A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
contained in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal Communion by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salvation But our Questionist should have considered that to exclude from Catholick Communion is an ambiguous Phrase and may signifie two very different things 1. Not to receive those into our Communion who are willing and desirous to communicate with us and thus no man that I know of but themselves exclude Dissenters from Catholick Communion and thereby from the ordinary means of Salvation which is to be had only in the Unity of the Church Or 2. It may signifie not owning those for the Members of the Catholick Church who divide themselves from the external and visible Communion of it while they profess the same Catholick Faith If the Bishop meant this by excluding from Catholick Communion all that I shall say to it is this that he must condemn St. Cyprian Cornelius and all the Italian and African Bishops in their dayes and St. Austin Optatus and the Catholick Church in their time for excluding the Novatians and Donatists from Catholick Communion and the hope of Salvation not for any Error or Heresie in Faith but for a Schismatical Separation from the Catholick Church and I am contented to be a Schismatick in so good Company as the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's dayes But I have proved at large in the Defence P. 171 c. that the same Faith is not sufficient to make any men Catholick Christians who separate from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but this our Author did not think fit to meddle with Mr. Lob proceeds Moreover as to external Communion sayes Bramhal there are degrees of Exclusion and did I ever deny this Do I make all the Censures of the Church equal But it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or Persons from their neighbour Churches and Christians in their Innovations and Errors most certain If they be such Innovations and Errors as make their Communion sinful but every Innovation nor every Error which does not corrupt their Religious Worship is no just cause for a Separation or for waving or withdrawing Communion But of this more hereafter He adds from Bishop Bramhal Nor is there so strict and perpetual adherence required to a particular Church as there is to the universal Church But how I am concern'd in this I cannot see for by adherence to the universal Church the Bishop seems to mean adhering to the Judgment or Decrees of the universal Church assembled in a general Council which he makes the supream Authority of the Church on Earth and therefore prefers their Decrees before the Decrees or Canons of any particular Church and I agree with him so far that the Judgment of a general Council if such a Council could be had is to be preferred before the Decrees of any particular Church and ought not without some necessary and apparent Reasons be slighted or disobeyed by particular Christians or Churches though I do not make a general Council the constitutive regent Head of the Catholick Church but if by adherence Mr. Lob will understand Communion I do assert that Communion with a particular Church which is it self in Catholick Communion is as necessary as Communion with the Catholick Church and he that separates from any such Church separates and divides himself from the Catholick Church and this I shall believe till I see better Reason for the contrary Let us now consider how he urges me with the Authority of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field I assert that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion and consequently that those Christians and Churches which do not live in Catholick Communion are no Members of the Catholick Church but are out of the Church extra Ecclesiam foris according to the Language of the primitive Fathers Whereas I acknowledge he has proved by very plain Testimonies from Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field that they own all those for Christians and Members of the visible Church who profess the Faith of Christians and are baptized though they be Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters excommunicable or excommunicated Persons and therefore either Christ must have more Churches than one which I deny or the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist in one Communion as I assert for Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are not in the same Communion and yet are all Members of the visible Church I own his Citations out of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field and therefore need not repeat them and have represented the Objection with greater Advantage and Perspicuity than he has himself for I neither design to cheat my self nor to impose upon my Readers nor to perpetuate Controversies as my Adversaries do by false Representations of Things or some shuffling and sophistical Arts to put by a Blow But all this appearing Difference is not real but verbal Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field believe Schismaticks and Hereticks to be as much out of the Church as I do and I believe them to be as much in the Church as they do When Mr. Hooker asserts That all that profess the Faith of Christ whatever they be whether Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters are Members of the visible Church of Christ he understands the visible Church in a large Notion to comprehend the whole Body of profess'd Christians And therefore the Reason he assigns for it is because all Mankind are Christians or Infidels Those who believe in Christ what-ever their other Errors in Doctrine or Miscarriages in Life and Practice may be are Christians in some sense notwithstanding and therefore visible Members of the Christian Church as that comprehends all Christians but those who do not believe in Christ are Infidels Now I acknowledge as much as Mr. Hooker can do that there is a difference between a profest Christian though a Schismatick Heretick Idolater or excommunicated and an Infidel Such Persons who have been once incorporated into the Church by Baptism whatever they prove after may be restored to the Church again without being rebaptized but an Infidel cannot be admitted without Baptism which is a plain proof that the first do in some sense belong to the Body of Christ and that the other do not Baptized Christians though Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels but as wicked and apostate Christians when men are made the Members of Christ's Body by Baptism and an external profession of Christianity they can never alter this Character but shall be finally judged either condemned or rewarded as Christians and upon this account may still be said to belong to the Church of Christ Dr. Field whose Authority Mr. Lob alledges against me has plainly reconciled this appearing difference as every ordinary Reader would have seen had our Author been so honest as to have transcribed the whole Paragraph and therefore since he has only cited a part of
is a kind of middle State between the true Catholick Church and the World of Infidels They have not wholly renounced Christianity and therefore in some sense belong to the Christian Church though they are not in it There seems to be the same difference between Hereticks and Schismaticks and Catholick Christians as there is between Rebels and dutiful Subjects They are both natural Subjects to their Prince as being born in his Territories and under the same Oaths of Allegiance Rebels are not Aliens and Foreigners but Subjects still Thus Hereticks and Schismaticks though they have corrupted the Christian Faith and divided the Church yet they have the Character of Christian Baptism and either retain the Christian Faith entire or so much of it as will denominate them Christians They may have the Power of Orders Officers rightly constituted Christian Sacraments and all the Essentials of a true Church excepting Christian Peace and Unity and Catholick Communion This was the Case of the Donatist Churches which were in all things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion Upon this score many learned men own corrupt Churches which retain the Essentials of the Christian Faith though mixed and blended with many Errors and schismatical Churches which retain the Purity of Faith and Worship to be true though not every way sound and orthodox nor Catholick Churches Which I hope will satisfie Mr. Lob how the Church of Rome may be acknowledged to be a true Church and yet both corrupt and schismatical There is one Distinction which is not so commonly observed which will make all this Dispute plain and easie And that is between the visible Church and the one true Catholick visible Church The visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians whatsoever Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters or whatever they be the one visible Catholick Church contains only those Churches which are sound in the Faith and live in Catholick Communion these visible Churches are Christian Churches by outward Profession but not Parts or Members of the one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ as Optatus observes that besides one Church which is the Catholick Church the other Churches of Hereticks are thought to be Churches but are not that is they have the visible Appearance of Churches and so are visible Churches as bad men are visible Christians by a visible profession Praeter unam quae est vera Catholica caeterae apud Hereticos putantur esse non sunt Opt. l. 1. but they are not such Churches as Christ will own Quae sit una Ecclesia quam Columbam Sponsam suam Christus appellat Id. l. 2. as he adds in another place that there is but one Church which Christ calls his Dove and Spouse So that in this Sense men may be visible Christians and Members of the visible Church and yet not Members of the one Catholick Church The not observing this occasioned St. Cyprian's and the African Fathers mistake about the Rebaptization of those who were Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks and upon this very Mistake our Dissenters at this day dispute the validity of Orders received in the Church of Rome and Mr. B. so often twits us with deriving our Succession from Rome which if it were true is no Objection against us unless he will wholly unchurch the Church of Rome and assert that which Mr. Lob charges me with that Heresie or Schism does destroy all relation to the Church for if they belong to the Church still they may retain the Power of Orders and the Administration of Sacraments among them And therefore to confirm this Notion it will not be amiss to give a plain and short Account of the State of that ancient Controversie about the Rebaptization of Hereticks as it was managed by St. Cyprian and St. Austin as far as concerns our present Dispute Now 1. Both St. Cyprian and St. Austin were agreed that there is but one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ this is so acknowledged by all men who are acquainted with their Writings especially their Tracts De unitate Ecclesiae That I shall not need to transcribe any particular Sayings to that purpose 2. They were agreed also that there is no Salvation ordinarily to be had out of the Communion of this one Catholick Church Both of them do over and over affirm this Salus inquit extra Ecclesiam non est quis negat August de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 17 and St. Austin asserts that no Body in his days denied it But 3. St. Cyprian would not allow that Hereticks or Schismaticks did in any Sense belong to the Church but denies them to be Christians and consequently that they had any Christian Sacraments among them Quisquis ille est aut qualiscunque est Christianus non est quia in Christi Ecclesia non est Cypr. E◠52. ad Anton. He would not allow Novatianus to be a Christian or to be in the Church of Christ and this was the Reason why he so vehemently urged the necessity of Baptizing those who had been Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks when they returned to the Unity of the Catholick Church because Schismaticks had no Church and therefore no Baptism it being impossible to separate the Church and Baptism according to the Judgment of the African Fathers in the Council of Carthage St. Austin on the other hand considered Mirum autem est quomodo dicatur separari à se dividi omnino non posse Baptismum Ecclesiam si enim Baptisma in Baptizato inseparabiliter manet quomodo Baptizatus separari ab Ecclesia potest Baptismus non potest August de Baptismo cont Donat. l. 5. ca. 15. See St. Hierom. contra Luciferianos in Initio that those who were Baptized in the Catholick Church did not forfeit their Baptism by turning Hereticks or Schismaticks and forsaking the Communion of the Church for no man ever disputed whether such Persons upon their Repentance might not be restored to the Communion of the Church without being re-baptized which proves that the Church did not think them Infidels for Infidels cannot be admitted into the Church without Baptism and if such men retain their Baptism when they are out of the Church then the Church and Baptism may be separated Ita posse extra Catholicam Communionem dari Baptismum quemadmodum extra eam potest haberi Sic illi qui per Sacrilegium Schismatis an Ecclesiae Communione discedunt habent utique Baptismum quem priusquam discederent acceperunt quod si foris baberi potest etiam dari cur non potest Ibid. l. 1. cap. 1. which overthrows the main Principle on which the African Bishops founded their Doctrine and Practise of re-baptizing Hereticks From hence he concludes that if men may retain their Baptism out of the Church they may give Baptism out of the Church too for the same Argument whereby they opposed the
unam Ecclesiam non babere Ib. cap. 21. though they have the same Sacraments Non reclè foris habitur tamen habitur sic non reclè foris datur tamen datur Ib. l. 1. cap. 1. Nay 3ly He denies That Hereticks have any Sacraments of their own Magis ergò quia pro Ecclesiae honore atque unitate pugnamus non tribuamus Haereticus quicquid aâ—â—a eos ejus agnoscimus l. 4. cap. 2. but have usurped the Sacraments of the Church which are not rightly had nor rightly given out of the Communion of the Church though they are not to be repeated when they are once given but to be compleated by Reconciliation to the Church But 4ly Schismaticks retaining the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments among them though they are out of the Church are not Heathens and Infidels but in some sense Christians Itaque 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 sed gravius â—â—â—riant vulnere Schismatis l. 1. cap. 8. and therefore he acknowledges that the Donatists do cure those whom they Baptize of Infidelity and Idolatry but wound them more grievously with Schism And therefore 5ly He owns them to be united to the Catholick Church as far as they retain any thing of the Catholick Church among them such as the same common Faith and the same Sacraments but yet 6ly That what-ever they retain of the Catholick Church though they believe the same Articles of Faith observe the same Rules of Worship have the same Sacraments rightly and duly administred among them excepting their Schism yet nothing of all this will avail them to Salvation unless they return to the Communion of the Catholick Church So that though we should not agree what Name to call Schismaticks by whether Christians at large upon account of their Profession without any relation to the Church whose Communion they have forsaken or whether we say they are out of the Church as having forsaken its Communion or that in some sense they belong to the Church as retaining its Faith and Sacraments or whether we own them Members of the visible Church as that may include the whole Number of Christian Professors as distinguished from the one Catholick visible Church which contains only Catholick Christians who live in Christian unity and Communion the Difference is not great while with St. Austin we own but one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion wherein Salvation is to be had This is all I ever intended to prove and I think no body need prove more to deter any man from Schism who loves his Soul CHAP. III. Concerning the Necessity of Catholick Communion HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick Communion from the Exceptions of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob before I proceed any farther it will be highly expedient to discourse something briefly of the necessity of it for I find Mr. Lob mightily puzled to conceive that those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins and lead an holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty as they suppose many may do who separate from the Church of England and do not live in Catholick Communion according to my Notion of it should for this Reason be excluded from all the ordinary Means of Salvation They look upon the Christian Religion to be like a System of Philosophy and if men be careful to believe such Laws without any regard to a Church-state or Church-unity and Communion their Condition is very safe and they have a Right and Title to all the Promises of the Gospel Holiness of Life and a good Temper of Mind is the only thing Christ designed to promote by his Gospel and if men be holy however they came by it or whatever they are besides it matters not This is very plausible and a prevailing Notion in our days which makes a great many well-disposed men extreamly indifferent what Church they are of so they be but watchful over their Hearts and Lives in other Matters For will any man say that a holy man shall not go to Heaven when all the Promises of the Gospel are made to such Persons When Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Where is the Man who has so much Courage as to repeat the Case which St. Austin puts of a Man Constiuamus ergò aliquem castum continentem non avarum non Idolis servientem hospitalitarem indigentibus ministrantem non cujusquam inimicum non contentiosum patiemem quietum 〈◊〉 Emâ—lantem nulli invidentem sabrium fragalem sed Haereticum nulli utique dubium est 〈…〉 solum quod haereticus est Regnun Dei non â—â—ssedibit August de baptismo l. 4. cap. 18. Who is Chast Continent void of Covetousness no Idolater Hospitable and Bountisul to those in Want Enemy to no Man not Contentious but Patient Quiet without Emulation or Envy Sober Frugal but a Heretick which in St. Austin's Language in that Place signifies a Schismatick of such a Person he says That no man doubts but for this very Cause that he is a Schismatick he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God This it seems was not St. Austin's private Opinion but the received Opinion of all Christians in his days that which no Body then doubted of which makes it at least worthy of our most serious and impartial Enquiry and were men once throughly satisfied of the danger of Schism and the absolute necessity of Catholick Communion a great many wanton Scruples which now divide and subdivide the Church would vanish of themselves for they would be then afraid to venture their Souls in a Schism And therefore to make this as plain and evident as possible I can I shall proceed by these following Steps only premising That the whole design of this Discourse is pure Charity to the Souls of men not to triumph in their Ruine and Misery for God forbid I should ever rejoyce in the thoughts of any Man's Damnation for then I am sure I should never go to Heaven my self 1. I observe then in the first Place That though holiness of Life is the necessary Condition yet it is not the meritorious Cause of our Salvation Without holiness we shall never see God But that holiness carries any man to Heaven is in vertue of the meritorious Sacrifice and Intercession of Christ and therefore unless we have a Covenant-Interest in this Sacrifice nothing else can secure us of our Reward 2. That Catholick Charity which is exercised in Catholick Communion is a principal Part of Evangelical Holiness without which nothing else will be accepted by God Love and Charity is the great Gospel-Command and the peculiar Badge of the Christian Profession and Christian Charity as it is distinguished from good Nature and an obliging Temper and Conversation which is indeed a necessary moral Vertue but not that which is peculiarly called Christian Charity does unite all Christians together in one Body is such a Kindness for one another as answers to that Tenderness and Sympathy
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
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
his Substitute together and to impose upon his ignorant Proselytes By making indifferent things necessary to Salvation the Dean plainly meant that they taught that those things which were indeed indifferent though not acknowledged so by them had such a natural and moral or instituted vertue and efficacy to our Salvation that without observing of them no man can be saved that they are necessary to Salvation as any other necessary and essential part or duty of Religion is the neglect of which meerly upon account of such a neglect will damn us Now does the Dean does his Substitute does the Church of England teach indifferent things to be necessary in this sence to have an immediate and direct influence upon our Salvation Can any man in his wits who owns these things to be indifferent in the same breath assert them to be necessary in this sense And therefore Mr. Lob's Argument is a ridiculous Sophism or as Mr. H. speaks has four terms in it For necessary to Salvation in the Major Proposition signifies very differently from necessary to Salvation in the Minor Proposition and thus the Dean and his Substitute are reconciled But 2. How shall I bring my self off for though I do not assert a direct necessity of indifferent things to Salvation yet I bring in a necessity at a back Door and necessity is necessity and if it be a damning necessity it is no matter of what kind and nature the necessity be I make Communion with the Church of England necessary to Salvation and indifferent observances are necessary to the Communion of the Church of England and therefore are themselves necessary to Salvation But yet I doubt not to make it appear that though the Church of England does require the observance of such indifferent things from all in her Communion yet she makes these things in no sense necessary to Salvation For 1. In many cases she does not charge the bare not observing such indifferent Rites with any guilt and therefore is far enough from making them necessary to Salvation Such indifferent things are not enjoyned for their own sake but for the sake of publick Order and Decency and therefore when they can be neglected without publick Scandal and Offence without a contempt of the Government without the guilt of Schism and Separation it is no fault nor accounted such by the Church And yet did she enjoyn these things as necessary to Salvation they would equally oblige in all times and in all cases without exception 2. Though Schism be a damning sin yet the imposition of such indifferent things is no necessary cause of a Schismatical Separation Men may communicate in all or in most parts of Christian Worship with the Church of England without assenting to such unscriptural Impositions or yielding any active obedience to them and I suppose Mr. Lob will confess that there is a very material difference between an active and passive Obedience in doubtful cases The terms of Lay-Communion are as easie as ever they were in any setled and constituted Church as for publick Forms of Prayer I must except them out of the number of indifferent things for they have at least equal Authority and are infinitely more expedient not to say necessary for publick Worship than their ex tempore Prayers And then what is there required of a private Christian to do to qualifie him for Church-Communion if he does not like the Surplice he does not wear it himself and let the Minister look to that What hurt is it to Parents or their Children to submit to the Authority of the Church in using the sign of the Cross in Baptism They only offer their Children to be baptized if the Minister does something more than what they think necessary and expedient let the Church look to that which enjoyns it Private Christians who have not Authority to alter publick Constitutions are not concerned in that So that there is but one Ceremony wherein they are required to be active and that is receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper kneeling which men thus peaceably disposed may easily be satisfied in the lawfulness and fitness of and till they can be satisfied may more innocently abstain from the Lord's Table and joyn in all other parts of Christian Worship than they can separate from the Church So that these indifferent things can be no just cause for any private Christians to separate and if notwithstanding they do separate and are damned for it they must not charge these innocent Ceremonies with their Damnation And as for those who cannot conform as Ministers they may and most of them own they can conform as Lay-men and therefore these Ceremonies are no cause of their Separation 3. Suppose men do take occasion from the Disputes and Quarrels about indifferent things to separate from the Church and be damned for it yet they are not damned for not observing such indifferent Customs though that may be the remote occasion of it but for their pride and self-conceit for their disobedience to their Superiors for their dividing the unity of the Church and disturbing the peace of it Suppose two men should be so well employed as to play at push-pin and should quarrel and fight and one should be killed and the other hanged would you say this man was hanged for playing at push-pin Thus it is here it is not the occasion which peevish 〈◊〉 take to divide the Church which must be charged with their Damnation but their Pride their Faction their Obstinacy their Disobedience and ungovernable temper of mind which takes such small occasions to divide and disturb the Church If Mr. Lob does not think this enough in answer to his Argument I think he is a little unreasonable III. Our Author has another device still to prove from my own Concessions that Dissenters are not Schismaticks He says that Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson now two learned and reverend Prelates whose bare Authority I confess is more considerable to me than all our Author's Arguments in a Conference with the Papists Reply p. 82. assert That a Superiors unjust casting out of the Church is Schismatical And this I heartily assent to But according to my notion the Church of England is guilty of such impositions and does unjustly excommunicate Dissenters This I utterly deny But let us hear how Mr. Lob proves it 1. He says That the Impositions are sinful is evident in that indifferent things as has been proved are made necessary to Salvation But I presume the Reader will see that this has not been proved yet and therefore it is not evident I will only ask our Author whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excommunications mean excommunicating those who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indifferent things If they don't as it is evident they don't he only abuses them and his Readers by their Authority 2. That the Church of England excommunicates unjustly he says is very demonstrable even in that
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
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
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
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
it Dr. Field of the Church 1. B. Ch. 13 I will transcribe the whole His words are these This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God and Company of his People viz Schismaticks whose departure yet is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God for whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving Truth of God Order of holy Ministry Sacraments by vertue thereof administred and a blessed Vnity and Fellowship of the People of God knit together in the bond of Peace under the command of lawful Pastors and Guides set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternal Happiness Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyned with the rest of God's People in respect of the Profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship power of Order and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have Fellowship so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church nor of that more special number of them that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church So that Dr. Field expresly acknowledges that Schismaticks may be rightly denied to be of the Church though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ may in a loose and large sense of the Word be said to belong to the Christian Church as they retain something which belongs to the Church still among them But to make this more plain and easie I shall briefly distinguish between the several Notions and Acceptations of a Church For 1. the Church sometimes signifies the number of the Elect that is all sincere Christians who are vitally united to Christ by a true and lively Faith a divine Love and Charity and all other Christian Graces and Vertues who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men and the invisible Church because we who cannot know the Hearts of men cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church 2. There is the visible Catholick Church which consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ observe his Laws and Institutions and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other This Church is called visible from its visible profession of the Christian Faith and external and visible Communion and Catholick because all such Churches all the World over are but one Communion This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ to the Communion of which all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined Now it is commonly and truly observed that there are some professed Christians who are only in this Church others who are of it and others who are out of it Those who are in the Church but not true Members of it are those professed Christians who live in the Communion of the Church but yet are either secret Hypocrites or openly wicked but not excommunicated these are in the Church by external Profession as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine till they be cut off All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession and an external Communion which is absolutely required of all Christians when it may be had and they are of the Church that is true and lively Members of it by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ None properly belong to the visible Church but those whom we call the invisible Church that is all sincere Christians for the visible and invisible are not two but one Church And the Reason of the distinction between them is because the Government of the Church being committed to men who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts and the necessity of external Affairs or the negligence of Church-Governours loosening the Reins of Discipline many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church either because they are not known or because when known they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times be cast out And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body the Spouse of Christ the Wife of the Lamb a royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People pure undefiled holy and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members not regarding what some visible Professors are who are in the Church indeed but are not of it and ought not to be in it The not observing of which has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters not to the visible but to the mystical and invisible Church which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes But then all Hereticks and Schismaticks and excommunicated Persons are out of this Church till they either return or be restored to the Communion of it For to be in the Church is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices And therefore those who either by their own Choice or by the Censures of the Church are not in Communion must be out of it And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers both ancient and modern than to meet with such Expressions as these of separating from the Church going out of it being out and being cast out of the Church which is a very strange way of speaking if Mr. Lob's Notion be true That all professed Christians what-ever they are are Members of the Catholick Church for then it is impossible for a professed Christian either to go out or to be cast out of the Catholick Church as it is for a man to go out of the World This is that one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion which I asserted and proved in the Defence from whence Hereticks and Schismaticks depart and go out and the Excommunicate are cast out But now the Difficulty is Whither these Hereticks and Schismaticks go when they go out of the Church They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers for Heresie and Schism does not make men Infidels and if they be neither in the Church nor in the World what third State shall we find for them The plain Resolution of which in short is this That they are the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks which
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 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
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
aetatem suscepta sunt That the general Decretals of the Roman Bishops have been sent into France as well as into other Provinces and received with great Applause by the Roman Emperors and the French Kings from the first foundation of that Kingdom till this present Age. 4. 4. Nullum esle crimen cujus ratione Papa deponi possit exceptâ haereseos puolicà professae causa quod verum esse testimoniis veterum docetur praeterea hanc esse antiquam ecclesiae Gallicanae definitionem demonstratur That no Crime is a sufficient Reason for deposing the Pope except the publick Profession of Heresie and that this is true he proves by the Testimonies of the Ancients and besides shews that it has been of old the Judgment and Definition of the Gallican Church 5. 5. Papam solvere posse dispensare valide licite à canonibus conciliorum Generalium etiam sine causa dummodo haec dispensatio non tendat ad labefactandum ecclesiae statum That the Pope can effectually and lawfully dispense with the Canons of general Councils even without any Cause so long as such a Dispensation does not weaken the State of the Church 6. 6. Libertates ecclesiae Gallicanae consistere in usu praxi Canonum atque decretalium tam veterum quam recentiorum easque non pendere à sola praxi antiquorum Canonum Vbi ostendit ur necessitate cogente Pontifices variis temporibus pro bono publico ecclesiae ad novas leges condendas progressos That the Liberties of the Gallican Church consists in the Use and Practise of Canons and Decretals both Ancient and Modern and is not confined only to the Practise of Ancient Canons where he shews that at several times in case of necessity Popes have proceeded to make new Laws for the publick Good of the Church 7. 7. Papam praeter eum primatum quo universae ecclesiae praeest solum esse immediatum occidentis Galliarum Patriarcham Regibus verò non competere jus aliquod Episcopatum vel metropolim instituendi multo minus Patriarchatum Litâ—ra Censurae Romanae in prolegom ad librum de Concordia sacerd Imp. That the Pope besides his primacy over the Universal Church is the only and immediate Patriarch of the Western and Gallican Churches and that Kings have no Right or Power to erect any New Bishoprick Metropolitical Seat much less a Patriarchate This is a brief Scheme of French Popery as it respects the Government of the Church if we believe this great Arch-bishop Men may assert the Authority of a General Council without being Papists but no man can be a Papist who does not acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to be the supreme Head and universal Pastor of the Christian Church whom all Princes Prelates and People are bound to obey in Communion with whom consists the Unity of the Catholick Church and to separate from whom is a Schism All Papists must own the Bishop of Rome for their universal Pastor though they are not agreed whether his Power be absolute or under the Controul of a general Council 3. Having thus prepared the way it will be no hard Matter to vindicate the doctrine of the Defence about the Unity of Church-power from those ridiculous and senseless Imputations of Cassandrianism and French Popery This Charge is managed so knavishly by Mr. Lob who hath put in words of his own to make out the Charge when my words would not do it and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter with so much confusion and yet with so much Triumph by both that there needs no other Art to expose and shame them than to set my Notions in a true light once more and to vindicate them from the artificial mis-representations of ignorance or a Scholastick Buffoonery The Sum of their Charge amounts to this that I place the supreme governing Power of the Church in a general Council and that the Unity of the Church consists in the Subjection of all particular Christians and Churches to a general Council and yet they are forced to acknowledg that I disown a Constitutive Regent Head of a National or of the Universal Church And here they cry out of Contradictions and exercise their guessing faculty what should be the meaning of it and yet hold to the Conclusion in spight of Nonsense and Contradiction that I set up one soveraign Power over the Universal Church As for Contradictions I will consider them anon but the first thing to be done is to examine what occasion I have given them to think that I place the supreme unifying Power as Mr. B. calls it of the Church in a general Council Mr. Lob lays it down as his fundamental Charge against me Reply p. 27.31 that I make the Vniversal Church the first Seat of Government Or as he learnedly speaks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is a pars imperans subdita The Bishops in their Colledge being the Governors Or pars Imperans and all others of the universal Church the subdite part which others would have called Subjects and that in the very next words he adds It may be our Author to gratifie the Dean will deny the universal Church to be a Political organized Body as indeed he doth So that it seems I deny what he says I assert which either proves that I did not understand my self or that Mr. Lob does not or will not understand me and which of these is most likely comes now to be tryed Only we must first observe what he means by the universal Church being the first Seat of Government that it is a Political organized Body in which there is one supreme and soveraign Power over the Whole As a Kingdom is one Pollitical organized Body because it is under one supreme Government and all the Power of inferior Officers is derived from the King as the supreme governing Head or as the Papists make the Catholick Church one Political organized Body and the Pope or a General Council the Constitutive Regent Head of it Now then let us hear how he proves this Charge against me that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government and such a Political organized Body as he here talks of And to this purpose he alleadges several things which shall be particularly but briefly considered 1. Reply p. 27. He alleadges that I assert That all Church Officers belong to the universal Church and have one original Right to govern the whole universal Church These are none of my words nor do they represent my sense Every one who reads this Proposition as Mr. Lob has expressed it would imagine that I made every Bishop as soveraign a Monarch of the Church as the Pope of Rome is whereas all that I say in that passage he cites out of the Defence is no more but this 1. That the Apostles had a Relation to
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
was so general that St. Cyprian and Optatus found the Consent of the whole Church upon it However half the World or all the known famous Churches were sufficient for Advice and Counsel though not for supreme uncontroulable Government which I never asserted to advise with all the known Churches which were within the reach of such Communication is sufficient to satisfie us how necessary they thought it to use the most effectual Means they could to preserve Catholick Communion and that they believed mutual Advice and Counsel a very proper means for that end and the Duty of all true Catholick Bishops This way St. Austin calls an Epistolare Colloquium Aug. de baptismo l. 3. cap. 2. a Conference by Letters which he thinks is not to be compared with the Plenarium Concilium as he very properly calls a general Council a full or plenary Council which is made up of wise and learned Prelates from distant parts of the World For when the Bishops of so many several Churches who may be well presumed to know the Judgment and Practise of their own Churches meet together without any private or factious Designs freely to debate and consult for the publick good of the Church the Authority of such a Council must needs be venerable and it must be some very great reason that will justifie a dissent from it Such Councils indeed are not infallible Article 21. as our Church asserts because they consist of fallible men who may be and have been deceived and therefore in Matters necessary to Salvation we must believe them no farther than they agree with the holy Scriptures though a modest man will not oppose his private judgment to the Decrees of a general Council unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expresly against it but in Rules of Discipline and Government their Authority is greater still because the Canons of general Councils are a great Medium and excellent Instrument of Catholick Communion the promoting of which is the principal end and the greatest use of general Councils and therefore though they do not command by any direct Authority and superior Jurisdiction yet they strongly oblige in order to serve the ends of Catholick Communion 2. But now suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Council how does this subvert the Kings Supremacy or incur a Premunire For let the Authority of a general Council be what it will it is wholly Spiritual as the whole Government of the Church is considered meerly as a Church or Spiritual Society but the Supremacy of the King is an external and civil Jurisdiction in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical within his Dominions and Mr. Lob might as well say that every man who sets up any spiritual Authority in the Church subverts the Supremacy of the King and thus the King's Supremacy makes him a Bishop and a Priest too a Scandal which Mr. Lob's Predecessors raised in Queen Elizabeths days to disswade People from the Oath of Supremacy which it seems they were not then so fond of and which the Queen confutes in her Injunctions and tells her Subjects that she neither doth nor ever will challenge any other Authority but only this under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forraign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them When Bishop Jewel writ his Apology and Defence to Scipio a Patrician of Venice who complained of the English Nation for not sending their Legates to the Council of Trent he never thought of this reason against it that it was contrary to the King's Supremacy which is owned and confirmed by the Laws of this Land and we may observe that the Statutes of Provisors and several Laws to preserve the Liberties of the Realm from the Usurpations of the Pope of Rome or any other Forraign Potentate were made and confirmed in several Kings Reigns long before Henry the 8th a particular Account of which the Reader may find in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation part 1. Book 2. p. 107. c. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th and therefore Arch-bishop Bramhall truly observes Bramhall's vindication of the Church of England That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of England and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy to acknowledge the Authority of general Councils For after the Statutes of Provisors we find the English Bishops in the Councils of Constance and Basil which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high as ever any men did For indeed since Princes have embraced the Christian Faith no Bishops excepting the Pope of Rome have pretended to call a general Council but by the Will and Authority of the Prince nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom or obtain the Authority of Laws but by the Consent of the Prince which therefore certainly can be no encroachment upon his Supremacy While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes and over all Persons in his own Hands the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights This is sufficient at present in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation that to assert the Authority of general Councils subverts the Kings Supremacy subjects the Church of England to a Forraign Court and Jurisdiction and thereby incurs the Penalty of a Praemunire whereby we see that he understands the Law as little as he does the Gospel only shews his good Will to poor Cassandrians and as much as he declames against penal Laws against Dissenters would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire 4. Mr. Lob has not done with me yet but to make me a perfect Cassandrian whether I will or not he adds as my sense Reply p. 12. That this Council of Forraign Bishops unto which they i.e. the Bishops of the Church of England are accountable must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged it seems by our Author himself as well as by Bramhall The Primacy he saith out of Cyprian being given to Peter that it might appear that the Church of Christ was one and the Chair that is the Apostolical Office and Power is one Thus Cyprian on whom lay all the Care of the Churches dispatches Letters to Rome from whence they were sent through all the Catholick Churches all this is to be found from p. 208. to the end of the Chapter This is a terrible Charge indeed and home to the Purpose and Mr. Lob is a terrible Adversary in these days if he can but Swear as well as he can Write for all this is
the World and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation one National Church and all the separate Churches in the World one Catholick Church For 1. they assert that a particular Congregation associated for local presential Communion under a fixed Pastor is the only Church of Divine institution which I have at large confuted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the Defence and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet as to attempt the least Reply 2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church not by any Union among themselves but by being all united in Christ who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church there is no need they should be all united to one another to make one Catholick Church so they be all united to Christ the Head of the Church Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication 3. It hence follows that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them are original Churches of Divine Institution and no one Church or Pastor has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Politie that That should be called one Political Body which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head that is one superior Power over the whole Body either Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superior Authority to govern the rest which would make the Church a Monarchy nor united all Pastors into one governing Head which should govern the whole Church and their own Members by a major Vote which is an Aristocracy nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People which is a Democracy it is evident that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head and therefore cannot be one Political National Church which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation from the National Church of England when there is and can be no such thing in a proper Ecclesiastical sense 4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King as the accidental Head of the Church who is the supreme Head and Governor of the Church in his Dominions And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation but the Laws of the Land and the Supremacy of the King it is the Creature of the supreme Power which made it and may unmake it again when it pleaseth 5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Constitution but to give a legal Establishment to the different Sects and Parties among us at least to all those which are tolerable which shall be under the Government of the King's Ministers whether Lay or Clergy in Ecclesiastical affairs and thus all the Dissenters which are now among us as much as they dissent from the present Constitution of the Church of England and from each other shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England under the King as an accidental Head and thus the Schism which we so much complain of is effectually cured according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union which shall be particularly examined in their due place This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue and that the impartial Reader may the better judge where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles upon which I oppose this As 1. That Christ hath but one Church which we call the Catholick Church and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregational Churches which are Churches not considered as independent Congregations but as Members of the Catholick Church which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence and the 1st Chap. of this Vindication 2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church as united in one Catholick Communion as I have proved in the 4th Chapter of the Defence and the 2d Chapter of this Vindication 3. That the Church is a Society under Government has a governing and a governed Part that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church and Christian People those who are governed 4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess 5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communion with each other that is as Members of the same great Body the Catholick Church and every Bishop as far as possibly he can must govern his particular Church and Diocess by the mutual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops 6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Churches considered as Churches or pure Ecclesiastical Societies into Archiepiscopal Metropolitical or National Churches which signifies no more than the voluntary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association for the better Preservation of one Communion by mutual Advice and Counsel Concord and Agreement in Worship Discipline and Government 7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Confederation of neighbour Churches one or more Bishops may by a general Consent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods receiving Appeals and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons which is the Power now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Metropolitans 8. That yet there cannot be one constitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National much less in the Universal Church not Monarchical because no one Bishop has an original Right to govern the rest in any Nation and therefore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church which is one not by being united under one superior governing Power but by living in one Communion not Aristocratical because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess and accountable to Christ for his Government cannot and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power as to be in all Oases necessarily determined and over-ruled by the Major Vote contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion and as far as possibly he can he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order but if they should decree any thing which he judges prejudicial to his Church he is bound not to comply with them
neither of these was necessary to make a Church National and all the Answer he gives to it is this When we speak of a National Church our own is always to be understood about which the Dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account that is that the People and the Prince are Christians and the Supposition hereof is necessary to it And a little after he tells us By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and those only are combined under the Government through the supreme Magistrate to Church-purposes This is such a loose description of a National Church as may serve almost any purpose But the whole force of his Reasoning is this that the National Church of England and so other National Churches under Christian Princes is incorporated into the State ergo it is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State and the Supposition of this is necessary to make it a National Church the last Result of which is no more but this Bellarmine thou liest I had asserted and proved that a National Church may be considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State in Answer to this Mr. H. says that the Church of England is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State which is the thing he ought to have proved but he thought it more convenient only to affirm it how easie is it to answer Books if bold denyals or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer Or does Mr. H. indeed think that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws and Sanctions and humane Authority therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's that Christianity it self can be a Law to us only considered as the Law of the Land because it is now made the Law of the Land And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land so must the Christian Church be too the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion the Sacraments and Promises the Remission of sins and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion as a new Christian Church and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church which is not a Church nor that to be one National Church which is not one National Communion one Communion being necessary to make any Church one whether it be the Universal National or particular Church But of this more hereafter Having thus vindicated a National Church and proved it to be a Church before and after its incorporation into the State the next inquiry is whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society now this Dispute will quickly be at an end if we do but recover the true State of the Controversie Mr. B. asked what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England the Dean denyed that there is any such Head of the Church of England considered as a Church though the King be the supreme Head and Governor of the Church as it is incorporated into the State Mr. B. replyes that the Church must have such a constitutive Regent Head because every political Society must have one constitutive Regent Head or else it is not one Politie to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head then the Church is not a Political Society for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole That the Church is one not by one superior Power over the whole an informing specifying unifying supreme Power as Mr. B. calls it but by one Communion Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me p. 184. instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society as has one constitutive Regent Head he produces his Definition of Politica and observes that Politie is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Politie and Spalatensis 's learned Volumns are de Republica Ecclesiastica But what is this to the purpose Does Hooker set up one constitutive Regent Head over the Church Do any of them prove that Civil and Ecclesiastical Politie is the same thing Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Common-wealth differ as much as the Church and the State And therefore he must still prove that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom so it is to the Unity of the Church which will be a fair Advance towards Popery And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this but a down right Affirmation without any Proof That the Regent part is the Informing part if it have not one Regent part it is not one Society as Political If it have none it is no Politie if it have many it is many This I grant is true of such Societies as are one by one supreme unifying Power but it is not true of such a Society as is one not by one supreme Power over the Whole but by one Communion And such a Society the Church is as I largely proved in the Defence and therefore the Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of Politie In another place Mr. B. suspects Ib. p. 203. that the Reason of my Opposition to a constitutive Regent Head is that I do not understand the Terms and therefore he takes pains to instruct me what a Regent Head signifies and what Constitutive signifies But he has as ill luck at guessing as he has at reasoning For the quite contrary is true I did understand the Terms but did not like the Thing and therefore opposed it But do I not know That Head is commonly taken for Synonimal with summa potestas or the supreme Power Yes I do and deny that there is such a visible Regent Head over a National Church considered as a Church Or do I not know That a constitutive Cause in the common Sence of Logicians signifieth the essentiating Cause as distinct from the efficient and final Yes I know this too well A Political Society either hath Matter and Form or not If yea what is the Form if not the Regent part in relation to the Body Its species is the specifying Form quae dat esse nomen and in existence it is the unifying or individuating Form But if it have no Form it is nothing and hath no name This is a formidable man at Metaphysicks and
this That every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a constitutive visible Head The Interposer now to take off the shame from the Doctor hath taken the right Course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term into the Argument if every Church when he should say every proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a visible subordinate constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one but that not having such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a constitutive Head I was in a horrible fright when I heard four and five terms and began to blush at it but if this be all the Business I shall be able to bear this shame very well As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence which Mr. H. takes no notice of For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church which has one constitutive Regent Head and therefore the Dean denies that a National Church is a proper Political Church considered as a Church in Mr. B's sence of the Words and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out and yet to gratifie Mr. H. we will take it in if he will but allow the Catholick Church to be as proper Political a Church as the National Church is and then the Argument runs thus If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a National constitutive Regent Head as essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a Catholick visible Regent Head essential to it And thus I think it comes much to one and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head time was when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument but learnedly disputed that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Church hath a visible Head as well as the National Church But let us briefly consider whether visible be a fourth Term or only added as a necessary Explication of Mr. B's Proposition if he mean any thing by it For I think Logicians distinguish between a fourth Term and an additional explication of the Terms Mr. B. disputes that every proper Political Church and therefore a National Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Does he mean by this constitutive Regent Head a visible Head on Earth or an invisible Head in Heaven If he means Christ as an invisible Head in Heaven then there is no Dispute between us for we will readily grant that Christ is the Head of the National as well as of the Catholick Church If he means a visible Head on Earth then Visible is no fourth Term but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head And then the Argument holds good from a National to the Catholick Church That if a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible Constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it or Mr. B's Argument is not true that every proper Political Church must have a visible Regent Head on Earth essential to it Thus I think the Dean is once more defended but I must speak one good word for my self too as Charity obliges me Mr. H. says I bring in a fifth Term subordinate visible Head But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions Mr. B. says every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head does he mean this of Christ as the supreme Head of his Church or of men whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons as a subordinate Head under Christ if the first there is no dispute between us for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church If the second a subordinate Head then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term but included in a constitutive Regent Head and I think I need not spend time to prove that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head is not a parallel case because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head as Visible and Subordinate are for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective but signifies neither determinately unless it be expressed I shall only observe how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Yes saith Mr. B. and Mr. H. so it hath for Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church Where we plainly see that in the Antecedent by a constitutive Regent Head they understand a Visible Subordinate and Mr. H. says an accidental Head of the Church and in the Consequent a supreme invisible Head of the Church which is as fallacious a way of answering as it is of arguing And now I leave the Reader to judge where the shame which Mr. H. so much talks of must at last rest But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame as Impudence is to others CHAP. V. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it IN the eighth Chapter of the Defence I briefly stated what the Communion is which is essential to the Catholick or Universal Church and what place there can be for this Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day Mr. B. in his Answer Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it but it is such a something as needs no farther answer for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church And both these I have discoursed so fully already that I cannot excuse my self to my Reader should I repeat over the same things again and therefore I shall only briefly consider some few new Objections he has started which though they are very trifling yet may disturb an injudicious Reader I asserted That Catholick Communion strictly so called Defence p. 595. consists 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other Here Mr. Baxter 1 plays the Critick He
obey God without such Doctrines nay without the belief of Christianity it self I cannot see why they should believe Christianity it self to be a fundamental Doctrine to them 8. I readily grant that no Doctrine can be a fundamental Article of Faith which has not one way or other an influence upon a Christian life But then all the peculiar Arguments of the Gospel all the principles of pure evangelical Obedience as well as all the Fundamentals of Faith are contained in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ That it self is the great motive of the Gospel and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and perswasives to Vertue Take away the Doctrine of Salvation and no other consideration can have any force and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian nay there are no other Gospel-Motives but what are contained in it Whatever is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation is a Fundamental Article and a powerful Motive of Christianity and nothing else is either So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals though they were to be tryed by their tendency to promote real Righteousness as to consider what is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ which is an acknowledged Fundamental and contains in it all the principles of a Christian Life 2. I desire it may be further observed that when I discourse of Fundamentals I do not reject all other Doctrines besides what are strictly Fundamental as useless in the Christian Life or unfit terms of Church Communion God affords us more than what is barely necessary for our spiritual as well as for our natural life and expects from us that we should make daily improvements in Knowledg and Vertue And if this be the duty of private Christians it is much more the duty of particular Churches to arrive at the greatest perfection of Knowledg and to instruct her Children not only in those Doctrines which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity but in all those great truths which advance our Progress in the Christian Life And therefore no doubt but every Church has Authority over her own Members to require as the terms of Communion an explicite assent to many great and useful truths and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors which are not in a strict sence Fundamental or else she has no Authority to teach the whole mind and will of God nor to preserve the purity of Christian Doctrine For there are many Doctrines of vast use in the Christian Life and many very fatal and pernicious Errors which are not properly Fundamental and yet it may be have occasioned the final Damnation of many more than ever fundamental Errors have done And if the Church be bound to take care of mens Souls she is bound also to root out such pernicious Doctrines But the use I designed the Doctrine of Fundamentals for in this place is the preservation of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches which have no Power and Authority over each other For though a Church have entertained many corrupt and dangerous Doctrines yet if she profess to believe all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith we have no Authority upon the account of Doctrines to divide from her Communion We must not indeed communicate in her Errors though not Fundamental and no Church but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Communion upon other Churches but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith she is so far a true Church and if there be nothing to hinder it may and ought to be received into Catholick Communion 3. When I assert that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental by Fundamentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledg without which no man can understand and believe like a Christian which plainly proves that they are necessary to the very being of a Christian Church and therefore necessary to Catholick Communion Which is all I am concerned to prove But if any man should put hard Cases to me with respect to the final Salvation of particular Christians and inquire how far the explicite knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction and scarce understand any thing distinctly of the Christian Religion or what shall become of those who through the prejudices and prepossessions of Education deny any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith as the Divinity of Christ or his satisfaction for sins and yet are otherwise very pious devout and useful men I say I do not think my self bound to answer these Questions nor to search into the secret Counsels of God to determine how he will judge the World or what allowances he will make in some favourable Cases but yet I have some few things to offer which possibly may give some satisfaction to modest Inquirers 1. We must not deny the necessity of Christian Faith and Knowledg for the sake of any difficult Cases for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity it self or of Faith in Christ to the Salvation of sinners and thus our Charity to other men will make us our selves the greatest Hereticks of all And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledg is necessary to Salvation certainly the knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is which are therefore commonly described by this Character the knowledg and belief of which is necessary to Salvation And if Infidelity be a damning sin why should not a fundamental Heresie be so which is infidelity with respect to some essential and saving Doctrine of Christianity and in its consequence overthrows some material and essential part of the Christian Faith 2. There is a vast difference between the Case of those men who for want of good Instruction have not an explicite understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and of those who deny any Fundamental As for the first a very little indistinct knowledg of Christ if it govern their lives and teach them to live in Obedience to their Saviour will carry them safely to Heaven for God requires little of those to whom little is given Now there is no man that deserves the name of a Christian who has not learnt his Creed who does not know and believe that Jesus Christ came into the World to die for sin and to save sinners and that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins if we repent of them and live a new life now such a general knowledg as this without any fundamental Error to spoil the vertue and efficacy of it may suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life which are absolutely necessary to a state of Salvation such as Repentance from dead works and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much and the Jewish Converts who embraced the Faith upon St. Peters preaching to them
instruct and govern them and administer all religious Offices to them but besides the reason of the thing the practise of the Church is a sufficient ground for this presumption For we know the use of Orders is to confer Authority and Power to administer the Sacraments and yet the Church has allowed even Lay-men to baptize Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus offers tinguis sacerdos es tibi solus Tert. de exhort cast cap. 7. and if we will believe Tertullian to consecrate too in case of necessity that is where there have been no Bishops nor Presbyters to administer those Offices and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Ordain when there are no Bishops as for Lay-men to administer the Sacraments where there are no Bishops nor Presbyters I alledge Tertullian's Authority not for the sake of his reason but as a witness of primitive Practise The reasonings of particular men do not always express the sence of the Church but their own private Opinions though they may be allowed to be good Witnesses what the practise of the Church was in their days Though I confess I cannot see that any thing Tertullian says does derogate from the Evangelical Priesthood or destroy the distinction between the Clergy and Laity or encourage private Christians to invade the Ministerial Function Nonne laici sacerdotes sumus scriptum est regnum quoque nos sacerdotes Deo patri suo fecit Ibid. He says indeed that even Lay-men are Priests Christ having made us all Kings and Priests to God his Father by which he means that every Christian through our great Advocate and Mediator has now so near and free access to God Differentiam inter ordinem plebem constituit ecclesiae Auctoritas honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus and such assurance of acceptance as was thought peculiar to Priests in former Ages Well but is there no distinction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People Yes this he owns but says it is by the appointment and constitution of the Church What does he mean by this That it is a humane arbitrary and alterable Constitution By no means But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority And therefore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ and of his Apostles who from the beginning have made this distinction as Tertullian every where confesses To what purpose then is all this Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso ubi necesse est habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis Ib. How does he hence prove that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself That he has the right of Priesthood in himself when it is necessary and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also when it is necessary For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foundations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority how can it be lawful for a private Christian upon a pretence of the general Priesthood of Christians in any case whatsoever to perform such religious Acts as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this That all Christians being an Evangelical Priesthood to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God through the merits and mediation of our great High-Priest they are not debarr'd by any personal incapacity nor by the typical and mysterious Nature of the Christian Institutions from performing any religious Office which Christ has commanded his Church but yet for the better security of publick Instructions for the more regular Administration of religious Offices for the preservation of Unity Order Discipline and Government in the Church Christ hath committed the power of Government and Discipline and publick Administration of religious Offices to Persons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church and not for any other mystical reasons in case of failure where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place and any private Christian without a regular and external Consecration to this Function may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest For there are two things wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priesthood differ which make a mighty alteration in this case The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical and Mediatory the Evangelical Priesthood is neither Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical much less to a Mediatory Priesthood but only such as have a divine appointment and designation to this Office for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery and the vertue of the Mediation is lost at least our absolute assurance of it if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission But now under the Gospel the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple without any shadows and figures and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Worship which requires peculiar and appropriate Persons and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men and therefore we need not any other Mediators of divine appointment in vertue of the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ every Christian is a Priest who may approach the Throne of Grace and offer up his prayers and thanksgivings in an acceptable manner to God Gospel-Ministers indeed are to pray for the People and to bless in God's name but they pray in no sense as Mediators but in the name of our great Mediatorâ— and that which makes their Prayers more effectual than the Prayers of a private Christian is that they are the publick Ministers of the Church and therefore offer up the Prayers of the Church which are more powerful than the Prayers of private Christians And therefore St. Austin reproves Parmenianus the Donatist for making the Bishop a Mediator between God and the People which no good Christian can endure the thoughts of but must needs account such a man rather to be Antichrist August contra ep Parmen l. 1. cap. 8. than an Apostle of Christ For all Christian men pray for each other but he who prays for all and none for him is the only and the true Mediator of whom the High Priest under the Law was a Type and therefore no man was to pray for the High-Priest But St. Paul who knew that Christ was our only Mediator who was entred into Heaven for us recommends himself to the Prayers of the Church and is so far from making himself a Mediator between God
and the People that he exhorts all Christians to pray for one another as members of the same Body for if Paul had been a Mediator the other Apostles had been Mediators too and so we should have a great many Mediators and not as he himself tells us one Mediator and therefore he says that the Prayers of wicked Bishops are heard for the People not for the Bishop's sake but pro devotione populorum for the Peoples Devotion or as they are the Prayers of the Church And when the Donatists proved that wicked Bishops could not minister in holy things because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest who had any blemish or defect he answers that this was only Typical of Christ Ib. cap. 7. and fulfilled only in him So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood yet indeed it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it but is instituted by Christ for Instruction Discipline and Government and the publick Administration of religious Offices It was very requisite indeed that Christ himself should invest the Governors of his Church with Authority and Power for this Office and it is necessary to the Peace Order and Unity of the Church that no man should usurp this Power and Authority to himself but receive it from the hands of those who have Power to give it and therefore this Apostolical Power excepting the case of necessity is as saored and inviolable as the Priesthood it self but in case of necessity where the succession of Apostolical Power fails or a plenary Authority to convey it it admits of a more easie redress than the failure of a Mystical or Typical Priesthood would do For there is no Office of Religion but in such a case any Christian may perform we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ and as for Authority necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church when the regular ways of conveyance fail may be very easily presumed to be approved and confirmed by God This I take to be the true sence of Tertullian's argument which I have explained the more largely because some men are very apt to abuse all such passages to the diminution of the Ministerial Office though with what little reason I think is very evident but whatever becomes of Tertullian's Argument or whether the Church proceeded upon these Principles or not in granting Liberty to Lay-men to baptize in case of necessity the Practise of the Church is plain in this matter thus it was in Tertullian's time and thus it has been in most Ages of the Church ever since and is to this day allowed in the Church of Rome and if the Church allows Lay-men in case of necessity to administer Sacraments we may reasonably presume it will in the same necessity allow of the Ordinations of Presbyters I shall only observe further that this practise of the Church in allowing the baptism of Lay-men in case of necessity seems to me utterly to overthrow those Principles which a learned Author has Published in his late Discourse of Schism Some of his Principles are these That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments That the Validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administred they being the Seals of the Covenant which as in all Covenants between man and man are void in Law if they be not applyed by Persons who have Authority to seal This Authority of applying the Seals of the Covenant can be derived only from God and that only by Episcopal Ordinations Now I must profess my dissent from this Learned man upon more accounts than one at present it may suffize that either these Principles are false or the Catholick Church has been in a dangerous mistake in allowing the Baptism of private Christians where there were no Ecclesiastical Ministers to do it For if the Validity of Baptism depends upon the Authority of him who baptizes then the Baptism of Lay-men who according to his Principles can have no such Authority must be actually void and have no saving effect and then the Catholick Church ever since Tertullian's time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation And how specious soever any Arguments may be I shall be always jealous of such a Conclusion as charges the Primitive and Catholick Church with ignorance and error so dangerous and destructive to mens Souls This learned man was aware of this Separation of Churches c. p. 143. and therefore confesses For my part I do not understand how the validity of Laicks and much more womens Baptism who by the Apostles rule are much less capable of Fcclesiastical Authority can be defended unless it may possibly be by that general delegation which may be conceived to have been granted to them by the Governors by those customs and constitutions which permit them to administer it But it would then be a further doubt how far such Persons as these are capable of such a delegation To which I do not intend at present to digress But indeed this had been no digression or the most useful digression in all his Book The matter of Fact is confessed by him that in case of necessity Laicks were allowed to baptize which overthrows his whole Hypothesis whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases whatsoever If the Church in case of necessity has permitted Laicks to baptize we may presume that in the same necessity she will allow Presbyters to Ordain if Laicks are not capable of such a delegation then the Catholick Church has erred in a fundamental Practise which is necessary to Salvation if they be then the administration of Sacraments is not in all cases absolutely confined to the Clergy for all such cases must be excepted wherein the Church has Power to dispense for this delegated Power does not make them Ecclesiastical Officers but gives Authority or Permission to Laicks in such cases to do the work of a Bishop or of other consecrated Persons And yet we find the first Foundations of a very great Church laid in this manner by Frumentius in India who was only a Laick and yet erected Churches whether those Christians Dum regni gubernacula Frumentius haberet in manibus Deo mentem ejus animos instigante requirere sollicitius caepit si qui inter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent ipsis potestatem maximam dare ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent Ruff. l. 10. Hist Eccl. whom he found there resorted to pray to God after the manner of the Church of Rome which in those days was performed with the celebration of the Eucharist and yet they had no Bishop nor Presbyter among them and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together to pray after
sin Or must the Dissenters sin and loose their Peace with God for Vnion And a little after he adds This is the state of the Case the Dissenters would unite but cannot the Episcopals can but will not The cannot of the Dissenters and the Episcopals will not doth make the division but who is the faulty Divider If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not when they can 't would be easie to conclude them obstinate and perverse that is in plain English Schismaticks 〈◊〉 not to do what they can for Peace But since they would but cannot without sin how can they be the Dividers This I shewed particularly Defence p. 27. c. was all trick and fallacy When he says the Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament it is false For all the Bishops and Clergy in England cannot without sin part with these indifferent Ceremonies till the Law enacting them be repealed And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Liturgies as it is plain he does the Church of England does not account these indifferent Ceremonies nor think she can part with them without sin And when he says that the Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them if by without sin he means without breaking some divine Law it is false for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors in indifferent things If he means that they must act contrary to their Conscience that is their own Opinion and Judgment of things they may be the Dividers and Schismaticks for all that unless we will say that no man but a profligate Knave who sins against his Conscience can be a Schismatick Thus as for his will not and cannot If by the Episcopals will not he means that they will not do what they may by divine and humane Laws and with a just respect to the good Order and Government and Edification of the Church and regular Administration of holy Offices they are faulty in it but may be no Schismaticks notwithstanding so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion and if by the Dissenters cannot he means their private Opinions and Perswasions which hinder their Complyance they may be the Dividers still if their perswasions be erroneous All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument I proposed another like it which as fairly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter as his did upon the Church and it was this If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent that is in lawful things but will not and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Vnion but cannot who is the faulty Divider What must be done for Vnion Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin Or must the Episcopal sin and lose their Peace with God for Vnion And I added I would desire our Inquirer to think better of it and answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own Mr. Lob it seems had enough of his own Argument and durst not venture his Readers with it a second time but he repeats my Argument by it self without taking notice upon what occasion it was urged which must needs make it look oddly only wonders why I call this an Argument and that I should say that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be Reply p. 87. where it is not So that it is plain that he durst not let his Readers know that he had made any Argument like this or that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning but turns it off with without a shewing Sophistry where it is not instead of let him answer this Argument if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own It is apparent Mr. Lob was here convinc'd that he had reasoned foolishly but had not the honesty and ingenuity to own it For indeed the fallacy of both these Arguments consists in the different acceptation of cannot and will not in one sence they may be turned against the Church in another sence against the Dissenter with equal force and truth and therefore without a more particular explication of these ambiguous terms it is a good Argument against neither which must needs make it a very pleasant entertainment to any man who understands the Laws of reasoning to see Mr. Lob so gravely confute my Argument without taking any notice of his own when all that I pretended was that this was as good an Argument against Dissenters as his was against the Church and were both to be answered the same way by distinguishing the different significations of those terms as I have shewed above But that this Inquirer might not say that I had used some Art to wave the Dispute but had not answered his Argument I granted him his own sence of the Words and reduced the force of his Argument to these two Propositions 1. That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with 2. That the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just reason for parting with them The first I discoursed at large from this Topick That there can be no publick and solemn Worship no face or appearance of any Discipline or Government in the Church without the use of some such indifferent things For all actions must be cloathed with some such external Circumstances as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action yet are necessary to the external performance of it Which is proved at large in the Defence Defence p. 30. c. All that Mr. Lob replies to this is that the force of his Argument does not lie in this That all things which are in their own nature indifferent may without sin be parted with How then will he prove that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies if every thing that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin I can think of no other way to prove this if he can I shall be glad to hear it But wherein then does the force of his Argument consist Why he tells us it is this Reply p. 85. That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion as to be a term of Communion Though I doubt he would be troubled to apply this Proposition dexterously to the proof of his Argument yet to make as few Disputes as may be we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here and does not this come much to one Must not the Church part with any indifferent Ceremony which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion And if all indifferent
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
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