CHAP. I. Concerning Catholick Ʋnity.

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 [Page 2]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 dying Cause, like the works and doublings of a Hare, when she is near run down, to lose the Scent. For this is the constant Artifice of these men, when they are no longer able to defend their Cause, to start aside, and by one Art or other, to loose their first Question in some new Dispute. Thus Mr. B. tells us for a Conclusion, I intend, God willing, hereafter to let the Matters of meer Conformity comparatively alone, and farther to examine this fundamental [Page 3]Difference, seeing it is evident, that now Satan's design is to call the French Po­pery by the name of the Protestant Reli­gion, Answer to Dr. Sher­lock. p. 230. and the Protestant Religion of the true Church of England by the name of Non-conformity and Schism, and to de­ceive the simple by a noise against the refu­sers of Episcopacy, Liturgy, and Ceremo­nies; but that noise shall no more divert me from opposing the Foundations of Po­pery. And I mightily commend the pru­dence of Mr. Baxter's Resolution; for it is an easier matter to pull down a man of Clouts of his own setting up, then to uphold such a decayed and ruinous Cause

But I am resolved not to lose the Cause thus, and therefore shall beat a little backward, till we find it again, and shall 1. mind my Readers of the oc­casion of that Discourse of Church-Uni­ty and Communion. 2. Give a brief Ac­count of the Doctrine of the defence in those Points, and consider their Ca­vils and Exceptions against it, and those perverse senses they put upon my words, to form them into a Cassandrian de­sign.

§. 1. I shall mind my Readers of the oc­casion of that Discourse concerning [Page 4]Church-Unity and Communion, where­by they may the better judge of the Na­ture and Tendancy of it. Now there were two things I apparently designed in it. 1. To shew how vain all those projects were of uniting Churches with­out curing their Separation, such as Mr. Humphrey's is, of making all separate Churches parts of the National Church, by vertue of an Act of Parliament, un­der the King, as the Accidental Head of such an Accidental Church: For if the Church must be but one, and the Unity of this one Church consists in one Com­munion, it is impossible in the nature of the thing, for all the power in the World, to make so many separate Churches one Church. The supreme Power may grant equal Liberties and Priviledges in the Common-wealth to all these separate Churches, but it can no more make them one, than it can make Contradictions to be true, the sin and evil of Separation still remains, the removal of which is the only thing that makes Union so desirable; and if an Act of Parliament could do this, I confess the Proposal would be considerable. If the evil and sinfulness of Separation consisted only in disobedi­ence to humane Laws, I should think it [Page 5]a barbarous thing to make any Laws, which shall ensnare men in so great a guilt: And it is impossible in such an Age as this, which is distracted with so many different and contrary Perswasions, to make any Laws about Religion, which will meet with an universal compliance. But if the evil of Separation consists in dividing the unity of the Church, which no Laws can cure, but those which cure Separation, Mr. Humphrey's uniting Law can give no ease and security to the Souls and Consciences of men, what­ever it may do to their Liberties and Estates: And I take the Souls of men to be of greater concernement, than their Bodies and Estates, and therefore should challenge the principal regard from con­sciencious men in their Projects of U­nion.

2. Another design of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion, was to give us the most plain and easie Noti­on of Schism and Separation, which Mr. B. and some other late Wri­ters have industriously endeavoured to confound, that no body might know what it is. Now if there be but one Catholick Church all the World over, then every Separation is a Schism on one [Page 6]side or other; for where there are two separate Churches, one, if not both, must be schismatical, because there is but one Church: And if the Unity of this Church consists in one Communion, which exacts a joynt discharge of all the Duties of a Church-relation, in hearing, and praying, and receiving the Lord's Supper, &c. together, then to forsake the Church, and meet in private Con­venticles, in distinct and opposite Com­munions for Religious Worship, is Sepa­ration; and when it is causeless, is a Schism, as I particularly proved in the defence from St. Cyprian, Defence. p. 24 [...]. and St. Augustin; this was the ancient Notion of Schism. But if there be more than one Church and one Communion; if the Catholick Church consist of all the separate Church­es all the World over, Answer. to Dr. Sher­lock. p. 132. as Mr. Baxter asserts, I would gladly know what Schism and Separation is, which hath so ill a Character in Scripture, and which the an­cient Fathers so vehemently declaim against, as one of the greatest Impieties, such a wickedness as Martyrdom it self cannot expiate.

For if there be not one Church, but a great many Churches of distinct and se­parate Communions, those Christians, [Page 7]who forsake one Church, and form them­selves into a new Church society, can­not be said to divide the Church, but to multiply it, they become a distinct Church by themselves; and if they re­tain all the Essentials of Christian Faith and Worship, are as good and sound a part of the Catholick Church, as that particular Church is, from which they separate: For when there is no obliga­tion upon Christians to live in one Com­munion, what should hinder them, if they please, from dividing into many?

If there be more Churches and Com­munions than one, he who forsakes one Church, and joyns in Communion with another, cannot be said to go, or to be out of the Church, but only to remove from one Church to another; and yet this was the ancient Character of a Schis­matick, that he was Extra Ecclesiam foris, one who is out of the Church without doors, Cypr. de imitate. and is said, de ecclesia recedere, to go out of the Church. But according to this Notion, it is impossible for a man to go out of the Church, unless he forsake the Communion of all the Churches in the World: Nay, if Church-unity does not consis tin one Communion, he may do that too, as Mr. B. says the Seek­ers [Page 8]do, and yet while they believe in Christ, continue members of the Catho­lick Church.

Take away the Notion of one Com­munion, and there are but two things, that I can think of, whereon to found the charge of Schism and Separation: Ei­ther, 1. on a private Contract and Cove­nant between the Pastor and Members of a particular Church; or, 2. on the Authority of the Magistrate, who en­joyns us to communicate with such a Church. But now I observe first, that the Notion of Schism was antecedent to both these: The ancient Church knew no other Church-covenant but Baptism, which obliges us to Catholick Commu­nion, and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or en­joyn any Communion: And yet the Church never had a greater sence of the evil of Schism in any Age, and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing, without any regard to private Con­tracts or humane Authority.

2. To break our Promise and Co­venant is a great evil, but it is not in its own nature Schism, unless there be something else to make it so, besides breach of promise. To disobey our Go­vernors [Page 9]in lawful things is a very great evil, but it is not in it self the evil of Schism, but of disobedience to lawful Authority: These do greatly aggravate the sin of Schism, when men are guilty of it, but it cannot make that to be Schism which is not; and yet there is no such sin, and can be no such sin as Schism, if there be not one Church; but men may divide into as many distinct and se­parate Churches, as they please; for if any man should say, that Separation is sinful, when there is no just cause or rea­son for Separation, this supposes that there are necessary reasons against Sepa­ration, when there are no just reasons for it; and I would gladly hear, what those reasons are against Separation, when you have destroyed the Notion of one Catholick Communion. But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholick Communion, in the Disputes of Schism and Separation, in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Un­reasonableness of Separation, ch. 5. p. 231. and thither I refer my Reader.

Now I shall hence briefly observe two things, with reference to my present de­sign. 1. That the whole force of my reasoning aginst Separation in the de­fence [Page 10]of Dr. Stillingfleet, depends on the Doctrine of one Catholick Communion; and therefore I was not at all concerned to assert one visible unifying Church-Pow­er under Christ, Answer to Dr. Sher­lock. p. 181. over all the Catholick Church, as Mr. B. calls it. I no where throughout my Book oppose Se­paration, upon the Principles of an uni­versal unifying Church-Power, but on­ly on the Principles of Catholick Com­munion; and therefore neither having any where asserted any such thing, nor having any reason to do so in the service of the Cause I undertook, especially having asserted the quite contrary, (as in due time will appear) the Reader may easily perceive how injuriously my Ad­versaries have distorted my words, to give some colour and pretence to their Calumnies.

2. I observe farther, That supposing there had some dubious passages about an universal Church-Power slipt from my Pen, the confuting such a fancy as that, is by no means a confutation of the Defence. If the doctrine of one Ca­tholick Communion hold good, as it will certainly do, whatever becomes of Catholick Church-Power, it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for [Page 11]Separation, and they are as very Schis­maticks, as ever the Novatians or Dona­tists were. Here the Controversie be­gan about the sinfulness of Separation; very angry they were, and gave a great many hard words to that excellent Per­son, who warned them of the danger and evil of it; many Books have been written about it, and now they are charged as high as ever, and are ferret­ed out of their Retreats, and see the ve­ry foundations of their Cause rooted up; all on a sudden they grow tame and gentle, and patiently hear themselves proved Schismaticks, without saying a word for themselves, being more con­cerned, it seems, to oppose a French Po­pery (which sometimes, by what figure I know not, they call a Cassandrian de­sign) than to vindicate their own dear selves from the charge of Schism. Some possibly may think them very mortified and self-denying men; others will be tempted to suspect some other Cause: But Mr. B. is resolved that noise shall not divert him from opposing the foun­dations of Popery; the plain meaning of which is this, He finds it troublesom to write in a Cause, where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to an­swer [Page 12]him, and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself, where he is secure of the victory, unless Rich­ard and Baxter should happen to quar­rel; he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages, as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise; I suppose he means a fourth Folio, he telling us that he has writ three already.

§. 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the De­fence concerning one Catholick Church, and one Catholick Communion, which my Adversaries have so industriously misre­presented, that it is necessary to set it in a new Light.

In the third Chapter I proved at large, Defence ch. 3. p. 137. &c. that Christ has but one Church, which is his Body and Spouse, which we call the Catholick Church; and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholick Church, though it will appear in due time, that they deny the thing.

That the Church is but one, I proved from the express Testimony of Scripture, and the ancient Fathers, and by this unanswerable Argument, Ib. p. 151. &c. that the Chri­stian Church is not a new Church, but the old Jewish-Church, reformed and [Page 13]spiritualized by the Laws and Instituti­ons of Christ; Christianity being no­thing else but mystical Judaism. The believing Jews continue still united to their own Root, and the believing Gen­tiles are grafted on the Jewish Root, and become one Church with them, as St. Paul discourses. Rom. 11.17, 18, 24. The middle Wall of Partition was broken down, and the Gentiles received into the Church of God, which was no lon­ger to be confined within the bounds of Jury, nor to the carnal Seed and Posteri­ty of Abraham, but to spread it self over all the World; and therefore since the Christian Church is not a new Church, but built upon the old foundations of the Jewish Church, enlarged and Chri­stianized, it must continue as much one, as ever the Jewish Church was.

I observed also from St. Cyprian (whose words I had cited at large) ‘that the Ca­tholick Church, Ib. p. 144. though it consist of all particular Churches, which are contain­ed in it, yet is not a meer arbitrary Com­bination and Confederacy of particular Churches, but is the root and fountain of Unity, and in order of nature ante­cedent to particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root [Page 14]before its Branches, and the Fountain before the Rivers that flow from it; that particular Churches are made by the encrease and propagation of the Catholick Church, not the Catholick Church by the propagation of particu­lar Churches.’

Here Mr. Lob gives us the first taste of his great understanding and skill in Controversie, and what a formidable Adversary he is like to prove. He says, I assert, Reply to the De­fence. p. 10. that the universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches (he should have said Catholick, for that was my word; but then he had lost his Metaphysical subtilty about Uni­versals, of which more presently) well, what hurt is there in that assertion? why first, the Allusions I use for the illustration of this, of the Sun being before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, and a Fountain before its Rivers, are not ad rem (that is, not to the purpose, nor to the Matter in hand; for I know not what force English Readers may imagine to be concealed in, ad rem, unless I translate it) but he knew very well, that these are not my Allusions (as he calls them) but St. Cyprians', whose Authority is much more considerable. But suppose they [Page 15]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 Ʋniversal, 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 Ʋniversal hath no real Existence but in particulars, but abstra­cted from all particulars [...] 'tis only an Ens Rationis, having its being in the Eutopi­an Common-wealth; whence we distin­guish between the consideration of Ʋniver­sal, as Formal and as Fundamental. Fun­damental and it is, Quid singulare; but for­mally, and so 'tis abstracted from all sin­gulars, the particulars being the foundati­on of the Ʋniversal, the root from which [Page 16]the Ʋniversal doth proceed. Now if it be the particulars that are the foundation of the Ʋniversal, how can the Ʋniversal 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, [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 Do [...] 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, [Page 19]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 Ʋniver­salis, & 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 [Page 20]becomes Catholick and Universal, and which is first in order of Nature, the Catholick Church or particular Church­es.

Mr. Lob asks me, Where this univer­sal Church should be, when Antecedent to any particular Church? Reply, p. 10. Truly I suppose it must be, where he has placed it, after there are particular Churches, viz. in Eutopia. But did I ever assert that there was a Catholick Church, before there was any one particular Church; that is, before there was any Church at all? Do I not assert, that the universal Church in the first beginnings of Christianity, was not so large as many particular Congrega­tions are now? Defence, p. 140. And therefore that the Catholick Church did subsist in a parti­cular Congregation. That though in the beginnings of Christianity, the true Church of Christ was consined to one small Con­gregation, yet it was the Catholick Church, &c. p. 148. If Mr. Lob does not understand this, I will endeavour to help him in it, if his Conscience be not more incurable than his Understanding. For when I assert­ed, that the Catholick Church is in or­der of Nature antecedent to particular Churches; I expresly declared, That I did not consider the Catholick Church, [Page 21]as actually spread over all the World, but as the Root and Fountain of Ʋnity, As St. Cyprian did: For in this Sense of the word Catholick and Ʋniversal, as it signifies, the Christian Church diffused and propagated in all parts of the World, it is absurd and senseless to affirm, That the Church was Planted in all the World, before it was Planted in any one Coun­try; but I placed the Catholicism of the Christian Church, not meerly in its actual Extent, but in its intrinsick Na­ture; its Extent varies in several Ages, according to the Progress or Decrease of Christianity in the World, but the Na­ture of the Church is always the same, be its Extent more or less.

Catholick, indeed is a Name, which we do not find given to the Church in Scripture, nor in the most ancient Creeds; but we find in Scripture, that Christ has but one Church, and the very Nature and Constitution of this Church is such, That it was not to be confined to any one Countrey, as the Jewish Church was, Defence, p. 147. but to diffuse and propagate it self all the World over; and upon this Ac­count, as I proved in the Defence, it is called the Catholick Church, because though it be spread all the World over, [Page 22]it is but one Church still. That very Church, which the Apostles first planted in Jerusalem, and by degrees enlarged in­to all parts of the World. The diffe­rence between the Church at its first Planting, when the beginnings of it were but small, and when it overspread so great a part of the World, is like the difference between a Child new Born, and when he is come to his full Growth and Stature, he is the same Person still but increased in all parts, without divi­ding one Member from another, or multiplying it self into more Bodies; or like a Grain of Mustard-Seed, which from small beginnings grows into a large Tree. The Catholick or universal Church is that one Church, which is the one Bo­dy of Christ, which was the same Church, when in the beginnings of Christianity, it was confined to a single Congregati­on at Jerusalem, and when it had spread it self over all the World.

I would desire to know, whether Christ had ever more than one Church, and one Body? If he had not, Whether that one Church might not always be properly called the Catholick Church? If it might not, Then if Christ have a Catholick Church now, and formerly [Page 23]had no Catholick Church, he has a Church now which he had not at first; and therefore has either changed the Church, which he once had, or has two Churches; one which is not the Catho­lick Church, and another which is the Catholick Church.

The Christian Church indeed has spread it self into many parts of the World, where it was not at the first planting of the Gospel, and therefore is more Catholick and Universal, with re­spect to its extent, than it was at first; but the Church, which is now spread all the World over, is but that one Church still which began at Jerusalem; and therefore the Church at Jerusalem, while but one single Congregation, was the Catholick Church in its Root, and Fountain, and principle of Unity, which was all that St. Cyprian, and I from him, affirmed of this Matter. And if parti­cular Churches now may be Catholick Churches, as maintaining Catholick unity, which was the familiar Language of the primitive Fathers, much more might the first Christian Church be ve­ry properly called the Catholick Church, as being the Principle and Fountain of Catholick unity.

But of all things I hate to dispute about Words, and therefore if Mr. Lob will but grant the thing I contend for, let the Words shift for themselves; and that is this, That the Church first plant­ed by the Apostles in Jerusalem, is that one Church, which was afterwards spread over all the World; that when the Apo­stles planted Churches in other Cities, Countries, and Provinces, they did not erect new distinct Independent Church­es, but only enlarged that one Church of Christ, and added new Members to it. Let the Church of Christ be acknow­ledged to be but one, which propagated it self in the Unity of the same Body all the World over, and I have no farther Controversie about this Matter.

This is the only thing I was concern­ed for, to prove that there is but one Church all the World over; and for this Reason, I asserted, That the Ca­tholick Church considered as the root and fountain of Ʋnity, was in order of Na­ture antecedent to particular Churches: The Catholick Church may subsist in one particular Church, otherwise the belief of the Catholick Church can be no necessary Article of our Creed, for the first Christian Church, was the par­ticular [Page 25]Church of Jerusalem, and if that were not in some sense the Catholick Church, there was a Christian Church, when there was no Catholick Church, and may be so again; if we should sup­pose all the World excepting one parti­cular Church, to apostatize from the Faith of Christ, which yet is general­ly acknowledged possible to be.

But if particular Churches were in order of Nature antecedent to the Ca­tholick Church, then they must be true and compleat Churches, without any regard to Catholick unity, and then it is impossible ever after to find or make one Catholick Church. The Notion and Essence of the Catholick Church, as far as concerns this Controversie, con­sists in such a Catholick unity, as makes all the Christians, and Christian Church­es in the World one Body and Church, and Members of each other. Now could we suppose that there were two or three or more particular Churches before the Catholick Church, as suppose the Church­es of England, France, and Spain, then we must acknowledg, that a Church may be a true compleat Church, with­out any regard to Catholick unity, and then Catholick unity is not necessary to [Page 26]the Notion and Being of a Church, and then there can be no necessity of one Catholick Church. If it is possible, that there should be two Christian Churches, which are not of the same Communion, nor Members of each other, then why not a hundred, a thousand, &c. And then there can be no one Catholick Church of Christs Institution, what­ever there may be by humane Combina­tions and Confederacies.

The Sum of all is this, Christ in the Institution of his Church, designed but one Church all the World over, which we call the Catholick Church. This Ca­tholick Church must of necessity have a beginning somewhere, as, De facto, it had at Jerusalem; where-ever this be­ginning is, there is the Root and Foun­tain of Catholick unity, because all other Christians, and Churches, which after­wards embrace the Christian Faith, are added to this Church, and received in­to the Unity of this one Body; and it is impossible, that any man should be a Christian, or any Society of men a Christian Church, who are not received into the Unity of this Church, not con­sidered as such a particular Church, but as the beginning of the Catholick Church; [Page 27]and thus all particular Churches are uni­ted to one another, and by vertue of this Catholick union, are one Catho­lick Church. He who carefully consi­ders this, will see what Reason I had to assert, that the Catholick Church was in order of Nature antecedent to parti­cular Churches; for a Church, which is one by Institution, must begin in one, and enlarge it self by receiving others in­to the Unity of the same Body, which for the convenience of Worship and Dis­cipline, may form themselves into distinct, but not separate Church-Societies.

This is an intelligible Account, how all the Churches in the World come to be but one Church, as proceeding from one principle of Unity, from one Root and Stock, and by the necessary Laws of their Constitution incorporated into one Body, and closely united to each others; but those who make particular Church­es to be entire and compleat Churches by themselves, in order of Nature and time too, antecedent to the Catholick Church, must either make the Catho­lick Church an imaginary Being, a meer Ens Rationis, as Mr. Lob does, or else no better then an arbitrary Combinati­on, which may last as long as they please, [Page 28]and be dissolved again, when they please, and yet the particular Churches remain very entire and perfect Church­es without it. It is certain, that the Catholick Church cannot be one Church and one Body, if any particular Church­es by their essential Constitution are en­tire compleat Churches, and not integral parts of the Catholick Church, which they cannot be without such a necessary Union as I have now described.

And to conclude this Argument, I shall refer Mr. Lob for better Instruction in this Matter to Mr. Baxter, who, in Answer to this Question, Whether a sin­gle Church, or the Catholick Church be first? Answer to Dr. Sher­lock, p. 202. Resolves it thus. Christ was first himself, and then, Christians as Christi­ans were Ʋnited to him, and were the Ca­tholick Church in Fieri, or an Embrio: And then the Pastor's Office, was made as the Organical Office to make the rest, —And when the particular Churches are formed, they are thereby parts of the Ʋni­versal, and as such are, Simul et Semel, such Churches and such parts. Now though Mr. B. and I are not like to a­gree very well in our Notions of the Ca­tholick Church, (a particular Account of which I shall give hereafter) yet here [Page 29]are several things for the Instruction of Mr. Lob, and to vindicate my Notion from such ridiculous Absurdity, as he charges it with. For, 1. Mr. B. acknow­ledges an universal Church, In fieri or Embrio, before any particular organized Church, before the Apostolical Office it self, which is more than I say, who on­ly make the first Church, The Root and Fountain of Catholick unity. 2. He as­serts, That when particular Churches are founded, they are thereby parts of the uni­versal Church; and therefore the univer­sal Church must be in order of Nature before particular Churches, which is ve­ry consistent with their being, Simul & semel, in order of time. And that he does not look upon the universal Church, to be a meer, Ens Rationis, in an Euto­pian Common-wealth, but a real existent thing appears from hence, that in the next Paragraph, he owns, Particular Churches to be integral parts of the Catho­lick Church.

CHAP. II. Concerning Catholick Communion.

HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick unity, the next thing in order (for I shall confine my self to the Method I observed in the Defence, that my Readers may the bet­ter know, what the present Controver­sie is, which my Adversaries have en­deavoured to conceal, as well as mis­represent) concerns Catholick Commu­nion.

I asserted and proved at large, Defence, p. 169. Ch. 4. That the Ʋnity of the Catholick Church, consists in one Communion. I explained what this one Communion is, produced variety of Proofs for it, from the Autho­rity of Scripture, and Ancient Fathers; and none of my Adversaries yet have had the confidence to attempt any An­swer to it, either by shewing that my Arguments are not cogent, my Autho­rities from Scripture, or Fathers imper­tinent or false: Mr. Lob thinks it suffi­cient to start some difficult Cases, and to confront me with the Authority of some [Page 31]late Writers of the Church of England, who, as he, who understands neither one nor th'other, imagines, contradict what I say; which, if it were so indeed, is neither a sufficient Answer to me, who prefer the Authority of the Scripture, and Ancient Fathers, before any Modern Doctors, of what Note soever; nor a sufficient justification of himself and his party, who are condemned by these ve­ry men, whose Authority they oppose against me, though they do not value it themselves.

An Argument, Ad hominem, can never establish a Cause, though in some cases it may silence an Adversary; and it is an evident sign of great prevarication, when men fence only with such Autho­rities, as they themselves do not think valid, as it is a desperate Cause, when they can neither confute the Reasons which are alledged, nor oppose Reason to Reason; but Mr. Lob shall have a fair hearing presently.

Mr. Baxter seems not to have read this Chapter, which is the main seat of the Controversie, but skips to the 8th. Chapter, where this Doctrine of one Communion is applyed to the Catho­lick Church, and this is the Reason, why [Page 32]he does not understand, what I mean by one Communion, but imagines, that I have a Grammar or Dictionary by my self, and will excommunicate them, and make them Schismaticks, for speaking as all mankind do. Good man, he is a lit­tle mistaken in this Matter, as usually he is, and as every man must be, who confutes Books before he reads or un­derstands them, and replies before he knows what to answer.

However, Answer to Dr. Sher­lock, c. 6. p. 208. let us hear what terrible Objections he has against this plain Pro­position, that the Unity of the Catho­lick Church consists in one Communi­on. I shall transcribe his Reasons, and then give a plain and easie Answer to them.

1. He says, This is contrary to the common course of Nature, in which the Ʋnion of all compounded beings maketh them what they are, and goeth before their Operations and Effects. The Ʋnion 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 Ʋnion of their parts is their relative Form, and goeth before the Exercise, and Ʋse, and the Effects.

3. It is contrary to all Political Beings and Societies: The Ʋnion 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 Ʋnion 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 Ʋnion and Communion be all one, then a man is new made a Christian at eve­ry Act of Communion; for Ʋnion is the Constitution, and makes us Christians; but the Consequence is not true.

5. If Ʋnion 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 [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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 Ʋnity of the Christian Church consists in one Communi­on; Catholick Ʋnity 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, [Page 36]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 [Page 37]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 [Page 38]serves, with all the Churches of the World, that he has with that parti­cular Church wherein he lives: Where­ever he removes his Dwelling, what­ever Church he goes to, he is still in the same Family, the same Kingdom, and the same Church.

I can hardly be so charitable to Mr. B. as not to believe this to be a wilful Mi­stake; for it is impossible for any man of common sense, who had ever read what I discoursed so largely and particu­larly of Catholick Communion, to mi­stake it for some transient Acts of Com­munion, when I so frequently explained one Communion by one Body and So­ciety: And all the Arguments whereby I prove one Catholick Communion, prove only that all Christians and Chri­stian Churches are but one Body, and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offi­ces, and Acts of Christian Communion, which are consequent upon such a Rela­tion. And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments, from natural, artificial, and political Unions.

But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's. Arguments, I find he is as much blundered and confounded about the notion of Unity, as he is about Com­munion. [Page 39]I asserted, that Catholick Unity consists in one Communion; the plain sense of which is no more than this, That the Catholick Church is one, considered as one Body and Society, wherein all Christians and Christian Churches have equal Right and Obliga­tion to Christian Communion. This Unity he turns into Union, and under­stands it of our Union to Christ, not of the Unity or Oneness of the Christian Church, and argues thus: 4. If Ʋnion and Communion be all one, then a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Com­munion; for Ʋnion is the Constitution, and makes us Christians. 5. If Ʋnion and Communion be all one, then Baptism doth no more make us Christians, and unite us to Christ and his Church, than after-Communion in Prayers and Sacra­ments do. Where you see he miscon­strues both the terms; and it would be wonderful to any Logician, to hear him conclude from these premisses, Ergo, the Unity of the Catholick Church does not consist in its being one Body and Society, and Communion of Christians. If this be to write Controversies, we may e'ne as well lay Wagers, and cast Lots for Major, Minor, and Conclusion; for any [Page 40]Propositions well shuffled, will naturally fall into as good Syllogisms as these.

And yet Mr. B. had notice given him of this distinction between the Union of the Church to Christ, and the Unity of all Churches in one Body and Society, in the 8th.. Chap. of the Defence, where I consider, what Communion is essential to the Catholick or universal Church; where the Reader may find these words, which Mr. B. himself takes notice of: I have already proved the Catholick Church to be one visible Body and Society, Answer to Dr. Sher­lock. p. 208 and therefore need not now add any thing more to confute that opinion, that the Catholick Church is invisible, which is asserted by Dr. Owen, and his Independent Bre­thren. But Mr. B. and others, who ac­knowledge one visible Catholick Church, consisting of all the particular Churches in the World, do not much differ from Dr. O 's. invisible Church, while they make the Ʋnity of this Church to consist only in their Ʋnion to Christ, as Head of the Church, not in the Ʋnion of Churches, as Members of the same Body: For I take it not to be enough, that all Churches are united to Christ, unless they be all united in one Bo­dy; for the whole Church cannot be the one Body of Christ, unless all particular [Page 41]Churches are one Body. And therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us, how the whole Catholick Church is united into one Body: I assert, this is done by one Communion; if he can tell any better way, I would gladly learn it, especially if he can tell me, how all Churches can be one Body without one Communion. This sudden Humiliation, as Mr. B. calls it, in being contented to learn of him, makes him condescend to undertake this task to teach me, but very much suspects my capacity to learn, till I am better in­structed by some Grammarians, Metaphy­sical and Political Teachers, what the meaning of Ʋnion and Communion is, Ib. p. 209. what is the difference between Essentials, and Integrals, and Accidents, and of Ʋ ­nion and Communion in each of these, and how many sorts of Ʋnion and Communion there are, that are pertinent to our Case, &c. I do not wonder, there are so few per­sons who understand Mr. B. or are ca­pable of learning from him, since there are so many things to be understood be­fore-hand, to prepare them for his In­structions, as no man of sense can ever understand.

I ask Mr. B. one plain Question, How the whole Catholick Church is united in­to [Page 42]one Body, so as to become one Church? In Answer to this, he sends me to Grammarians and Metaphysicians, to learn how many sorts of Union there are; though I care not how many sorts of Union there are, if he will tell me, what the Unity of the Catholick Church is. But he says, 1. He cannot talk sense about these things, without distinguishing about the unifying of the Society, and the uniting a single Member to that Society. But I suppose in my Question, particular Churches already formed, and particu­lar Christians united to these Churches, and only enquire, how all these Christi­ans and all these Churches are one Church. Other men, I believe, could talk sense, without these Distinctions, which Mr. B. seems to be so fond of, on­ly to prevent his Readers from under­standing sense. 2. He must distinguish also an essentiating Ʋnion, and an inte­grating or accidental Ʋnion and Communi­on. I perceive we shall never come to the Business: For I did not enquire, wherein the essence of the Church con­sists, or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its Being, which I suppose he means by his essenti­ating, integrating, accidental Union and [Page 43]Communion; but I suppose a thousand Churches, or as many more as you please, with all the Essentials, Integrals, Accidentals of a Church, and enquire how these thousand Churches become one Church. Possibly these Distinctions may be the way of speaking sense, but I perceive they are not the way of speaking to the purpose.

But let us now consider the Account Mr. B. gives us of this Matter: And 1. he says, It is only essential to the Church, that there be an organized Body of Pastors and People united to Christ the Head. Here I agree with Mr. B. if he would add one Body; for that is the thing in Dispute, whether Christ have one or a thousand Bodies; if but one, how all the Christians and Churches in the World make up that one Body. 2. He adds, In this Definition, Christ only is the supream, constitutive, Summa Potestas, or regent part; the organized Body of Pa­stors and People, but the Pars subdita, and the Ʋnion of Christ and that Body maketh it a Church. This is very well still: We acknowledge Christ to be the supream Governour of his Church, and that the Union of Pastors and People to Christ makes them a Church; but the [Page 44]main Question still remains untouched, What it is, which makes all the Christi­an Pastors and People in the World to be but one Church.

Nor does his Similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass. His words are these: As in the Constitu­tion of Man, 1. The rational Soul is the real Form, which is, Principium Motus. 2. The organized Body is the constitu­tive Matter: That there be Heart, Li­ver, Stomach, is but the Bodies Organi­zation; that these parts be duly placed and united, is Forma Corporis, non Ho­minis, and makes the Body but Materia disposita. 3. The Ʋnion of Soul and Bo­dy is that Nexus, ( like the Copula in a Proposition) which may be called the rela­tive Form, or that which maketh the Soul become Forma in actu. Had this Philosophy been known in St. Paul's days, I should not much have wondred, that he warns men against vain Philoso­phy. I shall avoid disputing with Mr. B. as much as I can, and therefore shall not quarrel with him for saving, that the Soul is Principium Motus, the Be­ginning, or first Cause and Principle of Motion to the Body, though it may be [Page 45]some Cartesians will not like it: Nor for affirming, that the Union of Soul and Body, is but like the Copula in a Propo­sition, which is a speck and spang new Notion; but shall only consider, how he applies this to the Church. Christ it seems then is the Soul, and Christians the Body; though in Scripture he is re­presented as the Head of the Body, and the divine Spirit as the Soul which enli­vens and animates it: And if Christ be not the Head of the Body, (which I think the Soul was never accounted yet) the Church must be without a Head, or have some other Head than Christ, which I suppose is the Reason, why he talks so much of a constitutive Regent Head of the Church. But the organized Body is the constitutive Matter of the man, though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part; but to let that pass. Thus an organical Church is the constitutive Matter; of what? Of Christ, or of his Church, or of some third thing compounded of both? That there be Heart, Liver, Stomach, is but the Bodies Organization; this is easily appli­ed. Thus Apostles, Prophets, Pastors and Teachers, and People, make an organical Church; but that these parts [Page 46]be duly placed and united, is Forma Cor­poris, non Hominis, is the Form of the Body, not of the Man; which what it means, I cannot tell, unless that a man would be a man, though the several parts of his Body did not stand in their right places, nor were united to one another; so they were all united to the Soul. And thus the Catholick Church is one Body, by being united to Christ, though the parts of it are not united to each other; and much such a Body it is, as the natural Body would be, did the Legs and Arms grow out of the Head, and every Member change places with­out any order, or divide from each other, and hang together only by a Ma­gical kind of Union with the Soul. Well, but this Organization and due Po­sition of the Parts, makes the Body, Ma­teria disposita, Matter fitly disposed; I suppose he means, for Union with the Soul: But is this disposition of the Matter so necessary, that a Soul cannot unite with a Body otherwise disposed, without forfeiting the external Form of a Man, his Senses, or his Understanding? And consequently, that no reasonable Soul, which is not under some force, would unite with such a Body. If this be his [Page 47]meaning, it sits our present Case very well; for then the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body, without union with it self; and the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist meerly in the union of all particular Churches in and to Christ, without any union among themselves. But how to apply the Copu­la in a Proposition, either to the union of Soul or Body, or of Christ and his Church, I cannot tell, and shall never be able to learn, till I meet with some new Baxterian Logick, as well as Grammar and Metaphysicks. But to proceed, as a farther Explication of this Matter, he adds,

3. In this Ʋnion there is no Summa Potestas, or universal Governour, (Mo­narchical or Aristocratical) but Christ. In this we agree also, as will appear more hereafter.

And now or never to the Point: 4. The Body is sufficiently organized, if it consists of local Churches, called single or particular, being Pastors and Christian People, (having all the Essentials of Chri­stianity.) But is our Dispute then about the Organization, or about the Unity of the Body? The Catholick Church has no other Organization, but that of [Page 48]particular Churches; but there is some­thing more required to make it one: No, says Mr. B. that which maketh this Body (that is, all the Christians and Christian Churches in the World) to be­come a Church, (he should have said, one Church) is no union of the Members among themselves: So that the Catho­lick Church may be one Body, without the union of its Members among them­selves, i. e. it may be one without Uni­ty. But why should not union of the Members among themselves be necessary to make a Church one? Because, says Mr. B. that maketh them only Materia disposita, i. e. Matter disposed, prepared, fitted; but for what? To be one Church? I should rather think, that the union of several Churches makes them one Church, and does not only prepare and dispose them to be one, unless he can tell, how they can be more one than by Unity. But however, are any other Churches, which have no union among themselves, this Materia disposita, or Matter disposed and fitted to make one Catholick Church? If they be, then there is no need of any Union, so much as to dispose and prepare the Matter: If they be not, then I still enquire, what [Page 49]that Union of Churches is, which is ne­cessary to make them fit matter for the Catholick Church? But this Mr. B. has not yet vouchsafed to tell me; though possibly this may be one of those things, which I must learn from some Gram­marians or Metaphysicians, before I can be capable of his Instructions.

But Mr. B. tells us, how the Church is one without any Union of the Mem­bers among themselves, viz. by their common Ʋnion with Christ, and then all single Persons and Churches are one Ca­tholick Church, because united in and to him, as all Lines are united in the Cen­ter. So that there is no necessity of any other Union between several Churches to make them one Catholick Church, but that they are all united to Christ the common Center; they are one Church, though as distant and opposite to each other, as the two Poles, because they meet in the same Center.

But 1. This is a pretty easie way of determining Controversies to out-face all the Authority of Scripture and An­tiquity, by a dogmatical Assertion, with­out offering the least Reason or shadow of Reason to confirm it: I had at large proved the necessity of one Catholick [Page 50]Communion to make one Catholick Church, and instead of answering these Proofs, he asserts the contrary upon his own naked Authority, and that must pass for a Confutation.

And 2. He takes that for granted, which I can never grant him, that those Churches which are divided from each other, by separate and opposite Com­munions, may yet be all united to Christ; for Christ has but one Body, one Spouse, one Flock, one Church, and if we be not Members of this one Church, (as no Schismaticks are) we are not united to Christ: and therefore it is a vain thing to talk of uniting those in Christ, who are not united among themselves; for Christ hath not an hundred several Bo­dies, but one Body, and we must con­tinue in the Unity of this Body, if we will enjoy Union and Communion with Christ.

3. When he places the Unity of the Catholick Church, in the Union of all single Persons and Churches in and to Christ, he must either mean this of an external and visible Union to Christ, by an external and visible profession of Faith in him, or a real, internal, mysti­cal Union.

1. If he mean the First, an external and visible Union to Christ, I observe, that this can neither be made, nor be known, but by something, which is external and visible. We cannot know, that any Society of men is the Church of Christ, but by their external professi­on of Faith in him, and subjection to him; nor can we know, that a hun­dred Societies are the same Church, but by some common Profession and Pra­ctise; and if, by the Institution of our Saviour, one Communion be essential to the Notion of one Church, as I have abundantly proved it is, then the visible Union of all Churches, in and to Christ, consists in their visible Communion with each other.

2. If he mean a mystical internal Uni­on, I have two things to say to him. 1. This makes the Catholick Church invisible; for if the Unity of the Ca­tholick Church consists only in the Uni­on of all Churches in Christ, and this Union be a mystical invisible Union, then the Catholick Church it self must be invisible too. 2. Though particu­lar Christians may be thus mystically united to Christ, yet no particular Churches are thus united to Christ much [Page 52]less all the particular Churches in the World, unless you will say, that none belong to the Church, but those Persons who are true and sincere Christians, which reduces the Church to the invisi­ble number of the Elect, and destroyes not only the Visibility, but in many cases the Organization of the Church on Earth, for I fear the Pastors and Go­vernours of the visible Church, are not alwayes invisibly united to Christ, and therefore according to this way of arguing, it is not visible, whether Christ have an organical Church on Earth: which shows how absurd it is, to place the Unity of the Catholick Church, in this invisible Union of particular Church­es to Christ.

I may add 3. That no men are thus visibly united to Christ, who are not visible Members of the Catholick Church, and do not live in visible Communion with it, when it may be had; for other­wise we destroy the necessity of a visi­ble Church, or of a visible Profession, and Practise of Christian Communion, even in particular Churches: Which shows, that the Notion of Catholick Unity, and a Catholick Church, does not consist in such an invisible Union [Page 53]to Christ, for our invisible Union to Christ, necessarily supposes our visible Communion with his Church; and since Christ hath but one Church, it requires our visible Communion with the Catho­lick Church; and this supposes that there is a visible Catholick Church, of a di­stinct Consideration from the invisible Church of the Elect, which therefore cannot be founded on an invisible Uni­on to Christ, but on something which is visible, such an external Profession, and external Communion, as may be seen. The sum is this, No Church can be the Church of Christ, but upon ac­count of some Union to him, either vi­sible, or invisible, or both; but that which makes all the Churches of the World, the one Church and Body of Christ, must be an Union amongst them­selves, which I have proved, consists in one Catholick Communion. What Mr. B. farther adds, proceeding upon the same Mistake, needs no particular Answer; and what deserves any farther Examination, will fall in under another Head.

But Mr. Lob (I confess) has pinched harder in this Cause, having alleadged some venerable Names in the Church of [Page 54] England against me, Arch-bishop Bram­hall, Mr. Hooker, Dr. Field, all very great men, to whose Memories I cannot but pay a just Reverence and Respect: But yet if it should appear, that my Notion of Catholick Communion should differ from theirs (as I think it does in some Points from Arch-bishop Bramhal's) while I have the Authority of Scripture, and the primitive Church, I think my self very safe, notwithstanding the dis­sent of any modern Doctors, of what note soever. Only hence we may learn, with what Judgment and Honesty Mr. Lob charges me with carrying on the Cassandrian Design, when I differ from the Arch-bishop in those very Points, for which he was (though very unjustly) charged with it.

But let us examine Particulars. I assert, that all Christians and Christian Churches in the World are one Body, Society, or Church; and this is called Catholick Communion, because it obli­ges them all to communicate in all the external Offices and Duties of Religion and Church-Society, and Membership, as occasion offers, especially neighbour-Christians are bound to live together in external Communion with that Church [Page 55]in which they are; and that whoever causelesly separates from any Church, which lives in Catholick Communion, is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church.

Mr. Lob, to avoid this, Reply to the De­fence, p. 14 alledges the Authority of Arch-bishop Bramhal, and triumphs over me after his usual rate, for not having con'd my Lesson well, nor sufficiently digested my Notions, which he supposes I learnt (though very im­perfectly) from this great Master: he tells me, This great Prelate uses several distinctions about Communion, which would have been for my purpose and recti­fication: Though whoever reads my Book, will find, that I was not ignorant of these Distinctions, but did not think them to my purpose.

The Bishop sayes, Bramhal's Vindicati­on of the Church of England. Tom. 2. Disc. 2. P. 57. The Communion of the Christian Catholick Church, is partly internal, partly external: And do I any where deny this? The Question only is, whether internal Communion will ex­cuse men from the guilt of Schism, who separate from the external Communion of the Church, when it may be had without sin? And this I deny, and do not see, where the Bishop asserts the contrary.

But let us hear, what internal Com­munion is, which he sayes, consists prin­cipally in these things. To believe the same entire substance of saving necessary Truth revealed by the Apostles, and to be ready implicitely in the Preparation of the mind, to imbrace all other supernatu­ral Verities, when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them: to judge charitably of one another. And do not I also expresly say, Defence, p. 171. that the same Faith, and mutual Love and Charity, are the Bonds and Li­gaments of Christian Ʋnion? p. 172. That the Ʋnity of Faith must be acknowledged, as absolutely necessary to the Ʋnity of Chri­stians, for Hereticks are no Members of the Christian Church?

But we must exclude none from the Catholick Communion and hope of Salva­tion, either Eastern, or Western, or Sou­thern, or Northern Christians, which pro­fess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers, established in the first general Councils, and comprehended in the Apostolick, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds: Here Mr. Lob makes a Query, Whether, seeing the Faith contained in these Creeds, is professed by the Dissenters, this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholick internal Communion, [Page 57]by excluding the Dissenters from the Ca­tholick Communion, and hope of Salvati­on. But our Questionist should have considered, that to exclude from Catho­lick Communion, is an ambiguous Phrase, and may signifie two very different things. 1. Not to receive those into our Communion, who are willing and desirous to communicate with us; and thus no man, that I know of, but them­selves, exclude Dissenters from Catho­lick Communion, and thereby, from the ordinary means of Salvation, which is to be had only in the Unity of the Church. Or 2. It may signifie not own­ing those for the Members of the Ca­tholick Church, who divide themselves from the external and visible Commu­nion of it, while they profess the same Catholick Faith. If the Bishop meant this, by excluding from Catholick Com­munion, all that I shall say to it, is this, that he must condemn St. Cyprian, Cor­nelius, and all the Italian and African Bishops in their dayes, and St. Austin, Optatus, and the Catholick Church in their time, for excluding the Novatians and Donatists from Catholick Commu­nion, and the hope of Salvation, not for any Error or Heresie in Faith, but for a [Page 58]Schismatical Separation from the Catho­lick Church; and I am contented to be a Schismatick in so good Company, as the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's dayes. But I have pro­ved at large in the Defence, P. 171, &c. that the same Faith is not sufficient to make any men Catholick Christians, who separate from the external Communion of the Catholick Church; but this our Author did not think fit to meddle with.

Mr. Lob proceeds, Moreover as to ex­ternal Communion, sayes Bramhal, there are degrees of Exclusion, and did I ever deny this? Do I make all the Censures of the Church equal? But it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or Persons, from their neighbour Churches and Christians in their Innovations and Errors, most certain! If they be such Innovations and Errors, as make their Communion sinful; but every Innova­tion, nor every Error, which does not corrupt their Religious Worship, is no just cause for a Separation, or for wa­ving or withdrawing Communion. But of this more hereafter.

He adds from Bishop Bramhal, Nor is there so strict and perpetual adherence required to a particular Church, as there [Page 59]is to the universal Church: But how I am concern'd in this, I cannot see; for by adherence to the universal Church, the Bishop seems to mean, adhering to the Judgment or Decrees of the universal Church assembled in a general Council, which he makes the supream Authority of the Church on Earth, and therefore prefers their Decrees before the Decrees or Canons of any particular Church; and I agree with him so far, that the Judgment of a general Council, if such a Council could be had, is to be pre­ferred before the Decrees of any parti­cular Church, and ought not, without some necessary and apparent Reasons, be slighted or disobeyed by particular Christians or Churches; though I do not make a general Council, the con­stitutive regent Head of the Catholick Church; but if by adherence Mr. Lob will understand Communion, I do assert, that Communion with a particular Church, which is it self in Catholick Communion, is as necessary as Commu­nion with the Catholick Church, and he that separates from any such Church, separates and divides himself from the Catholick Church; and this I shall be­lieve, till I see better Reason for the con­trary.

Let us now consider how he urges me with the Authority of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field. I assert that the Unity of the Catholick Church consists in one Communion, and consequently that those Christians and Churches which do not live in Catholick Communion, are no Members of the Catholick Church, but are out of the Church, extra Eccle­siam foris, according to the Language of the primitive Fathers. Whereas I acknowledge, he has proved by very plain Testimonies from Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field, that they own all those for Christians and Members of the visible Church, who profess the Faith of Chri­stians, and are baptized, though they be Schismaticks, Hereticks, Idolaters, excommunicable or excommunicated Persons; and therefore either Christ must have more Churches than one, which I deny, or the Unity of the Catholick Church cannot consist in one Commu­nion, as I assert; for Schismaticks, He­reticks, Idolaters, are not in the same Communion, and yet are all Members of the visible Church. I own his Cita­tions out of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field, and therefore need not repeat them, and have represented the Objection with [Page 61]greater Advantage and Perspicuity, than he has himself; for I neither design to cheat my self, nor to impose upon my Readers, nor to perpetuate Controver­sies, as my Adversaries do, by false Re­presentations of Things, or some shuf­fling and sophistical Arts to put by a Blow.

But all this appearing Difference is not real but verbal: Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field believe Schismaticks and He­reticks to be as much out of the Church, as I do; and I believe them to be as much in the Church, as they do.

When Mr. Hooker asserts, That all that profess the Faith of Christ, what­ever they be, whether Schismaticks, He­reticks, Idolaters, are Members of the vi­sible Church of Christ, he understands the visible Church in a large Notion, to comprehend the whole Body of profess'd Christians. And therefore the Reason he assigns for it is, because all Mankind are Christians or Infidels: Those who believe in Christ, what-ever their other Errors in Doctrine, or Miscarriages in Life and Practice may be, are Christians in some sense notwithstanding, and therefore visible Members of the Chri­stian Church, as that comprehends all [Page 62]Christians; but those who do not be­lieve in Christ, are Infidels. Now I acknowledge, as much as Mr. Hooker can do, that there is a difference be­tween a profest Christian, though a Schismatick, Heretick, Idolater, or ex­communicated, and an Infidel. Such Persons, who have been once incorpo­rated into the Church by Baptism, what­ever they prove after, may be restored to the Church again, without being re­baptized; but an Infidel cannot be ad­mitted without Baptism, which is a plain proof, that the first do in some sense belong to the Body of Christ, and that the other do not. Baptized Christians, though Schismaticks, Hereticks, Idola­ters, shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels, but as wicked and apostate Christians; when men are made the Members of Christ's Body by Baptism, and an external profession of Christia­nity, they can never alter this Character, but shall be finally judged, either con­demned or rewarded as Christians, and upon this account may still be said to belong to the Church of Christ.

Dr. Field, whose Authority Mr. Lob alledges against me, has plainly recon­ciled this appearing difference, as every [Page 63]ordinary Reader would have seen, had our Author been so honest, as to have transcribed the whole Paragraph; and therefore since he has only cited a part of 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 Ʋnity 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 [Page 64]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 [Page 65]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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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 [Page 70]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, [Page 71]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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 qualiscun (que) 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 [Page 74]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 uti (que) 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 Ad­ministration of Baptism by Hereticks, if it have any force, must prove also that they forfeit their own; and from those Answers he returns to many Dif­ficulties, wherewith he was prest; we [Page 75]may learn his Judgment in our present Dispute, in what sense Hereticks and Schismaticks belong to the Church: which will give some light also to St. Austin's whole Dispute with the Dona­tists, which I hope will not be ungrate­ful to an inquisitive Reader.

As, 1. One great Difficulty is, How those, who are not in the Church can administer those Sacraments, which be­long particularly to the Church? How there can be the same common Sacra­ments to those who are in the Church, and to those, who are out of it? To which he answers, that though Schisma­ticks do forsake the Communion of the Church, yet they do not forsake the Church in every thing, In quo enim nobiscum sentiunt, in eo etiam nobiscum sunt; in eo autem à nobis recesserunt, in quo à nobis dissentiunt— si ergo qui recessit abunitate ali­ud aliquid agere voluerit, quàm quod in unitate percepit, in eo recedit, & disjungitur quod au­tem ita vult agere, ut in uni­tate agitur, ubi hoc accepit & didicit, in eo manet at (que) con­jungitur. August. de bapt. l. 1. cap. 1. and as much as they re­tain of the Church, so much they belong to it; and whatever they find of the Church among Schismaticks, they are bound to approve and al­low, though done in a Schism; and therefore they dare not reject the Baptism of Schismaticks, when Persons so Baptized return to the Communion [Page 76]of the Church: so that though St. Au­stin will not allow Schismaticks to be in the Catholick Church, whose Commu­nion they have forsaken, yet they retain­ing something, which belongs to the Church, Ʋt ergo u­tra (que) Sen­tentia vera sit, sicut ve­ra est, & illa ubi ait, qui non est mecum ad­versum me est, & qui mecum non colligit, spargit; & illa ubi ait, nolite pro­hibere, qui enim con­tra vos non est, pro vo­bis est, quid restat in­teligen­dum, nisi quia ille in tanti nominis veneratione confirmandus fuit, ubi non erat contra Ec­clesiam, sed pro Ecclesia, & in illa tamen separatione bulpandus, ubi si colligeret spargeret; & si forte veniret ad Ecclesiam, non illud quod babebat, ibi acciperet, sed in quo aberraverat, emendaret. Ib. cap. 7. the Christian Faith, and Chri­stian Sacraments, they still have some relation to the Church, and are not to be accounted Heathens, and Infidels, and to this he applies that saying of our Sa­viour, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, he is so far with us, as he is not against us; and therefore is not to be rejected in every thing he does, but only in those things, wherein he departs from us: And therefore though Schisma­ticks are not in the Church, as having forsaken the Communion of it, yet so far as their Faith and Worship is truly Christian, they must be acknowledged to belong to the visible Church, as the visible professors of Christianity.

Thus St. Austin thinks the vessels of Honour, and the vessels of Dishonour, (by which the Apostle means such He­reticks [Page 77]or Separatists as Hymeneus and Philetus 2 Tim. 2.) may be said to be in the same House, Dicit & Apostolus Paulus de quibusdam qui circa veritatem aberraverant, & fidem quorundam subvertebant quos cum evi­tandos esse diceret, in una tamen domo magna eos fuisse significat sed tanquam vasa in contumeliam; credo quod nondum foris exierant, aut si jam exierant, quomodo eos dicit in eadem magna domo cum vasis honorabilibus, nisi forte propter ipsa Sacramenta. Ib. l. 3. cap. 19. upon account of the same Sacraments.

2. Sometimes he seems to make Schis­maticks to belong to the Church, as other wicked men do, who have not forsaken the visible Communion of it; for otherwise I cannot understand his Answer to that great Objection against the Baptism of Schismaticks, that Schism is so great a Sacriledge and Impiety, and Schismaticks such Rebels against Christ, that we cannot think he will ap­prove their Baptism, that they are Car­nal, and therefore cannot give the Spi­rit, which is conferred in Baptism; Nunquid ergo ad eandem colum­bam pertinent omnes avari, de quibus in eadem Catholica gra­viter idem Cyprianus ingenuit? nam ut opinor, raptores non co­lumbae, sed accipitrices dici pos­sunt, quomodo ergo Baptizabant, qui fundes insidiosis fraudibus capiebant, &c. Ib. l. 3. cap. 17. to which he commonly answers, That the Case is much the same with reference to Bap­tism administred by bad men in the Church; those who are Carnal, Covetous, Unjust, &c. [Page 78]And therefore he makes Hereticks and Schismaticks to be only Pseudo-Christia­ni, or false and counterfeit Christians, as all bad men are, and bad men no more to belong to the Church, than Schisma­ticks do: Those who are Enemies to brotherly love, Hujus autem fraternae charitatis inimici, sive aperte foris sint, sive intus esse videantur, Pseudo-Christiani sunt & Antichristi —cum intus videntur ab illa invisibili charitatis compage Separati sunt. Ib. cap. 19. whether they be without, as Schismaticks are, or seem to be with­in, as those who still live in visible Catholick Communion, they are all counterfeit Christians, and Antichrists. And there­fore he must allow Schismaticks in some sense to belong to the Church, as other bad men do; they have indeed made a more visible and open Separation from the Church, Si nihil potest ratum & firmum esse apud Deum, quod illi faci­unt quos Dominus hostes & ad­versarios suos esse dicit, cur fir­mus est Baptismus, quem tradunt homicidae? An hostes & adver­sarios domini non dicimus homi­cidas? qui autem odit fratrem snum homicida est. l. 5. cap. 21. but yet have not renounced Christia­nity: And therefore he observes, that if those, who are without, cannot have any thing that be­longs to Christ, Hoc tamen puto me non temere di­cere, si fo­ris nemo potest habere aliquid quod Christi est, nec intus quisquam po­test habere, aliquid quod Diaboli est, si enim hortus ille clausus potuit habere spinas Diaboli, cur non & extra hortum potuit manare fons Chri­sli. Ib. l. 4. cap. 7. neither can those, who are within, have any thing that belongs [Page 79]to the Devil; for if this enclosed Gar­den may have the Thorns and Thistles of the Devil grow in it, why may not the fountain of Christ flow without the Garden? in which he alludes to the Ri­vers of Paradice, which did not only water the Garden, but divided them­selves into all the World, as he discours­es elsewhere. Sicut ergo intus quod Diaboli est [...] So that the Case of bad men in the Church, and Schismaticks out of it, Arguendum est, sic foris quoà Christi est agnoscendum est. c. 9. according to St. Austin, is much the same, only with this difference, Dixerit aliquis, interiora Ziza­nia facilius in frumentum con­verti: concedo ita esse. c. 10. That he allows bad men in the Church to be in a more hopeful Condition to become good, than Schismaticks are: But if he will allow bad men to belong to the Church, he must in some sense allow Schismaticks to do so too, or else he does not fairly conclude from the Validity of Sacraments administred by bad men in the Church, to the Validity of Sacra­ments administred by Schismaticks out of the Church.

3. In Answer to that captious Que­stion of the Donatists, whether Baptism administred by them did regenerate, which they would make a Mark of the true Church to beget Children to God [Page 80]by Baptism; he does acknowledg not only their Baptism, but Baptismal Re­generation; but then says, Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est, & non ex hoc unde conjuncta est. Separata est enim à vinculo charitatis & pacis, sed adjuncta est in uno Baptisma­te. Ita (que) una est Ecclesia, quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in commu­nionibus diversorum à sua unita­te Separatis, per hoc quod suum in eis habet, ipsa uti (que) generat, non illi ne (que) enim Separatio ec­rum generat, quod secum de ista tenuerunt, quod si & hoc dimit­tant omnino non generant. l. 1. cap. 10. that Baptism has this Effect, as it belongs to the Church, not upon account of its Admini­stration by them: where­in they are separated from the Church, they can do nothing, but as far as they continue uni­ted, as they did in the same Baptism, so the Sa­craments of the Church will have their Effect, though their Ef­ficacy is immediately lost in a Schism, of which more presently, which is a plain acknowledgment, that Schismaticks are not wholly separated from the Church, as retaining something, which belongs to the Church. And this he confirms by a mystical Interpretation of the Sto­ries of Sarah and Hagar, and Isaac and Ishmael; and says, that the Church bears Children not only by her self, but by her Maids, conceived by the Divine Seed of the Sacraments, l. 1. c. 10. Ergo ipsa gene­rat & per uterum suum & per uterum an­cillarumex ejusdem Sacramentis, tanquam [Page 81]ex viri sui semine; which how fanciful soever it may seem to be, shews what St. Austin's Opinion was, that Schisma­ticks themselves did in some sense belong to the Church.

4. But then lest any man should think, that it is no great hurt to sepa­rate from the Unity of the Church, if Schismaticks may retain the Faith, and Sacraments of the Church, St. Austin adds, That though Schismaticks may have the Sacraments of the Church, yet they are not available to Salvation in a Schism. They have Baptism and give Baptism, Non recte foris habetur, & tamen habetur, sic non recte foris datur, & tamen datur; sicut autem per unitatis reconciliationem incipit utiliter haberi, quod extra Ec­clesiam inutiliter habebatur, sic per eandem reconciliationem in­cipit utile esse, quod extra il­lam inutiliter datum est. Aug. de oapt. l. 1. cap. 1. but with­out any profit or advan­tage; and therefore he exhorts the Donatists, and in them all other Schismaticks not to be puffed up with a Conceit of what they have, but to consider what they want, and how many great and excellent things profit nothing, when one thing is wanting, and that this one thing is Charity, which principally consists in preserving Catho­lick Communion, without which, what­ever they have besides, cannot procure their Admission into Heaven.

And therefore when the Donatists pressed him with that Difficulty, since he acknowledged Baptism as administred by them to be true Christian Bap­tism, Non extolluntur ex his quae ha­bent, quid tantum per ea quae sana sunt superbos oculos ducunt. Et vulnus tuum dignentur humi­liter intueri, nec solum quid as­sit, sed etiam quid desit, at­tendunt videant quam multa, & quam magna nihil possint, si unum quidem desuerit, & videant qaid siti sum unum. — Cha­ritatem uti (que) non habendo, eti­am cum illis omnibus, quae nihil eis prosunt, ad aeternam salutem pervenire non possunt. Ibid. cap. 9. which ought not to be repeated, whether this Baptism did wash a­way sin? For if it did, then they were the true Church, wherein alone Remission of sin is to be had; if it did not, then it is not true Christian Baptism; and so those who were Baptized by the Donatists, ought not to be received into the Catho­lick Church without Baptism; St. Austin answers this two ways, either, 1. That Baptism though administred by Dona­tists, being not their Baptism, but the Baptism of Christ, Ib. cap. 11. 12. and the Christian Church, had its effect in ipso temporis puncto, in the instant of its Administra­tion to wash away sins, but that the Guilt of these sins did immediately re­turn again, the Baptized Person conti­nuing in his Schism: or, 2. That the Schism of the Person Baptized did hin­der the efficacy of Baptism, as any other [Page 83]sin does, for the Grace of Baptism is gi­ven only to Persons, who are qualified to receive it, and if any such Persons of­fer themselves to Baptism, who live in any sin unrepented of, their sins are not washed away in Baptism, though they receive it in the Communion of the Church: But yet, when they repent of their sins, they are not to be rebap­tized, but then receive that Grace and Pardon by vertue of their former Bap­tism, which their Hypocrisie and Impe­nitence hindred them of when they were baptized: Thus it is with those, who are baptized in a Schism; their sins are not washed away by Baptism, be­cause their Schism suspends the Vertue and Efficacy of the Sacrament, but when they return to the Communion of the Church, then their Baptism proves a true Laver of Regeneration.

From hence we easily learn, what St. Austin's Judgment was in this Contro­versie: For, 1st. Though he would not own, That Schismaticks in a proper sense had any Church, there being but one Catholick Church, to which the Name of Church does properly belong, as Op­tatus also asserts, That the Churches of Schismaticks appear to be Churches, but [Page 84]are not, nor, 2ly. would he allow them to be Members of the Catholick Church, whose Communion they have forsaken, Illud quale esl, & ideo putetur baereticus non habere Raptismum, quia non habet Ecclesiam? Aug. de bapt. l. 5. cap. 20. and there­fore says, they are out of the Church, and denies that Catholicks and Schis­maticks have the same Church, Ita ergo potest Haereticus & Ca­tholicus Baptisma unum babere, & unam Ecclesiam non babere. Ib. cap. 21. though they have the same Sacra­ments. Non reclè foris habitur, & tamen habitur, sic non reclè foris datur & tamen datur. Ib. l. 1. cap. 1. Nay, 3ly. He denies, That Hereticks have any Sacraments of their own, Magis ergò quia pro Ecclesiae ho­nore at (que) unitate pugnamus, non tribuamus Haereticus, quicquid a [...]a eos ejus agnoscimus. l. 4. cap. 2. but have u­surped the Sacraments of the Church, which are not rightly had, nor rightly given out of the Communion of the Church; though they are not to be repeated when they are once given, but to be compleated by Reconciliation to the Church. But, 4ly. Schismaticks re­taining the Christian Faith and Christi­an Sacraments among them, though they are out of the Church, are not Heathens and Infidels, but in some sense Christians; Ita (que) [...] [...] [...], sed gravius [...]riant vulnere Schis­matis. l. 1. cap. 8. and therefore he ac­knowledges, that the Donatists do cure [Page 85]those whom they Baptize of Infidelity and Idolatry, but wound them more grievously with Schism. And therefore, 5ly. He owns them to be united to the Catholick Church, as far as they retain any thing of the Catholick Church among them, such as the same common Faith, and the same Sacraments; but yet, 6ly. That what-ever they retain of the Catholick Church, though they believe the same Articles of Faith, ob­serve the same Rules of Worship, have the same Sacraments rightly and duly administred among them, excepting their Schism, yet nothing of all this will avail them to Salvation, unless they re­turn to the Communion of the Catho­lick Church. So that though we should not agree what Name to call Schisma­ticks by, whether Christians at large, up­on account of their Profession, with­out any relation to the Church, whose Communion they have forsaken; or, whether we say they are out of the Church, as having forsaken its Commu­nion, or that in some sense they belong to the Church, as retaining its Faith and Sacraments, or whether we own them Members of the visible Church, as that may include the whole Number of Chri­stian [Page 86]Professors, as distinguished from the one Catholick visible Church, which contains only Catholick Christians, who live in Christian unity and Communion, the Difference is not great, while with St. Austin we own but one Catholick Church, and Catholick Communion, wherein Salvation is to be had. This is all I ever intended to prove, and I think no body need prove more to deter any man from Schism, who loves his Soul.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Necessity of Catholick Com­munion.

HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholick Communion, from the Exceptions of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob, before I proceed any farther, it will be highly expedient to discourse some­thing briefly of the necessity of it; for I find Mr. Lob mightily puzled to conceive, that those who believe in Christ and repent of their sins, and lead an holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty, as they suppose many may do, who sepa­rate from the Church of England, and do not live in Catholick Communion, ac­cording to my Notion of it, should for this Reason be excluded from all the or­dinary Means of Salvation. They look upon the Christian Religion to be like a System of Philosophy, and if men be careful to believe such Laws, without a­ny regard to a Church-state, or Church­unity and Communion, their Conditi­on [Page 88]is very safe, and they have a Right and Title to all the Promises of the Gos­pel. Holiness of Life and a good Tem­per of Mind, is the only thing Christ de­signed to promote by his Gospel; and if men be holy, however they came by it, or whatever they are besides, it mat­ters not. This is very plausible, and a prevailing Notion in our days, which makes a great many well-disposed men extreamly indifferent, what Church they are of, so they be but watchful over their Hearts and Lives in other Matters: For will any man say, that a holy man shall not go to Heaven, when all the Promises of the Gospel are made to such Persons? When Godliness hath the Promise of the Life, that now is, and of that which is to come? Where is the Man, who has so much Courage, as to repeat the Case, which St. Austin puts; of a Man, Constiua­mus ergò aliquem castum, con­tinentem, non ava­rum, non Idolis servientem, hospitalitarem indigentibus ministrantem, non cu­jusquam inimicum, non contentiosum, patiemem, quietum, [...] Em [...] ­lantem, nulli invidentem, sabrium, fragalem, sed Haereticum. nulli uti (que) dubium est, [...] solum quod haereticus est, Regnun Dei non [...]ssedibit. August. de baptismo. l. 4. cap. 18. Who is Chast, Continent, void of Covetousness, no Idolater, Hospitable and Bountisul to those in Want, Enemy to no Man, not Contentious, but Patient, Quiet, without Emulation or Envy, Sober, [Page 89]Frugal, but a Heretick (which in St. Austin's Language in that Place signi­fies a Schismatick) of such a Person he says, That no man doubts, but for this ve­ry Cause, that he is a Schismatick, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. This it seems, was not St. Austin's private Opinion, but the received Opinion of all Christians in his days; that which no Body then doubted of: which makes it at least worthy of our most serious and impartial Enquiry; and were men once throughly satisfied of the danger of Schism, and the absolute necessity of Catholick Communion, a great many wanton Scruples, which now divide and subdivide the Church, would vanish of themselves; for they would be then afraid to venture their Souls in a Schism. And therefore to make this as plain and evident as possible I can, I shall proceed by these following Steps; only premi­sing, That the whole design of this Dis­course is pure Charity to the Souls of men, not to triumph in their Ruine and Misery; for God forbid, I should ever rejoyce in the thoughts of any Man's Damnation; for then I am sure, I should never go to Heaven my self.

1. I observe then in the first Place, That though holiness of Life is the ne­cessary Condition, yet it is not the me­ritorious Cause of our Salvation: With­out holiness we shall never see God. But that holiness carries any man to Hea­ven, is in vertue of the meritorious Sa­crifice and Intercession of Christ, and therefore unless we have a Covenant-In­terest in this Sacrifice, nothing else can secure us of our Reward.

2. That Catholick Charity, which is exercised in Catholick Communion, is a principal Part of Evangelical Holiness, without which nothing else will be ac­cepted by God. Love and Charity is the great Gospel-Command, and the peculiar Badge of the Christian Profes­sion; and Christian Charity, as it is di­stinguished from good Nature, and an obliging Temper and Conversation, which is indeed a necessary moral Ver­tue, but not that which is peculiarly cal­led Christian Charity, does unite all Christians together in one Body; is such a Kindness for one another, as answers to that Tenderness and Sympathy, which the Members of the Natural Body have for each other: So that Christian-chari­ty necessarily preserves Christian-unity [Page 91]and Communion; and whoever rends and divides the Church, is void of this Christian-charity.

This I have already proved at large in my Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, Defence, p. 183. &c. both from Scripture and the Ancient Fathers; and it were easie to add numerous Quo­tations more to this purpose. This is the principal thing St. Augustine insists on: he frequently applies that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13. where he shews how unavail­able all other Attainments are without Charity, Aug. de baptismo. l. 1. cap. 9. l. 3. cap. 16. & alibi passim. to signifie such a Charity as pre­serves the Peace and Communion of the Church; and does every where assert, that that man is void of Charity, who does not love the Peace and Unity of the Church: if then Christian Charity be so necessary a part of Christian Holi­ness, and consists in preserving the Peace and Unity and Communion of the Chri­stian Church, whatever other good Qua­lities Schismaticks may have, they want the chief branch of Holiness, without which no man shall see God, and there­fore though a holy man shall never mis­carry, or fall short of Heaven, yet a Schis­matick with all his other good Qualities may.

3. Since the best men must be saved by Christ, and not by their own Righ­teousness or Merits, we must expect to be saved by Christ only in such a way, as he himself has appointed; It is all free Grace, and therefore we must be con­tented to receive it in such a way, as he is pleased to give it. He is a Debtor to no man, and therefore may well be allowed to make his own terms; Hea­ven is a supernatural State of Happiness, which the best Man, setting aside the consideration of his many Imperfections and Defects, cannot challenge as the Re­ward of his best Services; and there­fore God is under no other Obligation to bestow Heaven on any man, but his own Promise made to us in Christ Jesus, and therefore can be obliged no farther than his own Promise reaches: If any hard and pityable Case happens, he has the soveraign Power in his own hand, and can do, as he himself pleases, but we must expect no more from him, than he has promised.

The not considering this, is apt to confound mens Notions concerning the undertaking of our Saviour, and our Redemption by him: It runs some men into Socinianism, to deny the Satisfacti­on [Page 93]of Christ; and others, who cannot be so subtil, as to distinguish themselves out of so plain and express an Article of our Faith, and therefore do heartily and sincerely believe the Satisfaction of our Saviour, that he dyed as a true and proper Sacrifice to expiate our sins, and purchase Eternal Life for us, yet have no clear Conceptions of the Reason of this, which will not well comply with those other Notions they have of God, and his natural Obligation, not to call it natural Necessity, to love and reward good men.

I do as firmly believe God's Goodness to good men, and his Love to true Ho­liness, where-ever he sees it, as I do any Article of my Creed, but then I consi­der, that Heaven is a supernatural Hap­piness, and not the natural Reward of an earthly Creature, as man by Nature is: And therefore the best man, consi­dered as a Man, has no more reason to expect, That God as a Reward of his Vertue, should translate him from Earth to Heaven, than that he should give him wings to flie in the Air, and to visit the several Planets; all that can be expected from God upon account of the Good­ness or Justice of his Nature, is to be­stow [Page 94]such a Happiness on innocent or de­serving Creatures, as their Natures were made for, that is, an earthly Happi­ness on an earthly Creature, which was all that was promised Adam in Para­dice, an immortal, happy Life in this World.

So that if we consider the State of mankind, we shall find, that the whole Work of our Redemption, is wholly owing to free Grace, that is, that which was neither due to our Natures, nor what we could reasonably expect from God, considered only as our Maker.

Man in Innocence was but an earthly Creature, 1 Cor. 15. the first Adam was of the Earth and earthy; And an earthly Creature cannot challenge as his natural Birth­right, an heavenly and divine state of Life: For Flesh and Blood, though inno­cent and pure, cannot inherit the King­dom of God. A gross, earthly Body cannot ascend into Heaven, nor dwell in those pure Regions of Light, and therefore such a Creature can no more challenge Heaven, as its natural Portion and Inheritance, than it can, that God should change its Nature, and refine an earthy into a spiritual Body.

If we consider man in his lapsed State, he has forfeited even an earthly Im­mortality, and cannot now challenge an immortal Life in this World, much less in the next; For what natural Reason can there be, when we suffer Death as the Punishment of sin, for God, to raise our dead Bodies out of the Dust again into an immortal Life. So that what­ever may be the Reward of Vertue in this World, an immortal Life after Death cannot be the natural Reward of it; for then it could not be in the Evange­lical Notion of it, the Gift of God, or the Purchase of Christ.

And we may consider farther, that as man is now designed for a supernatural state of Happiness in Heaven, so much advanced above the original state of humane Nature, so there is required a divine Holiness and Vertue to fit and qualifie him for this supernatural Happi­ness. Upon this account our Saviour so earnestly presses the Necessity of the new Birth, that we must be born of Water and of the Spirit, if we would enter in­to Heaven: For that which is born of the Flesh, is Flesh, but that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit: Whereby our Saviour signifies to us, that we must at­tain [Page 96]to such a pitch of Goodness, as is as much above the original Attainments of an earthly and fleshly Nature, as Heaven is above the Earth: For that saying of our Saviour, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, is true in a state of Innocency; Innocent flesh is flesh still, and therefore we must be born in­to a diviner State than innocent flesh, if we would enter into Heaven; that is, we must attain to such a divine and spiritual frame of Mind, as raises us above this World, and prepares us for an Angelical state of Life: For there are different degrees of Vertue fitted to the different states of a reasonable Nature: Unless we will say, that the Vertue of a Man, and of an Angel is the same. That degree of Vertue which is suffici­ent to teach a Man to use the good things of this World innocently and hap­pily, is not sufficient to raise a Man above the World, and to make him contemn all bodily Pleasures and earthly Satis­factions.

The highest and noblest Attainments of Christianity would be no Vertues in an earthly state: Were we to live always happily in this World; were this the best and most perfect state we could expect, [Page 97]it would be no Vertue, but a great in­stance of Folly to despise the good things of this Life, and to live above them: For in such a State, the delights and satis­factions of Flesh and Sense would be an essential part of our Happiness, and whatever is so, cannot and ought not to be despised: It always becomes a reason­able Creature to govern all his appetites and desires by the Laws of Reason, and to mortifie and subdue his inordinate Affections, as that signifies to correct the Extravagancies of them; but yet in an earthly state he may indulge himself to the full in all lawful Enjoyments, and is not bound to lay restraints upon him­self, nor to endeavour to stifle and sup­press his sensual Inclinations, nor to de­ny them their proper and natural satis­factions: That is, he who is to live al­ways in this World, and has no bigger or diviner Happiness to expect, is not bound to die to this World, while he lives in it. So that all those Evangelical duties of Self-denial and Mortification, and Con­tempt of this World, and heavenly Mind­edness, can be no Vertues nor Duties in any earthly state, much less a life of Faith, and hope of unseen things, when we have no unseen things promised to us, [Page 98]as the Object of our Faith and Hope, but have our Portion at present, and expect only a circular and endless Repe­tition of the same Enjoyments. The Laws of Vertue must be proportioned to the State and Condition of Man-kind, and must alter and vary with it; that which becomes an earthly Creature, who is to live always in this World, and in this Body, which as far as we know, was the Original state of Man-kind, does not become one, who must put off this Body, and lives in this World, not as his home, and place of rest, but as a probation-state, for a better and more spiritual Life. That Vertue, which teaches us how to live happily in this World, and that which must prepare us for the Hap­piness of the next, must differ as much as Earth and Heaven, as Flesh and Spi­rit: And this I take to be the true dif­ference between Moral Vertue, and Evangelical Graces; the first is propor­tioned to the state of a reasonable Crea­ture, inhabiting an earthly Body, with­out any expectations of a more Divine and Spiritual Life, the second includes a Respect to the other World, and that Angelical Happiness, which Christ has promised to his sincere Disciples.

The Religion then of our Saviour, being as much above Nature, as that Glory and Happiness is, which is revea­led and promised in the Gospel, it is ne­cessary we should have some more divine Principle to raise us into this divine Life, than meer Nature is; for Nature can never act above it self; and that the Gospel tells us, is the holy Spirit of God, whereby we are Renewed and Sanctified, and have the divine Nature formed in us; and this being above Nature, no considering man will say, that the Gift of the Holy Spirit is owing to our Na­tures, or that God is under any natural Obligation, as our Maker, to bestow it on us.

The Result of which is this, that the Gift of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are born again, and prepared and qualified for a divine and immortal state of Life, being an act of pure Grace, and wholly owing to the Mediation of Christ, God may dispence it upon what terms, and in what manner he pleases, and we must expect it only in that way, which God has appointed for the bestowing of it.

I need not insist now on the Pardon of our sins, which all Mankind own to be an Act of Grace, which we can upon [Page 100]no account challenge without a Promise, nor upon any other Terms and Condi­tions, nor in any other way, than what is promised.

So that the whole Work of our Re­demption is an Act of pure Grace, which we cannot challenge from the natural Goodness of God, nor from his natural Relation to us, as we are his Creatures, and therefore must thankfully accept of it, in what way God pleases to give it, and not quarrel with him, if he do not give it to those, who will not have it in his way.

4. And therefore I observe in the next Place, That all the Blessings of the Gos­pel are promised to us in a Church-state. This is so fully, Discourse of our Uni­on, &c. to Christ. Chap. 4. sect. 1. 142 Defence, & Conti­nuat. c. 5. p. 399. and hitherto so unan­swerably proved by Dr. Sherlock in his Discourse of our Union and Communi­on with Jesus Christ, and in his Defence and Continuation of that Discourse in answer to Mr. Ferguson, that would men be at the Pains to turn to those Books, there need be nothing said to it here; however that this Treatise may not be wholly defective in so material a Point, I shall speak something briefly to it, and refer those, who have a mind to see this Matter more fully de­bated [Page 101]to the aforesaid Discourses.

1 Then, That Christ did intend to erect a Church in the World, and to unite all his Disciples into one Religious Society, is so universally acknowledged, that it is a needless trouble to prove that which no body denies; no man de­nies that Christ has a Church, and that he intended to have one, only the seek­ers know not where to find it, now me­thinks, if Christ have instituted a Church, wherein he requires all his Disciples to communicate as Members of the same Body, it goes a great way towards prov­ing, that the ordinary Means of Salva­tion are to be had only in the Commu­nion of this Church; for to what pur­pose is this Church instituted, if not for a common Body and Society of those, who shall be saved by Christ? No So­ciety can be founded or maintained but by such Priviledges and Immunities, as make it desirable to enter into it, and continue in it; without this all King­doms and Common-wealths, Cities, and Families would disband, for nothing can tie men together, who are naturally giddy, and fond of Innovations, but some sensible Advantages, which they cannot otherwise enjoy. And therefore [Page 102]the Church being a spiritual Society, and the great end of its Institution, the Salvation of sinners, it is not reasonable to think, that Christ would institute a Church, without obliging Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of it, at the Peril of their Souls, if they do not.

2. And therefore I farther observe, That the Gospel-Covenant is the Char­ter, whereon the Church is founded. The Blood of Christ is the Blood of the Covenant, the Covenant of Grace be­ing purchased and sealed by the Blood of Christ; and therefore let us consider, whether this Covenant be made with particular men, considered as single and scattered Individuals; or as incorpora­ted into a Church. Now in general we are told, that Christ is the Saviour of the Body, and that he has redeemed his Church with his own Blood, which con­fines the Effects and Application of his Grace, and Merit, and Satisfaction to his own Body, which is the Church. But besides this we may consider, That the Jewish Church was Typical of the Chri­stian Church, nay indeed, that it is the same Church still, only enlarged and Chrystianized; for the Christian Church [Page 103]is built upon the foundations, not only of the Apostles, but Prophets; and Jews and Gentiles are united into one Church, by breaking down the middle wall of partition, and engrafting the Gentiles upon the same Root and Stock with them, as I discoursed at large in the De­fence of Dr. Stillingfleet.

Now we know the Mosaick Covenant was made with the Children of Israel, as a Nation, whom God had chosen for himself of the Seed and Posterity of Abraham: Natural Jews had no Title to this Covenant, till they were circum­cised and incorporated into the Body of Israel, considered as in Covenant with God, of which Circumcision was the Sign and Seal; and no strangers were admitted to these priviledges of the Co­venant, till they were engrafted into the Body of Israel by Circumcision, and be­came one People with them: So that the Mosaick Covenant, which was but the Christian Covenant in Types and Figures, was confined to a particular Nation, or Body of men, and to all those, who were incorporated into the same Body with them; now it is plain, that the Christian Church is incorporated into the Body of Israel; and therefore the Apostles call [Page 104]the Christians, the true Israel of God, and all the Names of Israel are given to the Christian Church. A chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, 1 Pet. 2.9. an holy Nation, a pe­culiar People: So that the Christian Church is a Nation, and People pecu­liar to God, and chosen by him out of the rest of the World, as the Jews for­merly were, that is, united to God and to each other in the same Covenant, and therefore as the Mosaical Covenant was confined to the Body of Israel, that no Strangers or Aliens had any right to it, so is the Gospel Covenant confined to the Communion of the Christian Church: And therefore Christ is said to give him­self for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purifie to himself a peculiar Peo­ple, zealous of good Works. [...] or [...], 2 Tit. 14. as it is in St. Peter, which is one of the Names of Israel, as they were a Nation, a peculiar Body and So­ciety of men, separated from the rest of the World.

3. To confirm this, we may consider, that it is not enough that Christ has died for us, and purchased the Pardon of our sins, and the Gift of the holy Spirit, un­less this Pardon and Grace be applyed to us in such ways, as he has appointed. [Page 105]For it will not suffice, that we make Christ our own, by a fanciful Applicati­on of his Merits to our selves, which would quickly overturn the Church, and make the Institutions of our Saviour ve­ry useless things, as we see this conceit has in a great measure done already, but we must receive Christ and all his Bles­sings, as he is pleased to bestow them.

Now that the holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are by the Institution of our Saviour, the or­dinary Conveyances and Ministries of Grace, has been the universal Belief of the Christian Church in all Ages; in Baptism we receive the Remission of our sins, and the Gift of the holy Spirit; and therefore we are said, to be baptiz­ed for the Remission of sins, and to be born of Water and of the Spirit, and we are said to be saved by the washing of Re­generation, 3 Titus 5. and the renewal of the holy Ghost.

In the Lord's Supper Christ gives himself to us as the Bread of Life, See Dr. Sherlock's practical Discourse of religi­ous Assem­blies. part 2. which is the daily Food and Nourishment of our Souls, of which the Manna in the Wilderness was but a Type; The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is the Commu­nion of the Blood of Christ, (that Blood [Page 106]which was shed for the remission of Sins) and the Bread which we break is the Com­munion of the Body of Christ: 1 Cor. 10.16. That is, in this holy Sacrament all the Merits of Christ's Death and Sufferings are made over to worthy Communicants. Here we receive the fresh Supplies of the holy Spirit, Ch. 12 13. and therefore are said to drink into one Spirit; but I need not insist on the proof of that, which no body de­nies, who has any Reverence for our Sa­viours Institutions, and does not think them meer empty Shadows, and insigni­ficant Ceremonies.

If then our Saviour has appointed these holy Sacraments as the Means and Conveyances of Grace, and these Sacra­ments are ineffectual to those, who do not live in the Unity and Communion of the Christian Church, then we cannot ordinarily expect the Application of Christ's Merits to us, or the Vertue of his Death and Passion, out of Catholick Communion.

And yet this was as generally acknow­ledged by the ancient Fathers, as the other, as I have already shown: St. Cy­prian would not acknowledg, that Schis­maticks had any Sacraments, no more, than that they had any Church; St. [Page 107] Austin acknowledged that they had Sa­craments, but inutiliter; their Schism made the Sacraments ineffectual to at­tain the end for which they were insti­tuted; and indeed the very Nature of the Sacraments will easily satisfie us, that it must be so.

Baptism is the Sacrament of Pardon and Forgiveness, of our Regeneration and new Birth by the holy Spirit; but it is the Sacrament also of our initiation and incorporation into the Christian Church: And upon this very account our sins are forgiven in Baptism; and the holy Spirit is bestowed on us, be­cause it makes us the Members of Christ's Body, that is, of his Church, to whom the Forgiveness of sins, and the Gift of the holy Spirit is promised; and there­fore those who are baptized in a Schism, and are no sooner made the Members of Christ's Church, but do immediately divide and separate themselves from its Communion, if they do receive remissi­on of their Sins, and the Gift of the Spi­rit in the instant wherein they are bap­tized, as St. Austin supposes they may, yet do immediately forfeit it again by their Schism: For the same Sacrament must have its entire effect, or none at [Page 108]all; Incorporation into the Christian Church, and forgiveness of sins, are in­separably united in Baptism, as God's and man's part is in the same Covenant: Incorporation into the Christian Church, which is signified, represented, and com­pleated in Baptism, is our part of the Covenant, our choice and resolution, and actual undertaking of Christianity, which is done by a Profession of our Faith in Christ, and subjection to him, and by uniting our selves to the Society and Fellowship of his Church, by such a sa­cred Right, as he has appointed for that purpose: Forgiveness of sin, and the Gift of the holy Spirit, is God's part of the Covenant, who has promised to for­give the Sins, and renew and sanctifie those with his Spirit, who thus solemn­ly devote themselves to the Faith and Obedience of a crucified Jesus, and therefore these two can never be sepa­rated, unless God will perform his Part of the Covenant, whether we perform ours or not.

Thus the holy Supper of our Lord does as plainly represent the Unity of the Christian Church, and the Commu­nion of all Christians with each other, as it does their Union to Christ, and [Page 109]participation of the Merits of his Death and Sufferings: For the Apostle tells us, there is but one Bread, as there is but one Body; For we being many, 1 Cor. 10.17. are one Bread and one Body, for we are all parta­kers of that one Bread: And upon this account it is called the Communion of the Body of Christ, and therefore the Body of Christ cannot be received in a Schism; for where there is a Schism, it is no lon­ger one Bread and Body, nor the Com­munion of Christ's Body, when it is divi­ded into different and opposite Com­munions. That which is the common Bread of all Christians, must be received in Unity and one Communion; for it loses its Nature, Vertue, and Efficacy, in a Schism. Thus the Paschal Lamb, which was a Type of Christ's Death and Passion, and of the Christian Feast of the Lord's Supper, as it was to be eaten by the whole Body of Israel, so every particular Lamb was to be eaten in one House, and nothing to be carried out of it.

The like may be said of all the other Means of Grace, which cannot avail any man, who does not live in the Peace and Communion of the Church: Our Prayers are effectual only in the [Page 110]Merits of Christ's Sacrifice and Interces­sion, and if such men have no interest in the Sacrifice of Christ, as they cannot have, if they have no Title to the Sup­per of our Lord, which is the Christian Feast upon the Sacrifice of the Cross, and applies the Merits and Vertue of it to us, then their Prayers cannot be preva­lent neither; and if our Saviour would not allow any man to offer any Sacri­fice to God, who had a private quarrel with his Brother, till he had reconciled himself to him, how unlikely is it, that God will hear the Prayers of those men, who are at variance with the Church of God, and divide the Communion of it.

As for hearing and reading, Paul may Plant, and Apollos may Water, but it is God, that gives the Increase, and if God deny his Grace and Spirit to such external Ministries, they can avail no­thing, and yet we have already heard, how little reason such men have to ex­pect it. St. Paul tells us, that Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints for the Work of the Ministry, 4 Ephes. 11, 12. but the end of all is, For the edifying of the [Page 111]body of Christ: So that all Ministerial Gifts are for the edification of Christ's Body, which supposes, that their efficacy and influence is confined to the Commu­nion of the Church, and does not reach the Conventicles of Schismaticks. And he adds, But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is Christ the Head, from whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth, v. 15, 16. ac­cording to the effectual working in the Measure of every Part, maketh increase of the Body, to the edifying of it self in Love. So that the Increase and Edification of Christians is in the Unity of the Church, and consists in the encrease of brotherly Love and Christian Charity, Vertues which cannot be learn't in a Schism, nor preserved in it, a bitter zeal, and enve­nomed Passions, and uncharitable Cen­sures and Surmises, and evil speaking, and an insolent contempt of all, who are not of their Party and Faction, be­ing the most usual fruits of a Schismati­cal Reformation.

All the Metaphors whereby the con­veyance of Grace from Christ to his Church is represented in Scripture, do plainly signifie that this is done in Uni­ty, [Page 112]such as the influences which the Bo­dy receives from the Head, or the Branches from the Vine, which do not reach those Members which are separa­ted from the Body, nor those Branches, which are broken off from the Vine.

The result of what I have said, is this, If Holiness be not the meritorious Cause, but only the condition of our Salvation, and therefore cannot save us, separated from rhe Merits of Christ; if Catholick Unity, that is, Christian Cha­rity, be one main essential part of E­vangelical Holiness, without which no­thing else will be accepted by God; if the Work of our Redemption from first to last, be an Act of free Grace, which we cannot challenge from God, as due to our Natures, nor as a necessary Ef­fect of his own Goodness, considered as our Maker; and therefore is as entirely at God's choice, in what way, and upon what conditions he will dispence it, as it was, whether he would do any such thing at all; if we must expect to re­ceive the Blessings of the Gospel only in such ways, as God hath appointed, and if Christ hath confined all the Grace of the Gospel to a Church-state; this is sufficient to satisfie any unprejudiced [Page 113]man, how necessary Catholick-unity and Communion is, without which we can­not upon any good grounds hope for the pardon of our Sins, the influences of God's Grace, or eternal Life.

4. But there are some men, who will never be satisfied by the most clear and demonstrative Proofs, that a thing is so, unless they can see the Reason why it should be so; a way which of late has mightily prevailed, and has in a great measure thrust all revealed and institu­ted Religion out of the World. We can­not always give the natural Reasons of things, not because there are none, but because they lie too deep for us to dis­cover them, and if we cannot fathom Nature, which is more exposed to our view and observation, how unreasonable is it to think to fathom the unsearchable Counsels of God, in such Matters as wholly depend upon his Soveraign Will, and have no apparent Cause, but his own good pleasure: Matters of Revela­tion can be discovered only by Revela­tion, and in such Acts of soveraign Grace, it is abundantly sufficient, if God tell us what he will do for us, and in what way he will do it, without assigning the Rea­son, why he does so.

But yet to satisfie these men, as much as may be, let them but assign a Rea­son, why Christ would have a Church, and why he would have but one Church, and I will give them a manifest and ne­cessary Reason, why Salvation should be confined to the Communion of this Church, and that is, because it is impos­sible to preserve the Unity, Discipline, or Government of the Church without it.

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 [Page 115]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 [Page 116]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 [Page 117]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, [Page 118]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, [Page 119]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 [Page 120]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 Ʋnity 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 [Page 121]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 [...] [...]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, [Page 122]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, [Page 123]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 [Page 124]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 [Page 126]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, 5. To preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy, it is necessary, that every Bishop do not only observe the same Rule of Faith, but especially in matter of Weight and Consequence, the same Customs and Usages, and the same Laws of Discipline and Govern­ment; and therefore it is highly expedi­ent and necessary, when any difficult [Page 127]Case happens, for which they have no standing Rule, to advise and consult with each other, not as with superior Gover­nors, who are to determine them, and give Laws to them, but as with Friends, and Colleagues, of the same Body and Communion. And this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour Bishops, at as great a distance, as the thing is practica­ble with Ease and Convenience, as the Bishops of the same Province, or the same Nation, to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy; to meet in Synods, and Provincial or National Councils, to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice, and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship; this has been the Practice of the Church from the very beginning, and seems to be the true Ori­ginal of Archi-Episcopal, and Metropoli­tical Churches, which were so early, that it is most probable, they had their be­ginning in the Apostles days; for though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church-Affairs, yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops, and their Chairs, by a ge­neral Consent, and under the Regulati­on of Ecclesiastical Canons, for the pre­servation [Page 128]of Catholick Unity and Com­munion, without any Antichristian En­croachments or Usurpations on the Epis­copal Authority.

For, 6. This Combination of Churches and Bishops does not, and ought not to introduce a direct Superiority of one Bishop or Church over another, or of such Synods and Councils over particular Bishops: Every Bishop is the proper Go­vernor of his own Diocess still, and can­not be regularly imposed on against his Consent; the whole Authority of any Bishop or Council over other Bishops is founded on the Laws of Catholick Com­munion, which is the great end it serves, and therefore they have no proper Au­thority, but only in such Matters, as concern the Unity of the Episcopacy, or the Peace and Communion of the Ca­tholick Church. If a Bishop be convi­cted of Heresie or Schism, or some great Wickedness and Impiety, they may de­pose him, and forbid his People to com­municate with him, and ordain another in his stead, because he subverts the Uni­ty of the Faith, or divides the Unity of the Church, or is himself unfit for Chri­stian Communion; But if a Bishop dif­fer from his Colleagues; assembled in Sy­nods, [Page 129]or Provincial Councils, or one National or Provincial Council differ from another, in Matters of Prudence, and Rules of Discipline, without either corrupting the Faith, or dividing the Church, if we believe St. Cyprian, in his Preface to the Council of Carthage, they ought not to deny him Communion up­on such accounts, nor to offer any force to him in such Matters. Thus St. Cy­prian, and the African Father differed from Stephen Bishop of Rome, and his Colleagues, about the re-baptization of Hereticks, but yet would not divide the Church, nor the Unity of the Episcopa­cy upon that Score, for any Bishop to dissent from his Colleagues, and obsti­nately adhere to his own private Opini­ons, without very great and necessary Reasons for doing so, is great froward­ness and Insolence, which may be con­demned and censured; but while he preserves the Unity of Faith, and Ca­tholick Communion, whatever Church or Council should deny Communion to him, would be guilty of the Schism; which plainly shews, that there can be no constitutive Regent Head on Earth of a National, much less of the Catho­lick Church; since every Bishop is the [Page 130]supreme Governor of his own Church, and though he may, and ought to take the Advice of neighbour Bishops or Councils, yet he is not under their Au­thority, any farther than the Purity of the Faith, or the Unity of the Church is concerned; nor yet is so absolute and independent, but that he is bound to live in Communion with his Colleagues, and as much as is possible, govern his Church by mutual Advice and Consent, and if he divide the Church by Heresie or Schism, he may be deposed, and cast out of Christian Communion.

These things I have discoursed at large upon several occasions in the De­fence, and proved them from primitive Practise, and have now reduced them into this plain Method, that if it be pos­sible to prevent it, it may not be in the Power of my Adversaries a second time, to form a Popish or Cassandrian Plot, out of such Anti- Cassandrian Princi­ples.

2. It is time now to consider, what Cassander taught about this Matter. George Cassander was a very learned and moderate Papist, who in Obedience to the Command of the Emperors, Ferdi­nand and Maximilian, writ his Consul­tation, [Page 131]wherein he gives his judgment of every Article of the Augustan Confes­sion, which was drawn up by Melancthon, and dedicated to Charles the fifth. The seventh Article concerns the Church, and there we must seek for his Judgment in this matter; and yet there I can find no­thing to Mr. Lob's purpose, who has na­med Cassander indeed, but not cited any one passage out of him.

Cassander expresly as­serts, Quod autem ad unitatem hujus externae ecclesiae requirunt obedi­entiam, unius summi Rectoris, qui Petro in regenda Christi ec­clesia, & ejus ovibus pascendis successerit, non est à consensu pris­cae quo (que) ecclesiae alienum. Cass. Cons. ad act. 7. de Pontifice Ro­mano. Constat etiam olim, quate­nus extat memoria ecclesiae, prae­cipuam semper authoritatem in universa Christi ecclesia Hpiscopo Romano ut Petri successori, & ejus cathedram obtinenti, dela­tam fuisse—Id. Ib. That to the Ʋnity of the Catholick Church is required obedience to one supreme Governor, who succeeds Peter in the Government of Christ's Church, and in the Office of feeding his Sheep, and that this is agreeable to the sense of the Ancient Church. And that it is evident from all the Records of the Church, That the chief Authority in the Ʋniversal Church of Christ has always been yielded to the Bishop of Rome, as Peter's Successor, who sits in his Chair, For the Proof of which he refers us to the Testimonies of Irenae­us, Tertullian, Optatus, and others,

It is very true, as Mr. Lob observes, that there have been some, who have ad­vanced the Authority of a General Coun­cil above the Pope of Rome, and that this is a prevailing Opinion among the French Papists, and thence concludes, That such as assert, Reply. p. 31. that a General Coun­cil is the Political Head, or Regent part of the Ʋniversal Church, are in the Num­ber of French Papists; which is an Ar­gument of his great Skill in Contro­versie.

For suppose there be any such men, who assert a General Council, to be the Political Head or Regent Part of the Universal Church, but renounce all the pretended Authority of the Pope of Rome, and all Communion with him; are these men Papists or not? If they be, then it seems, that those who re­nounce the Pope, may be Papists still, and then let Mr. Lob and his Friends look to themselves, who are in as fair a way of being Papists, as any men I know, notwithstanding their renouncing the Pope of Rome, and General Councils; if they be not Papists, then they are not French Papists, unless French Papists be no Papists.

But Mr. Lob, if he had been at all acquainted with these Matters, would easily have perceived, that all who plead for the supreme Authority of General Councils, do not therein renounce the Authority of the Pope of Rome, and therefore are Papists still, call them French or Cassandrian Papists, or what you please; and that those, who re­nounce the Authority, and all depen­dance on the Pope, can be no Papists, how zealous soever they are for the Au­thority of General Councils.

It were easie to discourse largely up­on this Argument, but a few plain Proofs are as good as a thousand. Mr. Lob in­stances in the Councils of Constance and Basil, but if he had ever seen more than the Names of those Councils, he would have found, how little they served his purpose. I grant they do decree, that a General Council is above the Pope, in determining Matters of Faith, in composing Schisms, and in reforming the Church in its Head and Members; but still they attribute such a soveraign Authority to the Bishop of Rome, as no Power on Earth can equal, or match, but only a General Council. This is so evident and notorious, that whoever [Page 134]casually opens these Councils, can hard­ly miss of something to this purpose, and therefore I shall only produce two or three plain and undeniable Proofs of it, and refer my Readers, who desire farther satisfaction, to the Councils them­selves.

When Amedeus the Duke of Savoy, who called himself Felix the 5th, was elected Pope by the Council of Basil, they call his Office, summus Apostolatus, the chief Apostleship, or the supreme Bishoprick, Declarans eidem Electo tan­quam uni­co vero & indubitato ecclesiae Ro­manae Pa­stori, ab omnibus Christi si­delibus de necessitate salutis obe­diendum fore, & debere obediri, ac eisdem Christi sidelibus quacun (que) etiamsi Imperiali, Cardinalatus, Patriarchali, Regali, Pontificali, Abbatiali, seu alia quavis ecclesiaslica vel mundana prefulgiant dig­nitate, Concil. Basil. sess. 40. and declare to all Christian People that they must obey him, as the only, the true, the undoubted Pastor of the Roman Church, under the ne­cessity of Salvation, and that, whatever their Rank and Quality be, Emperors, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Kings, Bishops, Abbots, or whatever other Ecclesiastical or Civil Honour or Power they enjoy.

They acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to have the executive Ecclesiastical Pow­er in his hands, Romanus Pontifex decretorum bujufmodi Executer & Conservator precipuus. Ib. sess. 42. summi pontificatus apicem. and call the Popedom, [Page 135] the Top of Ecclesiastical Power, and Ni­cholas the 5th. who after all this stir, Libenter secundum nostrae & Apostolicae authorita­tis plenitu­dinem— Bulla Nico­lai Papae 5. in Conc. Bas. was owned Pope by this Council, in his Bull of Confirmation of the Council of Ba­sil, attributes to himself a fulness and plenitude of Power.

But to put this out of doubt, the Council it self has adjusted this Dispute about the Authority of the Pope, and a General Council; for after some de­bate about this Matter, it concludes, Who now can doubt of the Power of Councils, Quis jam de potestate Corcilio­rum super omnes alias potestates ambigere poterit, tot irrefraga­bilibus testimoniis comprobata? ex his manifeste constat anctori­tates, quas de summi porestate Pontificis allegastis, non probare quo minus ipse Pontifex mande­tis universalis ecclesiae & Conci­lii generalis obedire teneatur; sed id duntaxat probant, quod omnes singulares homines, & particulares ecclesiae ipsi Pontifi­ci obedire debent, nisi in his, quae huic sacrae synodo, & cui­libet alteri legitimè congregatae, praejudicium generent. concil. Basil. responsio synodalis de auctor. Concil. General. being Superior to all other Pow­ers, which has been proved by such irrefragable Testi­monies? from whence it manifestly appears, that those Authorities which have been alleadged for the Power of the Supream Bishop, do not prove, that the Pope himself is not bound to obey the Decrees of the Ʋniversal Church, or General Council; but they prove only this, that all particular men, and particular Churches, are bound to obey the Pope, unless in such Mat­ters as are prejudicial to this Holy [Page 136]Synod, or any other, which is lawfully as­sembled.

This is sufficient to inform Mr. Lob, that men may assert the Authority of General Councils, and yet if they reject the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, they are not Papists, nor true Catho­licks in the sense of the Councils of Con­stance and Basil; both which ascribe the soveraign Authority to the Pope in the vacancies of Councils, and command all men under pain of Damnation, even Emperors, Patriarchs, Princes, Prelates, to obey him in all things, which are not derogatory to the Decrees or Authori­ty of general Councils.

But it may be, the French Church has proceeded farther in retrenching the Authority of the Pope, than the Coun­cil of Constance or Basil did, and there­fore since Mr. Lob talks so much of French Papists, I shall briefly shew his skill in this also.

I presume Petrus de Marca the Learn­ed Arch-bishop of Paris, who writ in Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, is a good competent Witness in this Matter, and yet in his Book, de Concordia sacerdotii & Imperii, which met with so many Censures at Rome, [Page 137]and so difficultly passed the Test, and kept him so long out of his Bishoprick, he asserts the Authority of the Pope, much higher than cither of those Coun­cils; and to shorten my Work, I shall only set down some Propositions, which he himself collected out of his Book, in answer to the Roman Censure.

1. 1 Supre­mam in rebus ecclesi­asticis au­thoritatem per Gallias exer [...]aisse Komanum pontificem, judiciis ad relationes & appellationes redditis ab eo tempo­re quo fides Christiana in Galliis floruit, ad hanc us (que) aetatem. That the Bishop of Rome has al­ways exercised the chief Power in Ec­clesiastical Affairs in the Gallican Church­es, ever since Christianity flourished there.

2. 2. Papam jure divino esse univer­salis eccle­siae caput, at (que) adeo Gallicanae, quae illius est membrum. That the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church by divine Right, and therefore of the Gallican Church, which is a Member of the Universal Church.

3. 3 Genera­lia decreta a Romanis Pontifici­bus in Gal­lias, aequè ac in reli­quas pro­vincias missa, quae magno ap­plausu ab Imperatoribus Romanis, deinde à Francorum, regibus post con­stitutum regnum, us (que) ad hanc aetatem suscepta sunt. That the general Decretals of the Roman Bishops, have been sent into France, as well as into other Provinces; and received with great Applause by the Roman Emperors, and the French Kings, from the first foundation of that Kingdom, till this present Age.

4. 4. Nullum esle crimen cujus rati­one Papa deponi pos­sit, excep­tâ haereseos puolicà pro­fessae causa, quod verum esse testimoniis veterum docetur, & praeterea hanc esse. an­tiquam ecclesiae Gallicanae definitionem demonstratur. That no Crime is a sufficient Rea­son for deposing the Pope, except the publick Profession of Heresie; and that this is true, he proves by the Testimo­nies of the Ancients, and besides shews, that it has been of old the Judgment and Definition of the Gallican Church.

5. 5. Papam solvere posse & dispen­sare valide & licite à canonibus concilio­rum Gene­ralium, etiam sine causa, dummodo haec dispensatio non tendat ad la­befactandum ecclesiae statum. That the Pope can effectually and lawfully dispense with the Canons of general Councils, even without any Cause, so long as such a Dispensation does not weaken the State of the Church.

6. 6. Liberta­tes ecclesiae Gallicanae consistere in usu & praxi Ca­nonum at (que) decretali­um, tam veterum quam re­centiorum, eas (que) non pendere à sola praxi antiquorum Canonum. Ʋbi ostendit ur necessitate cogente Pontifices variis temporibus pro bono publico ecclesiae, ad novas leges condendas progressos. That the Liberties of the Gallican Church, consists in the Use and Pra­ctise of Canons and Decretals, both An­cient and Modern, and is not confined only to the Practise of Ancient Ca­nons; where he shews, that at several times, in case of necessity, Popes have proceeded to make new Laws for the publick Good of the Church.

7. 7. Papam praeter eum primatum, quo univer­sae ecclesiae praeest, so­lum esse & immedi­atum occidentis & Galliarum Patriarcham, Regibus verò non compe­tere jus aliquod Episcopatum vel metropolim instituendi, multo minus Patriarchatum. Lit [...]ra Censurae Romanae in prolegom. ad librum de Concordia sacerd. & Imp. That the Pope, besides his prima­cy over the Universal Church, is the on­ly and immediate Patriarch of the We­stern and Gallican Churches, and that Kings have no Right or Power to erect any New Bishoprick, Metropolitical Seat, much less a Patriarchate.

This is a brief Scheme of French Po­pery, as it respects the Government of the Church, if we believe this great Arch-bishop, Men may assert the Au­thority of a General Council, without being Papists; but no man can be a Pa­pist, who does not acknowledg the Bi­shop of Rome to be the supreme Head, and universal Pastor of the Christian Church, whom all Princes, Prelates, and People are bound to obey; in Com­munion with whom consists the Unity of the Catholick Church, and to sepa­rate from whom is a Schism: All Papists must own the Bishop of Rome for their universal Pastor, though they are not agreed whether his Power be absolute, or under the Controul of a general Council.

3. Having thus prepared the way, it will be no hard Matter to vindicate the doctrine of the Defence, about the Uni­ty of Church-power, from those ridicu­lous and senseless Imputations of Cassan­drianism and French Popery. This Charge is managed so knavishly by Mr. Lob, who hath put in words of his own to make out the Charge, when my words would not do it; and with such blind fury by Mr. Baxter; with so much con­fusion, and yet with so much Triumph by both, that there needs no other Art to expose and shame them, than to set my Notions in a true light once more, and to vindicate them from the artificial mis-representations of ignorance, or a Scholastick Buffoonery.

The Sum of their Charge amounts to this; that I place the supreme govern­ing Power of the Church in a general Council, and that the Unity of the Church consists in the Subjection of all particular Christians and Churches to a general Council; and yet they are for­ced to acknowledg, that I disown a Constitutive Regent Head of a National, or of the Universal Church: And here they cry out of Contradictions, and exercise their guessing faculty, what [Page 141]should be the meaning of it; and yet hold to the Conclusion in spight of Non­sense and Contradiction, that I set up one soveraign Power over the Universal Church.

As for Contradictions, I will consi­der them anon, but the first thing to be done is to examine, what occasion I have given them to think, that I place the supreme unifying Power (as Mr. B. calls it) of the Church in a general Coun­cil.

Mr. Lob lays it down, as his funda­mental Charge against me, Reply. p. 27.31. that I make the Ʋniversal Church the first Seat of Go­vernment, Or, as he learnedly speaks, the [...] of Church Government, that it is a Political organized Body, in which there is a pars imperans & subdita, The Bishops in their Colledge being the Governors, Or, pars Imperans, and all others of the universal Church, the subdite part, which others would have called Subjects, and that in the very next words he adds. It may be our Author, to gratifie the Dean, will deny the universal Church to be a Political organized Body, as indeed he doth: So that it seems I de­ny, what he says, I assert, which either proves, that I did not understand my [Page 142]self, or that Mr. Lob does not, or will not understand me; and which of these is most likely, comes now to be tryed.

Only we must first observe, what he means by the universal Church, being the first Seat of Government, that it is a Po­litical organized Body, in which there is one supreme and soveraign Power over the Whole: As a Kingdom is one Pollitical organized Body, because it is under one supreme Government, and all the Power of inferior Officers is de­rived from the King, as the supreme governing Head, or as the Papists make the Catholick Church one Political or­ganized Body, and the Pope, or a Ge­neral Council the Constitutive Regent Head of it.

Now then let us hear, how he proves this Charge against me, that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Go­vernment, and such a Political organized Body, as he here talks of: And to this purpose he alleadges several things, which shall be particularly, but briefly consi­dered.

1. Reply, p. 27. He alleadges, that I assert, That all Church Officers belong to the universal Church, and have one original Right, to govern the whole universal Church: These [Page 143]are none of my words, nor do they re­present my sense: Every one who reads this Proposition, as Mr. Lob has expres­sed it, would imagine, that I made eve­ry Bishop as soveraign a Monarch of the Church, as the Pope of Rome is; where­as all that I say in that passage, he cites out of the Defence, is no more but this. (1. That the Apostles had a Relation to the whole Church, and as he observes, I assert in another place, That every Bishop, Ib. p. 11. Presbyter, or Deacon by his Ordination, is made a Minister of the Catholick Church: That every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholick Church by Baptism, and shuts out of the Catholick Church by Ex­communication, which they could not do, if they were not Ministers of the Catholick Church; but does this make every Bishop an universal Monarch, that he is a Bishop of the universal Church? Orwill [...] Mr. Lob deny, that Bishops or Presbyters have a Relation to the uni­versal Church? If they be Ministers of the Church, and there be but one Church, they must be Ministers of the Catholick Church; for particular Churches, are not Churches, but consi­dered as Members of the Catholick Church; and therefore the primary Re­lation [Page 144]of all Catholick Christians, and Catholick Bishops, is to the Catholick Church. This proves indeed, that the whole Catholick Church is but one Bo­dy, and one Communion; but it does not prove, that there is but one su­preme Regent Head of the Catholick Church.

2. That the ordinary Power of a par­ticular Bishop, or the Exercise of the Episcopal Office is confined to a certain place, or particular Church, which cer­tainly does not make them the ordina­ry Governors of the whole universal Church.

3. I assert, That though the Exercise of their Episcopal Power is ordinarily confined to a particular Church, yet they continue their Relation to the whole Church; that is, in their Government of their particular Churches, they act as Bishops and Ministers of the univer­sal Church; for they are Bishops of par­ticular Churches, not considered meer­ly as particular, but as Members of the universal Church. And if Mr. Lob meant no more but this, by making the uni­versal Church the first Seat of Govern­ment, that all the Power in the Church primarily respects the universal Church, [Page 145]though as it is distributed into different hands, the Exercise of it is confined to particular Places and Churches, I rea­dily own the Charge, and may do so safely without making the Church, such an organized Political Body, as has one Constitutive Regent Head over the Whole.

4. I assert farther, That Bishops being Ministers of the Catholick Church, when Necessity, that is, when the preservation of the Catholick Faith, or Catholick Communion, require it, may with one consent oppose the Heresie or Schisms of neighbour Bishops; depose those, who are incorrigible; and Ordain others in their stead; and as far as it is possible take care, that no part of the Church of Christ suffer any injury by the Heresie or evil Practises of any of their Col­leagues. And if Mr. Lob will hence in­fer, that every Bishop has an original Right to govern the whole universal Church, he must have a Logick by himself, or some great flaw in his Under­standing or Conscience. Every Bishop is a Bishop of the universal Church, and therefore as far as the Rules of good Order and Government, Catholick Peace and Communion, and the possi­bility [Page 146]of things will permit, he may exercise his Episcopal Office in any part of the Christian Church, but this does not give him an original Right to go­vern the whole Church.

2. Mr. Lob observes, Ib. p. 11. that I say, The Catholick Church is united and coupled by the Cement of Bishops, who stick close to­gether, for which I produce Cyprian; and therefore I hope, there is no Popery in this, unless St. Cyprian also, were a Cas­sandrian or French Papist. For may not Bishops stick close together in one Communion, unless there be a supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Church? Or, can the Church be one, unless the Bishops, who are the supreme Ecclesiastical Governors of their several Churches, be one also?

3. But I assert, that the Ʋnity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent; Therefore not by one Consti­tutive Regent Head. But he says, I mention, Collegium Episcopale, or Episco­pal Colledge, So indeed I observed Opta­tus, called the whole Body of Bishops, and upon the same account, St. Cyprian and St. Austin calls them Colleagues. But this Episcopal Colledge, he says, He [Page 147]takes to be a Council of Bishops, But that is his mistake, and a very silly one it is; and he might as well conclude, that when the Fathers speak of the Unity of the Episcopacy, they mean their Union in a general Council. In St. Cyprian's time there never had been a general Council, excepting the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem; and yet, when he writ to Forraign Bishops, with whom he was never joyned in Council, nor ever like to be, he calls them his Col­leagues, or those of the same Colledge with him; which signifies no more, but that they were of the same Power and Authority in the Church, and united in the same Communion.

And yet Mr. Lob takes hold of this Phrase of the Episcopal Colledge, to make me expresly assert the supreme Authori­ty of general Councils. p. 12. That every part of the universal Church, is under the go­vernment of the universal Bishops assem­bled in their Colledge, or in Council. Which Sentence he very honestly puts into a different Character, that it may be taken for mine, and makes it a di­stinct head of accusation, when I never writ nor thought any such thing; but this is the dealing we must expect from [Page 148]those men, whose Understandings and Consciences are formed only to serve a party.

Well, but these Bishops have an origi­nal Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, this has been considered already, only he adds an untoward (i. e.) which is such another honest Expo­sition, as turning an Episcopal Colledge into a Council. For, (i. e.) says Mr. Lob, The Forraign Bishops, as those of Alex­andria and Rome, &c. have an origi­nal Power and Right in relation to the whole Church, a Right and Power in re­lation to England. Now this is very true in the sense in which I assert it: The Bi­shop of Rome and Alexandria have such a relation to the Church of England, and so have all the Bishops in the World, that if they live in the same Communion with us, and should come over into England; with the leave of English Bi­shops, they might exercise their Episco­pal Office in any Church in England; as Polycarp consecrated in the Church of Anicetus at Rome: A Catholick Bishop does not lose his Character by going out of his own Church, but is a Bishop in what part of the World soever he be; and therefore may exercise his Episcopal [Page 149]Office, as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Christian Commu­nion, and with the Rights and Jurisdi­ction of other Bishops.

Nay, were there nothing else to alter the Case, but only the local distance between Rome, and England, and Alex­andria; the Bishops of Rome and Alex­andria might admonish and censure the English Bshops, in case they fell into He­resie or Schism, and deny them Com­munion in case of obstinacy or incorri­gibleness; and so may the English Bi­shops admonish those of Rome, and A­lexandria, and inflict the like Censures on them: The Unity of the Episcopacy consists in one Communion, and all the Authority of the Church results from the necessary Obligations to Christian Communion; and all Churches must judge for themselves by the Rules of Catholick Communion, what Churches to hold Communion with; and though we must expect, while Bishops are men, and subject to the Weaknesses, Passions, Mistakes of humane Nature, they may be guilty of great miscarriages, and de­ny Communion to each other upon in­sufficient Reasons; yet there is no help for this, that I know of, but either the [Page 150]Mediation and Interposition of other Churches, or an Appeal to the last Judg­ment: That obligation all Churches are under, as far as in them lies, to preserve the Purity of the Faith, and the Unity of the Church, obliges them to reject the Communion of those, who violate either; but it withal obliges them, as they will answer it at the Tribunal of Christ, the great Bishop of his Church, not to make any unnecessary breaches, or lightly and wantonly refuse each others Communion.

But by the Original Right and Pow­er of the Bishop of Rome, or Alexan­dria, or other Forraign Bishops in rela­tion to the Church of England, he seems to mean a Right of Appeals and proper Jurisdiction, as he plainly does in what he adds a little after, concerning the In­dependency of the Church of England, on any Forraign Power: For because I assert the Bishops are not wholly inde­pendent, he concludes, That the Church of England is not independent, Reply, p. 12. p. 28. but ac­countable to Forraign Bishops, if at any time they abuse their Power. And some Pages after confutes this, by saying, That, 'tis notorious, that the Church of England estalished by Law, is a parti­cular [Page 151]National Church, independent on any Forraign Power whatsoever. Such is the Constitution of our Church, that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power, he is not accountable to any Colledge of Bishops, but such us are con­vened by his Majesties Authority, and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being griev'd through any undue procedure, he cannot make any appeal to any Forraign Power from the King. And therefore he thinks, I incur a Premu­nire, by setting up a Forraign Jurisdi­ction over the Church of England.

Now this is so wild and absurd a Con­clusion, from any thing I have said, that none but Mr. Lob, or some few of his size could have hit on't; there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church, of which every Bishop has an equal Share and Portion, and therefore is a Bishop of the Catholick Church, and though the Exercise of his Episcopal Office and Authority, is regularly and ordinarily confined to a particular Church, yet his original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church does still remain, i. e. He is a Bishop in all parts of the World, and may exeroise his Episcopal Authori­ty where-ever he be, as far as is consi­stent [Page 152]with the Rules of Order and Ca­tholick Communion; and when necessi­ty requires, is obliged to take care, as far as possibly he can, that the Church of Christ suffer no injury by the Here­sie or evil Practises of any of his Col­leagues; ergo, the Church of England is subject to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, or Alexandria. But I believe few men can discern, how such a Con­sequence results from such Premisses, and what follows, is of the same stamp.

All Bishops have originally equal Au­thority in the Church of Christ, but yet are not so independent, but that they are bound by the Laws of Christ to pre­serve the Peace and Unity of the Epis­copacy, and to live in Communion with their Fellow Bishops, and in case of Heresie, Schism, or notorious Impi­ety, may be censured and deposed by their Colleagues, and others ordained in their stead, Ergo, The Church of Eng­land is subject to the Bishop of Rome, or Alexandria, or other Forraign Bishops.

I have abundantly proved in the De­fence, that St. Cyprian owns these Pre­misses, but denies the Conclusion, and therefore either he, or Mr. Lob, are out [Page 153]in their Logick, when St. Cyprian had Excommunicated two of his Presbyters, Felicissimus and Fortunatus, and they fled to Rome to Cornelius to make their Complaints to him; St. Cyprian writes a Letter to Cornelius, wherein he informs him of the whole Matter, and has this remarkable passage in it: That it was by a general Consent agreed a­mong them, Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis, & aequum sit pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujus (que) causa il­lic audiatur, ubi est crimen ad­missum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat unusquis (que) & gubernet ra­tionem sui actus Domino reddi­turus, oportet uti (que) eos, quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaeren­tem suâ subdola & fallaci teme­ritate collidere, sed agere illic causam suam, ubi & accusato­res habere, & testes sui criminis possint. Cypr. ep. 55. ad Corne­lium. and is in it self equal and just, that e­very ones Cause should be heard there, where the Crime is committed; since every Pastor has a Portion of the Flock committed to him, which he is to Rule and Govern, so as he is to give an Account of it to his Lord, and therefore those, who are under our Govern­ment, ought not to run about from one Bi­shop to another, nor by their subtil and fal­lacious insinuations engage those Bishops, who are at Ʋnity among themselves, in con­tests and quarrels, but should there plead their Cause, where they may have both Ac­cusers and Witnesses of their Crime. Thus St. Cyprian rejects the Appeal of Basili­des [Page 154]and Martialis, two Spanish Bishops, to Stephen Bishop of Rome, when they had been justly deposed by their Col­leagues, Cypr. ep. 68. and Felix and Sabinus ordain­ed Bishops in their stead.

Thus when Marcion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father, [...]. Epiph. haer. 42. Bishop of Sinope, he fled to Rome, but was denyed Commu­nion there, and they gave this reason for it, We cannot do this without the leave of thy venerable Father, for there is but one Faith, and one Con­sent, and we cannot go contrary to thy Father, our good Colleague and fellow Labourer.

From these instances it appears, that the Unity of the Episcopacy, or Episco­pal Colledge, does not give Authority to every Bishop, to intermedle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocess, but only in case of absolute necessity, for here are two things to be distinctly con­sidered, which qualifie each other, and set bounds to the Ecclesiastical Govern­ment. 1. That there is but one Episco­pacy, in which every Bishop has an e­qual share; Christ hath committed the [Page 155]Care of his whole Church to the Bishops of it, who are to maintain Unity and Communion among themselves, and as far as it is practicable, and as occasion requires, govern the Church with mutu­al Advice and Counsel, and one Consent, as if they were but one Bishop. And, 2. That every Bishop has a Portion of the Flock assigned to his particular Care, over which in ordinary Cases, he has the sole and supreme Authority; for though the Church of Christ be but one Flock, yet it is not committed in com­mon to the Care of all Bishops, but is divided into several Folds with particu­lar Pastors set over them, to instruct and govern, and take Care of them; and as every Bishop and Pastor is more peculi­arly concerned, than any other, to ren­der an account of that part of the Flock committed to his Charge, so it is fit, he should have the greatest Authority and Power over them; all Bishops have an equal Power and Authority in the Church, but the ordinary exercise of this is confined to their own Churches, in which each of them is supreme.

Now the first of these, the Unity of the Episcopacy, is the foundation of those larger Combinations and Confe­deracies [Page 156]of neighbour Churches, which make Archiepiscopalor National Church­es, for since there is but one Episcopacy, it is highly reasonable and necessary, that as far as it is practicable (as it is in the Churches of the same Province or Nati­on) they should all act, and govern their respective Churches, as one Bishop, with one consent; which is the most ef­fectual way to secure the Peace and Unity of the Episcopal Colledge, and to promote the Edification and good Government of the Church.

Nay, this Unity of the Episcopacy is the Foundation of that Authority, which neighbour Bishops have over their Col­leagues in case of Heresie and Schism, or any notorious Wickedness, for they be­ing Bishops of the universal Church, have an original Right and Power to take care, that no part of the Church, which is within their reach and inspecti­on, suffer by the Heresie or evil Practi­ses of their Colleagues.

But the second Consideration, that every Bishop has the chief Power in his own Church, prescribes the Bounds and Limits of this Ecclesiastical Authority; as, 1. Every Bishop having the chief Power in his own Diocess, though he is [Page 157]bound by the Laws of Catholick Com­munion, and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy, to consent with his Colleagues in all whol­some Constitutions, and Rules of Disci­pline and Government; yet he cannot be imposed on against his own Consent by any Bishop or Council of Bishops, nor can justly be deposed upon such Ac­counts, while he neither corrupts the Faith, nor Schismatically divides the Church.

2. Nor can any Bishop or Bishops re­scind any Censures justly passed by ano­ther Bishop against any in his own Church, or receive Appeals about such Matters, without his Consent; for the Unity of the Episcopacy requires all Bishops to leave each other to the free Exercise of their Power and Authority in their own Churches, as we see the Church of Rome acknowledged in the Case of Marcion's Appeal from his Fa­thers Sentence: For it is an usurpation on the Authority of Bishops, not to suf­fer them to govern their own Flock, while nothing is done to the injury of the Faith, and the Churches Peace; and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops, [Page 158]than for one Bishop to undo, what ano­ther has done, or to judge over again that Cause, which has been already judged and determined, where it ought to be judged; as St. Cyprian tells Corne­lius in the Case of Felicissimus and For­tunatus, as I observed above: I grant this is generally practised in Archiepis­copal and National Churches, and in many Cases there is great use and reason for it; but then this is not without the Consent of other Bishops; those Appeals are allowed and confirmed by Provincial and National Synods, to which every Bishop gives his Consent, but I am now considering what the original Right of Bishops is, not how far they may part with this Power for a more general good.

3. As every Bishop has the chief Au­thority in his own Diocess, so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church, the supreme Power within it self, from whence lies no Ap­peal to any Forraign Church, without its own Consent.

The Unity of the Episcopacy requires the Union of neighbour Bishops for one Government; but because all the Bi­shops in the World, though they are of [Page 159]the same Communion, yet cannot be u­nited into one Government, it is ne­cessary to stop somewhere, and that which in all reason must determine the bounds of such a Church, must be a convenient distance of place, or one Nation, and one Civil Government, such Churches being more easily con­federated into one Body, than those of different Nations. Now if every Bishop be the supreme Governor of his own Church, much more has a National Church the supreme Power of govern­ing it self.

A National Church is bound to main­tain Catholick Communion with Neigh­bour Churches, and if it fall into Here­sie or Schism, Neighbour Churches may and ought to admonish and censure them; and if they continue obstinate to withdraw Communion from them; but while a National Church preserves the Unity of the Faith, and Catholick Com­munion, no other Church can intermed­dle in its Government, nor ought to re­ceive any Appeals from its Judgment; for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other, but only in order to Catholick Communion.

These things I have discoursed more largely on purpose, if it be possible to prevent the mistakes of these men, who are so unwilling to see or to acknow­ledge the Truth; and I hope I may safely conclude from the whole, that there is no danger, that the Bishop of Rome or Alexandria should challenge any jurisdi­ction over the Church of England, by vertue of the original Right and Power of the Catholick Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ.

But however Mr. Lob is resolved to make something of it at last, and if he cannot prove, that I subject the Church of England to any Forraign Bishop, yet it is plain, that I subject it to a general Council; for he says, I assert, that if any Bishops abuse their Power, they are accountable to a general Council, that is, unto a Forraign Power, whereby he doth his utmost, to tear up the Church of Eng­land by the Roots, Reply, p. 29. to subvert his Maje­sties Supremacy, as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it, had not been of any force, all this by Dr. Stillingfleet's De­fender. Good man! What a happy Re­formation is here! How is he now con­cerned for the Church of England, his Majesties Supremacy, the Sacredness of [Page 161]Civil Laws in Religious Matters, and the Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet; which suffers by such a Defender!

But where do I say, That if any Bi­shops abuse their Power, they are account­able to a general Council? Truly no where, but he transcribes a long Paragraph out of the Defence, against the absolute in­dependency of Bishops, wherein there is this Expression, And 'tis very wild to imagine, that any of these Persons, who abuse 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 [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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, Ne (que) 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 [Page 164]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 [Page 165]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 [Page 166]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 was so general, that St. Cyprian and Optatus found the Consent [Page 167]of the whole Church upon it: However half the World, or all the known fa­mous Churches were sufficient for Ad­vice and Counsel, though not for supreme uncontroulable Government, which I never asserted; to advise with all the known Churches, which were within the reach of such Communication, is sufficient to satisfie us, how necessary they thought it, to use the most effe­ctual Means they could to preserve Ca­tholick Communion; and that they be­lieved mutual Advice and Counsel a ve­ry proper means for that end, and the Duty of all true Catholick Bishops.

This way St. Austin calls an Epistolare Colloquium, Aug. de baptismo. l. 3. cap. 2. a Conference by Letters, which he thinks is not to be compared with the Plenarium Concilium, as he very properly calls a general Council, a full or plenary Council, which is made up of wise and learned Prelates from di­stant parts of the World. For when the Bishops of so many several Churches, who may be well presumed to know the Judgment and Practise of their own Churches, meet together without any private or factious Designs, freely to debate and consult for the publick good of the Church, the Authority of such a [Page 168]Council must needs be venerable, and it must be some very great reason, that will justifie a dissent from it.

Such Councils indeed are not infalli­ble, Article 21. as our Church asserts, because they consist of fallible men, who may be, and have been deceived; and therefore in Matters necessary to Salvation, we must believe them no farther, than they agree with the holy Scriptures; though a mo­dest man will not oppose his private judgment to the Decrees of a general Council, unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expresly against it; but in Rules of Discipline and Govern­ment their Authority is greater still, be­cause the Canons of general Councils are a great Medium, and excellent In­strument of Catholick Communion, the promoting of which is the principal end and the greatest use of general Coun­cils; and therefore though they do not command by any direct Authority, and superior Jurisdiction, yet they strongly oblige in order to serve the ends of Ca­tholick Communion.

2. But now, suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Coun­cil, how does this subvert the Kings Su­premacy, or incur a Premunire? For [Page 169]let the Authority of a general Council be what it will, it is wholly Spiritual, as the whole Government of the Church is, considered meerly as a Church or Spi­ritual Society; but the Supremacy of the King is an external and civil Juris­diction in all Causes, and over all Per­sons Ecclesiastical, within his Domini­ons; and Mr. Lob might as well say, that every man, who sets up any spiritual Authority in the Church, subverts the Supremacy of the King; and thus the King's Supremacy makes him a Bishop and a Priest too, a Scandal which Mr. Lob's Predecessors raised in Queen Eli­zabeths days, to disswade People from the Oath of Supremacy, which it seems they were not then so fond of, and which the Queen confutes in her Injun­ctions, and tells her Subjects, that she neither doth, nor ever will, challenge any other Authority, but only this, under God to have the Soveraignty and Rule over all manner of Persons, born within these her Realms, Dominions, and Coun­tries, of what Estate, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be, so as no other Forraign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them.

When Bishop Jewel writ his Apology and Defence to Scipio, a Patrician of Venice, who complained of the English Nation for not sending their Legates to the Council of Trent, he never thought of this reason against it, that it was con­trary to the King's Supremacy, which is owned and confirmed by the Laws of this Land; and we may observe that the Statutes of Provisors, and several Laws to preserve the Liberties of the Realm from the Usurpations of the Pope of Rome, or any other Forraign Poten­tate, were made and confirmed in se­veral Kings Reigns, long before Henry the 8th, a particular Account of which the Reader may find in Dr. Burnet's Hi­story of the Reformation, part 1. Book 2. p. 107. &c. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th. and therefore Arch-bi­shop Bramhall truly observes, Bramhall's vindicati­on of the Church of England. That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King, but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of Eng­land; and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy, to acknowledge the Authority of gene­ral Councils. For after the Statutes of Provisors, we find the English Bishops [Page 171]in the Councils of Constance and Basil, which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high, as ever any men did.

For indeed, since Princes have embra­ced the Christian Faith, no Bishops, ex­cepting the Pope of Rome, have pre­tended to call a general Council, but by the Will and Authority of the Prince, nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom, or obtain the Authority of Laws, but by the Consent of the Prince, which therefore certainly can be no encroach­ment upon his Supremacy: While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes, and over all Persons in his own Hands, the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights.

This is sufficient at present, in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation, that to assert the Authority of general Councils, sub­verts the Kings Supremacy, subjects the Church of England to a Forraign Court and Jurisdiction, and thereby incurs the Penalty of a Praemunire; whereby we see, that he understands the Law as little, as he does the Gospel, only shews his good Will to poor Cassandrians, and as much as he declames against penal [Page 172]Laws against Dissenters, would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire.

4. Mr. Lob has not done with me yet, but to make me a perfect Cassandrian, whether I will or not, he adds as my sense, Reply p. 12. That this Council of Forraign Bi­shops, unto which they (i.e. the Bishops of the Church of England) are account­able, must look on the Bishop of Rome, as their Primate; the Primacy of the Bi­shop of Rome being acknowledged, it seems, by our Author himself, as well as by Bram­hall. The Primacy (he saith) out of Cy­prian, being given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Christ was one, and the Chair, that is, the Apostoli­cal Office and Power is one. Thus Cy­prian, on whom lay all the Care of the Churches, dispatches Letters to Rome, from whence they were sent through all the Catholick Churches; all this is to be found from p. 208. to the end of the Chap­ter.

This is a terrible Charge indeed, and home to the Purpose, and Mr. Lob is a terrible Adversary in these days, if he can but Swear, as well as he can Write; for all this is Forgery and Villany, as any man may satisfie himself, who will [Page 173]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.

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 [Page 176]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, [Page 177]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 [Page 178]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 the World, and to make all the distinct and separate Communions in a Nation, one National Church, and all the separate Churches in the World, one Catholick Church.

For, 1. they assert, that a particular Congregation associated for local pre­sential Communion under a fixed Pa­stor, is the only Church of Divine in­stitution, which I have at large confu­ted in the 5 and 6 Chapters of the De­fence, and none of my Adversaries have been so hardy yet, as to attempt the least Reply.

2. That all these single Churches all the World over become one Catholick Church, not by any Union among them­selves, but by being all united in Christ, who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholick Church; there is no need they should be all united to one another, to make one Catholick Church, so they be all united to Christ, the Head of the Church. Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication.

3. It hence follows, that it is impossi­ble to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles; for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them, are origi­nal Churches of Divine Institution, and no one Church or Pastor, has a supe­rior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest; and therefore though particular [Page 180]Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord, yet this cannot make them one Political organized Body or Church, but only a Church in a loose equivocal sense; for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Poli­tie, that That should be called one Po­litical Body, which has not one Political constitutive Regent Head, that is, one superior Power over the whole Body, either Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical; and since Christ hath given no one Pastor or Bishop a superi­or Authority to govern the rest, which would make the Church a Monarchy, nor united all Pastors into one govern­ing Head, which should govern the whole Church, and their own Members by a major Vote, which is an Aristo­cracy, nor erected a mixt Tribunal of Pastors and People, which is a Demo­cracy, it is evident, that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation, are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head, and therefore cannot be one Political National Church; which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Se­paration, from the National Church of England, when there is, and can be [Page 181]no such thing, in a proper Ecclesiasti­cal sense.

4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church, is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King, as the accidental Head of the Church, who is the supreme Head, and Gover­nor of the Church in his Dominions. And thus the National Church of Eng­land has no other Foundation, but the Laws of the Land, and the Supremacy of the King; it is the Creature of the supreme Power, which made it, and may unmake it again, when it pleaseth.

5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters, is not to enjoyn Conformity to any one Consti­tution, but to give a legal Establish­ment to the different Sects and Parties among us, at least to all those, which are tolerable, which shall be under the Go­vernment of the King's Ministers, whe­ther Lay or Clergy, in Ecclesiastical affairs, and thus all the Dissenters, which are now among us, as much as they dis­sent from the present Constitution of the Church of England, and from each other, shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National [Page 182]Church of England, under the King as an accidental Head; and thus the Schism, which we so much complain of, is ef­fectually cured, according to Mr. Hum­phry's Materials for Union, which shall be particularly examined in their due place.

This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue, and that the impartial Reader may the better judge, where the Dispute lies between me and my Ad­versaries, I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles, upon which I oppose this.

As 1. That Christ hath but one Church, which we call the Catholick Church, and is antecedent in order of Nature before particular Congregatio­nal Churches, which are Churches not considered as independent Congregati­ons, but as Members of the Catholick Church, which I proved at large in the 3d. Chapter of the Defence, and the 1st. Chap. of this Vindication.

2. That all the Churches in the World are one Catholick Church, as united in one Catholick Communion; as I have proved in the 4th. Chapter of the De­fence, and the 2d. Chapter of this Vin­dication.

3. That the Church is a Society un­der Government, has a governing and a governed Part; that the Bishops are the Governors of the Church, and Chri­stian People, those who are govern­ed.

4. That all Bishops are originally of equal Power, and that every Bishop is supreme in his own Diocess.

5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholick Communi­on with each other, that is, as Members of the same great Body, the Catholick Church, and every Bishop, as far as possibly he can, must govern his parti­cular Church and Diocess, by the mu­tual Advice and Consent of neighbour Bishops.

6. That this is the Foundation of those greater Combinations of Church­es, considered as Churches, or pure Ec­clesiastical Societies, into Archiepiscopal, Metropolitical, or National Churches, which signifies no more than the volun­tary Combination of such Bishops and Churches into a stricter Association, for the better Preservation of one Commu­nion, by mutual Advice and Counsel, Concord and Agreement, in Worship, Discipline, and Government.

7. That for the preservation of Peace and Order in this united Body or Con­federation of neighbour Churches, one or more Bishops may by a general Con­sent be intrusted with a superior Power of calling Synods, receiving Appeals, and exercising some peculiar Acts of Discipline, under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons; which is the Pow­er now ascribed to Arch-bishops and Me­tropolitans.

8. That yet there cannot be one con­stitutive Ecclesiastical Regent Head in a National, much less in the Universal Church; not Monarchical, because no one Bishop has an original Right to go­vern the rest in any Nation, and there­fore whatever Power may be granted him by Consent, yet it is not essential to the Being or Unity of the Church, which is one, not by being united un­der one superior governing Power, but by living in one Communion; not Ari­stocratical, because every Bishop being supreme in his own Diocess, and account­able to Christ for his Government, can­not and ought not so wholly to divest himself of this Power, as to be in all Oa­ses necessarily determined and over-ru­led by the Major Vote, contrary to his [Page 185]own Judgment and Conscience; he is always bound to live in Christian Com­munion with his Colleagues, while they do not violate the Terms of Catholick Communion; and as far as possibly he can, he must comply with their Decrees to preserve Peace and Order; but if they should decree any thing, which he judges prejudicial to his Church, he is bound not to comply with them; 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 [Page 186]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 [Page 187]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 [Page 188]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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page 189]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 [Page 190]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 [Page 191]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 Ʋniversal, or Patriar­chal and Metropolitical, any more than Ʋniversal, 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 [Page 192]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 [Page 193]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 well­being 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 [Page 194]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 Ʋnion 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 [Page 195]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 Ʋnity 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 Ʋnity 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, [Page 196]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, [Page 197]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 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, [Page 198]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, [Page 199]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, [Page 200]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 [Page 201]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 [Page 202]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 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, [Page 204]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 [Page 205]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 [Page 206]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 [Page 207]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, Its 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 [Page 209]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 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. [Page 210] 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 [Page 211]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 [Page 213]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. [Page 214]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, [Page 215] 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 there is a Government in the Church without superiority, or without a constitutive Regent Head, the plain meaning is this. That every Bishop is the chief Gover­nor of his own Church, and thus the whole Church is a governed Society, as every particular Church is under the Go­vernment of its own Pastor; no Bishops, either single or united, having any di­rect Authority or Superiority over each other. Now though in Aristocracy, eve­ry individual Patrician and Senator have equal Power, yet the Government is not in any of these distinct, but in the whole Senate, whether that signifie the Majority of Voices, or the unanimous Vote of every Member of it, and this makes it properly a Regent Head. But to help Mr. B. to understand this; if Pride and Interest will give him leave, [Page 216]I shall particularly consider the difference between Aristocracy, and the Govern­ment of the Church by Bishops, with­out a Regent Head.

Every Bishop is the supreme Gover­nor of his own Church, but no Senator, meerly as a Senator, hath any immedi­ate Right, much less the supreme Right of Government in any distinct part of the Nation. For the Government of the Whole is in the Senate, who appoint subordinate Governors, either some of their own Members, or others; in de­pendence on themselves, who act not by their own, but by the Authority of the Senate.

Every Bishop may govern his own Church by his own prudence, has his Arbitrium proprium, as St. Cyprian speaks; may regulate publick Worship, and pre­scribe Rules of Discipline for his own Church, without depending on the Au­thority of any other Bishop, or Coun­cils of Bishops, nor is accountable to any, while he preserves the Purity of Faith and Worship, the Unity of the Church, and Catholick Communion, but no single Senator in an Aristocracy has any Power of making Laws himself, but only in conjunction with others.

The Combinations of Churches, and the Synods and Councils of Bishops are not for direct acts of Government and Superiority over each other, but for the preservation of Catholick Communion, which is most effectually done by mutu­al Advice and Counsel, which I think differs a little from the Soveraign Pow­er of an Aristocracy.

When Neighbour Bishops thus unite into one Body, and agree upon some common rules of Worship or Discipline, they govern indeed every one their par­ticular Churches by common Advice and Consent, but still by their own E­piscopal Authority: They do not re­ceive any Authority from the Synod to govern their Churches, but only agree among themselves upon some common rules of Government, and therefore the Synod is not a Regent Head, because it gives no new Authority; which is quite contrary in an Aristocracy, which is the Fountain of all Power for the Government of such a Nation: Which shews, how well skilled Mr. H. is in Po­liticks, who thinks, Reply, p. 134. that if the Bishops rule by a Superiority over the People, that makes it an Aristocratical Government.

And this may satisfie Mr. B. what I mean by a Government by Consent with­out Superiority, or a Regent Head: Which he turns also into Ridicule: It is not a constitutive Supremacy, but a Su­premacy by consent: No Sir, it is no Su­premacy at all; but every Bishop go­verns his own Diocess by his own Au­thority, but with the Advice and Con­sent of a Synod, or Council, or Neigh­bour Bishops: A consent I say, not as to the Power of governing, but as to the Rules of Government. And therefore I am not concerned to Dispute with him, how far Consent is necessary to all Government: I shall only observe, how Mr. H. mistakes both the Dean and me, in what we speak about Consent: The Doctor (he says) holds that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church, understanding by Consent, a Consent to be of it: The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent, meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops; these are two contrary things, the one mak­ing the Church not Political, and the other makes it an Aristocracy: But in­deed it is neither so, nor so, but Mr. H. understands neither, as appears from what I have already Discoursed: There [Page 219]is no other Consent required to become a Member of the National Church, then there is to be a Member of the Catho­lick Church, that is, a Consent to be a Christian; for every Christian is bound to live in Catholick Communion, as a Member of the one body of Christ: And if Catholick Communion makes all the Churches in the World one Catholick Church, it makes all the Churches in a Nation one National Church: But that stricter Combination of Churches in the same Nation under a Patriarch, or Me­tropolitan, or National Synods is a Na­tional Church Government by consent, as I have already explained it, which is highly useful to preserve Peace and Communion between neighbour-Churches, whose neighbourhood re­quires a more close and intimate Union, than there can be between Churches of different Nations, under different Princes, and at a greater distance.

There is but one thing more remains to be considered, and so I will put an end to this Chapter, and squabling Dis­pute. And that is to vindicate the Deans Argument against the necessity of Mr. B's. constitutive Regent Head of the National Church, which in short [Page 220]was this. If every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it, then it unavoidably follows, that there must be a Catholick visible Head to the Catho­lick visible Church, and so Mr. B's consti­tutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness, and made a very plausible Plea for his universal Pa­storship. Mr. B. indeed says, that the universal Church is headed by Christ him­self, but as the Dean adds, this doth not remove the difficulty; for the Question is about that visible Church, whereof the par­ticular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts, do require a visible constitu­tive Regent Head, as essential to them; therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible constitutive Regent part, i. e. a visible Head of the Church.

What Mr. B. and Mr. H. answered to the Deans Argument, I considered and answered in the Defence, and Mr. B. thought fit to let this Dispute fall; but Mr. H. who has not discretion enough to know when he is answered, was re­solved to try one trick more with it, and see what Logick will do: And he says, he has discovered four Terms in the Deans Argument, Reply, p. 135. and if so, I promise you, it is a very material discovery, and the Ar­gument [Page 221]must be false and fallacious, nay, it seems, I have done worse than the Dean, and have put in a 5th. Term, this is foul play I confess, but let us hear, how it is. I will tell them both plainly (says Mr. H. who is indeed a very plain Writer) the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument, and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also. p. 137. That which Mr. Baxter said, was 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, [Page 222]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, [Page 223]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 [Page 224]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 [Page 225]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 [Page 226]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, [Page 227]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 knows not, he says, how Agreement and Concord differ; nor among themselves, and with each o­ther: Nor it may be, Answer. p. 212. is there any mate­rial difference between them; but is this such an unpardonable fault, to use Sy­nonomous words, especially when a man has to deal with such cavillers? It is a good sign Mr. B. has no great matter to say, when he condescends to play at so low a game.

1. But he adds, does this man dream, that no Bishops are Christians and Catho­licks, that have any disagreement? That is no two in the World. I hope many [Page 228]Bishops agree better than Mr. B. thinks they do; who agreeing with no body himself, judges of others by his own wrangling humour: But yet I believe Bishops may disagree about many things, and yet preserve the Concord and Unity of the Episcopacy in one Catho­lick Communion: St. Cyprian, I am sure, thought this very possible, when he allows of such differences without breaking Communion; and that in so high a point, as the rebaptization of Hereticks.

2. But is Communion of Bishops only necessary to Church-unity? Why not of Presbyters also? Communion of Presby­ters with their Bishop, is essential to the Unity of a particular Church, as I had discoursed in the 6th. Chapter of the Defence; but the Union of one Church with another, principally consists in the Agreement and Concord of Bishops, who are the chief Governors of their Churches: And those Presbyters, who live in Communion with their Bishop, are supposed to live in Communion with those, who are in Communion with him: Or if any Presbyter should dis­sent, this makes no schism between the Churches, only makes him himself a Schismatick.

3. But, says Mr. B. Who doubts but there must be Communion? I am glad to hear this is out of doubt; I assure him, I do not doubt of it. But the Que­stion is, whether it must be in or under an Aristocratical Soveraign? But whose Question is this Sir? It is none of mine, for I always denyed it, and made no question about it: I suppose you would have said, this should have been the Question, and then you had had some­thing to say to it. It is a troublesome thing, I confess, to meet with a perverse Disputant, who denies wrong, and choo­ses that side of the Question, which we are not prepared to oppose.

Well, but I assert out of St. Cyprian, That no man can have the Authority or Honour of a Bishop, who does not pre­serve the Peace and Ʋnity of the Episco­pacy, that is, who does not live in Ʋni­ty with his Fellow-Bishops. Here Mr. B. suppresses the name of St. Cyprian, whose Authority is venerable in the Christian Church, and leaves out the Peace and Ʋnity of the Episcopacy, and is resolved to confute this raw pitiful notion under the name of Sherlock, not of St. Cyprian; and thus he assaults it.

Ans. But what Ʋnity? No one that liveth not in a Ʋnion in the essentials of Christianity and Ministry? But Chryso­stom and Theophilus Alex. and Epipha­nius, might all be Bishops, though they had much discord, and condemned one another. And so might Cyril, and Mem­non, and Johan. Antioch, and Theo­doret, and the Orthodox, and the Nova­tians, and the Eastern and Western Bi­shops since; and the Old and the New sort of English Bishops, if they differ not totâ Specie.

I wondered this totâ Specie did not come in before: For these Quarrels and Contentions of Diocesan Bishops is one principal Argument, whereby Mr. B. proves, that they differ totâ Specie, from the true Apostolical, i. e. Parochial Bi­shops; and we have got some ground by this, that he owns, they may be Bi­shops, notwithstanding they had much Discord, and condemned one ano­ther.

As for the Novatian Bishops, who were guilty of a formal Schism from the Catholick Church, they may be called Bishops, as the Novatian People might be called Christians, which I have al­ready given a particular Account of [Page 231]from St. Austin, but they were not Ca­tholick Bishops, as the Novatians were not Catholick Christians; though for ought I perceive Mr. B. thinks the No­vatians as good Bishops as the Ortho­dox.

As for the Case of St. Chrysostom, Theophilus Alexandrinus, and Epiphani­us, that was a personal Quarrel, and though this indeed destroyed that U­nity, which ought to have been main­tained between these good men, who were all of them Bishops, yet it did not destroy the Peace and Ʋnity of the Epis­copacy, which was the only Unity of Bi­shops, I asserted necessary to Catholick Communion; though Mr. B. was plea­sed to conceal that, to make his Argu­ment appear more plausible. The Uni­ty of the Episcopacy consists in this, that all Bishops live in the Communion of the same Church, as members of the same Body, and as near as they can, go­vern their Churches by mutual Advice and Consent; This St. Chrysostom, and Theophilus, and Epiphanius did in the height of their Quarrel: They owned the same Church, and governed their respective Churches by the same Eccle­siastical Laws and Canons, which pre­served [Page 232]served the Unity of the Episcopacy: But Theophilus had a personal Quarrel against St. Chrysostom, and drew Epi­phanius and some other Bishops to his side, and did at last prevail so far, as to depose him, very undeservedly. This was a very great fault in these good men, a very scandalous breach between these Bishops, but no Schism in the E­piscopacy: For they still acknowledged the same Order, the same Communion, and the same Rules of Ecclesiastical Dis­cipline. But of this more anon.

I observed in the Defence, Defence, p. 596. that there were several ways, whereby this Com­munion among Bishops was expressed and maintained. As 1. By writing Let­ters to, and receiving Letters from one another about Church-Affairs; and I instanced in their sending the names of any Bishops elected into vacant Sees, that they might know, who were Ca­tholick Bishops, and who not. To this Mr. B. answers. 1. So do the Indepen­dents and Presbyterians; what do they do? Write Letters? No doubt of it! And so did the Novatians, and the Do­natists, and yet were Schismaticks for all that. And this was one reason, why the Catholick Bishops gave an account [Page 233]to each other, who were their Colleagues, that so they might be aware of the Let­ters of Schismaticks. I hope, it is no argument, that Catholick Bishops can­not express and maintain Catholick Communion by such Letters, because Schismaticks may in the same way main­tain a Schismatical Confederacy. But says Mr. B. do none this ( i. e. write Let­ters) but a Soveraign Senate? Yes, par­ticular Bishops did, as I instanced in St. Cyprian, who sent a Catalogue of the names of Catholick Bishops to Corneli­us. But 2. Is this the Communion that unifyeth the Church? I hope it is a Church, and men are members of it, before they write Letters. No doubt at all! But did I say, that the Communion of the Church consisted in writing Letters, or that it was expressed and maintained by it? Mr. B. is a very unhappy man at distinctions; he can never find a good distinction, when 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 [Page 234]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 [Page 235]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 [Page 236]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 [Page 238]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 [Page 239]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 [Page 240]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 [Page 241]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 [Page 242]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, [Page 243]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 [Page 244]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 [Page 245]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 [Page 246]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 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 [Page 247]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 [Page 248]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 [Page 249]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 [Page 250]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 [Page 252]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 is this, that the belief of all Fun­damentals is necessary to Salvation, and therefore whoever assigns a Catalogue of Fundamentals, damns all those who are of a different Opinion, which therefore is a work fit only for a daring and uncharitable man, or haereticating [Page 253]Councils, as Mr. Baxter calls them.

Now in the same manner I may ar­gue against the necessity of the Chri­stian Faith it self. Whoever asserts it necessary to Salvation to believe in Christ, damns all Jews, Pagans, Maho­metans, and all Infidels, which seems at least as hard a thing, as to damn all Hereticks, who bear no proportion at all to the number of Infidels; and yet if the Christian Faith it self be necessa­ry to Salvation, it must be necessary to Salvation, to believe some Articles of the Christian Faith; for we cannot be­lieve Christianity, without believing such Articles as contain the essentials of Christian Faith, which do not alter with the Prejudices, Prepossessions, and Capacities of men, no more than Chri­stianity it self. And yet neither I, nor any man else, have any thing to do to pass a final Sentence, either upon Infidels or Hereticks, but they must stand or fall to their own Master. There may be a standing rule of Faith and Manners, whereby men shall be judged, but how far the soveraign and uncovenanted Grace of God may dispence with this rule in equitable Cases, is not my business to determine. But of this more hereafter.

3. I observe, there are some Do­ctrines, which, if they be true, must be fundamental Truths, if they be false, must be fundamental Errors; because they alter the very Foundations of Chri­stianity, and make two very different Religions of it, as I shall shew in what follows. There are indeed a great ma­ny erroneous Doctrines, which make great alterations in the Scheme of Reli­gion, as all the Antinomian Doctrines do, which yet I cannot call fundamen­tal Errors, because they make no essen­tial difference in the Doctrine of Salva­tion by Christ, which is the great Fun­damental of Christianity, as you shall see more presently; every erroneous Doctrine does not make a new Religi­on, though it may in a great measure observe the Glory, or spoil the influ­ence of it upon mens minds.

4. I observe further, that there are some Doctrines, which are necessary to Catholick Communion, because the de­nial of them makes an essential differ­ence in Christian Worship. Christian Communion is principally exercised in all the Offices of Christian Worship, and those, who cannot Worship God together, cannot maintain Christian [Page 255]Communion with each other. Thus the belief or denial of the sacred Trini­ty, the incarnation of Christ, the satis­faction of his death, &c. makes an es­sential alteration in most of the Acts of Christian Worship: And we see to this day, the very Gloria Patri, is an effe­ctual bar to the Socinians, from joyn­ing in our Communion. Now that which I am principally concerned for at present, is such an account of Funda­mentals, as is necessary to maintain Ca­tholick Communion in the Christian World.

To state this matter then, as plainly and briefly as I can, I shall 1. endea­vour to fix the plain notion of funda­mental Doctrines, and consequently, of fundamental Errors. 2. I shall consider the Case of those men, who heartily believe all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, and yet entertain such corrupt Doctrines, as in their immedi­ate and necessary Consequences over­throw Foundations, and whether they may be said to err Fundamentally. 3. How far, and in what Cases, we may Communicate with such men and Churches, as believe all Fundamentals, but yet profess such other erroneous [Page 256]Doctrines, as seem to overthrow Foun­dations. I think this is all, that is ne­cessary in order to clear this point of Catholick Communion, as it respects Doctrines.

1. To fix the plain notion of funda­mental Doctrines; now a fundamental Doctrine is such a Doctrine, as is in a strict sence of the essence of Christiani­ty: A fundamental Doctrine, without which the whole building and superstru­cture must fall. The belief of which, is necessary to the very being of Christi­anity, like the first principles in any Art or Science, which must be acknowledg­ed, or else there can be no such Science. Now St. Paul tells us, that this Founda­tion is Christ. 1 Cor. 3.11. For other Foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. That is, no man can lay any other Foundation for the Chri­stian Religion; for you destroy the Christian Religion, if you leave Christ out of it. And therefore the Chara­cter the same Apostle gives of Apostates from Christianity, is that they hold not the Head, 2 Col. 19. that is Christ. And St. John makes this the sum of Christian Faith. These are written, 22 Joh. 31. that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, [Page 257]and that believing ye might have life through his Name. And the necessary qualification of an Apostle, was to be a Witness of the Resurrection, 1 Act. 22. as the last great Confirmation, which was given to our Saviours Authority; and the sum of St. Paul's preaching at Athens, was Jesus and the Resurrection, which the Philosophers of the Epicureans and Sto­icks mistake for strange Gods. 17 Act. 18. And the Commission Christ gave his Apostles, 24 Luk. 47. was to preach Repentance and remission of Sins in his Name. So that Salvation by Christ is the general fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel. Take away this, and you destroy the essential Cha­racter of the Christian Religion, where­by it is distinguish'd from all other Re­ligions.

But then as for particular Doctrines and Articles of Faith, those are Fun­damental, which are either necessarily included in, or inseparably conjoyned with this general fundamental of Salva­tion by Christ. For we must not think it enough to believe in general, that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, with­out a more explicite understanding of the meaning of that Proposition; who this Jesus is, what it is to be the Christ [Page 258]and the Son of God, and how we are saved by him; and this we must learn from the Revelations of the Gospel; the more necessary connexion there is between any particular Doctrine, and that great fundamental of Salvation by Christ, the more necessary and fundamental it is; which seems to me to be the truest and easiest Character, that can be given of a fundamental Doctrine.

Thus far I think I am safe, but it may be thought a hazardous attempt to launch out any farther, or particularly to define, what those particular Do­ctrines of Christian Religion are, with­out which we cannot rightly believe Salvation by Christ. Though I cannot see, but that this may be done safely e­nough, if we use due caution in it: and I shall venture to offer something of this nature, both to satisfie inquisitive men, why such and such Doctrines have al­ways been accounted fundamental by the Catholick Church, and to distinguish what is fundamental from some more nice and curious speculations, which is of mighty use in the present dispute about Catholick Communion.

And not to pretend to give a perfect Catalogue of Fundamentals, I shall only give a taste of this in some few particu­lars, which have given occasion to the fiercest Disputes in the Christian Church.

1. I shall begin with the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, which hath in all Ages been accounted a fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, and hath as good reason to be thought so, as any other, since we are baptized into this belief: For to baptize into the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the most proper signification of the words, and the ex­position of the Catholick Church, sig­nifies to baptize into the Faith and Wor­ship of the sacred Trinity; as I think, I could easily shew at large, were it pro­per upon this occasion.

And how essential this belief is to the right understanding of the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Jesus Christ, which is the comprehensive fundamental of Christian Religion, will easily be ac­knowledged by any man, who careful­ly considers, how each Person in the ever blessed Trinity is concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation.

The Father in infinite pity and com­passion to fallen man, gives his only be­gotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, might not perish, but have everlasting Life: He gives him to become man, and to die as a Sacrifice for sin, and to seal a Cove­nant of Grace and Mercy in his blood.

The Son moved by the same love and pity, gives himself, becomes man, dies for the attonement and expiation of our sins; rises again from the dead, and takes possession of his mediatory King­dom, becomes the Lord and Judge both of the quick and the dead, and according to his promise sends his Spirit upon his Apostles in miraculous gifts and powers, to qualifie them for the work of the Ministry; and bestows the same holy Spirit upon the whole Christian Church, and every sincere member of it, as an abiding principle of Sanctifi­cation, and a new Life.

The holy Spirit accordingly comes, and dwells in his Church, and in good men, as in his Temple, sanctifies them in this World to be vessels of Honour, and will hereafter raise their dead bo­dies into immortal Life.

So that each Person in the Sacred Trinity is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of Mankind; and we cannot truly believe the great fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, with­out the belief of the holy Trinity, of Father, Son, and holy Ghost, one eter­nal and infinite God.

The God-head of the Father is ac­knowledged by all, but whoever denies the Godhead of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, overthrows the whole Do­ctrine of Salvation by Christ, as it is taught in the new Testament, and makes it quite another thing, and a very little thing too; as to shew this briefly.

He who makes Christ to be either the most excellent Creature, as the Arians did, or a meer man, as the Socinians do, mightily lessen the Grace and good­ness of God to sinners, which is repre­sented as such a stupendious act of Love, that God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son: now if this only begotten Son, be only the most glo­rious and excellent Creature, especially if he be but a meer man, the love and the design is not so stupendious and asto­nishing; for God has an equal propriety in all his Creatures, and it is no such [Page 262]prizing Mystery, that a good God should give one of his Creatures, though never so excellent, especially if he be but one excellent man, for the redmp­tion of so many Millions; especially when he promises to reward this under­taking with such a superexcellent de­gree of Glory and Power. The love of God in redeeming us, by what means soever, is very great; but his love in giving his only begotten Son for our re­demption, where Christ himself lays the emphasis, if this only begotten Son be but a Creature or a man, is not so won­derful.

Thus it sounds very odly, for a Creature to be the Saviour of mankind, to be the object of a religious Faith, and Hope, and Trust, and Dependance: The Worship of Christ cannot be di­vine Worship, if he be not God, and a made God is a contradiction in the terms, unless we mean only a titular God, and a titular God, cannot be the Object of Religious Worship. It is un­intelligible, how the blood of a Crea­ture can make a proper atonement and expiation for sin, and therefore the So­cinians, who deny Christ to be God, are very consistent with themselves in deny­ing [Page 263]his satisfaction: A Creature is not capable of infinite and omnipotent Pow­er, no more than a finite Nature, (as the most excellent created Nature is) can be the Subject of infinite perfections; and therefore if Christ be not God, he cannot have all Power in Heaven and Earth committed to him; he cannot have it in his own Person, because he is not capable of it, and cannot exercise it: He can at most only bear the name, but the Government of the World, must be in another hand, which is able to manage it.

Let us then now consider, what a fundamental difference the denyal of the divinity of our Saviour makes in the Do­ctrine of Salvation by Christ, which I shall represent by drawing two Schemes of the Doctrine of Salvation, one pro­ceeding upon the belief of the Divi­nity of our Saviour, the other upon supposition, that he is only an excel­lent Creature, or meer man.

Christ the eternal Son of God.

1. God out of infi­nite love to fallen man, gave his eternal and on­ly begotten Son to be our Saviour.

2. This eternal Son of God in the fulness of time, appeared in the World in humane na­ture, preached the Gos­pel, confirmed his Au­thority by miracles, which he wrought by his own divine Power, purchased and redeem­ed his Church by his own Blood, by which he made a full and per­fect expiation for our sins, and sealed the Co­venant of Grace and Pardon.

3. This incarnate God according to his promise, on the third day raised himself from the dead by his own divine Power; and took possession of his mediatory Kingdom, as the reward and the pur­chase of his death.

4. Which consists in his Power to forgive sins, as a Priest, in vertue of his Sacrifice offered on the Cross; to give Commission to his Apostles to preach Repentance and for­giveness of sins in his Name; to send the ho­ly Spirit into the World; to protect his Church from all Ene­mies; and finally to judge the World, to raise the dead, topunish the wicked and unbe­lievers, and to reward his true and faithful Disciples; and all this [Page 266]by his own Power and Authority, inherent in himself, though receiv­ed from his Father.

Christ an excellent Creature, or meer man.

1. God sent his most excellent Creature, or cre­ated a most excellent man to redeem sinners.

2. This glorious and excellent Creature, or this excellent man, was at the prefixt time born into the World, and preached the Gospel, and God confirmed his Au­thority, as he did the Authority of other great Prophets, by Miracles; and when he was persecu­ted for it, he owned the truth to the very death, and set a great exam­ple of constancy, and patience, and submissi­on to God in his suf­ferings; as other great Prophets had done be­fore him, though not in so extraordinary a manner.

3. This crucified Je­sus was raised by God from the dead the third day, though being but a Creature or a Man, he was not able to raise him­self; and was advanced by God to great Power and Glory.

4. Which Power con­sists in all those Acts which are specified in the opposite Scheme, with this difference, that his Pow­er is not owing to his Priesthood or Sacrifice, nor has any dependance on it, but he is a Saviour, forgives sins, &c. by a Soveraign Power given him by God, not by Me­rit or Purchase, or the expiation of his Sacri­fice: And there is this contradiction in it, that a Creature is invested with Almighty Power; and this riddle in it, that God should make a Crea­ture [Page 266]the Saviour of man­kind, and this Blasphe­my, that God should ad­vance a Creature to be his own Rival or Part­ner in divine Honour.

This short account makes it very evident, what a fundamental difference the belief or denial of the Divinity of our Saviour, makes in the whole Do­ctrine of Salvation by Christ. The first makes it an Act of stupendious love in God, in giving his own Son to be a Propitiation for our sins; the second is a great act of love in saving sinners, but the manner is not so full of Won­der, and mysterious Goodness. The first makes it an act of infinite Love and Condescention in Christ to become Man, a Minister and a Servant, and to submit to an accursed death for our sakes. That though he were rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich: But the se­cond infers no such thing, as I can see: If he were nothing greater than a man, it was no condescention in him to be made a man; especially if he had no being before he was born of the Vir­gin [Page 267] Mary, it was no more matter of his choice to become man, than it is of any other man, who is born into the World; and therefore could be no Act of Love or Condescension.

Nay, suppose that Christ were the most glorious and excellent Creature, yet being a Creature, there is not such a vast difference between the most per­fect Creature and a perfect Man, as there is between a God, and the most perfect Creature; it is no such mighty debasement for the most glorious An­gels to appear in pure and untainted Flesh and Blood; especially upon such a glorious design as the redemption of mankind: Though the disguise and ap­pearance may be thought below an An­gelical Nature, yet the Character with which he appears, as the great Prophet and Saviour of the World, is as much above it. The meanest state and con­dition of humane nature, a poor despi­sed and laborious Life, the most pain­ful and ignominious death, which makes the most excellent Creature, the Saviour of mankind, and advances him to be Lord and Judge of the World, is so far from being an Act of condescend­ing love in the most glorious Creature, [Page 268]that it is above his Ambition, and would be like the pride of Lucifer, to be equal to God.

To become man, to suffer and die for the redemption of the World, and to be made the Lord and Judge both of the quick and of the dead, can be an act of condescending love and good­ness only in God. So that to deny the Divinity of Christ, alters the very foundations of Christianity, and destroys all the powerful arguments of the Love, Humility, and Condescention of our Lord, which are the peculiar motives of the Gospel.

Thus the belief of the Divinity of Christ makes God to be our Saviour, the object of our Faith, and Hope, and Relyance; the denial of it makes a Crea­ture to be our Saviour, and the object of a Religious Faith and Worship; which I think differ as much, as the Worship of God, and of a Creature. The first contains a visible union of our Nature to the Deity, which is a visible demonstration of God's love and tender regard to mankind; the second deprives us of this sensible Consolation.

The first exhibits to us a Saviour by Purchase and by Redemption, which is both more endearing, and a greater se­curity to our guilty fears; the second makes Christ a Saviour, only as a Pro­phet or a King may be a Saviour, who saves by wise instructions, by preaching the way of Salvation, or by Power.

The first respects the guilt of sin, and the just Wrath and Displeasure of God, which is the Object of our guilty fears. It offers a Saviour to us, who is a Me­diator between God and man, and pow­erfully intercedes for our Pardon in vertue of his meritorious Sacrifice; The second has no respect to the atonement and reconciliation of God, which is the only security to a guilty Conscience, but only contains proposals of Peace and Reconciliation without a Sacrifice: A thing which mankind will not easily believe, when they are thorowly con­vinced of the evil of sin, and the inflex­ible purity and holiness of the divine Nature; not to take notice now, how irreconcileable this is with all the anci­ent Types of the Law of Moses.

In a word, he who believes Christ to be perfect God, as well as perfect man, is easily satisfied of his Power to save, as [Page 270]well as of the Vertue of his Sacrifice. For omnipotent Power is essential to the Notion of a God, and when God be­comes our Saviour, he can exercise all that Power, which is necessary to our Salvation; but he who believes Christ to be but an exalted Creature, can ne­ver understand how he can exercise om­nipotent Power, which is peculiar to God: For I think it is somewhat harder to understand, how a Creature can be made a God, and be possest of divine Perfections, such as omnipotent Power is, than to believe, that God can take a Creature into a personal union with himself.

This, I think, is sufficient to satisfie any man, what a fundamental Change the denial of Christ's Divinity makes in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ. It makes a new Gospel and a new Religi­on; and therefore the Divinity of Christ must be acknowledged to be a fundamental Doctrine, because the de­nial of it subverts Foundations.

Thus to proceed, our Salvation by Christ does not only consist in the ex­piation of our sins, and the proposal of terms of Reconciliation, and the pro­mise of Pardon and a Reward, but in [Page 271]the Communications of divine Grace and Power to renew and sanctifie us; and this is every where in Scripture at­tributed to the holy Spirit, as his pecu­liar Office in the Oeconomy of man's Sal­vation; and it must make a fundamen­tal change in the Doctrine of divine Grace and assistance, to deny the Di­vinity of the holy Spirit. For can a Creature be the universal Spring and Fountain of divine Grace and Life? Can a finite Creature be a kind of uni­versal Soul to the whole Christian Church, and to every sincere member of it? Can a Creature make such close Applications to our minds, know our thoughts, set bounds to our Passions, inspire us with new affections and de­sires, and be more intimate to us, than we are to our selves? If a Creature be the only instrument and principle of Grace, we shall soon be tempted, either to deny the grace of God, or to make it only an external thing, and entertain very mean conceits of it. All those mi­raculous gifts, which were bestowed on the Apostles and primitive Christians for the edification of the Church, were the gifts of the Spirit, all the graces of the Christian Life, are the fruits of the Spi­rit. [Page 272]The divine Spirit is the principle of Immortality in us, which first gives life to our Souls, and will at the last day raise our dead bodies out of the dust, works which sufficiently proclaim him to be God, and which we cannot hear­tily believe in the Gospel-notion of them, if he be not.

Thus, we see, how fundamental the doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity is in the Christian Religion, because we cannot rightly understand the Doctrine of Salvation, nor the Covenant of Grace, without this belief; which seems to be the true reason, why the more perfect discovery of this was reserved for Gos­pel-times, and only obscurely hinted un­der the Law, because the peculiar use of it is under the Gospel; each sacred Person having a peculiar interest and concernment in the work of our Re­demption. And therefore all those, who expresly deny the Divinity of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, as many ancient Hereticks did of old, and as the Socini­ans do at this day, do err fundamental­ly, however God may be merciful to their ignorance or prejudice, which it does not concern us to meddle with.

But though it is necessary and essen­tial to the Christian Faith, to acknow­ledg Father, Son, and holy Ghost to be one eternal God, yet there are a great many little subtilties started by over-curious and busie heads, which are not fundamental Doctrines, and ought not to be thought so: God forbid that all the nice distinctions and defini­tions of the Schools, about Essence, Sub­sistence, Personalty, about eternal Ge­neration and Procession, the difference between Filiation, and Spiration, &c. should be reckon'd among Fundamen­tals of our Faith: For though we un­derstood nothing of these matters (as indeed we don't, and it had been hap­py the Church had never heard of them) yet if we believe the Divinity of each Person, we believe enough to understand the Doctrine of Salvati­on.

And though that fatal Dispute be­tween the Greek and Latine Church a­bout the Filioque, be of more impor­tance than such Scholastick subtilties, yet I cannot see, that it concerns the foundation of our Faith. For the Gr [...]ek Church did firmly believe the holy Spi­rit to be true God, though they would [Page 274]not own, that he proceeded from the Father, and the Son, but from the Fa­ther only: And though we must ac­knowledg this to be a mistake, yet it is not a fundamental mistake; for the Doctrine of Salvation is secured by be­lieving the holy Spirit to be true God, without defining the manner of his Pro­cession.

2. Upon the same account that the Doctrine of the sacred Trinity is a fun­damental Article of our Faith, the Do­ctrine of Christ's Incarnation also, and what he did and suffered in order to our Salvation, the meritorious Sacri­fice of his death, his Resurrection from the dead, Assenscion into Heaven, In­tercession for us at God's right hand, and that he shall come again to judge the World, to reward his faithful Dis­ciples with a glorious Resurrection, and eternal Life, and to punish the wicked with eternal Death, must be reckoned also among the Fundamentals of Chri­stianity, because we cannot rightly un­derstand, nor rightly believe the Do­ctrine of Salvation by Christ, without a belief of these Matters.

This is so obvious at the first propo­sal, that I need not insist on the Proof of it: And therefore those who deny Christ to be true and perfect man, as well as those who deny him to be God, err fundamentally, for he could not die for us, nor expiate our sins by his blood, if he were not man.

As for the Modus of this Hypostati­cal union, how the divine and humane nature are united in Christ, it must be acknowledged to be very unconceivable by us, and it is no great wonder it should be so when we do not perfectly understand any one sort of natural u­nion, not so much as how the parts of matter hang together, much less how the Soul and Body is united to make one man. But yet it is fundamental to the Christian Faith to believe, that the di­vine and humane nature are united in Christ, that the same Christ is both per­fect God, and perfect man, or we must err fundamentally in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ; for neither God nor man distinctly and separately con­sidered, can be our Saviour according to the Gospel-notion of Salvation. God cannot suffer and die, and the death of a man cannot expiate sin, nor his Pow­er [Page 276]save us; and therefore we must ac­knowledg, that God and man is so uni­ted in Christ, that the Actions and ope­rations of each nature do as properly belong to one Christ, as the distinct O­perations of Body and Soul, are the a­ctions of the same man.

Upon this account, the Catholick Church condemned the Heresies of Ne­storius and Eutyches. For Nestorius divided not only the Natures, but the Persons in Christ, only united them in Authority and Dignity: And thus Christ was not an Incarnate God in one Person; but the Man Christ was taken into a nearer relation to the second Person of the Trinity, than any other Man or Creature is, but not so as to become one with him; which destroyes the Myste­ry of our Redemption by the Blood of God: For whatever Dignity and Ho­nour were conferr'd upon the man Christ by his relation to the [...], or divine Word, yet his Blood was not the Blood of God, because notwithstanding this Relation to God the Son, he re­mained as much a distinct Person and Subsistence, as any other man is.

The Heresie of Eutyches is certainly equally dangerous; for he ran so far from the Nestorian Heresie of two Per­sons, that he denyed two natures in Christ: He did not deny, but that there was a humane and divine nature before their union, but he asserted such an uni­on of natures in Christ, as made a mix­ture and confusion of natures: That Christ did not remain perfect God and perfect man, after this union, but the humane and divine natures were so blended together, as to become one na­ture, as well as one Person: [...]. Niceph. Calist. l. 14. [...]. Id. l. 15. cap. 6. And there­fore he denyed the very Body of Christ to be of the same nature with our Bodies, or subject to the same passions; nay, he asserts the divine nature it self to be passible. And I think, I need not shew, how this overthrows the fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, which proves it to be a fundamental Heresie.

I shall only observe that Leo Bishop of Rome in his Letter to Flavian, (who was then Bishop of Constantinople, and was afterwards murdered by the Euty­chian [Page 278]Faction in the packt Council of Ephesus) con­futes the Heresie of Eu­tyches from the very Prin­ciple, Et ad resolvendum conditi­onis noslrae debitum, natura in­violabilis naturae est unita passi­bili, ut quod nostris remediis congruebat, medlator Dei & bo­minum homo Jesus christus, & mori posset ex uno, & non mori posset ex altero. Leo ep. ad Fla­vian. on which I have all along proceeded, be­cause it destroys the Do­ctrine of Salvation by Christ. For says he, to discharge the debt and obligati­on of our lapsed State; a nature which cannot suffer, is united to a nature, which can: That so as our Redemption requi­red the Mediator between God and man; the man Christ Jesus might be capable of suffering and dying as man, and exempted from all possibility of dy­ing as God.

This I think is sufficient to shew, how fundamental the belief of the sacred Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Sa­viour is in the Christian Religion; Sal­vation by Christ is a fundamental Do­ctrine, or nothing is fundamental in the Christian Faith; and yet the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ is necessarily founded on the belief of the holy Tri­nity, each sacred Person being peculi­arly concerned in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation. And I confess, it does mightily confirm me in this way of sta­ting [Page 279]the notion of Fundamentals, that it does so plainly discover the necessity of that Faith, which has always been ac­counted sacred and inviolable by the Catholick Church: This is the Faith we are baptized into, according to our Sa­viours Command, to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This is the sum of all the ancient Creeds: The Apostles Creed being lit­tle else than the explication of the form of Baptism, what we are to believe of God the Father, what of God the Son, and what of God the Holy Ghost. And when Hereticks arose, who corrupted this Faith, the Catholick Church expres­sed greater Zeal in nothing, than in pre­serving this Faith pure and sincere: This was the occasion of the first general Councils, wherein Arius, Nestorius, Eu­tyches, Macedonius, and such other He­reticks were condemned: This occasio­ned the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and the Athanasian Creeds, which contain only the Catholick exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity, in opposition to these ancient Heresies. And it would be very strange, if that which is the chief, nay almost the only Subject of all [Page 280]our Creeds, should not be thought a fundamental of our Religion. And yet it is as strange, that is should be a fun­damental, if it be only an abstruse and difficult speculation, which is of no o­ther use, nor valuable upon any other account than pure Orthodoxy; which is the only reason that can be assigned, why any men, who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, should not express a great and warm Zeal for it, because they do not observe, how the whole Gospel-Doctrine of Salvation by Christ depends on it: The end of Christian Faith is a holy Life, and if men may lead a very holy Life without the velief of the Tri­nity, some think, this Faith cannot be absolutely necessary to Salvation; but now this must be a great and dangerous mistake, though we should suppose, that men may live very holily without the belief of the Trinity, unless we suppose also, that a holy Life will carry men to Heaven without Faith in Christ, or Sal­vation by him, for we cannot rightly believe in Christ for Salvation without this Faith.

And thus I might shut up the Do­ctrine of Fundamentals; for indeed I know nothing strictly fundamental in [Page 281]the Christian Religion, but the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, and the several Acts and Offices, if I may so speak, of each sacred Person in the Oeconomy of man's Salvation, which I have already briefly hinted: But having entred upon a Discourse of such vast Importance, to give the greater satisfaction to inquisi­tive men, I shall venture one step fur­ther, and I think no man need go any further.

3. The next inquiry therefore shall be, what is fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation it self. Now this our Sa­viour briefly comprehends in that Com­mission he gave to the Apostles, to preach Repentance and Forgiveness of sins in his Name: Luke 24.47. i. e. to preach forgive­ness of sins to all true Penitents through Faith in his Name, Rom. 3.24, 25. or through Faith in his Blood, as St. Paul expounds it.

Now not to dispute this point at pre­sent with the Socinians, all who believe that Christ died to make atonement for our sins, must acknowledg the atone­ment and expiation of Christs death to be a fundamental Article of the Christi­an Faith, whereon the Doctrine of Sal­vation by Christ is built: For therefore he is our Saviour, because he saves his [Page 282]People from their sins, and how this is, we are often told, viz. by dying for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he may reconcile us to God.

Now if this be true (as I shall at pre­sent take for granted) then it must be a fundamental Doctrine, upon these two accounts; 1. Because the belief or the denial of the atonement of Christ's death, makes a specifical change in Re­ligion. A Religion with a Sacrifice, and a Religion without a Sacrifice differ in the whole kind; the first respects the atonement of our past sins, and our daily infirmities; it respects God, as the Judge and avenger of wickedness, as well as the rewarder of those, who di­ligently seek him; the other is a kind of Philosophical institution to train men up in the practice of Piety and Vertue: That is, a Religion without a Sacrifice is at most but half as much as a Religi­on with a Sacrifice; and that half wherein they agree of a quite different nature from each other. That Religi­on which requires an expiatory Sacri­fice, to make atonement for sin, and to obtain the Pardon of it, does also strict­ly enjoyn the practiee of an universal Righteousness, which is the whole of a [Page 283]Religion without a Sacrifice. And yet this practical part of Religion is vastly altered by the belief or denial of the Sa­crifice and expiation of Christ's death.

Those who deny the death of Christ to be an expiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the World, may pay all that Homage and Worship to God, which is due to the great Creator and Benefactor of mankind, and may observe all the du­ties of moral Righteousness; but there are some new Acts of Religious Worship, or some new instances of Duty, or new degrees and respects of Vertu [...] which necessarily result from the expiation of Christ's death, which either cannot be observed at all, or not in their true meaning and signification by those who deny it; as to give some few instances of it.

The love of God as our Redeemer and Saviour, who gave his own Son for our Ransom, to die for our sins, and to make atonement and expiation by his Blood, is very different from the love of God as our Creator, and Bene­factor, nay as our Redeemer by Cove­nant, Promise, and Power; it is a more transporting and sensible Passion, and the peculiar Worship of the Gospel, [Page 284]which those cannot give to God, who deny the expiation of Christ's death.

The Worship of a God Incarnate, a God in our nature and likeness, a God, who is our Saviour, Mediator and Ad­vocate through his own Blood, vastly differs from the Worship of a pure, in­finite, eternal Spirit, or from the Wor­ship of an exalted Creature. And this is the peculiar Worship of the Lord's Supper, that great and venerable Myste­ry of our Religion, which is a thin and empty Ceremony without it.

To pray to God in the Name and Mediation of Christ, and in vertue of his Sacrifice, vastly differs from a natu­ral hope and trust in God's mercy, or in his bare promise, or in the Power and Interest of a great Favourite, though appointed to be our Mediator, not in vertue of his Sacrifice, but by Royal Favour: Not but that God's Promise of Pardon and acceptance confirmed to us by such a powerful Favourite, whom God himself hath appointed to be our Advocate, may give us sufficient securi­ty, that God will hear and answer our Prayers; but this assurance is of a diffe­rent nature from the vertue of a Sacri­fice, and affects our minds in a different [Page 285]manner, and excites different Passions, and very different acts of Devotion, and makes our Worship differ as much, as a Mediator by Sacrifice does from a Mediator by Interest and Power.

As for the other parts of Religion, which concern our Conversation with men, or the Government of our own Appetites and Passions, there seems to be some new instances, or new degrees of Vertue, which have a necessary de­pendance on the Sacrifice of Christ's death, as the example or reason of them. As that high degree of brotherly love which Christ requires of us, as the Badg of our Discipleship, to love one ano­ther, as he hath loved us, to forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us; all Acts of kind­ness and charity to our poor Brethren, as knowing the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he were rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty may be rich, the force and prevalency of which ex­ample, and of which reason, I think is greatly abated by denying the expiati­on of Christ's death. However I think it is very plain, that the true principle of Gospel-obedience, that which makes [Page 286]all our actions in a strict and proper sence Christian Graces and Vertues, has a necessary respect to the expiation of Christ's death: We must cheerfully obey the Will of God, not only considered as our Creator, but as a Redeemer; we must give up our selves to Christ, as the purchase of his Blood, for we are not our own, but bought with a price, and therefore must glorifie God both with our Bodies, and with our Spirits, which are God's; we must yield our selves willing Captives to the conquering and con­straining Power of his Love: the Love of Christ constrains us, for we thus judg, that if Christ dyed for all, then were all dead, and that he dyed for us, that we who live, might not henceforth live unto our selves, but unto him, who dyed for us. If Christ did not redeem and pur­chase us by his Blood, all this signifies nothing; it is all but Phrase, and Me­taphor, and Allusion, which cannot form a principle of Action: And yet the Apostles of Christ do not so much insist on the Authority of God, as our Maker and Governor, as on his purchase as Redeemer, on the love of our dying Lord, who is our Priest, our Sacrifice, and Mediator; and were it possible to [Page 287]obey the Gospel without any regard to the redemption of Christ, and that stu­pendious love of God in it, it were not true Evangelical obedience, no more than it is obedience to God, to do what he commands for some private end and reason of our own, without any regard to his Authority and Government.

So that whether the Doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death be true or false, it is certainly fun­damental either way, either a funda­mental Article of Faith, or a fundamen­tal Error, because it alters Foundations, and changes the whole frame of Chri­stian Religion. If Christ have made atonement and expiation for our sins, Christianity is one thing, if he have not, it is quite another thing, as different, as it is possible; which I think is a plain argument, that the expiation of Christ's Blood is a fundamental or foundation. Doctrine, since the whole Fabrick of Christian Religion, as it is taught in the Gospel, is built on it.

2. There is one consideration more, which will confirm this, that the atone­ment and expiation of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine, because the Blood of Christ, that is, the expiation [Page 288]of his Blood, is the peculiar object of justifying Faith; now certainly that must be fundamental, which is essential to justifying Faith. Salvation or Justi­fication by Christ being the sum of the Gospel, whatever is essential to justify­ing Faith, is certainly a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity, if there be any such thing as Fundamentals.

Repentance in its full Extent and Latitude, as it includes not only a sorrow for our past sins, but the reformation of our lives, and an actual obedience to all the Laws of the Gospel, is a necessa­ry condition of our Pardon and Justi­fication, or necessarily required in those, whom God will justifie: But Repen­tance and a new Life cannot justifie us: No Religion, that ever was in the World, taught men certainly to expect Pardon of sin meerly upon their Re­pentance: And it is plain, that man­kind never did; for both Heathens and Jews thought the expiation of Sacrifi­ces as necessary, and more prevalent than meer Repentance, to obtain their Pardon: And the reason why God hath appointed us no Sacrifice but a broken heart, or the living Sacrifice of an obedient Soul and Body, to offer to [Page 289]him, is because he has provided an ex­piatory Sacrifice himself, hath given his own Son to be a Sacrifice for us; and the Pardon of our sins is every where attributed to the death of Christ, as the meritorious Cause. But then as Christ hath dyed for our sins, and redeemed us with his Blood, and God for Christ's sake will pardon and justifie all repent­ing sinners, so we must consider, that meer repentance can no more apply or appropiate the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's death to us for our Pardon, than it can justifie us without a Sacri­fice: That is the peculiar Office of Faith in Christ, or Faith in his Blood: as St. Paul expresly tells us. Being justified freely by his Grace, Rom. 3.24, 25. through the redemp­tion which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood. For though Faith in Christ is very often used in a very large sence for the whole Gospel of our Saviour, and to comprehend all Acts of Obedience and a holy Life, as the Prin­ciple from whence they flow, and no other is true justifying Faith, but that which includes Obedience and a holy Life: Yet sometimes Faith is distin­guisht from Repentance and a holy Life; [Page 290]and so has Christ, and in a peculiar manner his Blood, for its Object. Thus the sum of St. Paul's preaching was Re­pentance towards God, Act. 20.21 and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ: And the Com­mission Christ gave to his Apostles, was, Luke 24.47. to preach Repentance and Remission of sins in his Name; that is, through Faith in his Name: So that Faith in Christ is di­stinguisht from Repentance in the work of Justification; and so denotes a par­ticular respect to the expiation of Christ's death, as the meritorious Cause of Pardon.

Under the Law, a Sacrifice was avail­able only for those, for whom it was of­fer'd, but under the Gospel instead of offering a Sacrifice to God, we must believe in that Sacrifice, which is alrea­dy offered, which does particularly ap­ply the merit and vertue of it to our selves, as the Oblation of the Sacrifice did under the Law; for if we would have Christ for our Saviour, or have any interest in the expiation of his death, we must choose him for our Saviour by Faith in his Blood. For I cannot see, but why Repentance may be as well accepted from us without a Sacrifice, as without respect and relation to a Sacri­fice, [Page 291]and yet the only thing, that can entitle our Repentance in particular to the vertue of Christ's Sacrifice, is Faith in his Blood, which, I think, is a plain argument, that the atonement of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine of Chri­stianity, because it is essential to a justi­fying Faith.

But then there are a great many o­ther opinions relating to the atonement. and satisfaction of Christ's death, which are true or false, but not fundamental: For as St. Paul observes, the Foundation is Christ, but yet men may build upon this Foundation either Gold and Silver, or Hay and Stubble, that is, true or false Doctrines, which are of great use in the Christian Life, or of very dangerous consequence; but yet while they retain the Foundation, though their works pe­rish, i. e. the superstructure of their private Opinions be condemned and re­jected, yet they themselves may escape, though with great difficulty, so as by fire.

Thus while men heartily believe, that Christ dyed for our sins, and has made expiation for them by his Blood, and expect the Pardon of their sins only in Christ's Name, that is, in vertue of his [Page 292]Sacrifice and Intercession, they may fall into great mistakes about the Nature, Extent, and Application of this Sacri­fice, and yet not err Fundamentally, though their Errors may be dangerous, and always are so, when they betray them to sin.

Of this Nature I reckon some of those unhappy Disputes, which have torn and divided the Church in these late days of Liberty and Confusion, Whether Christ bore our sins, or only the punish­ment of sin, whether he were the great­est sinner, or only the greatest Sacrifice for sin: Whether he suffered the same Pu­nishments, which all sinners should have suffered, had they been damned for their sins, or suffered that which was equivalent to it, and which God accep­ted for a complete and perfect satisfa­ction. Whether the expiation of Christ's death was so absolutely necessary to the Pardon of our sins, that God could not forgive sin without it, or whether God choose this way, as most agreea­ble to the wise methods of Govern­ment, and the most glorious Illustration of all his Attributes. Whether the death of Christ made satisfaction to a natu­ral vindictive Justice, and was paid to [Page 293]God, as the offended Party, or as the Governor of the World. Whether Christ made a general atonement for sin, or satisfied only for the sins of the Elect; whether all the sins of the Elect were actually laid upon Christ from E­ternity, and actually pardoned before they were committed, or whether they are pardoned in time, when we repent and believe. Whether what Christ suf­fered for us, is so imputed to us, as if we our selves had done it; which makes the greatest sinners perfectly Innocent, and looked upon by God, as never to have sinned, or whether it be imputed to us only for our Pardon and Justi­fication. Whether the active as well as passive Obedience of Christ be impu­ted to us for Justification.

These and such like Doctrines, some of which are of a very dangerous nature, and a great state of temptation, yet are not fundamental Errors, because they do not destroy the Foundation, the a­tonement and satisfaction of Christ's death is acknowledged on all hands, though some of these Doctrines do great­ly obscure the grace of God, and his stupendious wisdom in the redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, and there­fore [Page 294]must be reckon'd as Hay and Stub­ble built upon the Foundation, which will prove a great loss and dammage to such Builders, when every man's work comes to be tryed.

But to proceed; among the funda­mental Doctrines of Salvation by Christ, we must reckon, not only the atone­ment and expiation of his death, but the gift of his holy Spirit to renew and sanctifie us: For this makes him a com­plete Saviour, to deliver us from the punishment of our sins, and from the power and dominion of them.

Now that it is fundamental to the Christian Religion, and to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, to believe the divine influences and assistances of the holy Spirit to work Faith, and all other Christian graces in us, appears from these considerations.

1. The gift of the holy Spirit is the most glorious effect of Christ's Power and Intercession, and therefore one of the principal fruits and benefits of his Sacrifice; by which we may understand the value and necessity of it; to deny the intercession of Christ, whereby he daily dispenses and applyes the merits of his Sacrifice, does as much alter the Do­ctrine [Page 295]of Salvation by Christ, as to deny the atonement of his death, and to de­ny the assistances of the divine Spirit, is in effect to deny his Intercession, of which the Communications of divine Life and Power is the principal part.

2. To deny the assistances of the ho­ly Spirit, turns the Gospel into a meer external Ministration, which makes as fundamental a difference in the Chri­stian Religion, as there is between the Ministration of the Letter and of the Spirit.

3. This in a great measure takes away the Office of the holy Spirit in the Oe­conomy of man's Salvation, and conse­quently destroyes his Worship, which is peculiar to the Christian Religion. The light of nature directs us only to the Worship of one God, the Christian Religion consecrates us at our baptism, to the Worship of three divine Persons, and one God. For since each sacred Person is peculiarly concerned in the Salvation of sinners, each of them ought to be acknowledged and adored by us. But whoever denies the efficacy of the holy Spirit in the work of Salvation, destroys the foundation of his Worship too, considered as a distinct Person in the Trinity.

4. To deny the assistances of the ho­ly Spirit, makes the Sacraments of the Christian Religion, meer external Cere­monies, which were instituted as the Ministries and Conveyances of Grace, and so makes a fundamental change in the Institutions of Christianity.

5. Nay it makes a fundamental change in the Worship of God, and of our Sa­viour. The Christian Worship princi­pally consists, in praising God and our Saviour for spiritual mercies, in ascribing the glory of all the good we do to his free Grace, and continual succors, in begging his holy Spirit, and the con­stant supplies of Grace, that we may in­crease and persevere in all goodness; this we have frequent examples of in the Writings of the Apostles; but whoever denies the assistances of supernatural Grace, both defrauds God of his Glory, and himself of the benefit and comfort of it. He cannot praise God for, nor beg that of God, which he believes, God does not give; which makes our Worship very defective, and deprives us of the assistances of Grace, which we shall never have, if we never ask.

But then all, that I can judge fun­damental in this point, is, that the be­ginnings, progress, and perfection of all Christian graces and vertues, are owing to the influences and operations of the holy Spirit. But those other nice disputes about the manner of the Spirits working in us, whether it be a natural or moral efficacy, whether it be a suffici­ent, or efficacious Grace, resistable or irresistable, how the operation of the Spirit is reconcileable with the freedom of humane action; whether the habits of grace be immediately infused, or ac­quired by frequent Acts, these I say, and such like Disputes are not fundamental; for though it is of great moment for the government of our lives, which of these we believe, yet the Foundation which is the assistance of the divine Spirit, is secured either way, and all that men are to look to is, that they do not entertain such ill notions of God's Grace, as shall make them secure and careless of a holy Life.

All that I can think necessary to add more concerning the Doctrine of Sal­vation by Christ, is what I have already sufficiently hinted, the necessity of Re­pentance and a holy Life. There are, [Page 298]I confess, a great many dangerous Dis­putes about this matter, what place Re­pentance and a holy Life have in the justification of a sinner. And though it is of very great moment to under­stand this matter rightly, and as parti­cularly as we can, for fear of that ill influence which such mistakes may have upon our lives, and too apparently have upon the lives of many professed Chri­stians; yet I cannot think, that man errs fundamentally, who believes, that God will justifie and pardon none but true penitent and reformed sinners, and that not for the sake and merit of Repen­tance and good Works, but for the sake of Christ, and through Faith in his Blood, though he may differ about the necessity of Repentance and Obedience, and what place it has in the justificati­on of a sinner. Whether it be a neces­sary Condition, or a necessary requisite and Qualification, or a necessary con­comitant and effect of Justification, or whether it be necessary only to our Sal­vation, but not to our Justification: Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument, or as a Condition, &c. For while Faith in Christ and Obedience to his Laws are both secured, without either dero­gating [Page 299]from the Grace of God, or the Purity of the Christian Religion, other mistakes, though dangerous, when per­sued to their just Consequences, and when men own, and live by such Con­sequences, yet I hope, are very harmless and Innocent, when they do not cor­rupt mens lives, nor hinder the effica­cy of the divine Grace.

Thus I have given an Essay (and I hope it may pass for an Essay) towards the Discovery, what are fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion. I have strictly confined my self to the Fun­damentals of Christianity, though there are some principles of natural Religion, which are antecedently necessary to be believed, but they are more gene­rally known and agreed in. I have had a tender regard to the weaknesses and mistakes of mankind, and to the en­largement of Catholick Communion, and therefore have, as far as was consistent with preserving the essentials of Chri­stianity, cast most of our modern con­troversies out of the number of Funda­mentals; which, if carefully consider­ed, would asswage that intemperate heat, with which they are managed, and more easily reconcile our differences; [Page 300]and yet I have not rejected any Doctrine out of the number of Fundamentals, which was ever defined to be such by any received general Council of the Christian Church; which gives me some hope, that I am come pretty near the mark.

But to give some new light to this matter, and to prevent such objections, as I can foresee, there are some few things, which I shall further observe, before I proceed.

1. The first concerns the judgment of that truly great and learned Person Mr. Joseph Mede. Mede's works. Epist. 84 to Mr. Hartlib. He seems indeed to reject this way of stating the Ratio of Fundamentals, in relation to some one great Fundamental Doctrine, as I have now done. For in his censure of Mr. Streso's Book of Fundamentals (which I have never yet seen) he observes, that he makes three sorts of Fundamentals. The first is the Fundamentum ipsum, or the Foundation it self, though what that is, he does not tell us, and there­fore how far I agree with Mr. Streso in that, I know not. The other two he mea­sures by their relation to it, either à parte ante, and such he terms sub Fundamen­tales, (which by Mr. Mede's censure I [Page 301]perceive, did not strictly belong to Chri­stianity, but either to the principles of natural Religion, or the Jewish State) or à parte post, which may be called super Fundamentales, which he makes such as are by immediate and necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum salutis, where he observes, that he had inserted some Doctrines of pure speculation a­mong Fundamentals, which I confess to be a great fault: But from this im­perfect account of Mr. Streso's notion, I cannot guess, how far my way might fall under the same censure. As for those two faults, he has observed in Mr. Streso's way, viz. reckoning such Do­ctrines among the Fundamentals of Chri­stianity, as are not strictly Christian Doctrines, or are matters of meer specu­lation, I have carefully avoided them both; and as for judging what particu­lar Doctrines are fundamental to Chri­stianity, from some general comprehen­sive Fundamental, which contains the sum of Christian Religion, that is cer­tainly the most demonstrative way that can be: For though I do not like the way of making fundamental Articles by deduction and consequence from such a Fundamental, because as Mr. Mede [Page 302]observes, all men may not see the ne­cessity of such a consequence, though it appear plain and evident to others; yet if for instance, the Doctrine of Sal­vation by Christ be the great funda­mental Doctrine of the Gospel (and if that be not Fundamental, I am sure no­thing is) then though every true con­sequence from this Doctrine be not Fun­damental, yet whatever is necessarily included in this Doctrine, without which we cannot rightly understand and be­lieve Salvation by Christ, must be as Fundamental, as the Doctrine it self is, unless the Letters or Words of the Ar­ticle be Fundamental, but not the true sence of it; and within these bounds I have kept my self; I have asserted no Doctrine to be Fundamental, but what is necessary to our belief of Salvation by Christ, which is a very different thing from drawing fundamental conse­quences.

Mr. Mede indeed assigns another ra­tio of fundamental Articles; Ib. ep. 83. in general that they be necessarii cognitu & credi­tu ad salutem, necessary to be known and to be believed to Salvation simply and absolutely, and therefore no Christian which shall be saved, uncapable to under­stand [Page 303]them; which exactly agrees with me, who make only the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ in its true and pro­per signification a fundamental Arti­cle.

But then more particularly he tells us, that they must not be such truths, as are meerly speculative, and contained only in the understanding, but of such only as have a necessary influence upon practise, and not all those neither, but such as have necessary influence upon the Acts and Fun­ctions of Christian Life, or whereon the Acts, without which a Christian lives not, depend.

Such namely, as without the knowledg and belief whereof, we can neither invo­cate the Father aright, nor have that Faith and relyance upon him, and his Son our Mediator Jesus Christ, which is ne­cessary to remission of sins, and the hope of the Life to come. Where he seems evidently to confine Fundamentals to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, for nothing else is necessary to what he calls the proper acts and functions of the Christian Life. But he pro­ceeds.

How far this ratio of a Fundamental Article will stretch, I know not, but be­lieve it will fetch in most of the Articles of the Apostles Creed; and by it also those two main errors of the Socinians, the one denying the divine Nature, the other the satisfaction of Christ, may be discerned to be Fundamental; for without the belief of the first, the Divine Majesty cannot be rightly, that is, incommunicably wor­shipp'd, so as to have no other Gods besides him. For he that believes not Christ to be consubstantial to the Father, and yet honours him with the same Worship, wor­ships not the Father incommunicably, which is the formalis ratio of the Worship of the true God, from whom we look for eternal Life; and without the belief of the second, the satisfaction of Christ, there can be, I suppose, no saving Faith nor re­lyance on Christ for the forgiveness of sins. How well this agrees, with what I have discours'd about Fundamentals, every one will easily perceive.

Some other learned men go the same way with Mr. Mede, in assigning the general Ratio or Notion of Fundamen­tals, that they are such Doctrines, as have a great influence upon a Christian Life, though they do not confine it, as [Page 305]he does, to some peculiar acts of the Christian Life, and he could have no reason to do so, had he not some other Notion of Fundamentals in his mind, than what he expressed, for all the acts of Piety and Vertue are equally requi­red of us by the Laws of the Gospel, and therefore it is most reasonable in this way, to extend the Notion of Funda­mentals to all those Doctrines, which have an universal influence upon a good Life; but I have something to offer with all modesty, and just respect and deference to such great names against this Notion of Fundamentals.

1. That a holy Life is not the only design of the Christian Religion, and therefore if we will judge of funda­mental Doctrines by the end, they are intended to serve, we must take in the whole and entire end of the Christian Religion, which is forgiveness of sins, as well as holyness of Life: And there­fore whatever is necessary to be belie­ved for the forgiveness of sins is a fun­damental Doctrine of Christianity, though we could not see, what direct and immediate influence it has upon the reformation of our Lives.

2. The Doctrine of the ever blessed Trinity, hath in all ages of the Church been accounted a fundamental Article, and yet nothing is more plain, than that the belief of three divine Persons, considered only as three Persons, has no greater force in it to make men good, than the belief of one supreme and eter­nal God. It is true, when we consider all these divine Persons as concerned in the Oeconomy of Man's Salvation; so the belief of each Person has a distinct and powerful influence upon our minds, but this is not owing immediately to the Doctrine of the Trinity, but to the Doctrine of man's Salvation by Christ, who was sent into the World by his Father, to accomplish the Work of our redemption, and when he left the World, sent his holy Spirit to abide with us.

3. All those Doctrines, which have a powerful influence upon a good life, are not in a strict and proper sence Chri­stian Doctrines, much less fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, and therefore this can be no good Criterion of a Fundamental; such are all the na­tural arguments to Religion and a ver­tuous Life, which though they be adop­ted [Page 307]into Christianity, yet will hardly pass for fundamentals of Christianity with any man, who can distinguish be­tween natural knowledg and Revela­tion.

4. Men may live very holy lives with­out the knowledg or belief of many Doctrines, which are excellently fitted to promote holiness, and therefore eve­ry Doctrine, which will advance holi­ness, is not Fundamental, and yet this general rule does not direct us, how to distinguish them.

5. Nay, many Doctrines, which are so far from being Fundamental, that they are false, may yet prevail with, and encline some men to the practise of real holiness.

6. Some Doctrines, which naturally tend to debauch mens lives, are not yet fundamental Errors, for men may be­lieve them and yet live well; and there­fore we shall still want a Rule to judg of fundamental Heresies by, unless no Heresie be Fundamental, but when it debauches mens lives, and by the same rule, no Doctrine is Fundamental, but when it actually governs and reforms our lives.

7. This leaves men at great liberty to believe what Doctrines they please to be Fundamental, and to change even Christianity it self into a new Religion; for if they think they can obey God without such Doctrines, nay without the belief of Christianity it self, I can­not see, why they should believe Chri­stianity it self to be a fundamental Do­ctrine to them.

8. I readily grant, that no Doctrine can be a fundamental Article of Faith, which has not one way or other an in­fluence upon a Christian life. But then all the peculiar Arguments of the Gospel, all the principles of pure evan­gelical Obedience, as well as all the Fundamentals of Faith, are contained in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ. That it self is the great motive of the Gospel, and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and perswa­sives to Vertue. Take away the Do­ctrine of Salvation, and no other con­sideration can have any force; and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian, nay, there are no other Gos­pel-Motives, but what are contained in it. Whatever is essential to the Do­ctrine of Salvation, is a Fundamental [Page 309]Article and a powerful Motive of Chri­stianity, and nothing else is either. So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals, though they were to be tryed by their tendency to promote real Righteousness, as to con­sider, what is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, which is an ac­knowledged Fundamental, and con­tains in it all the principles of a Chri­stian Life.

2. I desire, it may be further obser­ved, that when I discourse of Funda­mentals, I do not reject all other Do­ctrines besides what are strictly Funda­mental, as useless in the Christian Life, or unfit terms of Church Communion. God affords us more than what is bare­ly necessary, for our spiritual, as well as for our natural life; and expects from us, that we should make daily improve­ments in Knowledg and Vertue: And if this be the duty of private Christians, it is much more the duty of particular Churches to arrive at the greatest perfe­ction of Knowledg, and to instruct her Children, not only in those Doctrines, which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity, but in all those great truths, which advance our Pro­gress [Page 310]in the Christian Life. And there­fore no doubt, but every Church has Authority over her own Members, to require, as the terms of Communion, an explicite assent to many great and useful truths, and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors, which are not in a strict sence Fundamental; or else she has no Authority to teach the whole mind and will of God, nor to pre­serve the purity of Christian Doctrine: For there are many Doctrines of vast use in the Christian Life, and many ve­ry fatal and pernicious Errors, which are not properly Fundamental, and yet it may be, have occasioned the final Damnation of many more, than ever fundamental Errors have done. And if the Church be bound to take care of mens Souls, she is bound also to root out such pernicious Doctrines. But the use I designed the Doctrine of Funda­mentals for in this place, is the preserva­tion of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches, which have no Pow­er and Authority over each other: For though a Church have entertained ma­ny corrupt and dangerous Doctrines, yet if she profess to believe all the Fun­damentals of Christian Faith, we have [Page 311]no Authority upon the account of Do­ctrines to divide from her Communion: We must not indeed communicate in her Errors, though not Fundamental, and no Church, but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Com­munion upon other Churches, but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith, she is so far a true Church; and if there be nothing to hinder it, may and ought to be received into Catho­lick Communion.

3. When I assert, that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental, by Funda­mentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledg, without which, no man can understand and believe like a Christian, which plainly proves, that they are necessary to the very being of a Christian Church, and therefore ne­cessary to Catholick Communion: Which is all I am concerned to prove.

But if any man should put hard Ca­ses to me with respect to the final Salva­tion of particular Christians, and in­quire how far the explicite knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation: What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction, [Page 312]and scarce understand any thing di­stinctly of the Christian Religion? or what shall become of those, who through the prejudices and prepossessions of E­ducation, deny any fundamental Arti­cle of the Christian Faith, as the Divi­nity of Christ, or his satisfaction for sins, and yet are otherwise very pious, de­vout, and useful men? I say, I do not think my self bound to answer these Questions, nor to search into the secret Counsels of God, to determine how he will judge the World, or what allow­ances he will make in some favourable Cases; but yet I have some few things to offer, which possibly may give some satisfaction to modest Inquirers.

1. We must not deny the necessity of Christian Faith and Knowledg for the sake of any difficult Cases; for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity it self, or of Faith in Christ, to the Salva­tion of sinners; and thus our Charity to other men will make us our selves the greatest Hereticks of all. And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledg is necessary to Salvation, certainly the knowledg and belief of Fundamentals is, which are therefore commonly de­scribed by this Character, the knowledg [Page 313]and belief of which is necessary to Salva­tion: And if Infidelity be a damning sin, why should not a fundamental Heresie be so, which is infidelity with respect to some essential and saving Doctrine of Christianity, and in its consequence overthrows some material and essential part of the Christian Faith.

2. There is a vast difference between the Case of those men, who for want of good Instruction, have not an explicite understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, and of those, who de­ny any Fundamental. As for the first, a very little indistinct knowledg of Christ, if it govern their lives, and teach them to live in Obedience to their Saviour, will carry them safely to Hea­ven, for God requires little of those to whom little is given. Now there is no man, that deserves the name of a Christi­an, who has not learnt his Creed, who does not know and believe, that Jesus Christ came into the World to die for sin, and to save sinners, and that God for Christ's sake will forgive our sins, if we repent of them, and live a new life; now such a general knowledg as this, without any fundamental Error to spoil the vertue and efficacy of it, may [Page 314]suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life, which are absolutely ne­cessary to a state of Salvation, such as Repentance from dead works, and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins. The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much, and the Jewish Converts, who embra­ced the Faith upon St. Peters preaching to them, 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. [Page 315]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, [Page 316]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 [Page 317]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 [Page 318]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 in their natural Consequences are very apt to tempt men to sin, and to encourage them in it; yet, when withal they heartily be­lieve [Page 321]all the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, this true Faith is so directly contrary to the ill consequen­ces of their Errors, that they do not see the ill consequences of such Do­ctrines, or are sufficiently antidoted a­gainst the poyson of them; nay many times it so happens, that men are so far from seeing the ill Consequences of their Doctrines, that they draw only good Consequences from them, which may make them as good or better men, than many are, who have a better Faith.

Thus to instance at present in some very popular and prevailing Doctrines, not disputing whether they be true or false. The Doctrine of absolute Electi­on and Reprobation, the Inconditio­nality of the Covenant of Grace, the no-necessity of holiness to our justifica­tion, the absolute impotency of humane nature to do the least good, the irresi­stibility of the divine Grace, and such like Antinomian Doctrines, are charged by their Adversaries with as dismal con­sequences, as any Doctrines are capable of, even to the overthrow of all Re­ligion; and I doubt not but have very ill effects upon mens minds, who are not throughly possest with some other [Page 322]Principles to qualifie and allay them. But yet if after all this, these men do firmly believe the infinite goodness and justice of God, the inflexible holiness and purity of his nature, his irreconci­leable enmity to all sin, and that they shall never go to Heaven without ho­liness, it is impossible, they should make any ill use of these Doctrines to encou­rage themselves in sin; and on the o­ther hand, if they believe, right or wrong, that these Doctrines do mighti­ly advance the grace of God in the Sal­vation of sinners, it may increase their love to God, inflame their Devotions; and make them very active in all holy obedience. For when men are possest with a prevailing sence of the grace and love of God and our Saviour, they may spare a great many other arguments to obedience.

Now we must not hence infer, that it is indifferent, whether men believe right or wrong, for every practical Er­ror is a state of Temptation, and erro­neous Doctrines do oftner hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith, than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous perswasion, as is lamenta­bly seen in the lives of too many men: [Page 323]But the only inference I draw from hence is this, that every Error, though in it self of dangerous consequence, is not a sufficient reason to deny Com­munion to such a Church, as notwith­standing such Errors, professes all the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, if we can maintain Communion with her without professing her Er­rors.

2. While the fundamental Doctrines of Faith are secure, no corrupt Doctrines are a sufficient reason to break Commu­nion, which do not corrupt the Christian Worship. The principal Acts of Chri­stian Communion consist in Christian Worship; and if any Church have so corrupted divine Worship, that a good Christian must not joyn in it, we must of necessity abstain from their Com­munion, though we are not equally bound to deny them ours. For there are some Fundamentals of Worship, as well as Faith, as the Worship of one God, through one Mediator Jesus Christ, and when any Church corrupts the Worship of God in its vital and essential parts, as the Church of Rome does in the Worship of Saints and An­gels, and the Virgin Mary, and Images, [Page 324]and the consecrated Host, it is necessary then to withdraw our selves from such a corrupt Communion.

But then as for those Doctrines, which though they may be corrupt and errone­ous, are neither fundamental Errors, nor introduce any such fundamental Cor­ruptions into religious Worship; I can see no imaginable reason, why they should break Communion between neighbour Churches; if no Churches must communicate with each other, which do not exactly agree in all the Disputes and Controversies of Religion, it will be hard to find any two Churches in the World, that can maintain this Christian Communion. Certainly, Catholick Communion requires us to communicate with all those Churches, with whom we can communicate with­out sin; and therefore when a Church denies no fundamental Article of Faith, nor corrupts the Christian Worship in any fundamental and essential part of it, nor requires us to believe any Do­ctrine, which we believe to be erroneous, as the necessary terms of Communion with her, that is, when we may com­municate with her without doing any thing that is evil, nothing can ju­stifie [Page 325]our breach of Communion.

As for instance, I take the Lutheran Doctrine of Consubstantiation to be a very great Error, and if they should deny Communion to me, unless I would profess my belief of it, I should judge it a sufficient reason to withdraw Communion from them; yet if no such Condition be imposed on me, I would make no scruple to communicate with them, because, though Consubstantiation be an Error, yet it does not corrupt their Worship, as the Doctrine of Tran­substantiation does the Worship of the Church of Rome. The Lutheran Churches observe the Institution of our Saviour, without any Idolatrous Wor­ship of the Host, their Doctrine makes no change in their Worship, and there­fore can be no reason to withdraw our Communion. The Errors of any Church cannot make its Communion sinful, un­less they make its Worship so. Were Transubstantiation it self (as absurd a Doctrine, as it is) a meer speculation, without any influence upon Worship, did the Church of Rome strictly ob­serve the Institutions of our Saviour in celebrating the Lord's Supper, without either taking from it, or adding a new [Page 326]Idolatrous Worship to it, they might enjoy their Opinion, if they pleased, so they would let me enjoy mine, and I would not break with them meerly up­on this score.

Nothing can be vainer, than to dream of reconciling all the Disputes of Chri­stendom, and of making all men or all Churches of a mind in every thing, and if Catholick Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a diffe­rent belief and perswasion in some con­troverted points, we must never hope for any such thing: And if it may be, our only Inquiry is, what difference and variety of Opinions is consistent with Catholick Communion; and I know no other answer to it but this, that we may safely communicate with any Church, how different soever our Opinions in other matters may be, while we agree in all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, and Essentials of Wor­ship.

Those animosities indeed, which the heats of disputation occasion too often, not only between private men, but Christian Churches, set them at a much greater distance from each other, than the most distant Opinions; but yet that [Page 327]this is practicable, to maintain Christi­an Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions, is evident, not only from the intrinsick reason of the thing, but from manifest experience.

We know how many Sects there were in the Jewish Church, especially those two famous Sects of the Pharisees and Sadduces, and yet they lived in the Communion of the same Church, of­fered the same Sacrifices, worshipped God at the same Temple, and observed the same Rites and Ceremonies of Re­ligion; and confined their Disputes to their several Schools.

The Jewish and the Heathen Con­verts in the time of the Apostles differed about a very material point, the obser­vation of the Law of Moses, and yet according to St. Paul's exhortation and command, they lived in the Communion of the same Church, and in the joynt exercise of all the Acts of Christian Worship, Defence, p. 443. &c. as I discours'd at large in the Defence.

How many different Opinions are there among the Doctors and Churches of the Roman Communion, the Fran­ciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits? The same points are disputed among them, [Page 328]and that with as great warmth and keenness, as there are between the Ar­minians and Calvinists, and abundance more. Nay, the Italian, and Spanish, and French Churches differ upon those great points of Infallibility, and the Au­thority and Jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, and yet all live in the Commu­nion of the same Church. And I can­not see, but that all the Christian Churches in the World, excepting the Church of Rome, might maintain Ca­tholick Communion upon as easie terms.

The breaches between the Lutheran and Zuinglian Churches have been of­ten times composed, especially between the Polonian Churches; an account of which we have at large in Pareus his Irenicum, which is a plain argument, that it is not meerly the difference of Opinions, but the distempers of mens minds, if such agreement and concord be not perpetual; so that no doctrinal Disputes ought to divide the Commu­nion of the Christian Church, but such as subvert the foundations of our Faith, or corrupt the essentials of Christian Worship, and this may suffice for the first inquiry, what are the terms of Ca­tholick [Page 329]Communion with respect to Doctrines, from which it evidently ap­pears, that Catholick Communion is neither in its self an impracticable noti­on, nor the practise of it very difficult to all good Christians.

II. It is time now to consider the next Inquiry, what are the necessary terms of Catholick Communion, with respect to Church-government. And the only Question I shall endeavour to resolve under this Head, is this. Whe­ther, and in what Cases, it is lawful to communicate with a Church, which is not governed by Bishops, nor by Pres­byters, who were ordained by Bi­shops.

The reason of this Inquiry is plainly this. It is sufficiently known, that there are several Protestant Churches of great note, governed without Bishops, by a Colledge of Presbyters, who have no other Orders, but what they received from Presbyters. Now if Episcopacy be so essential to the Constitution of a Church, that we must not own any Church which has no Bishops, we must renounce the Communion of the Pro­testant Churches of France and Holland, and Geneva, and some others, which is [Page 330]both a very invidious and uncharitable thing, and a great injury to the Reform­ed Profession, and does mightily streighten Catholick Communion. If Episcopacy be not so essential to the Constitution of a Church, but that we may communicate with those Churches which have no Bishops, why do we, reject our Dissenters at home, and condemn them of Schism, for rejecting the Episcopal Authority, and forming themselves into Church-societies without Bishops? Why are we not as kind to our own Friends, Neighbours, and Countrey-men, as we are to Foreign Churches?

Now though the Church of England has always asserted the Authority of Bishops, and condemned those of her own Communion, who have separated from their Bishops, yet she has been so far from condemning Foreign reformed Churches for the want of Bishops, that she has always lived in Communion with them, and defended them against their accusers; and I resolve to steer by this Compass, so to vindicate the Re­formed Churches, as neither to injure the Episcopal Authority, nor to justifie our Schisms at home. And to do this [Page 331]with all possible plainness, I shall pro­ceed by these steps.

1. I observe, there is a vast difference between separating from Episcopal Com­munion, where Episcopacy is the setled Government of the Church, and living without Episcopal Government, where we cannot have it; which makes a great difference between our Dissenters, and some Foreign Churches. Some of the Foreign Protestant Churches indeed have no Protestant Bishops, nor ever had, and it may be, could not have; but Episcopacy has been the establisht Government of the Church of England, ever since the Reformation; and for any Christians to separate from their Bishops, was always accounted Schism by the Christian Church, unless there were some very necessary reasons to justifie such a Separation; but in some cases not to have Bishops may be no Schism.

If any man should object, that the Case of our Dissenters, and the reform­ed Churches is the very same; for the Foreign Churches had Bishops also of the Roman Communion, but separated from them, upon account of those in­tolerable Corruptions, which made their [Page 332]Communion unlawful, and many of them set up no Bishops of their own; and thus our Dissenters separate from the Church of England, and her Bishops, upon account of the corruptions in her Worship, and are as excusable as the French Protestant Churches, for setting up a Government without Bishops; I answer. Not to take notice now, what a vast difference there is between sepa­rating from the Church of Rome, and from the Church of England, there is one very obvious difference in this very matter, which takes off the whole ob­jection. For our Dissenters make Dio­cesan Episcopacy to be one reason of their Separation, which no reformed Church ever did before: The Reformed Churches abroad separated from Popish Bishops, our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy it self.

All the reformed Churches abroad owned Episcopacy, though they dis­owned Popish Bishops; several of them retain both the name and thing, as the Churches of Sweden, and Denmark: Others retain the Office, though they have changed the name; as several Lu­theran Churches, which have their su­perintendents, Generales and Generalis­simi, [Page 333]who answer to our Bishops and Arch-bishops; and as for those Churches which have them not, they never reject Episcopal Communion, but all of them have owned Communion with the Church of England, reverenced our Bishops, highly commended the Con­stitution of our Church, censured and condemned our Schismaticks, and de­clared their judgments in favour of Episcopacy, and wished the restitution of it, and the most some of their most learned men have pretended to, was only to justifie the Lawfulness of a Pres­byterian parity. Durel's Church-govern­ment. Saywell's Evangeli­cal and Catholick Unity, &c. p. 228, &c. It were easie here to fill up several Pages with the judgment of the most famous Divines abroad, but this has been so often done by others, and very lately by Dr. Saywell, that I shall refer my Readers to them for sa­tisfaction in this point. And is not this a very material difference between our Dissenters, and the reformed Churches abroad, which have not Episcopal Go­vernment? Our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy, which they own; from our reformed Bishops, which they main­tain Communion with, and therefore are as well Separatists from the reformed Presbyterian Churches, as from the Church of England.

2. As it is Schism without absolute necessity to cast off the Authority of our Bishops, and to separate from them, so it is much more so to reject Episco­pal Communion and the Government of Bishops, as unlawful and Antichristi­an; which makes a very material dif­ference between our Dissenters, and those reformed Churches abroad, who have no Bishops of their own.

There is nothing our Dissenters more vehemently oppose than Episcopal Go­vernment, for which, they never think, they can find names bad enough: Not to mention others at present, this is the great design of Mr. Baxter's late History of Episcopacy, to prove, that Diocesan Episcopacy in the very Nature and Con­stitution of it, overthrows the Govern­ment of Christ's Institution: This is his great design in his Abridgement of Church-History, to bespatter and vili­fie the most renowned Bishops of the Church, to reproach all their Actions, to charge them with all the Heresies and Schisms, which have disturbed the Church, and to paint them in such frightful shapes, that all Christians may flie from them as the great troublers of our Israel: I cannot imagine, what ser­vice [Page 335]he could think to do by this to common Christianity, which is concern­ed in nothing more, than in the Credit and Reputation of the chief Ministers of Religion, but I must acknowledge, all this was admirably calculated to serve a Faction.

But the Foreign Churches, which have no Bishops, do not condemn E­piscopacy, nor separate from it, as an unlawful Communion, and whoever does so, is a Schismatick from the Ca­tholick Church. This is so plain, that there needs no proof of it. For let men talk never so ill of Bishops, and their Government, the matter of fact is evident, that the Church of Christ has for many hundred years had no o­ther Government, than that of Bishops. They can shew no Church till the Re­formation, which was governed with­out Bishops; even such Diocesan Bi­shops; as our Dissenters now vent their Spleen against. Dr. Owen indeed and Mr. Baxter would gladly except the two first Centuries, but what little rea­son they have for it, has been already examined in the Defence; but how­ever, they are all forc'd to acknowledg, that in the succeeding Ages of the [Page 336]Church till the Reformation, which was above twelve hundred years, the Church was governed by Diocesan Bi­shops, as it is at this day; so that by renouncing the Episcopal Communion of the Church in our Age, they sepa­rate from the whole Catholick Church for so many hundred years. As far as Episcopal Government is concerned, they condemn the whole Catholick Church in their separation from the Church of England, as governed by Diocesan Bishops; nay herein they se­parate also from all the reformed Churches, who hold Communion with the Episcopal Church of England; and if this be not enough to prove them Schismaticks, there is no such thing as Schism from the Church; for there was no Church for near fifteen hundred years, nor is there at this day, which they can communicate with upon these Principles, but their own beloved Con­venticles; for it has always been ac­counted as unlawful, to communicate with such a Church, as communicates with another Church, whose Commu­nion is sinful, as it is to communicate with such a Church our selves, and it must be so according to the Principles [Page 337]of Catholick Communion. And there­fore if it be unlawful to communicate with the Church of England, as go­verned by Bishops, it must be unlawful also to communicate with those Prote­stant Presbyterian Churches, which communicate with the Church of Eng­land.

This, I suppose, may satisfie any man, what little reason our Dissenters have to talk so much of Foreign re­formed Churches, for their case is very different; that which will justifie those Foreign Churches which have no Bi­shops, will not justifie our Dissenters, who have Bishops, but separate from them. For though they have no Bi­shops, they do not separate from Epis­copal Churches, nor condemn Episco­pacy, as an unlawful or Antichristian Government, but hold Communion with the Church of England, which our Dissenters have rent and divided by Schismatical separations.

3. Let us then consider, what may be said in justification of those reformed Churches, which have no Bishops, whe­ther their want of Bishops does un­church them, and make it unlawful for us to hold Communion with them. This [Page 338]is a very nice and tender point; for to condemn all the reformed Churches, which have no Bishops, seems so hard and uncharitable, that the Church of England has always declined it; but then absolutely to justifie them, over­throws the ancient government by Bi­shops, and is made use of by our Dis­senters to pull down Episcopacy, if the present Bishops do not please them; which is impossible for any Bishop to do, who will be true to his own Autho­rity, and to the constitutions of our Church.

And therefore in stating this matter, I must go a middle way, neither abso­lutely to condemn, nor absolutely to justifie them; For, 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government, which I shall not now go about to prove, I must acknowledg those Churches, which have no Bishops, to be very im­perfect and defective, and that they are bound, as far as they can, to en­deavour to restore the Episcopal Au­thority; and if they fail in this, so far as they are chargeable with this neglect, what in some cases is a pardonable de­fect, may become, especially in the Go­vernors of such a Church, a very great [Page 339]Crime. For no Church must wanton­ly change a divine Institution; we con­demn the Church of Rome for taking away the Cup from the Laity, and I think every divine Institution has some­thing so sacred in it, as not to be light­ly rejected or altered without absolute necessity.

2. But yet the case may be such, that the want of Episcopal Government may not un-church such a society of Christians, nor make it unlawful for other Christians to maintain Communi­on with them. As will appear from these following considerations.

1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presently un-church those, who are guilty of it.

2. Especially if there be an absolute or very great necessity for doing it.

3. Especially if the case be such, that at least they have a presumptive allow­ance from the Catholick Church to do it.

1. That the change of some positive Institutions does not presentlyun-church those, who are guilty of it. I need not spend many words to prove this, for when the case is proposed in general, I think no man will deny it. The ob­servation [Page 340]of all divine Institutions is necessary to the perfection of a Church, but it is not so to the being of it: That is, though God does strictly require the observance of all his Statutes, yet every positive command is not of that moment, that God will disanul his Covenant with such a People for the neglect or change of it.

If ever God would have done this, we might most reasonably expect it under the Jewish Oeconomy, in which every minute Circumstance was so strict­ly commanded by God, as having some­thing Sacred and Typical in it, and yet it does not appear, that every deviation from their Rule, though in some very material parts of it, did provoke God to cast them off.

God had appointed a certain place, where they should offer their Sacrifices to him, and when this place was actu­ally fixed and determined, it was unlaw­ful for them to offer Sacrifice in any other place. And yet when the Tem­ple at Jerusalem was built, which was the only place God had appointed for Sacrifice, the People continued to offer Sacrifice in their high places, even in the Reign of very good Kings, and [Page 341]though this practise was condemned, yet it did not un-church them.

God had appointed Aarons Family for the Priesthood, 1 Kings 12.31. and yet Jeroboam made Priests of other Tribes and Fa­milies, and the Law, which expresly ap­points Aaron and his Sons for the Priests Office, only threatens death against Usurpers: Numb. 3.10. Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his Sons, and they shall wait on the Priests Office, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. God did not reject the Church of Israel for the irre­gularities of their Priests, but owned them for his Church and People many years after this, till they defiled them­selves with the worship of Baal, and other Heathen Gods. And Josephus observes, that after the death of Me­nelaus, Joseph. An­tiq. l. 12. cap. 14. Antiochus made Alchymus High-Priest, who was not of the Family of the Priests; and yet I should be loth to say, that such an irregular promotion did un-church the Jewish Church; and whoever considers in what manner the High-Priests were advanced and depo­sed even in the time of our Saviour, possibly may think it, as inconsistent with the first Institution of that Office, as the irregular Ordinations of Presby­ters.

2. We ought especially to consider the force and power of necessity to dis­pence even with divine Institutions: No necessity can dispence with the eter­nal Laws of good and evil, because no necessity can be pleaded to justifie men in sin, though in some cases it may ex­tenuate the evil and guilt of it, for the internal necessity in the nature of things is stronger than any external necessity can be; no external force can compel men to sin, which is an Act of their own will and choice, and the obligati­ons to Vertue remain in the most ex­treme necessity. But in positive Insti­tutions, which depend upon the Will of God, we find necessity has often dis­pensed, and that with God's allowance and approbation. As to give some few examples of it.

1. The necessity of the divine Wor­ship has dispensed with positive Institu­tions. Thus in Hezekiah's Sacrifice, the Priests being too few, 2 Ch ron. 29.34.35.11. the Levites assist­ed them in doing the Priests work, in slaying the Sacrifices; and the like we may see in Josiah's Passeover. And by the same reason we may suppose, that if the Family of Aaron had failed, o­ther Families of the Tribe of Levi might [Page 343]have succeeded into the Priest's Office, though against a positive Law: For the necessity of the divine Worship is much greater and more unalterable, than the confinement of the Priesthood to a certain Family, and where the divine Providence makes a necessity, necessity: will make a Priest.

And therefore I think, a late learned and ingenious Author, who disputes so earnestly, that the Power of admini­string Sacraments must be derived from God, and that this Power now is given only by Episcopal Ordination, ought to have distinguished between the ordina­ry and extraordinary conveyance of Power. Whoever administers in holy things, must derive his Power from God, because he acts in God's Name, and when it may be done, he must derive his Power in such a way, as God hath appointed by a positive Law, and who­ever rejects this way without necessity, can have no valid Power, but whatever he does, is null and void; as I doubt not, but all Ordinations of Presbyters are in opposition to, and contempt of their Bishops, as I think, that learned man hath sufficiently proved: But the case of necessity ought to be consider­ed, [Page 344]it being contrary to the Nature of all positive Institutions to oblige in case of necessity; and I take that to be a case of necessity, when Episcopal Or­ders cannot be had, and yet the Church must sail without them. Bishops are for the Church, not the Church for Bishops; and when the ordinary con­veyance of this Authority fails, neces­sity legitimates other extraordinary ways. We have all the reason in the World to presume in such cases, that God will confirm and ratifie the choice and designation of the People, much more the Ordinations of the Presbyte­ry, where Episcopal Ordination cannot be had. For I see no reason, why Presbyters may not do the Bishops work in case of necessity, as well as Levites do the work of Priests.

2. The necessity of mens lives dispense with positive Laws. Upon this account our Saviour justifies David's eating the Shew-Bread, when he was an hungred, which was not lawful for him to eat, Mark 2.24, 25, 26. but for the Priests; and his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sab­bath day: Upon this Principle, Mata­thias allowed the Jews to fight on the Sabbath-day, Joseph. antiq. l. 12. cap. 7. in case they were assaulted [Page 345]by their Enemies; and our Saviour re­solves all such cases by that general Principle, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice; and certainly, mercy to the Souls of men is as considerable as any temporal concernments.

3. But we may further consider, what force and Authority the presumptive allowance of the Church has in such ca­ses. The Christian Church in all Ages has thought fit to dispense with positive Institutions in case of necessity, and by her own Approbation and Authority to supply the defects and irregularities of such Administrations, and therefore cer­tainly did believe she had Power to do it: And indeed if there be not sufficient Authority in the Church to provide for cases of necessity, the Power of the Church is more defective than of any other Society of men, and cannot in many cases without a miracle preserve her own being; and therefore if the Church may be presumed in cases of ne­cessity to allow Persons to perform such religious Offices and Ministries, as o­therwise they are not qualified to per­form; this very allowance supplies the incapacity of the Person, and does virtually confer that Authority on him, [Page 346]which in other cases he had not.

Now it is not only highly reasonable to presume, that the Catholick Church will rather allow the Ordinations of Presbyters, though they are not regu­larly qualified for that Office, where there are no Bishops to Ordain, than that a considerable member of the Christian Church should want a succes­sion of Pastors to instruct and govern them, and administer all religious Offi­ces to them; but besides the reason of the thing, the practise of the Church is a sufficient ground for this presump­tion.

For we know the use of Orders is to confer Authority and Power to admi­nister the Sacraments, and yet the Church has allowed even Lay-men to baptize, Ʋbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, & offers, & tinguis, & sacerdos es tibi solus. Tert. de exhort. cast. cap. 7. and if we will believe Tertullian to con­secrate too, in case of ne­cessity, that is, where there have been no Bishops, nor Pres­byters to administer those Offices, and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Or­dain, when there are no Bishops, as for Lay-men to administer the Sacraments, where there are no Bishops nor Presby­ters.

I alledge Tertullian's Authority, not for the sake of his reason, but as a wit­ness of primitive Practise: The reason­ings of particular men do not always express the sence of the Church, but their own private Opinions, though they may be allowed to be good Wit­nesses, what the practise of the Church was in their days: Though I confess, I cannot see, that any thing Tertullian says, does derogate from the Evangeli­cal Priesthood, or destroy the distinction between the Clergy and Laity, or en­courage private Christi­ans to invade the Mini­sterial Function. Nonne & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est, regnum quo (que) nos & sacerdotes Deo. & patri suo fecit Ibid. He says indeed, that even Lay-men are Priests, Christ having made us all Kings and Priests to God his Father; by which he means, that every Christian through our great Ad­vocate and Mediator, has now so near and free access to God, Differentiam inter ordinem & plebem constituit ecclesiae Aucto­ritas, & honor per ordinis con­sessum sanctificatus. and such assurance of ac­ceptance, as was thought peculiar to Priests in for­mer Ages. Well but is there no distin­ction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People? Yes, this he owns, but says it is by the appointment and con­stitution [Page 348]of the Church. What does he mean by this? That it is a humane, arbitrary, and alterable Constitution? By no means! But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry, to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority. And there­fore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ, and of his Apostles, who from the be­ginning have made this distinction, as Tertullian every where confesses.

To what purpose then is all this? Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso, ubi necesse est, habeas opor­tet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdo­tis. Ib. How does he hence prove, that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself? That he has the right of Priesthood in him­self, when it is necessary, and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also, when it is necessary? For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foun­dations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People, and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority, how can it be lawful for a private Christian up­on a pretence of the general Priesthood [Page 349]of Christians, in any case whatsoever, to perform such religious Acts, as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry?

But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this; That all Chri­stians being an Evangelical Priesthood, to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God, through the merits and mediation of our great High-Priest, they are not debarr'd by any personal incapacity, nor by the typical and mysterious Nature of the Christian Institutions, from performing any religious Office, which Christ has commanded his Church; but yet for the better security of publick Instructi­ons, for the more regular Administrati­on of religious Offices, for the preser­vation of Unity, Order, Discipline, and Government in the Church, Christ hath committed the power of Govern­ment and Discipline, and publick Ad­ministration of religious Offices, to Per­sons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry. But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church, and not for any other mystical reasons, in case of failure, where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices, [Page 350]the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place, and any private Christian without a regular and external Conse­cration to this Function, may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest.

For there are two things, wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priest­hood differ, which make a mighty alte­ration in this case. The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical, and Mediatory, the Evangelical Priesthood is neither: Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical, much less to a Mediatory Priesthood, but only such, as have a divine appointment and de­signation to this Office; for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost, if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery, and the vertue of the Mediation is lost, (at least our absolute assurance of it) if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission: But now under the Gospel, the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple, without any sha­dows and figures, and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Wor­ship, which requires peculiar and ap­propriate Persons; and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men, and therefore we need not any [Page 351]other Mediators of divine appointment, in vertue of the Sacrifice and Mediati­on of Christ, every Christian is a Priest, who may approach the Throne of Grace, and offer up his prayers and thanksgi­vings in an acceptable manner to God. Gospel-Ministers indeed are to pray for the People, and to bless in God's name, but they pray in no sense as Mediators, but in the name of our great Mediator [...] and that, which makes their Prayers more effectual than the Prayers of a private Christian, is, that they are the publick Ministers of the Church, and therefore offer up the Prayers of the Church, which are more powerful than the Prayers of private Christians.

And therefore St. Austin reproves Parmenianus the Donatist, for making the Bishop a Mediator between God and the People, which no good Chri­stian can endure the thoughts of, but must needs account such a man rather to be Antichrist, August. contra. ep. Parmen. l. 1. cap. 8. than an Apostle of Christ. For all Christian men pray for each other, but he who prays for all, and none for him, is the only and the true Mediator; of whom the High Priest under the Law was a Type, and therefore no man was to pray for the [Page 352]High-Priest. But St. Paul, who knew, that Christ was our only Mediator, who was entred into Heaven for us, recom­mends himself to the Prayers of the Church; and is so far from making himself a Mediator between God and the People, that he exhorts all Christi­ans to pray for one another, as mem­bers of the same Body; for if Paul had been a Mediator, the other Apostles had been Mediators too, and so we should have a great many Mediators, and not, as he himself tells us, one Medi­ator; and therefore he says, that the Prayers of wicked Bishops are heard for the People, not for the Bishop's sake, but pro devotione populorum, for the Peoples Devotion, or as they are the Prayers of the Church. And when the Donatists proved, that wicked Bi­shops could not minister in holy things, because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest, who had any ble­mish or defect, he answers, that this was only Typical of Christ, Ib. cap. 7. and fulfilled only in him.

So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office, though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium, in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood, yet indeed [Page 353]it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it, but is instituted by Christ for Instruction, Discipline, and Government, and the publick Administration of religious Offices. It was very requisite indeed, that Christ himself should invest the Governors of his Church with Autho­rity and Power for this Office, and it is necessary to the Peace, Order, and U­nity of the Church, that no man should usurp this Power and Authority to himself, but receive it from the hands of those, who have Power to give it; and therefore this Apostolical Power, excepting the case of necessity, is as saored and inviolable as the Priesthood it self; but in case of necessity, where the succession of Apostolical Power fails, or a plenary Authority to convey it, it admits of a more easie redress, than the failure of a Mystical or Ty­pical Priesthood would do: For there is no Office of Religion, but in such a case any Christian may perform, we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ; and as for Authority, necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church, when the regular ways of conveyance fail, may be very easily [Page 354]presumed to be approved and confirmed by God.

This I take to be the true sence of Tertullian's argument, which I have ex­plained the more largely, because some men are very apt to abuse all such pas­sages to the diminution of the Ministe­rial Office, though with what little rea­son, I think, is very evident; but what­ever becomes of Tertullian's Argument, or whether the Church proceeded upon these Principles, or not in granting Li­berty to Lay-men, to baptize in case of necessity, the Practise of the Church is plain in this matter, thus it was in Tertullian's time, and thus it has been in most Ages of the Church ever since, and is to this day allowed in the Church of Rome; and if the Church allows Lay-men in case of necessity to admi­nister Sacraments; we may reasonably presume, it will in the same necessity allow of the Ordinations of Presby­ters.

I shall only observe further, that this practise of the Church in allowing the baptism of Lay-men in case of ne­cessity, seems to me utterly to over­throw those Principles, which a learned Author has Published in his late Dis­course [Page 355]of Schism. Some of his Princi­ples are these; That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments. That the Validity of the Sacraments, depends upon the Authority of the Per­sons by whom they are administred; they being the Seals of the Covenant, which as in all Covenants between man and man, are void in Law, if they be not applyed by Persons, who have Au­thority to seal. This Authority of applying the Seals of the Covenant can be derived only from God, and that only by Episcopal Ordinations.

Now I must profess my dissent from this Learned man upon more accounts than one, at present it may suffize, that either these Principles are false, or the Catholick Church has been in a dange­rous mistake, in allowing the Baptism of private Christians, where there were no Ecclesiastical Ministers to do it. For if the Validity of Baptism depends upon the Authority of him, who baptizes, then the Baptism of Lay-men, who ac­cording to his Principles can have no such Authority, must be actually void, and have no saving effect, and then the Catholick Church ever since Tertullian's [Page 356]time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation: And how specious soever any Arguments may be, I shall be al­ways jealous of such a Conclusion, as charges the Primitive and Catholick Church with ignorance and error, so dangerous and destructive to mens Souls.

This learned man was aware of this, Separation of Church­es, &c. p. 143. and therefore confesses, For my part I do not understand, how the validity of Laicks, and much more womens Baptism (who by the Apostles rule are much less capable of Fcclesiastical Authority) can be defended, unless it may possibly be by that general delegation, which may be conceiv­ed to have been granted to them by the Governors, by those customs and constitu­tions, which permit them to administer it. But it would then be a further doubt, how far such Persons as these are capable of such a delegation? To which I do not in­tend at present to digress. But indeed this had been no digression, or the most useful digression in all his Book. The matter of Fact is confessed by him, that in case of necessity Laicks were allowed to baptize, which overthrows his whole Hypothesis, whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases what­soever. [Page 357]If the Church in case of neces­sity has permitted Laicks to baptize, we may presume, that in the same necessity, she will allow Presbyters to Ordain; if Laicks are not capable of such a delega­tion, then the Catholick Church has erred in a fundamental Practise, which is necessary to Salvation; if they be, then the administration of Sacraments is not in all cases absolutely confined to the Clergy, for all such cases must be excepted, wherein the Church has Pow­er to dispense; for this delegated Pow­er does not make them Ecclesiastical Offi­cers, but gives Authority or Permission to Laicks in such cases to do the work of a Bishop, or of other consecrated Persons.

And yet we find the first Founda­tions of a very great Church, laid in this manner by Frumentius in India, who was only a Laick, and yet erected Churches, whether those Christians, Dum regni gubernacu­la Frumen­tius haberet in manibus Deo men­tem ejus & animos instigante, requirere sollicitius caepit, si qui in­ter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent, & ipsis potestatem max­imam dare, ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent, ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent. Ruff. l. 10. Hist. Eccl. whom he found there resorted, to pray to God after the manner of the Church [Page 358]of Rome, which in those days was per­formed with the celebration of the Eu­charist, and yet they had no Bishop, nor Presbyter among them; and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together, to pray after 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 [Page 359]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 [Page 361]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 [Page 362]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 [Page 363]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 understood how to do it.

The Administration of Baptism in­deed is confined ordinarily to the Go­vernors of the Church, whereas the administration of Circumcision never was the peculiar Office of the Priest, and the reason of this difference is plain, because every Israelite by birth had a right to Circumcision, and therefore there was no need of any Authority to receive them into the Church of Israel, and the external Solemnity might be performed by any man; but natural Generation does not give any man a right to Baptism, but Faith in Christ, and therefore it is fit, that the Gover­nors of the Church only should have Power to judge, who are fit to be ad­mitted [Page 365]into the Christian Church, and therefore that the power of administring Baptism should be reserved in their hands; but hence it appears, that in administring the Sacraments, they do not act, as legal Covenanters in God's Name, but as Governors of the Church.

2. And this brings me to consider his Arguments from the Nature and Ends of Government, which as far as I un­derstand them amount to this. That it is necessary for God to maintain and preserve the Authority of subordinate Governors. That the Authority of Church Governors consists in the power of administring Sacraments, which con­fer a Title to all the Priviledges and Graces of the Covenant. That this Authority cannot be maintained, if un­authorized Persons may validly admi­nister the Sacraments, and therefore we cannot suppose, that God will counte­nance such an usurpation of Ecclesiasti­cal Authority, as to confirm and allow, what is so illegally done.

Now in Answer to this, I readily grant, 1. That this is a very good Ar­gument to prove, that the Authority of administring Sacraments is in ordi­nary [Page 366]cases confined to the regular Cler­gy, for indeed this is all the Authority Church Governors have, to receive in, and to put out of the Church, and take away this, and all Church-societies must immediately dissolve, or hang together only by some arbitrary Compacts and Covenants, which last as long as every man pleases.

But then 2. I observe, that it is suffi­cient to secure the Authority and Go­vernment of the Church, to confine the administration of Sacraments, and all acts of Ecclesiastical Authority to Church-Governors, where-ever there are such to be found. For if no private man must presume to administer Sacra­ments in a constituted Church, where there are Ecclesiastical Ministers, though we grant Laicks the liberty of admini­string Sacraments, where there are no regular Ministers to do it; this can be no reasonable pretence for their inva­ding the Ministerial Function, or di­sturbing the Peace and Order of the Church, where there are. He who at­tributes the only valid Authority of ad­ministring Sacraments to the regular Clergy, where there are such Persons to be found, does as effectually secure [Page 367]the Authority of Church-Governors, as he, who makes it absolutely unlaw­ful for private Christians, in any case whatsoever, to administer the Sacra­ments. For the Authority of Church-governors is a meer notion without any effect, where there are no such Gover­nors, and where there are, their Autho­rity is secure this way. No man thinks it any injury to the Authority of Prin­ces and Civil Governors, to assert, that every private man has liberty to defend his own Life and Fortune, where he is not under the protection of Laws, and publick Justice, no more is it any inva­sion of the Authority of the Clergy, for private Christians to do the Office of a Bishop or a Presbyter, where there is no Bishop or Presbyter to do it. No doubt, but God is greatly concerned to maintain the Authority of Church-governors, because the welfare and preservation of the Church depends on it, but we cannot think, the Rules of Order and Government are so strict, as to dissolve the Society of the Church which it is designed to maintain.

If it be objected, that it is very dan­gerous to Ecclesiastical Authority, to grant the least indulgence or liberty to [Page 368]Laicks, or an irregular Clergy, in any case whatsoever, to inermeddle in sa­cred Offices; for they will always be apt to take more than is granted; and thus that Liberty, which is allowed in extraordinary cases, will be improved into an ordinary usurpation of the Mi­nisterial Office. I answer, It may be so, and I know no way to prevent those ill Consequences, which foolish Reason­ers may draw from Truth it self, nor that ill use, which wild and giddy Peo­ple may make of the justest Liberties, but must we deny Truth, or deny our own just Liberties and Rights for this reason?

But yet this is not the case here, for there is a greater security of Ecclesiasti­cal Authority, than the Power of Sa­craments its self, and that is, the neces­sary obligations to Catholick Commu­nion, which cannot be preserved with­out a just deference to Ecclesiastical Authority: It may be lawful in some cases for Laicks to administer the Sacra­ments, but it is never lawful for them to separate from their Governors, or to oppose their Authority.

Should a company of private Christi­ans on their own choice separate them­selves from their Bishops, and unite into a Church-Society, this were a Church-Faction and Schism, and all they did were null and void; but if private Chri­stians, who live in Communion with their Bishops, and own their Authori­ty, being reduced to that necessity, that they cannot enjoy the Sacraments, nor other religious Offices from Persons, who have a regular Authority, should ad­minister the Sacraments themselves, and celebrate religious Offices for their spi­ritual Comfort, I cannot see, that it is either Schism, or Usurpation, and the perpetual obligations to Catholick Com­munion will prevent both.

Indeed nothing can secure the Peace and Unity of the Church, and the Au­thority of Ecclesiastical Governors, but the necessity of Catholick Communion; for the Unity of the Church, and the just Authority of Bishops, may be de­stroyed by an Episcopal, as well as by a Presbyterian, or a Lay Schism. Thus it was by the Schism of the Donatists. They were governed by Bishops, as well as the Catholick Church, and their Or­ders, and Sacraments administred by [Page 370]them were allowed to be valid, and yet they were Schismaticks, and their Sa­craments, though valid with respect to the Authority, which administred them, yet without effect, as administred in a Schism, as I have already shewed from St. Austin. And therefore that Father in his Writings against the Donatists, does not oppose their Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders, or of their Sacraments, which is no argument a­gainst an Episcopal Schism, (though it be the only argument used by this learn­ed man, to shew the evil and danger of Schism) but from their breach of Ca­tholick Communion, which made all their Sacraments, though not invalid, yet inefficacious. So that Ecclesiastical Authority may be secured, though we allow Laicks in case of necessity a liber­ty to administer Sacraments in the Uni­ty and Communion of the Church.

It were easie to add a great deal more of this Nature, but this is sufficient to my present design. And the result of this 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, [Page 371]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 [Page 375]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 [Page 376]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 [Page 377]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 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 [Page 378]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 us (que) 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, [Page 379]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 [Page 380]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 prudenti (que) Christiano, quàm ut eo modo agat, quo agere viderit ecclesiam, ad quamcun (que) 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, [Page 381]and to be observed for the preservation of the Communion in which we live. Quod enim ne (que)contra sidem, ne (que) contra bonos mores 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 [Page 382]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 [Page 383]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 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 Ʋniversal Church, ergo [Page 384] 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 [Page 385]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 [Page 386]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 [Page 388]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 [Page 389]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 own Soul, to consider better of at his leisure, and out of the heat of Dispute. Separation from the Church of England is a Schism, and Schism is as damning a sin, as Idolatry, Drunkenness, or Adultery.

And here he has a notable fetch. But surely if these men believed so much, me­thinks they should not be at rest, until all their unscriptural Impositions were remo­ved, [Page 390]unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such im­mortal Souls for whom Christ dyed. And methinks, they should be as much con­cerned to take care of their own Souls, as we are to take care of them, and not to divide the Church for the sake of such Trifles, as they call them. As for removing all unscriptural Impositi­ons, as he calls them, by which he means the whole Constitution of the Church of England, this we cannot do without destroying all the external Solemnities of Worship, and dissolving the Bands of Church-Society; of which more pre­sently: And if this could be done, they would be Schismaticks still, unless they could perswade all the Churches in the World to do so too: For they could not maintain Catholick Communion with any Church, which used any un­scriptural Rites and Ceremonies, as most Churches in the World at this day do: Nay they would be Schismaticks from the Catholick Church for many hundred years before the Reformation; for their very Principles are Schismatical, and it is not the removing some few Ceremo­nies, which would cure their Schism. But suppose the Church of England were [Page 391]out of their way, would that cure their Schism? would Presbyterians, Indepen­dents, and meer Anabaptists, cement in­to one Communion? We know, how it has been formerly, and have reason to guess, how it would be again; when they cease to be Schismaticks from the Church of England, they will be Schis­maticks to one another. And there­fore we may without breach of Chari­ty defend our Church, and they are bound in Charity to look to their own Souls.

And therefore I wonder, what our Author means, when he puts the whole Dispute upon this issue: Let their terms be as Catholick, as they pretend their Church is, and we'll comply; i. e. let them keep to a few, certain, and necessa­ry things; let them not impose as terms of Ʋnion, any thing but what is accord­ing to the Word of God in Scripture, Reply, p. 7 [...]. we are satisfied, the Controversie is at an end.

This is a certain Argument, that our Author is no great Traveller, not so much as in Books; that he knows no­thing of any Church, but his own dear Conventicles, unless he modestly dissem­bles his knowledg to serve his Cause. [Page 392]For the terms of our Communion are as Catholick, as our Church is; Dioce­san Episcopacy, Liturgies, and Ceremo­nies, have been received in all Churches for many hundred years, and are the setled Constitution of most Churches to this day; and this is the Constitution of the Church of England, and the terms of our Communion; and must be ac­knowledged to be Catholick Terms, if by Catholick Terms, he means, what has actually been received by that Ca­tholick Church, and not what he fan­cies, ought to be made the Terms of Catholick Communion: Could Mr. Lob indeed have the new Modelling of the Catholick Church, and make what Ca­tholick Terms of Communion he plea­sed, he would be satisfied, and the Con­troversie were at an end; but wiser men consider, that Catholick Terms of Com­munion are not to be made now, no more than the Catholick Faith is; and therefore it is not our private Reason­ings, but the Practise of the Catholick Church in all Ages, which will acquaint us, what the Catholick Terms of Com­munion are; and he, who will not maintain Communion with the Church upon such Terms, must be a Schisma­tick, [Page 393]and there is an end of that Con­troversie.

And if by according to the Word of God, he means, that nothing must be made a Term of Catholick Communi­on, but what is agreeable to the gene­ral Rules of Scripture, I readily grant it, and assert, that the Church of Eng­land requires nothing, as a Term of Communion, but what is so: But if he means, that the Church must require nothing, but what is expresly com­manded by the Word of God, I deny, that this ever was a Term of Catholick Communion, nay nor of any particular Church-Communion; Dr. Owen himself rejects it, and of late, it has been thought a very great Scandal upon the Dissen­ters to charge them with; but it is hap­py for a Faction to have some ignorant Writers, as well as Readers; for the first are bold, and the other credulous, and the Argument must be acknowledged, to be very useful to divide and disturb the best constituted Church, though wise and cunning men are ashamed to use it. And that Mr. L. means this by according to the Word of God, appears from an admirable Argument, he uses to prove it. That we our selves look [Page 394]on them as indifferent, i. e. as what is not enjoyned us in the Word of God, q. d. as what is not according to the Word of God. Reply, p. 79. Which also he explains by such things, as are not to be found in Scripture. Now we do indeed by indifferent things, mean such things, as are not commanded in Scripture, but are left to the prudence of Governors to injoyn or alter, as the Edification of the Church shall require; but yet we assert indifferent things to be according to Scripture, both as the use of indifferent things is allowed in Scrip­ture, and as these particular usages, which are enjoyned by the Church, though they may be in their own natures indif­ferent, yet are agreeable to the gene­ral Rules of Scripture for decency and order.

But Mr. Lob requires us to shew the Scriptures, that declare the things impo­sed, to be so necessary a part of true Re­ligion, as to be a Form of our Communi­on with the Catholick Church; that we must not only shew, Ibid. 78. that these things are agreeable to true Religion, but moreover that it is such a necessary part thereof, that whoever conforms not to them, when im­posed, is, ipso facto, cut off from the Ca­tholick Church.

Now this were something to the pur­pose, did we assert, that the bare not doing these things, as for instance, the not wearing the Surplice, or not using the Cross in Baptism, or not kneeling at the Sacrament, did in their own na­ture, ipso facto, cut men off from the Catholick Church; but we never said, we never thought this: But we say, that to separate causelesly from any true and sound part of the Christian Church, cuts such Separatists off from the Catho­lick Church; and to separate, where no sinful terms of Communion are im­posed, is a causeless Separation. So that it does not lie on us to prove, that every thing that is injoyned, is in its own nature necessary to Catholick Com­munion; but if they would justifie their Separation, they must prove, that what is enjoyned, is sinful.

I will only ask Mr. Lob, whether it be a sufficient justification of Separation from any Church, that there are such things imposed, as are not indeed ex­presly commanded, but yet are agree­able to the Word of God, and to true Religion; if this be a just Cause of Se­paration, it is impossible, that any Schis­matick should ever want Reasons for [Page 396]their Separation; for there is no Church in the World, but does something or other, which they have no Command to do: If this be no sufficient reason of Separation, then it is sufficient for us to prove, that the Church imposes nothing, but what is agreeable to true Religion, to prove them guilty of a causeless Schism.

Can any thing be sinful, which is agreeable to true Religion? Or can the Church sin in commanding things which are not sinful? If not, it is sufficient to prove, that the Church imposes nothing, but what is agreeable to true Religi­on: For whatever justifies the Church, condemns the Schismaticks.

It may be, it is a harder matter than Mr. Lob is aware of, to determine, what is in its own nature absolutely ne­cessary to Catholick Communion; but I can tell him, de facto, what is, viz. a Complyance with the Order, Govern­ment, Discipline and Worship, as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church; he who will not do this, must separate from the Catholick Church, and try it at the last day, who was in the right; I am content, that Mr. Lob, and his beloved Separatists, should talk on [Page 397]of unscriptural Terms of Communion, so they will but grant, that the Church of Englan is no more guilty of impo­sing unscriptural Terms, than the Ca­tholick Church it self has always been; and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons, as equal­ly condemn the Catholick Church; and when they have the confidence to deny this, I will prove it, and shall desire no better Vindication of the Church of England, than the Practise of the Ca­tholick Church.

But Mr. Lob observes, that this is the Rule Costerus the Jesuit gives his young Scholar, If any object, Ibid. where are these points, viz. of Invocation of Saints, the worshipping of Images, the abstaining from Flesh, and the like, found in Scripture, and because not found in Scripture, there­fore to be rejected? To which, saith the Jesuit, answer thus: Ask, where it is forbidden in Scripture? If not forbidden in Scripture, it is no sin to observe them, for where there is no Law, there is no Transgression: But what of all this? The Rule is a very good Rule, though used in a bravado by the Jesuit. Does Mr. Lob think, that Popery is establish­ed by this Rule, as well as indifferent [Page 398]and uncommanded Ceremonies? Do we separate from the Church of Rome, only for the sake of some things, which are neither forbid, nor commanded in Scripture? Our Dissenters, I see, have better thoughts of Popery, than the Church of England has, and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome.

But there is one admirable Para­graph, which I cannot let pass without some short remarks, and it is this; To make that a part of our Religion, Ib. p. 79. which is not to be found in Scripture, is to take that for a part of our Religion, which God hath not made a part thereof, which is sinful. How much more so, is the making it a Term of Communion. Where­in there are as many absurd Propositi­ons included, as can well be in so few words.

1. He takes it for granted, that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture, is to make a part of Reli­gion of it; and yet the Church may and does enjoyn such things, not as parts of Religion, but as Rules of Order and Discipline. Who then makes it a part of Religion? If it be made a part [Page 399]of Religion, it must be made so by God, or the Church; he acknowledges, God does not make it a part of Reli­gion, and the Church declares she does not, how then does it come to be a part of Religion? Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind, Intention, and Declaration?

In some cases indeed men may do, what they never intended to do, and contract a Guilt, which they utterly dis­claim, and disown, but then it is in such cases, where a positive Law, or the nature of the thing, determines the na­ture of the Action, whatever he, who does it, intends by it. Thus the Pa­pists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints, and Angels, and Images, and the consecrated Host, but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that, because the Law of God, and the Nature of the Worship makes it so. But now how can that come to be a part of Worship, which is not so, nei­ther by a positive Law, nor by the Nature of the thing, nor by the Institu­tion of men? For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Re­ligion, which is commanded by the Church? If there be, the Dispute is at [Page 400]an end; we will then own these un­scriptural Ceremonies as parts of Reli­gion, and justifie our selves, by the Command of God, and the Authority of the Church. Or can the Nature of things make that a part of Religion, which is not so in its own Nature? That is, can the Nature of things make an Action to be that, which in its own Na­ture it is not? Or can the Institution of the Church make that a part of Re­ligion, which the Church never insti­tuted as a part of Religion? I would desire Mr. Lob and his Friends to take a little time to answer these Questions, before they talk again of the Churches making parts of Religion and humane Sacraments, against her own express De­clarations to the contrary.

2. Mr. Lob here supposes, that no­thing must be a Term of Church Com­munion, but what is a necessary part of true Religion; for that is the sub­ject of the Dispute, and to make any thing a condition of Communion, he thinks, makes it a necessary part of true Religion: And now I begin to won­der, what he means by Religion, or a part of Religion. Is Government and Discipline Religion, or a part of Reli­gion? [Page 401]If they be, I would gladly know, Mr. Lob's definition of Religion; if they be not, are they any Terms of Communion? Or may Catholick Com­munion, and Church-Societies be pre­served without any Government and Discipline? Mr. Lob is mightily out, to think that nothing is necessary to Catholick Communion, but the profes­sion of the true Religion; Govern­ment and Discipline is necessary to pre­serve any Society, and therefore obedi­ence to Ecclesiastical Governors is a necessary Duty, and a necessary Term of Church Communion; and let a man be never so sound and orthodox in Faith and Worship, if he be of a rest­less, turbulent Spirit, and disobedient to his Governors, and their Orders and Constitutions, he deserves to be flung out of Church-Communion, if he does not separate himself, and will be damn­ed for it too without Repentance. Though a very little thing may make a Schism, yet a Schism is a great and damning sin, and the less the Cause is, the greater is the Sin. For the guilt of Schism and Disobedience is not estima­ted from the intrinsick value of the thing, in which they disobey, and for [Page 402]which they separate, but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedi­ence.

3. But the sting of all is in the Tail. He says, That to take that for a part of our Religion, which God hath not made a part thereof, is sinful. How much more so is the making it a Term of Communi­on. Which few words contain seve­ral very absurd and contradictory Pro­positions, and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false; the Absurdities are notorious.

1. That it is worse to make such un­commanded things, Terms of Commu­nion than parts of Worship; and yet the only reason Mr. Lob and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion, is, because they imagine them to be made parts of Wor­ship; for if they be not parts of Wor­ship, what is the evil of them? Why should men separate for the Surplice, or Cross in Baptism, &c.? When there is no evil in these things? The only evil they charge them with, being on­ly this, that we make new Sacraments, and new parts of Worship by humane Authority.

2. This supposes, that that may be a part of Worship, which is not a Term of Communion. Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship, and a term of Communion. But this is a new Noti­on, which I believe mankind was not instructed in before, to make that no term of Communion, which we make a part of Worship; which signifies to live in Christian Communion together, with­out an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship.

3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false, than the Foundation of all this, that the terms of Communi­on are more sacred than the Worship of God. That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship, than a new term of Communion. That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence, as the con­ditions of Union between Christians; and yet the only reason, why Christi­ans are to unite into one Body, is to worship God together? Methinks this should make our new Projectors care­ful what they do, and make Mr. H. seriously reflect, upon what he has done, who has proposed such new materials [Page 404]for Union, as were never known in the Christian Church before.

11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism, is made up, as he says, Reply, p. 80. of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion, but the Application and Conclusion, which is the only thing considerable, is his own. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is, that Separation is lawful, in case men make things indifferent necessary to Sal­vation, and divide the Church upon that account. But the Church of England ac­cording to my notion, makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation. Ergo, we may, yea, we must separate, or 'tis our duty, and therefore not our sin to sepa­rate, (i.e.) we are no Schismaticks. Wonderful subtil! The Dean's Rule I own, and will stand to, that if men make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account, we may lawfully separate from them; where the Dean makes two things necessary to justifie a Separati­on. 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, that is, that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation, as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision [Page 405]was. But yet 2. This of it self is not sufficient to justifie a Separation, unless these men divide the Church upon this account. This Mr. Lob thought fit to leave out of his Argument, because it would have spoiled his Argument to have put it in. The bare asserting in­different things to be necessary to Sal­vation, if they do not divide the Church upon it, will not justifie a Separation. This many believing Jews did. They thought Circumcision and the Observa­tion of the Law of Moses necessary to Salvation, and yet St. Paul commands Jews and Gentiles to receive each other, and to maintain one Communion; and St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with them to avoid any scandal. But when some false Apostles did not only assert the necessity of such things to Salvation, but would impose this upon all Christians, or break Communion with them; when they separated from the Church, it was very lawful to sepa­rate from them. And therefore we must correct Mr. Lob's Major Proposi­tion thus.

From such as make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account, we must se­parate. This is Dr. Stillingfleets.

Let us now consider his Minor Pro­position, which, he says, is mine.

But the Church of England makes in­different things necessary to Salvation. This is the Dr's. Substitutes notion.

God forbid! My notion, I never had such a thought in my life. Well! But if Mr. Lob can prove this against me, I know no help for it, I'le make my Defence, as well as I can. But let us hear what he says.

He attempts two or three ways to prove this, but blunders in each; the first way is this. Ibid. That which is necessa­ry to our Communion with the Catholick Church, is according to his Doctrine, neces­sary to Salvation. Now this I deny. Com­munion with the Catholick Church is necessary to Salvation, but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholick Church, is not there­fore in its own nature necessary to Sal­vation. It may be necessary in order to Catholick Communion, to comply with many inconvenient, though not sinful terms of Communion, and all [Page 407]wise and good men have thought them­selves bound to do so, when there is no other Remedy, does it hence follow then, that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salva­tion? But to proceed, But indifferent things (says Mr. Lob) are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church, in that, according to him, they are made necessary to our Com­munion with the Church of England, which is one with the Communion with the Catholick Church, according to his constant judgment. Ergo, I confess, what he means by this, I cannot well under­stand; I suppose, it may be this. That I make Communion with the Catholick Church, and consequently with the Church of England, as a sound and or­thodox part of the Catholick Church to be necessary to Salvation. But the observation of some indifferent things is de facto, necessary to the Communi­on of the Church of England, because the Church enjoyns the Observation of some indifferent things. Ergo, indiffe­rent things are made necessary to Sal­vation.

Now, 1. I would only ask Mr. Lob in his ear, whether his own Conscience don't tell him, that he has prevaricated here; whether he has not used that term, Necessary to Salvation, in different senses, on purpose to abuse the Dean and 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 [Page 409]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 [Page 410]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 [Page 411]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 [Page 412]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 [...] [Page 413]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 [Page 414]will see, that this has not been pro­ved yet, and therefore it is not evident. I will only ask our Author, whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excom­munications, mean excommunicating those, who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indif­ferent things. If they don't, as it is evident they don't, he only abuses them, and his Readers, by their Authority.

2. That the Church of England excom­municates unjustly, he says, is very de­monstrable, even in that the Church doth, as I would have it, by Excommunicati­on, cast thousands out of the state of Sal­vation, for not complying with little un­commanded things: But now here are two great mistakes. For, 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation, but casts them out of her own Communion; that this excludes them from a state of Salvation, is not the Act of the Church, but God's Act. The Church does not desire, nor de­sign the Damnation of any man, but excommunicates them for their corre­ction and amendment, that God would give them repentance unto life: And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate, when God, [Page 415]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 [Page 416]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 [Page 419]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 Ʋnion? Must the E­piscopal comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Dissenters sin and loose their Peace with God for Ʋni­on? And a little after, he adds; This is the state of the Case, the Dissenters would [Page 421]unite, but cannot, the Episcopals can, but will not. The cannot of the Dissenters, and the Episcopals will not, doth make the division; but who is the faulty Di­vider? If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not, when they can, 'twould be easie to conclude them ob­stinate and perverse (that is, in plain En­glish, Schismaticks) [...] not to do, what they can for Peace? But since they would, but cannot without sin, how can they be the Dividers?

This I shewed particularly, Defence, p. 27. &c. was all trick and fallacy. When he says, the Church without sin can part with their in­different Ceremonies; if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament, it is false. For all the Bi­shops and Clergy in England cannot with­out sin part with these indifferent Ceremo­nies, till the Law enacting them be re­pealed. And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Li­turgies, as it is plain he does, the Church of England does not account these indif­ferent Ceremonies, nor think, she can part with them without sin. And when he says, that the Dissenters without sin can­not comply with them; if by without sin he means without breaking some divine [Page 422]Law, it is false; for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesi­astical Governors in indifferent things: If he means, that they must act contra­ry to their Conscience, that is, their own Opinion and Judgment of things, they may be the Dividers and Schismaticks for all that; unless we will say, that no man, but a profligate Knave, who sins against his Conscience, can be a Schisma­tick.

Thus as for his will not and cannot. If by the Episcopals will not, he means, that they will not do, what they may by divine and humane Laws, and with a just respect to the good Order and Govern­ment and Edification of the Church, and regular Administration of holy Offices, they are faulty in it, but may be no Schis­maticks notwithstanding, so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion: and if by the Dissenters cannot, he means their private Opinions and Perswasions, which hinder their Complyance, they may be the Dividers still, if their perswasions be er­roneous.

All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice; but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument, I [Page 423]proposed another like it, which as fair­ly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter, as his did upon the Church; and it was this: If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Ʋnion, but cannot; who is the faulty Divider? What must be done for Ʋnion? Must the Dissenters comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Epis­copal sin, and lose their Peace with God for Ʋnion? And I added, I would de­sire our Inquirer to think better of it, and answer this Argument if he can, without shewing the Sophistry of his own.

Mr. Lob it seems, had enough of his own Argument, and durst not venture his Readers with it a second time; but he repeats my Argument by it self, without taking notice upon what occa­sion it was urged, which must needs make it look oddly; only wonders, why I call this an Argument, and that I should say, that this cannot be answered without a shewing Sophistry to be, Reply, p. 87. where it is not. So that it is plain, that he durst not let his Readers know, that he had made any Argument like this, or [Page 424]that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning, but turns it off with, without a shewing Sophistry, where it is not, instead of let him answer this Ar­gument, if he can without shewing the Sophistry of his own. It is apparent, Mr. Lob was here convinc'd, that he had reasoned foolishly, but had not the ho­nesty and ingenuity to own it. For in­deed the fallacy of both these Argu­ments consists in the different accepta­tion of cannot, and will not; in one sence, they may be turned against the Church, in another sence against the Dissenter, with equal force and truth; and there­fore without a more particular expli­cation of these ambiguous terms, it is a good Argument against neither; which must needs make it a very plea­sant entertainment to any man, who understands the Laws of reasoning, to see Mr. Lob so gravely confute my Ar­gument without taking any notice of his own; when all that I pretended was, that this was as good an Argu­ment against Dissenters, as his was a­gainst the Church, and were both to be answered the same way, by distinguish­ing the different significations of those terms, as I have shewed above.

But that this Inquirer might not say, that I had used some Art to wave the Dispute, but had not answered his Ar­gument, I granted him his own sence of the Words, and reduced the force of his Argument to these two Proposi­tions. 1. That all things, which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with: 2. That the Opinion of Dissenters, that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God, is a just reason for parting with them. The first I discoursed at large from this Topick, That there can be no publick and solemn Worship, no face or appearance of any Dis­cipline or Government in the Church, with­out the use of some such indifferent things. For all actions must be cloathed with some such external Circumstances, as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action, yet are necessary to the ex­ternal performance of it: Which is pro­ved at large in the Defence. Defence, p. 30. &c. All that Mr. Lob replies to this, is, that the force of his Argument does not lie in this, That all things which are in their own na­ture indifferent, may without sin be par­ted with. How then will he prove, that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies, if every thing, [Page 426]that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin? I can think of no other way to prove this; if he can, I shall be glad to hear it. But where­in then does the force of his Argument consist? Why he tells us it is this: Reply, p. 85. That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion, as to be a term of Communion. Though I doubt, he would be troubled to apply this Pro­position dexterously to the proof of his Argument, yet to make as few Disputes as may be, we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here, and does not this come much to one? Must not the Church part with any indifferent Cere­mony, which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike, if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion? And if all indifferent 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, [Page 427]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 [Page 428]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 [Page 429]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 [Page 430]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, [Page 432]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 over­ruled by publick Authority, or no So­ciety can subsist. Every private Chri­stian. in his private Capacity may choose for himself; every Master of a Family may and ought to choose for his Fami­ly, as far as concerns the Government of it; and the supreme Authority of e­very Society must choose for the Soci­ety. For how is it possible, there should be any decency or uniformity of Wor­ship, any Order or Government main­tained [Page 433]in the Church, if it is in the Pow­er of every private Christian to make the most wholsom Constitutions of a Church, unlawful and sinful Impositions by his private dissent, and obstinate re­fusal of Obedience.

4. If it be lawful for the publick Au­thority of the Church, to determine the indifferent Circumstances, and ex­ternal Solemnities of Worship, it is ne­cessary to make them the terms of Com­munion; that is, it can't be avoided, but it must be so. For when the Church determines the indifferent and undeter­mined Circumstances of Worship, all that is meant by it, is, that she requires all in her Communion to worship God in such a manner, which is the only sence, wherein indifferent things are, or can be made the terms of Communion. So that the Controversie must return, where it first began, about the lawful­ness of indifferent Circumstances, and Ceremonies of Worship, and the Pow­er of the Church to determine them; for making them terms of Communion is no new difficulty, for it signifies no more than prescribing such a way of worshipping God; and if it be lawful for the Church to prescribe the Modes [Page 434]and Circumstances of Worship, she can­not mistake in making them terms of Communion.

For, 5. If the Church have Authori­ty to prescribe the Order and Circum­stances of publick Worship, it is unrea­sonable to think, that she may not just­ly deny those her Communion, who will not submit to her Authority, and comply with her Orders and Constitu­tions; Which is to say, that she has Au­thority, and that she has none. For it is sufficiently known, that the Church, as such, has no other Authority, but to receive in, or to shut out of her Communion; and if she cannot assist her commanding Authority, with her Authority of Censures, it is little worth.

Nay, 6. In the nature of the thing it cannot be otherwise. Those, who will not conform to the Constitutions of the Church, must forsake her Assem­blies, for there is no other way of Wor­ship to be had there. And therefore we need enquire no further, than whe­ther it be lawful for the Church to pre­scribe a form of Worship to her self; if it be, she needs exercise no other Au­thority; for those, who will not conform [Page 435]to it, will separate themselves without her Authority. And as for the sin and danger of Schism, let the Church look to her self, that she give no just occasi­on for it, and let scrupulous and tender Consciences look to themselves, that they take no unjust Offence; and this is the only remedy I know of in this case, without prostituting Church-Au­thority, and the Worship of God, to a blind and factious Zeal. And yet I sup­pose, no Church is bound to own those of her Communion, who separate from her Worship, and despise her Autho­rity.

7. And whereas Mr. Lob founds his Objection upon making indifferent things terms of Communion, every one, who understands the nature of Go­vernment, knows, that it is an unsuffer­able mischief, to disturb and dissolve humane Societies, though for very little things. Schism is a very great evil; and nevertheless because the Dispute is about indifferent things, the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church, the decency and solemnities of Worship, and the sacredness of Authority, is necessary to Christian Communion, without which the Church must dissolve and [Page 436]disband into private Conventicles, as we see at this day; and therefore who­ever disturbs Christian Communion for indifferent things, does as well deserve to be cast out of the Church, as the most profligate sinners. But to return to Mr. Lob.

The only Objection he has against all that I urged in the Defence, is, that I run from Circumstances to Ceremonies, and yet his Conscience tells him, if ever he read the Defence, Defence, p. 38. that he knows the contrary; for I particularly answered that Objection in the Defence, and it seems, I have so answered it, that Mr. Lob thought it the wiser course to dis­semble his knowledg of any such An­swer, than to attempt any Reply to it.

And now let any man judge, what an unreasonable task Mr. Lob has put on me. Reply, p. 84. It lies on him (says he) either to prove to our Conviction, that we may without sin comply with their Imposition, (i. e.) he must so far effectually enlighten our Consciences, as to help us to see, that the Impositions are not sinful, and that we may lawfully conform. But how is this possible for me, or any other man to do, when he will not so much as see, what [Page 437]we shew him? When he is so far from an impartial Examination of the Reason of what is proposed, that he will not so much as own, that it was ever propo­sed. It is not in our Power to give him eyes, or to make him open his eyes, when he wilfully shuts them. Much less do we desire, as he proceeds, That they should conform against their Consci­ences, and yield a blind obedience to such Commands; we have had too much expe­rience of such consciencious men in the Church already, who have conform­ed against their Consciences, that they might raise a Church of England-Re­bellion, as this Author impudently sug­gests, and takes the first opportunity to pull down the Church, and to expiate their sins of Conformity by a thorough Reformation. There is something lies on them to do, as well as on us; and that is freely and impartially to consider, what is offered for their Conviction; to ac­knowledg themselves convinc'd, when they are convinc'd; to prefer the Sal­vation of their own Souls, and the Peace of the Church, before private Fame, or serving a Party; that is, in a word, to be honest, and then there will be no need for the Church to part with her Imposi­tions.

II. The second thing wherein I ob­served the force of his Argument lay, was this: That the Opinion of the Dis­senters, that indifferent things are unlaw­ful in the Worship of God, is a just and necessary Reason for parting with them. Now he does not take notice of any one word of Answer I return to this, nay, does not so much, as represent the Rea­son, why I place the force of his Argu­ment in this, which is, that if the Opi­nion of Dissenters, that all indifferent things are unlawful, be not a sufficient Reason for parting with them, then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not, or a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot. Instead of which, he says, I give this Reason for it; if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent, those who retain the use of ( some, which he leaves out) indifferent things, cannot meerly upon that account, be called Dividers or Schisma­ticks, which does not refer to the second, but to the first thing, wherein I placed the force of his Argument. That all things, which are in their own nature in­different, may without sin be parted, with. Certainly never any man was in a grea­ter turmoil and confusion of thoughts, [Page 439]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 [Page 440]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 [Page 441]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 [Page 442]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 Ʋnion, 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 [Page 443]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 [Page 444]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 made the next Bishops; and that his Project shall advance, and not lessen the outward Power and Honour of Bishops.

But still we must have a care not to be cheated with a Name, instead of the thing. Are Mr. H.'s Bishops true Apo­stolical Bishops, as the Bishops of the Church of England are? Otherwise he may retain the Name of Bishops, and yet destroy the Episcopacy of the Church of England.

And this is the plain truth of the Case. Mr. H.'s Bishops are not Bishops of the Church, but the King's Ecclesi­astical Officers acting circa sacra, only by vertue of his Authority and Commission. And therefore can exercise no other Au­thority in the Church, than the King can, which is not the Authority of a Bishop. Mr. Humphrey's Bishops may be Lay-men, as well as Ecclesiasticks; for though called Bishops, they cannot do any one Act of a primitive Bishop. They have no Ecclesiastical Superiority over their Clergy, but what the King has, which used to be distinguish'd from the Authority of the Bishop. They have [Page 446]not the Power of Ordination, nor Con­firmation as the King's Bishops, what­ever they may have as Congregational Bishops, for the King has no Power to ordain or confirm. They cannot ex­communicate as Bishops, as Mr. H. ex­presly asserts, That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade, but preserve the Power of the Keys (invested in the Minister, but given with the Pastor him­self to the Church) no more can the Di­ocesans that derive from him, assume it to themselves, and deprive the particular Churches of it.

And since Mr. H.'s Bishops have no proper Ecclesiastical Authority, it is no wonder, that they have no body to go­vern; for these are all such Diocesan Bishops, as have no Presbyters under them, every Congregational Minister being a Congregational Bishop, as Mr. H. owns. Defence, p. 260. &c. These things I discoursed at large in the Defence, and all that I am concerned for now, is to observe, how charitable Mr. H. is to the Church of England in his Materials for Union, for he leaves the Church neither Bishops, Presbyters, nor Deacons. If they can talk at this Rate, when they cry out of Persecution, and pretend to Petition [Page 447]for Peace, what may we expect from them, if they should be rampant once more? We see they are the same men that ever they were, when they cove­nanted against Root and Branch; and have the Impudence at this time a day, when they plead for Peace and Union, for Toleration and Comprehension, or other nameless Models, to make Propo­sals for comprehending or tolerating any thing but the Church of England. Upon these terms we may be at peace, and unite with Dissenters, if we will sacrifice, not meerly some indifferent Ceremonies, (though they make a great noise about them, as if they were the only Impediments) but the Church of England it self to Peace and Unity; which I hope will open mens eyes at length to see, what these men would be at, and I pray God it may be, before it be too late.

2. As Mr. H's Materials for Union overthrows the present Constitution of the Church of England, so it sets up no National Church in the room of it. This is his great design, I confess, to make a National Church of all the divided and separated Congregations in Eng­land, which he thinks may be done by [Page 448]the vertue of an Act of Parliament. I would (says he) have all our Assemblies that are tolerable, to be made legal by such an Act, and thereby parts of the National Church, as well as the Parochial Congre­gations. But though the Power of an Act of Parliament, I confess, is very great, yet it cannot reconcile Contra­dictions, nor make Division to be Uni­on, nor a great many Schismatical Con­venticles, which divide from one another, to be one Church. For a Church is a Communion of Christians, a Parochial Congregation is a Parochial Communi­on, a Diocesan Church is a Diocesan Communion, a National Church, is a National Communion, and the Catho­lick Church, is one Catholick Commu­nion, as I have proved at large in the Defence, but Communion is always es­sential to the notion of a Church, of what denomination soever. Now sup­pose a Parliament should by Law esta­blish Presbyterian, and Independent Churches of all sorts, as well as the Church of England, yet how can an Act of Parliament make them all one Natio­nal Communion, when after such an Act, they would remain as much divi­ded and separated from one another, and [Page 449]from the Church of England, as they are now, and the design of such an Act of Parliament is, to make it lawful or legal for them to continue so.

Are the Presbyterian and Indepen­dent Congregations one Communion with themselves, or with the Church of England now? If they be, why do they complain for want of Union? If they be not, will such an Act of Parliament which establishes the Schism, and makes it a Law, make them unite into one Communion? No man knows indeed, what may be, because these men love to act in contradiction to Laws, and pos­sibly may grow out of love with Schism, when it is made the Law of the Land; but if they do not, how are they more united into one Communion by such a Law, than they are without it? If their Churches, Government, Discipline, Worship, be all distinct, and separate, and contrary to each other, what a strange kind of Communion is this? E­very Member of the National Church, is a Member of the whole National Church; but can a Presbyterian, Inde­pendent, or Episcopal Church be Mem­bers of one another? By what name shall we call this Monster? It is neither [Page 450]an Independent, Presbyterian, nor E­piscopal Church, but one National Church which consists of as heteroge­neous parts, as Nebuchadnezar's Image, or like some monstrous Birth, with the Head of a man, the Paws of a Bear, and the Tail of a Serpent.

Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne.

An Act of Parliament may give a le­gal establishment to all these divided Churches, as the Popish and Protestant Churches of France, are both establish­ed by the Laws of the Land; but does this make French Papists and Protestants to be one National Church? Mr. H. ac­cording to his Principles must assert them both to be but one National Church, but he will have but little thanks for it nei­ther from Papists, nor Protestants. Not from Papists, who call the French Pro­testants Schismaticks, and therefore do not own them to be any part of their National Church; nor from the Prote­stants, who do as much abhor to be thought Members of the Popish Church; and yet this is such a legal National Church, as Mr. H. contends for, united under one Prince, who, according to his Principles, is the accidental Head of this accidental National Church, and yet [Page 451]this Union does not cure the Schism; for they still are two distinct and sepa­rate Churches, and are accounted Schis­maticks to each other.

There are but two or three things, so far as I can observe, whereon Mr. H. founds this National Union between all these divided and separate Churches.

1. That they are all united under the King, as the constitutive Regent Head of the National Church. And this, I grant, makes them all legal Churches, as he speaks, or legal parts of the Church, but it does not make them one Church. You may as well say, that England, Scotland, and Ireland, are one King­dom, because they are united under one Prince; or that all the Corporations in England are one National Corporati­on, though they have distinct Charters, and different Priviledges and Immuni­ties. Nothing is National, but what extends to the whole Nation, and where several Churches are established by Law, there can be no one National Church, though they be all under the Govern­ment of the same Prince, because there is no one Church-Constitution, for all the Churches in the Nation to be go­verned by; which is the notion of a [Page 452]National Church in the sense we now speak of.

2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches, is by the King's Ec­clesiastical Officers, whom he calls Bi­shops, who have an equal supervising care of them all. Their work in gene­ral being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Diocesses, that they all walk according to their own Order, agreeable to the Gospel, and to the Peace of one a­nother. Now that this cannot make them one National Church, will appear from these Considerations.

1. That these Bishops, though they may be Ecclesiastical Persons, yet are not properly Ecclesiastical, but Civil Officers, they act not by an Ecclesiasti­cal Authority, but are Ministers of the Regal Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs, as I have already shewn; and therefore if their Union under one Prince, cannot make them one Church, much less can their Union under the King's Ministers.

2. Suppose they were true Primitive Bishops, yet where there are separate Churches in any Diocess, they cannot all live in Communion with their Bi­shop, and therefore cannot be one Church. For Communion with the Bi­shop [Page 453]is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church, as I have pro­ved in the Defence. Defence, p 469. &c. A supervising Power, not to govern the Church ac­cording to his own Judgment and Con­science; but to see, that they govern themselves according to their own Forms and Models, is no Episcopal Au­thority, much less any Act of Church-Communion. Those only communi­cate with their Bishop, who submit to his Pastoral Authority, and partake with him in all Religious Offices, and those who do not, according to the notion of the Catholick Church, are Schismaticks, and therefore not of the same Church with him. It is a very different thing to be a meer Visitor and a Bishop, and it is as different a thing to be in Com­munion with a Bishop, and to be subject to the Visitations of the King's Ecclesi­astical Minister; and therefore a super­vising Power cannot make those one Church, who are of different Commu­nions.

3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take, to make some leading Dissenters Bi­shops, it is still more evident, that they could in no sense make a National Church, because the Bishops of the [Page 454]Church would be of different Commu­nions, For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another, which unite all their Churches into a National, Pa­triarchal, Ibid. cap. 7. 8. or Catholick Church, as I have proved in the Defence. This is abundantly enough to shew, that Mr. H.'s Episcopal Visiters, cannot make a National Church.

4. Another way Mr. H. proposes, to unite all these Churches into one Nati­onal Church, is by the Vertue of occa­sional Communion. That when a man hath his choice to be of one Church, which he will, in regard to fixed Communion, he should occasionally come also to the other, for maintaining this National Ʋ ­nion.

But, 1. No occasional Acts of Com­munion can unite Churches of distinct and separate Communions. To be in Communion with a Church, is to be a member of it; no man ought to com­municate with any Church, of which he is not a Member, and no Acts of Com­munion can unite Churches, which do not make them Members of each other, as I have also proved in the Defence; and therefore such occasional Acts of Communion, Ibid. p 132, &c can contribute nothing to a National Union.

2. Of what nature shall this occasi­onal Communion be? Shall they com­municate in all Acts of Worship, or on­ly hear a Sermon now and then toge­ther? If in all Acts of Worship, why should there be distinct Communions at any time? Why cannot he commu­nicate always with that Church, with which he can communicate in all Acts of Worship some times? If our occasi­onal Communion be only in some few less material Acts, this makes no Union of Churches; for if there be any Acts of Worship, wherein they can at no time communicate with each other, no man will say such Churches are united in one Communion.

3. What is the meaning of this should: would Mr. H. have an Act of Parliament to enjoyn this occasional Communion; and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity? For it requires Uniformi­ty sometimes, and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful, why should it not be made always necessary? If Mr. H. by should— only intimates, what he would have them do, what then, if they won't, notwithstanding his should? What will become of this National Union then? This occasional Communion is either [Page 456]necessary to this National Union, or it is not. If it be not necessary, why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for Na­tional Union? If it be, how will he prove, that all Dissenters will occasio­nally communicate with each other, and with the Church of England?

3. Mr. H.'s project for Union, will cure no one Schism, and therefore can make no Union. This is evident from what I have already discours'd; for if it cannot make one Church, it cannot cure the Schism; where there are two distinct and separate Churches, which are not Members of each other, there is a Schism; for Church-Unity consists in one Communion, as I have abun­dantly proved in the Defence. Defence, chap. 4. Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be con­firmed by Act of Parliament, it would be neither better nor worse, than ei­ther an Universal, or a limited Tolera­tion, (as they can agree that matter a­mong themselves) established by Law. Nay, should such an Act declare, that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church; the Pow­er of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words, but it can­not alter the Nature of things. They [Page 457]would still be as many Churches as they are now, but could never be one Church, though they might be called a Natio­nal Church, as that may be made to signifie all the Churches of professed Christians in the Nation established by Law. Such an Act of Parliament would deliver the Dissenters from temporal Punishments, and might deliver them from the sin of Disobedience to Civil Governors; but the guilt of Schism will remain still, unless he thinks, that the Donatists were not Schismaticks, when Julian the 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 [Page 458]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 [Page 459]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 [Page 460]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 [Page 461]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 [Page 462]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 [Page 464]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.