the Worship of one God the Christian Religion consecrates us at our baptism to the Worship of three divine Persons and one God For since each sacred Person is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of sinners each of them ought to be acknowledged and adored by us But whoever denies the efficacy of the holy Spirit in the work of Salvation destroys the foundation of his Worship too considered as a distinct Person in the Trinity 4. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit makes the Sacraments of the Christian Religion meer external Ceremonies which were instituted as the Ministries and Conveyances of Grace and so makes a fundamental change in the Institutions of Christianity 5. Nay it makes a fundamental change in the Worship of God and of our Saviour The Christian Worship principally consists in praising God and our Saviour for spiritual mercies in ascribing the glory of all the good we do to his free Grace and continual succors in begging his holy Spirit and the constant supplies of Grace that we may increase and persevere in all goodness this we have frequent examples of in the Writings of the Apostles but whoever denies the assistances of supernatural Grace both defrauds God of his Glory and himself of the benefit and comfort of it He cannot praise God for nor beg that of God which he believes God does not give which makes our Worship very defective and deprives us of the assistances of Grace which we shall never have if we never ask But then all that I can judge fundamental in this point is that the beginnings progress and perfection of all Christian graces and vertues are owing to the influences and operations of the holy Spirit But those other nice disputes about the manner of the Spirits working in us whether it be a natural or moral efficacy whether it be a sufficient or efficacious Grace resistable or irresistable how the operation of the Spirit is reconcileable with the freedom of humane action whether the habits of grace be immediately infused or acquired by frequent Acts these I say and such like Disputes are not fundamental for though it is of great moment for the government of our lives which of these we believe yet the Foundation which is the assistance of the divine Spirit is secured either way and all that men are to look to is that they do not entertain such ill notions of God's Grace as shall make them secure and careless of a holy Life All that I can think necessary to add more concerning the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is what I have already sufficiently hinted the necessity of Repentance and a holy Life There are I confess a great many dangerous Disputes about this matter what place Repentance and a holy Life have in the justification of a sinner And though it is of very great moment to understand this matter rightly and as particularly as we can for fear of that ill influence which such mistakes may have upon our lives and too apparently have upon the lives of many professed Christians yet I cannot think that man errs fundamentally who believes that God will justifie and pardon none but true penitent and reformed sinners and that not for the sake and merit of Repentance and good Works but for the sake of Christ and through Faith in his Blood though he may differ about the necessity of Repentance and Obedience and what place it has in the justification of a sinner Whether it be a necessary Condition or a necessary requisite and Qualification or a necessary concomitant and effect of Justification or whether it be necessary only to our Salvation but not to our Justification Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument or as a Condition c. For while Faith in Christ and Obedience to his Laws are both secured without either derogating from the Grace of God or the Purity of the Christian Religion other mistakes though dangerous when persued to their just Consequences and when men own and live by such Consequences yet I hope are very harmless and Innocent when they do not corrupt mens lives nor hinder the efficacy of the divine Grace Thus I have given an Essay and I hope it may pass for an Essay towards the Discovery what are fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion I have strictly confined my self to the Fundamentals of Christianity though there are some principles of natural Religion which are antecedently necessary to be believed but they are more generally known and agreed in I have had a tender regard to the weaknesses and mistakes of mankind and to the enlargement of Catholick Communion and therefore have as far as was consistent with preserving the essentials of Christianity cast most of our modern controversies out of the number of Fundamentals which if carefully considered would asswage that intemperate heat with which they are managed and more easily reconcile our differences and yet I have not rejected any Doctrine out of the number of Fundamentals which was ever defined to be such by any received general Council of the Christian Church which gives me some hope that I am come pretty near the mark But to give some new light to this matter and to prevent such objections as I can foresee there are some few things which I shall further observe before I proceed 1. The first concerns the judgment of that truly great and learned Person Mr. Joseph Mede Mede's works Epist 84 to Mr. Hartlib He seems indeed to reject this way of stating the Ratio of Fundamentals in relation to some one great Fundamental Doctrine as I have now done For in his censure of Mr. Streso's Book of Fundamentals which I have never yet seen he observes that he makes three sorts of Fundamentals The first is the Fundamentum ipsum or the Foundation it self though what that is he does not tell us and therefore how far I agree with Mr. Streso in that I know not The other two he measures by their relation to it either à parte ante and such he terms sub Fundamentales which by Mr. Mede's censure I perceive did not strictly belong to Christianity but either to the principles of natural Religion or the Jewish State or à parte post which may be called super Fundamentales which he makes such as are by immediate and necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum salutis where he observes that he had inserted some Doctrines of pure speculation among Fundamentals which I confess to be a great fault But from this imperfect account of Mr. Streso's notion I cannot guess how far my way might fall under the same censure As for those two faults he has observed in Mr. Streso's way viz. reckoning such Doctrines among the Fundamentals of Christianity as are not strictly Christian Doctrines or are matters of meer speculation I have carefully avoided them both and as for judging what particular Doctrines are fundamental to Christianity from some general comprehensive Fundamental which contains the
observed at all or not in their true meaning and signification by those who deny it as to give some few instances of it The love of God as our Redeemer and Saviour who gave his own Son for our Ransom to die for our sins and to make atonement and expiation by his Blood is very different from the love of God as our Creator and Benefactor nay as our Redeemer by Covenant Promise and Power it is a more transporting and sensible Passion and the peculiar Worship of the Gospel which those cannot give to God who deny the expiation of Christ's death The Worship of a God Incarnate a God in our nature and likeness a God who is our Saviour Mediator and Advocate through his own Blood vastly differs from the Worship of a pure infinite eternal Spirit or from the Worship of an exalted Creature And this is the peculiar Worship of the Lord's Supper that great and venerable Mystery of our Religion which is a thin and empty Ceremony without it To pray to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ and in vertue of his Sacrifice vastly differs from a natural hope and trust in God's mercy or in his bare promise or in the Power and Interest of a great Favourite though appointed to be our Mediator not in vertue of his Sacrifice but by Royal Favour Not but that God's Promise of Pardon and acceptance confirmed to us by such a powerful Favourite whom God himself hath appointed to be our Advocate may give us sufficient security that God will hear and answer our Prayers but this assurance is of a different nature from the vertue of a Sacrifice and affects our minds in a different manner and excites different Passions and very different acts of Devotion and makes our Worship differ as much as a Mediator by Sacrifice does from a Mediator by Interest and Power As for the other parts of Religion which concern our Conversation with men or the Government of our own Appetites and Passions there seems to be some new instances or new degrees of Vertue which have a necessary dependance on the Sacrifice of Christ's death as the example or reason of them As that high degree of brotherly love which Christ requires of us as the Badg of our Discipleship to love one another as he hath loved us to forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us all Acts of kindness and charity to our poor Brethren as knowing the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he were rich yet for your sakes he became poor that you through his poverty may be rich the force and prevalency of which example and of which reason I think is greatly abated by denying the expiation of Christ's death However I think it is very plain that the true principle of Gospel-obedience that which makes all our actions in a strict and proper sence Christian Graces and Vertues has a necessary respect to the expiation of Christ's death We must cheerfully obey the Will of God not only considered as our Creator but as a Redeemer we must give up our selves to Christ as the purchase of his Blood for we are not our own but bought with a price and therefore must glorifie God both with our Bodies and with our Spirits which are God's we must yield our selves willing Captives to the conquering and constraining Power of his Love the Love of Christ constrains us for we thus judg that if Christ dyed for all then were all dead and that he dyed for us that we who live might not henceforth live unto our selves but unto him who dyed for us If Christ did not redeem and purchase us by his Blood all this signifies nothing it is all but Phrase and Metaphor and Allusion which cannot form a principle of Action And yet the Apostles of Christ do not so much insist on the Authority of God as our Maker and Governor as on his purchase as Redeemer on the love of our dying Lord who is our Priest our Sacrifice and Mediator and were it possible to obey the Gospel without any regard to the redemption of Christ and that stupendious love of God in it it were not true Evangelical obedience no more than it is obedience to God to do what he commands for some private end and reason of our own without any regard to his Authority and Government So that whether the Doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death be true or false it is certainly fundamental either way either a fundamental Article of Faith or a fundamental Error because it alters Foundations and changes the whole frame of Christian Religion If Christ have made atonement and expiation for our sins Christianity is one thing if he have not it is quite another thing as different as it is possible which I think is a plain argument that the expiation of Christ's Blood is a fundamental or foundation Doctrine since the whole Fabrick of Christian Religion as it is taught in the Gospel is built on it 2. There is one consideration more which will confirm this that the atonement and expiation of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine because the Blood of Christ that is the expiation of his Blood is the peculiar object of justifying Faith now certainly that must be fundamental which is essential to justifying Faith Salvation or Justification by Christ being the sum of the Gospel whatever is essential to justifying Faith is certainly a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity if there be any such thing as Fundamentals Repentance in its full Extent and Latitude as it includes not only a sorrow for our past sins but the reformation of our lives and an actual obedience to all the Laws of the Gospel is a necessary condition of our Pardon and Justification or necessarily required in those whom God will justifie But Repentance and a new Life cannot justifie us No Religion that ever was in the World taught men certainly to expect Pardon of sin meerly upon their Repentance And it is plain that mankind never did for both Heathens and Jews thought the expiation of Sacrifices as necessary and more prevalent than meer Repentance to obtain their Pardon And the reason why God hath appointed us no Sacrifice but a broken heart or the living Sacrifice of an obedient Soul and Body to offer to him is because he has provided an expiatory Sacrifice himself hath given his own Son to be a Sacrifice for us and the Pardon of our sins is every where attributed to the death of Christ as the meritorious Cause But then as Christ hath dyed for our sins and redeemed us with his Blood and God for Christ's sake will pardon and justifie all repenting sinners so we must consider that meer repentance can no more apply or appropiate the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's death to us for our Pardon than it can justifie us without a Sacrifice That is the peculiar Office of Faith in Christ or Faith in his Blood as
St. Paul expresly tells us Being justified freely by his Grace Rom. 3.24 25. through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood For though Faith in Christ is very often used in a very large sence for the whole Gospel of our Saviour and to comprehend all Acts of Obedience and a holy Life as the Principle from whence they flow and no other is true justifying Faith but that which includes Obedience and a holy Life Yet sometimes Faith is distinguisht from Repentance and a holy Life and so has Christ and in a peculiar manner his Blood for its Object Thus the sum of St. Paul's preaching was Repentance towards God Act. 20.21 and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ And the Commission Christ gave to his Apostles was Luke 24.47 to preach Repentance and Remission of sins in his Name that is through Faith in his Name So that Faith in Christ is distinguisht from Repentance in the work of Justification and so denotes a particular respect to the expiation of Christ's death as the meritorious Cause of Pardon Under the Law a Sacrifice was available only for those for whom it was offer'd but under the Gospel instead of offering a Sacrifice to God we must believe in that Sacrifice which is already offered which does particularly apply the merit and vertue of it to our selves as the Oblation of the Sacrifice did under the Law for if we would have Christ for our Saviour or have any interest in the expiation of his death we must choose him for our Saviour by Faith in his Blood For I cannot see but why Repentance may be as well accepted from us without a Sacrifice as without respect and relation to a Sacrifice and yet the only thing that can entitle our Repentance in particular to the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice is Faith in his Blood which I think is a plain argument that the atonement of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity because it is essential to a justifying Faith But then there are a great many other opinions relating to the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death which are true or false but not fundamental For as St. Paul observes the Foundation is Christ but yet men may build upon this Foundation either Gold and Silver or Hay and Stubble that is true or false Doctrines which are of great use in the Christian Life or of very dangerous consequence but yet while they retain the Foundation though their works perish i. e. the superstructure of their private Opinions be condemned and rejected yet they themselves may escape though with great difficulty so as by fire Thus while men heartily believe that Christ dyed for our sins and has made expiation for them by his Blood and expect the Pardon of their sins only in Christ's Name that is in vertue of his Sacrifice and Intercession they may fall into great mistakes about the Nature Extent and Application of this Sacrifice and yet not err Fundamentally though their Errors may be dangerous and always are so when they betray them to sin Of this Nature I reckon some of those unhappy Disputes which have torn and divided the Church in these late days of Liberty and Confusion Whether Christ bore our sins or only the punishment of sin whether he were the greatest sinner or only the greatest Sacrifice for sin Whether he suffered the same Punishments which all sinners should have suffered had they been damned for their sins or suffered that which was equivalent to it and which God accepted for a complete and perfect satisfaction Whether the expiation of Christ's death was so absolutely necessary to the Pardon of our sins that God could not forgive sin without it or whether God choose this way as most agreeable to the wise methods of Government and the most glorious Illustration of all his Attributes Whether the death of Christ made satisfaction to a natural vindictive Justice and was paid to God as the offended Party or as the Governor of the World Whether Christ made a general atonement for sin or satisfied only for the sins of the Elect whether all the sins of the Elect were actually laid upon Christ from Eternity and actually pardoned before they were committed or whether they are pardoned in time when we repent and believe Whether what Christ suffered for us is so imputed to us as if we our selves had done it which makes the greatest sinners perfectly Innocent and looked upon by God as never to have sinned or whether it be imputed to us only for our Pardon and Justification Whether the active as well as passive Obedience of Christ be imputed to us for Justification These and such like Doctrines some of which are of a very dangerous nature and a great state of temptation yet are not fundamental Errors because they do not destroy the Foundation the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death is acknowledged on all hands though some of these Doctrines do greatly obscure the grace of God and his stupendious wisdom in the redemption of the World by Jesus Christ and therefore must be reckon'd as Hay and Stubble built upon the Foundation which will prove a great loss and dammage to such Builders when every man's work comes to be tryed But to proceed among the fundamental Doctrines of Salvation by Christ we must reckon not only the atonement and expiation of his death but the gift of his holy Spirit to renew and sanctifie us For this makes him a complete Saviour to deliver us from the punishment of our sins and from the power and dominion of them Now that it is fundamental to the Christian Religion and to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ to believe the divine influences and assistances of the holy Spirit to work Faith and all other Christian graces in us appears from these considerations 1. The gift of the holy Spirit is the most glorious effect of Christ's Power and Intercession and therefore one of the principal fruits and benefits of his Sacrifice by which we may understand the value and necessity of it to deny the intercession of Christ whereby he daily dispenses and applyes the merits of his Sacrifice does as much alter the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ as to deny the atonement of his death and to deny the assistances of the divine Spirit is in effect to deny his Intercession of which the Communications of divine Life and Power is the principal part 2. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit turns the Gospel into a meer external Ministration which makes as fundamental a difference in the Christian Religion as there is between the Ministration of the Letter and of the Spirit 3. This in a great measure takes away the Office of the holy Spirit in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation and consequently destroyes his Worship which is peculiar to the Christian Religion The light of nature directs us only to
Apostate with an uniting Design granted a general Toleration So that this Project may secure the Estates but cannot secure the Souls of Dissenters Schism will damn men though they should get it established by Act of Parliament but Mr. H. and I I perceive have very different designs and therefore no wonder if our Materials for Union differ He is concerned for this World I am concerned for the next He would secure Dissenters from all Trouble and Molestation here which I am by no means against as far as it may be done with the security of the Church and State and honour of Religion but if it were in my Power I would Sacrifice my ease and quiet and all that is dear to me in this World to secure their immortal Interests which no humane Power can secure while they live in Schism But Mr. H. thinks he has found out a device to cure the Schism viz. That it should be decreed in the Convocation that neither Church should un-church one another This is a wonderful Power he gives to the Decree of a Convocation that Churches which separate from each others Communion yet shall not un-church one another For what does he mean by un-churching To assert the Communion of any Church to be sinful and unlawful I think is to un-church it that is to make it no Church to us and whoever separates from any Church though he be never so silent does by his Separation either condemn the Communion of that Church to be unlawful or condemn himself of Schism for nothing can justifie a Separation but sinful terms of Communion How is it possible then that two Churches which separate from each other should not un-church one another or un-church themselves There is but one Church and one Communion and therefore where there are two separate Churches and two Communions they cannot both be true Catholick Churches and Mr. H.'s contrivance to declare these separate Churches to be all true Catholick Churches by the Decree of Convocation is like his Act of Parliament to make all the separate and divided Churches one National Church 4. Mr. H.'s Project is not a very likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation and if it be not good for this it is certainly good for nothing We see how troubled and disturbed the State of the Nation is at this day occasioned by the Disputes of Religion how envenomed their Spirits are how furious and factious their Zeal now not to enlarge upon this unpleasant Theme which possibly may be called railing I would only ask Mr. H. whether such an Act of Parliament as he dreams of would heal any differences in Religion would make the Dissenters think better of one another or of the Church of England than now they do Would make them more Loyal in their Principles more Charitable to one another more cool and temperate in their Zeal Whether such an Act could set bounds to the several Sects among us and make them contented with their own private Perswasions and with the Liberties and Priviledges which the Law grants them without encroaching upon their Neighbours or affecting Rule and Dominion and using all imaginable Arts to make Proselytes and enlarge their Party This is the Original of all our Disturbance now and what hope is there when the Cause remains that the Effect will cease If men still have the same fondness for their own Opinions and Churches the same Aversion to others the same Zeal to promote a Party if still they think themselves as much bound as ever to advance the Cause of God and to set Christ on his Throne according to their old pretence how fond is it to imagine that we shall enjoy more Peace and Security than we do now If it be answered that the Dissenters are at present uneasie and troublesom because the Laws are against them and they are in constant danger of the execution of them to the loss of their Liberties and the impoverishing their Families but if they had the same favour and the same security from the Government as others have they would be as quiet and peaceable and as dutiful Subjects as others are I reply 1. It does not seem very probable that those who are so Insolent Daring and Factious when the Laws and Government are against them should grow modest and governable when the Law is on their side If they cannot be governed with the Bridle in their mouths it is hard trusting to their good Nature For 2. We have had sufficient experience how busie turbulent and factious the Spirit of Fanaticism has always been and we see no Symptoms of their changing for the better 3. We know by experience how impossibly it is to oblige these men by any favours The kindness and moderation of Government is always thought a just debt to their great merit and desert or the effect of fear and weakness or the over-ruling Power of God who turns the hearts of Governors to favour his People even against their own Inclinations and therefore no thanks is due to them 4. These men never yet let slip an advantage and opportunity to disturb Government or to serve their Cause Every thing that is granted them gives them only a new confidence to ask and to demand more And if ever they can stand upon equal ground with the Church of England they will as boldly challenge a Superiority and be as much disobliged if they be denyed If once they get a legal Rite to their Conventicles they will next demand the Temples and Tythes too and declaim against the Magistrates as Sacrilegious Usurpers if they be denyed Their Discipline will not long be confined within their own Conventicles will reach Bishops and Princes too whose Authority shall be no longer owned than they submit to the Scepter of Christ These things are not yet forgot among us and I suppose it will be hard to perswade any Prince to make a second Experiment when he paid so dear for the first 5. We have made a sad Experiment already how tame and gentle Dissenters prove when the restraints of Laws are gone When the Church of England was dissolved and the enclosures flung open and every man did as he list there was no more Peace than there is now only instead of railing at the Church of England they railed at one another But enough of this Mr. H. thinks all this will be prevented by his Episcopal Visiters who are to see that the Churches of both sorts walk according to their own Order and the Peace of one another But 1. Who shall undertake that all these Churches shall quietly submit to these Visiters and quietly obey their Orders any more than they do to the Visitation of their Ordinaries now And what means of Union is there left if they don 't 2. Who shall undertake that these Visiters themselves shall not prove factious and partial and secretly foment instead of suppressing Disputes and Quarrels between the Churches for the Visiters are to be of all sorts too as well as the Churches Independent Presbyterian and Episcopal Visiters by the name of the King's Bishops or Ecclesiastical Officers now I doubt Episcopal Churches would find no great comfort in the Visitation of such Independent and Presbyterian Visiters as Dr. Owen and Mr. Baxter I confess for my own part I should not much care to come under their Visitation And I will not answer for all Episcopal Visiters that they shall always carry an equal hand to Dissenters As for Instance Mr. H. says That no Members of either Church should depart from one Church to another without a sufficient peaceable Reason Now who must be Judge of this but the Visiter Suppose then a Member of a Presbyterian Church think fit to return to the Episcopal Church do you think that a Presbyterian Visiter will be casily satisfied that he has a peaceable and sufficient Reason for this Will not every Visiter be greatly enclined to favour and enlarge the Communion of that Church to which he himself belongs And what Quarrels is this like to occasion between the several Churches It may be much greater than any thing else has yet done But the great Tryal of Skill will be in the promoting of these Visiters For though the King have the Nomination and Appointment of them their Ordination being only a broad Seal a new way of Consecrating Bishops yet what Art will be used by the different Churches in the Diocess to get a Visiter of their own Communion What a task will the King have to please all these several Interests What a noise and clamour will the Dissenters raise who know how to take every occasion for that if they have not a dissenting Visiter Nay it will not be enough then that he is a Dissenter in general but he must be a Presbyterian or Independent Dissenter according to the Interests of these several Churches This will be a perpetual occasion of Quarrel and every Party will think themselves injured and disobliged who have not a Visiter of their own Communion These are Mr. H.'s Materials for Union and if Princes and Parliaments think fit to make the Experiment I cannot help it But I will venture to turn Prophet for once and foretel that they will soon find Reason to repent the Experiment FINIS
of Separation from any Church that there are such things imposed as are not indeed expresly commanded but yet are agreeable to the Word of God and to true Religion if this be a just Cause of Separation it is impossible that any Schismatick should ever want Reasons for their Separation for there is no Church in the World but does something or other which they have no Command to do If this be no sufficient reason of Separation then it is sufficient for us to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism Can any thing be sinful which is agreeable to true Religion Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful If not it is sufficient to prove that the Church imposes nothing but what is agreeable to true Religion For whatever justifies the Church condemns the Schismaticks It may be it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of to determine what is in its own nature absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion but I can tell him de facto what is viz. a Complyance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church he who will not do this must separate from the Catholick Church and try it at the last day who was in the right I am content that Mr. Lob and his beloved Separatists should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion so they will but grant that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms than the Catholick Church it self has always been and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons as equally condemn the Catholick Church and when they have the confidence to deny this I will prove it and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England than the Practise of the Catholick Church But Mr. Lob observes that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar If any object Ibid. where are these points viz. of Invocation of Saints the worshipping of Images the abstaining from Flesh and the like found in Scripture and because not found in Scripture therefore to be rejected To which saith the Jesuit answer thus Ask where it is forbidden in Scripture If not forbidden in Scripture it is no sin to observe them for where there is no Law there is no Transgression But what of all this The Rule is a very good Rule though used in a bravado by the Jesuit Does Mr. Lob think that Popery is established by this Rule as well as indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies Do we separate from the Church of Rome only for the sake of some things which are neither forbid nor commanded in Scripture Our Dissenters I see have better thoughts of Popery than the Church of England has and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome But there is one admirable Paragraph which I cannot let pass without some short remarks and it is this To make that a part of our Religion Ib. p. 79. which is not to be found in Scripture is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof which is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Wherein there are as many absurd Propositions included as can well be in so few words 1. He takes it for granted that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture is to make a part of Religion of it and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things not as parts of Religion but as Rules of Order and Discipline Who then makes it a part of Religion If it be made a part of Religion it must be made so by God or the Church he acknowledges God does not make it a part of Religion and the Church declares she does not how then does it come to be a part of Religion Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind Intention and Declaration In some cases indeed men may do what they never intended to do and contract a Guilt which they utterly disclaim and disown but then it is in such cases where a positive Law or the nature of the thing determines the nature of the Action whatever he who does it intends by it Thus the Papists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the consecrated Host but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that because the Law of God and the Nature of the Worship makes it so But now how can that come to be a part of Worship which is not so neither by a positive Law nor by the Nature of the thing nor by the Institution of men For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Religion which is commanded by the Church If there be the Dispute is at an end we will then own these unscriptural Ceremonies as parts of Religion and justifie our selves by the Command of God and the Authority of the Church Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion which is not so in its own Nature That is can the Nature of things make an Action to be that which in its own Nature it is not Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Religion which the Church never instituted as a part of Religion I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments against her own express Declarations to the contrary 2. Mr. Lob here supposes that nothing must be a Term of Church Communion but what is a necessary part of true Religion for that is the subject of the Dispute and to make any thing a condition of Communion he thinks makes it a necessary part of true Religion And now I begin to wonder what he means by Religion or a part of Religion Is Government and Discipline Religion or a part of Religion If they be I would gladly know Mr. Lob's definition of Religion if they be not are they any Terms of Communion Or may Catholick Communion and Church-Societies be preserved without any Government and Discipline Mr. Lob is mightily out to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion but the profession of the true Religion Government and Discipline is necessary to preserve any Society and therefore obedience to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty and a necessary Term of Church Communion and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship if he be of a restless turbulent Spirit and disobedient to his Governors and their Orders and Constitutions he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion if he does not separate himself and will be damned for it too without Repentance Though a very little thing may make a
Schism yet a Schism is a great and damning sin and the less the Cause is the greater is the Sin For the guilt of Schism and Disobedience is not estimated from the intrinsick value of the thing in which they disobey and for which they separate but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedience 3. But the sting of all is in the Tail He says That to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof is sinful How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion Which few words contain several very absurd and contradictory Propositions and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false the Absurdities are notorious 1. That it is worse to make such uncommanded things Terms of Communion than parts of Worship and yet the only reason Mr. Lob and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion is because they imagine them to be made parts of Worship for if they be not parts of Worship what is the evil of them Why should men separate for the Surplice or Cross in Baptism c. When there is no evil in these things The only evil they charge them with being only this that we make new Sacraments and new parts of Worship by humane Authority 2. This supposes that that may be a part of Worship which is not a Term of Communion Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship and a term of Communion But this is a new Notion which I believe mankind was not instructed in before to make that no term of Communion which we make a part of Worship which signifies to live in Christian Communion together without an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship 3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false than the Foundation of all this that the terms of Communion are more sacred than the Worship of God That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship than a new term of Communion That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence as the conditions of Union between Christians and yet the only reason why Christians are to unite into one Body is to worship God together Methinks this should make our new Projectors careful what they do and make Mr. H. seriously reflect upon what he has done who has proposed such new materials for Union as were never known in the Christian Church before 11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism is made up as he says Reply p. 80. of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion but the Application and Conclusion which is the only thing considerable is his own Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is that Separation is lawful in case men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account But the Church of England according to my notion makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation Ergo we may yea we must separate or 't is our duty and therefore not our sin to separate i.e. we are no Schismaticks Wonderful subtil The Dean's Rule I own and will stand to that if men make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we may lawfully separate from them where the Dean makes two things necessary to justifie a Separation 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation that is that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision was But yet 2. This of it self is not sufficient to justifie a Separation unless these men divide the Church upon this account This Mr. Lob thought fit to leave out of his Argument because it would have spoiled his Argument to have put it in The bare asserting indifferent things to be necessary to Salvation if they do not divide the Church upon it will not justifie a Separation This many believing Jews did They thought Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses necessary to Salvation and yet St. Paul commands Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and to maintain one Communion and St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with them to avoid any scandal But when some false Apostles did not only assert the necessity of such things to Salvation but would impose this upon all Christians or break Communion with them when they separated from the Church it was very lawful to separate from them And therefore we must correct Mr. Lob's Major Proposition thus From such as make indifferent things necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account we must separate This is Dr. Stillingfleets Let us now consider his Minor Proposition which he says is mine But the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation This is the Dr's Substitutes notion God forbid My notion I never had such a thought in my life Well! But if Mr. Lob can prove this against me I know no help for it I 'le make my Defence as well as I can But let us hear what he says He attempts two or three ways to prove this but blunders in each the first way is this Ibid. That which is necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is according to his Doctrine necessary to Salvation Now this I deny Communion with the Catholick Church is necessary to Salvation but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church is not therefore in its own nature necessary to Salvation It may be necessary in order to Catholick Communion to comply with many inconvenient though not sinful terms of Communion and all wise and good men have thought themselves bound to do so when there is no other Remedy does it hence follow then that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salvation But to proceed But indifferent things says Mr. Lob are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church in that according to him they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church according to his constant judgment Ergo I confess what he means by this I cannot well understand I suppose it may be this That I make Communion with the Catholick Church and consequently with the Church of England as a sound and orthodox part of the Catholick Church to be necessary to Salvation But the observation of some indifferent things is de facto necessary to the Communion of the Church of England because the Church enjoyns the Observation of some indifferent things Ergo indifferent things are made necessary to Salvation Now 1. I would only ask Mr. Lob in his ear whether his own Conscience don't tell him that he has prevaricated here whether he has not used that term Necessary to Salvation in different senses on purpose to abuse the Dean and