head as well as the National Church But let us briefly consider whether visible be a fourth Term or only added as a necessary Explication of Mr. B's Proposition if he mean any thing by it For I think Logicians distinguish between a fourth Term and an additional explication of the Terms Mr. B. disputes that every proper Political Church and therefore a National Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Does he mean by this constitutive Regent Head a visible Head on Earth or an invisible Head in Heaven If he means Christ as an invisible Head in Heaven then there is no Dispute between us for we will readily grant that Christ is the Head of the National as well as of the Catholick Church If he means a visible Head on Earth then Visible is no fourth Term but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head And then the Argument holds good from a National to the Catholick Church That if a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible Constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it or Mr. B's Argument is not true that every proper Political Church must have a visible Regent Head on Earth essential to it Thus I think the Dean is once more defended but I must speak one good word for my self too as Charity obliges me Mr. H. says I bring in a fifth Term subordinate visible Head But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions Mr. B. says every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head does he mean this of Christ as the supreme Head of his Church or of men whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons as a subordinate Head under Christ if the first there is no dispute between us for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church If the second a subordinate Head then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term but included in a constitutive Regent Head and I think I need not spend time to prove that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head is not a parallel case because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head as Visible and Subordinate are for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective but signifies neither determinately unless it be expressed I shall only observe how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Yes saith Mr. B. and Mr. H. so it hath for Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church Where we plainly see that in the Antecedent by a constitutive Regent Head they understand a Visible Subordinate and Mr. H. says an accidental Head of the Church and in the Consequent a supreme invisible Head of the Church which is as fallacious a way of answering as it is of arguing And now I leave the Reader to judge where the shame which Mr. H. so much talks of must at last rest But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame as Impudence is to others CHAP. V. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it IN the eighth Chapter of the Defence I briefly stated what the Communion is which is essential to the Catholick or Universal Church and what place there can be for this Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day Mr. B. in his Answer Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it but it is such a something as needs no farther answer for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church And both these I have discoursed so fully already that I cannot excuse my self to my Reader should I repeat over the same things again and therefore I shall only briefly consider some few new Objections he has started which though they are very trifling yet may disturb an injudicious Reader I asserted That Catholick Communion strictly so called Defence p. 595. consists 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other Here Mr. Baxter 1 plays the Critick He
there is want of it and never wants distinctions where there is no difference 2. The next way of maintaining Catholick Communion among Bishops I observed was by advising together about the publick affairs of the Church and Communicating Counsels with each other and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions that there might be no misunderstanding between them these last words which I have included in a Parenthesis Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation because they did too plainly discover how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholick Unity And answers 1. This Independents are ready to do What then Does it hence follow that they are Catholick Bishops Schismaticks may do many things which true Catholick Christians do and be Schismaticks still 2. How doth this differ from the former Do you not mean advising by Letters or Messengers If not is it general Councils you mean or what I told my meaning very plain Sometimes one particular Bishop writ to another Sometimes Neighbour Bishops met in Provincial Synods and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches But this is writing Letters still and how does it differ from the former Why Sir only as a Letter containing an account of the present state of the Church what Bishops die and who are ordained in their stead who are Catholicks and who are Schismaticks does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel c. but how is it we must advise with them of Armenia Abassia and the rest When Mr. B. can prove that I make it necessary to do so I will undertake to find out a way to do it but this and what follows about Provincial Counsels has been sufficiently considered above 3. Mr. B. proceeds But how Is it only publick Affairs that the Colledge adviseth you about The Man dreams who talks of the advice of the Colledge Who is it then that must dispose of the Church State and Souls of all us Individuals Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters must take care of his own Church and the Souls committed to him and that he may do this the better in all difficult 〈◊〉 especially such as concern the whole Church must take the best Advice of his Fellow-Bishops that he can where is the absurdity of all this Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is when he adds It seems it is some body below the Senate that is meant when we are told that we must obey the universal Church I thought whither it would come at last And well he might think whither it would come when he was resolved whither to carry it 3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholick Communion was by Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians who had occasion to travel from those Churches of which they were members to other Churches whither they went which were called Formed or Communicatory Letters the use of which I there explained To which Mr. Baxter answers 1. Are not all these three Proofs the same writing Letters of Church-affairs Consultation and Communication Yes writing Letters is writing Letters most certainly but I imagine there may be some difference with reference to the Subject about which men write And that Letters of recommendation differ something from Letters of advice 2. Do any of us deny his Conclusion that this proveth Communion among them Why then does he not own this Catholick Communion which I contend for and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatick No but I should prove an Episcopal Colledge as one Aristocratical supreme Regent Head I thank him for nothing I am not at leisure to write such Books on purpose for him to confute them But 3. He says these communicatory Letters the Non-conformists are greatly for that no man may be admitted to Communion in any particular Church without either a Personal understanding owning of his Baptismal Covenant or a Testimonial that he hath done it and been received into Communion with some Church with whom we have such Communion as is due between several Churches Quidlibet ex Quolibet How cleverly has Mr. B. turned these Communicatory Letters into an examination by Lay Elders or an Independent Church-covenant and the one Communion of the Catholick Church into such a Communion as is due between several Churches I could wish as heartily as Mr. B. that greater care were taken in the Discipline of the Church though they who make the greatest Complaints of the want of it are the true cause of this defect But what is this to Communicatory Letters Or what if Schismaticks are for Communicatory Letters among themselves are they ever the less Schismaticks for that All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters was this that the Ancient Church did believe that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholick Church and had a right to Christian-communion where he came which cannot be unless all Christians are one Body and all particular Churches members of one Catholick Church And here I had occasion to express my dissent from a very great man whose memory is as dear and venerable to me as to most of his particular and intimate Friends I mean Dr. Barrow and I think I express my dissent from him with all that modesty and just respect which is due to his memory I acknowledged that he had abundantly confuted that notion of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church but yet that he made Catholick Communion too arbitrary a thing like the Confederacies of Soveraign Princes I should be heartily glad to see my self confuted in this point and to find that I was mistaken in his judgment in this matter if at least it may be called his Judgment and not rather his Inadvertency I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgment of this Reverend Person for I do not find that he understands either of us I am sure he urges such things in his Defence as that great man would be ashamed of and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it And now I come to the grand difficulty of all which I did but just name in the Defence What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day If there be no Catholick Church without Catholick Communion where shall we find the Catholick Church at this day when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other This makes some men suspect that Catholick Communion is a pretty Romantick notion of a Catholick Church but so impracticable that it is of no use to us now nor will put an end to any one Controversie or Schism in the Christian Church But this difficulty when it is thorowly examin'd will vanish of it self For 1.
Communion with the whole Christian Church It is true as I observed in the Defence in the Primitive Church they maintained Communion with distant Churches by Formed and Communicatory Letters by giving notice to each other of the state of their several Churches and advising and consulting about Church Affairs which was a prudent means of maintaining a stricter Communion and fair Correspondence between them and was especially necessary at that time when they lived under Pagan Emperors and the external Unity of the Church was upheld only by Ecclesiastical Authority But this was not absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion and is in a great measure impracticable now The Empire being divided into the hands of several Independent Christian Monarchs who have the supreme Power in all Ecclesiastical as well as civil Causes there can be no such actual Correspondence between the Churches of several Nations but by their consent and leave Soveraign Princes not Subjects whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons must treat with one another about the great Affairs of Church and State though with the advice of their Civil or Ecclesiastical Counsellors But still those Churches are in Communion with each other who own each other as Members of the same Body and deny no Act of Christian Communion to each other as opportunity serves And whether this be so very difficult much less impossible let any man judge V. To make this appear still more easie and practicable we may consider that the Terms of Catholick Communion are not so straight and narrow as some men make them This is the true reason of most of the Schisms in the Christian Church that some rash and inconsiderate People think that every little difference and petty controversie is a sufficient reason to divide the Church and set up distinct and separate Communions and have espoused such narrow Principles of Church Communion that it is almost impossible any two Churches should long hang together much less that all the Churches in the world should agree in such matters This Argument deserves a more particular consideration as discovering the original of Church-divisions and the cure of them and therefore I shall briefly consider upon what terms Catholick Communion may be maintained in the Christian Church Now the terms of Catholick Communion may be reduced to these four general Heads 1. Doctrine 2. Government 3. Discipline 4. Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I. As for what concerns the Doctrines of Christianity I presume my Adversaries will readily grant that an agreement in Fundamentals is a sufficient Foundation for Catholick Communion and I will as readily grant that no Church which denies any Fundamental Article of our Religion ought to be owned for a Catholick Church or received into Catholick Communion To deny Communion to any such person or Church is no schism no more than it is to cut off a rotten and gangreened Member from the Body And if it should appear that many or most Christian Churches are over-run with such Heresies as destroy the foundations of Christianity this must of necessity mightily straighten Catholick Communion not because Catholick Communion is in it self an impracticable notion but because there are but few Catholick Churches to communicate with for it is as necessary a duty not to communicate with Churches which renounce Catholick Doctrine as it is to communicate with those which own it we being under the same Obligations to maintain all fundamental Doctrines of Faith as to preserve the Peace and Communion of the Christian Church For indeed it is an ill way to preserve the Peace of the Christian Church by forfeiting our Christianity as every fundamental Heresie does or to enlarge Christian Communion by receiving those into our Communion who are no Catholick Christians And I suppose none of my adversaries will require me to give such a Catalogue of fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to qualifie any Church for Catholick Communion Both Papist and Protestants in their Disputes about Fundamentals have always waved this and there is no reason any harder terms should be put upon me and thus I might end this Dispute honourably enough for as far as respects Doctrines every man must acknowledg that Catholick Communion may be as large as Catholick Doctrine and that is as large as it ought to be But yet for the greater satisfaction of my Readers and of my self I shall discourse this matter more particularly for I confess I do not understand the reason why so many great men of our Church as have writ against the Papists since the happy reformation of Religion among us have been so tender in this point if we cannot tell what are the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity how can we be assured that we or any other Church do not err fundamentally and how can we know that the whole Church has not so erred but only by that general promise that the whole Church should not fall into fundamental errors and if we can tell what Doctrines are fundamental methinks it is not impossible if occasion were to give a Catalogue of them I am far enough from being of that mind That a Catalogue of Fundamentals is impossible because to some more is fundamental to others less to others nothing at all because God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less Which indeed does not only prove that it is impossible to assign a Catalogue of Fundamentals but that there is nothing in its own nature fundamental in Christianity but only for every man to believe as much of it as he can Yet the Caution of so many great men in this Matter makes me very sensible how nice a thing it is to talk of Fundamentals and what unpardonable arrogance it would be in any private man to be peremptory and dogmatical in assigning a Catalogue of them and therefore I shall only pretend to make some Essay of this nature which the argument I am now engaged in and the clamorous Objections of some men extort from me for if we cannot in some measure tell what are the terms of Catholick Communion Catholick Communion must needs be a very impracticable notion And to prepare the way I shall briefly observe some few things to prevent some cavilling Objections and Prejudices against the following Discourse 1. That by Fundamentals I mean such Doctrines as are essential to Christianity and distinguish the Christian Religion from all other Religions Now if we will acknowledg that Christian Religion is a fixt and certain thing we must acknowledg that there are such Fundamentals as are fixt and certain too and do not alter with mens different Apprehensions Capacities and Opportunities of Instruction and if it be possible to understand the true difference between Christianity and all other Religions it is possible to understand what the Fundamentals of Christianity are 2. The greatest difficulty which is objected against a Catalogue of Fundamentals does equally lie against the belief of Christianity it self The difficulty
Communion And not to pretend to give a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentals I shall only give a taste of this in some few particulars which have given occasion to the fiercest Disputes in the Christian Church 1. I shall begin with the Doctrine of the holy Trinity which hath in all Ages been accounted a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith and hath as good reason to be thought so as any other since we are baptized into this belief For to baptize into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost according to the most proper signification of the words and the exposition of the Catholick Church signifies to baptize into the Faith and Worship of the sacred Trinity as I think I could easily shew at large were it proper upon this occasion And how essential this belief is to the right understanding of the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Jesus Christ which is the comprehensive fundamental of Christian Religion will easily be acknowledged by any man who carefully considers how each Person in the ever blessed Trinity is concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation The Father in infinite pity and compassion to fallen man gives his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish but have everlasting Life He gives him to become man and to die as a Sacrifice for sin and to seal a Covenant of Grace and Mercy in his blood The Son moved by the same love and pity gives himself becomes man dies for the attonement and expiation of our sins rises again from the dead and takes possession of his mediatory Kingdom becomes the Lord and Judge both of the quick and the dead and according to his promise sends his Spirit upon his Apostles in miraculous gifts and powers to qualifie them for the work of the Ministry and bestows the same holy Spirit upon the whole Christian Church and every sincere member of it as an abiding principle of Sanctification and a new Life The holy Spirit accordingly comes and dwells in his Church and in good men as in his Temple sanctifies them in this World to be vessels of Honour and will hereafter raise their dead bodies into immortal Life So that each Person in the Sacred Trinity is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of Mankind and we cannot truly believe the great fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ without the belief of the holy Trinity of Father Son and holy Ghost one eternal and infinite God The God-head of the Father is acknowledged by all but whoever denies the Godhead of the Son and of the Holy Ghost overthrows the whole Doctrine of Salvation by Christ as it is taught in the new Testament and makes it quite another thing and a very little thing too as to shew this briefly He who makes Christ to be either the most excellent Creature as the Arians did or a meer man as the Socinians do mightily lessen the Grace and goodness of God to sinners which is represented as such a stupendious act of Love that God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son now if this only begotten Son be only the most glorious and excellent Creature especially if he be but a meer man the love and the design is not so stupendious and astonishing for God has an equal propriety in all his Creatures and it is no such prizing Mystery that a good God should give one of his Creatures though never so excellent especially if he be but one excellent man for the redmption of so many Millions especially when he promises to reward this undertaking with such a superexcellent degree of Glory and Power The love of God in redeeming us by what means soever is very great but his love in giving his only begotten Son for our redemption where Christ himself lays the emphasis if this only begotten Son be but a Creature or a man is not so wonderful Thus it sounds very odly for a Creature to be the Saviour of mankind to be the object of a religious Faith and Hope and Trust and Dependance The Worship of Christ cannot be divine Worship if he be not God and a made God is a contradiction in the terms unless we mean only a titular God and a titular God cannot be the Object of Religious Worship It is unintelligible how the blood of a Creature can make a proper atonement and expiation for sin and therefore the Socinians who deny Christ to be God are very consistent with themselves in denying his satisfaction A Creature is not capable of infinite and omnipotent Power no more than a finite Nature as the most excellent created Nature is can be the Subject of infinite perfections and therefore if Christ be not God he cannot have all Power in Heaven and Earth committed to him he cannot have it in his own Person because he is not capable of it and cannot exercise it He can at most only bear the name but the Government of the World must be in another hand which is able to manage it Let us then now consider what a fundamental difference the denyal of the divinity of our Saviour makes in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which I shall represent by drawing two Schemes of the Doctrine of Salvation one proceeding upon the belief of the Divinity of our Saviour the other upon supposition that he is only an excellent Creature or meer man Christ the eternal Son of God 1. God out of infinite love to fallen man gave his eternal and only begotten Son to be our Saviour 2. This eternal Son of God in the fulness of time appeared in the World in humane nature preached the Gospel confirmed his Authority by miracles which he wrought by his own divine Power purchased and redeemed his Church by his own Blood by which he made a full and perfect expiation for our sins and sealed the Covenant of Grace and Pardon 3. This incarnate God according to his promise on the third day raised himself from the dead by his own divine Power and took possession of his mediatory Kingdom as the reward and the purchase of his death 4. Which consists in his Power to forgive sins as a Priest in vertue of his Sacrifice offered on the Cross to give Commission to his Apostles to preach Repentance and forgiveness of sins in his Name to send the holy Spirit into the World to protect his Church from all Enemies and finally to judge the World to raise the dead topunish the wicked and unbelievers and to reward his true and faithful Disciples and all this by his own Power and Authority inherent in himself though received from his Father Christ an excellent Creature or meer man 1. God sent his most excellent Creature or created a most excellent man to redeem sinners 2. This glorious and excellent Creature or this excellent man was at the prefixt time born into the World and preached the Gospel and God confirmed his Authority as he did the Authority of other
and were immediately baptized in great numbers cannot be supposed at that time to know more and yet this was accepted from them at that time and in that state of things and by the same reason will be accepted from those who want the opportunities of better instruction And if there be any baptized and nominal Christians who do not know thus much it is a great scandal to the Christian Church but I know not how we are more concerned for their Salvation than for Pagans and Infidels But as for those who deny any fundamental Article they are got above this state of a general and implicite Faith in Christ and err not for want of instruction but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith and understand what has been and is the general Faith of Christians in such matters for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholick Doctrines it appears they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledg that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sence of the universal Church which is such unpardonable immodesty as admits of no excuse if they lose themselves in the Mazes and Labyrinths of their own making and mistake their way to Heaven And though such Persons may be otherwise very pious and useful men yet I do not see why we should deny the necessity of believing the Fundamentals of Christian Faith any more for their sakes than for the sake of devout and vertuous Jews and Heathens 2. Having thus as plainly as I can stated and notion of Fundamentals the next inquiry is concerning those Churches which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations and whether such Churches may be said to err Fundamentally I will but briefly touch on this head and though I might give too many instances of it I shall at present confine my self to the Church of Rome I know no fundamental Article of our Faith that is expresly denyed by the Church of Rome She receives all the ancient Creeds professes the Faith of the holy Trinity the Incarnation the satisfaction of Christ's death his Intercession for us at the right hand of God but then she teaches such other corrupt Doctrines as all the wit of man cannot reconcile with this Faith As to shew this briefly with reference to the satisfaction and intercession of Christ The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass which is offered for the quick and for the dead For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day which represents the Sacrifice of Christ to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law which could not take away sin nor make the comers thereunto perfect and therefore were repeated again every year Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions especially the fire of Purgatory the merits of good Works and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints which compose the Treasury of the Church and may be applyed by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary could hardly think that she did believe that there is but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus But I need not enumerate many particulars the truth of this being too evident and notorious The great Question then is this whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors for this sounds like a contradiction that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors And indeed if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article so it is plain that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors but if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines which contradict each other when the Contradiction is not in express terms but consequential For all men or Churches do not see or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts but especially in our present Dispute about Catholick Communion as will appear by considering 3. How far and in what Cases we may communicate with such a Church as believes all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and yet teaches such Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations This is a very material difference between a Church which denies any fundamental Article of Faith and a Church which believes all Fundamentals but superadds some corrupt Doctrines which in their Consequences destroy Foundations that the first is never capable of Catholick Communion because she denies Catholick Doctrine which is the necessary condition of Catholick Communion but the second in some cases may be because she retains all saving knowledg i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation though intermixt with dangerous Errors Now to state this matter how far we may communicate with such a Church as professes all the fundamental Articles of Faith but yet superadds other very corrupt and dangerous Doctrines we may consider these two things 1. I think I need not tell any man that we must not purchase the Communion of such a Church by professing our Assent to any corrupt Doctrine though it be not a fundamental Error No one Church ought thus to impose upon another nor does any Church pretend to it but only the Church of Rome Every Church is bound to preserve her own Faith as pure and perfect as she can but she has not that Authority over any other Church as to impose upon their Faith An orthodox Church may and ought to admonish neighbour Churches of any doctrinal Corruptions but must not reject their Communion for every Error though of dangerous Consequence if it be not Fundamental The belief of all fundamental Articles of Faith does mightily qualifie the evil and malignant influence of many very corrupt Doctrines which is the true reason why many men are observed to live much better than they believe because though they have entertained a great many corrupt Doctrines which
in their natural Consequences are very apt to tempt men to sin and to encourage them in it yet when withal they heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith this true Faith is so directly contrary to the ill consequences of their Errors that they do not see the ill consequences of such Doctrines or are sufficiently antidoted against the poyson of them nay many times it so happens that men are so far from seeing the ill Consequences of their Doctrines that they draw only good Consequences from them which may make them as good or better men than many are who have a better Faith Thus to instance at present in some very popular and prevailing Doctrines not disputing whether they be true or false The Doctrine of absolute Election and Reprobation the Inconditionality of the Covenant of Grace the no-necessity of holiness to our justification the absolute impotency of humane nature to do the least good the irresistibility of the divine Grace and such like Antinomian Doctrines are charged by their Adversaries with as dismal consequences as any Doctrines are capable of even to the overthrow of all Religion and I doubt not but have very ill effects upon mens minds who are not throughly possest with some other Principles to qualifie and allay them But yet if after all this these men do firmly believe the infinite goodness and justice of God the inflexible holiness and purity of his nature his irreconcileable enmity to all sin and that they shall never go to Heaven without holiness it is impossible they should make any ill use of these Doctrines to encourage themselves in sin and on the other hand if they believe right or wrong that these Doctrines do mightily advance the grace of God in the Salvation of sinners it may increase their love to God inflame their Devotions and make them very active in all holy obedience For when men are possest with a prevailing sence of the grace and love of God and our Saviour they may spare a great many other arguments to obedience Now we must not hence infer that it is indifferent whether men believe right or wrong for every practical Error is a state of Temptation and erroneous Doctrines do oftner hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous perswasion as is lamentably seen in the lives of too many men But the only inference I draw from hence is this that every Error though in it self of dangerous consequence is not a sufficient reason to deny Communion to such a Church as notwithstanding such Errors professes all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith if we can maintain Communion with her without professing her Errors 2. While the fundamental Doctrines of Faith are secure no corrupt Doctrines are a sufficient reason to break Communion which do not corrupt the Christian Worship The principal Acts of Christian Communion consist in Christian Worship and if any Church have so corrupted divine Worship that a good Christian must not joyn in it we must of necessity abstain from their Communion though we are not equally bound to deny them ours For there are some Fundamentals of Worship as well as Faith as the Worship of one God through one Mediator Jesus Christ and when any Church corrupts the Worship of God in its vital and essential parts as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and Images and the consecrated Host it is necessary then to withdraw our selves from such a corrupt Communion But then as for those Doctrines which though they may be corrupt and erroneous are neither fundamental Errors nor introduce any such fundamental Corruptions into religious Worship I can see no imaginable reason why they should break Communion between neighbour Churches if no Churches must communicate with each other which do not exactly agree in all the Disputes and Controversies of Religion it will be hard to find any two Churches in the World that can maintain this Christian Communion Certainly Catholick Communion requires us to communicate with all those Churches with whom we can communicate without sin and therefore when a Church denies no fundamental Article of Faith nor corrupts the Christian Worship in any fundamental and essential part of it nor requires us to believe any Doctrine which we believe to be erroneous as the necessary terms of Communion with her that is when we may communicate with her without doing any thing that is evil nothing can justifie our breach of Communion As for instance I take the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation to be a very great Error and if they should deny Communion to me unless I would profess my belief of it I should judge it a sufficient reason to withdraw Communion from them yet if no such Condition be imposed on me I would make no scruple to communicate with them because though Consubstantiation be an Error yet it does not corrupt their Worship as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation does the Worship of the Church of Rome The Lutheran Churches observe the Institution of our Saviour without any Idolatrous Worship of the Host their Doctrine makes no change in their Worship and therefore can be no reason to withdraw our Communion The Errors of any Church cannot make its Communion sinful unless they make its Worship so Were Transubstantiation it self as absurd a Doctrine as it is a meer speculation without any influence upon Worship did the Church of Rome strictly observe the Institutions of our Saviour in celebrating the Lord's Supper without either taking from it or adding a new Idolatrous Worship to it they might enjoy their Opinion if they pleased so they would let me enjoy mine and I would not break with them meerly upon this score Nothing can be vainer than to dream of reconciling all the Disputes of Christendom and of making all men or all Churches of a mind in every thing and if Catholick Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a different belief and perswasion in some controverted points we must never hope for any such thing And if it may be our only Inquiry is what difference and variety of Opinions is consistent with Catholick Communion and I know no other answer to it but this that we may safely communicate with any Church how different soever our Opinions in other matters may be while we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Essentials of Worship Those animosities indeed which the heats of disputation occasion too often not only between private men but Christian Churches set them at a much greater distance from each other than the most distant Opinions but yet that this is practicable to maintain Christian Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions is evident not only from the intrinsick reason of the thing but from manifest experience We know how many Sects there were in the Jewish Church especially those two famous Sects of the Pharisees and
Sadduces and yet they lived in the Communion of the same Church offered the same Sacrifices worshipped God at the same Temple and observed the same Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and confined their Disputes to their several Schools The Jewish and the Heathen Converts in the time of the Apostles differed about a very material point the observation of the Law of Moses and yet according to St. Paul's exhortation and command they lived in the Communion of the same Church and in the joynt exercise of all the Acts of Christian Worship Defence p. 443. c. as I discours'd at large in the Defence How many different Opinions are there among the Doctors and Churches of the Roman Communion the Franciscans Dominicans Jesuits The same points are disputed among them and that with as great warmth and keenness as there are between the Arminians and Calvinists and abundance more Nay the Italian and Spanish and French Churches differ upon those great points of Infallibility and the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome and yet all live in the Communion of the same Church And I cannot see but that all the Christian Churches in the World excepting the Church of Rome might maintain Catholick Communion upon as easie terms The breaches between the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches have been often times composed especially between the Polonian Churches an account of which we have at large in Pareus his Irenicum which is a plain argument that it is not meerly the difference of Opinions but the distempers of mens minds if such agreement and concord be not perpetual so that no doctrinal Disputes ought to divide the Communion of the Christian Church but such as subvert the foundations of our Faith or corrupt the essentials of Christian Worship and this may suffice for the first inquiry what are the terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Doctrines from which it evidently appears that Catholick Communion is neither in its self an impracticable notion nor the practise of it very difficult to all good Christians II. It is time now to consider the next Inquiry what are the necessary terms of Catholick Communion with respect to Church-government And the only Question I shall endeavour to resolve under this Head is this Whether and in what Cases it is lawful to communicate with a Church which is not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters who were ordained by Bishops The reason of this Inquiry is plainly this It is sufficiently known that there are several Protestant Churches of great note governed without Bishops by a Colledge of Presbyters who have no other Orders but what they received from Presbyters Now if Episcopacy be so essential to the Constitution of a Church that we must not own any Church which has no Bishops we must renounce the Communion of the Protestant Churches of France and Holland and Geneva and some others which is both a very invidious and uncharitable thing and a great injury to the Reformed Profession and does mightily streighten Catholick Communion If Episcopacy be not so essential to the Constitution of a Church but that we may communicate with those Churches which have no Bishops why do we reject our Dissenters at home and condemn them of Schism for rejecting the Episcopal Authority and forming themselves into Church-societies without Bishops Why are we not as kind to our own Friends Neighbours and Countrey-men as we are to Foreign Churches Now though the Church of England has always asserted the Authority of Bishops and condemned those of her own Communion who have separated from their Bishops yet she has been so far from condemning Foreign reformed Churches for the want of Bishops that she has always lived in Communion with them and defended them against their accusers and I resolve to steer by this Compass so to vindicate the Reformed Churches as neither to injure the Episcopal Authority nor to justifie our Schisms at home And to do this with all possible plainness I shall proceed by these steps 1. I observe there is a vast difference between separating from Episcopal Communion where Episcopacy is the setled Government of the Church and living without Episcopal Government where we cannot have it which makes a great difference between our Dissenters and some Foreign Churches Some of the Foreign Protestant Churches indeed have no Protestant Bishops nor ever had and it may be could not have but Episcopacy has been the establisht Government of the Church of England ever since the Reformation and for any Christians to separate from their Bishops was always accounted Schism by the Christian Church unless there were some very necessary reasons to justifie such a Separation but in some cases not to have Bishops may be no Schism If any man should object that the Case of our Dissenters and the reformed Churches is the very same for the Foreign Churches had Bishops also of the Roman Communion but separated from them upon account of those intolerable Corruptions which made their Communion unlawful and many of them set up no Bishops of their own and thus our Dissenters separate from the Church of England and her Bishops upon account of the corruptions in her Worship and are as excusable as the French Protestant Churches for setting up a Government without Bishops I answer Not to take notice now what a vast difference there is between separating from the Church of Rome and from the Church of England there is one very obvious difference in this very matter which takes off the whole objection For our Dissenters make Diocesan Episcopacy to be one reason of their Separation which no reformed Church ever did before The Reformed Churches abroad separated from Popish Bishops our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy it self All the reformed Churches abroad owned Episcopacy though they disowned Popish Bishops several of them retain both the name and thing as the Churches of Sweden and Denmark Others retain the Office though they have changed the name as several Lutheran Churches which have their superintendents Generales and Generalissimi who answer to our Bishops and Arch-bishops and as for those Churches which have them not they never reject Episcopal Communion but all of them have owned Communion with the Church of England reverenced our Bishops highly commended the Constitution of our Church censured and condemned our Schismaticks and declared their judgments in favour of Episcopacy and wished the restitution of it and the most some of their most learned men have pretended to was only to justifie the Lawfulness of a Presbyterian parity Durel's Church-government Saywell's Evangelical and Catholick Unity c. p. 228 c. It were easie here to fill up several Pages with the judgment of the most famous Divines abroad but this has been so often done by others and very lately by Dr. Saywell that I shall refer my Readers to them for satisfaction in this point And is not this a very material difference between our Dissenters and the reformed Churches abroad which
have not Episcopal Government Our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy which they own from our reformed Bishops which they maintain Communion with and therefore are as well Separatists from the reformed Presbyterian Churches as from the Church of England 2. As it is Schism without absolute necessity to cast off the Authority of our Bishops and to separate from them so it is much more so to reject Episcopal Communion and the Government of Bishops as unlawful and Antichristian which makes a very material difference between our Dissenters and those reformed Churches abroad who have no Bishops of their own There is nothing our Dissenters more vehemently oppose than Episcopal Government for which they never think they can find names bad enough Not to mention others at present this is the great design of Mr. Baxter's late History of Episcopacy to prove that Diocesan Episcopacy in the very Nature and Constitution of it overthrows the Government of Christ's Institution This is his great design in his Abridgement of Church-History to bespatter and vilifie the most renowned Bishops of the Church to reproach all their Actions to charge them with all the Heresies and Schisms which have disturbed the Church and to paint them in such frightful shapes that all Christians may flie from them as the great troublers of our Israel I cannot imagine what service he could think to do by this to common Christianity which is concerned in nothing more than in the Credit and Reputation of the chief Ministers of Religion but I must acknowledge all this was admirably calculated to serve a Faction But the Foreign Churches which have no Bishops do not condemn Episcopacy nor separate from it as an unlawful Communion and whoever does so is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church This is so plain that there needs no proof of it For let men talk never so ill of Bishops and their Government the matter of fact is evident that the Church of Christ has for many hundred years had no other Government than that of Bishops They can shew no Church till the Reformation which was governed without Bishops even such Diocesan Bishops as our Dissenters now vent their Spleen against Dr. Owen indeed and Mr. Baxter would gladly except the two first Centuries but what little reason they have for it has been already examined in the Defence but however they are all forc'd to acknowledg that in the succeeding Ages of the Church till the Reformation which was above twelve hundred years the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops as it is at this day so that by renouncing the Episcopal Communion of the Church in our Age they separate from the whole Catholick Church for so many hundred years As far as Episcopal Government is concerned they condemn the whole Catholick Church in their separation from the Church of England as governed by Diocesan Bishops nay herein they separate also from all the reformed Churches who hold Communion with the Episcopal Church of England and if this be not enough to prove them Schismaticks there is no such thing as Schism from the Church for there was no Church for near fifteen hundred years nor is there at this day which they can communicate with upon these Principles but their own beloved Conventicles for it has always been accounted as unlawful to communicate with such a Church as communicates with another Church whose Communion is sinful as it is to communicate with such a Church our selves and it must be so according to the Principles of Catholick Communion And therefore if it be unlawful to communicate with the Church of England as governed by Bishops it must be unlawful also to communicate with those Protestant Presbyterian Churches which communicate with the Church of England This I suppose may satisfie any man what little reason our Dissenters have to talk so much of Foreign reformed Churches for their case is very different that which will justifie those Foreign Churches which have no Bishops will not justifie our Dissenters who have Bishops but separate from them For though they have no Bishops they do not separate from Episcopal Churches nor condemn Episcopacy as an unlawful or Antichristian Government but hold Communion with the Church of England which our Dissenters have rent and divided by Schismatical separations 3. Let us then consider what may be said in justification of those reformed Churches which have no Bishops whether their want of Bishops does unchurch them and make it unlawful for us to hold Communion with them This is a very nice and tender point for to condemn all the reformed Churches which have no Bishops seems so hard and uncharitable that the Church of England has always declined it but then absolutely to justifie them overthrows the ancient government by Bishops and is made use of by our Dissenters to pull down Episcopacy if the present Bishops do not please them which is impossible for any Bishop to do who will be true to his own Authority and to the constitutions of our Church And therefore in stating this matter I must go a middle way neither absolutely to condemn nor absolutely to justifie them For 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government which I shall not now go about to prove I must acknowledg those Churches which have no Bishops to be very imperfect and defective and that they are bound as far as they can to endeavour to restore the Episcopal Authority and if they fail in this so far as they are chargeable with this neglect what in some cases is a pardonable defect may become especially in the Governors of such a Church a very great Crime For no Church must wantonly change a divine Institution we condemn the Church of Rome for taking away the Cup from the Laity and I think every divine Institution has something so sacred in it as not to be lightly rejected or altered without absolute necessity 2. But yet the case may be such that the want of Episcopal Government may not un-church such a society of Christians nor make it unlawful for other Christians to maintain Communion with them As will appear from these following considerations 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presently un-church those who are guilty of it 2. Especially if there be an absolute or very great necessity for doing it 3. Especially if the case be such that at least they have a presumptive allowance from the Catholick Church to do it 1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presentlyun-church those who are guilty of it I need not spend many words to prove this for when the case is proposed in general I think no man will deny it The observation of all divine Institutions is necessary to the perfection of a Church but it is not so to the being of it That is though God does strictly require the observance of all his Statutes yet every positive command is not of that moment that God will disanul his Covenant with
such a People for the neglect or change of it If ever God would have done this we might most reasonably expect it under the Jewish Oeconomy in which every minute Circumstance was so strictly commanded by God as having something Sacred and Typical in it and yet it does not appear that every deviation from their Rule though in some very material parts of it did provoke God to cast them off God had appointed a certain place where they should offer their Sacrifices to him and when this place was actually fixed and determined it was unlawful for them to offer Sacrifice in any other place And yet when the Temple at Jerusalem was built which was the only place God had appointed for Sacrifice the People continued to offer Sacrifice in their high places even in the Reign of very good Kings and though this practise was condemned yet it did not un-church them God had appointed Aarons Family for the Priesthood 1 Kings 12.31 and yet Jeroboam made Priests of other Tribes and Families and the Law which expresly appoints Aaron and his Sons for the Priests Office only threatens death against Usurpers Numb 3.10 Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his Sons and they shall wait on the Priests Office and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death God did not reject the Church of Israel for the irregularities of their Priests but owned them for his Church and People many years after this till they defiled themselves with the worship of Baal and other Heathen Gods And Josephus observes that after the death of Menelaus Joseph Antiq l. 12. cap. 14. Antiochus made Alchymus High-Priest who was not of the Family of the Priests and yet I should be loth to say that such an irregular promotion did un-church the Jewish Church and whoever considers in what manner the High-Priests were advanced and deposed even in the time of our Saviour possibly may think it as inconsistent with the first Institution of that Office as the irregular Ordinations of Presbyters 2. We ought especially to consider the force and power of necessity to dispence even with divine Institutions No necessity can dispence with the eternal Laws of good and evil because no necessity can be pleaded to justifie men in sin though in some cases it may extenuate the evil and guilt of it for the internal necessity in the nature of things is stronger than any external necessity can be no external force can compel men to sin which is an Act of their own will and choice and the obligations to Vertue remain in the most extreme necessity But in positive Institutions which depend upon the Will of God we find necessity has often dispensed and that with God's allowance and approbation As to give some few examples of it 1. The necessity of the divine Worship has dispensed with positive Institutions Thus in Hezekiah's Sacrifice the Priests being too few 2 Ch ron 29.34.35.11 the Levites assisted them in doing the Priests work in slaying the Sacrifices and the like we may see in Josiah's Passeover And by the same reason we may suppose that if the Family of Aaron had failed other Families of the Tribe of Levi might have succeeded into the Priest's Office though against a positive Law For the necessity of the divine Worship is much greater and more unalterable than the confinement of the Priesthood to a certain Family and where the divine Providence makes a necessity necessity will make a Priest And therefore I think a late learned and ingenious Author who disputes so earnestly that the Power of administring Sacraments must be derived from God and that this Power now is given only by Episcopal Ordination ought to have distinguished between the ordinary and extraordinary conveyance of Power Whoever administers in holy things must derive his Power from God because he acts in God's Name and when it may be done he must derive his Power in such a way as God hath appointed by a positive Law and whoever rejects this way without necessity can have no valid Power but whatever he does is null and void as I doubt not but all Ordinations of Presbyters are in opposition to and contempt of their Bishops as I think that learned man hath sufficiently proved But the case of necessity ought to be considered it being contrary to the Nature of all positive Institutions to oblige in case of necessity and I take that to be a case of necessity when Episcopal Orders cannot be had and yet the Church must sail without them Bishops are for the Church not the Church for Bishops and when the ordinary conveyance of this Authority fails necessity legitimates other extraordinary ways We have all the reason in the World to presume in such cases that God will confirm and ratifie the choice and designation of the People much more the Ordinations of the Presbytery where Episcopal Ordination cannot be had For I see no reason why Presbyters may not do the Bishops work in case of necessity as well as Levites do the work of Priests 2. The necessity of mens lives dispense with positive Laws Upon this account our Saviour justifies David's eating the Shew-Bread when he was an hungred which was not lawful for him to eat Mark 2.24 25 26. but for the Priests and his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day Upon this Principle Matathias allowed the Jews to fight on the Sabbath-day Joseph antiq l. 12. cap. 7. in case they were assaulted by their Enemies and our Saviour resolves all such cases by that general Principle I will have mercy and not Sacrifice and certainly mercy to the Souls of men is as considerable as any temporal concernments 3. But we may further consider what force and Authority the presumptive allowance of the Church has in such cases The Christian Church in all Ages has thought fit to dispense with positive Institutions in case of necessity and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the defects and irregularities of such Administrations and therefore certainly did believe she had Power to do it And indeed if there be not sufficient Authority in the Church to provide for cases of necessity the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of men and cannot in many cases without a miracle preserve her own being and therefore if the Church may be presumed in cases of necessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministries as otherwise they are not qualified to perform this very allowance supplies the incapacity of the Person and does virtually confer that Authority on him which in other cases he had not Now it is not only highly reasonable to presume that the Catholick Church will rather allow the Ordinations of Presbyters though they are not regularly qualified for that Office where there are no Bishops to Ordain than that a considerable member of the Christian Church should want a succession of Pastors to
instruct and govern them and administer all religious Offices to them but besides the reason of the thing the practise of the Church is a sufficient ground for this presumption For we know the use of Orders is to confer Authority and Power to administer the Sacraments and yet the Church has allowed even Lay-men to baptize Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus offers tinguis sacerdos es tibi solus Tert. de exhort cast cap. 7. and if we will believe Tertullian to consecrate too in case of necessity that is where there have been no Bishops nor Presbyters to administer those Offices and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Ordain when there are no Bishops as for Lay-men to administer the Sacraments where there are no Bishops nor Presbyters I alledge Tertullian's Authority not for the sake of his reason but as a witness of primitive Practise The reasonings of particular men do not always express the sence of the Church but their own private Opinions though they may be allowed to be good Witnesses what the practise of the Church was in their days Though I confess I cannot see that any thing Tertullian says does derogate from the Evangelical Priesthood or destroy the distinction between the Clergy and Laity or encourage private Christians to invade the Ministerial Function Nonne laici sacerdotes sumus scriptum est regnum quoque nos sacerdotes Deo patri suo fecit Ibid. He says indeed that even Lay-men are Priests Christ having made us all Kings and Priests to God his Father by which he means that every Christian through our great Advocate and Mediator has now so near and free access to God Differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae Auctoritas honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus and such assurance of acceptance as was thought peculiar to Priests in former Ages Well but is there no distinction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People Yes this he owns but says it is by the appointment and constitution of the Church What does he mean by this That it is a humane arbitrary and alterable Constitution By no means But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority And therefore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ and of his Apostles who from the beginning have made this distinction as Tertullian every where confesses To what purpose then is all this Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso ubi necesse est habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis Ib. How does he hence prove that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself That he has the right of Priesthood in himself when it is necessary and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also when it is necessary For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foundations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority how can it be lawful for a private Christian upon a pretence of the general Priesthood of Christians in any case whatsoever to perform such religious Acts as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this That all Christians being an Evangelical Priesthood to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God through the merits and mediation of our great High-Priest they are not debarr'd by any personal incapacity nor by the typical and mysterious Nature of the Christian Institutions from performing any religious Office which Christ has commanded his Church but yet for the better security of publick Instructions for the more regular Administration of religious Offices for the preservation of Unity Order Discipline and Government in the Church Christ hath committed the power of Government and Discipline and publick Administration of religious Offices to Persons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church and not for any other mystical reasons in case of failure where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place and any private Christian without a regular and external Consecration to this Function may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest For there are two things wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priesthood differ which make a mighty alteration in this case The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical and Mediatory the Evangelical Priesthood is neither Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical much less to a Mediatory Priesthood but only such as have a divine appointment and designation to this Office for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery and the vertue of the Mediation is lost at least our absolute assurance of it if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission But now under the Gospel the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple without any shadows and figures and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Worship which requires peculiar and appropriate Persons and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men and therefore we need not any other Mediators of divine appointment in vertue of the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ every Christian is a Priest who may approach the Throne of Grace and offer up his prayers and thanksgivings in an acceptable manner to God Gospel-Ministers indeed are to pray for the People and to bless in God's name but they pray in no sense as Mediators but in the name of our great Mediatorâ— and that which makes their Prayers more effectual than the Prayers of a private Christian is that they are the publick Ministers of the Church and therefore offer up the Prayers of the Church which are more powerful than the Prayers of private Christians And therefore St. Austin reproves Parmenianus the Donatist for making the Bishop a Mediator between God and the People which no good Christian can endure the thoughts of but must needs account such a man rather to be Antichrist August contra ep Parmen l. 1. cap. 8. than an Apostle of Christ For all Christian men pray for each other but he who prays for all and none for him is the only and the true Mediator of whom the High Priest under the Law was a Type and therefore no man was to pray for the High-Priest But St. Paul who knew that Christ was our only Mediator who was entred into Heaven for us recommends himself to the Prayers of the Church and is so far from making himself a Mediator between God
the manner of the Church of Rome yet what that means Theodoret tells us more expresly that they met together after the manner of the Church of Rome to celebrate all religious Offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. hist Eccl. l. 1. cap. 23. which in the ancient Language peculiarly signifies the Celebration of the Eucharist Our Author acknowledges That when all diligence is used in securing Succession there may yet be real failures in it But as God only can know them so I cannot but think him obliged Separation of Churches c. p. 417. both by his Covenant for the graces conveyed in the Sacraments and by his design of establishing Government through all Ages of succession to supply those failures So that it seems there is great reason in some cases that God should supply the failures of a valid Authority that God should make and account those Sacraments valid which have not the validity of a just Authority And if this may be done in any case certainly the case of necessity is as considerable as any And the necessity of preserving the being of the Church seems to me as considerable as the preservation of Government which is only in order to the preservation of its being But this is a matter of such great moment that I cannot pass it over without a more particular Examination of some Principles on which that learned man grounds that severe conclusion of the Invalidity of all Sacraments which are not administred by Bishops or by Presbyters Episcopally Ordained which I hope I may do in such a Cause as this wherein so many foreign Churches are concerned without the least infringement of that real honour and friendship I have for him And to proceed with all possible clearness in this matter I shall reduce the state of the Controversie between us to a narrow point and briefly shew wherein we agree and wherein we differ 1. Then I readily grant that the external participation of the Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper is ordinarily necessary to Salvation 2. I grant also that the Bishops and Ministers of the Church regularly ordained have the only ordinary Power of administring Sacraments and that all Sacraments administred and received in opposition to and contempt of the ordinary Governors of the Church are invalid or inefficacious 3. But I absolutely deny that the validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons administring This is the parting point and therefore must be carefully examined And I find but two general Arguments this learned man uses for the Proof of it From the nature of the Sacraments and from the ends of Government considering God as a Covenanter and as a Governor 1. From the nature of the Sacraments or considering God as a Covenanter and so the administration of Sacraments is celebrating or making a Covenant in God's Name so as to oblige him to performance of it which no man can do unless God signifie it to be his Pleasure to empower him to do so as in Law no man can be obliged by anothers act who has not been empowered to act in his Name by his Letters of Proxy And he that presumes of himself to make a Covenant wherein God is by him engaged as a Party without being so empowered by God as what he does cannot in any legal exposition be reputed as God's act so neither can it infer any legal obligation of him to performance This Argument is drawn out to a great length but this I take to be the sum of it and it were a very strong Argument if the Foundation of it were not false but I must deny that which this Author has all along taken for granted without any Proof that the administration of the Sacraments as suppose of Baptism is the Ministers making a Covenant with the Person baptized in God's Name I know of but one Covenant which God has made with mankind in Christ Jesus and that is the Gospel-Covenant and I know of but one sealing and confirmation of this Covenant and that is by the Blood of Christ and therefore the Sacraments cannot be such Seals as ratifie and confirm the Covenant and give validity to it or pass an Obligation on God to stand to his Covenant The Christian Sacraments are necessary parts duties or conditions of the Covenant either for our admission to the Priviledges or conveyance of the Grace of the Covenant and therefore they cannot in a proper sence be Seals of or making a Covenant in God's Name All mankind are capable of being received into this Covenant the Covenant is actually made to the Christian Church and every Member of it Baptism is our admission into the Christian Church and consequently to all the priviledges of the Covenant it is very fitting that the ordinary Power of such admissions should be in the hands of Church Governors and so it is by divine appointment but all this is a very different thing from making a Covenant in God's Name which shall validly oblige God to the performance of it This it is plain no man can do without the most express Authority but the external solemnities of a Covenant which are ratified confirmed commanded by God need not in all cases such express Authority for in this case we do not presume to make a Covenant in God's Name or to oblige him by our Act but only to do what he has required and commanded to be done though not expresly commanded us in particular to do it We neither make any new terms for God which he has not already made and obliged himself to the performance of nor admit any Persons to the Priviledges of this Covenant whom God has excluded for the Covenant is made with all mankind who believe the Gospel but we only do the ordinary work of Church Governors without the regular Authority of Governors upon a reasonable presumption that God will allow of this where there are not ordinary Governors to do it Which is a reasonable presumption in all humane Governments where a regular Authority fails and cannot be supplyed in an ordinary way a Topick which this learned Author makes great and frequent use of And methinks it might satisfie any reasonable man what a vast difference there is between making a Covenant in God's Name and performing some external Solemnities of it if he only consider that Covenant which God made with Abraham and the sign of this Covenant which was Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Whatever this learned man urges to prove the necessity of a valid Authority in the Administrator to make Baptism valid will prove the same necessity of a valid Authoirty to make Circumcision valid for what Baptism is in the new Covenant that Circumcision was in God's Covenant with Abraham both equally alike Signs or Seals or external Solemnities of the Covenant and yet it is sufficiently known Buxtorfii Synagoga Judaica cap. 4. that any Israelite might circumcise that
understood how to do it The Administration of Baptism indeed is confined ordinarily to the Governors of the Church whereas the administration of Circumcision never was the peculiar Office of the Priest and the reason of this difference is plain because every Israelite by birth had a right to Circumcision and therefore there was no need of any Authority to receive them into the Church of Israel and the external Solemnity might be performed by any man but natural Generation does not give any man a right to Baptism but Faith in Christ and therefore it is fit that the Governors of the Church only should have Power to judge who are fit to be admitted into the Christian Church and therefore that the power of administring Baptism should be reserved in their hands but hence it appears that in administring the Sacraments they do not act as legal Covenanters in God's Name but as Governors of the Church 2. And this brings me to consider his Arguments from the Nature and Ends of Government which as far as I understand them amount to this That it is necessary for God to maintain and preserve the Authority of subordinate Governors That the Authority of Church Governors consists in the power of administring Sacraments which confer a Title to all the Priviledges and Graces of the Covenant That this Authority cannot be maintained if unauthorized Persons may validly administer the Sacraments and therefore we cannot suppose that God will countenance such an usurpation of Ecclesiastical Authority as to confirm and allow what is so illegally done Now in Answer to this I readily grant 1. That this is a very good Argument to prove that the Authority of administring Sacraments is in ordinary cases confined to the regular Clergy for indeed this is all the Authority Church Governors have to receive in and to put out of the Church and take away this and all Church-societies must immediately dissolve or hang together only by some arbitrary Compacts and Covenants which last as long as every man pleases But then 2. I observe that it is sufficient to secure the Authority and Government of the Church to confine the administration of Sacraments and all acts of Ecclesiastical Authority to Church-Governors where-ever there are such to be found For if no private man must presume to administer Sacraments in a constituted Church where there are Ecclesiastical Ministers though we grant Laicks the liberty of administring Sacraments where there are no regular Ministers to do it this can be no reasonable pretence for their invading the Ministerial Function or disturbing the Peace and Order of the Church where there are He who attributes the only valid Authority of administring Sacraments to the regular Clergy where there are such Persons to be found does as effectually secure the Authority of Church-Governors as he who makes it absolutely unlawful for private Christians in any case whatsoever to administer the Sacraments For the Authority of Church-governors is a meer notion without any effect where there are no such Governors and where there are their Authority is secure this way No man thinks it any injury to the Authority of Princes and Civil Governors to assert that every private man has liberty to defend his own Life and Fortune where he is not under the protection of Laws and publick Justice no more is it any invasion of the Authority of the Clergy for private Christians to do the Office of a Bishop or a Presbyter where there is no Bishop or Presbyter to do it No doubt but God is greatly concerned to maintain the Authority of Church-governors because the welfare and preservation of the Church depends on it but we cannot think the Rules of Order and Government are so strict as to dissolve the Society of the Church which it is designed to maintain If it be objected that it is very dangerous to Ecclesiastical Authority to grant the least indulgence or liberty to Laicks or an irregular Clergy in any case whatsoever to inermeddle in sacred Offices for they will always be apt to take more than is granted and thus that Liberty which is allowed in extraordinary cases will be improved into an ordinary usurpation of the Ministerial Office I answer It may be so and I know no way to prevent those ill Consequences which foolish Reasoners may draw from Truth it self nor that ill use which wild and giddy People may make of the justest Liberties but must we deny Truth or deny our own just Liberties and Rights for this reason But yet this is not the case here for there is a greater security of Ecclesiastical Authority than the Power of Sacraments its self and that is the necessary obligations to Catholick Communion which cannot be preserved without a just deference to Ecclesiastical Authority It may be lawful in some cases for Laicks to administer the Sacraments but it is never lawful for them to separate from their Governors or to oppose their Authority Should a company of private Christians on their own choice separate themselves from their Bishops and unite into a Church-Society this were a Church-Faction and Schism and all they did were null and void but if private Christians who live in Communion with their Bishops and own their Authority being reduced to that necessity that they cannot enjoy the Sacraments nor other religious Offices from Persons who have a regular Authority should administer the Sacraments themselves and celebrate religious Offices for their spiritual Comfort I cannot see that it is either Schism or Usurpation and the perpetual obligations to Catholick Communion will prevent both Indeed nothing can secure the Peace and Unity of the Church and the Authority of Ecclesiastical Governors but the necessity of Catholick Communion for the Unity of the Church and the just Authority of Bishops may be destroyed by an Episcopal as well as by a Presbyterian or a Lay Schism Thus it was by the Schism of the Donatists They were governed by Bishops as well as the Catholick Church and their Orders and Sacraments administred by them were allowed to be valid and yet they were Schismaticks and their Sacraments though valid with respect to the Authority which administred them yet without effect as administred in a Schism as I have already shewed from St. Austin And therefore that Father in his Writings against the Donatists does not oppose their Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders or of their Sacraments which is no argument against an Episcopal Schism though it be the only argument used by this learned man to shew the evil and danger of Schism but from their breach of Catholick Communion which made all their Sacraments though not invalid yet inefficacious So that Ecclesiastical Authority may be secured though we allow Laicks in case of necessity a liberty to administer Sacraments in the Unity and Communion of the Church It were easie to add a great deal more of this Nature but this is sufficient to my present design And the result of this
whole Discourse is that it is not in all cases and circumstances unlawful to maintain Catholick Communion with such a Church as being forced to it by necessity is neither governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters Episcopally ordained III. There still remains the third and fourth terms of Catholick Communion to be considered the Discipline of the Church and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies which I shall briefly speak to both together Now Discipline in the ancient use of the Word has a large signification and includes all religious Worship as well as Church Censures especially the Christian Sacraments for Church Discipline consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the Communion Worship and Sacraments of Christians Thus Disciplina sacerdotis in Tertullian signifies the whole exercise of the Priestly Office even the administration of Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper And by Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I mean such external circumstances and appendages of Worship Time Place Habits Postures or significant Rites as are of humane Institution and may be either enjoyned or altered by Church Governors and do actually differ according to the Customs of several Churches Now to reduce what I have to say under this Head into as narrow a compass as I can I shall premise several things which I presume will be acknowledged without a Proof by the Persons I have now to deal with 1. That it is necessary to Catholick Communion that every Church observe all the essentials of Christian Worship and particularly the Christian Sacraments as instituted by our Saviour 2. That their Worship be pure from all Idolatrous mixtures and corruptions which is a sufficient justification of our separation from the Church of Rome 3. I suppose it will be granted also that there is no Church so pure but that it has bad men and too often bad Ministers in its Communion 4. That there have in all ages been various Rites and Ceremonies used in the Christian Church and very different in different Churches This no man will deny but one who is either very ignorant himself or a very impudent imposer upon the ignorance of others 5. That among true and orthodox Churches which believe all the Fundamentals of Faith and observe all the Essentials of Worship there are different degrees of purity in Discipline and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies some more some less for the edification of the Church This having been in former Ages and being now at present the state of the Christian Church it is evident what a Catholick Christian must do who will maintain Catholick Communion with the several Christian Churches in the World As 1. He must communicate with Churches which are not so strict and regular in their Discipline as he could wish There being few Churches in the World so exact in this matter but a wise and good man may discover such defects in their Discipline as he could wish amended And he who will not communicate with any Church nor live in any Common-wealth which has any defects in its Government is not fit to live in this World where there is no absolute perfection to be found either in Church or State 2. He must communicate with such Churches wherein there are a great many bad as well as good men for this is the state of all Churches on Earth where the Tares grow up with the Wheat 3. They must communicate with Churches which observe several uncommanded and significant Ceremonies for thus most Churches in the World do and have always done 4. Nay they must communicate with Churches which have very different if not contrary Customs There being few Churches wherein the external Modes Rites and Ceremonies of Worship are in all things alike It is evident as any matter of Fact can be that no true Christian Churches in the World can communicate with each other upon any other terms than these and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of any other and to condemn these terms of Communion as unlawful makes Catholick Communion impossible Whoever separates from any Church upon a pretence of some defects and imperfections in Worship or Discipline when all the essentials of Christian Worship are preserved entire and pure without any such corrupt mixtures as make their Worship sinful whoever separates from a Church because there are a great many bad men in it or for the sake of some indifferent Customs and significant Ceremonies must for the same reason separate from all the Churches in the World even from the most Primitive and Apostolical Churches of the first ages of Christianity Now if Catholick Communion be so essential to the being and notion of the Catholick Church those Principles must be false and Schismatical which are so irreconcileable with Catholick Communion For it is plain we cannot at this day nor ever could communicate with the Catholick Church if every defect in Worship or Discipline if indifferent rites and usages in religious Worship if corrupt and vicious Members make the Communion of any Church unlawful and be a just reason for Separation This indeed has always been the pretence both of ancient and modern Schismaticks The Novatians and Donatists separated for a stricter Discipline and purer Communion and were condemned for it by the Catholick Church And St. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that neither the wickedness of the Minister nor of the People corrupt the Worship or make the Communion of such a Church sinful though through the defect of Discipline the one should not be deposed nor the other removed from Christian Communion For indeed the ancient Fathers thought Catholick Communion so absolutely necessary that very few things could come in Competition with it We have a famous example of this in St. Cyprian who disputed very earnestly for the necessity of baptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks whenever they returned to the Communion of the Church Stephen Bishop of Rome did as vehemently oppose it with some sharp reflexions upon St. Cyprian and did admit those to Communion without Baptism who had been baptized by Hereticks But St. Cyprian like a true Catholick Christian Neminem jadicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes prefat Concil Carth. declares in his Preface to the Council of Carthage that he would not deny Communion to any of his Colleagues who differed from him in this point And in his Letter to Jubaianus Nos quantum in nobis est propter Heretices cumcollegis coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. ep ad Jubai he professes that he will not quarrel with his Colleagues for the sake of Hereticks And yet as St. Austin well observes this Dispute was of great consequence to the Communion of the Church For if St. Cyprian was in the right then the Bishop of Rome August de baptismo l. 2. who received those to Communion without Baptism who had been formerly baptized
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
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
is it possible there should be any decency or uniformity of Worship any Order or Government maintained in the Church if it is in the Power of every private Christian to make the most wholsom Constitutions of a Church unlawful and sinful Impositions by his private dissent and obstinate refusal of Obedience 4. If it be lawful for the publick Authority of the Church to determine the indifferent Circumstances and external Solemnities of Worship it is necessary to make them the terms of Communion that is it can't be avoided but it must be so For when the Church determines the indifferent and undetermined Circumstances of Worship all that is meant by it is that she requires all in her Communion to worship God in such a manner which is the only sence wherein indifferent things are or can be made the terms of Communion So that the Controversie must return where it first began about the lawfulness of indifferent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship and the Power of the Church to determine them for making them terms of Communion is no new difficulty for it signifies no more than prescribing such a way of worshipping God and if it be lawful for the Church to prescribe the Modes and Circumstances of Worship she cannot mistake in making them terms of Communion For 5. If the Church have Authority to prescribe the Order and Circumstances of publick Worship it is unreasonable to think that she may not justly deny those her Communion who will not submit to her Authority and comply with her Orders and Constitutions Which is to say that she has Authority and that she has none For it is sufficiently known that the Church as such has no other Authority but to receive in or to shut out of her Communion and if she cannot assist her commanding Authority with her Authority of Censures it is little worth Nay 6. In the nature of the thing it cannot be otherwise Those who will not conform to the Constitutions of the Church must forsake her Assemblies for there is no other way of Worship to be had there And therefore we need enquire no further than whether it be lawful for the Church to prescribe a form of Worship to her self if it be she needs exercise no other Authority for those who will not conform to it will separate themselves without her Authority And as for the sin and danger of Schism let the Church look to her self that she give no just occasion for it and let scrupulous and tender Consciences look to themselves that they take no unjust Offence and this is the only remedy I know of in this case without prostituting Church-Authority and the Worship of God to a blind and factious Zeal And yet I suppose no Church is bound to own those of her Communion who separate from her Worship and despise her Authority 7. And whereas Mr. Lob founds his Objection upon making indifferent things terms of Communion every one who understands the nature of Government knows that it is an unsufferable mischief to disturb and dissolve humane Societies though for very little things Schism is a very great evil and nevertheless because the Dispute is about indifferent things the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church the decency and solemnities of Worship and the sacredness of Authority is necessary to Christian Communion without which the Church must dissolve and disband into private Conventicles as we see at this day and therefore whoever disturbs Christian Communion for indifferent things does as well deserve to be cast out of the Church as the most profligate sinners But to return to Mr. Lob. The only Objection he has against all that I urged in the Defence is that I run from Circumstances to Ceremonies and yet his Conscience tells him if ever he read the Defence Defence p. 38. that he knows the contrary for I particularly answered that Objection in the Defence and it seems I have so answered it that Mr. Lob thought it the wiser course to dissemble his knowledg of any such Answer than to attempt any Reply to it And now let any man judge what an unreasonable task Mr. Lob has put on me Reply p. 84. It lies on him says he either to prove to our Conviction that we may without sin comply with their Imposition i. e. he must so far effectually enlighten our Consciences as to help us to see that the Impositions are not sinful and that we may lawfully conform But how is this possible for me or any other man to do when he will not so much as see what we shew him When he is so far from an impartial Examination of the Reason of what is proposed that he will not so much as own that it was ever proposed It is not in our Power to give him eyes or to make him open his eyes when he wilfully shuts them Much less do we desire as he proceeds That they should conform against their Consciences and yield a blind obedience to such Commands we have had too much experience of such consciencious men in the Church already who have conformed against their Consciences that they might raise a Church of England-Rebellion as this Author impudently suggests and takes the first opportunity to pull down the Church and to expiate their sins of Conformity by a thorough Reformation There is something lies on them to do as well as on us and that is freely and impartially to consider what is offered for their Conviction to acknowledg themselves convinc'd when they are convinc'd to prefer the Salvation of their own Souls and the Peace of the Church before private Fame or serving a Party that is in a word to be honest and then there will be no need for the Church to part with her Impositions II. The second thing wherein I observed the force of his Argument lay was this That the Opinion of the Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for parting with them Now he does not take notice of any one word of Answer I return to this nay does not so much as represent the Reason why I place the force of his Argument in this which is that if the Opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful be not a sufficient Reason for parting with them then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not or a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot Instead of which he says I give this Reason for it if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent those who retain the use of some which he leaves out indifferent things cannot meerly upon that account be called Dividers or Schismaticks which does not refer to the second but to the first thing wherein I placed the force of his Argument That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with Certainly never any man was in a greater
Apostate with an uniting Design granted a general Toleration So that this Project may secure the Estates but cannot secure the Souls of Dissenters Schism will damn men though they should get it established by Act of Parliament but Mr. H. and I I perceive have very different designs and therefore no wonder if our Materials for Union differ He is concerned for this World I am concerned for the next He would secure Dissenters from all Trouble and Molestation here which I am by no means against as far as it may be done with the security of the Church and State and honour of Religion but if it were in my Power I would Sacrifice my ease and quiet and all that is dear to me in this World to secure their immortal Interests which no humane Power can secure while they live in Schism But Mr. H. thinks he has found out a device to cure the Schism viz. That it should be decreed in the Convocation that neither Church should un-church one another This is a wonderful Power he gives to the Decree of a Convocation that Churches which separate from each others Communion yet shall not un-church one another For what does he mean by un-churching To assert the Communion of any Church to be sinful and unlawful I think is to un-church it that is to make it no Church to us and whoever separates from any Church though he be never so silent does by his Separation either condemn the Communion of that Church to be unlawful or condemn himself of Schism for nothing can justifie a Separation but sinful terms of Communion How is it possible then that two Churches which separate from each other should not un-church one another or un-church themselves There is but one Church and one Communion and therefore where there are two separate Churches and two Communions they cannot both be true Catholick Churches and Mr. H.'s contrivance to declare these separate Churches to be all true Catholick Churches by the Decree of Convocation is like his Act of Parliament to make all the separate and divided Churches one National Church 4. Mr. H.'s Project is not a very likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation and if it be not good for this it is certainly good for nothing We see how troubled and disturbed the State of the Nation is at this day occasioned by the Disputes of Religion how envenomed their Spirits are how furious and factious their Zeal now not to enlarge upon this unpleasant Theme which possibly may be called railing I would only ask Mr. H. whether such an Act of Parliament as he dreams of would heal any differences in Religion would make the Dissenters think better of one another or of the Church of England than now they do Would make them more Loyal in their Principles more Charitable to one another more cool and temperate in their Zeal Whether such an Act could set bounds to the several Sects among us and make them contented with their own private Perswasions and with the Liberties and Priviledges which the Law grants them without encroaching upon their Neighbours or affecting Rule and Dominion and using all imaginable Arts to make Proselytes and enlarge their Party This is the Original of all our Disturbance now and what hope is there when the Cause remains that the Effect will cease If men still have the same fondness for their own Opinions and Churches the same Aversion to others the same Zeal to promote a Party if still they think themselves as much bound as ever to advance the Cause of God and to set Christ on his Throne according to their old pretence how fond is it to imagine that we shall enjoy more Peace and Security than we do now If it be answered that the Dissenters are at present uneasie and troublesom because the Laws are against them and they are in constant danger of the execution of them to the loss of their Liberties and the impoverishing their Families but if they had the same favour and the same security from the Government as others have they would be as quiet and peaceable and as dutiful Subjects as others are I reply 1. It does not seem very probable that those who are so Insolent Daring and Factious when the Laws and Government are against them should grow modest and governable when the Law is on their side If they cannot be governed with the Bridle in their mouths it is hard trusting to their good Nature For 2. We have had sufficient experience how busie turbulent and factious the Spirit of Fanaticism has always been and we see no Symptoms of their changing for the better 3. We know by experience how impossibly it is to oblige these men by any favours The kindness and moderation of Government is always thought a just debt to their great merit and desert or the effect of fear and weakness or the over-ruling Power of God who turns the hearts of Governors to favour his People even against their own Inclinations and therefore no thanks is due to them 4. These men never yet let slip an advantage and opportunity to disturb Government or to serve their Cause Every thing that is granted them gives them only a new confidence to ask and to demand more And if ever they can stand upon equal ground with the Church of England they will as boldly challenge a Superiority and be as much disobliged if they be denyed If once they get a legal Rite to their Conventicles they will next demand the Temples and Tythes too and declaim against the Magistrates as Sacrilegious Usurpers if they be denyed Their Discipline will not long be confined within their own Conventicles will reach Bishops and Princes too whose Authority shall be no longer owned than they submit to the Scepter of Christ These things are not yet forgot among us and I suppose it will be hard to perswade any Prince to make a second Experiment when he paid so dear for the first 5. We have made a sad Experiment already how tame and gentle Dissenters prove when the restraints of Laws are gone When the Church of England was dissolved and the enclosures flung open and every man did as he list there was no more Peace than there is now only instead of railing at the Church of England they railed at one another But enough of this Mr. H. thinks all this will be prevented by his Episcopal Visiters who are to see that the Churches of both sorts walk according to their own Order and the Peace of one another But 1. Who shall undertake that all these Churches shall quietly submit to these Visiters and quietly obey their Orders any more than they do to the Visitation of their Ordinaries now And what means of Union is there left if they don 't 2. Who shall undertake that these Visiters themselves shall not prove factious and partial and secretly foment instead of suppressing Disputes and Quarrels between the Churches for the Visiters are to be of all sorts too as well as the Churches Independent Presbyterian and Episcopal Visiters by the name of the King's Bishops or Ecclesiastical Officers now I doubt Episcopal Churches would find no great comfort in the Visitation of such Independent and Presbyterian Visiters as Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter I confess for my own part I should not much care to come under their Visitation And I will not answer for all Episcopal Visiters that they shall always carry an equal hand to Dissenters As for Instance Mr. H. says That no Members of either Church should depart from one Church to another without a sufficient peaceable Reason Now who must be Judge of this but the Visiter Suppose then a Member of a Presbyterian Church think fit to return to the Episcopal Church do you think that a Presbyterian Visiter will be casily satisfied that he has a peaceable and sufficient Reason for this Will not every Visiter be greatly enclined to favour and enlarge the Communion of that Church to which he himself belongs And what Quarrels is this like to occasion between the several Churches It may be much greater than any thing else has yet done But the great Tryal of Skill will be in the promoting of these Visiters For though the King have the Nomination and Appointment of them their Ordination being only a broad Seal a new way of Consecrating Bishops yet what Art will be used by the different Churches in the Diocess to get a Visiter of their own Communion What a task will the King have to please all these several Interests What a noise and clamour will the Dissenters raise who know how to take every occasion for that if they have not a dissenting Visiter Nay it will not be enough then that he is a Dissenter in general but he must be a Presbyterian or Independent Dissenter according to the Interests of these several Churches This will be a perpetual occasion of Quarrel and every Party will think themselves injured and disobliged who have not a Visiter of their own Communion These are Mr. H.'s Materials for Union and if Princes and Parliaments think fit to make the Experiment I cannot help it But I will venture to turn Prophet for once and foretel that they will soon find Reason to repent the Experiment FINIS