neither of these was necessary to make a Church National and all the Answer he gives to it is this When we speak of a National Church our own is always to be understood about which the Dispute is and our Church is a National Political Church no otherwise but upon this account that is that the People and the Prince are Christians and the Supposition hereof is necessary to it And a little after he tells us By a National Church we commonly understand I apprehend a Political Church wherein all the particular Christians and Churches in a Nation and those only are combined under the Government through the supreme Magistrate to Church-purposes This is such a loose description of a National Church as may serve almost any purpose But the whole force of his Reasoning is this that the National Church of England and so other National Churches under Christian Princes is incorporated into the State ergo it is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State and the Supposition of this is necessary to make it a National Church the last Result of which is no more but this Bellarmine thou liest I had asserted and proved that a National Church may be considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State in Answer to this Mr. H. says that the Church of England is a National Church only as it is incorporated into the State which is the thing he ought to have proved but he thought it more convenient only to affirm it how easie is it to answer Books if bold denyals or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer Or does Mr. H. indeed think that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws and Sanctions and humane Authority therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's that Christianity it self can be a Law to us only considered as the Law of the Land because it is now made the Law of the Land And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land so must the Christian Church be too the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion the Sacraments and Promises the Remission of sins and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion as a new Christian Church and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church which is not a Church nor that to be one National Church which is not one National Communion one Communion being necessary to make any Church one whether it be the Universal National or particular Church But of this more hereafter Having thus vindicated a National Church and proved it to be a Church before and after its incorporation into the State the next inquiry is whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society now this Dispute will quickly be at an end if we do but recover the true State of the Controversie Mr. B. asked what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England the Dean denyed that there is any such Head of the Church of England considered as a Church though the King be the supreme Head and Governor of the Church as it is incorporated into the State Mr. B. replyes that the Church must have such a constitutive Regent Head because every political Society must have one constitutive Regent Head or else it is not one Politie to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head then the Church is not a Political Society for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole That the Church is one not by one superior Power over the whole an informing specifying unifying supreme Power as Mr. B. calls it but by one Communion Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me p. 184. instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society as has one constitutive Regent Head he produces his Definition of Politica and observes that Politie is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Politie and Spalatensis 's learned Volumns are de Republica Ecclesiastica But what is this to the purpose Does Hooker set up one constitutive Regent Head over the Church Do any of them prove that Civil and Ecclesiastical Politie is the same thing Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Common-wealth differ as much as the Church and the State And therefore he must still prove that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom so it is to the Unity of the Church which will be a fair Advance towards Popery And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this but a down right Affirmation without any Proof That the Regent part is the Informing part if it have not one Regent part it is not one Society as Political If it have none it is no Politie if it have many it is many This I grant is true of such Societies as are one by one supreme unifying Power but it is not true of such a Society as is one not by one supreme Power over the Whole but by one Communion And such a Society the Church is as I largely proved in the Defence and therefore the Church must be excepted from Mr. B's Rules and Definitions of Politie In another place Mr. B. suspects Ib. p. 203. that the Reason of my Opposition to a constitutive Regent Head is that I do not understand the Terms and therefore he takes pains to instruct me what a Regent Head signifies and what Constitutive signifies But he has as ill luck at guessing as he has at reasoning For the quite contrary is true I did understand the Terms but did not like the Thing and therefore opposed it But do I not know That Head is commonly taken for Synonimal with summa potestas or the supreme Power Yes I do and deny that there is such a visible Regent Head over a National Church considered as a Church Or do I not know That a constitutive Cause in the common Sence of Logicians signifieth the essentiating Cause as distinct from the efficient and final Yes I know this too well A Political Society either hath Matter and Form or not If yea what is the Form if not the Regent part in relation to the Body Its species is the specifying Form quae dat esse nomen and in existence it is the unifying or individuating Form But if it have no Form it is nothing and hath no name This is a formidable man at Metaphysicks and
controversie rest there then and we will leave it to wiser men to judge between us But Mr. B. and Mr. H. do not agree about that Citation It shall not be so among you Mr. B. thinks it a hopeful Citation and is agreed with me about it Mr. H. sayes none but such a forward one would have alleadged it to this purpose let them now agree this Matter between themselves For now I shall leave Mr. B. a while to hear what Mr. H. says to the main Dispute He undertook in Answer to the Dean to produce an Argument for the Proof of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church which Mr. B. was so subtil as to prove only by a Definition His Argument was this There is a Government in the Church of England Where there is a Government H's answer to Doctor Still p. 12. there must be a Political Society every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens subdita If the Church of England then be a Political Church it must have a Regent part and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned To this I answered Defence p. 565. by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church and if all Government made a Political Society then a National Church may be owned to be a Political Society for Government by consent without superiority is Government That Church Governors united and governing by consent are the pars Imperans Christian People in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour submitting to such Government are the pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head The plain meaning of which is this That there is a Government in the Church as every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church which is but one Government because all Bishops are bound by the Laws of our Saviour to govern their particular Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel and one Consent as far as is necessary to the ends of Catholick Communion and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church or Bishop or Colledge of Bishops over all the Churches and Bishops of the Christian World which is what Mr. B. calls a constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church Here Mr. H. disputes with great Triumph and wonders I should applaud the Dean for denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church considered as a Church for that is the state of the Question which he is willing to conceal when I my self have asserted such a Head viz. Reply p. 131. a Colledge of Bishops governing by consent But his mistake in this matter has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Lob and he has added nothing new to deserve a new Consideration He says p. 132. I understand the term Political to be commensurate with Civil but I say I never did understand it so and deny the Church to be a Political Society only in Mr. B's notion of Political who asserts that every Political body must have one supreme Regent Head over the Whole which the Church has not which is one by one Communion not by one supreme Power He says I have found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not one Head as well as one that is Monarchical Yes no doubt but it is but I neither know such a Collective nor Monarchical Head But do I not assert p. 133. That a National Church is a Political Society Yes I do assert that if Government as distinguisht from one constitutive Regent Head makes a Political Society then the Church which is a governed Society is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority i. e. without one supreme Regent Head is Government But if I grant a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledge or Cyprians one Episcopacy as the governing Part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then I have found out a constitutive Head and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christs institution For an united Colledge of Bishops for Government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head I need give no new Answer to this having already sufficiently explained what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy and the Colledge of Bishops which is far enough from being such an Ecclesiastical constitutive Regent Head of the Church But to return to Mr. Baxter Answer to Dr. Sherl p. 205. he makes great sport with that Proposition that Government by consent without superiority over the pars Subdita or over the People who must be subject to this Government it is governing sine jure regendi But then I hope we break not the 5th Commandment by disobeying them But this I suppose was only to shew his skill in Drollery and in turning plain sence into non-sence I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sence It were well indeed for him that Bishops had no Authority to govern for then as he well observes they might be Schismaticks without sin But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfie any man though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatick Zeal And therefore he adds But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another Ans And verily doth the Church of England think that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head or summa Potestas or form of Policy Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another as such Or hath the Venetian Senate Or the Polonian Parliament men Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof but ipse dixit See how all Politicks are damned with the non-Conformists for making Aristocracy a Species of Policy But I pray you use them not all for it as hardly as you use us But really thus much of the World is governed Mr. B. I see as Mr. H. says is a man who understands Politicks and I dare not pretend to so much skill in the Roman Venetian or Polonian government but this I think I can safely say as little as I know of them that the Colledg of Bishops is neither one nor t'other nor any kind of Aristocracy for when I speak of a Government without superiority that is without a supreme constitutive Regent Head which was the Subject of the Dispute it is as wild to imagine that I mean an Aristocracy which is such a Regent Head as that by without superiority I mean governing without superiority over the pars Subdita But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently when by a perverse Comment he has made him speak or write non-sence which must be acknowledged the best way of confuting Books when he cannot confute the true and genuine sense of them But as to the thing when I say
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
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
Communion with the whole Christian Church It is true as I observed in the Defence in the Primitive Church they maintained Communion with distant Churches by Formed and Communicatory Letters by giving notice to each other of the state of their several Churches and advising and consulting about Church Affairs which was a prudent means of maintaining a stricter Communion and fair Correspondence between them and was especially necessary at that time when they lived under Pagan Emperors and the external Unity of the Church was upheld only by Ecclesiastical Authority But this was not absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion and is in a great measure impracticable now The Empire being divided into the hands of several Independent Christian Monarchs who have the supreme Power in all Ecclesiastical as well as civil Causes there can be no such actual Correspondence between the Churches of several Nations but by their consent and leave Soveraign Princes not Subjects whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons must treat with one another about the great Affairs of Church and State though with the advice of their Civil or Ecclesiastical Counsellors But still those Churches are in Communion with each other who own each other as Members of the same Body and deny no Act of Christian Communion to each other as opportunity serves And whether this be so very difficult much less impossible let any man judge V. To make this appear still more easie and practicable we may consider that the Terms of Catholick Communion are not so straight and narrow as some men make them This is the true reason of most of the Schisms in the Christian Church that some rash and inconsiderate People think that every little difference and petty controversie is a sufficient reason to divide the Church and set up distinct and separate Communions and have espoused such narrow Principles of Church Communion that it is almost impossible any two Churches should long hang together much less that all the Churches in the world should agree in such matters This Argument deserves a more particular consideration as discovering the original of Church-divisions and the cure of them and therefore I shall briefly consider upon what terms Catholick Communion may be maintained in the Christian Church Now the terms of Catholick Communion may be reduced to these four general Heads 1. Doctrine 2. Government 3. Discipline 4. Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I. As for what concerns the Doctrines of Christianity I presume my Adversaries will readily grant that an agreement in Fundamentals is a sufficient Foundation for Catholick Communion and I will as readily grant that no Church which denies any Fundamental Article of our Religion ought to be owned for a Catholick Church or received into Catholick Communion To deny Communion to any such person or Church is no schism no more than it is to cut off a rotten and gangreened Member from the Body And if it should appear that many or most Christian Churches are over-run with such Heresies as destroy the foundations of Christianity this must of necessity mightily straighten Catholick Communion not because Catholick Communion is in it self an impracticable notion but because there are but few Catholick Churches to communicate with for it is as necessary a duty not to communicate with Churches which renounce Catholick Doctrine as it is to communicate with those which own it we being under the same Obligations to maintain all fundamental Doctrines of Faith as to preserve the Peace and Communion of the Christian Church For indeed it is an ill way to preserve the Peace of the Christian Church by forfeiting our Christianity as every fundamental Heresie does or to enlarge Christian Communion by receiving those into our Communion who are no Catholick Christians And I suppose none of my adversaries will require me to give such a Catalogue of fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to qualifie any Church for Catholick Communion Both Papist and Protestants in their Disputes about Fundamentals have always waved this and there is no reason any harder terms should be put upon me and thus I might end this Dispute honourably enough for as far as respects Doctrines every man must acknowledg that Catholick Communion may be as large as Catholick Doctrine and that is as large as it ought to be But yet for the greater satisfaction of my Readers and of my self I shall discourse this matter more particularly for I confess I do not understand the reason why so many great men of our Church as have writ against the Papists since the happy reformation of Religion among us have been so tender in this point if we cannot tell what are the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity how can we be assured that we or any other Church do not err fundamentally and how can we know that the whole Church has not so erred but only by that general promise that the whole Church should not fall into fundamental errors and if we can tell what Doctrines are fundamental methinks it is not impossible if occasion were to give a Catalogue of them I am far enough from being of that mind That a Catalogue of Fundamentals is impossible because to some more is fundamental to others less to others nothing at all because God requires more of them to whom he gives more and less of them to whom he gives less Which indeed does not only prove that it is impossible to assign a Catalogue of Fundamentals but that there is nothing in its own nature fundamental in Christianity but only for every man to believe as much of it as he can Yet the Caution of so many great men in this Matter makes me very sensible how nice a thing it is to talk of Fundamentals and what unpardonable arrogance it would be in any private man to be peremptory and dogmatical in assigning a Catalogue of them and therefore I shall only pretend to make some Essay of this nature which the argument I am now engaged in and the clamorous Objections of some men extort from me for if we cannot in some measure tell what are the terms of Catholick Communion Catholick Communion must needs be a very impracticable notion And to prepare the way I shall briefly observe some few things to prevent some cavilling Objections and Prejudices against the following Discourse 1. That by Fundamentals I mean such Doctrines as are essential to Christianity and distinguish the Christian Religion from all other Religions Now if we will acknowledg that Christian Religion is a fixt and certain thing we must acknowledg that there are such Fundamentals as are fixt and certain too and do not alter with mens different Apprehensions Capacities and Opportunities of Instruction and if it be possible to understand the true difference between Christianity and all other Religions it is possible to understand what the Fundamentals of Christianity are 2. The greatest difficulty which is objected against a Catalogue of Fundamentals does equally lie against the belief of Christianity it self The difficulty
by Hereticks received those to Communion who never had any valid Baptism and yet St. Cyprian who did believe this rather chose to communicate with that Church which admitted unbaptized Persons into her Communion than to disturb the Peace and divide the Communion of the Christian Church For indeed that Father lookt upon the Communion of the Church as necessary and effectual to Salvation as the Sacraments themselves nay able to supply the defects of Sacraments For in his Epistle to Jubaianus in answer to that Question what shall become of those who have formerly been received into the Church without Baptism he tells him the Lord is able of his own mercy to grant Pardon and Indulgence to those who returning to the Church and being only barely admitted to the Communion of it dyed in its Peace and Communion and not to separate them from the Rewards of his Church That is that living in Communion with the Church is able to supply even the want of Baptism itself And St. Austin discourses very much to the same purpose Homines enim sumus unde aliquid aliter sapere quam se res habet humana tentatio est nimis autem amando sententiam suam vel invidendo melioribus usque ad praecidendae communionis condendi schismatis vel haeresis sacrilegium pervenire diabolica praesumptio est Aug. de bapt l. 2. cap. 5. and observes that whatever different apprehensions we may have of many things the safest way is to continue in the Communion of the Church which will sanctifie our very errors and mistakes To be sure you cannot name any thing in Ecclesiastical Discipline of greater moment than this Dispute about the re-baptization of Hereticks Aug. contra Parmeniani epist l. 2. cap. 11. and yet St. Cyprian did not think this a sufficient reason to break Communion In a Word nothing can be better said about Discipline than what St. Austin has observed that many times things are at that pass that it is necessary to loosen the reins of Discipline to prevent a Schism which an unseasonable severity may threaten the Church with the number of bad men in a Church may make Discipline unpracticable in some cases and it is better for good men to tolerate the bad who cannot defile their Communion than to break communion with those who are good As for Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies there is an admirable Epistle of St. Austin to Januarius which states this whole matter He first observes Aug. ep Januario 118. that the Yoke of Christ is very easie and gentle that he has united his Church into one Body and Society by very few Sacraments easie to be observed and excellent in their signification such as Baptism and the Lod's Supper or whatever other observances we find enjoyned in the holy Scripture excepting the servitude of the Mosaick Law But there are other things observed by the Church which are not written in the Scriptures but received by tradition and such observances as these which are received by the whole Catholick Church are either of Apostolical Institution or the Decrees of General Councils which have the greatest and most beneficial Authority in the Church Such are the Annual Solemnities in memory of the Passion Resurrection Ascension of our Lord and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles which are observ'd in all parts of the Church For it seems in St. Austin's time the superstition of these days had not been discovered But there are some Customs which are observed differently in several Churches As some fast on the Saturday others do not Some receive the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ every day others only at certain times others only on Saturday and Sunday others only on Sundays Totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet observationes nec disciplina ulla est in his melior gravi prudentique Christiano quà m ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit ecclesiam ad quamcunque forte devenerit Ib. Now all things of this nature may be observed either one way or other nor is there any better Rule for a grave and prudent Christian in such matters than to observe the custom of the Church in which he lives or whither he travels For whatever is commanded which is neither contrary to Faith nor to good Manners is to be accounted indifferent and to be observed for the preservation of the Communion in which we live Quod enim nequecontra sidem neque contra bonos more 's injungitur indifferenter est habendum pro corum inter quos vivitur societate servandum est And this St. Austin confirms with that sage Advice he received from St. Ambrose when he was at Milan which he says he always as often as he thought of it took for a divine Oracle For the Church of Milan did not fast on the Saturday according to the custom of many other Churches and St. Austin's Mother following him thither and being uncertain what she should do whether observe the custom of her own Church to fast on Saturday or the custom of the Church of Milan where she then was not to do it he consulted St. Ambrose about it who returned him this answer When I am at Rome I fast on Saturdays when I am here I do not And thus I would have you do to observe the Custom of the Church whither you come if you would neither be a scandal to others nor have them a scandal to you A great deal more to this purpose there is in that excellent Epistle and indeed these are the only terms of Catholick Communion For if every different Custom Usage and Ceremony in a Church shall cause a Separation there are few Churches can live in Communion with each other And thus I hope I have made it appear that Catholick Communion is not an impracticable notion but is indeed as easie as it is necessary to be observed CHAP. VI. 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 IT will not be amiss now after all this grave and serious Discourse to divert my Readers a little with a more pleasant and entertaining Scene For Mr. Lob seems to me to be a great Droll and to maintain a Dispute by the irresistible power of Wit and pleasant Conceits where Arguments fail It is wonderful to observe with what admirable art and dexterity he has retorted my Arguments upon my self and given life to a dying and languishing Cause with the same Weapons which gave it its mortal Wound I thought I had proved our Dissenters who separate from the Church of England to be Schismaticks as far as proving their Separation to be Schism and answering their several Pleas for Separation proved them Schismaticks but Mr. Lob has discovered that I have been kinder to them than I was aware of and by my own Principles have excused them from
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
turmoil and confusion of thoughts than Mr. Lob appears to have been in all this time when he was resolved to answer but knew not what to say No man I fear need convince Mr. Lob that he may conform against his Conscience Make it but his Interest to conform and his Conscience seems ready prepar'd Well but however that he might seem to return some Answer to my Confutation of that Principle that the Opinion of Dissenters that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God is a just and necessary Reason for the Church to part with them he just names it and then picks some Quarrels with what I had said upon the first thing that all indifferent things cannot be parted with without sin and this must pass for an Answer to the second And how is it possible to enlighten such a man as this But let us hear what he says You should remember that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances between what is a part of Religion and intrinsecal thereunto and what is extrinsecal only But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these which is off from the point in hand Had I done so I believe Mr. Lob would not have been so sparing of Paper as not to have shewn his Readers how I did it But I have already answered that Suggestion and directed my Readers where they may find the contrary if they dare believe their own eyes But he says Ib. p. 85. I run from what is indifferent to what is necessary as if we call'd you to part with any necessary thing This is another trick The case is this He charges the Church of England with being the Divider because she does not part with indifferent things which she may part with without sin I prove that though no particular indifferent Ceremony can be said to be necessary for then it were no longer indifferent yet some indifferent things are necessary to publick Worship not to the moral Nature but the external performance of Religious Actions and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying publick Worship and yet if we must part with indifferent things meerly considered as indifferent by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all This he calls running from what is indifferent to what is necessary whereas it only proves that some things which are indifferent in their own Natures are necessary to publick Worship which was very much to my purpose though not to his I gave an Instance of this in some Actions which cannot possibly be stript from all external Circumstances As a man who is to travel from London to York is not bound either to go thither on Foot or to ride on Horse-back or in a Coach each of these ways are in themselves indifferent but yet if he will travel to York he must use one or other of these ways of Motion not any one in particular is necessary but yet some or other is But says Mr. Lob One has not strength to walk Ib. p. 86. another cannot bear riding in a Coach yet to York they must go If you will keep to your point you must say to him that can't walk some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York if you 'l go thither therefore you shall walk or not go thither The force of which Answer amounts to this that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself as he is to choose his own way of Travelling whether on Foot or by Horse or Coach But this also I had particularly considered and answered in the Defence though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it and I suppose should I repeat what I have said he will take as little notice of it the second time as he has done the first The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin Defence p. 44. where to seek for an Answer to it And if Mr. Lob cannot think of some better Defence he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismaticks still CHAP. VII Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Vnion examined THE last thing I proposed to my self for the Conclusion of this Work was to examine Mr. Lob's Preface and Mr. H's Materials for Union But this Vindication is already much larger than I intended it and I find this Work done very sufficiently by Mr. Long in a late Treatise Entitled No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot and therefore though it were easie to enlarge upon this Subject I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union and refer those who are inquisitive for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's project 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it 3. That it cures no Schism 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation 1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter to pull down the Church of England which is established by Law and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation to make way for Union Does Mr. H. imagine that the true Sons of the Church will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers And what would the Civil State get by this to exchange the Church for Dissenters To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters and to part with a much better Church for it To attempt a Union on between Dissenters who as Mr. H. owns can never agree their Disputes and therefore can never unite though they may be tied together or comprehended in the same Vessel as Sand or Water is and to dissolve a Church which is all of a piece firmly united within it self and to its Prince But what need all this Will Mr. H. say I never designed to dissolve the Constitution of the Church of England but only to bring Dissenters into the legal Establishment Let this then be tried whether his Materials for Union do not destroy the present Constitution Root and Branch The present Constitution of our Church in Conformity to the Ancient Apostolical Government consists of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons let us try then whether we can find either of these in Mr. H.'s Materials for Union As for Deacons he has not one word of them though Mr. Lob. acknowledges they were owned for an Ecclesiastical Order by the necessary Erudition but a great Oracle thinks this Order may be spared though it has been continued in the Church ever since the Apostles days and therefore we will let this pass But we must not deny but Mr. H. owns Bishops nay proposes that some leading Dissenters themselves should be
A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter Mr. Lob c. Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholick Communion A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism The Terms of Catholick Communion and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union By the Author of the Defence LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard MDCLXXXII THE PREFACE I Have already writ a Book so much bigger than I at first designed it that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface I have carefully examined and I think have fully answered all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections I can honestly say this for my self that I have overlooked nothing because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it though I confess I have slighted some trifling Objections as unworthy of an Answer Had I been merrily disposed I could have given my Readers great Diversion by exposing the folly of Mr. Lob a very bold but a very ignorant Writer But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary and an unpardonable affront to the judgment of Mankind to attempt to prove that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King that the Dissenters by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome I did presume that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry could never perswade the English World to believe otherwise and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper and some precious hours in so needless a Work As for Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it I am mightily inclined to pity him he has disputed himself out of all sence and all good manners and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books of any man's I know for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself or what there is in them to be answered what his Name and Authority may do I cannot tell but I fancy his meer Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other However I have considered whatever I could judge worth answering and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was than to find an Answer to it He has been pleased to give me a Name though I did not think fit to publish it my self and whether he guess right or wrong he shall never know from me And yet as I remember the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names because they had not owned them themselves though Mr. Baxter had done it for them But it was not enough to publish my Name unless he could give a History of my Life too which I thank God has been at least to outward appearance so innocent that if he knew me I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments I shall only tell him that Dr. Sherlock whom I know very well presents his service to him and assures him that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton and the History of the Letter than he has done but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences nor concerning the World in all the Privacies of Conversation Only he wonders what Temptation Mr. Baxter had either to Print his own Letter which had been sufficiently answered long since Defence of the knowledg of Jesus Christ or to Print his Letter which contained so little Ceremony or Complement to him it being the first time that he remembers Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter which did not grosly flatter him In short that Doctor assures him that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversie which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget he is contented to enter the Lists once more I shall only further acquaint my Readers that I have taken all the care I can that they shall not wholly lose their time if they please to peruse this Vindication for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse and have found many And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality as I used in writing it possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies in a happy Union of Protestants in the Communion of the Church of England THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. COncerning Catholick Vnity p. 1 The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob have made of that Doctrine ibid. The occasion of that Discourse of Church Vnity and Communion p. 3 A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholick Church p. 12 Whether the Catholick Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered p. 14 Chap. 2. Concerning Catholick Communion p. 30 Mr. Baxter's Objections answered p. 32 Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholick Church and how it is formed p. 41 The Authority of Arch-Bishop Bramhall Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field alledged against me by Mr. Lob and their judgment in these points considered and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence p. 53 In what sence Schismaticks Hereticks Idolaters may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ p. 61 An Historical account of the state of the Controversie about the re-baptization of Hereticks as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholick Communion p. 72 Chap. 3. Concerning the necessity of Catholick Communion Wherein is proved at large that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation p. 87 Chap. 4. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power p. 120 The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design for Vnion with the Church of Rome p. 121 The Doctrine of the Defence considered with reference to the Vnity of Church-Power whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded p. 122 What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government p. 130 Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope can be no Papists though they assert the Authority of General Councils p. 132 The judgment of the Councils of Constance and Basil in this point p. 133 The judgment of Petrus de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches p. 137 Mr. Lob's Accusation answered that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government or a Political Organized Body in which there is one Supreme and Soveraign Power over the whole p. 142 Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops p. 150
Metaphysical subtilty about Universals of which more presently well what hurt is there in that assertion why first the Allusions I use for the illustration of this of the Sun being before its Beams and the Root before its Branches and a Fountain before its Rivers are not ad rem that is not to the purpose nor to the Matter in hand for I know not what force English Readers may imagine to be concealed in ad rem unless I translate it but he knew very well that these are not my Allusions as he calls them but St. Cyprians ' whose Authority is much more considerable But suppose they had been my own as I see no Reason to be ashamed of them what is their fault why I should have given some instance of some one Vniversal that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars Now suppose I think that the Sun and Root and Fountain are such Universals with respect to their Beams Branches and Rivers or suppose there were never an adaequate Example in nature of this besides the Catholick Church what were this ad rem if it appears that the Catholick Church be such an Universal Yes if that could be proved indeed it were somewhat to the purpose but that says Mr. Lob is impossible it being in the sense of most evident that Universale is unum in multis that is Ibid. in many particulars which Vniversal hath no real Existence but in particulars but abstracted from all particulars â— 't is only an Ens Rationis having its being in the Eutopian Common-wealth whence we distinguish between the consideration of Vniversal as Formal and as Fundamental Fundamental and it is Quid singulare but formally and so 't is abstracted from all singulars the particulars being the foundation of the Vniversal the root from which the Vniversal doth proceed Now if it be the particulars that are the foundation of the Vniversal how can the Vniversal be the foundation of the particulars No way in the World Sir Quod erat demonstrandum This is a very Learned and Scholastick Period and therefore deserves a just regard And 1. I thank our Author for letting me know where to find those pretty things called Ens rationis which it seems have their Being in the Eutopian Common-wealth though all Authors are not agreed in this matter for some think it as probable that they have their Being in the Cassandrian design but that makes no great difference for Learned Geographers say that is the next County to Eutopia But yet it is a material discovery Mr. Lob hath made for by this means we may know where to find the Catholick Church For 2. the Catholick Church being an Universal is no better than an Ens rationis a meer Metaphysical Notion and therefore must have its Being also in the Eutopian Common-wealth I wish Mr. Lob does not at last prove the Creed where we find the Catholick Church to be a meer Eutopian Common-wealth for giving entertainment to such an Ens Rationis Well but Universals have a real existence in particulars right but not as Universals but as Particulars humane nature has a real existence in Peter James and John because they are all men but humane nature considered as Universal is in neither of them unless you will make as many Universal humane natures as there are men in the World thus there are a great many particular Churches actually existent but the Catholick Church considered as Catholick and Universal is a meer figment and notion no where existing but in Eutopia And if this be all Mr. Lob means by his Universal Church that it is a meer Logical notion I readily grant that he has not only proved that Particular Churches are before the Universal Church but that the Universal Church has no actual Being at all nor can ever have any and therefore it is a vain thing to dispute which of them exists first when one of them does not exist at all any where but in Eutopia But all this is nothing to me who never troubled my head about the existence of an Ens Rationis in a Fayry Land but assert such an Universal Church as has an actual being and existence which always is or may be visible in the World an Universal Church which is the object of Sense not the creature of fancy and imagination This I take to be the general sense of all Christians of what Communion soever they are if they understand any thing of these matters that the Universal Church is a real thing which does actually exist not as Logical Notions do but as a Church and Society of Christians For the Universal Church is the Body and the Spouse of Christ and it is a new fangled Heresie to assert the Body and the Spouse of Christ to be an Ens Rationis as the Doâ—â—… formerly asserted his Natural Body to be only an empty Apparition Hitherto particular Churches have been acknowledged to be Members of the Universal Church but no man in his Wits ever dream't before that a thing which actually exists could be a Member of that which has no real existence that the Church of England suppose or the Church of France should be Members of an imaginary Universal Church which has no Being any where but in Eutopia And therefore to help out our Author here who has so miserably lost himself in Logick and Metaphysicks I observe that the Catholick Church is such an Universal as a whole is with respect to its parts not as a Species is with respect to the Individuals contained under it or to speak more plain as our natural Body is with respect to its particular Members not as humane Nature is with respect to particular men And therefore the most common Reason assigned both by Ancient and Modern Divines why the Church is called Catholick and Universal is not because it is an universal Notion Necessario consequitur unam duntaxat esse Ecclesiam quam propterea Catholicam nuncupamus quod sit Vniversalis diffundatur per omnes mundi partes ad omnia se tempora extendat nullis vel locis inclusa vel temporibus Helv. conf cap. 17. made by a mental Abstraction from particulars but because it diffuses it self all the World over and propagates it self into all parts without Division or Multiplication into new distinct Churches but continuing one and the same Church from the Beginning fills the World with Christians living in this one Communion and Society Having thus redeemed the universal Church from its invisible and imaginary State in the Eutopian Common-wealth and brought it back into the World again let us now consider how the Church becomes Catholick and Universal and which is first in order of Nature the Catholick Church or particular Churches Mr. Lob asks me Where this universal Church should be when Antecedent to any particular Church Reply p. 10. Truly I suppose it must be where he has placed it after there are particular Churches viz. in Eutopia
Effects The Vnion of the Soul and Body goeth before Sensation Imagination Intellection or Volition 2. It is contrary to all Artificial beings in a Clock a Watch a Coach c. The Vnion of their parts is their relative Form and goeth before the Exercise and Vse and the Effects 3. It is contrary to all Political Beings and Societies The Vnion of King and Subjects is the constitutive Form of the Kingdom and goeth before the Administration or Regiment by Legislation and Judgement and the Allegiance and Subjection before Obedience Thus the Vnion of Husband and Wife Master and Servants Captain and Souldiers Schoolmaster and Scholars as the Constitution of the Relation go before their Communion in the Exercise 4. If Vnion and Communion be all one then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion for Vnion is the Constitution and makes us Christians but the Consequence is not true 5. If Vnion and Communion be all one then Baptism doth no more make us Christians and unite us to Christ and his Church than after-Communion in Prayer and Sacraments do but this is singular and false What pity is it that so many good Arguments should be lost for want of some Thing and some Body to oppose for all these Arguments proceed upon this Mistake That by Communion I mean only some transient Acts of Christian Communion such as Praying and Hearing and Receiving the Lord's Supper together that the Christian Church is united by such Acts as these whereas these Acts of Christian Communion necessarily suppose Christian Union and therefore can neither be the efficient nor formal Cause of it A man must first be united to the Church and one Church to another before they can communicate together in such Acts of Worship or have any Right to do so But then I wonder what he thought I meant by one Communion for if by Communion I meant only a transient Act of Communion by one Communion I could mean but one such transient Act. And here he might have found out greater Absurdities than before and have triumphed over this sensless Notion unmercifully for what a ridiculous conceit is it to place Christian Unity in some one transient Act But possibly Mr. B. might see this Absurdity and be merciful to it for the sake of his darling Notion of Occasional Communion which is just such a transient Act and yet as he thinks sufficient to Church Unity and to justifie any man from the Guilt of Schism and Separation But then I cannot but wonder that he should so industriously prove that the Unity of the Church cannot consist in such transient Acts of Communion for if this be true as certainly it is he may be a Schismatick from the Church of England notwithstanding he sometimes holds Occasional Communion with her But had Mr. B. carefully read and considered but the six first Lines of the 4th Chap. of the Defence where I explain what I mean by one Communion he might have spared all his Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions My words are these Defence p. 164. The 2d thing to be considered is That the Vnity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion Catholick Vnity signifies Catholick Communion and one Communion signifies one Christian Society of which all Christians are Members From which it is plain That I did not place this one Communion in any transient Acts but in a fixed and permanent State And that this is not a new uncouth way of speaking but very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Antiquity I made appear in the same place and concluded This is sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion which in a large notion signifies the Christian Church or Society which is called Communion from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other So that when I say the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion the plain and obvious sense of it is this That all the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right and the same Obligation on them to communicate with each other as opportunity serves in all those Duties for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the Members of a particular Church are For all particular Churches are as much Members of the universal Church as particular Christians are Members of a particular Church and therefore are as much bound to communicate with each other One Communion signifies one Body and Society in which all the Members communicate with one another As to explain this by a familiar Comparison Suppose the whole World were one Family or one Kingdom in which every particular man according to his Rank and Station enjoys equal Priviledges in this case the necessity of Affairs would require that men should live in distinct Houses and distinct Countreys as now they do all the World over But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Priviledges where-ever he went as he does now in his own House and Countrey the whole World would be but one great Family or universal Kingdom And whosoever should resolve to live by himself and not to receive any others into his Family nor allow them the liberty of his House would be guilty of making a Schism in this great Family of the World and what Nation soever should deny the Rights and Priviledges of natural Subjects to the Inhabitants of other Countreys would make a Schism and rent it self from this universal Kingdom Thus it is here The Church of Christ is but one Body one Church one Houshold and Family one Kingdom and therefore though the necessity of Affairs requires that neighbour-Christians combine themselves into particular Churches and particular Congregations as the World is divided into particular Families and Kingdoms yet every Christian by vertue of his Christianity hath the same Right and Priviledge and the same Obligation to Communion as occasion serves with all the Churches of the World that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives Where-ever he removes his Dwelling whatever Church he goes to he is still in the same Family the same Kingdom and the same Church I can hardly be so charitable to Mr. B. as not to believe this to be a wilful Mistake for it is impossible for any man of common sense who had ever read what I discoursed so largely and particularly of Catholick Communion to mistake it for some transient Acts of Communion when I so frequently explained one Communion by one Body and Society And all the Arguments whereby I prove one Catholick Communion prove only that all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offices and Acts of Christian Communion which are consequent upon such a Relation And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments from natural artificial and political Unions But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's Arguments I
it Dr. Field of the Church 1. B. Ch. 13 I will transcribe the whole His words are these This is the first sort of them that depart and go out from the Church of God and Company of his People viz Schismaticks whose departure yet is not such but that notwithstanding their Schism they are and remain parts of the Church of God for whereas in the Church of God is found an entire profession of the saving Truth of God Order of holy Ministry Sacraments by vertue thereof administred and a blessed Vnity and Fellowship of the People of God knit together in the bond of Peace under the command of lawful Pastors and Guides set over them to direct them in the wayes of eternal Happiness Schismaticks notwithstanding their Separation remain still conjoyned with the rest of God's People in respect of the Profession of the whole saving Truth of God all outward acts of Religion and Divine Worship power of Order and holy Sacraments which they by vertue thereof administer and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People is in some things only and not absolutely in all wherein they have and ought to have Fellowship so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church nor of that more special number of them that communicate intirely and absolutely in all things necessary in which sense they are rightly denied to be of the Church which I take to be their meaning that say they are not of the Church So that Dr. Field expresly acknowledges that Schismaticks may be rightly denied to be of the Church though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ may in a loose and large sense of the Word be said to belong to the Christian Church as they retain something which belongs to the Church still among them But to make this more plain and easie I shall briefly distinguish between the several Notions and Acceptations of a Church For 1. the Church sometimes signifies the number of the Elect that is all sincere Christians who are vitally united to Christ by a true and lively Faith a divine Love and Charity and all other Christian Graces and Vertues who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men and the invisible Church because we who cannot know the Hearts of men cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church 2. There is the visible Catholick Church which consists of all those Christians and Churches who profess the true Faith of Christ observe his Laws and Institutions and live in Communion and Fellowship with each other This Church is called visible from its visible profession of the Christian Faith and external and visible Communion and Catholick because all such Churches all the World over are but one Communion This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ to the Communion of which all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined Now it is commonly and truly observed that there are some professed Christians who are only in this Church others who are of it and others who are out of it Those who are in the Church but not true Members of it are those professed Christians who live in the Communion of the Church but yet are either secret Hypocrites or openly wicked but not excommunicated these are in the Church by external Profession as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine till they be cut off All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession and an external Communion which is absolutely required of all Christians when it may be had and they are of the Church that is true and lively Members of it by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ None properly belong to the visible Church but those whom we call the invisible Church that is all sincere Christians for the visible and invisible are not two but one Church And the Reason of the distinction between them is because the Government of the Church being committed to men who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts and the necessity of external Affairs or the negligence of Church-Governours loosening the Reins of Discipline many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church either because they are not known or because when known they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times be cast out And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body the Spouse of Christ the Wife of the Lamb a royal Priesthood a holy Nation a peculiar People pure undefiled holy and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members not regarding what some visible Professors are who are in the Church indeed but are not of it and ought not to be in it The not observing of which has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters not to the visible but to the mystical and invisible Church which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes But then all Hereticks and Schismaticks and excommunicated Persons are out of this Church till they either return or be restored to the Communion of it For to be in the Church is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices And therefore those who either by their own Choice or by the Censures of the Church are not in Communion must be out of it And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers both ancient and modern than to meet with such Expressions as these of separating from the Church going out of it being out and being cast out of the Church which is a very strange way of speaking if Mr. Lob's Notion be true That all professed Christians what-ever they are are Members of the Catholick Church for then it is impossible for a professed Christian either to go out or to be cast out of the Catholick Church as it is for a man to go out of the World This is that one Catholick Church and Catholick Communion which I asserted and proved in the Defence from whence Hereticks and Schismaticks depart and go out and the Excommunicate are cast out But now the Difficulty is Whither these Hereticks and Schismaticks go when they go out of the Church They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers for Heresie and Schism does not make men Infidels and if they be neither in the Church nor in the World what third State shall we find for them The plain Resolution of which in short is this That they are the Conventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks which
is a kind of middle State between the true Catholick Church and the World of Infidels They have not wholly renounced Christianity and therefore in some sense belong to the Christian Church though they are not in it There seems to be the same difference between Hereticks and Schismaticks and Catholick Christians as there is between Rebels and dutiful Subjects They are both natural Subjects to their Prince as being born in his Territories and under the same Oaths of Allegiance Rebels are not Aliens and Foreigners but Subjects still Thus Hereticks and Schismaticks though they have corrupted the Christian Faith and divided the Church yet they have the Character of Christian Baptism and either retain the Christian Faith entire or so much of it as will denominate them Christians They may have the Power of Orders Officers rightly constituted Christian Sacraments and all the Essentials of a true Church excepting Christian Peace and Unity and Catholick Communion This was the Case of the Donatist Churches which were in all things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion Upon this score many learned men own corrupt Churches which retain the Essentials of the Christian Faith though mixed and blended with many Errors and schismatical Churches which retain the Purity of Faith and Worship to be true though not every way sound and orthodox nor Catholick Churches Which I hope will satisfie Mr. Lob how the Church of Rome may be acknowledged to be a true Church and yet both corrupt and schismatical There is one Distinction which is not so commonly observed which will make all this Dispute plain and easie And that is between the visible Church and the one true Catholick visible Church The visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians whatsoever Hereticks Schismaticks Idolaters or whatever they be the one visible Catholick Church contains only those Churches which are sound in the Faith and live in Catholick Communion these visible Churches are Christian Churches by outward Profession but not Parts or Members of the one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ as Optatus observes that besides one Church which is the Catholick Church the other Churches of Hereticks are thought to be Churches but are not that is they have the visible Appearance of Churches and so are visible Churches as bad men are visible Christians by a visible profession Praeter unam quae est vera Catholica caeterae apud Hereticos putantur esse non sunt Opt. l. 1. but they are not such Churches as Christ will own Quae sit una Ecclesia quam Columbam Sponsam suam Christus appellat Id. l. 2. as he adds in another place that there is but one Church which Christ calls his Dove and Spouse So that in this Sense men may be visible Christians and Members of the visible Church and yet not Members of the one Catholick Church The not observing this occasioned St. Cyprian's and the African Fathers mistake about the Rebaptization of those who were Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks and upon this very Mistake our Dissenters at this day dispute the validity of Orders received in the Church of Rome and Mr. B. so often twits us with deriving our Succession from Rome which if it were true is no Objection against us unless he will wholly unchurch the Church of Rome and assert that which Mr. Lob charges me with that Heresie or Schism does destroy all relation to the Church for if they belong to the Church still they may retain the Power of Orders and the Administration of Sacraments among them And therefore to confirm this Notion it will not be amiss to give a plain and short Account of the State of that ancient Controversie about the Rebaptization of Hereticks as it was managed by St. Cyprian and St. Austin as far as concerns our present Dispute Now 1. Both St. Cyprian and St. Austin were agreed that there is but one Catholick Church which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ this is so acknowledged by all men who are acquainted with their Writings especially their Tracts De unitate Ecclesiae That I shall not need to transcribe any particular Sayings to that purpose 2. They were agreed also that there is no Salvation ordinarily to be had out of the Communion of this one Catholick Church Both of them do over and over affirm this Salus inquit extra Ecclesiam non est quis negat August de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 17 and St. Austin asserts that no Body in his days denied it But 3. St. Cyprian would not allow that Hereticks or Schismaticks did in any Sense belong to the Church but denies them to be Christians and consequently that they had any Christian Sacraments among them Quisquis ille est aut qualiscunque est Christianus non est quia in Christi Ecclesia non est Cypr. E◠52. ad Anton. He would not allow Novatianus to be a Christian or to be in the Church of Christ and this was the Reason why he so vehemently urged the necessity of Baptizing those who had been Baptized by Hereticks or Schismaticks when they returned to the Unity of the Catholick Church because Schismaticks had no Church and therefore no Baptism it being impossible to separate the Church and Baptism according to the Judgment of the African Fathers in the Council of Carthage St. Austin on the other hand considered Mirum autem est quomodo dicatur separari à se dividi omnino non posse Baptismum Ecclesiam si enim Baptisma in Baptizato inseparabiliter manet quomodo Baptizatus separari ab Ecclesia potest Baptismus non potest August de Baptismo cont Donat. l. 5. ca. 15. See St. Hierom. contra Luciferianos in Initio that those who were Baptized in the Catholick Church did not forfeit their Baptism by turning Hereticks or Schismaticks and forsaking the Communion of the Church for no man ever disputed whether such Persons upon their Repentance might not be restored to the Communion of the Church without being re-baptized which proves that the Church did not think them Infidels for Infidels cannot be admitted into the Church without Baptism and if such men retain their Baptism when they are out of the Church then the Church and Baptism may be separated Ita posse extra Catholicam Communionem dari Baptismum quemadmodum extra eam potest haberi Sic illi qui per Sacrilegium Schismatis an Ecclesiae Communione discedunt habent utique Baptismum quem priusquam discederent acceperunt quod si foris baberi potest etiam dari cur non potest Ibid. l. 1. cap. 1. which overthrows the main Principle on which the African Bishops founded their Doctrine and Practise of re-baptizing Hereticks From hence he concludes that if men may retain their Baptism out of the Church they may give Baptism out of the Church too for the same Argument whereby they opposed the
Christian Church considered as a Church is not armed with any secular coercive Power and if it have no spiritual Power neither how shall it maintain and preserve it self against all the oppositions of Men and Devils and yet it can have no spiritual Power if men may as well be saved out of the Church as in it For who then will regard the Unity of the Church value its Censures or reverence its Authority and Government Spiritual Power is exercised upon the Souls and Consciences of men and respects the Happiness of the other World as temporal Power Governs the outward man and respects this present Life now all the Power Christ hath given to his Church is that which we call the Power of the Keys to take in or to shut out of the Church which is no Power at all if the Communion of the Church be so indifferent a thing that men may be as safe out of the Church as in it All the Censures of the Christian Church which are purely Spiritual only respect Church-communion and therefore their Authority too depends upon the necessity of this Communion Some were cast out of the Church others received into the Number of Penitents of which Albaspinaeus reckons four degrees in the Primitive Church which were the different Degrees of their Separation from Christian Communion now how easily may a man who believes no necessity of Catholick Communion despise all this Authority and all these Censures and there can be no necessity of it if our Souls be not greatly endangered by the want of it And yet our Saviour calls this Power of receiving in and shutting out of the Church The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven 16 Mat. 19 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Now how can the Keys of the Church to let in or to shut out be called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unless there be a necessary Relation between the Communion of the Church on Earth which is also called the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that those who are in the Communion of the Church and have a Right to be in it have a Title also to the Kingdom of Heaven and that those who are out of the Church either by their own Choice or by a just Censure have no Title to the Kingdom of Heaven and shall never enter into it That the Church on Earth and the Church in Heaven is but one Communion and that no men are transplanted into the Church in Heaven but from the Communion of the Church on Earth upon which account the Peace of the Church which was given to dying Persons under Censures was called the Viaticum or a kind of Pass into the other World And when our Saviour so expresly asserts whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven if by binding and loosing we will understand putting out or receiving into the Church it makes the Communion of the Church absolutely necessary to Salvation And I farther observe that what in St. Matthew is called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and binding and loosing is in St. John called retaining or remitting sins Whosoever sins ye remit Joh. 20.23 they are remitted and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained And therefore if we expound this remitting and retaining sins by binding and loosing in the exercise of the Keys as in all reason we must then to remit sins is to restore men to the Peace and Communion of the Church and to retain them is to cast men out of the Church or to keep them under Church-censures which is a plain demonstration that sins are forgiven only in the Communion of the Church So that whatever other Reasons our Lord might have in confining Salvation ordinarily to the Communion of the Church among which the Promoting of Catholick Love and Charity among his Disciples and Followers is none of the least which as I observed before cannot be maintained and preserved in a Schism yet here is one manifest Reason for it that the Authority and Discipline and Government of the Church without which the Church cannot well subsist does wholly depend on it If Christ have instituted a Church and invested it with such Authority and Power as is necessary to preserve it self and to promote the great ends of Church-Society and the Church as a spiritual Society can have no other Power and has no other given it by Christ but what results from the necessity of Catholick Communion we need not wonder that the pardon of Sin and the assistances of the divine Grace and everlasting Life should be confined to the Communion of the Church because the Church cannot Preserve it self nor Govern its own Members can neither Instruct Reprove nor Censure with any Authority and Effect without this which by the way shows us how effectually those men who separate from the Church upon a pretence of purer Worship and a purer Discipline overthrow and contradict their own pretences and tear up the very foundations of all Church-authority for if separation from the Church be so slight and indifferent a Matter there can be no Authority in the Church for any man who is uneasie or humersom or ungovernable in the Communion of the Church may leave it if he pleases and joyn himself to some other Communion or set up a new Communion of his own without any danger and in this Case nothing can keep People together but some great Art and Cunning in their Guides or some secular Advantages or arbitrary Covenants and I think the Independents have great reason on their side to found a particular Church on a particular Church Covenant if there be no necessity of Catholick Communion as I have now described it for if there be no essential and inherent Authority in the Church there can be no other than what depends upon private Contracts Now may we not as well wonder why humane Laws inflict such severe Punishments upon Rebels whatever other good qualities they may have as that Christ should so severely punish Schismaticks who may upon other Accounts pass in the World for very good men the Reason of both is the same Government in Church and State is of such mighty Consequence to the temporal and spiritual Happiness of Mankind and Rebellion and Schism so destructive to all Government that those men deserve the severest Punishments who disturb the Peace and Establishment of Church or State and Schism is so much worse than Rebellion as the happiness of the Souls of men is of much greater Concernment than their temporal Ease and Felicity CHAP. IV. Concerning the Vnity of Church-Power ANd now I am come to the main seat of the Controversie between me and Mr. Lob Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Baxter not to
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
because the chief Care of his Church is committed to him and he cannot so intirely give away the Government of it to others From whence it appears that all the Bishops in a Nation much less all the Bishops in the World cannot unite into such a Colledge as shall by a supreme Authority govern all Bishops and Churches by a Major Vote which is the Form of Aristocratical Government And for the same Reason a National Church considered as a Church cannot be under the government of a Democratical Head for if the Colledge of Bishops have not this Power much less has a mixt Colledge of Bishops and People Let any impartial Reader now judge wherein I contradict my self in this Scheme of Church Government I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society to have a pars Imperans Subdita for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church and thus the whole Church is governed by parts I deny that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop or Colledge of Bishops as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction though contrary to his own Judgment and Conscience but yet the Episcopacy is one because all Bishops have the same Power and are bound to live in the same Communion and to govern their several Churches by mutual Advice and Consent and in order to this may unite themselves in stricter Associations and Confederacies under such Rules of Government as do not encroach upon the unalienable Rights and Power of the Episcopacy And this is sufficient to make them one Church for if the Catholick Church be one by one Catholick Communion why may not the National Church be one by one Communion And those guilty of Schism who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches though it were not backt by any Civil Authority or humane Laws And now I doubt not but every intelligent Reader will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey but I must beg his patience for the sake of others who are very unwilling to understand these Matters while I particularly apply what I have now discoursed in Answer to them being ashamed that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes by so frequent a Repetition of the same things but I consider it is better to do this effectually once than to be obliged to write as often as these men can spit Books The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England in Answer to which Question who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England I 1. distinguished between a National Church considered as a Church and as incorporated into the State and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question and though I know not any one thing that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th Chapter of the Defence yet this being the Chief and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on to shew their great Abilities I shall briefly review this Dispute in the same Method which I before observed that I may not confound my Readers with altering the state of the Question I distinguish between a National Church Defence p. 558. considered as a Church and as a Church incorporated with the State this Mr. H. says is no good distinction because the Church is National only under the last Consideration i. e. as incorporated with the State Reply p. 130. The Church of Christ considered in its self is either Vniversal or Particular but it must be considered as incorporated in the State to make it National Now this is said without any Reason and therefore might be as well denyed without assigning any Reason for such a Denyal but to satisfie Mr. H. in this Point I answer That the Church considered as a Church is not necessarily considered either as Universal or Particular The essential Notion of a Christian Church is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers as he hath appointed That this Church is Universal is founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion which unites all particular Societies of Christians into one Body that it is divided into particular Churches is owing to the Necessity of things for since all Christians in remote and distant places of the World cannot all worship God together nor live under the Care and Government of one Bishop this makes it necessary that the Episcopal Office and Power be divided into many hands and the Multitude of Christians divided into many particular Churches under their proper Pastors but in the same Communion Now if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one universal Catholick Church and a particular Communion makes a particular Church why does not a National Church-Communion make one National Church A Church is a Church considered as a Religious Body and Society of Christians as I have now described it but it is Universal National or Particular from the different degrees and kinds of Communion and therefore Churches joyned in National Communion are properly called a National Church though there were no Christian Prince to head it And that a National Church is of a distinct Consideration as it is a Church and as incorporated with the State I proved in the Defence from this Topick that de facto p. 558. there have been and may be still National Churches when the Prince and great numbers of the People are not Christians For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same Nature with what we call National Churches and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and persecuting Emperors To which Mr. H. Answers A Patriarchal Church and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National A Patriarchate may contain in it the Churches of many Nations A Metropolitan but half the Christians of one and so the one is too bigg and the other too little to be a National Church and a Diocesan much less But what is this to the Purpose Can Mr. H. prove that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch or Metropolitan over themselves and may not the Kings of England France and Spain do so still if they please And yet I did not say that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church was a National Church but of the same Nature with a National Church that is they were a voluntary Combination of Churches founded on the Laws of Catholick Communion antecedent to any civil Conjunction by the Laws and Authority of Princes and I would fain know
any Reason why all the Christian Churches in a Nation may not thus unite and why Churches thus united may not be called a National Church though they were not Confirmed and Establisht by humane Laws though the Prince and great part of his Subjects were Infidels Hereticks or Schismaticks But Mr. H. observes that I say Reply p. 131. I cannot tell why it is accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more than to be Vniversal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more than Vniversal and Answers But when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the Consederation of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be accidental to it I am very willing to see any thing I can but I can see nothing here but his Mistake That the Church cannot subsist without a Patriarch or Metropolitan I never said yet nor does he produce any place where I have said it for what he says are not my words but his own Comment All that I say is this that the Association and Confederacy of neighbour Churches is founded on the Law of Catholick Communion and that Catholick Communion cannot be maintained without it that such Combinations of Churches in several Nations and Provinces there were long before there were any Christian Princes and may be so still though there were no Christian Kings in the World and therefore that a Church may be National without being incorporated into the State It is true since the first Records of Church-History these greater Combinations of Churches have by mutual Consent had a Patriarch Primate or Metropolitan set over them and therefore we cannot speak of these Churches in the Ancient Language without calling them Patriarchal or Metropolitical Churches but my Argument does not proceed upon the Union of Churches under a Patriarch or Metropolitan but upon their Association for Advice and Councel and Discipline for the preservation of Catholick Communion There may be such Associations without a Patriarch or Metropolitan but the universal Church has always thought it most convenient to have one and Mr. H. is greatly mistaken to think that every thing which is not essential to a Church is accidental There are a great many prudential Constitutions in Societies which are of great use to the well-being of a Society though not of absolute necessity to its being and he would be thought a very mean Politician who should call the Results of the best Reason and Consideration and most mature advice for the publick Good accidental Constitutions The Union of neighbour Churches for Worship Discipline and Government is not accidental to the Church but the necessary Result of Catholick Communion which is a binding Law to all Churches and hereon I found a National Church The Superiority and Jurisdiction of Patriarchs or Metropolitans is not essential to the Church but a present Ecclesiastical Constitution which ought not to be called Accidental unless when they are the Results of Chance or the Effects of Folly Ignorance and Rashness like Mr. H's accidental National Church patcht up of forty separate Communions united in an accidental Head but this man I perceive is an Epicurean Divine who makes the Church as that Philosopher did the World by a fortuitous jumble of Atoms But at last Mr. H. grants me all that I ask with reference to National Churches for to prove That the Vnion of all the Christian Churches in a Nation into one Body and Society is no more an accidental Consideration of the Church than the universal Church it self is Defence p. 561. I observed That our Saviour gave Command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations and to plant Churches in them and therefore this was the Intention of our Saviour that there should be Churches in all Nations as well as in all the World and if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church then certainly much more must all the Churches in a Nation be but one which are in a nearer Capacity of Communion with each other than the Churches of all the World are and whereby Catholick Vnity and Communion may be more easily preserved than if all the Churches in a Nation were single and independent there being a more easie correspondence between Nations than between every Town and City in distant Nations To this Mr. H. replies Reply p. 131. And as for Christs Command of planting Churches in the whole World and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Vnity and Communion every where among Christians i. e. the Unity and Communion of one Body for that is my meaning it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end i. e. to maintain one Catholick Communion if he please provided only that these Forms be held only accidental Forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential Form of the Church of Christ according to divine Institution But we are not a talking of Church-forms but of Church-Communion The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution though not therefore accidental as I observed before but Catholick Communion is a divine Institution and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholick Communion is divine also See the Defence p. 258. though the particular Forms of such Combinations may be regulated and determined by Ecclesiastical Prudence which differs somewhat from what we call meer humane Prudence because it is not the Result of meer natural Reason but founded on and accommodated to a divine Institution Now if Mr. H. will as we see at last he does own such Combinations of Churches into one Body for Catholick Communion according to our Saviours that is a divine Institution then we find a National Church antecedent to any humane Laws and of a distinct Consideration from a Church incorporated into the State But after all I wonder what Church-form Mr. H. will own to be of divine Institution since he says that Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches must be held only accidental forms according to humane prudence there is no form left that I know of but an independent Church-form to be of divine Institution and if Mr. H. will own this farewell to Catholick Communion for Independency in the very Nature of it is a Schism as I have proved in the Defence There is one thing more Mr. H. says which because it is very pleasant I reserved to the last Reply p. 130. Mr. H. proves a National Church to be an accidental Consideration of a Church because that to the being of a National Church it is necessary that all the People of the Nation should be Christians and that the King should be so also both which are very accidental things and therefore a National Church is an accidental Church now I proved in the Defence that
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
this That every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a constitutive visible Head The Interposer now to take off the shame from the Doctor hath taken the right Course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term into the Argument if every Church when he should say every proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a visible subordinate constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one but that not having such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a constitutive Head I was in a horrible fright when I heard four and five terms and began to blush at it but if this be all the Business I shall be able to bear this shame very well As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence which Mr. H. takes no notice of For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church which has one constitutive Regent Head and therefore the Dean denies that a National Church is a proper Political Church considered as a Church in Mr. B's sence of the Words and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out and yet to gratifie Mr. H. we will take it in if he will but allow the Catholick Church to be as proper Political a Church as the National Church is and then the Argument runs thus If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a National constitutive Regent Head as essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a Catholick visible Regent Head essential to it And thus I think it comes much to one and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head time was when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument but learnedly disputed that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholick Church and therefore the Catholick Church hath a visible Head as well as the National Church But let us briefly consider whether visible be a fourth Term or only added as a necessary Explication of Mr. B's Proposition if he mean any thing by it For I think Logicians distinguish between a fourth Term and an additional explication of the Terms Mr. B. disputes that every proper Political Church and therefore a National Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Does he mean by this constitutive Regent Head a visible Head on Earth or an invisible Head in Heaven If he means Christ as an invisible Head in Heaven then there is no Dispute between us for we will readily grant that Christ is the Head of the National as well as of the Catholick Church If he means a visible Head on Earth then Visible is no fourth Term but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head And then the Argument holds good from a National to the Catholick Church That if a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible Constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a visible constitutive Regent Head on Earth essential to it or Mr. B's Argument is not true that every proper Political Church must have a visible Regent Head on Earth essential to it Thus I think the Dean is once more defended but I must speak one good word for my self too as Charity obliges me Mr. H. says I bring in a fifth Term subordinate visible Head But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions Mr. B. says every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head does he mean this of Christ as the supreme Head of his Church or of men whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons as a subordinate Head under Christ if the first there is no dispute between us for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church If the second a subordinate Head then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term but included in a constitutive Regent Head and I think I need not spend time to prove that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head is not a parallel case because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head as Visible and Subordinate are for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective but signifies neither determinately unless it be expressed I shall only observe how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument If a National Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head then the Catholick Church as a proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head Yes saith Mr. B. and Mr. H. so it hath for Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church Where we plainly see that in the Antecedent by a constitutive Regent Head they understand a Visible Subordinate and Mr. H. says an accidental Head of the Church and in the Consequent a supreme invisible Head of the Church which is as fallacious a way of answering as it is of arguing And now I leave the Reader to judge where the shame which Mr. H. so much talks of must at last rest But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame as Impudence is to others CHAP. V. Concerning that one Communion which is essential to the Catholick Church and the practicableness of it IN the eighth Chapter of the Defence I briefly stated what the Communion is which is essential to the Catholick or Universal Church and what place there can be for this Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day Mr. B. in his Answer Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it but it is such a something as needs no farther answer for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholick Church And both these I have discoursed so fully already that I cannot excuse my self to my Reader should I repeat over the same things again and therefore I shall only briefly consider some few new Objections he has started which though they are very trifling yet may disturb an injudicious Reader I asserted That Catholick Communion strictly so called Defence p. 595. consists 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholick Church among themselves and with each other Here Mr. Baxter 1 plays the Critick He
there is want of it and never wants distinctions where there is no difference 2. The next way of maintaining Catholick Communion among Bishops I observed was by advising together about the publick affairs of the Church and Communicating Counsels with each other and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions that there might be no misunderstanding between them these last words which I have included in a Parenthesis Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation because they did too plainly discover how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholick Unity And answers 1. This Independents are ready to do What then Does it hence follow that they are Catholick Bishops Schismaticks may do many things which true Catholick Christians do and be Schismaticks still 2. How doth this differ from the former Do you not mean advising by Letters or Messengers If not is it general Councils you mean or what I told my meaning very plain Sometimes one particular Bishop writ to another Sometimes Neighbour Bishops met in Provincial Synods and sent their Synodical Letters to Forraign Churches But this is writing Letters still and how does it differ from the former Why Sir only as a Letter containing an account of the present state of the Church what Bishops die and who are ordained in their stead who are Catholicks and who are Schismaticks does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel c. but how is it we must advise with them of Armenia Abassia and the rest When Mr. B. can prove that I make it necessary to do so I will undertake to find out a way to do it but this and what follows about Provincial Counsels has been sufficiently considered above 3. Mr. B. proceeds But how Is it only publick Affairs that the Colledge adviseth you about The Man dreams who talks of the advice of the Colledge Who is it then that must dispose of the Church State and Souls of all us Individuals Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters must take care of his own Church and the Souls committed to him and that he may do this the better in all difficult 〈◊〉 especially such as concern the whole Church must take the best Advice of his Fellow-Bishops that he can where is the absurdity of all this Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is when he adds It seems it is some body below the Senate that is meant when we are told that we must obey the universal Church I thought whither it would come at last And well he might think whither it would come when he was resolved whither to carry it 3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholick Communion was by Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians who had occasion to travel from those Churches of which they were members to other Churches whither they went which were called Formed or Communicatory Letters the use of which I there explained To which Mr. Baxter answers 1. Are not all these three Proofs the same writing Letters of Church-affairs Consultation and Communication Yes writing Letters is writing Letters most certainly but I imagine there may be some difference with reference to the Subject about which men write And that Letters of recommendation differ something from Letters of advice 2. Do any of us deny his Conclusion that this proveth Communion among them Why then does he not own this Catholick Communion which I contend for and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatick No but I should prove an Episcopal Colledge as one Aristocratical supreme Regent Head I thank him for nothing I am not at leisure to write such Books on purpose for him to confute them But 3. He says these communicatory Letters the Non-conformists are greatly for that no man may be admitted to Communion in any particular Church without either a Personal understanding owning of his Baptismal Covenant or a Testimonial that he hath done it and been received into Communion with some Church with whom we have such Communion as is due between several Churches Quidlibet ex Quolibet How cleverly has Mr. B. turned these Communicatory Letters into an examination by Lay Elders or an Independent Church-covenant and the one Communion of the Catholick Church into such a Communion as is due between several Churches I could wish as heartily as Mr. B. that greater care were taken in the Discipline of the Church though they who make the greatest Complaints of the want of it are the true cause of this defect But what is this to Communicatory Letters Or what if Schismaticks are for Communicatory Letters among themselves are they ever the less Schismaticks for that All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters was this that the Ancient Church did believe that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholick Church and had a right to Christian-communion where he came which cannot be unless all Christians are one Body and all particular Churches members of one Catholick Church And here I had occasion to express my dissent from a very great man whose memory is as dear and venerable to me as to most of his particular and intimate Friends I mean Dr. Barrow and I think I express my dissent from him with all that modesty and just respect which is due to his memory I acknowledged that he had abundantly confuted that notion of a Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholick Church but yet that he made Catholick Communion too arbitrary a thing like the Confederacies of Soveraign Princes I should be heartily glad to see my self confuted in this point and to find that I was mistaken in his judgment in this matter if at least it may be called his Judgment and not rather his Inadvertency I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgment of this Reverend Person for I do not find that he understands either of us I am sure he urges such things in his Defence as that great man would be ashamed of and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it And now I come to the grand difficulty of all which I did but just name in the Defence What place there can be for Catholick Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church which we see at this day If there be no Catholick Church without Catholick Communion where shall we find the Catholick Church at this day when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other This makes some men suspect that Catholick Communion is a pretty Romantick notion of a Catholick Church but so impracticable that it is of no use to us now nor will put an end to any one Controversie or Schism in the Christian Church But this difficulty when it is thorowly examin'd will vanish of it self For 1.
That there are Schisms in the Christian Church is certainly no very good Argument against the necessity of Catholick Communion and yet this is the whole force of the Objection That if Catholick Communion be essential to the Catholick Church we must reduce the Catholick Church into a very narrow compass and un-Church most of the Christian Churches in the World as not maintaining this Catholick Communion If this be so I am heartily sorry for it as every good man will be for the Degeneracy and Apostacy of any part of the Christian Church But would Mr. Baxter have me frame some new Notions of Catholick-unity and Schism to justifie the many Schisms and Separations of the Christian World Must we fit our Notions of Church-unity to the present divided state of the Church or endeavour to reduce a broken and divided Church to a true Primitive state of Unity Suppose I had proved that Catholick Doctrine instead of Catholick Communion had been only essential to the being of the Catholick Church and such another Objector as Mr. B. should urge me with this inconvenience that then there are very few Churches that are true Members of the Catholick Church Because in most Ages and at this day there are such great breaches between several famous Churches about what they think the most fundamental Articles of our Faith must I therefore deny the necessity of Catholick Doctrine to a Catholick Church for fear of that inference that then there are many large and famous Churches which are not true Catholick Apostolick Churches This is the way I confess never to be without a Catholick Church to make the Catholick Church to be what the present Churches are not what they ought to be But it is the way also to make a new Christianity in every Age. And this is the more considerable because many of the Schisms which now are and have been in many Ages of the Church are owing to different apprehensions in matters of Faith which either are or have been thought to be Catholick Doctrines Such are the differences between the Greek and Latine Churches the Church of Rome and the Reformed Churches the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches So that Mr. B. must either find out a Church without Catholick Doctrine as well as without Catholick Communion or must reduce the Catholick Church almost into as narrow a compass for want of Catholick Doctrine as for want of Catholick Communion Unless he can prove that these doctrinal Disputes are not of that Moment as to cause Schisms in the Church and then he will mightily enlarge Catholick Communion and answer this formidable Objection himself II. No man can pretend that Catholick Communion is in its own nature impracticable because it was de Facto religiously observed in the Primitive Church for several Ages Thus it was in St. Cyprian's thus it was in St. Austin's time who made Catholick Communion essential to the being of a Catholick Church And that cannot reasonably be thought an impracticable Notion which has been practised in the Christian Church and which is equally necessary to be practised in all Ages III. For what should hinder all good Christians from maintaining Communion with all Christian Churches which are sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship If there be such Churches to be found in France in Germany in Holland c. What should hinder any sober Christian who travels into those Countries and understands their Language from joyning with them in all acts of Worship as Members of the same Body of Christ Those Churches which are not sound and Orthodox are not the Objects of Christian Communion and it is no breach of Catholick Communion not to communicate with them And nothing can reasonably hinder our Communion with those that are For where there are no sinful terms of Communion imposed we are bound to all Acts of Communion as opportunity serves So that those who think it such an impossible thing to maintain Catholick Communion among the Christian Churches of this Age must necessarily suppose that there are very few Churches in the World at this time which a sound and orthodox Christian can communicate with for nothing else can make Catholick Communion impossible And if this be true it is a very sad consideration and deeply to be lamented of all Christians but it is that which I cannot help Catholick Communion is very feasible when there are 〈◊〉 Catholick Churches to communicate with but when there are none it cannot be had or if there be but a few such it must be maintained among those few that are and that is true Catholick Communion which includes all true Catholick Churches be they more or less But the thing at present to be considered is this whether he who denies any Church to be a true Catholick Church which does not maintain Catholick Communion makes the Catholick Church any narrower than he does who denies the possibility of Catholick Communion because there are very few Churches which a good Christian can safely communicate with For I suppose those are no true Catholick Churches which a Catholick Christian must not communicate with and Catholick Communion may be maintained among all other Churches whose Communion is not sinful and dangerous As for instance Answer to Dr. Sherlack p. 189. Mr. Baxter reckons up twelve Sects of Christians in the World as Members of the Catholick Church his only doubt being concerning the Church of Rome I ask Mr. B. then whether these Churches be so sound and orthodox that a good Christian may communicate with them If they be then here is a possibility of maintaining Catholick Communion with all the Churches in the World at least excepting the Church of Rome If they be not how are they Catholick Churches Are those Catholick Churches which are so corrupt and unsound that a Catholick Christian must not own their Communion Catholick Communion may certainly be maintained with those Churches whose Communion is lawful and I think it as certain that those Churches cannot be Members of the Catholick Church whose Communion is unlawful IIII. We may consider farther that in this present state of things there are not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to preserve Catholick Communion between Forraign Churches and therefore Catholick Communion is not so impracticable as some may imagine The Churches of distant Nations cannot worship God together nor easily meet for Advice and Counsel but they may own and receive each others Members as occasion serves which signifies their Communion with each other Nay where there is no breach of Communion no declared disowning of each other nor express denial of any Act of Communion between distant Churches those Churches may be said to be in Communion with each other There are some Christian Churches which we know little or nothing of nor they of us but while we break not Communion with any sound part of the Christian Church and profess Communion with all that are so we may be truly said to live in Catholick
and were immediately baptized in great numbers cannot be supposed at that time to know more and yet this was accepted from them at that time and in that state of things and by the same reason will be accepted from those who want the opportunities of better instruction And if there be any baptized and nominal Christians who do not know thus much it is a great scandal to the Christian Church but I know not how we are more concerned for their Salvation than for Pagans and Infidels But as for those who deny any fundamental Article they are got above this state of a general and implicite Faith in Christ and err not for want of instruction but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith and understand what has been and is the general Faith of Christians in such matters for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholick Doctrines it appears they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledg that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sence of the universal Church which is such unpardonable immodesty as admits of no excuse if they lose themselves in the Mazes and Labyrinths of their own making and mistake their way to Heaven And though such Persons may be otherwise very pious and useful men yet I do not see why we should deny the necessity of believing the Fundamentals of Christian Faith any more for their sakes than for the sake of devout and vertuous Jews and Heathens 2. Having thus as plainly as I can stated and notion of Fundamentals the next inquiry is concerning those Churches which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations and whether such Churches may be said to err Fundamentally I will but briefly touch on this head and though I might give too many instances of it I shall at present confine my self to the Church of Rome I know no fundamental Article of our Faith that is expresly denyed by the Church of Rome She receives all the ancient Creeds professes the Faith of the holy Trinity the Incarnation the satisfaction of Christ's death his Intercession for us at the right hand of God but then she teaches such other corrupt Doctrines as all the wit of man cannot reconcile with this Faith As to shew this briefly with reference to the satisfaction and intercession of Christ The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass which is offered for the quick and for the dead For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day which represents the Sacrifice of Christ to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law which could not take away sin nor make the comers thereunto perfect and therefore were repeated again every year Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions especially the fire of Purgatory the merits of good Works and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints which compose the Treasury of the Church and may be applyed by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary could hardly think that she did believe that there is but one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus But I need not enumerate many particulars the truth of this being too evident and notorious The great Question then is this whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors for this sounds like a contradiction that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors And indeed if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article so it is plain that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors but if by fundamental Errors we mean such Errors as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines which contradict each other when the Contradiction is not in express terms but consequential For all men or Churches do not see or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts but especially in our present Dispute about Catholick Communion as will appear by considering 3. How far and in what Cases we may communicate with such a Church as believes all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and yet teaches such Doctrines as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrow Foundations This is a very material difference between a Church which denies any fundamental Article of Faith and a Church which believes all Fundamentals but superadds some corrupt Doctrines which in their Consequences destroy Foundations that the first is never capable of Catholick Communion because she denies Catholick Doctrine which is the necessary condition of Catholick Communion but the second in some cases may be because she retains all saving knowledg i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation though intermixt with dangerous Errors Now to state this matter how far we may communicate with such a Church as professes all the fundamental Articles of Faith but yet superadds other very corrupt and dangerous Doctrines we may consider these two things 1. I think I need not tell any man that we must not purchase the Communion of such a Church by professing our Assent to any corrupt Doctrine though it be not a fundamental Error No one Church ought thus to impose upon another nor does any Church pretend to it but only the Church of Rome Every Church is bound to preserve her own Faith as pure and perfect as she can but she has not that Authority over any other Church as to impose upon their Faith An orthodox Church may and ought to admonish neighbour Churches of any doctrinal Corruptions but must not reject their Communion for every Error though of dangerous Consequence if it be not Fundamental The belief of all fundamental Articles of Faith does mightily qualifie the evil and malignant influence of many very corrupt Doctrines which is the true reason why many men are observed to live much better than they believe because though they have entertained a great many corrupt Doctrines which
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
whole Discourse is that it is not in all cases and circumstances unlawful to maintain Catholick Communion with such a Church as being forced to it by necessity is neither governed by Bishops nor by Presbyters Episcopally ordained III. There still remains the third and fourth terms of Catholick Communion to be considered the Discipline of the Church and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies which I shall briefly speak to both together Now Discipline in the ancient use of the Word has a large signification and includes all religious Worship as well as Church Censures especially the Christian Sacraments for Church Discipline consists in admitting men to or excluding them from the Communion Worship and Sacraments of Christians Thus Disciplina sacerdotis in Tertullian signifies the whole exercise of the Priestly Office even the administration of Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper And by Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies I mean such external circumstances and appendages of Worship Time Place Habits Postures or significant Rites as are of humane Institution and may be either enjoyned or altered by Church Governors and do actually differ according to the Customs of several Churches Now to reduce what I have to say under this Head into as narrow a compass as I can I shall premise several things which I presume will be acknowledged without a Proof by the Persons I have now to deal with 1. That it is necessary to Catholick Communion that every Church observe all the essentials of Christian Worship and particularly the Christian Sacraments as instituted by our Saviour 2. That their Worship be pure from all Idolatrous mixtures and corruptions which is a sufficient justification of our separation from the Church of Rome 3. I suppose it will be granted also that there is no Church so pure but that it has bad men and too often bad Ministers in its Communion 4. That there have in all ages been various Rites and Ceremonies used in the Christian Church and very different in different Churches This no man will deny but one who is either very ignorant himself or a very impudent imposer upon the ignorance of others 5. That among true and orthodox Churches which believe all the Fundamentals of Faith and observe all the Essentials of Worship there are different degrees of purity in Discipline and Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Ceremonies some more some less for the edification of the Church This having been in former Ages and being now at present the state of the Christian Church it is evident what a Catholick Christian must do who will maintain Catholick Communion with the several Christian Churches in the World As 1. He must communicate with Churches which are not so strict and regular in their Discipline as he could wish There being few Churches in the World so exact in this matter but a wise and good man may discover such defects in their Discipline as he could wish amended And he who will not communicate with any Church nor live in any Common-wealth which has any defects in its Government is not fit to live in this World where there is no absolute perfection to be found either in Church or State 2. He must communicate with such Churches wherein there are a great many bad as well as good men for this is the state of all Churches on Earth where the Tares grow up with the Wheat 3. They must communicate with Churches which observe several uncommanded and significant Ceremonies for thus most Churches in the World do and have always done 4. Nay they must communicate with Churches which have very different if not contrary Customs There being few Churches wherein the external Modes Rites and Ceremonies of Worship are in all things alike It is evident as any matter of Fact can be that no true Christian Churches in the World can communicate with each other upon any other terms than these and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of any other and to condemn these terms of Communion as unlawful makes Catholick Communion impossible Whoever separates from any Church upon a pretence of some defects and imperfections in Worship or Discipline when all the essentials of Christian Worship are preserved entire and pure without any such corrupt mixtures as make their Worship sinful whoever separates from a Church because there are a great many bad men in it or for the sake of some indifferent Customs and significant Ceremonies must for the same reason separate from all the Churches in the World even from the most Primitive and Apostolical Churches of the first ages of Christianity Now if Catholick Communion be so essential to the being and notion of the Catholick Church those Principles must be false and Schismatical which are so irreconcileable with Catholick Communion For it is plain we cannot at this day nor ever could communicate with the Catholick Church if every defect in Worship or Discipline if indifferent rites and usages in religious Worship if corrupt and vicious Members make the Communion of any Church unlawful and be a just reason for Separation This indeed has always been the pretence both of ancient and modern Schismaticks The Novatians and Donatists separated for a stricter Discipline and purer Communion and were condemned for it by the Catholick Church And St. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that neither the wickedness of the Minister nor of the People corrupt the Worship or make the Communion of such a Church sinful though through the defect of Discipline the one should not be deposed nor the other removed from Christian Communion For indeed the ancient Fathers thought Catholick Communion so absolutely necessary that very few things could come in Competition with it We have a famous example of this in St. Cyprian who disputed very earnestly for the necessity of baptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks whenever they returned to the Communion of the Church Stephen Bishop of Rome did as vehemently oppose it with some sharp reflexions upon St. Cyprian and did admit those to Communion without Baptism who had been baptized by Hereticks But St. Cyprian like a true Catholick Christian Neminem jadicantes aut à jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes prefat Concil Carth. declares in his Preface to the Council of Carthage that he would not deny Communion to any of his Colleagues who differed from him in this point And in his Letter to Jubaianus Nos quantum in nobis est propter Heretices cumcollegis coepiscopis nostris non contendimus cum quibus divinam concordiam dominicam pacem tenemus Cyp. ep ad Jubai he professes that he will not quarrel with his Colleagues for the sake of Hereticks And yet as St. Austin well observes this Dispute was of great consequence to the Communion of the Church For if St. Cyprian was in the right then the Bishop of Rome August de baptismo l. 2. who received those to Communion without Baptism who had been formerly baptized
Schism which I assure you if it prove so will be the best Confutation of my Principles and make me greatly suspect them my self There are several insinuations of this nature scattered here and there in his reply which require no very serious answer for if he designed them for serious Arguments he is a wit indeed As to give some instances of this nature 1. He says Reply p. 13. I place Schism in a separating from the Catholick Church which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholick Church in great stead freeing them from the odious sin of Schism The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Vniversal Church ergo not Schismaticks Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember what Mr. Lob grants that there is such a sin as Schism and that it is a very odious sin which would stand them in more stead if they seriously thought of it than his Defence and Apology will do But Dissenters he says do not divide themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church What he means by this I cannot well tell for I am sure their Principles upon which they divide from the Church of England do equally divide them from all the Churches in the World And if upon meer humour they will divide from one Church and not from another where the reason of Separation is the same they are nevertheless Schismaticks for that Let Mr. Lob tell me what Church for above twelve hundred years they could have communicated with upon so good terms as they may now with the Church of England If Diocesan Episcopacy Forms of Prayer Defects in Discipline Corrupt Members in Church Communion Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies or unscriptural Impositions as they call them be a sufficient reason to justifie Separation what Church they ever could or can to this day communicate with The Foreign Protestant Churches though they differ in some things from the Church of England not in Judgment but in Practise of which I have given some account above yet they communicate with the Church of England which according to the Laws of Catholick Communion makes it as unlawful to communicate with them as with the Church of England it self But he says Dissenters and all true Christians though I hope all true Christians are not Dissenters whether Dissenters be true Christians or not must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholick Church How far this must be acknowledged I have examined above Schismaticks in a loose general Notion belong to the Church though they are not Members of the Catholick Church which is but one Communion and thus dissenting Separatists are Schismaticks still But though it were possible that our Dissenters might find some other Church beside their own Conventicles to communicate with yet they actually divide themselves from the Catholick Church by breaking Communion with any one sound part of it especially with such a part of the Church as they are more particularly bound to communicate with The Catholick Church is but one Communion and whoever causelesly breaks this Communion as he does who separates from any sound part of the Church is a Schismatick especially he that separates from the Church wherein he lives which is the case of our Dissenters in separating from the Church of England If you separate the Arm from the Shoulder you separate it from the whole Body the Union of every Member with the Body is its Union to that part of the Body which is next for the whole Body is nothing else but all the parts united to each other in their proper place and order And if the Church be one Body and one Communion he that separates from the Communion of the Church where he lives is a Schismatick though he may pretend to an imaginary Communion with French or Dutch Churches with the Churches of Greece or Russia But as much as Mr. Lob pretends that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead that Schism is a Separation from the Catholick Church it is plain he does not like it and therefore reproaches it as a Popish notion generally asserted by Papists I should be heartily glad to see any Papist assert this for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery but I doubt Mr. Lob wrongs the Papists and mistakes Catholick for Roman-Catholick Church They own no Catholick but the Roman-Catholick Church and know no Schism but a Separation from the Church of Rome But Mr. Lob thinks this is no great matter for I only change England for Rome and set up an English-Catholick instead of the Roman-Catholick Church which whatever other fault it have I hope he will acknowledg to be a change a little for the better but let us hear his own words He says I close with the same Popish Faction Ibid. in asserting that separating from the Church of England is a Separation from the Catholick Church as if the Catholick Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England as the Papists say within the limits of Rome What a blessed thing is Ignorance which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit What Papists are those who confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome Do not they own the Churches of Italy Spain France Germany to be Catholick Churches and would own all the Churches in the World to be so would they subject themselves to the Pope of Rome They do not desire to confine the Catholick Church within the limits of Rome but desire to extend it as far as England and all the World over But still Rome is the beginning of Unity and Catholicism and no Church must be owned for a Catholick Church which does not live in Communion with the Church of Rome and pay homage and subjection to the Bishop of Rome This is the Roman-Catholick Church not which is confined within the limits of Rome but which has the Bishop of Rome for its constitutive Regent Head And is not Mr. Lob a very pleasant man who would perswade the World that I am for setting up such a Catholick Church in England as the Papists have done at Rome The Papists make it Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome considered as the Head of the Church I assert it to be Schism from the Catholick Church to separate from the Church of England not meerly as the Church of England but as a true and sound part of the Catholick Church which we especially are bound to communicate with And is there no difference between these two But who-ever separates from the Church of England cuts himself from the Catholick Church puts himself out of a state of Salvation He is extra Ecclesiam extra quam nulla salus they are all the while Schismaticks in a state of Damnation This no jesting matter but a sad and serious Truth which I would beg Mr. Lob as he loves his
things must not cannot be parted with without sin then some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion But here are two things Mr. Lob craftily or ignorantly insinuates which must not pass without remark 1. He will not venture his Argument meerly upon indifferent things he has had enough of that already but on making indifferent things necessary parts of Religion whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action but to the external performance of it as I shewed at large 2. He insinuates a proof of this that these indifferent things are made necessary parts of Religion because they are made terms of Communion Whereas the terms of Communion are of two forts either the essentials of Faith and Worship and what is in this sence made a term of Communion is indeed a necessary part of Religion but the Church of England never made indifferent things terms of Communion in this notion of it but does expresly declare against it But 2. The external Circumstances of Worship and the Rules of Decency and Order are terms of Communion also because some such external Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship are necessary to the external solemnities and decency of Worship and it is fit that they should not be left at liberty but determined by the publick Authority of the Church and of the State in a Christian Kingdom to which all private Christians are bound to submit as I discoursed in the Defence But the great difficulty seems to lie here that any man should be denied the benefits of Christian Communion and excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation for not complying with some indifferent things which God has no where commanded and which no Christian had been bound to observe had they not been commanded by the Church which seems to make these indifferent things as necessary as the most substantial parts of Worship Now as great as this difficulty may seem to be it is but turning the Tables and there are as great difficulties on the other side For 1. It is as unaccountable to me that any Christian should exclude himself from the Communion of the Christian Church and the ordinary means of Salvation for such things as have neither any moral evil in them nor are forbid by any positive Law of God which makes the not doing such things to be more necessary than the Communion of the Church or the Worship of God it self Now 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul as the Church is 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding himself from Christian Communion for not doing what God has not forbid than the Church has for casting them out of Communion for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages though not commanded by God For 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the divine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful which God has not forbid than it is to enjoyn the observance of that which God has not commanded The first alters the nature of things makes that sinful which God has not made sinful The second only determins the circumstances of Action which God had not determined but left to the Determination of humane Prudence or Ecclesiastical Authority And 4. Which is likely to be the best justification the Opinion of a private man in opposition to the Authority and to the disturbance of the Peace and Communion of the Church or the publick Judgment and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Discipline and Government and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members Let Mr. Lob consider how to justifie themselves in making that unlawful which God has not forbid and separating from the Communion of the Church for that reason and I will more easily justifie the Church in denying Communion to those who refuse to comply with innocent but uncommanded Rites But 2. This Difficulty is the same in all Communions as well as in the Communion of the Church of England Neither Presbyterians nor Independents will allow disorderly Members in their Communion who will not submit to the Constitutions of their several Churches and thereby they make the Peculiarities of their Churches necessary terms of their Communion They will no more suffer a man to receive the Sacrament kneeling nor to pray in a Surplice nor to baptize with the sign of the Cross in their Churches than the Church of England will suffer her Members to neglect these Ceremonies and therefore they make the not doing such indifferent things as necessary terms of Communion as the Church of England does the doing of them and do as strictly enjoyn Conformity to their own way and modes of Worship as the Church of England does to hers and therefore the Church may as easily defend her self from this difficulty as the Conventicles can But the bare retorting of a difficulty does not answer it though such men ought in modesty to be silent till they can answer for themselves and then they will be ashamed to urge this Argument against the Church And it is a sign such men think but of one side who use such Arguments against their Adversaries as recoil upon themselves But indeed the Difficulty it self when it is fairly stated is no difficulty as will appear in these following Propositions some of which are already proved in the Defence and therefore to save my self the trouble of transcribing I shall only direct my Reader where to find them proved The Difficulty is why those things which are acknowledged to be indifferent should be so strictly enjoyned as to exclude those from Christian Communion who will not or cannot comply with them Now to this I answer by these steps 1. That some things Defence p. 30. c. which are indifferent in their own nature are yet necessary solemnities of Worship without which the publick Worship of God cannot be performed at all or can have no face or appearance of Worship as I have proved in the Defence 2. The Peace Ib. p. 44 45 and Order and Unity of the Church and the due care of the divine Worship requires that the external Circumstances of publick Worship should be determined and not left to the choice of every private Christian 3. Since some external Circumstances and Solemnities of Worship must be determined and yet are not determined by any positive Law of God it is plain that they are left to the determination of the publick Authority of the Church which must determine all private Christians For every thing of a publick nature wherein a whole Society is concerned must be determined and over-ruled by publick Authority or no Society can subsist Every private Christian in his private Capacity may choose for himself every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Family as far as concerns the Government of it and the supreme Authority of every Society must choose for the Society For how
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
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