A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council p. 160 Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils subverts the King's Supremacy and incurs a Premunire p. 168 Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome p. 172 The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with considered p. 175 The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church p. 178 The distinction of a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections p. 188 Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society p. 200 Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England examined p. 209 The difference between Aristocracy and the Government of the Church by Bishops without a Regent Head p. 216 A Vindication of the Dean's Argument against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church p. 219 Chap. 5. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it p. 226 In what sence Catholick Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other p. 227 The several ways of maintaining Catholick Communion used in the ancient Church vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections p. 232 What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church p. 239 That there are Schisms in the Church is no Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion p. 240 Catholick Communion not impracticable in its own Nature p. 240 Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches p. 243 Not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to maintain Catholick Communion between foreign Churches p. 245 The Terms of Catholick Communion very practicable p. 247 A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines p. 248 What a Fundamental Doctrine is Salvation by Christ the general fundamental of Christianity p. 256 The Doctrine of the holy Trinity a Fundamental of Christian Faith p. 259 The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ p. 261 School subtilties about the Trinity not fundamental Doctrines nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273 The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation c. fundamental p. 274 What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self p. 281 Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals p. 300 Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine p. 305 Whether a Church which professes to believe all Fundamentals but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations may be said to err fundamentally p. 316 And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church p. 319 How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops p. 329 A great difference between the case of our Dissenters and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account p. 331 Their Case more largely considered p. 337 Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies considered as Terms of Catholick Communion p. 371 Chap. 6. An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions to prove the Dissenters according to my own Principles to be no Schismaticks and a further inquiry who is the Divider p. 382 Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholick Church p. 383 Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholick Church p. 387 Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion p. 394 Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation p. 404 Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters and may be charged with Schism upon that account p. 413 The Answer which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider vindicated from his Exceptions p. 420 Chap. 7. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined p. 442 His Materials for Vnion destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters to pull down the Church for Vnion p. 443 He sets up no National Church in the room of it p. 447 His Project will cure no Schism and therefore can make no Vnion p. 456 Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Vnion of the Nation p. 459 ERRATA PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate r. is of a desperate p. 45. l. 4. r. spick p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought p. 73. Marg. for ex 52. r. ep 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit r. ingemuit p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle must be read together p. 89. l. â—2 for promising r. premising p. 106. l. 22. for of r. or p. 123. l. 2. dele also p. 139. Marg. for litera r. litura iâ— l. 9. for Cevernment r. Government p. 141. l. 24. for thatâ— r. yet p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent p. 226. l. 7. r. are l. 22. r. it p. 235. l. 20. for uses r. cases p. 243. l. 28. dele two p. 254. l. 20. for observe r. obscure p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 381. l. 29. for there r. these p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholick Church p. 393. l. 18. r. with it p. 421. l. 9. dele what p. 464. l. 29. r. help it A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's Vnreasonableness of Separation CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Vnity IN my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation I have asserted and proved for any thing I see yet objected to the contrary that Christ has but one Church on Earth and that the Unity of this Church consists in one Catholick Communion Mr. B. Mr. Lob and Mr. Humphrey instead of giving a fair Answer to this have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words as I never thought of nay as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book and when they have turned every thing into non-sense and confusion by their own senseless Comments they set up a great Cry of Cassandrianism and Contradictions For my part when I read those Representations these Men had made of my Notions I wondred to find my self such a stranger to my self I was perfectly ignorant of the whole business and Intrigue and began to examine whether I had expressed any thing so unwarily as to lead them into such Mistakes but upon inquiry I found it was nothing but the last weak Efforts of a
to Catholick Communion and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or enjoyn any Communion And yet the Church never had a greater sence of the evil of Schism in any Age and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing without any regard to private Contracts or humane Authority 2. To break our Promise and Covenant is a great evil but it is not in its own nature Schism unless there be something else to make it so besides breach of promise To disobey our Governors in lawful things is a very great evil but it is not in it self the evil of Schism but of disobedience to lawful Authority These do greatly aggravate the sin of Schism when men are guilty of it but it cannot make that to be Schism which is not and yet there is no such sin and can be no such sin as Schism if there be not one Church but men may divide into as many distinct and separate Churches as they please for if any man should say that Separation is sinful when there is no just cause or reason for Separation this supposes that there are necessary reasons against Separation when there are no just reasons for it and I would gladly hear what those reasons are against Separation when you have destroyed the Notion of one Catholick Communion But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholick Communion in the Disputes of Schism and Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation ch 5. p. 231. and thither I refer my Reader Now I shall hence briefly observe two things with reference to my present design 1. That the whole force of my reasoning aginst Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet depends on the Doctrine of one Catholick Communion and therefore I was not at all concerned to assert one visible unifying Church-Power under Christ Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 181. over all the Catholick Church as Mr. B. calls it I no where throughout my Book oppose Separation upon the Principles of an universal unifying Church-Power but only on the Principles of Catholick Communion and therefore neither having any where asserted any such thing nor having any reason to do so in the service of the Cause I undertook especially having asserted the quite contrary as in due time will appear the Reader may easily perceive how injuriously my Adversaries have distorted my words to give some colour and pretence to their Calumnies 2. I observe farther That supposing there had some dubious passages about an universal Church-Power slipt from my Pen the confuting such a fancy as that is by no means a confutation of the Defence If the doctrine of one Catholick Communion hold good as it will certainly do whatever becomes of Catholick Church-Power it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for Separation and they are as very Schismaticks as ever the Novatians or Donatists were Here the Controversie began about the sinfulness of Separation very angry they were and gave a great many hard words to that excellent Person who warned them of the danger and evil of it many Books have been written about it and now they are charged as high as ever and are ferreted out of their Retreats and see the very foundations of their Cause rooted up all on a sudden they grow tame and gentle and patiently hear themselves proved Schismaticks without saying a word for themselves being more concerned it seems to oppose a French Popery which sometimes by what figure I know not they call a Cassandrian design than to vindicate their own dear selves from the charge of Schism Some possibly may think them very mortified and self-denying men others will be tempted to suspect some other Cause But Mr. B. is resolved that noise shall not divert him from opposing the foundations of Popery the plain meaning of which is this He finds it troublesom to write in a Cause where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to answer him and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself where he is secure of the victory unless Richard and Baxter should happen to quarrel he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise I suppose he means a fourth Folio he telling us that he has writ three already § 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church and one Catholick Communion which my Adversaries have so industriously misrepresented that it is necessary to set it in a new Light In the third Chapter I proved at large Defence ch 3. p. 137. c. that Christ has but one Church which is his Body and Spouse which we call the Catholick Church and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholick Church though it will appear in due time that they deny the thing That the Church is but one I proved from the express Testimony of Scripture and the ancient Fathers and by this unanswerable Argument Ib. p. 151. c. that the Christian Church is not a new Church but the old Jewish-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
Metaphysical subtilty about Universals of which more presently well what hurt is there in that assertion why first the Allusions I use for the illustration of this of the Sun being before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and a Fountain before its Rivers are not ad rem that is not to the purpose nor to the Matter in hand for I know not what force English Readers may imagine to be concealed in ad rem unless I translate it but he knew very well that these are not my Allusions as he calls them but St. Cyprians ' whose Authority is much more considerable But suppose they had been my own as I see no Reason to be ashamed of them what is their fault why I should have given some instance of some one Vniversal that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars Now suppose I think that the Sun and Root and Fountain are such Universals with respect to their Beams Branches and Rivers or suppose there were never an adaequate Example in nature of this besides the Catholick Church what were this ad rem if it appears that the Catholick Church be such an Universal Yes if that could be proved indeed it were somewhat to the purpose but that says Mr. Lob is impossible it being in the sense of most evident that Universale is unum in multis that is Ibid. in many particulars which Vniversal hath no real Existence but in particulars but abstracted from all particulars â— 't is only an Ens Rationis having its being in the Eutopian Common-wealth whence we distinguish between the consideration of Vniversal as Formal and as Fundamental Fundamental and it is Quid singulare but formally and so 't is abstracted from all singulars the particulars being the foundation of the Vniversal the root from which the Vniversal doth proceed Now if it be the particulars that are the foundation of the Vniversal how can the Vniversal be the foundation of the particulars No way in the World Sir Quod erat demonstrandum This is a very Learned and Scholastick Period and therefore deserves a just regard And 1. I thank our Author for letting me know where to find those pretty things called Ens rationis which it seems have their Being in the Eutopian Common-wealth though all Authors are not agreed in this matter for some think it as probable that they have their Being in the Cassandrian design but that makes no great difference for Learned Geographers say that is the next County to Eutopia But yet it is a material discovery Mr. Lob hath made for by this means we may know where to find the Catholick Church For 2. the Catholick Church being an Universal is no better than an Ens rationis a meer Metaphysical Notion and therefore must have its Being also in the Eutopian Common-wealth I wish Mr. Lob does not at last prove the Creed where we find the Catholick Church to be a meer Eutopian Common-wealth for giving entertainment to such an Ens Rationis Well but Universals have a real existence in particulars right but not as Universals but as Particulars humane nature has a real existence in Peter James and John because they are all men but humane nature considered as Universal is in neither of them unless you will make as many Universal humane natures as there are men in the World thus there are a great many particular Churches actually existent but the Catholick Church considered as Catholick and Universal is a meer figment and notion no where existing but in Eutopia And if this be all Mr. Lob means by his Universal Church that it is a meer Logical notion I readily grant that he has not only proved that Particular Churches are before the Universal Church but that the Universal Church has no actual Being at all nor can ever have any and therefore it is a vain thing to dispute which of them exists first when one of them does not exist at all any where but in Eutopia But all this is nothing to me who never troubled my head about the existence of an Ens Rationis in a Fayry Land but assert such an Universal Church as has an actual being and existence which always is or may be visible in the World an Universal Church which is the object of Sense not the creature of fancy and imagination This I take to be the general sense of all Christians of what Communion soever they are if they understand any thing of these matters that the Universal Church is a real thing which does actually exist not as Logical Notions do but as a Church and Society of Christians For the Universal Church is the Body and the Spouse of Christ and it is a new fangled Heresie to assert the Body and the Spouse of Christ to be an Ens Rationis as the Doâ—â—… formerly asserted his Natural Body to be only an empty Apparition Hitherto particular Churches have been acknowledged to be Members of the Universal Church but no man in his Wits ever dream't before that a thing which actually exists could be a Member of that which has no real existence that the Church of England suppose or the Church of France should be Members of an imaginary Universal Church which has no Being any where but in Eutopia And therefore to help out our Author here who has so miserably lost himself in Logick and Metaphysicks I observe that the Catholick Church is such an Universal as a whole is with respect to its parts not as a Species is with respect to the Individuals contained under it or to speak more plain as our natural Body is with respect to its particular Members not as humane Nature is with respect to particular men And therefore the most common Reason assigned both by Ancient and Modern Divines why the Church is called Catholick and Universal is not because it is an universal Notion Necessario consequitur unam duntaxat esse Ecclesiam quam propterea Catholicam nuncupamus quod sit Vniversalis diffundatur per omnes mundi partes ad omnia se tempora extendat nullis vel locis inclusa vel temporibus Helv. conf cap. 17. made by a mental Abstraction from particulars but because it diffuses it self all the World over and propagates it self into all parts without Division or Multiplication into new distinct Churches but continuing one and the same Church from the Beginning fills the World with Christians living in this one Communion and Society Having thus redeemed the universal Church from its invisible and imaginary State in the Eutopian Common-wealth and brought it back into the World again let us now consider how the Church becomes Catholick and Universal and which is first in order of Nature the Catholick Church or particular Churches Mr. Lob asks me Where this universal Church should be when Antecedent to any particular Church Reply p. 10. Truly I suppose it must be where he has placed it after there are particular Churches viz. in Eutopia
Effects The Vnion of the Soul and Body goeth before Sensation Imagination Intellection or Volition 2. It is contrary to all Artificial beings in a Clock a Watch a Coach c. The Vnion of their parts is their relative Form and goeth before the Exercise and Vse and the Effects 3. It is contrary to all Political Beings and Societies The Vnion of King and Subjects is the constitutive Form of the Kingdom and goeth before the Administration or Regiment by Legislation and Judgement and the Allegiance and Subjection before Obedience Thus the Vnion of Husband and Wife Master and Servants Captain and Souldiers Schoolmaster and Scholars as the Constitution of the Relation go before their Communion in the Exercise 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians but the Consequence is not true 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayer and Sacraments do but this is singular and false What pity is it that so many good Arguments should be lost for want of some Thing and some Body to oppose for all these Arguments proceed upon this Mistake That by Communion I mean only some transient Acts of Christian Communion such as Praying and Hearing and Receiving the Lord's Supper together that the Christian Church is united by such Acts as these whereas these Acts of Christian Communion necessarily suppose Christian Union and therefore can neither be the efficient nor formal Cause of it A man must first be united to the Church and one Church to another before they can communicate together in such Acts of Worship or have any Right to do so But then I wonder what he thought I meant by one Communion for if by Communion I meant only a transient Act of Communion by one Communion I could mean but one such transient Act. And here he might have found out greater Absurdities than before and have triumphed over this sensless Notion unmercifully for what a ridiculous conceit is it to place Christian Unity in some one transient Act But possibly Mr. B. might see this Absurdity and be merciful to it for the sake of his darling Notion of Occasional Communion which is just such a transient Act and yet as he thinks sufficient to Church Unity and to justifie any man from the Guilt of Schism and Separation But then I cannot but wonder that he should so industriously prove that the Unity of the Church cannot consist in such transient Acts of Communion for if this be true as certainly it is he may be a Schismatick from the Church of England notwithstanding he sometimes holds Occasional Communion with her But had Mr. B. carefully read and considered but the six first Lines of the 4th Chap. of the Defence where I explain what I mean by one Communion he might have spared all his Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions My words are these Defence p. 164. The 2d thing to be considered is That the Vnity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholick Vnity signifies Catholick Communion and one Communion signifies one Christian Society of which all Christians are Members From which it is plain That I did not place this one Communion in any transient Acts but in a fixed and permanent State And that this is not a new uncouth way of speaking but very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Antiquity I made appear in the same place and concluded This is sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion which in a large notion signifies the Christian Church or Society which is called Communion from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other So that when I say the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion the plain and obvious sense of it is this That all the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right and the same Obligation on them to communicate with each other as opportunity serves in all those Duties for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the Members of a particular Church are For all particular Churches are as much Members of the universal Church as particular Christians are Members of a particular Church and therefore are as much bound to communicate with each other One Communion signifies one Body and Society in which all the Members communicate with one another As to explain this by a familiar Comparison Suppose the whole World were one Family or one Kingdom in which every particular man according to his Rank and Station enjoys equal Priviledges in this case the necessity of Affairs would require that men should live in distinct Houses and distinct Countreys as now they do all the World over But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges where-ever he went as he does now in his own House and Countrey the whole World would be but one great Family or universal Kingdom And whosoever should resolve to live by himself and not to receive any others into his Family nor allow them the liberty of his House would be guilty of making a Schism in this great Family of the World and what Nation soever should deny the Rights and Priviledges of natural Subjects to the Inhabitants of other Countreys would make a Schism and rent it self from this universal Kingdom Thus it is here The Church of Christ is but one Body one Church one Houshold and Family one Kingdom and therefore though the necessity of Affairs requires that neighbour-Christians combine themselves into particular Churches and particular Congregations as the World is divided into particular Families and Kingdoms yet every Christian by vertue of his Christianity hath the same Right and Priviledge and the same Obligation to Communion as occasion serves with all the Churches of the World that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives Where-ever he removes his Dwelling whatever Church he goes to he is still in the same Family the same Kingdom and the same Church I can hardly be so charitable to Mr. B. as not to believe this to be a wilful Mistake for it is impossible for any man of common sense who had ever read what I discoursed so largely and particularly of Catholick Communion to mistake it for some transient Acts of Communion when I so frequently explained one Communion by one Body and Society And all the Arguments whereby I prove one Catholick Communion prove only that all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's Arguments I
find he is as much blundered and confounded about the notion of Unity as he is about Communion I asserted that Catholick Unity consists in one Communion the plain sense of which is no more than this That the Catholick Church is one considered as one Body and Society wherein all Christians and Christian Churches have equal Right and Obligation to Christian Communion This Unity he turns into Union and understands it of our Union to Christ not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church and argues thus 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayers and Sacraments do Where you see he misconstrues both the terms and it would be wonderful to any Logician to hear him conclude from these premisses Ergo the Unity of the Catholick Church does not consist in its being one Body and Society and Communion of Christians If this be to write Controversies we may e'ne as well lay Wagers and cast Lots for Major Minor and Conclusion for any Propositions well shuffled will naturally fall into as good Syllogisms as these And yet Mr. B. had notice given him of this distinction between the Union of the Church to Christ and the Unity of all Churches in one Body and Society in the 8th .. Chap. of the Defence where I consider what Communion is essential to the Catholick or universal Church where the Reader may find these words which Mr. B. himself takes notice of I have already proved the Catholick Church to be one visible Body and Society Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 208 and therefore need not now add any thing more to confute that opinion that the Catholick Church is invisible which is asserted by Dr. Owen and his Independent Brethren But Mr. B. and others who acknowledge one visible Catholick Church consisting of all the particular Churches in the World do not much differ from Dr. O ' s. invisible Church while they make the Vnity of this Church to consist only in their Vnion to Christ as Head of the Church not in the Vnion of Churches as Members of the same Body For I take it not to be enough that all Churches are united to Christ unless they be all united in one Body for the whole Church cannot be the one Body of Christ unless all particular Churches are one Body And therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us how the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body I assert this is done by one Communion if he can tell any better way I would gladly learn it especially if he can tell me how all Churches can be one Body without one Communion This sudden Humiliation as Mr. B. calls it in being contented to learn of him makes him condescend to undertake this task to teach me but very much suspects my capacity to learn till I am better instructed by some Grammarians Metaphysical and Political Teachers what the meaning of Vnion and Communion is Ib. p. 209. what is the difference between Essentials and Integrals and Accidents and of Vnion and Communion in each of these and how many sorts of Vnion and Communion there are that are pertinent to our Case c. I do not wonder there are so few persons who understand Mr. B. or are capable of learning from him since there are so many things to be understood before-hand to prepare them for his Instructions as no man of sense can ever understand I ask Mr. B. one plain Question How the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body so as to become one Church In Answer to this he sends me to Grammarians and Metaphysicians to learn how many sorts of Union there are though I care not how many sorts of Union there are if he will tell me what the Unity of the Catholick Church is But he says 1. He cannot talk sense about these things without distinguishing about the unifying of the Society and the uniting a single Member to that Society But I suppose in my Question particular Churches already formed and particular Christians united to these Churches and only enquire how all these Christians and all these Churches are one Church Other men I believe could talk sense without these Distinctions which Mr. B. seems to be so fond of only to prevent his Readers from understanding sense 2. He must distinguish also an essentiating Vnion and an integrating or accidental Vnion and Communion I perceive we shall never come to the Business For I did not enquire wherein the essence of the Church consists or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its Being which I suppose he means by his essentiating integrating accidental Union and Communion but I suppose a thousand Churches or as many more as you please with all the Essentials Integrals Accidentals of a Church and enquire how these thousand Churches become one Church Possibly these Distinctions may be the way of speaking sense but I perceive they are not the way of speaking to the purpose But let us now consider the Account Mr. B. gives us of this Matter And 1. he says It is only essential to the Church that there be an organized Body of Pastors and People united to Christ the Head Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add one Body for that is the thing in Dispute whether Christ have one or a thousand Bodies if but one how all the Christians and Churches in the World make up that one Body 2. He adds In this Definition Christ only is the supream constitutive Summa Potestas or regent part the organized Body of Pastors and People but the Pars subdita and the Vnion of Christ and that Body maketh it a Church This is very well still We acknowledge Christ to be the supream Governour of his Church and that the Union of Pastors and People to Christ makes them a Church but the main Question still remains untouched What it is which makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but one Church Nor does his Similitude help him out which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application that I cannot let it pass His words are these As in the Constitution of Man 1. The rational Soul is the real Form which is Principium Motus 2. The organized Body is the constitutive Matter That there be Heart Liver Stomach is but the Bodies Organization that these parts be duly placed and united is Forma Corporis non Hominis and makes the Body but Materia disposita 3. The Vnion of Soul and Body is that Nexus like the Copula in a Proposition which may be called the relative Form or that which maketh the Soul become Forma in actu Had this Philosophy been known in
the Case of bad men in the Church and Schismaticks out of it Arguendum est sic foris quoà Christi est agnoscendum est c. 9. according to St. Austin is much the same only with this difference Dixerit aliquis interiora Zizania facilius in frumentum converti concedo ita esse c. 10. That he allows bad men in the Church to be in a more hopeful Condition to become good than Schismaticks are But if he will allow bad men to belong to the Church he must in some sense allow Schismaticks to do so too or else he does not fairly conclude from the Validity of Sacraments administred by bad men in the Church to the Validity of Sacraments administred by Schismaticks out of the Church 3. In Answer to that captious Question of the Donatists whether Baptism administred by them did regenerate which they would make a Mark of the true Church to beget Children to God by Baptism he does acknowledg not only their Baptism but Baptismal Regeneration but then says Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est non ex hoc unde conjuncta est Separata est enim à vinculo charitatis pacis sed adjuncta est in uno Baptismate Itaque una est Ecclesia quae sola Catholica nominatur quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum à sua unitate Separatis per hoc quod suum in eis habet ipsa utique generat non illi neque enim Separatio ecrum generat quod secum de ista tenuerunt quod si hoc dimittant omnino non generant l. 1. cap. 10. that Baptism has this Effect as it belongs to the Church not upon account of its Administration by them wherein they are separated from the Church they can do nothing but as far as they continue united as they did in the same Baptism so the Sacraments of the Church will have their Effect though their Efficacy is immediately lost in a Schism of which more presently which is a plain acknowledgment that Schismaticks are not wholly separated from the Church as retaining something which belongs to the Church And this he confirms by a mystical Interpretation of the Stories of Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael and says that the Church bears Children not only by her self but by her Maids conceived by the Divine Seed of the Sacraments l. 1. c. 10. Ergo ipsa generat per uterum suum per uterum ancillarumex ejusdem Sacramentis tanquam ex viri sui semine which how fanciful soever it may seem to be shews what St. Austin's Opinion was that Schismaticks themselves did in some sense belong to the Church 4. But then lest any man should think that it is no great hurt to separate from the Unity of the Church if Schismaticks may retain the Faith and Sacraments of the Church St. Austin adds That though Schismaticks may have the Sacraments of the Church yet they are not available to Salvation in a Schism They have Baptism and give Baptism Non recte foris habetur tamen habetur sic non recte foris datur tamen datur sicut autem per unitatis reconciliationem incipit utiliter haberi quod extra Ecclesiam inutiliter habebatur sic per eandem reconciliationem incipit utile esse quod extra illam inutiliter datum est Aug. de oapt l. 1. cap. 1. but without any profit or advantage and therefore he exhorts the Donatists and in them all other Schismaticks not to be puffed up with a Conceit of what they have but to consider what they want and how many great and excellent things profit nothing when one thing is wanting and that this one thing is Charity which principally consists in preserving Catholick Communion without which whatever they have besides cannot procure their Admission into Heaven And therefore when the Donatists pressed him with that Difficulty since he acknowledged Baptism as administred by them to be true Christian Baptism Non extolluntur ex his quae habent quid tantum per ea quae sana sunt superbos oculos ducunt Et vulnus tuum dignentur humiliter intueri nec solum quid assit sed etiam quid desit attendunt videant quam multa quam magna nihil possint si unum quidem desuerit videant qaid siti sum unum Charitatem utique non habendo etiam cum illis omnibus quae nihil eis prosunt ad aeternam salutem pervenire non possunt Ibid. cap. 9. which ought not to be repeated whether this Baptism did wash away sin For if it did then they were the true Church wherein alone Remission of sin is to be had if it did not then it is not true Christian Baptism and so those who were Baptized by the Donatists ought not to be received into the Catholick Church without Baptism St. Austin answers this two ways either 1. That Baptism though administred by Donatists being not their Baptism but the Baptism of Christ Ib. cap. 11. 12. and the Christian Church had its effect in ipso temporis puncto in the instant of its Administration to wash away sins but that the Guilt of these sins did immediately return again the Baptized Person continuing in his Schism or 2. That the Schism of the Person Baptized did hinder the efficacy of Baptism as any other sin does for the Grace of Baptism is given only to Persons who are qualified to receive it and if any such Persons offer themselves to Baptism who live in any sin unrepented of their sins are not washed away in Baptism though they receive it in the Communion of the Church But yet when they repent of their sins they are not to be rebaptized but then receive that Grace and Pardon by vertue of their former Baptism which their Hypocrisie and Impenitence hindred them of when they were baptized Thus it is with those who are baptized in a Schism their sins are not washed away by Baptism because their Schism suspends the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament but when they return to the Communion of the Church then their Baptism proves a true Laver of Regeneration From hence we easily learn what St. Austin's Judgment was in this Controversie For 1st Though he would not own That Schismaticks in a proper sense had any Church there being but one Catholick Church to which the Name of Church does properly belong as Optatus also asserts That the Churches of Schismaticks appear to be Churches but are not nor 2ly would he allow them to be Members of the Catholick Church whose Communion they have forsaken Illud quale esl ideo putetur baereticus non habere Raptismum quia non habet Ecclesiam Aug. de bapt l. 5. cap. 20. and therefore says they are out of the Church and denies that Catholicks and Schismaticks have the same Church Ita ergo potest Haereticus Catholicus Baptisma unum babere
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
mention the Country-Conformist who is such an insignificant Appendage and Hanger-on as a silly flie is to a Wheel though possibly he may have no more wit than to fancy that he has raised all this dust and stir They charge me with advancing a Cassandrian design and promoting an Union with the Church of Rome rather than with Protestant Dissenters And to insinuate the belief of this into his Readers Mr. Lob endeavours to prove that Arch-Bishop Laud had this design in his head but what is this to me I am no Arch-Bishop yet and greatly suspect I never shall be if he can prove that the Arch-Bishop died like a Papist or a Phanatick with a lye in his mouth or that he attempted any reconciliation with the Church of Rome which is not consistent with the Principles or Practices of the Primitive Church I think he was very much to blame for it and am very glad he did not perfect his Design but could a Reconciliation be obtained upon the principles of Primitive and Catholick Christianity accursed be the man who would hinder this Union which I would be glad to effect not only with shedding my Blood once but if it were possible a thousand times with all the Scorn and Obloquies of the most virulent Phanaticks into the Bargain But whatever Mr. Lob may fancy I look upon this as a very hopeless and impractible design and never had such a vain Conceit in my head while I was a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iting the late Defence and had any one Whispered such an accusation in my Ear without at the same time shewing the folly and weakness of the Charge I should have been more puzzled to have found out the Rise and Occasion of it than to have answered all the Cavils against the Church of England which I have ever yet seen But though I knew nothing of a Cassandrian Design yet my Adversaries have found me out and if we will believe Mr. Lob I am got at least as far as France in my Journey to Rome surely there is some Conjuring in the Case for I don't know that ever I went a step beyond Canterbury But this is a Cause which will not bear an Ignoramus and therefore I must defend my self as well as I can and in order to that I shall 1. briefly represent the Doctrine of the Defence with respect to the Unity of Church-power and Government whereon this Charge of Cassandrianism is founded 2. Consider what the Doctrine of Cassander was in this matter 3. Examine the Arts my Adversaries have used to pervert the Sense of my words to turn them into Non-sense and Ridicule and to draw me head-long into the Popish Plot. 1. As for the first in order to prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I asserted that all the Bishops of the Church are but one 〈◊〉 invested with the same Power and Authority to Govern the Church that as St. Cyprian tells us Defence of the unreas of Separation p. 208. There is but one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power That all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual advice and consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge as Optatus calls it whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends for it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors or Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert one Episcopacy as well as one Church one Evangelical Priesthood as well as one Altar all the World over But to make this as plain as possibly I can that every one may understand it who will I shall reduce the whole state of this Controversie under some few heads 1. There is but one Episcopacy because all the Bishops of the Catholick Church have originally the same Authority and Power in Church Affairs no one has the whole but each of them has a part and equal share and therefore they are called the Episcopal Colledge and a copious Body of Bishops as all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church not because they ever do or ought to meet together for Advice and Counsel and Acts of Government from all parts of the World no more than the Catholick Church does for Acts of Worship but because they are and ought to be in Communion with each other they have all the same Power and Authority which must be exercised in one Communion 2. Though all Bishops have a Relation to the whole Church every Bishop being a Bishop of the Catholick Church yet the Rules of Order and good Government and the Edification of the Church require that the Exercise of this Power be in ordinary Cases limited and confined to a certain Part which we call a particular Church for as no particular Bishop can Instruct and Govern the Catholick Church no more than he can be in all parts of the World at the same time so every Bishop will be capable of exercising his Office to the best Advantage when his Care is confined to a certain Place and particular Church and every particular Church is likely to receive the greatest Benefit from the Care and Inspection of a fixed Pastor and Bishop 3. That the same Rules of Order and Government require that every Bishop have the chief Power of Government in his own Diocess for if every Bishop had Authority as often as he pleased to intermeddle in another Bishops Diocess and order the Affairs of his Church it must needs cause great Confusion and Distraction in all Churches and make the People very uncertain whom they are to obey and therefore it has been the constant Practice of the Apostles and all succeeding Ages to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them 4. But yet the Power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so Absolute and Independent but that he is bound to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and Fellow-Bishops for this is the Foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church and therefore he who causelesly breaks this Unity can be no Catholick Bishop and this is the Foundation of all those greater Combinations of Churches and that Authority which is regularly exercised over particular Bishops by their Colleagues For
Logick and I do not wonder he was so often too hard for St. Matthew Hales as he himself tells us in his late additional remarks on the Life of that excellent Person whose Name and Memory is Martyred by such Historians for I think few men of understanding can deal with him But the plain English of all these hard words and Metaphysical subtilty is no more but this That in every Society there is something which makes it such a kind of Society which in allusion to Natural beings he calls the Form of it That a Political Body being a Society under one supreme Government the supreme Power must be the Form of it and therefore the National Church being a Political Society considered as a Church must have a supreme constitutive Regent Head as the Form of it The result of which reasoning is this that if the Church be such a Political Society as has a supreme Regent Head on Earth which I always denyed then it must have a supreme Regent Head Which if Mr. B. calls Disputing and Proving I suppose no body else will But this will be better understood by considering Mr. B's Reasons to prove this supreme Regent Power to be the constitutive Form of the Church which follow in the same place and are these 1. If the summa Potestas of the Church be not the constitutive Form then the Church is not a Society univocally so called as all other Political Societies are but is Equivocally called a Politie i. e. then the Church is not a Political Society with one constitutive Regent Head which I readily grant and see no inconvenience in it Though Mr. B. cunningly supposes in his Argument what he knows I denyed him that there is such a summa Potestas or supreme Regent Power over the whole Church and then indeed it were absurd to deny a constitutive Regent Head 2. Then a Bishop is no constitutive part of a Diocesan Church nor a Metropolitan of a Metropolitan Church nor a Patriarch of a Patriarchal Church nor any summa Potestas of any Church or else the Catholick and these are not univocally called Churches The Force of which reasoning is this that if there be not a supreme Regent Head over the whole Church there cannot be such a superior Governor over any part of the Church A Bishop cannot govern his own Church unless one Bishop or Colledge of Bishops be a supreme constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church For as for Metropolitans and Patriarchs I never owned their original Right to such a Superiority but ascribe it to Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are very justifiable and of great use to the Preservation of Catholick Communion And I do not see what inconvenience there is in granting that a particular and the Catholick Church are not univocally called Churches that is are not in the same sense called a Church any more than in saying that a Part and the Whole are not in the same sense called the Body of a man for the Whole contains all the Parts and a Part is only a Part of the Whole All the particular Churches in the World are univocally called Churches as being under the Government of their respective Pastors in obedience to the Laws and Institutions of our Saviour the only universal Bishop of his Church but the Catholick Church is called a Church from the Union of all particular Churches not only to Christ the supreme Regent Head of the Church but to each other in one Catholick Communion 3. If the summa Potestas be not a constitutive part of the Church Catholick it is no essential Part unless by this summa Potestas over the whole Church he means Christ which alters the state of the Question of which more presently it is so far from being an essential part of the Church Catholick that it is no part at all there being no such supreme Power over the whole Church But if so the Church must be defined without it and why do they not give us such a Definition and tell us what is the constitutive Form of it if this be not None so blind as those who will not see How often have I told him what it is which makes the Catholick Church one Catholick Church which is the constitutive Form he enquires after viz. not one Superior Power over the whole Church but one Communion 4. And then he that denyeth this summa Potestas and separateth from it denyeth or separateth from nothing essential to the Church very right Why then do they make obedience essential to a Member Obedience to what To one supreme Regent Head over the Church Who are they that make such obedience necessary to a Member Or may not every Christian be bound to obey his spiritual Guides and Pastors unless there be one supreme Regent Head over the Catholick Church Now whatever Lawyers and men acquainted with the common Terms of Law and Politicks to whom Mr. B. appeals may think of such Disputes as these I am confident be they what they will if they be men of sense they will pity the drudgery of answering such trifling Cavils Though I am glad to hear Mr. B. own it as a thing beyond Dispute that a King is the constitutive Head that is the supreme Regent Head of his Kingdom without whose supreme Government it is not a Kingdom Mr. B. proceeds But saith this Doctor It s original constitution differs from secular Forms of Government by that ancient Church-canon of our Saviours own decreeing it shall not be so among you which I alleadged to prove that the Church could not be a Political Society in Mr. B's notion of it with a supreme constitutive Regent Power over the whole To which Mr. B. answers There is some hope in this Citation It seems he thinks that by these words Christ forbad any constitutive Supreme under him in his Church Yes verily I do think so Why then does the man so fiercely dispute for it against it he means surely for that I have professedly done but never disputed for it yet If there be none we are agreed In good time why then does he and Mr. H. so rudely scorn and deride the Dean as one who has betrayed the Church by denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head I may be a young Doctor as he pleasantly adds but I perceive he grows so old that forgets what he is for or against But he is unwilling this should be my meaning because this spoils his Notion of a Political body and therefore spitefully insinuates what he says he will not impute to me that I speak of a Politie that hath the Power of the Sword and yet immediately after this Complement he pawns his own understanding for it that I must mean so I will therefore rather conclude that if he know what he saith I am uncapable of knowing rather than impute this to him or else that he takes it to be no Policy that hath not the Power of the Sword Let the
between all these divided and separate Churches 1. That they are all united under the King as the constitutive Regent Head of the National Church And this I grant makes them all legal Churches as he speaks or legal parts of the Church but it does not make them one Church You may as well say that England Scotland and Ireland are one Kingdom because they are united under one Prince or that all the Corporations in England are one National Corporation though they have distinct Charters and different Priviledges and Immunities Nothing is National but what extends to the whole Nation and where several Churches are established by Law there can be no one National Church though they be all under the Government of the same Prince because there is no one Church-Constitution for all the Churches in the Nation to be governed by which is the notion of a National Church in the sense we now speak of 2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches is by the King 's Ecclesiastical Officers whom he calls Bishops who have an equal supervising care of them all Their work in general being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses that they all walk according to their own Order agreeable to the Gospel and to the Peace of one another Now that this cannot make them one National Church will appear from these Considerations 1. That these Bishops though they may be Ecclesiastical Persons yet are not properly Ecclesiastical but Civil Officers they act not by an Ecclesiastical Authority but are Ministers of the Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs as I have already shewn and therefore if their Union under one Prince cannot make them one Church much less can their Union under the King's Ministers 2. Suppose they were true Primitive Bishops yet where there are separate Churches in any Diocess they cannot all live in Communion with their Bishop and therefore cannot be one Church For Communion with the Bishop is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church as I have proved in the Defence Defence p 469. c. A supervising Power not to govern the Church according to his own Judgment and Conscience but to see that they govern themselves according to their own Forms and Models is no Episcopal Authority much less any Act of Church-Communion Those only communicate with their Bishop who submit to his Pastoral Authority and partake with him in all Religious Offices and those who do not according to the notion of the Catholick Church are Schismaticks and therefore not of the same Church with him It is a very different thing to be a meer Visitor and a Bishop and it is as different a thing to be in Communion with a Bishop and to be subject to the Visitations of the King 's Ecclesiastical Minister and therefore a supervising Power cannot make those one Church who are of different Communions 3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take to make some leading Dissenters Bishops it is still more evident that they could in no sense make a National Church because the Bishops of the Church would be of different Communions For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another which unite all their Churches into a National Patriarchal Ibid. cap. 7. 8. or Catholick Church as I have proved in the Defence This is abundantly enough to shew that Mr. H.'s Episcopal Visiters cannot make a National Church 4. Another way Mr. H. proposes to unite all these Churches into one National Church is by the Vertue of occasional Communion That when a man hath his choice to be of one Church which he will in regard to fixed Communion he should occasionally come also to the other for maintaining this National Vnion But 1. No occasional Acts of Communion can unite Churches of distinct and separate Communions To be in Communion with a Church is to be a member of it no man ought to communicate with any Church of which he is not a Member and no Acts of Communion can unite Churches which do not make them Members of each other as I have also proved in the Defence and therefore such occasional Acts of Communion Ibid. p 132 c can contribute nothing to a National Union 2. Of what nature shall this occasional Communion be Shall they communicate in all Acts of Worship or only hear a Sermon now and then together If in all Acts of Worship why should there be distinct Communions at any time Why cannot he communicate always with that Church with which he can communicate in all Acts of Worship some times If our occasional Communion be only in some few less material Acts this makes no Union of Churches for if there be any Acts of Worship wherein they can at no time communicate with each other no man will say such Churches are united in one Communion 3. What is the meaning of this should would Mr. H. have an Act of Parliament to enjoyn this occasional Communion and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity For it requires Uniformity sometimes and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful why should it not be made always necessary If Mr. H. by should only intimates what he would have them do what then if they won't notwithstanding his should What will become of this National Union then This occasional Communion is either necessary to this National Union or it is not If it be not necessary why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for National Union If it be how will he prove that all Dissenters will occasionally communicate with each other and with the Church of England 3. Mr. H.'s project for Union will cure no one Schism and therefore can make no Union This is evident from what I have already discours'd for if it cannot make one Church it cannot cure the Schism where there are two distinct and separate Churches which are not Members of each other there is a Schism for Church-Unity consists in one Communion as I have abundantly proved in the Defence Defence chap. 4. Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be confirmed by Act of Parliament it would be neither better nor worse than either an Universal or a limited Toleration as they can agree that matter among themselves established by Law Nay should such an Act declare that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church the Power of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words but it cannot alter the Nature of things They would still be as many Churches as they are now but could never be one Church though they might be called a National Church as that may be made to signifie all the Churches of professed Christians in the Nation established by Law Such an Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from temporal Punishments and might deliver them from the sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors but the guilt of Schism will remain still unless he thinks that the Donatists were not Schismaticks when Julian the
dying Cause like the works and doublings of a Hare when she is near run down to lose the Scent For this is the constant Artifice of these men when they are no longer able to defend their Cause to start aside and by one Art or other to loose their first Question in some new Dispute Thus Mr. B. tells us for a Conclusion I intend God willing hereafter to let the Matters of meer Conformity comparatively alone and farther to examine this fundamental Difference seeing it is evident that now Satan's design is to call the French Popery by the name of the Protestant Religion Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 230. and the Protestant Religion of the true Church of England by the name of Non-conformity and Schism and to deceive the simple by a noise against the refusers of Episcopacy Liturgy and Ceremonies but that noise shall no more divert me from opposing the Foundations of Popery And I mightily commend the prudence of Mr. Baxter's Resolution for it is an easier matter to pull down a man of Clouts of his own setting up then to uphold such a decayed and ruinous Cause But I am resolved not to lose the Cause thus and therefore shall beat a little backward till we find it again and shall 1. mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion 2. Give a brief Account of the Doctrine of the defence in those Points and consider their Cavils and Exceptions against it and those perverse senses they put upon my words to form them into a Cassandrian design § 1. I shall mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse concerning Church-Unity and Communion whereby they may the better judge of the Nature and Tendancy of it Now there were two things I apparently designed in it 1. To shew how vain all those projects were of uniting Churches without curing their Separation such as Mr. Humphrey's is of making all separate Churches parts of the National Church by vertue of an Act of Parliament under the King as the Accidental Head of such an Accidental Church For if the Church must be but one and the Unity of this one Church consists in one Communion it is impossible in the nature of the thing for all the power in the World to make so many separate Churches one Church The supreme Power may grant equal Liberties and Priviledges in the Common-wealth to all these separate Churches but it can no more make them one than it can make Contradictions to be true the sin and evil of Separation still remains the removal of which is the only thing that makes Union so desirable and if an Act of Parliament could do this I confess the Proposal would be considerable If the evil and sinfulness of Separation consisted only in disobedience to humane Laws I should think it a barbarous thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare men in so great a guilt And it is impossible in such an Age as this which is distracted with so many different and contrary Perswasions to make any Laws about Religion which will meet with an universal compliance But if the evil of Separation consists in dividing the unity of the Church which no Laws can cure but those which cure Separation Mr. Humphrey's uniting Law can give no ease and security to the Souls and Consciences of men whatever it may do to their Liberties and Estates And I take the Souls of men to be of greater concernement than their Bodies and Estates and therefore should challenge the principal regard from consciencious men in their Projects of Union 2. Another design of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion was to give us the most plain and easie Notion of Schism and Separation which Mr. B. and some other late Writers have industriously endeavoured to confound that no body might know what it is Now if there be but one Catholick Church all the World over then every Separation is a Schism on one side or other for where there are two separate Churches one if not both must be schismatical because there is but one Church And if the Unity of this Church consists in one Communion which exacts a joynt discharge of all the Duties of a Church-relation in hearing and praying and receiving the Lord's Supper c. together then to forsake the Church and meet in private Conventicles in distinct and opposite Communions for Religious Worship is Separation and when it is causeless is a Schism as I particularly proved in the defence from St. Cyprian Defence p. 24◠and St. Augustin this was the ancient Notion of Schism But if there be more than one Church and one Communion if the Catholick Church consist of all the separate Churches all the World over Answer to Dr. Sherlock p. 132. as Mr. Baxter asserts I would gladly know what Schism and Separation is which hath so ill a Character in Scripture and which the ancient Fathers so vehemently declaim against as one of the greatest Impieties such a wickedness as Martyrdom it self cannot expiate For if there be not one Church but a great many Churches of distinct and separate Communions those Christians who forsake one Church and form themselves into a new Church society cannot be said to divide the Church but to multiply it they become a distinct Church by themselves and if they retain all the Essentials of Christian Faith and Worship are as good and sound a part of the Catholick Church as that particular Church is from which they separate For when there is no obligation upon Christians to live in one Communion what should hinder them if they please from dividing into many If there be more Churches and Communions than one he who forsakes one Church and joyns in Communion with another cannot be said to go or to be out of the Church but only to remove from one Church to another and yet this was the ancient Character of a Schismatick that he was Extra Ecclesiam foris one who is out of the Church without doors Cypr. de imitate and is said de ecclesia recedere to go out of the Church But according to this Notion it is impossible for a man to go out of the Church unless he forsake the Communion of all the Churches in the World Nay if Church-unity does not consis tin one Communion he may do that too as Mr. B. says the Seekers do and yet while they believe in Christ continue members of the Catholick Church Take away the Notion of one Communion and there are but two things that I can think of whereon to found the charge of Schism and Separation Either 1. on a private Contract and Covenant between the Pastor and Members of a particular Church or 2. on the Authority of the Magistrate who enjoyns us to communicate with such a Church But now I observe first that the Notion of Schism was antecedent to both these The ancient Church knew no other Church-covenant but Baptism which obliges us
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
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
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
the whole Church and as he observes I assert in another place That every Bishop Ib. p. 11. Presbyter or Deacon by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholick Church That every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholick Church by Baptism and shuts out of the Catholick Church by Excommunication which they could not do if they were not Ministers of the Catholick Church but does this make every Bishop an universal Monarch that he is a Bishop of the universal Church Orwillâ— Mr. Lob deny that Bishops or Presbyters have a Relation to the universal Church If they be Ministers of the Church and there be but one Church they must be Ministers of the Catholick Church for particular Churches are not Churches but considered as Members of the Catholick Church and therefore the primary Relation of all Catholick Christians and Catholick Bishops is to the Catholick Church This proves indeed that the whole Catholick Church is but one Body and one Communion but it does not prove that there is but one supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. That the ordinary Power of a particular Bishop or the Exercise of the Episcopal Office is confined to a certain place or particular Church which certainly does not make them the ordinary Governors of the whole universal Church 3. I assert That though the Exercise of their Episcopal Power is ordinarily confined to a particular Church yet they continue their Relation to the whole Church that is in their Government of their particular Churches they act as Bishops and Ministers of the universal Church for they are Bishops of particular Churches not considered meerly as particular but as Members of the universal Church And if Mr. Lob meant no more but this by making the universal Church the first Seat of Government that all the Power in the Church primarily respects the universal Church though as it is distributed into different hands the Exercise of it is confined to particular Places and Churches I readily own the Charge and may do so safely without making the Church such an organized Political Body as has one Constitutive Regent Head over the Whole 4. I assert farther That Bishops being Ministers of the Catholick Church when Necessity that is when the preservation of the Catholick Faith or Catholick Communion require it may with one consent oppose the Heresie or Schisms of neighbour Bishops depose those who are incorrigible and Ordain others in their stead and as far as it is possible take care that no part of the Church of Christ suffer any injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of their Colleagues And if Mr. Lob will hence infer that every Bishop has an original Right to govern the whole universal Church he must have a Logick by himself or some great flaw in his Understanding or Conscience Every Bishop is a Bishop of the universal Church and therefore as far as the Rules of good Order and Government Catholick Peace and Communion and the possibility of things will permit he may exercise his Episcopal Office in any part of the Christian Church but this does not give him an original Right to govern the whole Church 2. Mr. Lob observes Ib. p. 11. that I say The Catholick Church is united and coupled by the Cement of Bishops who stick close together for which I produce Cyprian and therefore I hope there is no Popery in this unless St. Cyprian also were a Cassandrian or French Papist For may not Bishops stick close together in one Communion unless there be a supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Church Or can the Church be one unless the Bishops who are the supreme Ecclesiastical Governors of their several Churches be one also 3. But I assert that the Vnity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent Therefore not by one Constitutive Regent Head But he says I mention Collegium Episcopale or Episcopal Colledge So indeed I observed Optatus called the whole Body of Bishops and upon the same account St. Cyprian and St. Austin calls them Colleagues But this Episcopal Colledge he says He takes to be a Council of Bishops But that is his mistake and a very silly one it is and he might as well conclude that when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy they mean their Union in a general Council In St. Cyprian's time there never had been a general Council excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem and yet when he writ to Forraign Bishops with whom he was never joyned in Council nor ever like to be he calls them his Colleagues or those of the same Colledge with him which signifies no more but that they were of the same Power and Authority in the Church and united in the same Communion And yet Mr. Lob takes hold of this Phrase of the Episcopal Colledge to make me expresly assert the supreme Authority of general Councils p. 12. That every part of the universal Church is under the government of the universal Bishops assembled in their Colledge or in Council Which Sentence he very honestly puts into a different Character that it may be taken for mine and makes it a distinct head of accusation when I never writ nor thought any such thing but this is the dealing we must expect from those men whose Understandings and Consciences are formed only to serve a party Well but these Bishops have an original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church this has been considered already only he adds an untoward i. e. which is such another honest Exposition as turning an Episcopal Colledge into a Council For i. e. says Mr. Lob The Forraign Bishops as those of Alexandria and Rome c. have an original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church a Right and Power in relation to England Now this is very true in the sense in which I assert it The Bishop of Rome and Alexandria have such a relation to the Church of England and so have all the Bishops in the World that if they live in the same Communion with us and should come over into England with the leave of English Bishops they might exercise their Episcopal Office in any Church in England as Polycarp consecrated in the Church of Anicetus at Rome A Catholick Bishop does not lose his Character by going out of his own Church but is a Bishop in what part of the World soever he be and therefore may exercise his Episcopal Office as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Christian Communion and with the Rights and Jurisdiction of other Bishops Nay were there nothing else to alter the Case but only the local distance between Rome and England and Alexandria the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria might admonish and censure the English Bshops in case they fell into Heresie or Schism and deny them Communion in case of obstinacy or incorrigibleness and so may the English Bishops admonish
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
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
Administration of Baptism by Hereticks if it have any force must prove also that they forfeit their own and from those Answers he returns to many Difficulties wherewith he was prest we may learn his Judgment in our present Dispute in what sense Hereticks and Schismaticks belong to the Church which will give some light also to St. Austin's whole Dispute with the Donatists which I hope will not be ungrateful to an inquisitive Reader As 1. One great Difficulty is How those who are not in the Church can administer those Sacraments which belong particularly to the Church How there can be the same common Sacraments to those who are in the Church and to those who are out of it To which he answers that though Schismaticks do forsake the Communion of the Church yet they do not forsake the Church in every thing In quo enim nobiscum sentiunt in eo etiam nobiscum sunt in eo autem à nobis recesserunt in quo à nobis dissentiunt si ergo qui recessit abunitate aliud aliquid agere voluerit quà m quod in unitate percepit in eo recedit disjungitur quod autem ita vult agere ut in unitate agitur ubi hoc accepit didicit in eo manet atque conjungitur August de bapt l. 1. cap. 1. and as much as they retain of the Church so much they belong to it and whatever they find of the Church among Schismaticks they are bound to approve and allow though done in a Schism and therefore they dare not reject the Baptism of Schismaticks when Persons so Baptized return to the Communion of the Church so that though St. Austin will not allow Schismaticks to be in the Catholick Church whose Communion they have forsaken yet they retaining something which belongs to the Church Vt ergo utraque Sententia vera sit sicut vera est illa ubi ait qui non est mecum adversum me est qui mecum non colligit spargit illa ubi ait nolite prohibere qui enim contra vos non est pro vobis est quid restat inteligendum nisi quia ille in tanti nominis veneratione confirmandus fuit ubi non erat contra Ecclesiam sed pro Ecclesia in illa tamen separatione bulpandus ubi si colligeret spargeret si forte veniret ad Ecclesiam non illud quod babebat ibi acciperet sed in quo aberraverat emendaret Ib. cap. 7. the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments they still have some relation to the Church and are not to be accounted Heathens and Infidels and to this he applies that saying of our Saviour He that is not against us is with us that is he is so far with us as he is not against us and therefore is not to be rejected in every thing he does but only in those things wherein he departs from us And therefore though Schismaticks are not in the Church as having forsaken the Communion of it yet so far as their Faith and Worship is truly Christian they must be acknowledged to belong to the visible Church as the visible professors of Christianity Thus St. Austin thinks the vessels of Honour and the vessels of Dishonour by which the Apostle means such Hereticks or Separatists as Hymeneus and Philetus 2 Tim. 2. may be said to be in the same House Dicit Apostolus Paulus de quibusdam qui circa veritatem aberraverant fidem quorundam subvertebant quos cum evitandos esse diceret in una tamen domo magna eos fuisse significat sed tanquam vasa in contumeliam credo quod nondum foris exierant aut si jam exierant quomodo eos dicit in eadem magna domo cum vasis honorabilibus nisi forte propter ipsa Sacramenta Ib. l. 3. cap. 19. upon account of the same Sacraments 2. Sometimes he seems to make Schismaticks to belong to the Church as other wicked men do who have not forsaken the visible Communion of it for otherwise I cannot understand his Answer to that great Objection against the Baptism of Schismaticks that Schism is so great a Sacriledge and Impiety and Schismaticks such Rebels against Christ that we cannot think he will approve their Baptism that they are Carnal and therefore cannot give the Spirit which is conferred in Baptism Nunquid ergo ad eandem columbam pertinent omnes avari de quibus in eadem Catholica graviter idem Cyprianus ingenuit nam ut opinor raptores non columbae sed accipitrices dici possunt quomodo ergo Baptizabant qui fundes insidiosis fraudibus capiebant c. Ib. l. 3. cap. 17. to which he commonly answers That the Case is much the same with reference to Baptism administred by bad men in the Church those who are Carnal Covetous Unjust c. And therefore he makes Hereticks and Schismaticks to be only Pseudo-Christiani or false and counterfeit Christians as all bad men are and bad men no more to belong to the Church than Schismaticks do Those who are Enemies to brotherly love Hujus autem fraternae charitatis inimici sive aperte foris sint sive intus esse videantur Pseudo-Christiani sunt Antichristi cum intus videntur ab illa invisibili charitatis compage Separati sunt Ib. cap. 19. whether they be without as Schismaticks are or seem to be within as those who still live in visible Catholick Communion they are all counterfeit Christians and Antichrists And therefore he must allow Schismaticks in some sense to belong to the Church as other bad men do they have indeed made a more visible and open Separation from the Church Si nihil potest ratum firmum esse apud Deum quod illi faciunt quos Dominus hostes adversarios suos esse dicit cur firmus est Baptismus quem tradunt homicidae An hostes adversarios domini non dicimus homicidas qui autem odit fratrem snum homicida est l. 5. cap. 21. but yet have not renounced Christianity And therefore he observes that if those who are without cannot have any thing that belongs to Christ Hoc tamen puto me non temere dicere si foris nemo potest habere aliquid quod Christi est nec intus quisquam potest habere aliquid quod Diaboli est si enim hortus ille clausus potuit habere spinas Diaboli cur non extra hortum potuit manare fons Chrisli Ib. l. 4. cap. 7. neither can those who are within have any thing that belongs to the Devil for if this enclosed Garden may have the Thorns and Thistles of the Devil grow in it why may not the fountain of Christ flow without the Garden in which he alludes to the Rivers of Paradice which did not only water the Garden but divided themselves into all the World as he discourses elsewhere Sicut ergo intus quod Diaboli est 〈◊〉 So that
the Pope of Rome and all Communion with him are these men Papists or not If they be then it seems that those who renounce the Pope may be Papists still and then let Mr. Lob and his Friends look to themselves who are in as fair a way of being Papists as any men I know notwithstanding their renouncing the Pope of Rome and General Councils if they be not Papists then they are not French Papists unless French Papists be no Papists But Mr. Lob if he had been at all acquainted with these Matters would easily have perceived that all who plead for the supreme Authority of General Councils do not therein renounce the Authority of the Pope of Rome and therefore are Papists still call them French or Cassandrian Papists or what you please and that those who renounce the Authority and all dependance on the Pope can be no Papists how zealous soever they are for the Authority of General Councils It were easie to discourse largely upon this Argument but a few plain Proofs are as good as a thousand Mr. Lob instances in the Councils of Constance and Basil but if he had ever seen more than the Names of those Councils he would have found how little they served his purpose I grant they do decree that a General Council is above the Pope in determining Matters of Faith in composing Schisms and in reforming the Church in its Head and Members but still they attribute such a soveraign Authority to the Bishop of Rome as no Power on Earth can equal or match but only a General Council This is so evident and notorious that whoever casually opens these Councils can hardly miss of something to this purpose and therefore I shall only produce two or three plain and undeniable Proofs of it and refer my Readers who desire farther satisfaction to the Councils themselves When Amedeus the Duke of Savoy who called himself Felix the 5th was elected Pope by the Council of Basil they call his Office summus Apostolatus the chief Apostleship or the supreme Bishoprick Declarans eidem Electo tanquam unico vero indubitato ecclesiae Romanae Pastori ab omnibus Christi sidelibus de necessitate salutis obediendum fore debere obediri ac eisdem Christi sidelibus quacunque etiamsi Imperiali Cardinalatus Patriarchali Regali Pontificali Abbatiali seu alia quavis ecclesiaslica vel mundana prefulgiant dignitate Concil Basil sess 40. and declare to all Christian People that they must obey him as the only the true the undoubted Pastor of the Roman Church under the necessity of Salvation and that whatever their Rank and Quality be Emperors Cardinals Patriarchs Kings Bishops Abbots or whatever other Ecclesiastical or Civil Honour or Power they enjoy They acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to have the executive Ecclesiastical Power in his hands Romanus Pontifex decretorum bujufmodi Executer Conservator precipuus Ib. sess 42. summi pontificatus apicem and call the Popedom the Top of Ecclesiastical Power and Nicholas the 5th who after all this stir Libenter secundum nostrae Apostolicae authoritatis plenitudinem Bulla Nicolai Papae 5. in Conc. Bas was owned Pope by this Council in his Bull of Confirmation of the Council of Basil attributes to himself a fulness and plenitude of Power But to put this out of doubt the Council it self has adjusted this Dispute about the Authority of the Pope and a General Council for after some debate about this Matter it concludes Who now can doubt of the Power of Councils Quis jam de potestate Corciliorum super omnes alias potestates ambigere poterit tot irrefragabilibus testimoniis comprobata ex his manifeste constat anctoritates quas de summi porestate Pontificis allegastis non probare quo minus ipse Pontifex mandetis universalis ecclesiae Concilii generalis obedire teneatur sed id duntaxat probant quod omnes singulares homines particulares ecclesiae ipsi Pontifici obedire debent nisi in his quae huic sacrae synodo cuilibet alteri legitimè congregatae praejudicium generent concil Basil responsio synodalis de auctor Concil General being Superior to all other Powers which has been proved by such irrefragable Testimonies from whence it manifestly appears that those Authorities which have been alleadged for the Power of the Supream Bishop do not prove that the Pope himself is not bound to obey the Decrees of the Vniversal Church or General Council but they prove only this that all particular men and particular Churches are bound to obey the Pope unless in such Matters as are prejudicial to this Holy Synod or any other which is lawfully assembled This is sufficient to inform Mr. Lob that men may assert the Authority of General Councils and yet if they reject the Authority of the Bishop of Rome they are not Papists nor true Catholicks in the sense of the Councils of Constance and Basil both which ascribe the soveraign Authority to the Pope in the vacancies of Councils and command all men under pain of Damnation even Emperors Patriarchs Princes Prelates to obey him in all things which are not derogatory to the Decrees or Authority of general Councils But it may be the French Church has proceeded farther in retrenching the Authority of the Pope than the Council of Constance or Basil did and therefore since Mr. Lob talks so much of French Papists I shall briefly shew his skill in this also I presume Petrus de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris who writ in Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church is a good competent Witness in this Matter and yet in his Book de Concordia sacerdotii Imperii which met with so many Censures at Rome and so difficultly passed the Test and kept him so long out of his Bishoprick he asserts the Authority of the Pope much higher than cither of those Councils and to shorten my Work I shall only set down some Propositions which he himself collected out of his Book in answer to the Roman Censure 1. 1 Supremam in rebus ecclesiasticis authoritatem per Gallias exerâ—aisse Komanum pontificem judiciis ad relationes appellationes redditis ab eo tempore quo fides Christiana in Galliis floruit ad hanc usque aetatem That the Bishop of Rome has always exercised the chief Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs in the Gallican Churches ever since Christianity flourished there 2. 2. Papam jure divino esse universalis ecclesiae caput atque adeo Gallicanae quae illius est membrum That the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church by divine Right and therefore of the Gallican Church which is a Member of the Universal Church 3. 3 Generalia decreta a Romanis Pontificibus in Gallias aequè ac in reliquas provincias missa quae magno applausu ab Imperatoribus Romanis deinde à Francorum regibus post constitutum regnum usque ad hanc
is this that the belief of all Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation and therefore whoever assigns a Catalogue of Fundamentals damns all those who are of a different Opinion which therefore is a work fit only for a daring and uncharitable man or haereticating Councils as Mr. Baxter calls them Now in the same manner I may argue against the necessity of the Christian Faith it self Whoever asserts it necessary to Salvation to believe in Christ damns all Jews Pagans Mahometans and all Infidels which seems at least as hard a thing as to damn all Hereticks who bear no proportion at all to the number of Infidels and yet if the Christian Faith it self be necessary to Salvation it must be necessary to Salvation to believe some Articles of the Christian Faith for we cannot believe Christianity without believing such Articles as contain the essentials of Christian Faith which do not alter with the Prejudices Prepossessions and Capacities of men no more than Christianity it self And yet neither I nor any man else have any thing to do to pass a final Sentence either upon Infidels or Hereticks but they must stand or fall to their own Master There may be a standing rule of Faith and Manners whereby men shall be judged but how far the soveraign and uncovenanted Grace of God may dispence with this rule in equitable Cases is not my business to determine But of this more hereafter 3. I observe there are some Doctrines which if they be true must be fundamental Truths if they be false must be fundamental Errors because they alter the very Foundations of Christianity and make two very different Religions of it as I shall shew in what follows There are indeed a great many erroneous Doctrines which make great alterations in the Scheme of Religion as all the Antinomian Doctrines do which yet I cannot call fundamental Errors because they make no essential difference in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is the great Fundamental of Christianity as you shall see more presently every erroneous Doctrine does not make a new Religion though it may in a great measure observe the Glory or spoil the influence of it upon mens minds 4. I observe further that there are some Doctrines which are necessary to Catholick Communion because the denial of them makes an essential difference in Christian Worship Christian Communion is principally exercised in all the Offices of Christian Worship and those who cannot Worship God together cannot maintain Christian Communion with each other Thus the belief or denial of the sacred Trinity the incarnation of Christ the satisfaction of his death c. makes an essential alteration in most of the Acts of Christian Worship And we see to this day the very Gloria Patri is an effectual bar to the Socinians from joyning in our Communion Now that which I am principally concerned for at present is such an account of Fundamentals as is necessary to maintain Catholick Communion in the Christian World To state this matter then as plainly and briefly as I can I shall 1. endeavour to fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines and consequently of fundamental Errors 2. I shall consider the Case of those men who heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and yet entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrow Foundations and whether they may be said to err Fundamentally 3. How far and in what Cases we may Communicate with such men and Churches as believe all Fundamentals but yet profess such other erroneous Doctrines as seem to overthrow Foundations I think this is all that is necessary in order to clear this point of Catholick Communion as it respects Doctrines 1. To fix the plain notion of fundamental Doctrines now a fundamental Doctrine is such a Doctrine as is in a strict sence of the essence of Christianity A fundamental Doctrine without which the whole building and superstructure must fall The belief of which is necessary to the very being of Christianity like the first principles in any Art or Science which must be acknowledged or else there can be no such Science Now St. Paul tells us that this Foundation is Christ 1 Cor. 3.11 For other Foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ That is no man can lay any other Foundation for the Christian Religion for you destroy the Christian Religion if you leave Christ out of it And therefore the Character the same Apostle gives of Apostates from Christianity is that they hold not the Head 2 Col. 19. that is Christ And St. John makes this the sum of Christian Faith These are written 22 Joh. 31. that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name And the necessary qualification of an Apostle was to be a Witness of the Resurrection 1 Act. 22. as the last great Confirmation which was given to our Saviours Authority and the sum of St. Paul's preaching at Athens was Jesus and the Resurrection which the Philosophers of the Epicureans and Stoicks mistake for strange Gods 17 Act. 18. And the Commission Christ gave his Apostles 24 Luk. 47. was to preach Repentance and remission of Sins in his Name So that Salvation by Christ is the general fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel Take away this and you destroy the essential Character of the Christian Religion whereby it is distinguish'd from all other Religions But then as for particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith those are Fundamental which are either necessarily included in or inseparably conjoyned with this general fundamental of Salvation by Christ For we must not think it enough to believe in general that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God without a more explicite understanding of the meaning of that Proposition who this Jesus is what it is to be the Christ and the Son of God and how we are saved by him and this we must learn from the Revelations of the Gospel the more necessary connexion there is between any particular Doctrine and that great fundamental of Salvation by Christ the more necessary and fundamental it is which seems to me to be the truest and easiest Character that can be given of a fundamental Doctrine Thus far I think I am safe but it may be thought a hazardous attempt to launch out any farther or particularly to define what those particular Doctrines of Christian Religion are without which we cannot rightly believe Salvation by Christ Though I cannot see but that this may be done safely enough if we use due caution in it and I shall venture to offer something of this nature both to satisfie inquisitive men why such and such Doctrines have always been accounted fundamental by the Catholick Church and to distinguish what is fundamental from some more nice and curious speculations which is of mighty use in the present dispute about Catholick
and were immediately baptized in great numbers cannot be supposed at that time to know more and yet this was accepted from them at that time and in that state of things and by the same reason will be accepted from those who want the opportunities of better instruction And if there be any baptized and nominal Christians who do not know thus much it is a great scandal to the Christian Church but I know not how we are more concerned for their Salvation than for Pagans and Infidels But as for those who deny any fundamental Article they are got above this state of a general and implicite Faith in Christ and err not for want of instruction but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith and understand what has been and is the general Faith of Christians in such matters for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholick Doctrines it appears they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledg that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sence of the universal Church which is such unpardonable immodesty as admits of no excuse if they lose themselves in the Mazes and Labyrinths of their own making and mistake their way to Heaven And though such Persons may be otherwise very pious and useful men yet I do not see why we should deny the necessity of believing the Fundamentals of Christian Faith any more for their sakes than for the sake of devout and vertuous Jews and Heathens 2. Having thus as plainly as I can stated and notion of Fundamentals the next inquiry is concerning those Churches which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations and whether such Churches may be said to err Fundamentally I will but briefly touch on this head and though I might give too many instances of it I shall at present confine my self to the Church of Rome I know no fundamental Article of our Faith that is expresly denyed by the Church of Rome She receives all the ancient Creeds professes the Faith of the holy Trinity the Incarnation the satisfaction of Christ's death his Intercession for us at the right hand of God but then she teaches such other corrupt Doctrines as all the wit of man cannot reconcile with this Faith As to shew this briefly with reference to the satisfaction and intercession of Christ The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass which is offered for the quick and for the dead For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day which represents the Sacrifice of Christ to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law which could not take away sin nor make the comers thereunto perfect and therefore were repeated again every year Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions especially the fire of Purgatory the merits of good Works and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints which compose the Treasury of the Church and may be applyed by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary could hardly think that she did believe that there is but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus But I need not enumerate many particulars the truth of this being too evident and notorious The great Question then is this whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors for this sounds like a contradiction that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors And indeed if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article so it is plain that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors but if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines which contradict each other when the Contradiction is not in express terms but consequential For all men or Churches do not see or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts but especially in our present Dispute about Catholick Communion as will appear by considering 3. How far and in what Cases we may communicate with such a Church as believes all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and yet teaches such Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations This is a very material difference between a Church which denies any fundamental Article of Faith and a Church which believes all Fundamentals but superadds some corrupt Doctrines which in their Consequences destroy Foundations that the first is never capable of Catholick Communion because she denies Catholick Doctrine which is the necessary condition of Catholick Communion but the second in some cases may be because she retains all saving knowledg i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation though intermixt with dangerous Errors Now to state this matter how far we may communicate with such a Church as professes all the fundamental Articles of Faith but yet superadds other very corrupt and dangerous Doctrines we may consider these two things 1. I think I need not tell any man that we must not purchase the Communion of such a Church by professing our Assent to any corrupt Doctrine though it be not a fundamental Error No one Church ought thus to impose upon another nor does any Church pretend to it but only the Church of Rome Every Church is bound to preserve her own Faith as pure and perfect as she can but she has not that Authority over any other Church as to impose upon their Faith An orthodox Church may and ought to admonish neighbour Churches of any doctrinal Corruptions but must not reject their Communion for every Error though of dangerous Consequence if it be not Fundamental The belief of all fundamental Articles of Faith does mightily qualifie the evil and malignant influence of many very corrupt Doctrines which is the true reason why many men are observed to live much better than they believe because though they have entertained a great many corrupt Doctrines which