there is want of it and never wants distinctions where there is no difference 2. The next way of maintaining Catholick Communion among Bishops I observed was by advising together about the publick affairs of the Church and Communicating Counsels with each other and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions that there might be no misunderstanding between them these last words which I have included in a Parenthesis Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation because they did too plainly discover how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholick Unity And answers 1. This Independents are ready to do What then Does it hence follow that they are Catholick Bishops Schismaticks may do many things which true Catholick Christians do and be Schismaticks still 2. How doth this differ from the former Do you not mean advising by Letters or Messengers If not is it general Councils you mean or what I told my meaning very plain Sometimes one particular Bishop writ to another Sometimes Neighbour Bishops met in Provincial Synods and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches But this is writing Letters still and how does it differ from the former Why Sir only as a Letter containing an account of the present state of the Church what Bishops die and who are ordained in their stead who are Catholicks and who are Schismaticks does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel c. but how is it we must advise with them of Armenia Abassia and the rest When Mr. B. can prove that I make it necessary to do so I will undertake to find out a way to do it but this and what follows about Provincial Counsels has been sufficiently considered above 3. Mr. B. proceeds But how Is it only publick Affairs that the Colledge adviseth you about The Man dreams who talks of the advice of the Colledge Who is it then that must dispose of the Church State and Souls of all us Individuals Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters must take care of his own Church and the Souls committed to him and that he may do this the better in all difficult 〈◊〉 especially such as concern the whole Church must take the best Advice of his Fellow-Bishops that he can where is the absurdity of all this Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is when he adds It seems it is some body below the Senate that is meant when we are told that we must obey the universal Church I thought whither it would come at last And well he might think whither it would come when he was resolved whither to carry it 3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholick Communion was by Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians who had occasion to travel from those Churches of which they were members to other Churches whither they went which were called Formed or Communicatory Letters the use of which I there explained To which Mr. Baxter answers 1. Are not all these three Proofs the same writing Letters of Church-affairs Consultation and Communication Yes writing Letters is writing Letters most certainly but I imagine there may be some difference with reference to the Subject about which men write And that Letters of recommendation differ something from Letters of advice 2. Do any of us deny his Conclusion that this proveth Communion among them Why then does he not own this Catholick Communion which I contend for and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatick No but I should prove an Episcopal Colledge as one Aristocratical supreme Regent Head I thank him for nothing I am not at leisure to write such Books on purpose for him to confute them But 3. He says these communicatory Letters the Non-conformists are greatly for that no man may be admitted to Communion in any particular Church without either a Personal understanding owning of his Baptismal Covenant or a Testimonial that he hath done it and been received into Communion with some Church with whom we have such Communion as is due between several Churches Quidlibet ex Quolibet How cleverly has Mr. B. turned these Communicatory Letters into an examination by Lay Elders or an Independent Church-covenant and the one Communion of the Catholick Church into such a Communion as is due between several Churches I could wish as heartily as Mr. B. that greater care were taken in the Discipline of the Church though they who make the greatest Complaints of the want of it are the true cause of this defect But what is this to Communicatory Letters Or what if Schismaticks are for Communicatory Letters among themselves are they ever the less Schismaticks for that All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters was this that the Ancient Church did believe that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholick Church and had a right to Christian-communion where he came which cannot be unless all Christians are one Body and all particular Churches members of one Catholick Church And here I had occasion to express my dissent from a very great man whose memory is as dear and venerable to me as to most of his particular and intimate Friends I mean Dr. Barrow and I think I express my dissent from him with all that modesty and just respect which is due to his memory I acknowledged that he had abundantly confuted that notion of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church but yet that he made Catholick Communion too arbitrary a thing like the Confederacies of Soveraign Princes I should be heartily glad to see my self confuted in this point and to find that I was mistaken in his judgment in this matter if at least it may be called his Judgment and not rather his Inadvertency I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgment of this Reverend Person for I do not find that he understands either of us I am sure he urges such things in his Defence as that great man would be ashamed of and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it And now I come to the grand difficulty of all which I did but just name in the Defence What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day If there be no Catholick Church without Catholick Communion where shall we find the Catholick Church at this day when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other This makes some men suspect that Catholick Communion is a pretty Romantick notion of a Catholick Church but so impracticable that it is of no use to us now nor will put an end to any one Controversie or Schism in the Christian Church But this difficulty when it is thorowly examin'd will vanish of it self For 1.
the manner of the Church of Rome yet what that means Theodoret tells us more expresly that they met together after the manner of the Church of Rome to celebrate all religious Offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. hist Eccl. l. 1. cap. 23. which in the ancient Language peculiarly signifies the Celebration of the Eucharist Our Author acknowledges That when all diligence is used in securing Succession there may yet be real failures in it But as God only can know them so I cannot but think him obliged Separation of Churches c. p. 417. both by his Covenant for the graces conveyed in the Sacraments and by his design of establishing Government through all Ages of succession to supply those failures So that it seems there is great reason in some cases that God should supply the failures of a valid Authority that God should make and account those Sacraments valid which have not the validity of a just Authority And if this may be done in any case certainly the case of necessity is as considerable as any And the necessity of preserving the being of the Church seems to me as considerable as the preservation of Government which is only in order to the preservation of its being But this is a matter of such great moment that I cannot pass it over without a more particular Examination of some Principles on which that learned man grounds that severe conclusion of the Invalidity of all Sacraments which are not administred by Bishops or by Presbyters Episcopally Ordained which I hope I may do in such a Cause as this wherein so many foreign Churches are concerned without the least infringement of that real honour and friendship I have for him And to proceed with all possible clearness in this matter I shall reduce the state of the Controversie between us to a narrow point and briefly shew wherein we agree and wherein we differ 1. Then I readily grant that the external participation of the Christian Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper is ordinarily necessary to Salvation 2. I grant also that the Bishops and Ministers of the Church regularly ordained have the only ordinary Power of administring Sacraments and that all Sacraments administred and received in opposition to and contempt of the ordinary Governors of the Church are invalid or inefficacious 3. But I absolutely deny that the validity of the Sacraments depends upon the Authority of the Persons administring This is the parting point and therefore must be carefully examined And I find but two general Arguments this learned man uses for the Proof of it From the nature of the Sacraments and from the ends of Government considering God as a Covenanter and as a Governor 1. From the nature of the Sacraments or considering God as a Covenanter and so the administration of Sacraments is celebrating or making a Covenant in God's Name so as to oblige him to performance of it which no man can do unless God signifie it to be his Pleasure to empower him to do so as in Law no man can be obliged by anothers act who has not been empowered to act in his Name by his Letters of Proxy And he that presumes of himself to make a Covenant wherein God is by him engaged as a Party without being so empowered by God as what he does cannot in any legal exposition be reputed as God's act so neither can it infer any legal obligation of him to performance This Argument is drawn out to a great length but this I take to be the sum of it and it were a very strong Argument if the Foundation of it were not false but I must deny that which this Author has all along taken for granted without any Proof that the administration of the Sacraments as suppose of Baptism is the Ministers making a Covenant with the Person baptized in God's Name I know of but one Covenant which God has made with mankind in Christ Jesus and that is the Gospel-Covenant and I know of but one sealing and confirmation of this Covenant and that is by the Blood of Christ and therefore the Sacraments cannot be such Seals as ratifie and confirm the Covenant and give validity to it or pass an Obligation on God to stand to his Covenant The Christian Sacraments are necessary parts duties or conditions of the Covenant either for our admission to the Priviledges or conveyance of the Grace of the Covenant and therefore they cannot in a proper sence be Seals of or making a Covenant in God's Name All mankind are capable of being received into this Covenant the Covenant is actually made to the Christian Church and every Member of it Baptism is our admission into the Christian Church and consequently to all the priviledges of the Covenant it is very fitting that the ordinary Power of such admissions should be in the hands of Church Governors and so it is by divine appointment but all this is a very different thing from making a Covenant in God's Name which shall validly oblige God to the performance of it This it is plain no man can do without the most express Authority but the external solemnities of a Covenant which are ratified confirmed commanded by God need not in all cases such express Authority for in this case we do not presume to make a Covenant in God's Name or to oblige him by our Act but only to do what he has required and commanded to be done though not expresly commanded us in particular to do it We neither make any new terms for God which he has not already made and obliged himself to the performance of nor admit any Persons to the Priviledges of this Covenant whom God has excluded for the Covenant is made with all mankind who believe the Gospel but we only do the ordinary work of Church Governors without the regular Authority of Governors upon a reasonable presumption that God will allow of this where there are not ordinary Governors to do it Which is a reasonable presumption in all humane Governments where a regular Authority fails and cannot be supplyed in an ordinary way a Topick which this learned Author makes great and frequent use of And methinks it might satisfie any reasonable man what a vast difference there is between making a Covenant in God's Name and performing some external Solemnities of it if he only consider that Covenant which God made with Abraham and the sign of this Covenant which was Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith Whatever this learned man urges to prove the necessity of a valid Authority in the Administrator to make Baptism valid will prove the same necessity of a valid Authoirty to make Circumcision valid for what Baptism is in the new Covenant that Circumcision was in God's Covenant with Abraham both equally alike Signs or Seals or external Solemnities of the Covenant and yet it is sufficiently known Buxtorfii Synagoga Judaica cap. 4. that any Israelite might circumcise that
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
mention the Country-Conformist who is such an insignificant Appendage and Hanger-on as a silly flie is to a Wheel though possibly he may have no more wit than to fancy that he has raised all this dust and stir They charge me with advancing a Cassandrian design and promoting an Union with the Church of Rome rather than with Protestant Dissenters And to insinuate the belief of this into his Readers Mr. Lob endeavours to prove that Arch-Bishop Laud had this design in his head but what is this to me I am no Arch-Bishop yet and greatly suspect I never shall be if he can prove that the Arch-Bishop died like a Papist or a Phanatick with a lye in his mouth or that he attempted any reconciliation with the Church of Rome which is not consistent with the Principles or Practices of the Primitive Church I think he was very much to blame for it and am very glad he did not perfect his Design but could a Reconciliation be obtained upon the principles of Primitive and Catholick Christianity accursed be the man who would hinder this Union which I would be glad to effect not only with shedding my Blood once but if it were possible a thousand times with all the Scorn and Obloquies of the most virulent Phanaticks into the Bargain But whatever Mr. Lob may fancy I look upon this as a very hopeless and impractible design and never had such a vain Conceit in my head while I was a 〈◊〉 â—â—â—iting the late Defence and had any one Whispered such an accusation in my Ear without at the same time shewing the folly and weakness of the Charge I should have been more puzzled to have found out the Rise and Occasion of it than to have answered all the Cavils against the Church of England which I have ever yet seen But though I knew nothing of a Cassandrian Design yet my Adversaries have found me out and if we will believe Mr. Lob I am got at least as far as France in my Journey to Rome surely there is some Conjuring in the Case for I don't know that ever I went a step beyond Canterbury But this is a Cause which will not bear an Ignoramus and therefore I must defend my self as well as I can and in order to that I shall 1. briefly represent the Doctrine of the Defence with respect to the Unity of Church-power and Government whereon this Charge of Cassandrianism is founded 2. Consider what the Doctrine of Cassander was in this matter 3. Examine the Arts my Adversaries have used to pervert the Sense of my words to turn them into Non-sense and Ridicule and to draw me head-long into the Popish Plot. 1. As for the first in order to prove that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion I asserted that all the Bishops of the Church are but one 〈◊〉 invested with the same Power and Authority to Govern the Church that as St. Cyprian tells us Defence of the unreas of Separation p. 208. There is but one Episcopacy part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power That all these Bishops are but one body who are bound to live in Communion with each other and to govern their respective Churches where need requires and where it can be had by mutual advice and consent and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely independent but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy or Episcopal Colledge as Optatus calls it whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholick Church depends for it is impossible the Catholick Church should be one Body or Society or one Communion if it be divided into as many independent Churches as there are absolute and independent Bishops for those Churches must be independent which have an independent Power and Government as all those must have which have independent Governors or Bishops and independent Churches can never make one Body and one Catholick Communion because they are not Members of each other and thus the Unity of the Catholick Church must be destroyed unless we assert one Episcopacy as well as one Church one Evangelical Priesthood as well as one Altar all the World over But to make this as plain as possibly I can that every one may understand it who will I shall reduce the whole state of this Controversie under some few heads 1. There is but one Episcopacy because all the Bishops of the Catholick Church have originally the same Authority and Power in Church Affairs no one has the whole but each of them has a part and equal share and therefore they are called the Episcopal Colledge and a copious Body of Bishops as all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church not because they ever do or ought to meet together for Advice and Counsel and Acts of Government from all parts of the World no more than the Catholick Church does for Acts of Worship but because they are and ought to be in Communion with each other they have all the same Power and Authority which must be exercised in one Communion 2. Though all Bishops have a Relation to the whole Church every Bishop being a Bishop of the Catholick Church yet the Rules of Order and good Government and the Edification of the Church require that the Exercise of this Power be in ordinary Cases limited and confined to a certain Part which we call a particular Church for as no particular Bishop can Instruct and Govern the Catholick Church no more than he can be in all parts of the World at the same time so every Bishop will be capable of exercising his Office to the best Advantage when his Care is confined to a certain Place and particular Church and every particular Church is likely to receive the greatest Benefit from the Care and Inspection of a fixed Pastor and Bishop 3. That the same Rules of Order and Government require that every Bishop have the chief Power of Government in his own Diocess for if every Bishop had Authority as often as he pleased to intermeddle in another Bishops Diocess and order the Affairs of his Church it must needs cause great Confusion and Distraction in all Churches and make the People very uncertain whom they are to obey and therefore it has been the constant Practice of the Apostles and all succeeding Ages to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches and to confine their Care and Inspection to them 4. But yet the Power of every Bishop in his own Diocess is not so Absolute and Independent but that he is bound to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy and to live in Communion with his Collegues and Fellow-Bishops for this is the Foundation of Catholick Communion without which there can be no Catholick Church and therefore he who causelesly breaks this Unity can be no Catholick Bishop and this is the Foundation of all those greater Combinations of Churches and that Authority which is regularly exercised over particular Bishops by their Colleagues For
their Power should not be accountable to the rest for it i.e. to the Colledge of Bishops which last words are not mine but his own Comment though Printed in a different Character as if they were mine and this Colledge of Bishops he transforms presently into a general Council and thus I subject the Arch-bishop of Canterbury whom I first equal to other Bishops as I do indeed with respect to original Right and Power wherein all Bishops are equal not with respect to Church-constitutions to some Court above any in this Realm to a general Council a Colledge of Bishops and now I am in danger again of a Praemunire But this has been already sufficiently explained in what sense I deny the Independency of Bishops and how far this is from subjecting them to any Forraign Jurisdiction whether of Forraign Prelates or a general Council though I cannot well understand how a general Council of which they themselves are part can be properly called a Forraign Court or Forraign Jurisdiction unless the Treaty at Nimengen were a Forraign Jurisdiction to all those Princes and States who sent their Plenipotentiaries thither to act for them However to satisfie Mr. Lob I shall 1. freely declare my thoughts about a general Council 2. Consider the folly of that suggestion that to assert the Authority of a general Council subverts the Kings supremacy and incurs a Praemunire 1. As for a general Council my thoughts are these which I humbly submit to my Superiors 1. That there never was nor ever can be in a strict sense a general and oecumenical Council of the whole Church unless the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem was such which yet was not general unless all the Apostles were there which I suppose will not be easily proved for it is not likely there ever should be a Convention on of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World nor if it were possible that there should be some few Bishops dispatcht from all Christian Churches all the World over can I see any reason why this should be called a general Council when it may be there are ten times as many Bishops who did not come to the Council as those who did and why should the less Number of Bishops assembled in Council judge for all the rest who so far exceed them in Numbers and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom Especially considering that every Bishop has the supreme Government of his own Church Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium Cypr. praef ad Concil Carthag and his Liberty and Power to choose for himself as St. Cyprian tells us and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Colleagues which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of general Councils which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops who refuse to consent unless it be in such Matters as concern the purity of Faith and Manners or Catholick Unity in other Matters if St. Cyprians principle be true the major Number of Votes in Council cannot make a firm Decree much less can the Votes of three or four hundred Bishops give Laws to all the Bishops in the Christian Church which is a plain Demonstration that a general Council cannot be the supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church 2. Since every Bishop from the Unity of Episcopacy and his obligations to Catholick Communion is bound as far as he can to govern his particular Church by the mutual Counsel and Consent of his Colleagues we must acknowledg that both Provincial and General Councils are of very great use though they have no proper jurisdiction and whatever Bishop should wilfully refuse to observe the Decrees and Canons of such Councils without manifest necessity for not doing it would be guilty of such pride and obstinacy as would fall very little short of the Guilt of Schism when there is a just Reason for it we may say with St. Austin Non consertimus huic concilio salvo jure unitatis Aug. de haptismo l. 7. c. 25. we do not consent to this Council but yet keep the Peace and Unity of the Church intire and will not heighten every dissent into a Schism but where there is no such reason it is no better than Schismatical pride and peevishness for any Bishop to pursue his own humour in opposition to the Decrees and Constitutions of his Colleagues for the very Consent and Agreement of Bishops among themselves is so great a good to the Church of God that That alone is sufficient to determine a good man when there are not very weighty reasons against it St. Cyprian I am sure thought it a Matter of mighty Consequence to manage all the great Affairs of the Church by mutual Advice Et dilectio communis ratio exposcit fratres charislimi nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos geruntur ut sit nobis circa utilitatem ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium Cyp. ep 29. in his Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome written after the Death of Fabian during the vacancy of that See he tells them that both mutual Love and Charity and the reason of the thing required that he should conceal nothing from them of the Affairs of his Church that so they might advise and consult with each other concerning the most useful Rules of Ecclesiastical Administrations And therefore he tells us that he put off the Consideration of the State of the Lapsed and would not innovate any thing in the ancient Rules of Discipline till God should be pleased to restore Peace to the Church Cypr. ep 40. that they might meet together for common Advice And the Roman Presbyters in answer to another Letter of St. Cyprians approve of this resolution and add a very weighty Reason for it that it is impossible that Decree should be firm and obtain a general Complyance which is not made by the Consent of many ep 31. And therefore I observed in the Defence that though they had no such thing as a general Council before the times of Constantine yet they had frequent Provincial Councils and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches with an account of their Transactions and Decrees that they might either approve them in their Councils or give them an account of their Dissent and the Reasons of it Mr. Baxter asks me whether they sent these Letters all the World over Cam quo nobis totus orois commercio formatarum in una Communionis societate concordat Opt. lib. 2. and I answer I believe they did not because I suspect it is not to be done no more than a general Council can be convened from all parts of the World but yet it is evident this Communication by Letters
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
the Church doth as I would have it by Excommunication cast thousands out of the state of Salvation for not complying with little uncommanded things But now here are two great mistakes For 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation but casts them out of her own Communion that this excludes them from a state of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. The Church does not desire nor design the Damnation of any man but excommunicates them for their correction and amendment that God would give them repentance unto life And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate when God who knows every circumstance of things more particularly than Church-Governors can may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church who are cast out of visible Communion Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism Excommunication is no sin at all but a severe punishment when it is deserved and contracts the guilt of Schism when it is despised He who is unjustly cast out of the Church ought not to despise such Censures but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion But the Excommunication of the Church and the wilful Separation of Schismaticks are two as different things as can well be imagined I never asserted that Church-Censures and Excommunications always put men out of a state of Salvation but I assert that wilful Schism does 2. Nor does the Church excommunicate meerly for the sake of some little uncommanded things but for Schism and Church-factions and disobedience to Government which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society and are not the less sins because the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things To excommunicate any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion i. e. because he will not break the express Laws of God to comply with the Laws of the Church is an unjust and Schismatical Excommunication but it is necessary to the good Order and Government of any Society to Excommunicate those who will not own the just Authority of the Church be the thing never so little for which they separate For we must consider that a Church must first be Schismatical her self before she can excommunicate Schismatically Any Church which either forbids the doing what God has commanded or commands what God hath forbid is so far a Schismatick from the Catholick Church whose Communion must be regulated by the divine Laws and if she excommunicates any single Persons or Churches for not complying with these unlawful and Schismatical terms of Communion her Excommunications are Schismatical because her terms of Communion are so which is the case of the Church of Rome But it is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical can excommunicate Schismatically A man who is unjustly excommunicated is cast out of the external Communion of the Church but does not schismatically separate himself Nay though he be upon other accounts unjustly excommunicated if there be nothing unlawful in the Communion of that Church which is the unjust Excommunication which these learned Bishops assert to be schismatical or he be not excommunicated upon any such account he must patiently bear it and use all means to be restored but must not set up a distinct and opposite Communion which would be a causeless Schism For meer Excommunication though in some respects never so unjust is not a sufficient reason to justifie a formed Schism and Separation from any Church no more than any acts of injustice which private men suffer will justifie a Rebellion against their Prince God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Vertue and Innocence whether it suffer from Church or State and there only lies our last Appeal So that meer Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical or though it may occasion yet it can never justifie a Schism But now when any Church by enjoyning sinful terms of Communion separates so far from the Catholick Church and excommunicates all Persons and Churches who will not communicate with her in such unlawful things it is lawful and justifiable nay necessary for such Persons to preserve the purity of their own Communion or to form themselves into a distinct Communion in the Unity of the Catholick Church and to leave such a Church to stand by her self Here now is a formed Schism between these Churches and the Question is who is the Schismatick the excommunicating or the excommunicated Churches And the answer is very plain the excommunicating Church is the Schismatick because she has departed from Catholick Communion by imposing unlawful terms of Communion So that Excommunication can never be Schismatical but when the terms of Communion are a Schism from the Catholick Church and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this whether the enjoyning the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies be a Schism from the Catholick Church and when Mr. Lob can prove this I will readily grant the Church of England to be schismatical whether she excommunicate Dissenters or not But this will be a hard matter for him to do when the Catholick Church has always asserted the Authority of the Church in these matters and has always practised a great many uncommanded Ceremonies in all Ages but this I have discoursed sufficiently above Thus we see how Mr. Lob fails in his new attempts to prove the Church of England the Schismatick from my own Principles and Concessions Let us now consider how he justifies his old Argument to prove the Church the divider and certainly never any man was more hard put to it to make some little insignificant appearance of an Answer than he was and yet he puts a very good face on it and with a brave Confidence huffs it off as if there were nothing said that deserved an Answer And I confess it abundantly satisfies me what a vain attempt it is to convince men who are resolved not to be convinc'd If Mr. Lob or any other for him will give a fair and particular Answer to those few Pages in the Defence from p. 22. to p. 53. I promise them to be their Convert and a zealous opposer of all indifferent Ceremonies in Religion But because Mr. Lob would have the World believe that he has done this already I shall desire my Readers to look over those few Pages in the Defence and compare them with his Reply and if this could be obtained I would venture to leave it just as it is without any further remarks But least he should boast that I decline the Dispute I shall briefly consider what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers Mr. Lob undertook to prove the Church not the Dissenter to be the divider by this Argument The Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies but Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them what then must be done for Vnion Must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can without