A CONTINUATION AND VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet'sVnreasonableness of Separation: IN ANSWER To Mr. Baxter, Mr. Job, etc.  
Containing A further Explication and Defence of the Doctrine of Catholic Communion.  
A Confutation of the groundless Charge of Cassandrianism.  
The Terms of Catholic Communion, and the Doctrine of Fundamentals explained.  
Together with a brief Examination of Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union.  
By the Author of the Defence.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls-Churchyard. MDCLXXXII.   

THE PREFACE.  
I Have already writ a Book so much bigger, than I at first designed it, that I shall not trouble my Readers with a long Preface. I have carefully examined, and I think, have fully answered, all that I could think material in my Adversaries Objections. I can honestly say this for myself, that I have overlooked nothing, because I thought it difficult to return a satisfactory Answer to it, though, I confess, I have slighted some trifling Objections, as unworthy of an Answer. Had I been merrily disposed, I could have given my Readers great Diversion, by exposing the folly of Mr. Job, a very bold, but a very ignorant Writer. But I thought it a little thing to insult and triumph over so mean an Adversary, and an unpardonable affront to the judgement of Mankind, to attempt to prove, that the Church of England did not begin the War against the King; that the Dissenters, by their unreasonable Opposition to the Church of England, give great advantage to the Papists to accomplish their designs: That the Papists are hearty Enemies to the Order of Bishops in the Church of England, and would gladly destroy the Protestant Episcopacy: That Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memory was not inclined to Popery, nor designed to reduce the Church of England to a nearer Conformity to the Church of Rome. I did presume, that all Mr. Lob's Wit or Sophistry, could never persuade the English World to believe otherwise, and therefore thought it to no purpose to spend Ink and Paper, and some precious hours in so needless a Work. As for Mr. Baxter (notwithstanding the grave and severe Reprimand, which Mr. Humphrey gives the Dean for it) I am mightily inclined to pity him; he has disputed himself out of all sense, and all good manners, and I think there is the least Reason to answer his Books, of any man's I know, for I believe very few People understand what he would have himself, or what there is in them to be answered; what his Name and Authority may do, I cannot tell, but I fancy, his mere Writings will never make any Proselyte one way or other. However I have considered, whatever I could judge worth answering, and have been at more trouble to find out what his Objection was, than to find an Answer to it.  
He has been pleased to give me a Name, though I did not think fit to publish it myself, and whether he guess right or wrong, he shall never know from me. And yet, as I remember, the Country Conformist blames me for publishing Mr. Lob's and Mr. Humphrey's Names, because they had not owned them themselves, though Mr. Baxter had done it for them. But it was not enough to publish my Name, unless he could give a History of my Life too, which, I thank God, has been at least to outward appearance, so innocent, that if he knew me, I fear not his most malicious and spiteful Comments. I shall only tell him, that Dr. Sherlock, whom I know very well, presents his service to him, and assures him, that he can tell a more pleasant story of his Adventures at Acton, and the History of the Letter, than he has done, but is not willing to set up the Trade of writing Intelligences, nor concerning the World, in all the Privacies of Conversation. Only he wonders, what Temptation Mr. Baxter had, either to Print his own Letter, which had been sufficiently answered long since, 
Defence of the knowledge of Jesus Christ  or to Print his Letter, which contained so little Ceremony or Compliment to him; it being the first time, that he remembers, Mr. Baxter guilty of Printing any private Lerter, which did not grossly flatter him. In short, that Doctor assures him, that if he have a mind to revive that old Controversy, which his other Adversaries have been pleased to forget, he is contented to enter the Lists once more.  
I shall only further acquaint my Readers, that I have taken all the care I can, that they shall not wholly lose their time, if they please to peruse this Vindication; for I have sought all Occasions of useful Discourse, and have found many. And would but my Adversaries read this Discourse with as great freedom and impartiality, as I used in writing it, possibly we might in time see an end of these Controversies, in a happy Union of Protestants, in the Communion of the Church of England.   

THE CONTENTS.  
CHAP. 1. 


COncerning Catholic Unity, p. 1  
The misrepresentation Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job have made of that Doctrine, ibid.  
The occasion of that Discourse of Church Unity and Communion, p. 3  
A brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence, concerning one Catholic Church, p. 12  
Whether the Catholic Church be in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches, and Mr. Lob's Cavils answered, p. 14     
Chap. 2. 


Concerning Catholic Communion, p. 30  
Mr. Baxter's Objections answered, p. 32  
Mr. Baxter's Notion of a Catholic Church, and how it is form, p. 41  
The Authority of Archbishop Bramhall, Mr. Hooker, and Dr. Field, alleged against me by Mr. Job, and their judgement in these points considered, and reconciled with the Doctrine of the Defence, p. 53  
In what sense Schismatics, Heretics, Idolaters, may be owned members of the visible Church of Christ, p. 61  
An Historical account of the state of the Controversy, about the rebaptisation of Heretics, as far as it concerns the Doctrine of Catholic Communion, p. 72     
Chap. 3. 


Concerning the necessity of Catholic Communion. Wherein is proved at large, that the Communion of the Church is ordinarily necessary to a state of Salvation, p. 87     
Chap. 4. 


Concerning the Unity of Church-Power, p. 120  
The Insinuation of a Cassandrian design, for Union with the Church of Rome, p. 121  
The Doctrine of the Defence, considered with reference to the Unity of Church-Power, whereon the Charge of Cassandrianism is founded, p. 122  
What the Opinion of Cassander was about Church-Power and Government, p. 130  
Those who renounce the Authority of the Pope, can be no Papists, though they assert the Authority of General Councils, p. 132  
The judgement of the Councils of Constance and Basil, in this point, p. 133  
The judgement of Petrus de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, concerning the Liberties of the Gallican Churches, p. 137  
Mr. Lob's Accusation answered, that I make the universal Church the first Seat of Government, or a Political Organised Body, in which there is one Supreme and Sovereign Power over the whole, p. 142  
Whether I make the Church of England accountable to Foreign Bishops, p. 150  
Whether I subject the Church of England to a General Council, p. 160  
Whether to assert the Authority of General Councils, subverts the King's Supremacy, and incurs a Praemunire, p. 168  
Mr. Lob's honesty in charging me with owning the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, p. 172  
The Contradictions Mr. Baxter chargeth me with, considered, p. 175  
The Reason of Mr. B.'s Zeal for a constitutive Regent Head of the Church, p. 178  
The distinction of a National Church, considered as a Church, and as incorporated into the State, vindicated from Mr. Humphrey's Objections, p. 188  
Concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England, and whether a National Church be a Political Body and Society, p. 200  
Mr. Humphrey's Argument to prove a Constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England, examined, p. 209  
The difference between Aristocracy, and the Government of the Church by Bishops, without a Regent Head, p. 216  
A Vindication of the Dean's Argument, against the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head of a National Church. p. 219     
Chap. 5. 


Concerning that one Communion, which is essential to the Catholic Church, and the practicableness of it, p. 226  
In what sense Catholic Communion requires the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholic Church among themselves, and with each other, p. 227  
The several ways of maintaining Catholic Communion used in the ancient Church, vindicated from Mr. B.'s Objections, p. 232  
What place there can be for Catholic Communion, in this broken and divided state of the Church, p. 239  
That there are Schisms in the Church, is no Argument against the necessity of Catholic Communion, p. 240  
Catholic Communion not impracticable in its own Nature, p. 240  
Communion necessary to be maintained between all sound and orthodox Churches, p. 243  
Not many positive Acts of Communion, necessary to maintain Catholic Communion between foreign Churches, p. 245  
The Terms of Catholic Communion very practicable, p. 247  
A Discourse of Fundamental Doctrines, p. 248  
What a Fundamental Doctrine is: Salvation by Christ, the general fundamental of Christianity, p. 256  
The Doctrine of the holy Trinity, a Fundamental of Christian Faith, p. 259  
The denial of Christ's Divinity makes a Fundamental change in the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, p. 261  
School subtleties about the Trinity, not fundamental Doctrines, nor the dispute about the Filioque p. 273  
The Doctrine of Christ's Incarnation, etc. fundamental, p. 274  
What is Fundamental in the Doctrine of Salvation itself, p. 281  
Mr. Mede's Notion of Fundamentals, p. 300  
Whether an influence upon a good Life be the proper Ratio or Notion of a Fundamental Doctrine, p. 305  
Whether a Church, which professes to believe all Fundamentals, but yet entertains such corrupt Doctrines, as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrew Foundations, may be said to err fundamentally, p. 316  
And in what cases we may communicate with such a Church, p. 319  
How far it is lawful to communicate with Churches not governed by Bishops, nor by Presbyters ordained by Bishops, p. 329  
A great difference between the case of our Dissenters, and some foreign Protestant Churches upon this account, p. 331  
Their Case more largely considered, p. 337  
Concerning Church Discipline and Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, considered as Terms of Catholic Communion, p. 371     
Chap. 6. 


An examination of Mr. Lob's suggestions, to prove the Dissenters, according to my own Principles, to be no Schismatics, and a further inquiry, who is the Divider, p. 382  
Whether Dissenters separate from the Catholic Church, p. 383  
Whether Separation from the Church of England infer a Separation from the Catholic Church, p. 387  
Whether nothing can be a Term of Communion, but what is a necessary part of true Religion, p. 394  
Whether the Church of England makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation, p. 404  
Whether the Church of England unjustly excommunicates Dissenters, and may be charged with Schism upon that account, p. 413  
The Answer, which was given in the Defence to Mr. Lob's Argument, whereby he proves the Church to be the Divider, vindicated from his Exceptions, p. 420     
Chap. 7. 


Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union examined, p. 442  
His Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England, which is a very modest proposal in Dissenters, to pull down the Church for Union, p. 443  
He sets up no National Church in the room of it, p. 447  
His Project will cure no Schism, and therefore can make no Union, p. 456  
Nor is it a likely way so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation, p. 459      

ERRATA.  
PAge 4. line 3. read Tendency, p. 18. l. 15. for Doctor r. Docetae or Docitae. p. 31. l. 20. for is a desperate, r. is of a desperate. p. 45. l. 4. r. spick. p. 52. l. 20. r. invisibly. p. 71. l. 6. for or thought r. are thought. p. 73. Marg. for ex. 52. r. ep. 52. p. 77. Marg. for ingenuit. r. ingemuit. p. 79. Marg. A Citation out of St. Austin divided in the middle, must be read together. p. 89. l. ●2. for promising r. premising. p. 106. l. 22. for of, r. or. p. 123. l. 2. deal also. p. 139. Marg. for litera, r. litura. i● l. 9 for Cevernment, r. Government. p. 141. l. 24. for thate r. yet. p. 194. l. 4. for present r. prudent. p. 226. l. 7. r. are. l. 22. r. it. p. 235. l. 20. for uses, r. cases. p. 243. l. 28. deal two. p. 254. l. 20. for observe, r. obscure. p. 273. l. 11. r. Personality. p. 347. Marg. for Ecclesia authoritas, r. constituit ecclesiae auctoritas. p. 356. l. 16. r. Delegation. p. 358. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 381. l. 29. for there, r. these. p. 392. l. 12. r. the Catholic Church. p. 393. l. 18. r. with it. p. 421. l. 9 deal what. p. 464. l. 29. r. help it.   

A VINDICATION OF THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet's unreasonableness of Separation.  

CHAP. I. Concerning Catholic Unity.  
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 Catholic Communion: Mr. B. Mr. Job, and Mr. Humphrey, instead of giving a fair Answer to this, have endeavoured to affix such a sense on my words, as I never thought of, nay, as is directly contrary to the avowed Doctrine of that Book; and when they have turned every thing into nonsense 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 wondered to find myself such a stranger to myself. 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 lose their first Question in some new Dispute. Thus Mr. B. tells us for a Conclusion, I intent, God willing, hereafter to let the Matters of mere Conformity comparatively alone, and farther to examine this fundamental Difference, seeing it is evident, that now Satan's design is to call the French Popery by the name of the Protestant Religion, 
Answer to Dr. Sherlock. p. 230.  and the Protestant Religion of the true Church of England by the name of Nonconformity and Schism, and to deceive the simple by a noise against the refusers of Episcopacy, Liturgy, and Ceremonies; but that noise shall no more divert me from opposing the Foundations of Popery. And I mightily commend the prudence of Mr. Baxter's Resolution; for it is an easier matter to pull down a man of Clouts of his own setting up, then to uphold such a decayed and ruinous Cause  
But I am resolved not to lose the Cause thus, and therefore shall beat a little backward, till we find it again, and shall 1. mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse of Church-Unity and Communion. 2. Give a brief Account of the Doctrine of the defence in those Points, and consider their Cavils and Exceptions against it, and those perverse senses they put upon my words, to form them into a Cassandrian design.  
§. 1. I shall mind my Readers of the occasion of that Discourse concerning Church-Unity and Communion, whereby they may the better judge of the Nature and Tendancy of it. Now there were two things I apparently designed in it. 1. To show 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 virtue 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 Privileges in the Commonwealth to all these separate Churches, but it can no more make them one, than it can make Contradictions to be true, the sin and evil of Separation still remains, the removal of which is the only thing that makes Union so desirable; and if an Act of Parliament could do this, I confess the Proposal would be considerable. If the evil and sinfulness of Separation consisted only in disobedience to humane Laws, I should think it a barbarous thing to make any Laws, which shall ensnare men in so great a guilt: And it is impossible in such an Age as this, which is distracted with so many different and contrary Persuasions, 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 concernment, than their Bodies and Estates, and therefore should challenge the principal regard from conscientious 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 easy 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 Catholic Church all the World over, than every Separation is a Schism on one side or other; for where there are two separate Churches, one, if not both, must be schismatical, because there is but one Church: And if the Unity of this Church consists in one Communion, which exacts a joint discharge of all the Duties of a Church-relation, in hearing, and praying, and receiving the Lord's Supper, etc. 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 Catholic 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 itself cannot expiate.  
For if there be not one Church, but a great many Churches of distinct and separate Communions, those Christians, who forsake one Church, and form themselves into a new Church society, cannot be said to divide the Church, but to multiply it, they become a distinct Church by themselves; and if they retain all the Essentials of Christian Faith and Worship, are as good and sound a part of the Catholic 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 joins 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 Schismatic, that he was Extra Ecclesiam foris, one who is out of the Church without doors, 
Cypr. de imitate.  and is said, de ecclesia recedere, to go out of the Church. But according to this Notion, it is impossible for a man to go out of the Church, unless he forsake the Communion of all the Churches in the World: Nay, if Church-unity does not consis tin one Communion, he may do that too, as Mr. B. says the Seekers do, and yet while they believe in Christ, continue members of the Catholic 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 enjoins 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 Catholic Communion, and had no Christian Magistrates for three hundred years to enforce or enjoin any Communion: And yet the Church never had a greater sense of the evil of Schism in any Age, and therefore did believe Schism to be a very evil thing, without any regard to private Contracts or humane Authority.  
2. To break our Promise and Covenant is a great evil, but it is not in its own nature Schism, unless there be something else to make it so, besides breach of promise. To disobey our Governors in lawful things is a very great evil, but it is not in itself 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 Catholic Communion. But I have discoursed at large the use of this Notion of Catholic 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 against Separation in the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, depends on the Doctrine of one Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 slipped from my Pen, the confuting such a fancy as that, is by no means a confutation of the Defence. If the doctrine of one Catholic Communion hold good, as it will certainly do, whatever becomes of Catholic Church-Power, it confounds all their little Excuses and Apologies for Separation, and they are as very Schismatics, as ever the Novatians or Donatists were. Here the Controversy 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 Schismatics, 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 selfdenying 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 troublesome to write in a Cause, where he is likely to find some pert young Doctors to answer him, and therefore is resolved for the future to dispute by himself, where he is secure of the victory, unless Richard and Baxter should happen to quarrel; he having now Printed a Book in Quarto of 230 pages, as a Preparatory to a fuller Treatise; I suppose he means a fourth Folio, he telling us that he has writ three already.  
§. 2. I come now to give a plain and brief account of the Doctrine of the Defence concerning one Catholic Church, and one Catholic 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. etc.  that Christ has but one Church, which is his Body and Spouse, which we call the Catholic Church; and I do not find any of my Adversaries hardy enough to deny the name of one Catholic 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. etc.  that the Christian Church is not a new Church, but the old Jewish-Church, reform and spiritualised by the Laws and Institutions of Christ; Christianity being nothing else but mystical Judaisme. 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 itself 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 Catholic Church, 
Ib. p. 144.  though it consist of all particular Churches, which are contained in it, yet is not a mere arbitrary Combination and Confederacy of particular Churches, but is the root and fountain of Unity, and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, and the Fountain before the Rivers that flow from it; that particular Churches are made by the increase and propagation of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church by the propagation of particular Churches.  
Here Mr. Job gives us the first taste of his great understanding and skill in Controversy, 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 Catholic, for that was my word; but then he had lost his Metaphysical subtlety about Universals, of which more presently) well, what hurt is there in that assertion? why first, the Allusions I use for the illustration of this, of the Sun being before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, and a Fountain before its Rivers, are not ad rem (that is, not to the purpose, nor to the Matter in hand; for I know not what force English Readers may imagine to be concealed in, ad rem, unless I translate it) but he knew very well, that these are not my Allusions (as he calls them) but St. Cyprians ', whose Authority is much more considerable. But suppose they had been my own (as I see no Reason to be ashamed of them) what is their fault? why, I should have given some instance of some one Universal, 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 adequate Example in nature of this, besides the Catholic Church, what were this, ad rem, if it appears, that the Catholic Church be such an Universal?  
Yes, if that could be proved indeed, it were somewhat to the purpose; but that, says Mr. Job, is impossible, it being in the sense of most, evident, that Universal is unum in multis, that is, 
Ibid.  in many particulars, which Universal hath no real Existence but in particulars, but abstracted from all particulars ● 'tis only an Ens Rationis, having its being in the Eutopian Commonwealth; whence we distinguish between the consideration of Universal, as Formal and as Fundamental. Fundamental and it is, Quid singular; but formally, and so 'tis abstracted from all singulars, the particulars being the foundation of the Universal, the root from which the Universal doth proceed. Now if it be the particulars that are the foundation of the Universal, how can the Universal be the foundation of the particulars? No way in the World, Sir, Quod erat demonstrandum. This is a very Learned and Scholastic 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 Commonwealth, 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 Utopia: But yet it is a material discovery Mr. Job hath made, for by this means, we may know where to find the Catholic Church. For, 2. the Catholic Church being an Universal, is no better than an Ens rationis, a mere Metaphysical Notion, and therefore must have its Being also in the Eutopian Commonwealth; I wish Mr. Job does not at last prove the Creed, where we find the Catholic Church, to be a mere Eutopian Commonwealth, for giving entertainment to such an Ens Rationis. Well, but Universals have a real existence in particulars! right, but not as Universals, but as Particulars; humane nature has a real existence in Peter, James and John, because they are all men; but humane nature considered as Universal, is in neither of them, unless you will make as many Universal humane natures, as there are men in the World; thus there are a great many particular Churches actually existent, but the Catholic Church considered as Catholic and Universal is a mere figment and notion, no where existing but in Utopia. And if this be all Mr. Job means by his Universal Church, that it is a mere 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 Utopia. But all this is nothing to me, who never troubled my head about the existence of an Ens Rationis in a Fairy Land, but assert such an Universal Church, as has an actual being and existence, which always is or may be visible in the World, an Universal Church, which is the object of Sense, not the creature of fancy and imagination.  
This I take to be the general sense of all Christians, of what Communion soever they are, if they understand any thing of these matters, that the Universal Church is a real thing which does actually exist; not as Logical Notions do, but as a Church and Society of Christians: For the Universal Church is the Body and the Spouse of Christ, and it is a new fangled Heresy 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 dreamt 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 Utopia: And therefore to help out our Author here, who has so miserably lost himself in Logic and Metaphysics; I observe, that the Catholic 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 Catholic and Universal, is, not because it is an universal Notion, 
Necessario consequitur, unam duntaxat esse Ecclesiam, quam propterea Catholicam nuncupamus, quod sit Vniversalis, & diffundatur per omnes mundi parts, & ad omnia se tempora extendat, nullis vel locis inclusa vel temporibus. Helu. conf. cap. 17.  made by a mental Abstraction from particulars, but because it diffuses itself all the World over, and propagates itself 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 Commonwealth, and brought it back into the World again, let us now consider how the Church becomes Catholic and Universal, and which is first in order of Nature, the Catholic Church or particular Churches.  
Mr. Job 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 Utopia. But did I ever assert that there was a Catholic 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 Catholic Church did subsist in a particular Congregation. That though in the beginnings of Christianity, the true Church of Christ was consigned to one small Congregation, yet it was the Catholic Church, etc. 
p. 148.  If Mr. Job 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 Catholic Church is in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches; I expressly declared, That I did not consider the Catholic Church, as actually spread over all the World, but as the Root and Fountain of Unity, As St. Cyprian did: For in this Sense of the word Catholic and Universal, 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 merely in its actual Extent, but in its intrinsic 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.  
Catholic, 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 Country, as the Jewish Church was, 
Defence, p. 147.  but to diffuse and propagate itself all the World over; and upon this Account, as I proved in the Defence, it is called the Catholic Church, because though it be spread all the World over, it is but one Church still. That very Church, which the Apostles first planted in Jerusalem, and by degrees enlarged into all parts of the World. The difference between the Church at its first Planting, when the beginnings of it were but small, and when it overspread so great a part of the World, is like the difference between a Child new Born, and when he is come to his full Growth and Stature, he is the same Person still but increased in all parts, without dividing one Member from another, or multiplying itself into more Bodies; or like a Grain of Mustardseed, which from small beginnings grows into a large Tree. The Catholic 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 itself 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 Catholic Church? If it might not, Then if Christ have a Catholic Church now, and formerly had no Catholic 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 Catholic Church, and another which is the Catholic Church.  
The Christian Church indeed has spread itself into many parts of the World, where it was not at the first planting of the Gospel, and therefore is more Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Churches, as maintaining Catholic unity, which was the familiar Language of the primitive Fathers, much more might the first Christian Church be very properly called the Catholic Church, as being the Principle and Fountain of Catholic unity.  
But of all things I hate to dispute about Words, and therefore if Mr. Job 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 itself in the Unity of the same Body all the World over, and I have no farther Controversy 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 Catholic Church considered as the root and fountain of Unity, was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches: The Catholic Church may subsist in one particular Church, otherwise the belief of the Catholic Church can be no necessary Article of our Creed, for the first Christian Church, was the particular Church of Jerusalem, and if that were not in some sense the Catholic Church, there was a Christian Church, when there was no Catholic Church, and may be so again; if we should suppose all the World excepting one particular Church, to apostatise 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 Catholic Church, than they must be true and complete Churches, without any regard to Catholic unity, and then it is impossible ever after to find or make one Catholic Church. The Notion and Essence of the Catholic Church, as far as concerns this Controversy, consists in such a Catholic 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 Catholic Church, as suppose the Churches of England, France, and Spain, than we must acknowledge, that a Church may be a true complete Church, without any regard to Catholic unity, and then Catholic unity is not necessary to the Notion and Being of a Church, and then there can be no necessity of one Catholic 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, etc. And then there can be no one Catholic Church of Christ's 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 Catholic Church. This Catholic Church must of necessity have a beginning somewhere, as, De facto, it had at Jerusalem; wherever this beginning is, there is the Root and Fountain of Catholic 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 Catholic Church; and thus all particular Churches are united to one another, and by virtue of this Catholic union, are one Catholic Church. He who carefully considers this, will see what Reason I had to assert, that the Catholic Church was in order of Nature antecedent to particular Churches; for a Church, which is one by Institution, must begin in one, and enlarge itself 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 complete Churches by themselves, in order of Nature and time too, antecedent to the Catholic Church, must either make the Catholic Church an imaginary Being, a mere Ens Rationis, as Mr. Job does, or else no better than an arbitrary Combination, which may last as long as they please, 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 Catholic Church cannot be one Church and one Body, if any particular Churches by their essential Constitution are entire complete Churches, and not integral parts of the Catholic Church, which they cannot be without such a necessary Union as I have now described.  
And to conclude this Argument, I shall refer Mr. Job for better Instruction in this Matter to Mr. Baxter, who, in Answer to this Question, Whether a single Church, or the Catholic Church be first? 
Answer to Dr. Sherlock, p. 202.  Resolves it thus. Christ was first himself, and then, Christians as Christians were United to him, and were the Catholic Church in Fieri, or an Embryo: And then the Pastor's Office, was made as the Organical Office to make the rest,— And when the particular Churches are form, they are thereby parts of the Universal, 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 Catholic Church, (a particular Account of which I shall give hereafter) yet here are several things for the Instruction of Mr. Job, 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 organised Church, before the Apostolical Office itself, which is more than I say, who only make the first Church, The Root and Fountain of Catholic 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 mere, Ens Rationis, in an Eutopian Commonwealth, but a real existent thing appears from hence, that in the next Paragraph, he owns, Particular Churches to be integral parts of the Catholic Church.   

CHAP. II. Concerning Catholic Communion.  
HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholic unity, the next thing in order (for I shall confine myself to the Method I observed in the Defence, that my Readers may the better know, what the present Controversy is, which my Adversaries have endeavoured to conceal, as well as misrepresent) concerns Catholic Communion.  
I asserted and proved at large, 
Defence, p. 169.  Ch. 4. That the Unity of the Catholic 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 showing that my Arguments are not cogent, my Authorities from Scripture, or Father's impertinent or false: Mr. Job thinks it sufficient to start some difficult Cases, and to confront me with the Authority of some 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 alleged, nor oppose Reason to Reason; but Mr. Job shall have a fair hearing presently.  
Mr. Baxter seems not to have read this Chapter, which is the main seat of the Controversy, but skips to the 8th. Chapter, where this Doctrine of one Communion is applied to the Catholic Church, and this is the Reason, why he does not understand, what I mean by one Communion, but imagines, that I have a Grammar or Dictionary by myself, and will excommunicate them, and make them Schismatics, 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 Catholic Church consists in one Communion. I shall transcribe his Reasons, and then give a plain and easy Answer to them.  
1. He says, This is contrary to the common course of Nature, in which the Union of all compounded beings maketh them what they are, and goeth before their Operations and Effects. The Union 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, etc. The Union of their parts is their relative Form, and goeth before the Exercise, and Use, and the Effects.  
3. It is contrary to all Political Being's and Societies: The Union 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 Union of Husband and Wife, Master and Servants, Captain and Soldiers, Schoolmaster and Scholars, as the Constitution of the Relation, go before their Communion in the Exercise.  
4. If Union and Communion be all one, than a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion; for Union is the Constitution, and makes us Christians; but the Consequence is not true.  
5. If Union and Communion be all one, than Baptism doth no more make us Christians, and unite us to Christ and his Church, than after-Communion in Prayer and Sacraments do; but this is singular and false.  
What pity is it, that so many good Arguments should be lost, for want of some Thing and some Body to oppose? for all these Arguments proceed upon this Mistake, That by Communion, I mean only some transient Acts of Christian Communion, such as Praying, and Hearing, and Receiving the Lord's Supper together; that the Christian Church is united by such Acts as these; whereas these Acts of Christian Communion necessarily suppose Christian Union, and therefore can neither be the efficient nor formal Cause of it: A man must first be united to the Church, and one Church to another, before they can communicate together in such Acts of Worship, or have any Right to do so.  
But then I wonder, what he thought I meant by one Communion; for if by Communion, I meant only a transient Act of Communion, by one Communion, I could mean but one such transient Act. And here he might have found out greater Absurdities than before, and have triumphed over this senseless 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 justify any man from the Gild of Schism and Separation. But then I cannot but wonder, that he should so industriously prove, that the Unity of the Church cannot consist in such transient Acts of Communion; for if this be true, (as certainly it is) he may be a Schismatic 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 Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion; Catholic Unity signifies Catholic Communion, and one Communion signifies one Christian Society, of which all Christians are Members. From which it is plain, That I did not place this one Communion in any transient Acts, but in a fixed and permanent State. And that this is not a new, uncouth way of speaking, but very agreeable to the Language of Scripture and Antiquity, I made appear in the same place, and concluded, This is sufficient to let you understand, what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion, which in a large notion, signifies the Christian Church or Society, which is called Communion, from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other. So that when I say, the Unity of the Catholic 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 Privileges; in this case the necessity of Affairs would require, that men should live in distinct Houses, and distinct Countries, as now they do all the World over: But yet if every man enjoyed the same Liberty and Privileges, wherever he went, as he does now in his own House and Country, 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 Privileges of natural Subjects, to the Inhabitants of other Countries, would make a Schism, and rend itself from this universal Kingdom.  
Thus it is here: The Church of Christ is but one Body, one Church, one Household 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 virtue of his Christianity, hath the same Right and Privilege, and the same Obligation to Communion, as occasion serves, with all the Churches of the World, that he has with that particular Church wherein he lives:  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 Catholic 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 Catholic Communion, prove only that all Christians and Christian Churches are but one Body, and thereby obliged to all Duties and Offices, and Acts of Christian Communion, which are consequent upon such a Relation. And this is a sufficient Answer to his three first Arguments, from natural, artificial, and political Unions.  
But upon a stricter Examination of Mr. B's. Arguments, I find he is as much blundered and confounded about the notion of Unity, as he is about Communion. I asserted, that Catholic Unity consists in one Communion; the plain sense of which is no more than this, That the Catholic 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 Union and Communion be all one, than a man is new made a Christian at every Act of Communion; for Union is the Constitution, and makes us Christians. 5. If Union and Communion be all one, than 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 premises, Ergo, the Unity of the Catholic Church does not consist in its being one Body and Society, and Communion of Christians. If this be to write Controversies, we may e'en as well lay Wagers, and cast Lots for Major, Minor, and Conclusion; for any Propositions well shuffled, will naturally fall into as good Syllogisms as these.  
And yet Mr. B. had notice given him of this distinction between the Union of the Church to Christ, and the Unity of all Churches in one Body and Society, in the 8th .. Chap. of the Defence, where I consider, what Communion is essential to the Catholic or universal Church; where the Reader may find these words, which Mr. B. himself takes notice of: I have already proved the Catholic 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 Catholic Church is invisible, which is asserted by Dr. Owen, and his Independent Brethren. But Mr. B. and others, who acknowledge one visible Catholic Church, consisting of all the particular Churches in the World, do not much differ from Dr. O ' s. invisible Church, while they make the Unity of this Church to consist only in their Union to Christ, as Head of the Church, not in the Union of Churches, as Members of the same Body: For I take it not to be enough, that all Churches are united to Christ, unless they be all united in one Body; for the whole Church cannot be the one Body of Christ, unless all particular Churches are one Body. And therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us, how the whole Catholic 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 Union and Communion is, 
Ib. p. 209.  what is the difference between Essentials, and Integrals, and Accidents, and of Union and Communion in each of these, and how many sorts of Union and Communion there are, that are pertinent to our Case, etc. 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 beforehand, to prepare them for his Instructions, as no man of sense can ever understand.  
I ask Mr. B. one plain Question, How the whole Catholic Church is united into one Body, so as to become one Church? In Answer to this, he sends me to Grammarians and Metaphysicians, to learn how many sorts of Union there are; though I care not how many sorts of Union there are, if he will tell me, what the Unity of the Catholic 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 form, and particular Christians united to these Churches, and only inquire, 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 Union, and an integrating or accidental Union and Communion. I perceive we shall never come to the Business: For I did not inquire, wherein the essence of the Church consists, or what degrees of Communion are more or less necessary to its Being, which I suppose he means by his essentiating, integrating, accidental Union and Communion; but I suppose a thousand Churches, or as many more as you please, with all the Essentials, Integrals, Accidentals of a Church, and inquire 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 organised 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 supreme, constitutive, Summa Potestas, or regent part; the organised Body of Pastors and People, but the Pars subdita, and the Union of Christ and that Body maketh it a Church. This is very well still: We acknowledge Christ to be the supreme Governor of his Church, and that the Union of Pastors and People to Christ makes them a Church; but the main Question still remains untouched, What it is, which makes all the Christian Pastors and People in the World to be but one Church.  
Nor does his Similitude help him out, which is so admirable in its Philosophy and Application, that I cannot let it pass. His words are these: As in the Constitution of Man, 1. The rational Soul is the real Form, which is, Principium Motus. 2. The organised 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 Union 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 wondered, 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 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 than 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 organised 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 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 Catholic 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 meaning, it sits our present Case very well; for then the Church cannot be united to Christ in one Body, without union with itself; and the Unity of the Catholic Church cannot consist merely 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 Logic, as well as Grammar and Metaphysics. But to proceed, as a farther Explication of this Matter, he adds,  
3. In this Union there is no Summa Potestas, or universal Governor, (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 organised, 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 Catholic Church has no other Organization, but that of 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church? If they be, than there is no need of any Union, so much as to dispose and prepare the Matter: If they be not, than I still inquire, what that Union of Churches is, which is necessary to make them fit matter for the Catholic 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 Union with Christ, and then all single Persons and Churches are one Catholic Church, because united in and to him, as all Lines are united in the Centre. So that there is no necessity of any other Union between several Churches to make them one Catholic Church, but that they are all united to Christ the common Centre; they are one Church, though as distant and opposite to each other, as the two Poles, because they meet in the same Centre.  
But 1. This is a pretty easy way of determining Controversies to outface 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 Catholic Communion to make one Catholic 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 Schismatics 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 Catholic 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 Practice; 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, than 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 Catholic Church invisible; for if the Unity of the Catholic Church consists only in the Union of all Churches in Christ, and this Union be a mystical invisible Union, than the Catholic Church itself 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 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 destroys not only the Visibility, but in many cases the Organization of the Church on Earth, for I fear the Pastors and Governors of the visible Church, are not always 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Unity, and a Catholic Church, does not consist in such an invisible Union 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 Catholic Church; and this supposes that there is a visible Catholic 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 Catholic 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. Job (I confess) has pinched harder in this Cause, having alleged some venerable Names in the Church of England against me, Archbishop 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 Catholic Communion should differ from theirs (as I think it does in some Points from Archbishop Bramhals) while I have the Authority of Scripture, and the primitive Church, I think myself very safe, notwithstanding the dissent of any modern Doctors, of what note soever. Only hence we may learn, with what Judgement and Honesty Mr. Job charges me with carrying on the Cassandrian Design, when I differ from the Archbishop 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 Catholic 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 in which they are; and that whoever causelessly separates from any Church, which lives in Catholic Communion, is a Schismatic from the Catholic Church.  
Mr. Job, to avoid this, 
Reply to the Defence, p. 14  alleges the Authority of Archbishop Bramhal, and triumphs over me after his usual rate, for not having conned my Lesson well, nor sufficiently digested my Notions, which he supposes I learned (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 says, 
Bramhal's Vindication of the Church of England. Tom. 2. Disc. 2. P. 57  The Communion of the Christian Catholic 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 says, consists principally in these things. To believe the same entire substance of saving necessary Truth revealed by the Apostles, and to be ready implicitly in the Preparation of the mind, to embrace all other supernatural Verities, when they shall be sufficiently proposed to them: to judge charitably of one another. And do not I also expressly say, 
Defence, p. 171.  that the same Faith, and mutual Love and Charity, are the Bonds and Ligaments of Christian Union? 
p. 172.  That the Unity of Faith must be acknowledged, as absolutely necessary to the Unity of Christians, for Heretics are no Members of the Christian Church?  
But we must exclude none from the Catholic 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 Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds: Here Mr. Job 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 Catholic internal Communion, by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholic Communion, and hope of Salvation. But our Questionist should have considered, that to exclude from Catholic Communion, is an ambiguous Phrase, and may signify 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 Catholic 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 signify not owning those for the Members of the Catholic Church, who divide themselves from the external and visible Communion of it, while they profess the same Catholic Faith. If the Bishop meant this, by excluding from Catholic 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 days, and St. Austin, Optatus, and the Catholic Church in their time, for excluding the Novatians and Donatists from Catholic Communion, and the hope of Salvation, not for any Error or Heresy in Faith, but for a Schismatical Separation from the Catholic Church; and I am contented to be a Schismatic in so good Company, as the Catholic Church in St. Cyprian's and St. Austin's days. But I have proved at large in the Defence, 
P. 171, etc.  that the same Faith is not sufficient to make any men Catholic Christians, who separate from the external Communion of the Catholic Church; but this our Author did not think fit to meddle with.  
Mr. Job proceeds, Moreover as to external Communion, says Bramhal, there are degrees of Exclusion, and did I ever deny this? Do I make all the Censures of the Church equal? But it may be waved or withdrawn by particular Churches or Persons, from their neighbour Churches and Christians in their Innovations and Errors, most certain! If they be such Innovations and Errors, as make their Communion sinful; but every Innovation, nor every Error, which does not corrupt their Religious Worship, is no just cause for a Separation, or for waving or withdrawing Communion. But of this more hereafter.  
He adds from Bishop Bramhal, Nor is there so strict and perpetual adherence required to a particular Church, as there is to the universal Church: But how I am concerned in this, I cannot see; for by adherence to the universal Church, the Bishop seems to mean, adhering to the Judgement or Decrees of the universal Church assembled in a general Council, which he makes the supreme 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 Judgement 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 Catholic Church; but if by adherence Mr. Job will understand Communion, I do assert, that Communion with a particular Church, which is itself in Catholic Communion, is as necessary as Communion with the Catholic Church, and he that separates from any such Church, separates and divides himself from the Catholic 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 Catholic Church consists in one Communion, and consequently that those Christians and Churches which do not live in Catholic Communion, are no Members of the Catholic 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 baptised, though they be Schismatics, Heretics, Idolaters, excommunicable or excommunicated Persons; and therefore either Christ must have more Churches than one, which I deny, or the Unity of the Catholic Church cannot consist in one Communion, as I assert; for Schismatics, Heretics, Idolaters, are not in the same Communion, and yet are all Members of the visible Church. I own his Citations out of Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field, and therefore need not repeat them, and have represented the Objection with greater Advantage and Perspicuity, than he has himself; for I neither design to cheat myself, 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 Schismatics and Heretics 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 Schismatics, Heretics, Idolaters, are Members of the visible Church of Christ, he understands the visible Church in a large Notion, to comprehend the whole Body of professed Christians. And therefore the Reason he assigns for it is, because all Mankind are Christians or Infidels: Those who believe in Christ,  their other Errors in Doctrine, or Miscarriages in Life and Practice may be, are Christians in some sense notwithstanding, and therefore visible Members of the Christian Church, as that comprehends all Christians; but those who do not believe in Christ, are Infidels. Now I acknowledge, as much as Mr. Hooker can do, that there is a difference between a professed Christian, though a Schismatic, Heretic, 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 rebaptised; 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. Baptised Christians, though Schismatics, Heretics, 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. Job alleges against me, has plainly reconciled this appearing difference, as every ordinary Reader would have seen, had our Author been so honest, as to have transcribed the whole Paragraph; and therefore since he has only cited a part of 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, Schismatics) 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 virtue thereof administered, and a blessed Unity 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 ways of eternal Happiness: Schismatics notwithstanding their Separation, remain still conjoined 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 virtue thereof administer, and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God: But as their Communion and Conjunction with the rest of God's People, is in some things only and not absolutely in all, wherein they have and aught to have Fellowship, so are they not fully and absolutely of the Church, nor of that more special number of them, that communicate entirely 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 expressly acknowledges, that Schismatics may be rightly denied to be of the Church, though they continuing Christians by external profession of Faith in Christ, may in a lose 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 easy, 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 Virtues, who are living and fruitful Branches in this spiritual Vine. And this Church is commonly called the mystical Body of Christ, by reason of that mysterious union which is between Christ and good men, and the invisible Church, because we, who cannot know the Hearts of men, cannot certainly know who belongs to this Church.  
2. There is the visible Catholic 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 Catholic, because all such Churches all the World over, are but one Communion. This is that Church which is the visible Body and Spouse of Christ, to the Communion of which, all the ordinary means of Salvation are annexed and confined. Now it is commonly and truly observed, that there are some professed Christians, who are only in this Church, others who are of it, and others who are out of it. Those who are in the Church, but not true Members of it, are those professed Christians, who live in the Communion of the Church, but yet are either secret Hypocrites, or openly wicked, but not excommunicated; these are in the Church by external Profession, as dead and withered Branches are in the Vine, till they be cut off. All sincere good Christians are both in the Church and of it; they are in the Church by an external and visible Profession, and an external Communion, which is absolutely required of all Christians, when it may be had; and they are of the Church, that is, true and lively Members of it, by a sincere Faith and Obedience to Christ. None properly belong to the visible Church, but those whom we call the invisible Church, that is, all sincere Christians; for the visible and invisible are not two, but one Church. And the Reason of the distinction between them is, because the Government of the Church being committed to men, who cannot discern Hearts and Thoughts, and the necessity of external Affairs, or the negligence of Church-governors, loosening the Reins of Discipline, many bad men continue in the visible Communion of the Church, either because they are not known, or because when known, they are not through the Neglect of Church-Officers, or cannot through the Iniquity of the Times, be cast out. And therefore the visible Church in Scripture is called the Body, the Spouse of Christ, the Wife of the Lamb, a royal Priesthood, a holy Nation, a peculiar People, pure, undefiled, holy; and by such like Characters of peculiar Sanctity, with respect to what the Church is in its original Institution, and what it actually is in its true and sincere Members, not regarding what some visible Professors are, who are in the Church indeed, but are not of it, and ought not to be in it. The not observing of which, has occasioned many Divines to ascribe all such Titles and Characters, not to the visible, but to the mystical and invisible Church, which in many Cases is the Reason of some considerable Mistakes.  
But then all Heretics, and Schismatics, and excommunicated Persons, are out of this Church, till they either return, or be restored to the Communion of it. For to be in the Church, is nothing else but to live in the Communion of it, and to have a Right to actual Communion in some or all Christian Offices: And therefore those, who either by their own Choice, or by the Censures of the Church, are not in Communion, must be out of it. And nothing is more common in all Church-Writers, both ancient and modern, than to meet with such Expressions as these; of separating from the Church, going out of it, being out, and being cast out of the Church; which is a very strange way of speaking, if Mr. Lob's Notion be true, That all professed Christians,  they are, are Members of the Catholic Church; for than it is impossible for a professed Christian, either to go out, or to be cast out of the Catholic Church, as it is for a man to go out of the World.  
This is that one Catholic Church, and Catholic Communion, which I asserted and proved in the Defence, from whence Heretics and Schismatics departed and go out, and the Excommunicate are cast out.  
But now the Difficulty is, Wither these Heretics and Schismatics go, when they go out of the Church. They cannot go into the World of Infidels and Unbelievers, for Heresy 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 Heretics and Schismatics, which is a kind of middle State between the true Catholic 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 Heretics and Schismatics, and Catholic 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 Heretics and Schismatics, 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 Catholic Communion. This was the Case of the Donatist Churches, which were in all things like the Catholic Churches, excepting Catholic 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 Catholic Churches: Which I hope will satisfy Mr. Job, 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 easy: And that is, between the visible Church, and the one true Catholic visible Church. The visible Church comprehends all Societies of professed Christians whatsoever, Heretics, Schismatics, Idolaters, or whatever they be; the one visible Catholic Church contains only those Churches, which are sound in the Faith, and live in Catholic Communion; these visible Churches are Christian Churches by outward Profession, but not Parts or Members of the one Catholic Church, which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ, as Optatus observes, that besides one Church, which is the Catholic Church, the other Churches of Heretics, 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 Catholic Church.  
The not observing this, occasioned St. Cyprian's, and the African Fathers mistake about the Rebaptisation of those, who were Baptised by Heretics or Schismatics, and upon this very Mistake, our Dissenters at this day dispute the validity of Orders received in the Church of Rome, and Mr. B. so often twits us with deriving our Succession from Rome, which if it were true, is no Objection against us, unless he will wholly unchurch the Church of Rome, and assert that, which Mr. Job charges me with; that Heresy 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 Controversy, about the Rebaptisation of Heretics, 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 Catholic 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 Say to that purpose.  
2. They were agreed also, that there is no Salvation ordinarily to be had out of the Communion of this one Catholic Church. Both of them do over and over affirm this, 
Salus, inquit, extra Ecclesiam non est, quis negat? August. de Baptismo contra Donat. l. 4. cap. 17,  and St. Austin asserts, that no Body in his days denied it.  
But, 3. St. Cyprian would not allow that Heretics or Schismatics did in any Sense belong to the Church; but denies them to be Christians, and consequently that they had any Christian Sacraments among them. 
Quisquis ille est, aut qualiscunque est, Christianus non est, quia in Christi Ecclesia non est, Cypr. E●. 52. ad Anton.  He would not allow Novatianus to be a Christian, or to be in the Church of Christ, and this was the Reason, why he so vehemently urged the necessity of Baptising those, who had been Baptised by Heretics or Schismatics, when they returned to the Unity of the Catholic Church; because Schismatics had no Church, and therefore no Baptism, it being impossible to separate the Church and Baptism, according to the Judgement 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 Baptised in the Catholic Church, did not forfeit their Baptism by turning Heretics or Schismatics, and forsaking the Communion of the Church; for no man ever disputed, whether such Persons upon their Repentance, might not be restored to the Communion of the Church without being rebaptized, 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, than the Church and Baptism may be separated, 
Ita posse extra Catholicam Communionem dari Baptismum, quemadmodum & extra eam potest haberi— Sic & illi, qui per Sacrilegium Schismatis an Ecclesiae Communione discedunt, habent utique Baptismum, quem, priusquam discederent, acceperunt: quod si foris baberi potest, etiam dari cur non potest. Ibid. l. 1. cap. 1.  which overthrows the main Principle on which the African Bishops founded their Doctrine and Practice of rebaptising Heretics.  
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 Heretics, 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 pressed; we may learn his Judgement in our present Dispute, in what sense Heretics and Schismatics 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 Schismatics 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 atque conjungitur. August. de bapt. l. 1. cap. 1.  and as much as they retain of the Church, so much they belong to it; and whatever they find of the Church among Schismatics, they are bound to approve and allow, though done in a Schism; and therefore they dare not reject the Baptism of Schismatics, when Persons so Baptised return to the Communion of the Church: so that though St. Austin will not allow Schismatics to be in the Catholic Church, whose Communion they have forsaken, yet they retaining something, which belongs to the Church, 
 ergo utraque Sententia vera sit, sicut vera est, & illa ubi ait, qui non est mecum adversum me est, & qui mecum non colligit, spargit; & illa ubi ait, nolite prohibere, qui enim contra vos non est, pro vobis est, quid restat inteligendum, nisi quia ille in tanti nominis veneratione confirmandus fuit, ubi non erat contra Ecclesiam, sed pro Ecclesia, & in illa tamen separatione bulpandus, ubi si colligeret spargeret; & si forte veniret ad Ecclesiam, non illud quod babebat, ibi acciperet, sed in quo aberraverat, emendaret. Ib. cap. 7.  the Christian Faith, and Christian Sacraments, they still have some relation to the Church, and are not to be accounted Heathens, and Infidels, and to this he applies that saying of our Saviour, He that is not against us, is with us; that is, he is so far with us, as he is not against us; and therefore is not to be rejected in every thing he does, but only in those things, wherein he departs from us: And therefore though Schismatics 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 Heretics 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 Schismatics 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 Schismatics, that Schism is so great a Sacrilege and Impiety, and Schismatics 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, etc. Ib. l. 3. cap. 17.  to which he commonly answers, That the Case is much the same with reference to Baptism administered by bad men in the Church; those who are Carnal, Covetous, Unjust, etc. And therefore he makes Heretics and Schismatics 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 Schismatics 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 Schismatics are, or seem to be within, as those who still live in visible Catholic Communion, they are all counterfeit Christians, and Antichrists. And therefore he must allow Schismatics 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 hosts & adversarios suos esse dicit, cur firmus est Baptismus, quem tradunt homicidae? An hosts & adversarios domini non dicimus homicidas? qui autem odit fratrem snum homicida est. l. 5. cap. 21.  but yet have not renounced Christianity: And therefore he observes, that if those, who are without, cannot have any thing that belongs to Christ, 
Hoc tamen puto me non temere dicere, si foris nemo potest habere aliquid quod Christi est, nec intus quisquam potest habere, aliquid quod Diaboli est, si enim hortus ille clausus potuit habere spinas Diaboli, cur non & extra hortum potuit manare fons Chrisli. Ib. l. 4. cap. 7.  neither can those, who are within, have any thing that belongs to the Devil; for if this enclosed Garden may have the Thorns and Thistles of the Devil grow in it, why may not the fountain of Christ flow without the Garden? in which he alludes to the Rivers of Paradise, 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 Schismatics 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 Schismatics are: But if he will allow bad men to belong to the Church, he must in some sense allow Schismatics to do so too, or else he does not fairly conclude from the Validity of Sacraments administered by bad men in the Church, to the Validity of Sacraments administered by Schismatics out of the Church.  
3. In Answer to that captious Question of the Donatists, whether Baptism administered by them did regenerate, which they would make a Mark of the true Church to beget Children to God by Baptism; he does acknowledge not only their Baptism, but Baptismal Regeneration; but then says, 
Quasi vero ex hoc generet unde separata est, & non ex hoc unde conjuncta est. Separata est enim à vinculo charitatis & pacis, sed adjuncta est in uno Baptismate. Itaque una est Ecclesia, quae sola Catholica nominatur, & quicquid suum habet in communionibus diversorum à sua unitate Separatis, per hoc quod suum in eyes habet, ipsa utique generat, non illi neque enim Separatio ecrum generat, quod secum de ista tenuerunt, quod si & hoc dimittant omnino non generant. l. 1. cap. 10.  that Baptism has this Effect, as it belongs to the Church, not upon account of its Administration by them: wherein they are separated from the Church, they can do nothing, but as far as they continue united, as they did in the same Baptism, so the Sacraments of the Church will have their Effect, though their Efficacy is immediately lost in a Schism, of which more presently, which is a plain acknowledgement, that Schismatics 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 herself, but by her Maids, conceived by the Divine Seed of the Sacraments, 
l. 1. c. 10.  Ergo ipsa generat & per uterum suum & per uterum ancillarumex ejusdem Sacramentis, tanquam ex viri sui semine; which how fanciful soever it may seem to be, shows what St. Austin's Opinion was, that Schismatics 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 Schismatics may retain the Faith, and Sacraments of the Church, St. Austin adds, That though Schismatics 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 Schismatics 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 Catholic 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 administered by them to be true Christian Baptism, 
Non extolluntur ex his quae habent, quid tantum per ea quae sana sunt superbos oculos ducunt. Et vulnus tuum dignentur humiliter intueri, nec solum quid assit, sed etiam quid desit, attendunt videant quam multa, & quam magna nihil possint, si unum quidem desuerit, & videant qaid siti sum unum.— Charitatem utique non habendo, etiam cum illis omnibus, quae nihil eis prosunt, ad aeternam salutem pervenire non possunt. Ibid. cap. 9  which ought not to be repeated, whether this Baptism did wash away sin? For if it did, than they were the true Church, wherein alone Remission of sin is to be had; if it did not, than it is not true Christian Baptism; and so those who were Baptised by the Donatists, ought not to be received into the Catholic Church without Baptism; St. Austin answers this two ways, either, 1. That Baptism though administered 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 Gild of these sins did immediately return again, the Baptised Person continuing in his Schism: or, 2. That the Schism of the Person Baptised did hinder the efficacy of Baptism, as any other sin does, for the Grace of Baptism is given only to Persons, who are qualified to receive it, and if any such Persons offer themselves to Baptism, who live in any sin unrepented of, their sins are not washed away in Baptism, though they receive it in the Communion of the Church: But yet, when they repent of their sins, they are not to be rebaptised, but then receive that Grace and Pardon by virtue of their former Baptism, which their Hypocrisy and Impenitence hindered them of when they were baptised: Thus it is with those, who are baptised in a Schism; their sins are not washed away by Baptism, because their Schism suspends the Virtue and Efficacy of the Sacrament, but when they return to the Communion of the Church, than their Baptism proves a true Laver of Regeneration.  
From hence we easily learn, what St. Austin's Judgement was in this Controversy: For, 1st. Though he would not own, That Schismatics in a proper sense had any Church, there being but one Catholic Church, to which the Name of Church does properly belong, as Optatus also asserts, That the Churches of Schismatics appear to be Churches, but are not, nor, 2ly. would he allow them to be Members of the Catholic 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 Catholics and Schismatics have the same Church, 
Ita ergo potest Haereticus & Catholicus Baptisma unum habere, & unam Ecclesiam non habere. 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 Heretics have any Sacraments of their own, 
Magis ergò quia pro Ecclesiae honore atque 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 completed by Reconciliation to the Church. But, 4ly. Schismatics retaining the Christian Faith and Christian Sacraments among them, though they are out of the Church, are not Heathens and Infidels, but in some sense Christians; 
Itaque 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉, sed gravius ●●●riant vulnere Schismatis. l. 1. cap. 8.  and therefore he acknowledges, that the Donatists do cure those whom they Baptise of Infidelity and Idolatry, but wound them more grievously with Schism. And therefore, 5ly. He owns them to be united to the Catholic Church, as far as they retain any thing of the Catholic Church among them, such as the same common Faith, and the same Sacraments; but yet, 6ly. That  they retain of the Catholic Church, though they believe the same Articles of Faith, observe the same Rules of Worship, have the same Sacraments rightly and duly administered among them, excepting their Schism, yet nothing of all this will avail them to Salvation, unless they return to the Communion of the Catholic Church. So that though we should not agree what Name to call Schismatics by, whether Christians at large, upon account of their Profession, without any relation to the Church, whose Communion they have forsaken; or, whether we say they are out of the Church, as having forsaken its Communion, or that in some sense they belong to the Church, as retaining its Faith and Sacraments, or whether we own them Members of the visible Church, as that may include the whole Number of Christian Professors, as distinguished from the one Catholic visible Church, which contains only Catholic Christians, who live in Christian unity and Communion, the Difference is not great, while with St. Austin we own but one Catholic Church, and Catholic 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 Catholic Communion.  
HAving thus vindicated my Notion of Catholic Communion, from the Exceptions of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Job, before I proceed any farther, it will be highly expedient to discourse something briefly of the necessity of it; for I find Mr. Job mightily puzzled 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 Catholic Communion, according to my Notion of it, should for this Reason be excluded from all the ordinary Means of Salvation. They look upon the Christian Religion to be like a System of Philosophy, and if men be careful to believe such Laws, without any regard to a Church-state, or Church-unity and Communion, their Condition is very safe, and they have a Right and Title to all the Promises of the Gospel. Holiness of Life and a good Temper of Mind, is the only thing Christ designed to promote by his Gospel; and if men be holy, however they came by it, or whatever they are besides, it matters not. This is very plausible, and a prevailing Notion in our days, which makes a great many well-disposed men extremely 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, 
Constivamus 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 utique dubium est, 〈…〉 solum quod haereticus est, Regnun Dei non ●●ssedibit. August. de baptismo. l. 4. cap. 18.  Who is , Continent, void of Covetousness, no Idolater, Hospitable and Bountisul to those in Want, Enemy to no Man, not Contentious, but Patient, Quiet, without Emulation or Envy, Sober, Frugal, but a Heretic (which in St. Austin's Language in that Place signifies a Schismatic) of such a Person he says, That no man doubts, but for this very Cause, that he is a Schismatic, 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 Catholic 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 Ruin and Misery; for God forbidden, I should ever rejoice in the thoughts of any Man's Damnation; for than I am sure, I should never go to Heaven myself.  
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 virtue 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 Catholic Charity, which is exercised in Catholic 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 Virtue, 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 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. etc.  both from Scripture and the Ancient Fathers; and it were easy 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 shows how unavailable all other Attainments are without Charity, 
Aug. de baptismo. l. 1. cap. 9 l. 3. cap. 16. & alibi passim.  to signify 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 Schismatics 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 Schismatic 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 sovereign 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 men's Notions concerning the undertaking of our Saviour, and our Redemption by him: It runs some men into Socinianism, to deny the Satisfaction of Christ; and others, who cannot be so subtle, as to distinguish themselves out of so plain and express an Article of our Faith, and therefore do hearty and sincerely believe the Satisfaction of our Saviour, that he died 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, wherever 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 Virtue, should translate him from Earth to Heaven, than that he should give him wings to fly 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 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 Paradise, 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 Virtue in this World, an immortal Life after Death cannot be the natural Reward of it; for than 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 Virtue to fit and qualify 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 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 Virtue fitted to the different states of a reasonable Nature: Unless we will say, that the Virtue of a Man, and of an Angel is the same. That degree of Virtue 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 Virtues in an earthly state: Were we to live always happily in this World; were this the best and most perfect state we could expect, it would be no Virtue, 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 mortify 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 Virtues 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, 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 Virtue must be proportioned to the State and Condition of Mankind, 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 Mankind, 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 Virtue, 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 Virtue, 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 mere Nature is; for Nature can never act above itself; and that the Gospel tells us, is the holy Spirit of God, whereby we are Renewed and Sanctified, and have the divine Nature form 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 dispense 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 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, etc. 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 to the aforesaid Discourses.  
1 Then, That Christ did intent 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 Privileges and Immunities, as make it desirable to enter into it, and continue in it; without this all Kingdoms and Commonwealths, 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 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 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 Mosaic 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 privileges of the Covenant, till they were engrafted into the Body of Israel by Circumcision, and became one People with them: So that the Mosaic 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 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 purify 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 applied to us in such ways, as he has appointed. For it will not suffice, that we make Christ our own, by a fanciful Application of his Merits to ourselves, 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 baptised 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 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 Saviour's Institutions, and does not think them mere 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, than we cannot ordinarily expect the Application of Christ's Merits to us, or the Virtue of his Death and Passion, out of Catholic Communion.  
And yet this was as generally acknowledged by the ancient Fathers, as the other, as I have already shown: St. Cyprian would not acknowledge, that Schismatics had any Sacraments, no more, than that they had any Church; St. 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 satisfy 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 baptised 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 baptised, 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 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 completed 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 ourselves 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 sanctify 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 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, Virtue, 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 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 Virtue of it to us, than 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 Apollo's 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 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 Schismatics. 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 joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, 
v. 15, 16.  according to the effectual working in the Measure of every Part, maketh increase of the Body, to the edifying of itself in Love. So that the Increase and Edification of Christians is in the Unity of the Church, and consists in the increase of brotherly Love and Christian Charity, Virtues which cannot be learned 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 signify that this is done in Unity, 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 the Merits of Christ; if Catholic 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 dispense 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 satisfy any unprejudiced 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 Sovereign 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 sovereign 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 satisfy 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 itself against all the oppositions of Men and Devils? and yet it can have no spiritual Power, if men may as well be saved out of the Church, as in it: For who then will regard the Unity of the Church, value its Censures, or reverence its Authority and Government? Spiritual Power is exercised upon the Souls and Consciences of men, and respects the Happiness of the other World, as temporal Power Governs the outward man, and respects this present Life; now all the Power Christ hath given to his Church, is that, which we call the Power of the Keys, to take in, or to shut out of the Church, which is no Power at all, if the Communion of the Church be so indifferent a thing, that men may be as safe out of the Church as in it. All the Censures of the Christian Church, which are purely Spiritual, only respect Church-communion, and therefore their Authority too depends upon the necessity of this Communion: Some were cast out of the Church, others received into the Number of Penitents, of which Albaspinaeus reckons four degrees in the Primitive Church, which were the different Degrees of their Separation from Christian Communion; now how easily may a man, who believes no necessity of Catholic 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 lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Now how can the Keys of the Church to let in, or to shut out, be called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, unless there be a necessary Relation between the Communion of the Church on Earth (which is also called the Kingdom of God) and the Kingdom of Heaven, that those who are in the Communion of the Church, and have a Right to be in it, have a Title also to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that those who are out of the Church, either by their own Choice, or by a just Censure, have no Title to the Kingdom of Heaven, and shall never enter into it. That the Church on Earth, and the Church in Heaven is but one Communion, and that no men are transplanted into the Church in Heaven, but from the Communion of the Church on Earth; upon which account the Peace of the Church, which was given to dying Persons under Censures, was called the Viaticum, or a kind of Pass into the other World: And when our Saviour so expressly asserts, whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven, if by binding and losing we will understand putting out, or receiving into the Church, it makes the Communion of the Church absolutely necessary to Salvation.  
And I farther observe, that what in St. Matthew is called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and binding and losing, 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 losing 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 Catholic Love and Charity among his Disciples and Followers is none of the least, which as I observed before, cannot be maintained and preserved in a Schism; yet here is one manifest Reason for it, that the Authority, and Discipline, and Government of the Church, without which the Church cannot well subsist, does wholly depend on it.  
If Christ have instituted a Church, and invested it with such Authority and Power, as is necessary to preserve itself, 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 Catholic 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 itself, 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 uneasy, or humersom, or ungovernable in the Communion of the Church, may leave it if he pleases, and join 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 Catholic 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 Schismatics, who may upon other Accounts pass in the World for very good men; the Reason of both is the same, Government in Church and State is of such mighty Consequence, to the temporal and spiritual Happiness of Mankind, and Rebellion and Schism so destructive to all Government, that those men deserve the severest Punishments, who disturb the Peace and Establishment of Church or State; and Schism is so much worse than Rebellion, as the happiness of the Souls of men, is of much greater Concernment, than their temporal Ease and Felicity.   

CHAP. IU. Concerning the Unity of Church-Power  
ANd now I am come to the main seat of the Controversy, between me and Mr. Job, Mr. Humphrey, and Mr. Baxter, not to mention the Country-Conformist, who is such an insignificant Appendage and Hanger-on, as a silly fly is to a Wheel, though possibly he may have no more wit, than to fancy that he has raised all this dust and stir.  
They charge me with advancing a Cassandrian design, and promoting an Union with the Church of Rome, rather than with Protestant Dissenters. And to insinuate the belief of this into his Readers, Mr. Job endeavours to prove, that Archbishop Laud had this design in his head; but what is this to me? I am no Archbishop yet, and greatly suspect, I never shall be; if he can prove that the Archbishop died like a Papist, or a Fanatic, with a lie 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 Catholic 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 Obloquys of the most virulent fanatics into the Bargain.  
But whatever Mr. Job 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, showing the folly and weakness of the Charge, I should have been more puzzled, to have found out the Rise and Occasion of it, than to have answered all the Cavils against the Church of England, which I have ever yet seen.  
But though I knew nothing of a Cassandrian Design, yet my Adversaries have found me out, and if we will believe Mr. Job, 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 myself 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 Nonsense and Ridicule, and to draw me headlong into the Popish Plot.  
1. As for the first, in order to prove that the Unity of the Catholic Church consists in one Communion, I asserted, that all the Bishops of the Church, are but one 〈◊〉, invested with the same Power and Authority to Govern the Church, that as St. Cyprian tells us, 
Defence of the unreas. of Separation. p. 208.  There is but one Episcopacy, part of which every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power: That all these Bishops are but one body, who are bound to live in Communion with each other, and to govern their respective Churches, where need requires, and where it can be had, by mutual advice and consent, and therefore that no Bishops are absolutely independent, but are obliged to preserve the Unity of the Episcopacy, or Episcopal College, as Optatus calls it, whereon the Unity and Communion of the Catholic Church depends; for it is impossible the Catholic 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 Catholic Communion, because they are not Members of each other; and thus the Unity of the Catholic 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 Controversy, under some few heads.  
1. There is but one Episcopacy, because all the Bishops of the Catholic 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 College, and a copious Body of Bishops, as all the Churches in the World are one Catholic Church, not because they ever do, or aught to meet together for Advice and Counsel, and Acts of Government from all parts of the World; no more than the Catholic Church does for Acts of Worship; but because they are, and aught 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Diocese, for if every Bishop had Authority as often as he pleased, to intermeddle in another Bishop's Diocese, and order the Affairs of his Church, it must needs cause great Confusion and Distraction in all Churches, and make the People very uncertain, whom they are to obey, and therefore it has been the constant Practice of the Apostles, and all succeeding Ages, to set Bishops and Pastors over particular Churches, and to confine their Care and Inspection to them.  
4. But yet the Power of every Bishop in his own Diocese, 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 Colleagues, and Fellow-Bishops; for this is the Foundation of Catholic Communion, without which, there can be no Catholic Church; and therefore he, who causelessly breaks this Unity, can be no Catholic 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 Case happens, for which they have no standing Rule, to advise and consult with each other, not as with superior Governors, who are to determine them, and give Laws to them, but as with Friends, and Colleagues, of the same Body and Communion. And this makes it highly reasonable for neighbour Bishops, at as great a distance, as the thing is practicable with Ease and Convenience, as the Bishops of the same Province, or the same Nation, to live together in a strict Association and Confederacy; to meet in Synods, and Provincial or National Councils, to order all the Affairs of their several Churches by mutual Advice, and to oblige themselves to the same Rules of Discipline and Worship; this has been the Practice of the Church from the very beginning, and seems to be the true Original of Archi-Episcopal, and Metropolitical Churches, which were so early, that it is most probable, they had their beginning in the Apostles days; for though all Bishops have originally equal Right and Power in Church-Affairs, yet there may be a Primacy of Order granted to some Bishops, and their Chairs, by a general Consent, and under the Regulation of Ecclesiastical Canons, for the preservation of Catholic 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 Diocese 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church. If a Bishop be convicted of Heresy or Schism, or some great Wickedness and Impiety, they may depose him, and forbidden his People to communicate with him, and ordain another in his stead, because he subverts the Unity of the Faith, or divides the Unity of the Church, or is himself unfit for Christian Communion; But if a Bishop differ from his Colleagues; assembled in Synods, or Provincial Councils, or one National or Provincial Council differ from another, in Matters of Prudence, and Rules of Discipline, without either corrupting the Faith, or dividing the Church, if we believe St. Cyprian, in his Preface to the Council of Carthage, they ought not to deny him Communion upon such accounts, nor to offer any force to him in such Matters. Thus St. Cyprian, and the African Father differed from Stephen Bishop of Rome, and his Colleagues, about the rebaptisation of Heretics, but yet would not divide the Church, nor the Unity of the Episcopacy upon that Score, for any Bishop to descent 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 Catholic Communion, whatever Church or Council should deny Communion to him, would be guilty of the Schism; which plainly shows, that there can be no constitutive Regent Head on Earth of a National, much less of the Catholic Church; since every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his own Church, and though he may, and aught 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 Heresy 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 Practice, and have now reduced them into this plain Method, that if it be possible to prevent it, it may not be in the Power of my Adversaries a second time, to form a Popish or Cassandrian Plot, out of such Anti- Cassandrian Principles.  
2. It is time now to consider, what Cassander taught about this Matter. George Cassander was a very learned and moderate Papist, who in Obedience to the Command of the Emperors, Ferdinand and Maximilian, writ his Consultation, wherein he gives his judgement 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 Judgement 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 expressly asserts, 
Quod autem ad unitatem hujus externae ecclesiae requirunt obedientiam, unius summi Rectoris, qui Petro in regenda Christi ecclesia, & ejus ovibus pascendis successerit, non est à consensu priscae quoque ecclesiae alienum. Cass. Cons. ad act. 7. de Pontifice Romano. Constat etiam olim, quatenus extat memoria ecclesiae, praecipuam semper authoritatem in universa Christi ecclesia Hpiscopo Romano ut Petri successori, & ejus cathedram obtinenti, delatam fuisse— Id. Ib.  That to the Unity of the Catholic 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 Universal 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. Job 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 Universal Church, are in the Number of French Papists; which is an Argument of his great Skill in Controversy.  
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, than it seems, that those who renounce the Pope, may be Papists still, and then let Mr. Job 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, than they are not French Papists, unless French Papists be no Papists.  
But Mr. Job, 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 dependence on the Pope, can be no Papists, how zealous soever they are for the Authority of General Councils.  
It were easy to discourse largely upon this Argument, but a few plain Proofs are as good as a thousand. Mr. Job 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 sovereign 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 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 Bishopric, 
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 quacunque 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, Patriarches, Kings, Bishops, Abbots, or whatever other Ecclesiastical or Civil Honour or Power they enjoy.  
They acknowledge 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, 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 fullness and plenitude of Power.  
But to put this out of doubt, the Council itself 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  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. council. 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 alleged for the Power of the Supreme Bishop, do not prove, that the Pope himself is not bound to obey the Decrees of the Universal 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 Synod, or any other, which is lawfully assembled.  
This is sufficient to inform Mr. Job, 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 Catholics in the sense of the Councils of Constance and Basil; both which ascribe the sovereign Authority to the Pope in the vacancies of Councils, and command all men under pain of Damnation, even Emperors, Patriarches, 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. Job talks so much of French Papists, I shall briefly show his skill in this also.  
I presume Petrus de Marca the Learned Archbishop 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, and so difficultly passed the Test, and kept him so long out of his Bishopric, 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 usque 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, atque 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 Romans Pontificibus in Gallias, aequè ac in reliquas provincias missa, quae magno applausu ab Imperatoribus Romanis, deinde à Francorum, regibus post constitutum regnum, usque 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 public Profession of Heresy; and that this is true, he proves by the Testimonies of the Ancients, and besides shows, that it has been of old the Judgement and Definition of the Gallican Church.  
5. 
5. Papam solvere posse & dispensare valide & licite à canonibus conciliorum Generalium, etiam sine causa, dummodo haec dispensatio non tendat ad labefactandum ecclesiae statum.  That the Pope can effectually and lawfully dispense with the Canons of general Councils, even without any Cause, so long as such a Dispensation does not weaken the State of the Church.  
6. 
6. Libertates ecclesiae Gallicanae consistere in usu & praxi Canonum atque decretalium, tam veterum quam recentiorum, easque non pendere à sola praxi antiquorum Canonum. Vbi ostendit ur necessitate cogente Pontifices variis temporibus pro bono publico ecclesiae, ad novas leges condendas progressos.  That the Liberties of the Gallican Church, consists in the Use and Practise of Canons and Decretals, both Ancient and Modern, and is not confined only to the Practice of Ancient Canons; where he shows, that at several times, in case of necessity, Popes have proceeded to make new Laws for the public 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 Bishopric, 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 Archbishop, Men may assert the Authority of a General Council, without being Papists; but no man can be a Papist, who does not acknowledge 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 Catholic 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 Control 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. Job, 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 misrepresentations of ignorance, or a Scholastic 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 acknowledge, that I disown a Constitutive Regent Head of a National, or of the Universal Church: And here they cry out of Contradictions, and exercise their guessing faculty, what should be the meaning of it; and yet hold to the Conclusion in spite of Nonsense and Contradiction, that I set up one sovereign 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. Job lays it down, as his fundamental Charge against me, 
Reply. p. 27.31.  that I make the Universal Church the first Seat of Government, Or, as he learnedly speaks, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church Government, that it is a Political organised Body, in which there is a pars imperans & subdita, The Bishops in their College 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 gratify the Dean, will deny the universal Church to be a Political organised Body, as indeed he doth: So that it seems I deny, what he says, I assert, which either proves, that I did not understand my self, or that Mr. Job does not, or will not understand me; and which of these is most likely, comes now to be tried.  
Only we must first observe, what he means by the universal Church, being the first Seat of Government, that it is a Political organised Body, in which there is one supreme and sovereign Power over the Whole: As a Kingdom is one Pollitical organised 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 Catholic Church one Political organised 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 organised Body, as he here talks of: And to this purpose he alleadges several things, which shall be particularly, but briefly considered.  
1. 
Reply, p. 27.  He alleadges, that I assert, That all Church Officers belong to the universal Church, and have one original Right, to govern the whole universal Church: These are none of my words, nor do they represent my sense: Every one who reads this Proposition, as Mr. Job has expressed it, would imagine, that I made every Bishop as sovereign a Monarch of the Church, as the Pope of Rome is; whereas all that I say in that passage, he citys 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 Catholic Church: That every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholic Church by Baptism, and shuts out of the Catholic Church by Excommunication, which they could not do, if they were not Ministers of the Catholic Church; but does this make every Bishop an universal Monarch, that he is a Bishop of the universal Church? Orwill● Mr. Job 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 Catholic Church; for particular Churches, are not Churches, but considered as Members of the Catholic Church; and therefore the primary Relation of all Catholic Christians, and Catholic Bishops, is to the Catholic Church. This proves indeed, that the whole Catholic Church is but one Body, and one Communion; but it does not prove, that there is but one supreme Regent Head of the Catholic 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 merely as particular, but as Members of the universal Church. And if Mr. Job meant no more but this, by making the universal Church the first Seat of Government, that all the Power in the Church primarily respects the universal Church, though as it is distributed into different hands, the Exercise of it is confined to particular Places and Churches, I readily own the Charge, and may do so safely without making the Church, such an organised Political Body, as has one Constitutive Regent Head over the Whole.  
4. I assert farther, That Bishops being Ministers of the Catholic Church, when Necessity, that is, when the preservation of the Catholic Faith, or Catholic Communion, require it, may with one consent oppose the Heresy 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 Heresy or evil Practices of any of their Colleagues. And if Mr. Job will hence infer, that every Bishop has an original Right to govern the whole universal Church, he must have a Logic 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, Catholic Peace and Communion, and the possibility of things will permit, he may exercise his Episcopal Office in any part of the Christian Church, but this does not give him an original Right to govern the whole Church.  
2. Mr. Job observes, 
Ib. p. 11.  that I say, The Catholic 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 Unity 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 College, 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 College, he says, He taketh 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 Foreign Bishops, with whom he was never joined in Council, nor ever like to be, he calls them his Colleagues, or those of the same College 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. Job takes hold of this Phrase of the Episcopal College, to make me expressly 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 College, or in Council. Which Sentence he very honestly puts into a different Character, that it may be taken for mine, and makes it a distinct head of accusation, when I never writ nor thought any such thing; but this is the dealing we must expect from those men, whose Understandings and Consciences are form 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 College into a Council. For, (i. e.) says Mr. Job, The Foreign Bishops, as those of Alexandria and Rome, etc. 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 Catholic Bishop does not lose his Character by going out of his own Church, but is a Bishop in what part of the World soever he be; and therefore may exercise his Episcopal Office, as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Christian Communion, and with the Rights and Jurisdiction of other Bishops.  
Nay, were there nothing else to alter the Case, but only the local distance between Rome, and England, and Alexandria; the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria might admonish and censure the English Bshops, in case they fell into Heresy 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 Catholic 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 Mediation and Interposition of other Churches, or an Appeal to the last Judgement: 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 Foreign 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 Foreign 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 Foreign 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 established by Law, is a particular National Church, independent on any Foreign 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 College of Bishops, but such us are convened by his Majesty's Authority, and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being grieved through any undue procedure, he cannot make any appeal to any Foreign Power from the King. And therefore he thinks, I incur a Praemunire, by setting up a Foreign 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. Job, 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 Catholic 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 wherever he be, as far as is consistent with the Rules of Order and Catholic 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 Heresy or evil Practices 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 Premises, 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 Heresy, 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 Foreign Bishops.  
I have abundantly proved in the Defence, that St. Cyprian owns these Premises, but denies the Conclusion, and therefore either he, or Mr. Job, are out in their Logic, 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 uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum, & singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta, quam regat unusquisque & gubernet rationem sui actus Domino redditurus, oportet utique 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 itself equal and just, that every one's 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 subtle and fallacious insinuations engage those Bishops, who are at Unity 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 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 Martion for his lewdness had been Excommunicated by his own Father, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph. haer. 42.  Bishop of Sinope, he fled to Rome, but was denied 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 College, does not give Authority to every Bishop, to intermeddle with the Affairs of another Bishop's Diocese, but only in case of absolute necessity, for here are two things to be distinctly considered, which qualify 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 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 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 College, 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 Heresy 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 Heresy or evil Practices 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 Diocese, though he is bound by the Laws of Catholic Communion, and in order to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Episcopacy, to consent with his Colleagues in all wholesome 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 Father's 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 Church's Peace; and nothing is more likely to make infinite divisions and quarrels between Bishops, 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 Diocese, so much more has a larger Combination of Bishops into a National Church, the supreme Power within itself, from whence lies no Appeal to any Foreign 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 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 itself.  
A National Church is bound to maintain Catholic Communion with Neighbour Churches, and if it fall into Heresy or Schism, Neighbour Churches may and aught 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 Catholic Communion, no other Church can intermeddle in its Government, nor aught to receive any Appeals from its Judgement; for no Bishops or Churches have any Authority over each other, but only in order to Catholic 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 virtue of the original Right and Power of the Catholic Bishops in relation to the whole Church of Christ.  
But however Mr. Job is resolved to make something of it at last, and if he cannot prove, that I subject the Church of England to any Foreign 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 Foreign Power, whereby he doth his utmost, to tear up the Church of England by the Roots, 
Reply, p. 29.  to subvert his Majesty's 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 Majesty's Supremacy, the Sacredness of 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 College 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 College of Bishops he transforms presently into a general Council, and thus I subject the Archbishop 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 College of Bishops, and now I am in danger again of a Praemunire.  
But this has been already sufficiently explained, in what sense I deny the Independency of Bishops, and how far this is from subjecting them to any Foreign Jurisdiction, whether of Foreign 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 Foreign Court, or Foreign Jurisdiction; unless the Treaty at Nimengen were a Foreign Jurisdiction to all those Princes and States, who sent their Plenipotentiaries thither to act for them.  
However to satisfy Mr. Job, 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 King's 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 ecumenical Council of the whole Church, unless the Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, was such; which yet was not general, unless all the Apostles were there, which I suppose will not be easily proved; for it is not likely there ever should be a Convention on of Bishops from all parts of the Christian World, nor if it were possible, that there should be some few Bishops dispatched from all Christian Churches all the World over, can I see any reason, why this should be called a general Council, when it may be, there are ten times as many Bishops, who did not come to the Council, as those who did; and why should the less. Number of Bishops assembled in Council, judge for all the rest, who so far exceed them in Numbers, and it may be are not inferior to them in Piety and Wisdom: Especially considering that every Bishop has the supreme Government of his own Church, 
Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium— Cypr. praef. ad Concil. Carthag.  and his Liberty and Power to choose for himself, as St. Cyprian tells us; and must not be compelled to obedience by any of his Colleagues, which overthrows the proper Jurisdiction of general Councils, which can have no direct Authority over any Bishops, who refuse to consent, unless it be in such Matters as concern the purity of Faith and Manners, or Catholic Unity; in other Matters if St. Cyprians principle be true, the major Number of Votes in Council cannot make a firm Decree, much less can the Votes of three or four hundred Bishops give Laws to all the Bishops in the Christian Church, which is a plain Demonstration, that a general Council cannot be the supreme Constitutive Regent Head of the Catholic Church.  
2. Since every Bishop from the Unity of Episcopacy, and his obligations to Catholic Communion is bound, as far as he can, to govern his particular Church by the mutual Counsel and Consent of his Colleagues, we must acknowledge, 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 Gild 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 entire, and will not heighten every dissent into a Schism; but where there is no such reason, it is no better than Schismatical pride and peevishness for any Bishop to pursue his own humour, in opposition to the Decrees and Constitutions of his Colleagues; for the very Consent and Agreement of Bishops among themselves is so great a good to the Church of God, that That alone is sufficient to determine a good man, when there are not very weighty reasons against it.  
St. Cyprian, I am sure, thought it a Matter of mighty Consequence to manage all the great Affairs of the Church by mutual Advice, 
Et dilectio communis & ratio exposcit, fratres charislimi, nihil conscientiae vestrae subtrahere de his quae apud nos geruntur, ut sit nobis circa utilitatem ecclesiasticae administrationis commune consilium. Cyp. ep. 29.  in his Letter to the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome, written after the Death of Fabian, during the vacancy of that See, he tells them, that both mutual Love and Charity, and the reason of the thing required, that he should conceal nothing from them of the Affairs of his Church; that so they might advise and consult with each other, concerning the most useful Rules of Ecclesiastical Administrations. And therefore he tells us, that he put off the Consideration of the State of the Lapsed, and would not innovate any thing in the ancient Rules of Discipline, till God should be pleased to restore Peace to the Church, 
Cypr. ep. 40.  that they might meet together for common Advice. And the Roman Presbyters in answer to another Letter of St. Cyprians, approve of this resolution, and add a very weighty Reason for it, that it is impossible that Decree should be firm, and obtain a general Compliance, 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 Foreign 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 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  Government, which I never asserted; to advise with all the known Churches, which were within the reach of such Communication, is sufficient to satisfy us, how necessary they thought it, to use the most effectual Means they could to preserve Catholic Communion; and that they believed mutual Advice and Counsel a very proper means for that end, and the Duty of all true Catholic 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 Judgement and Practice of their own Churches, meet together without any private or factious Designs, freely to debate and consult for the public good of the Church, the Authority of such a Council must needs be venerable, and it must be some very great reason, that will justify 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 judgement to the Decrees of a general Council, unless the Authority of the Scripture be very expressly 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Communion.  
2. But now, suppose a man should assert the Authority of a general Council, how does this subvert the King's Supremacy, or incur a Praemunire? For let the Authority of a general Council be what it will, it is wholly Spiritual, as the whole Government of the Church is, considered merely 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. Job 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 Elizabeth's days, to dissuade 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 Sovereignty 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 Foreign Power shall or aught 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 Foreign 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. etc. upon which the Clergy were convicted in a Praemunire by King Henry the 8th. and therefore Archbishop Bramhall truly observes, 
Bramhall's vindication of the Church of England.  That the Supremacy was not a new Authority usurped by that King, but the ancient Right of the Imperial Crown of England; and yet in those days it was not deemed a Subversion of the Supremacy, to acknowledge the Authority of general Councils. For after the Statutes of Provisors, we find the English Bishops in the Councils of Constance and Basil, which asserted the Authority of general Councils as high, as ever any men did.  
For indeed, since Princes have embraced the Christian Faith, no Bishops, excepting the Pope of Rome, have pretended to call a general Council, but by the Will and Authority of the Prince, nor can the Decrees and Canons of any Council be received in any Kingdom, or obtain the Authority of Laws, but by the Consent of the Prince, which therefore certainly can be no encroachment upon his Supremacy: While the King has the supreme executive Power in all Causes, and over all Persons in his own Hands, the spiritual Power and Authority of the Church is no invasion of his Rights.  
This is sufficient at present, in answer to Mr. Lob's insinuation, that to assert the Authority of general Councils, subverts the King's Supremacy, subjects the Church of England to a Foreign 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 shows his good Will to poor Cassandrians, and as much as he declames against penal Laws against Dissenters, would be glad to see the Church of England once more under the Execution of a Praemunire.  
4. Mr. Job 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 Foreign 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 Catholic 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. Job is a terrible Adversary in these days, if he can but Swear, as well as he can Write; for all this is Forgery and Villainy, as any man may satisfy himself, who will be at the Pains to peruse that part of the Defence, he directs to; where I am so far from asserting the Primacy of St. Peter over all Bishops, that I do expressly vindicate that passage of St. Cyprian, which the Flatterers of the Pope allege for this Primacy, from signifying any such thing; and for the Satisfaction of all indifferent Readers, what Credit is to be given to Mr. Job, I will transcribe the whole Passage, though it be somewhat long, as a sufficient Confutation of this Calumny, and it is this.  
And in his (Cyprian's) Book of the Unity of the Church, the first Argument he uses to prove the Unity of the Church, is the Unity of the Apostolical Office (and what that means, I have already sufficiently explained) and assigns this as the reason, why our Saviour, in a particular Manner, committed the Keys to Peter (when he gave the same Power to all the rest of the Apostles, which he did to Peter) viz. to manifest the Unity of the Apostolical Office and Power, that there is but one Chair, and one original of Unity, which gins in one; for the rest of the Apostles were the same, that Peter was, had an equal share in the Honour and Power of the Apostolical Office; but the beginning is from Unity, and the Primacy is given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Christ is one, and the Chair one, i.e. the Apostolical Office and Power; they are all Pastors, but there is but one Flock, which is fed by all the Apostles with a joint Consent.  
This is the plain Scope and Design of this Passage of St. Cyprian (which has been so often abused, especially by the Romanists) that our Saviour in naming Peter only, in giving the Apostolical Power, did signify, that the Apostolical Office, though exercised by several Persons, is but one Office and Power, which is not so properly divided among the Apostles, as administered by a joint Consent; and therefore giving this Power to one Apostle, included the bestowing this Power on the whole Apostolical College.  
And therefore, when St. Cyprian says, that Christ built his Church upon Peter, he does not, and cannot mean, the Person of Peter, or any thing peculiar to him, but that Apostolical Office and Power, which was given to the College of the Apostles in the Name of Peter, as the Church is said to be built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And when he says, that Christ gave the Primacy to Peter, and yet at the same time affirms, that the other Apostles were equal sharers with him in Honour and Power, and were all that, which Peter was, it can signify no more, nor no less, than that Christ named Peter first, or rather in stead of all the Apostles, thereby to instruct them, that though they were many, yet their Office and Power was but one, which they must exercise as one man with one Consent.  
This I suppose is sufficient to satisfy 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. Job 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 Controversy, whether he be, or not, saith and unsaith, and would verify 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 denied Propositions differ? 1. It is not a Regent part he denyeth. 2. It is not, that this Regent part is one to the whole Body, the Church. For if it were that, he would not so zealously contradict and condemn us, that say the same thing as he. And here Mr. B. himself has unridled this whole Mystery of Contradictions, though he was not willing to understand it, because than 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 denied, 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 Catholic Church, as every Bishop governed his own share and portion of it, as committed to his Charge.  
This was the State of the Controversy 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 lose 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. Humphrey, to justify 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, not by any Union among themselves, but by being all united in Christ, who is the supreme Regent constitutive Head of the Catholic Church; there is no need they should be all united to one another, to make one Catholic Church, so they be all united to Christ, the Head of the Church. Of which I have discoursed above in the second Chapter of this Vindication.  
3. It hence follows, that it is impossible to make one National Church upon pure Ecclesiastical Principles; for every one of these single Churches with their particular Pastors over them, are original Churches of Divine Institution, and no one Church or Pastor, has a superior Power and Jurisdiction over the rest; and therefore though particular Churches may voluntarily associate with each other for mutual Help and Concord, yet this cannot make them one Political organised Body or Church, but only a Church in a lose equivocal sense; for it is contrary to all the Maxims of Polity, 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 not 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 mixed Tribunal of Pastors and People, which is a Democracy, it is evident, that the several Churches and Pastors in a Nation, are not by divine Institution united under any one Ecclesiastical governing Head, and therefore cannot be one Political National Church; which makes it a fond thing to cry out of Schism and Separation, from the National Church of England, when there is, and can be no such thing, in a proper Ecclesiastical sense.  
4. And therefore the only Notion of a National Church, is all the Churches of a Nation united under the King, as the accidental Head of the Church, who is the supreme Head, and Governor of the Church in his Dominions. And thus the National Church of England has no other Foundation, but the Laws of the Land, and the Supremacy of the King; it is the Creature of the supreme Power, which made it, and may unmake it again, when it pleaseth.  
5. And therefore the most effectual way of uniting all Dissenters, is not to enjoin 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 descent from the present Constitution of the Church of England, and from each other, shall immediately become the Members of this accidental National Church of England, under the King as an accidental Head; and thus the Schism, which we so much complain of, is effectually cured, according to Mr. Humphry's Materials for Union, which shall be particularly examined in their due place.  
This is the plain account of this whole Intrigue, and that the impartial Reader may the better judge, where the Dispute lies between me and my Adversaries, I shall as plainly represent in one view a Scheme of my Principles, upon which I oppose this.  
As 1. That Christ hath but one Church, which we call the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, as united in one Catholic 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 Diocese.  
5. That yet all Bishops and Churches are bound to live in Catholic Communion with each other, that is, as Members of the same great Body, the Catholic Church, and every Bishop, as far as possibly he can, must govern his particular Church and Diocese, 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 entrusted 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 Archbishops 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 Diocese, 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 overruled by the Major Vote, contrary to his own Judgement and Conscience; he is always bound to live in Christian Communion with his Colleagues, while they do not violate the Terms of Catholic 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 entirely 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 College, 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 College of Bishops have not this Power, much less has a mixed College of Bishops and People.  
Let any impartial Reader now judge, wherein I contradict myself in this Scheme of Church Government: I acknowledge the Church to be a governed Society, to have a pars Imperans & Subdita; for every Bishop is the Governor of his own Church, and thus the whole Church is governed by parts. I deny, that there is any one constitutive Regent Head of a National or Universal Church; because every Bishop is the supreme Governor of his Church, and cannot so absolutely part with his original Right to any Bishop, or College of Bishops, as to oblige himself to govern his Church by their Order and Direction, though contrary to his own Judgement 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 Catholic Church be one by one Catholic Communion, why may not the National Church be one, by one Communion? And those guilty of Schism, who separate without just Cause from such a National Union of Churches, though it were not backed by any Civil Authority or humane Laws?  
And now I doubt not, but every intelligent Reader, will think it needless to give a particular Answer to the cavilling Objections of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey, but I must beg his patience (for the sake of others, who are very unwilling to understand these Matters) while I particularly apply, what I have now discoursed, in Answer to them; being ashamed, that I am forced to prevent such wilful or ignorant Mistakes, by so frequent a Repetition of the same things; but I consider, it is better to do this effectually once, than to be obliged to write, as often as these men can spit Books.  
The original Dispute was concerning the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England; in Answer to which Question, who is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England, I 1. distinguished between a National Church, considered as a Church, and as incorporated into the State, and 2. reinforced the Deans Answer to this Question; and though I know not any one thing, that need be added to what I have already Discoursed in the 7th. Chapter of the Defence, yet this being the Chief, and almost only Place my Adversaries have thought fit to fix on, to show 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 Universal 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 denied, without assigning any Reason for such a Denial; but to satisfy Mr. H. in this Point, I answer.  
That the Church, considered as a Church, is not necessarily considered, either as Universal or Particular. The essential Notion of a Christian Church, is a Body or Society of men confederated in the Faith, and for the Worship of Christ under such Church Officers, as he hath appointed: That this Church is Universal, is founded on the Laws of Catholic 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 Catholic Communion makes all the Churches in the World, one universal Catholic 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 joined 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 big, and the other too little to be a National Church, and a Diocesan much less: But what is this to the Purpose? Can Mr. H. prove, that a Patriarchate must of necessity be always larger, and a Metropolitan Church always less than a Nation? Might not a National Synod before the Conversion of Princes to the Christian Faith have set up a Patriarch, or Metropolitan over themselves? and may not the Kings of England, France, and Spain, do so still, if they please? And yet I did not say, that a Patriarchal or Metropolitan Church, was a National Church, but of the same Nature with a National Church, that is, they were a voluntary Combination of Churches, founded on the Laws of Catholic 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 Established by humane Laws; though the Prince, and great part of his Subjects, were Infidels, Heretics or Schismatics.  
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 Universal, or Patriarchal and Metropolitical, any more than Universal, and Answers, But when I tell him, that the Body of Christ (which is his Church) may subsist, though there were never a Patriarch, or Metropolitan in the Earth; I hope, he can see (if he will) how the Consederation of the Church, as Patriarchal or Metropolitical, and so National, must be accidental to it. I am very willing to see any thing, I can; but I can see nothing here, but his Mistake. That the Church cannot subsist without a Patriarch or Metropolitan, I never said yet, nor does he produce any place, where I have said it, for what he says, are not my words, but his own Comment. All that I say is this, that the Association and Confederacy of neighbour Churches is founded on the Law of Catholic Communion, and that Catholic Communion cannot be maintained without it; that such Combinations of Churches in several Nations and Provinces there were, long before there were any Christian Princes, and may be so still, though there were no Christian Kings in the World, and therefore that a Church may be National, without being incorporated into the State.  
It is true, since the first Records of Church-History, these greater Combinations of Churches, have by mutual Consent had a Patriarch, Primate, or Metropolitan set over them, and therefore we cannot speak of these Churches in the Ancient Language, without calling them Patriarchal or Metropolitical Churches; but my Argument does not proceed upon the Union of Churches under a Patriarch or Metropolitan, but upon their Association for Advice and Council, and Discipline, for the preservation of Catholic Communion.  
There may be such Associations without a Patriarch or Metropolitan; but the universal Church has always thought it most convenient to have one; and Mr. H. is greatly mistaken to think, that every thing, which is not essential to a Church, is accidental. There are a great many prudential Constitutions in Societies, which are of great use to the well-being of a Society, though not of absolute necessity to its being; and he would be thought a very mean Politician, who should call the Results of the best Reason and Consideration, and most mature advice for the public Good, accidental Constitutions.  
The Union of neighbour Churches for Worship, Discipline and Government, is not accidental to the Church, but the necessary Result of Catholic Communion, which is a binding Law to all Churches, and hereon I found a National Church; The Superiority and Jurisdiction of Patriarches 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, patched 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 Union 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 itself is, 
Defence, p. 561.  I observed, That our Saviour gave Command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations, and to plant Churches in them, and therefore this was the Intention of our Saviour, that there should be Churches in all Nations, as well as in all the World; and if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church, then certainly much more must all the Churches in a Nation be but one; which are in a nearer Capacity of Communion with each other, than the Churches of all the World are, and whereby Catholic Unity and Communion may be more easily preserved, than if all the Churches in a Nation were single and independent; there being a more easy correspondence between Nations, than between every Town and City in distant Nations. To this Mr. H. replies. 
Reply, p. 131.  And as for Christ's Command of planting Churches in the whole World, and so in Nations, and Cities and Towns, requiring Unity 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 Catholic Communion) if he please, provided only, that these Forms be held only accidental Forms, according to humane prudence, and not the Essential Form of the Church of Christ, according to divine Institution. But we are not a talking of Church-forms, but of Church-Communion. The Patriarchal or Metropolitical Church-form is an Ecclesiastical Constitution, though not therefore accidental, as I observed before; but Catholic Communion is a divine Institution, and therefore the Combinations of Churches for Catholic 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 mere humane Prudence, because it is not the Result of mere 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 Catholic Communion, according to our Saviour's, that is, a divine Institution, than we find a National Church antecedent to any humane Laws, and of a distinct Consideration from a Church incorporated into the State. But after all, I wonder what Church-form Mr. H. will own to be of divine Institution, since he says, that Patriarchal, Metropolitical, National, Diocesan, and Parochial Churches, must be held only accidental forms according to humane prudence, there is no form left, that I know of, but an independent Church-form, to be of divine Institution; and if Mr. H. will own this, farewell to Catholic 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, and those only, are combined under the Government, through the supreme Magistrate, to Church-purposes. This is such a lose 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 easy is it to answer Books, if bold denials, or bold and naked Assertions may pass for an answer?  
Or does Mr. H. indeed think, that because the Church of England is confirmed and established by Civil Laws, and Sanctions, and humane Authority, therefore it can be considered as a Church upon no other account? May not the same thing be considered under different Respects and Relations? Or does he think with Mr. Hobb's, that Christianity itself can be a Law to us, only considered as the Law of the Land, because it is now made the Law of the Land? And if Christian Religion as the Law and Institution of Christ, be of a distinct Consideration from its being the Law of the Land, so must the Christian Church be too, the Institution of which is a great part of the Christian Religion, the Sacraments and Promises, the Remission of sins, and eternal Life being confined to the Communion of the Church; and the Laws of Princes can as well make a new Christian Religion, as a new Christian Church; and therefore a National Church must be distinctly considered as a Church, and as incorporated into the State, for no Civil Authority can make that to be a Church, which is not a Church, nor that to be one National Church, which is not one National Communion, one Communion being necessary to make any Church one, whether it be the Universal, National, or particular Church. But of this more hereafter.  
Having thus vindicated a National Church, and proved it to be a Church, before and after its incorporation into the State, the next inquiry is, whether a National Church be a Political Body or Society, now this Dispute will quickly be at an end, if we do but recover the true State of the Controversy: Mr. B. asked, what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England? the Dean denied, 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. replies, 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 Polity: to this I answered in the Defence of the Dean, that if the Church cannot be a Political Society without one constitutive Regent Head, than the Church is not a Political Society, for it neither have nor can have any such constitutive Regent Head on earth over the whole. That the Church is one, not by one superior Power over the whole, an informing, specifying, unifying, supreme Power, as Mr. B. calls it, but by one Communion.  
Now Mr. B. in his Answer to me, 
p. 184.  instead of proving that the Church is such a Political Society, as has one constitutive Regent Head, he produces his Definition of Politica, and observes, that Polity is either a Civil or Ecclesiastical Commonwealth. That Hooker and many others entitle their Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, and Spalatensis 's learned Volumes 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 Polity is the same thing? Do not the Civil and Ecclesiastical Commonwealth differ as much, as the Church and the State? And therefore he must still prove, that as one supreme Regent Head is necessary to the Unity of a State or Kingdom, so it is to the Unity of the Church; which will be a fair Advance towards Popery. And yet I find nothing like a Proof of this, but a down right Affirmation without any Proof, That the Regent part, is the Informing part; if it have not one Regent part, it is not one Society, as Political: If it have none, it is no Polity; 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 Polity.  
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 Sense 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 Metaphysics and Logic, 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 subtlety, is no more but this. That in every Society there is something, which makes it such a kind of Society, which in allusion to Natural beings, he calls the Form of it. That a Political Body being a Society under one supreme Government, the supreme Power must be the Form of it, and therefore the National Church being a Political Society, considered as a Church, must have a supreme constitutive Regent Head, as the Form of it. The result of which reasoning is this, that if the Church be such a Political Society, as has a supreme Regent Head on Earth (which I always denied) than 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, than the Church is not a Society univocally so called, as all other Political Societies are, but is Equivocally called a Polity. 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 denied him; that there is such a summa Potestas, or supreme Regent Power over the whole Church, and then indeed it were absurd to deny a constitutive Regent Head.  
2. Then a Bishop is no constitutive part of a Diocesan Church, nor a Metropolitan of a Metropolitan Church, nor a Patriarch of a Patriarchal Church, nor any summa Potestas of any Church: or else the Catholic, 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 College of Bishops be a supreme constitutive Regent Head over the whole Church: For as for Metropolitans and Patriarches, 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 Catholic Communion: And I do not see, what inconvenience there is in granting, that a particular, and the Catholic Church, are not univocally called Churches, that is, are not in the same sense called a Church, any more than in saying, that a Part, and the Whole, are not in the same sense called the Body of a man, for the Whole contains all the Parts, and a Part is only a Part of the Whole: All the particular Churches in the World, are univocally called Churches, as being under the Government of their respective Pastors, in obedience to the Laws and Institutions of our Saviour, the only universal Bishop of his Church, but the Catholic 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 Catholic Communion.  
3. If the summa Potestas, be not a constitutive part of the Church Catholic, it is no essential Part; unless by this summa Potestas over the whole Church, he means Christ (which altars the state of the Question, of which more presently) it is so far from being an essential part of the Church Catholic, that it is no part at all; there being no such supreme Power over the whole Church: But, if so, the Church must be defined without it; and why do they not give us such a Definition, and tell us, what is the constitutive Form of it, if this be not? None so blind, as those who will not see. How often have I told him, what it is, which makes the Catholic Church one Catholic Church, which is the constitutive Form he inquires 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 Catholic Church? Now whatever Lawyers, and men acquainted with the common Terms of Law and Politics, to whom Mr. B. appeals, may think of such Disputes, as these; I am confident be they what they will, if they be men of sense, they will pity the drudgery of answering such trifling Cavils. Though I am glad to hear Mr. B. own it as a thing beyond Dispute, that a King is the constitutive Head, that is, the supreme Regent Head of his Kingdom, without whose supreme Government it is not a Kingdom.  
Mr. B. proceeds. But saith this Doctor, It's original constitution differs from secular Forms of Government, by that ancient Church-canon of our Saviour's own decreeing, it shall not be so among you, which I alleged 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 forbade any constitutive Supreme under him in his Church. Yes verily I do think so. Why then does the man so fiercely dispute for it, against it he means surely, for that I have professedly done, but never disputed for it yet. If there be none, we are agreed: In good time; why then does he and Mr. H. so rudely scorn and deride the Dean, as one who has betrayed the Church, by denying the necessity of a constitutive Regent Head? I may be a young Doctor, as he pleasantly adds, but I perceive he grows so old, that forgets what he is for or against.  
But he is unwilling this should be my meaning, because this spoils his Notion of a Political body; and therefore spitefully insinuates what he says he will not impute to me, that I speak of a Polity that hath the Power of the Sword; and yet immediately after this Compliment 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 controversy 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. says, none but such a forward one, would have alleged 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 subtle, as to prove only by a Definition. His Argument was this. There is a Government in the Church of England.— Where there is a Government, 
H's answer to Doctor Still. p. 12.  there must be a Political Society; every Political Body consists of a Pars Regens & subdita,— If the Church of England then be a Political Church, it must have a Regent part, and this constitutive Regent part must be assigned. To this I answered, 
Defence, p. 565.  by acknowledging that there is a Government in the Church considered as a Church; and if all Government made a Political Society, than 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 Catholic Communion; and this may be done without any direct superior Power of one Church, or Bishop, or College 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 myself have asserted such a Head, viz. 
Reply, p. 131.  a College of Bishops, governing by consent: But his mistake in this matter, has been already sufficiently exposed in Answer to Mr. Job, 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 distinguished from one constitutive Regent Head) makes a Political Society, than 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 College, or Cyprians one Episcopacy, as the governing Part, and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it, than I have found out a constitutive Head, and an Ecclesiastical constitutive Head by Christ's institution: For an united College of Bishops for Government (gratia Regiminis) is a formal Ecclesiastical Head. I need give no new Answer to this, having already sufficiently explained, what is meant by St. Cyprian's one Episcopacy, and the College 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 show his skill in Drollery, and in turning plain sense into nonsense, I wish at last he would give us as plain a Proof that he understood sense. It were well indeed for him, that Bishops had no Authority to govern; for then, as he well observes, they might be Schismatics without sin.  
But Mr. B. did not think this answer would satisfy any man, though he knew the spite of it would greatly entertain a true Fanatic Zeal: And therefore he adds. But I rather think the Doctor meant without superiority over one another. Ans. And verily doth the Church of England think, that an Aristocracy is no constitutive Head, or summa Potestas, or form of Policy? Had the Senators at Rome Power over one another, as such? Or hath the Venetian Senate, Or the Polonian Parliament men? Doth this novelty and singularity deserve no word of Proof, but ipse dixit? See how all Politics 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 Politics, 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 College of Bishops is neither one nor tother, nor any kind of Aristocracy; for when I speak of a Government without superiority (that is, without a supreme constitutive Regent Head, which was the Subject of the Dispute) it is as wild to imagine, that I mean an Aristocracy, which is such a Regent Head, as that, by without superiority, I mean, governing without superiority over the pars Subdita. But we must leave Mr. B. to his own way; who thinks he has answered his Adversary sufficiently, when by a perverse Comment, he has made him speak or write nonsense; 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 signify 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, 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, merely 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 public 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Communion, which is most effectually done by mutual Advice and Counsel, which I think differs a little from the Sovereign 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 shows, how well skilled Mr. H. is in Politics, who thinks, 
Reply, p. 134.  that if the Bishop's rule by a Superiority over the People, that makes it an Aristocratical Government.  
And this may satisfy 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 Diocese 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 is no other Consent required to become a Member of the National Church, than there is to be a Member of the Catholic Church, that is, a Consent to be a Christian; for every Christian is bound to live in Catholic Communion, as a Member of the one body of Christ: And if Catholic Communion makes all the Churches in the World one Catholic 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 squabbling 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 was this. If every Church must have a constitutive Regent Part as essential to it, than it unavoidably follows, that there must be a Catholic visible Head to the Catholic 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 Logic 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 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church have such a one; but that not having such a one, a National Church, as well as the Catholic, may be without a constitutive Head. I was in a horrible fright, when I heard four and five terms, and began to blush at it; but if this be all the Business, I shall be able to bear this shame very well.  
As for the Deans leaving out the terms proper Political, I gave a reasonable account of that in the Defence, which Mr. H. takes no notice of: For Mr. B. defines a proper Political Church to be a Church, which has one constitutive Regent Head, and therefore the Dean denies, that a National Church is a proper Political Church, considered as a Church, in Mr. B's sense of the Words, and this certainly was reason enough to leave it out, and yet to gratify Mr. H. we will take it in, if he will but allow the Catholic 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 Catholic Church as a proper Political Church, must have a Catholic visible Regent Head essential to it. And thus I think it comes much to one, and let Mr. B. and Mr. H. take their choice.  
But what shall we do with the Deans fourth term the visible Head, time was, when Mr. B. and Mr. H. thought this no inconvenience at all, nor any surreptitious fourth term crept into the Argument, but learnedly disputed, that Christ is the visible Head of the Catholic Church; and therefore the Catholic 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, than there is no Dispute between us; for we will readily grant, that Christ is the Head of the National, as well as of the Catholic Church: If he means a visible Head on Earth, then Visible is no fourth Term, but only an explication of what Mr. B. means by a constitutive Regent Head: And then the Argument holds good from a National, to the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 myself too, as Charity obliges me. Mr. H. says, I bring in a fifth Term, subordinate visible Head. But this is only a farther explication of Mr. B's Terms to prevent their cavilling evasions. Mr. B. says, every proper Political Church must have a constitutive Regent Head; does he mean this of Christ, as the supreme Head of his Church; or of men, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical Persons, as a subordinate Head under Christ? if the first, there is no dispute between us; for Christ is the Head of every part of his Church: If the second, a subordinate Head, then subordinate is neither a fourth nor a fifth Term, but included in a constitutive Regent Head; and I think I need not spend time to prove, that Mr. H's instance of adding Monarchical, to a visible subordinate constitutive Regent Head, is not a parallel case; because Monarchical would be properly a fourth Term, as not being necessarily involved in a constitutive Regent Head, as Visible and Subordinate are; for a constitutive Regent Head may be either Monarchical or Collective, but signifies neither determinately, unless it be expressed.  
I shall only observe, how Mr. B. and Mr. H. are apparently guilty of this fallacy themselves, of introducing a fourth and a fifth Term in answer to the Deans Argument. If a National Church, as a proper Political Church, must have a constitutive Regent Head, than the Catholic 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 Catholic Church. Where we plainly see, that in the Antecedent, by a constitutive Regent Head, they understand a Visible, Subordinate, and Mr. H. says, an accidental Head of the Church; and in the Consequent, a supreme invisible Head of the Church, which is as fallacious a way of answering, as it is of arguing. And now I leave the Reader to judge, where the shame, which Mr. H. so much talks of, must at last rest. But Ignorance and Insensibility 〈◊〉 as great a security to some men against shame, as Impudence is to others.   

CHAP. V Concerning that one Communion, which is essential to the Catholic 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 Catholic or Universal Church; and what place there can be for this Catholic Communion, in this broken and divided state of the Church, which we see at this day. Mr. B. in his Answer, Chap. 6. attempts to say something to it, but it is such a something, as needs no farther answer; for it all proceeds upon his own blundering or wilful mistakes about the nature of Christian Communion, and a supreme Regent Head of the Catholic Church: And both these I have discoursed so fully already, that I cannot excuse myself 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 Catholic Communion strictly so called, 
Defence p. 595.  consists, 1. In the agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholic Church among themselves, and with each other. Here Mr. Baxter (1) plays the Critic: 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 Catholics, that have any disagreement? That is no two in the World. I hope many 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 Catholic 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 rebaptisation of Heretics.  
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 descent, this makes no schism between the Churches, only makes him himself a Schismatic.  
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 Sovereign? But whose Question is this Sir? It is none of mine, for I always denied 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 Unity of the Episcopacy, that is, who does not live in Unity 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 Unity 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 Unity? No one that liveth not in a Union 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 Catholic Church, they may be called Bishops, as the Novatian People might be called Christians, which I have already given a particular Account of from St. Austin, but they were not Catholic Bishops, as the Novatians were not Catholic Christians; though for aught 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 Unity of the Episcopacy, which was the only Unity of Bishops, I asserted necessary too Catholic 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 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 Catholic Bishops, and who not. To this Mr. B. answers. 1. So do the Independents and Presbyterians; what do they do? Writ Letters? No doubt of it! And so did the Novatians, and the Donatists, and yet were Schismatics for all that. And this was one reason, why the Catholic Bishops gave an account to each other, who were their Colleagues, that so they might be ware of the Letters of Schismatics. I hope, it is no argument, that Catholic Bishops cannot express and maintain Catholic Communion by such Letters, because Schismatics may in the same way maintain a Schismatical Confederacy. But says Mr. B. do none this (i. e. writ Letters) but a Sovereign Senate? Yes, particular Bishops did, as I instanced in St. Cyprian, who sent a Catalogue of the names of Catholic 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 writ 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 Catholic Communion among Bishops, I observed, was by advising together about the public affairs of the Church, and Communicating Counsels with each other, and giving an account of the reasons of their Actions, (that there might be no misunderstanding between them) these last words, which I have included in a Parenthesis, Mr. Baxter has left out of his Citation, because they did too plainly discover, how this mutual Advice and Counsel did tend to maintain Catholic Unity. And answers, 1. This Independents are ready to do: What then? Does it hence follow, that they are Catholic Bishops? Schismatics may do many things, which true Catholic Christians do, and be Schismatics 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 Foreign 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 Catholics, and who are Schismatics, does from a Letter of Advice and Counsel, etc. 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 public Affairs that the College adviseth you about? The Man dreams, who talks of the advice of the College? Who is it then that must dispose of the Church, State, and Souls of all us Individuals? Every particular Bishop with the assistance of his Presbyters, must take care of his own Church, and the Souls committed to him; and that he may do this the better, in all difficult 〈◊〉, especially such as concern the whole Church, must take the best Advice of his Fellow-Bishops, that he can, where is the absurdity of all this? Surely Mr. B. makes himself more ignorant than he is, when he adds, It seems it is some body below the Senate, that is meant, when we are told, that we must obey the universal Church. I thought whither it would come at last. And well he might think whither it would come, when he was resolved whither to carry it.  
3. I observed another way of expressing and maintaining this Catholic 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 Form 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 writ: 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 Catholic Communion which I contend for, and which infallibly proves him to be a Schismatic? No, but I should prove an Episcopal College, 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 Catholic Church, into such a Communion as is due between several Churches? I could wish as hearty 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 Schismatics are for Communicatory Letters among themselves, are they ever the less Schismatics for that? All that I designed to prove by these Communicatory Letters, was this; that the Ancient Church did believe, that every Christian as a Christian was a member of the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, but yet that he made Catholic Communion too arbitrary a thing, like the Confederacies of Sovereign Princes. I should be hearty glad to see myself confuted in this point, and to find that I was mistaken in his judgement in this matter; if at least it may be called his Judgement, and not rather his Inadvertency.  
I will not dispute with Mr. B. about the judgement of this Reverend Person; for I do not find, that he understands either of us: I am sure he urges such things in his Defence, as that great man would be ashamed of; and I will not be so injurious to his memory so much as to repeat them: I may have occasion to take notice of what he says upon some other score, but Dr. Barrows name shall not be concerned in it.  
And now I come to the grand difficulty of all, which I did but just name in the Defence: What place there can be for Catholic Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church, which we see at this day: If there be no Catholic Church without Catholic Communion, where shall we find the Catholic Church at this day, when so very few Churches live in Communion with each other? This makes some men suspect, that Catholic Communion is a pretty Romantic notion of a Catholic Church, but so impracticable, that it is of no use to us now, nor will put an end to any one Controversy or Schism in the Christian Church. But this difficulty, when it is thoroughly examined, will vanish of itself. For  
1. That there are Schisms in the Christian Church, is certainly no very good Argument against the necessity of Catholic Communion; and yet this is the whole force of the Objection: That if Catholic Communion be essential to the Catholic Church, we must reduce the Catholic Church into a very narrow compass, and un-Church most of the Christian Churches in the World, as not maintaining this Catholic Communion: If this be so, I am hearty sorry for it, as every good man will be for the Degeneracy and Apostasy of any part of the Christian Church. But would Mr. Baxter have me frame some new Notions of Catholick-unity and Schism, to justify 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 Catholic Doctrine instead of Catholic Communion, had been only essential to the being of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church: Because in most Ages, and at this day, there are such great breaches between several famous Churches about what they think the most fundamental Articles of our Faith; must I therefore deny the necessity of Catholic Doctrine to a Catholic Church, for fear of that inference, that then there are many large and famous Churches, which are not true Catholic Apostolic Churches? This is the way, I confess, never to be without a Catholic Church; to make the Catholic 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 Catholic Doctrines: Such are the differences between the Greek and Latin 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 Catholic Doctrine, as well as without Catholic Communion, or must reduce the Catholic Church almost into as narrow a compass for want of Catholic Doctrine, as for want of Catholic 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 Catholic Communion, and answer this formidable Objection himself.  
II. No man can pretend, that Catholic 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 Catholic Communion essential to the being of a Catholic 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, etc. What should hinder any sober Christian, who travels into those Countries and understands their Language, from joining 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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: Catholic Communion is very feasible, when there are 〈◊〉 Catholic Churches to communicate with, but when there are none, it cannot be had; or if there be but a few such, it must be maintained among those few, that are; and that is true Catholic Communion, which includes all true Catholic 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 Catholic Church, which does not maintain Catholic Communion, makes the Catholic Church any narrower than he does, who denies the possibility of Catholic Communion, because there are very few Churches, which a good Christian can safely communicate with. For I suppose, those are no true Catholic Churches, which a Catholic Christian must not communicate with; and Catholic 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 Catholic 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, than here is a possibility of maintaining Catholic Communion with all the Churches in the World, at least excepting the Church of Rome: If they be not, how are they Catholic Churches? Are those Catholic Churches, which are so corrupt and unsound, that a Catholic Christian must not own their Communion? Catholic 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 Catholic Church, whose Communion is unlawful.  
FOUR We may consider farther, that in this present state of things, there are not many positive Acts of Communion necessary to preserve Catholic Communion between Foreign Churches; and therefore Catholic Communion is not so impracticable, as some may imagine. The Churches of distant Nations cannot worship God together, nor easily meet for Advice and Counsel, but they may own and receive each others Members, as occasion serves, which signifies their Communion with each other. Nay, where there is no breach of Communion, no declared disowning of each other, nor express denial of any Act of Communion between distant Churches, those Churches may be said to be in Communion with each other. There are some Christian Churches, which we know little or nothing of, nor they of us; but while we break not Communion with any sound part of the Christian Church, and profess Communion with all that are so, we may be truly said to live in Catholic 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 Form 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 too Catholic Communion, and is in a great measure impracticable now: The Empire being divided into the hands of several Independent Christian Monarches, 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: Sovereign 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 easy and practicable, we may consider, that the Terms of Catholic Communion are not so strait 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 controversy is a sufficient reason to divide the Church and set up distinct and separate Communions: and have espoused such narrow Principles of Church Communion, that it is almost impossible any two Churches should long hang together; much less that all the Churches in the world should agree in such matters. This Argument deserves a more particular consideration, as discovering the original of Church-divisions and the cure of them; and therefore I shall briefly consider upon what terms Catholic Communion may be maintained in the Christian Church.  
Now the terms of Catholic 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 Catholic Communion; and I will as readily grant, that no Church which denies any Fundamental Article of our Religion, aught to be owned for a Catholic Church, or received into Catholic Communion. To deny Communion to any such person, or Church, is no schism, no more than it is to cut off a rotten and gangreened Member from the Body. And if it should appear, that many or most Christian Churches are overrun with such Heresies, as destroy the foundations of Christianity, this must of necessity mightily straighten Catholic Communion; not because Catholic Communion is in itself an impracticable notion, but because there are but few Catholic Churches to communicate with; for it is as necessary a duty not to communicate with Churches, which renounce Catholic 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 Heresy does; or to enlarge Christian Communion, by receiving those into our Communion, who are no Catholic Christians.  
And I suppose, none of my adversaries will require me to give such a Catalogue of fundamental Doctrines, as are necessary to qualify any Church for Catholic 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 acknowledge, that Catholic Communion, may be as large as Catholic Doctrine, and that is as large, as it ought to be.  
But yet for the greater satisfaction of my Readers, and of myself, 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 Catholic Communion, Catholic Communion must needs be a very impracticable notion. And to prepare the way, I shall briefly observe some few things to prevent some cavilling Objections, and Prejudices against the following Discourse.  
1. That by Fundamentals, I mean such Doctrines as are essential to Christianity, and distinguish the Christian Religion from all other Religions: Now if we will acknowledge, that Christian Religion is a fixed and certain thing, we must acknowledge, that there are such Fundamentals, as are fixed and certain too, and do not alter with men's 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 itself. 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 Councils, as Mr. Baxter calls them.  
Now in the same manner I may argue against the necessity of the Christian Faith itself. 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 Heretics, who bear no proportion at all to the number of Infidels; and yet if the Christian Faith itself 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 itself. And yet neither I, nor any man else, have any thing to do to pass a final Sentence, either upon Infidels or Heretics, 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 sovereign and uncovenanted Grace of God may dispense 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 altar the very Foundations of Christianity, and make two very different Religions of it, as I shall show 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 men's minds.  
4. I observe further, that there are some Doctrines, which are necessary too Catholic 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 Communion with each other. Thus the belief or denial of the sacred Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the satisfaction of his death, etc. 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 joining in our Communion. Now that which I am principally concerned for at present, is such an account of Fundamentals, as is necessary to maintain Catholic 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 hearty believe all the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, and yet entertain such corrupt Doctrines, as in their immediate and necessary Consequences overthrew 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 Doctrines, as seem to overthrow Foundations. I think this is all, that is necessary in order to clear this point of Catholic 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 sense 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, 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 Saviour's Authority; and the sum of St. Paul's preaching at Athens, was Jesus and the Resurrection, which the Philosophers of the Epicureans and Stoics 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 distinguished 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 conjoined 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 explicit understanding of the meaning of that Proposition; who this Jesus is, what it is to be the Christ 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 satisfy inquisitive men, why such and such Doctrines have always been accounted fundamental by the Catholic Church, and to distinguish what is fundamental from some more nice and curious speculations, which is of mighty use in the present dispute about Catholic 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 baptised into this belief: For to baptise 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 Catholic Church, signifies to baptise into the Faith and Worship of the sacred Trinity; as I think, I could easily show 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, giveth 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 atonement and expiation of our sins; rises again from the dead, and taketh 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 qualify 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 Godhead 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 show this briefly.  
He who makes Christ to be either the most excellent Creature, as the Arians did, or a mere 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 mere 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 prising 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 oddly, for a Creature to be the Saviour of mankind, to be the object of a religious Faith, and Hope, and Trust, and Dependence: 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 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 denial 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 mere 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 fullness 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 virtue 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 by his own Power and Authority, inherent in himself, though received from his Father.  
Christ an excellent Creature, or mere 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 prefixed 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 dependence on it, but he is a Saviour, forgives sins, etc. by a Sovereign 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 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 Condescension 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 condescension in him to be made a man; especially if he had no being before he was born of the Virgin 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, 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, altars the very foundations of Christianity, and destroys all the powerful arguments of the Love, Humility, and Condescension 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 Reliance; 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 virtue 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 thoroughly convinced of the evil of sin, and the inflexible purity and holiness of the divine Nature; not to take notice now, how irreconcilable 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 well as of the Virtue 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 possessed 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 satisfy 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 the Communications of divine Grace and Power to renew and sanctify 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 ourselves? 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. 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 hearty 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 expressly deny the Divinity of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, as many ancient Heretics 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 acknowledge Father, Son, and holy Ghost to be one eternal God, yet there are a great many little subtleties started by overcurious and busy heads, which are not fundamental Doctrines, and ought not to be thought so: God forbidden 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, etc. should be reckoned 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 Latin Church about the Filioque, be of more importance than such Scholastic subtleties, yet I cannot see, that it concerns the foundation of our Faith. For the Greek Church did firmly believe the holy Spirit to be true God, though they would not own, that he proceeded from the Father, and the Son, but from the Father only: And though we must acknowledge 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, Assenstion 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 save us; and therefore we must acknowledge, 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 Catholic 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 destroys the Mystery of our Redemption by the Blood of God: For whatever Dignity and Honour were conferred 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 Heresy of Eutyches is certainly equally dangerous; for he ran so far from the Nestorian Heresy of two Persons, that he denied 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 denied 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 itself to be passable. And I think, I need not show, how this overthrows the fundamental Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, which proves it to be a fundamental Heresy.  
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 Faction in the packed Council of Ephesus) confutes the Heresy 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 show, 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 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 Catholic Church: This is the Faith we are baptised into, according to our Saviour's Command, to baptise 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 Heretics arose, who corrupted this Faith, the Catholic 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 Heretics were condemned: This occasioned the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and the Athanasian Creeds, which contain only the Catholic 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 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 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 entered 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 itself. 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 acknowledge the atonement and expiation of Christ's 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 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) than 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 Virtue: 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 enjoin the practiee of an universal Righteousness, which is the whole of a 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, 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 virtue 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 virtue 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 virtue of a Sacrifice, and affects our minds in a different manner, and excites different Passions, and very different acts of Devotion, and makes our Worship differ as much, as a Mediator by Sacrifice does from a Mediator by Interest and Power.  
As for the other parts of Religion, which concern our Conversation with men, or the Government of our own Appetites and Passions, there seems to be some new instances, or new degrees of Virtue, which have a necessary dependence 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 Badge of our Discipleship, to love one another, as he hath loved us, to forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us; all Acts of kindness and charity to our poor Brethren, as knowing the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he were rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty may be rich, the force and prevalency of which example, and of which reason, I think is greatly abated by denying the expiation of Christ's death. However I think it is very plain, that the true principle of Gospel-obedience, that which makes all our actions in a strict and proper sense Christian Graces and Virtues, 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 ourselves to Christ, as the purchase of his Blood, for we are not our own, but bought with a price, and therefore must glorify God both with our Bodies, and with our Spirits, which are God's; we must yield ourselves willing Captives to the conquering and constraining Power of his Love: the Love of Christ constrains us, for we thus judge, that if Christ died for all, then were all dead, and that he died for us, that we who live, might not henceforth live unto ourselves, but unto him, who died for us. If Christ did not redeem and purchase us by his Blood, all this signifies nothing; it is all but Phrase, and Metaphor, and Allusion, which cannot form a principle of Action: And yet the Apostles of Christ do not so much insist on the Authority of God, as our Maker and Governor, as on his purchase as Redeemer, on the love of our dying Lord, who is our Priest, our Sacrifice, and Mediator; and were it possible to obey the Gospel without any regard to the redemption of Christ, and that stupendious love of God in it, it were not true Evangelical obedience, no more than it is obedience to God, to do what he commands for some private end and reason of our own, without any regard to his Authority and Government.  
So that whether the Doctrine of the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death be true or false, it is certainly fundamental either way, either a fundamental Article of Faith, or a fundamental Error, because it altars 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 Fabric of Christian Religion, as it is taught in the Gospel, is built on it.  
2. There is one consideration more, which will confirm this, that the atonement and expiation of Christ's death is a fundamental Doctrine, because the Blood of Christ, that is, the expiation of his Blood, is the peculiar object of justifying Faith; now certainly that must be fundamental, which is essential to justifying Faith. Salvation or Justification by Christ being the sum of the Gospel, whatever is essential to justifying Faith, is certainly a fundamental Doctrine of Christianity, if there be any such thing as Fundamentals.  
Repentance in its full Extent and Latitude, as it includes not only a sorrow for our past sins, but the reformation of our lives, and an actual obedience to all the Laws of the Gospel, is a necessary condition of our Pardon and Justification, or necessarily required in those, whom God will justify: But Repentance and a new Life cannot justify us: No Religion, that ever was in the World, taught men certainly to expect Pardon of sin merely 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 mere Repentance, to obtain their Pardon: And the reason why God hath appointed us no Sacrifice but a broken heart, or the living Sacrifice of an obedient Soul and Body, to offer to him, is because he has provided an expiatory Sacrifice himself, hath given his own Son to be a Sacrifice for us; and the Pardon of our sins is every where attributed to the death of Christ, as the meritorious Cause. But then as Christ hath died for our sins, and redeemed us with his Blood, and God for Christ's sake will pardon and justify all repenting sinners, so we must consider, that mere repentance can no more apply or appropiate the Sacrifice and Expiation of Christ's death to us for our Pardon, than it can justify us without a Sacrifice: That is the peculiar Office of Faith in Christ, or Faith in his Blood: as St. Paul expressly 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 sense 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 distinguished from Repentance and a holy Life; and so has Christ, and in a peculiar manner his Blood, for its Object. Thus the sum of St. Paul's preaching was Repentance towards God, 
Act. 20.21  and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ: And the Commission Christ gave to his Apostles, was, 
Luke 24.47.  to preach Repentance and Remission of sins in his Name; that is, through Faith in his Name: So that Faith in Christ is distinguished 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 offered, 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 virtue of it to ourselves, as the Oblation of the Sacrifice did under the Law; for if we would have Christ for our Saviour, or have any interest in the expiation of his death, we must choose him for our Saviour by Faith in his Blood. For I cannot see, but why Repentance may be as well accepted from us without a Sacrifice, as without respect and relation to a Sacrifice, and yet the only thing, that can entitle our Repentance in particular to the virtue 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 hearty believe, that Christ died 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 virtue of his Sacrifice and Intercession, they may fall into great mistakes about the Nature, Extent, and Application of this Sacrifice, and yet not err Fundamentally, though their Errors may be dangerous, and always are so, when they betray them to sin.  
Of this Nature I reckon some of those unhappy Disputes, which have torn and divided the Church in these late days of Liberty and Confusion, Whether Christ bore our sins, or only the punishment of sin, whether he were the greatest sinner, or only the greatest Sacrifice for sin: Whether he suffered the same Punishments, which all sinners should have suffered, had they been damned for their sins, or suffered that which was equivalent to it, and which God accepted for a complete and perfect satisfaction. Whether the expiation of Christ's death was so absolutely necessary to the Pardon of our sins, that God could not forgive sin without it, or whether God choose this way, as most agreeable to the wise methods of Government, and the most glorious Illustration of all his Attributes. Whether the death of Christ made satisfaction to a natural vindictive Justice, and was paid to God, as the offended Party, or as the Governor of the World. Whether Christ made a general atonement for sin, or satisfied only for the sins of the Elect; whether all the sins of the Elect were actually laid upon Christ from Eternity, and actually pardoned before they were committed, or whether they are pardoned in time, when we repent and believe. Whether what Christ suffered for us, is so imputed to us, as if we ourselves had done it; which makes the greatest sinners perfectly Innocent, and looked upon by God, as never to have sinned, or whether it be imputed to us only for our Pardon and Justification. Whether the active as well as passive Obedience of Christ be imputed to us for Justification.  
These and such like Doctrines, some of which are of a very dangerous nature, and a great state of temptation, yet are not fundamental Errors, because they do not destroy the Foundation, the atonement and satisfaction of Christ's death is acknowledged on all hands, though some of these Doctrines do greatly obscure the grace of God, and his stupendious wisdom in the redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, and therefore must be reckoned as Hay and Stubble built upon the Foundation, which will prove a great loss and damage to such Builders, when every man's work comes to be tried.  
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 sanctify 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 applies the merits of his Sacrifice, does as much alter the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, as to deny the atonement of his death, and to deny the assistances of the divine Spirit, is in effect to deny his Intercession, of which the Communications of divine Life and Power is the principal part.  
2. To deny the assistances of the holy Spirit, turns the Gospel into a mere 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 destroys 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, mere 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 succours, 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 virtues, 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 , how the operation of the Spirit is reconcileable with the freedom of humane action; whether the habits of grace be immediately infused, or acquired by frequent Acts, these I say, and such like Disputes are not fundamental; for though it is of great moment for the government of our lives, which of these we believe, yet the Foundation which is the assistance of the divine Spirit, is secured either way, and all that men are to look to is, that they do not entertain such ill notions of God's Grace, as shall make them secure and careless of a holy Life.  
All that I can think necessary to add more concerning the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, is what I have already sufficiently hinted, the necessity of Repentance and a holy Life. There are, I confess, a great many dangerous Disputes about this matter, what place Repentance and a holy Life have in the justification of a sinner. And though it is of very great moment to understand this matter rightly, and as particularly as we can, for fear of that ill influence which such mistakes may have upon our lives, and too apparently have upon the lives of many professed Christians; yet I cannot think, that man errs fundamentally, who believes, that God will justify 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 justify as an Instrument, or as a Condition, etc. For while Faith in Christ and Obedience to his Laws are both secured, without either derogating from the Grace of God, or the Purity of the Christian Religion, other mistakes, though dangerous, when pursued 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 men's 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 myself 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 Catholic 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 assuage that intemperate heat, with which they are managed, and more easily reconcile our differences; and yet I have not rejected any Doctrine out of the number of Fundamentals, which was ever defined to be such by any received general Council of the Christian Church; which gives me some hope, that I am come pretty near the mark.  
But to give some new light to this matter, and to prevent such objections, as I can foresee, there are some few things, which I shall further observe, before I proceed.  
1. The first concerns the judgement 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 itself, though what that is, he does not tell us, and therefore how far I agree with Mr. Streso in that, I know not. The other two he measures by their relation to it, either à parte ante, and such he terms sub Fundamentales, (which by Mr. Mede's censure I perceive, did not strictly belong to Christianity, but either to the principles of natural Religion, or the Jewish State) or à parte post, which may be called super Fundamentales, which he makes such as are by immediate and necessary consequence deducible from the Fundamentum salutis, where he observes, that he had inserted some Doctrines of pure speculation among Fundamentals, which I confess to be a great fault: But from this imperfect account of Mr. Streso's notion, I cannot guests, 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 mere 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 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 itself is, unless the Letters or Words of the Article be Fundamental, but not the true sense of it; and within these bounds I have kept myself; 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 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 merely speculative, and contained only in the understanding, but of such only as have a necessary influence upon practice, 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 knowledge and belief whereof, we can neither invocate the Father aright, nor have that Faith and reliance 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 worshipped, 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 reliance on Christ for the forgiveness of sins. How well this agrees, with what I have discoursed 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 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 Virtue 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 holiness 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 sense 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 virtuous Life, which though they be adopted into Christianity, yet will hardly pass for fundamentals of Christianity with any man, who can distinguish between natural knowledge and Revelation.  
4. Men may live very holy lives without the knowledge 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 incline some men to the practice of real holiness.  
6. Some Doctrines, which naturally tend to debauch men's lives, are not yet fundamental Errors, for men may believe them and yet live well; and therefore we shall still want a Rule to judge of fundamental Heresies by, unless no Heresy be Fundamental, but when it debauches men's 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 itself into a new Religion; for if they think they can obey God without such Doctrines, nay without the belief of Christianity itself, I cannot see, why they should believe Christianity itself 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 itself is the great motive of the Gospel, and every part and branch of it is big with arguments and persuasives to Virtue. Take away the Doctrine of Salvation, and no other consideration can have any force; and there needs no other Arguments to a Christian, nay, there are no other Gospel-Motives, but what are contained in it. Whatever is essential to the Doctrine of Salvation, is a Fundamental Article and a powerful Motive of Christianity, and nothing else is either. So that there is no such certain way to discern Fundamentals, though they were to be tried 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 Knowledge and Virtue: 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 Knowledge, and to instruct her Children, not only in those Doctrines, which are absolutely necessary to the being of Christianity, but in all those great truths, which advance our Progress in the Christian Life. And therefore no doubt, but every Church has Authority over her own Members, to require, as the terms of Communion, an explicit assent to many great and useful truths, and an abrenunciation of many dangerous Errors, which are not in a strict sense 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 men's 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 Catholic Communion between distinct Churches, which have no Power and Authority over each other: For though a Church have entertained many corrupt and dangerous Doctrines, yet if she profess to believe all the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, we have no Authority upon the account of Doctrines to divide from her Communion: We must not indeed communicate in her Errors, though not Fundamental, and no Church, but the Church of Rome imposes such hard terms of Communion upon other Churches, but while she retains all the essentials of Christian Faith, she is so far a true Church; and if there be nothing to hinder it, may and aught to be received into Catholic Communion.  
3. When I assert, that such and such Doctrines are Fundamental, by Fundamentals I understand the Fundamentals of Christian Knowledge, 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 Catholic 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 explicit knowledge and belief of Fundamentals is necessary to Salvation: What shall become of so many Christians as are guilty of gross ignorance for want of good Instruction, and scarce understand any thing distinctly of the Christian Religion? or what shall become of those, who through the prejudices and prepossessions of Education, deny any fundamental Article of the Christian Faith, as the Divinity of Christ, or his satisfaction for sins, and yet are otherwise very pious, devout, and useful men? I say, I do not think myself 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 Knowledge for the sake of any difficult Cases; for that is to deny the necessity of Christianity itself, or of Faith in Christ, to the Salvation of sinners; and thus our Charity to other men will make us ourselves the greatest Heretics of all. And if any part of Christian Faith and Knowledge is necessary to Salvation, certainly the knowledge and belief of Fundamentals is, which are therefore commonly described by this Character, the knowledge and belief of which is necessary to Salvation: And if Infidelity be a damning sin, why should not a fundamental Heresy 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 explicit understanding of the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, and of those, who deny any Fundamental. As for the first, a very little indistinct knowledge 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 learned 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 knowledge as this, without any fundamental Error to spoil the virtue and efficacy of it, may suffice to produce all those Acts of a Christian life, which are absolutely necessary to a state of Salvation, such as Repentance from dead works, and a trust and affiance in God through the Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins. The Thief upon the Cross cannot well be supposed to have known so much, and the Jewish Converts, who embraced the Faith upon St. Peter's preaching to them, and were immediately baptised 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 baptised 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 implicit Faith in Christ, and err not for want of instruction, but from a certain wantonness and pride of understanding. They inquire into the particular Doctrines of Faith, and understand, what has been, and is, the general Faith of Christians in such matters, for otherwise they would have no occasion to deny such Catholic Doctrines; it appears, they have a great conceit and confidence of their own knowledge, that they dare oppose their private opinions and reasonings against the declared sense 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 virtuous Jews and Heathens.  
2. Having thus, as plainly as I can, stated and notion of Fundamentals, the next inquiry is concerning those Churches, which professedly own all the Fundamentals of Christianity, and yet together with the belief of all Fundamentals entertain such corrupt Doctrines, as in their immediate and necessary consequences overthrew 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 myself to the Church of Rome. I know no fundamental Article of our Faith, that is expressly denied 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 show this briefly with reference to the satisfaction, and intercession of Christ.  
The Doctrine of Christ's satisfaction seems many ways to be overthrown by the Church of Rome: As by the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, which is offered for the quick and for the dead: For if Christ made a perfect satisfaction for sin by his death upon the Cross, what need of repeating this Sacrifice every day, which represents the Sacrifice of Christ, to be as imperfect as the Sacrifices of the Law, which could not take away sin, nor make the comers thereunto perfect, and therefore were repeated again every year. Thus the Doctrine of humane Penances and Satisfactions, especially the fire of Purgatory, the merits of good Works, and the superabundant merits of some eminent Saints, which compose the Treasury of the Church, and may be applied by the Pope to other sinners to purchase their Pardon, which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of indulgences, seem mightily to disparage the satisfaction of Christ, for if he have made a perfect atonement for all our sins, we need not invent so many other ways of satisfaction.  
And whoever considers what the Church of Rome teaches about the Intercession of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary, could hardly think that she did believe, that there is but one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.  
But I need not enumerate many particulars, the truth of this being too evident and notorious: The great Question then is this, whether such a Church may be said to be guilty of Fundamental Errors; for this sounds like a contradiction, that a Church which believes all the fundamental Articles of that Christian Faith, should yet be guilty of fundamental Errors. And indeed if by fundamental Errors, we mean such Errors as deny any fundamental Article, so it is plain, that a Church which owns and professes all Fundamentals, cannot be guilty of fundamental Errors, but if by fundamental Errors, we mean such Errors, as contradict the Fundamentals of Faith, so she may be guilty of fundamental Errors, because it is possible for a Church to believe two Doctrines, which contradict each other, when the Contradiction is not in express terms, but consequential: For all men or Churches do not see, or will not own the immediate and necessary consequences of their own Doctrine; as may easily be observed among a great many other men besides those of the Church of Rome. And the use of this observation is very considerable upon many accounts, but especially in our present Dispute about Catholic 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 overthrew 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 Catholic Communion, because she denies Catholic Doctrine, which is the necessary condition of Catholic Communion; but the second in some cases may be, because she retains all saving knowledge, i. e. all which is of absolute necessity to Salvation, though intermixed 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 aught 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 qualify 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 hearty believe 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 poison 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 men's minds, who are not throughly possessed with some other Principles to qualify 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 irreconcilable 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 possessed with a prevailing sense 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 oftener hinder the efficacy of an orthodox Faith, than an orthodox Faith prevents the mischief of an erroneous persuasion, as is lamentably seen in the lives of too many men: But the only inference I draw from hence is this, that every Error, though in itself 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 join 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, and the consecrated Host, it is necessary then to withdraw ourselves 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, Catholic 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 justify 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 itself (as absurd a Doctrine, as it is) a mere 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 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 merely 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 Catholic Communion cannot be maintained among Churches of a different belief and persuasion 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 Catholic 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 this is practicable, to maintain Christian Communion notwithstanding this variety of Opinions, is evident, not only from the intrinsic 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 joint exercise of all the Acts of Christian Worship, 
Defence, p. 443. etc.  as I discoursed 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, 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 Catholic Communion upon as easy 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 merely the difference of Opinions, but the distempers of men's 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 Catholic Communion with respect to Doctrines, from which it evidently appears, that Catholic Communion is neither in its self an impracticable notion, nor the practice of it very difficult to all good Christians.  
II. It is time now to consider the next Inquiry, what are the necessary terms of Catholic 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 College 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 both a very invidious and uncharitable thing, and a great injury to the Reformed Profession, and does mightily straighten Catholic 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 Countrymen, 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 justify our Schisms at home. And to do this 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 settled 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 established 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 justify 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 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 reform Church ever did before: The Reformed Churches abroad separated from Popish Bishops, our Dissenters separate from Episcopacy itself.  
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, who answer to our Bishops and Archbishops; 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 Schismatics, and declared their judgements 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 justify the Lawfulness of a Presbyterian parity. 
Durel's Church-government. Saywell's Evangelical and Catholic Unity, etc. p. 228, etc.  It were easy here to fill up several Pages with the judgement 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 vilify 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 fly from them as the great troublers of our Israel: I cannot imagine, what service 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 Schismatic from the Catholic 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 show 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 forced to acknowledge, that in the succeeding Ages of the 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 Catholic Church for so many hundred years. As far as Episcopal Government is concerned, they condemn the whole Catholic 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 Schismatics, 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 ourselves, and it must be so according to the Principles of Catholic 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 satisfy 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 justify those Foreign Churches which have no Bishops, will not justify 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 rend 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 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 justify 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 justify them; For, 1. As believing the divine right of Episcopal Government, which I shall not now go about to prove, I must acknowledge 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 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 Catholic 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 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 disannul 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 though this practice was condemned, yet it did not un-church them.  
God had appointed Aaron's Family for the Priesthood, 
1 Kings 12.31.  and yet Jeroboam made Priests of other Tribes and Families, and the Law, which expressly appoints Aaron and his Sons for the Priest's Office, only threatens death against Usurpers: 
Numb. 3.10.  Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his Sons, and they shall wait on the Priest's 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 Highpriest, who was not of the Family of the Priests; and yet I should be loath 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 dispense even with divine Institutions: No necessity can dispense with the eternal Laws of good and evil, because no necessity can be pleaded to justify 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 Virtue 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 Changed ron. 29.34.35.11.  the Levites assisted them in doing the Priest's 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 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 administering Sacraments must be derived from God, and that this Power now is given only by Episcopal Ordination, aught 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, 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 ratify 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 Bishop's work in case of necessity, as well as Levites do the work of Priests.  
2. The necessity of men's lives dispense with positive Laws. Upon this account our Saviour justifies David's eating the Shewbread, when he was an hungered, 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 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, which in other cases he had not.  
Now it is not only highly reasonable to presume, that the Catholic 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 practice 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 Laymen to baptise, 
Vbi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, & offers, & tinguis, & sacerdos es tibi solus. Tert. de exhort. cast. cap. 7.  and if we will believe Tertullian to consecrate too, in case of necessity, that is, where there have been no Bishops, nor Presbyters to administer those Offices, and we may as well presume the allowance of the Church for Presbyters to Ordain, when there are no Bishops, as for Laymen to administer the Sacraments, where there are no Bishops nor Presbyters.  
I allege Tertullian's Authority, not for the sake of his reason, but as a witness of primitive Practice: The reasonings of particular men do not always express the sense of the Church, but their own private Opinions, though they may be allowed to be good Witnesses, what the practice 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. 
Nun & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est, regnum quoque nos & sacerdotes Deo. & patri suo fecit Ibid.  He says indeed, that even Laymen 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, & honour per ordinis consessum sanctificatus.  and such assurance of acceptance, as was thought peculiar to Priests in former Ages. Well but is there no distinction then betwixt the Christian Clergy and People? Yes, this he owns, but says it is by the appointment and constitution of the Church. What does he mean by this? That it is a humane, arbitrary, and alterable Constitution? By no means! But it is the honour of a peculiar Sanctification and Separation of certain Persons to the work of the Ministry, to which God has annexed his Blessing and Authority. And therefore the Constitution of the Church here includes the Authority of Christ, and of his Apostles, who from the beginning have made this distinction, as Tertullian every where confesses.  
To what purpose then is all this? 
Si habes jus sacerdotis in temet ipso, ubi necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Ib.  How does he hence prove, that every man in case of necessity is a Priest to himself? That he has the right of Priesthood in himself, when it is necessary, and therefore may perform the Office of a Priest also, when it is necessary? For if Christ and his Apostles have from the first Foundations of the Christian Church made a distinction between the Evangelical Priesthood and the People, and have instituted the Ministerial Office with a peculiar Power and Authority, how can it be lawful for a private Christian upon a pretence of the general Priesthood of Christians, in any case whatsoever, to perform such religious Acts, as are peculiar to the Evangelical Ministry?  
But the force of Tertullian's reason seems to consist in this; That all Christians being an Evangelical Priesthood, to offer up the spiritual Sacrifices of Prayers and Thanksgivings to God, through the merits and mediation of our great Highpriest, they are not debarred 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 public 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 public Administration of religious Offices, to Persons peculiarly devoted and set apart for the work of the Ministry. But the Institution of this Order being wholly for the service of the Church, and not for any other mystical reasons, in case of failure, where there are none of this holy Order to perform religious Offices, the universal Priesthood of Christians takes place, and any private Christian without a regular and external Consecration to this Function, may perform all the Duties and Offices of a Priest.  
For there are two things, wherein the Aaronical and Evangelical Priesthood differ, which make a mighty alteration in this case. The Aaronical Priesthood was Typical or Mystical, and Mediatory, the Evangelical Priesthood is neither: Now all men cannot pretend a right to a Mystical, much less to a Mediatory Priesthood, but only such, as have a divine appointment and designation to this Office; for the nature of Types and Mysteries is lost, if the Person be not fitted to the Mystery, and the virtue of the Mediation is lost, (at least our absolute assurance of it) if the Person do not act by Authority and Commission: But now under the Gospel, the Institutions of our Saviour are plain and simple, without any shadows and figures, and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the Worship, which requires peculiar and appropriate Persons; and Christ is now our only Mediator between God and men, and therefore we need not any other Mediators of divine appointment, in virtue 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 public 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 Highpriest. But St. Paul, who knew, that Christ was our only Mediator, who was entered 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 People's Devotion, or as they are the Prayers of the Church. And when the Donatists proved, that wicked Bishops could not minister in holy things, because under the Law no man was to officiate as a Priest, who had any blemish or defect, he answers, that this was only Typical of Christ, 
Ib. cap. 7.  and fulfilled only in him.  
So that the Apostolical or Episcopal Office, though it be frequently by the Ancients called Sacerdotium, in allusion to the Aaronical Priesthood, yet indeed it hath nothing of the proper nature of the Aaronical Priesthood in it, but is instituted by Christ for Instruction, Discipline, and Government, and the public 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 itself; but in case of necessity, where the succession of Apostolical Power fails, or a plenary Authority to convey it, it admits of a more easy redress, than the failure of a Mystical or Typical Priesthood would do: For there is no Office of Religion, but in such a case any Christian may perform, we being all Priests to God through Jesus Christ; and as for Authority, necessity and the designation of fit Persons by the Church, when the regular ways of conveyance fail, may be very easily presumed to be approved and confirmed by God.  
This I take to be the true sense 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 Laymen, to baptise in case of necessity, the Practice 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 Laymen 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 practice of the Church in allowing the baptism of Laymen in case of necessity, seems to me utterly to overthrow those Principles, which a learned Author has Published in his late Discourse of Schism. Some of his Principles are these; That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments. That the Validity of the Sacraments, depends upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered; they being the Seals of the Covenant, which as in all Covenants between man and man, are void in Law, if they be not applied 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 suffice, that either these Principles are false, or the Catholic 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 baptises, than the Baptism of Laymen, who according to his Principles can have no such Authority, must be actually void, and have no saving effect, and then the Catholic Church ever since Tertullian's time has erred in a matter necessary to Salvation: And how specious soever any Arguments may be, I shall be always jealous of such a Conclusion, as charges the Primitive and Catholic Church with ignorance and error, so dangerous and destructive to men's Souls.  
This learned man was ware of this, 
Separation of Churches, etc. p. 143.  and therefore confesses, For my part I do not understand, how the validity of Laics, and much more women's 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 intent 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 Laics were allowed to baptise, which overthrows his whole Hypothesis, whereby he confines this to Ecclesiastical Ministers in all cases whatsoever. If the Church in case of necessity has permitted Laics to baptise, we may presume, that in the same necessity, she will allow Presbyters to Ordain; if Laics are not capable of such a delegation, than the Catholic Church has erred in a fundamental Practice, which is necessary to Salvation; if they be, than 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 Laics 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 Laic, and yet erected Churches, whether those Christians, 
Dum regni gubernacula Frumentius haberet in manibus Deo mentem ejus & animos instigante, requirere sollicitius caepit, si qui inter negotiatores Romanos Christiani essent, & ipsis potestatem maximam dare, ac monere ut Conventicula per loca singula facerent, ad quae Romano ritu orationis causa constuerent. Ruff. l. 10. Hist. Eccl.  whom he found there resorted, to pray to God after the manner of the Church of Rome, which in those days was performed with the celebration of the Eucharist, and yet they had no Bishop, nor Presbyter among them; and though Ruffinus mentions only their meeting together, to pray after the manner of the Church of Rome, yet what that means, Theodoret tells us more expressly, 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, etc. p. 417.  both by his Covenant for the graces conveyed in the Sacraments, and by his design of establishing Government through all Ages of succession to supply those failures. So that it seems, there is great reason in some cases, that God should supply the failures of a valid Authority; that God should make and account those Sacraments valid, which have not the validity of a just Authority: And if this may be done in any case, certainly the case of necessity is as considerable as any: And the necessity of preserving the being of the Church, seems to me as considerable, as the preservation of Government, which is only in order to the preservation of its being.  
But this is a matter of such great moment, that I cannot pass it over without a more particular Examination of some Principles, on which that learned man grounds that severe conclusion of the Invalidity of all Sacraments, which are not administered 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 Controversy between us to a narrow point, and briefly show, 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 administering Sacraments, and that all Sacraments administered 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 administering 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 signify it to be his Pleasure to empower him to do so, as in Law, no man can be obliged by another's act, who has not been empowered to act in his Name by his Letters of Proxy. And he that presumes of himself to make a Covenant, wherein God is by him engaged as a Party, without being so empowered by God, as what he does, cannot in any legal exposition be reputed as God's act, so neither can it infer any legal obligation of him to performance.  
This Argument is drawn out to a great length, but this I take to be the sum of it, and it were a very strong Argument, if the Foundation of it were not false; but I must deny that, which this Author has all along taken for granted without any Proof; that the administration of the Sacraments, as suppose of Baptism, is the Ministers making a Covenant with the Person baptised 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 ratify and confirm the Covenant, and give validity to it, or pass an Obligation on God to stand to his Covenant. The Christian Sacraments are necessary parts, duties, or conditions of the Covenant, either for our admission to the Privileges, or conveyance of the Grace of the Covenant, and therefore they cannot in a proper sense 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 privileges 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 expressly 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 Privileges 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 supplied in an ordinary way; a Topick, which this learned Author makes great and frequent use of.  
And methinks, it might satisfy 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 into the Christian Church, and therefore that the power of administering Baptism should be reserved in their hands; but hence it appears, that in administering 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 administering Sacraments, which confer a Title to all the Privileges and Graces of the Covenant. That this Authority cannot be maintained, if unauthorised 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 administering Sacraments is in ordinary 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, wherever 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 Laics the liberty of administering 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 administering Sacraments to the regular Clergy, where there are such Persons to be found, does as effectually secure 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 mere 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 public 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 Laics, 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 itself, 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 Catholic Communion, which cannot be preserved without a just deference to Ecclesiastical Authority: It may be lawful in some cases for Laics 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church, and their Orders, and Sacraments administered by them were allowed to be valid, and yet they were Schismatics, and their Sacraments, though valid with respect to the Authority, which administered them, yet without effect, as administered in a Schism, as I have already showed 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 show the evil and danger of Schism) but from their breach of Catholic Communion, which made all their Sacraments, though not invalid, yet inefficacious. So that Ecclesiastical Authority may be secured, though we allow Laics in case of necessity a liberty to administer Sacraments in the Unity and Communion of the Church.  
It were easy 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 Catholic Communion with such a Church, as being forced to it by necessity, is neither governed by Bishops, nor by Presbyters Episcopally ordained.  
III. There still remains the third and fourth terms of Catholic 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 enjoined 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 too Catholic 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 Catholic Christian must do, who will maintain Catholic 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 Commonwealth, 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 Catholic Communion impossible.  
Whoever separates from any Church, upon a pretence of some defects and imperfections in Worship or Discipline, when all the essentials of Christian Worship are preserved entire and pure, without any such corrupt mixtures as make their Worship sinful; whoever separates from a Church, because there are a great many bad men in it, or for the sake of some indifferent Customs, and significant Ceremonies, must for the same reason separate from all the Churches in the World, even from the most Primitive and Apostolical Churches of the first ages of Christianity.  
Now if Catholic Communion be so essential to the being and notion of the Catholic Church, those Principles must be false and Schismatical, which are so irreconcilable with Catholic Communion. For it is plain we cannot at this day, nor ever could, communicate with the Catholic 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 Schismatics. The Novatians and Donatists separated for a stricter Discipline, and purer Communion, and were condemned for it by the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 baptising those, who had been baptised by Heretics, whenever they returned to the Communion of the Church. Stephen Bishop of Rome did as vehemently oppose it, with some sharp reflections upon St. Cyprian, and did admit those to Communion without Baptism, who had been baptised by Heretics. But St. Cyprian, like a true Catholic Christian, 
Neminem jadicantes, aut à jure communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes, prefat. Concil. Carth.  declares in his Preface to the Council of Carthage, that he would not deny Communion to any of his Colleagues, who differed from him in this point. And in his Letter to Jubaianus, 
Nos, quantum in nobis est, propter Heretices cumcollegis & coepiscopis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam & dominicam pacem tenemus. Cyp. ep. ad. Jubai.  he professes that he will not quarrel with his Colleagues for the sake of Heretics. 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, than the Bishop of Rome, 
August. de baptismo. l. 2.  who received those to Communion without Baptism, who had been formerly baptised by Heretics, 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 unbaptised Persons into her Communion, than to disturb the Peace, and divide the Communion of the Christian Church. For indeed that Father looked upon the Communion of the Church, as necessary and effectual to Salvation, as the Sacraments themselves, nay able to supply the defects of Sacraments. For in his Epistle to Jubaianus, in answer to that Question, what shall become of those, who have formerly been received into the Church without Baptism, he tells him, the Lord is able of his own mercy to grant Pardon and Indulgence to those, who returning to the Church, and being only barely admitted to the Communion of it, died in its Peace and Communion, and not to separate them from the Rewards of his Church. That is, that living in Communion with the Church, is able to supply even the want of Baptism itself. And St. Austin discourses very much to the same purpose; 
Homines enim sumus, unde aliquid aliter sapere, quam se res habet, humana tentatio est, nimis autem amando sententiam suam, vel invidendo melioribus usque ad praecidendae communionis, & condendi schismatis vel haeresis sacrilegium pervenire, diabolica praesumptio est. Aug. de bapt. l. 2. cap. 5.  and observes, that whatever different apprehensions we may have of many things, the safest way is to continue in the Communion of the Church, which will sanctify our very errors and mistakes. To be sure you cannot name any thing in Ecclesiastical Discipline of greater moment, than this Dispute about the rebaptisation of Heretics, 
Aug. contra Parmeniani epist. l. 2. cap. 11.  and yet St. Cyprian did not think this a sufficient reason to break Communion. In a Word, nothing can be better said about Discipline, than what St. Austin has observed; that many times things are at that pass, that it is necessary to loosen the reins of Discipline to prevent a Schism, which an unseasonable severity may threaten the Church with; the number of bad men in a Church may make Discipline unpracticable in some cases, and it is better for good men to tolerate the bad, who cannot defile their Communion, than to break communion with those who are good.  
As for Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, there is an admirable Epistle of St. Austin to Januarius, which states this whole matter. He first observes, 
Aug. ep. Januario 118.  that the Yoke of Christ is very easy and gentle; that he has united his Church into one Body and Society, by very few Sacraments, easy to be observed, and excellent in their signification, such as Baptism, and the Lod's Supper, or whatever other observances we find enjoined in the holy Scripture, excepting the servitude of the Mosaic 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 Catholic Church, are either of Apostolical Institution, or the Decrees of General Councils, which have the greatest and most beneficial Authority in the Church. Such are the Annual Solemnities in memory of the Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of our Lord, and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, which are observed in all parts of the Church. For it seems, in St. Austin's time the superstition of these days had not been discovered.  
But there are some Customs, which are observed differently in several Churches. As some fast on the Saturday, others do not. Some receive the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ every day, others only at certain times, others only on Saturday, and Sunday, others only on Sundays. 
Totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet observationes, nec disciplina ulla est in his melior gravi prudentique Christiano, quàm ut eo modo agate, quo agere viderit ecclesiam, ad quamcunque forte devenerit. Ib.  Now all things of this nature, may be observed either one way or other; nor is there any better Rule for a grave and prudent Christian in such matters, than to observe the custom of the Church, in which he lives, or whither he travels. For whatever is commanded, which is neither contrary to Faith, nor to good Manners, is to be accounted indifferent, and to be observed for the preservation of the Communion in which we live. 
Quod enim nequecontra sidem, neque contra bonos 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 than 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 Catholic Communion. For if every different Custom, Usage, and Ceremony in a Church, shall cause a Separation, there are few Churches can live in Communion with each other. And thus I hope, I have made it appear, that Catholic Communion is not an impracticable notion, but is indeed as easy, 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 Schismatics, 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. Job 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 myself, and given life to a dying and languishing Cause, with the same Weapons, which gave it its mortal Wound. I thought, I had proved our Dissenters, who separate from the Church of England, to be Schismatics, as far as proving their Separation to be Schism, and answering their several Pleas for Separation, proved them Schismatics; but Mr. Job has discovered, that I have been kinder to them, than I was ware 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 myself. 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 Catholic Church, which notion taken singly will stand the Dissenters, and all true Christians, who must be acknowledged to be Members of the Catholic Church, in great stead, freeing them from the odious sin of Schism. The Dissenters divide not themselves from the Communion of the Universal Church, ergo not Schismatics. Now I would desire all Dissenters to remember, what Mr. Job 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 mere humour they will divide from one Church, and not from another, where the reason of Separation is the same, they are nevertheless Schismatics for that. Let Mr. Job 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 justify Separation, what Church they ever could, or can to this day communicate with? The Foreign Protestant Churches, though they differ in some things from the Church of England, not in Judgement, but in Practice, of which I have given some account above, yet they communicate with the Church of England, which according to the Laws of Catholic Communion, makes it as unlawful to communicate with them, as with the Church of England itself.  
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 Catholic Church: How far this must be acknowledged, I have examined above; Schismatics in a lose general Notion belong to the Church, though they are not Members of the Catholic Church, which is but one Communion; and thus dissenting Separatists are Schismatics 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church is but one Communion, and whoever causelessly breaks this Communion, as he does, who separates from any sound part of the Church, is a Schismatic, 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 Schismatic, 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. Job pretends, that notion will stand the Dissenters in stead, that Schism is a Separation from the Catholic Church, it is plain, he does not like it, and therefore reproaches it, as a Popish notion, generally asserted by Papists: I should be hearty glad to see any Papist assert this, for it would bid fair to put an end to Popery; but I doubt, Mr. Job wrongs the Papists, and mistakes Catholic for Roman-Catholick Church: They own no Catholic, but the Roman-Catholick Church, and know no Schism, but a Separation from the Church of Rome.  
But Mr. Job 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 acknowledge 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 Catholic Church, as if the Catholic Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England, as the Papists say within the limits of Rome: What a blessed thing is Ignorance, which helps men to confute Books without fear or wit! What Papists are those, who confine the Catholic Church within the limits of Rome? Do not they own the Churches of Italy, Spain, France, Germany, to be Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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. Job a very pleasant man, who would persuade the World, that I am for setting up such a Catholic Church in England, as the Papists have done at Rome. The Papists make it Schism from the Catholic Church to separate from the Bishop of Rome, considered as the Head of the Church; I assert it to be Schism from the Catholic Church, to separate from the Church of England, not merely as the Church of England, but as a true and sound part of the Catholic Church, which we especially are bound to communicate with: And is there no difference between these two?  
But  separates from the Church of England, cuts himself from the Catholic Church, puts himself out of a state of Salvation. He is extra Ecclesiam, extra quam nulla salus, they are all the while Schismatics in a state of Damnation: This no jesting matter, but a sad and serious Truth, which I would beg Mr. Job, 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, unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such immortal Souls for whom Christ died. 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 Schismatics still, unless they could persuade all the Churches in the World to do so too: For they could not maintain Catholic 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 Schismatics from the Catholic 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 out of their way, would that cure their Schism? would Presbyterians, Independents, and mere Anabaptists, cement into one Communion? We know, how it has been formerly, and have reason to guests, how it would be again; when they cease to be Schismatics from the Church of England, they will be Schismatics 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 Catholic, 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 Union, any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture, 
Reply, p. 7●.  we are satisfied, the Controversy 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 knowledge to serve his Cause. For the terms of our Communion are as Catholic, as our Church is; Diocesan Episcopacy, Liturgies, and Ceremonies, have been received in all Churches for many hundred years, and are the settled 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 Catholic Terms, if by Catholic Terms, he means, what has actually been received by that Catholic Church, and not what he fancies, aught to be made the Terms of Catholic Communion: Can Mr. Job indeed have the new Modelling of the Catholic Church, and make what Catholic Terms of Communion he pleased, he would be satisfied, and the Controversy were at an end; but wiser men consider, that Catholic Terms of Communion are not to be made now, no more than the Catholic Faith is; and therefore it is not our private Reasonings, but the Practice of the Catholic Church in all Ages, which will acquaint us, what the Catholic Terms of Communion are; and he, who will not maintain Communion with the Church upon such Terms, must be a Schismatic, and there is an end of that Controversy.  
And if by according to the Word of God, he means, that nothing must be made a Term of Catholic 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 expressly commanded by the Word of God, I deny, that this ever was a Term of Catholic 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 ourselves look on them as indifferent, i. e. as what is not enjoined 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 enjoin 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 enjoined 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. Job requires us to show 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 Catholic Church; that we must not only show, 
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 Catholic Church.  
Now this were something to the purpose, did we assert, that the bore 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 Catholic Church; but we never said, we never thought this: But we say, that to separate causelessly from any true and sound part of the Christian Church, cuts such Separatists off from the Catholic 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 enjoined, is in its own nature necessary too Catholic Communion; but if they would justify their Separation, they must prove, that what is enjoined, is sinful.  
I will only ask Mr. Job, whether it be a sufficient justification of Separation from any Church, that there are such things imposed, as are not indeed expressly 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 Schismatic should ever want Reasons for their Separation; for there is no Church in the World, but does something or other, which they have no Command to do: If this be no sufficient reason of Separation, than 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 Schismatics.  
It may be, it is a harder matter than Mr. Job is ware of, to determine, what is in its own nature absolutely necessary too Catholic Communion; but I can tell him, de facto, what is, viz. a Compliance with the Order, Government, Discipline and Worship, as well as the Doctrine of the Catholic Church; he who will not do this, must separate from the Catholic Church, and try it at the last day, who was in the right; I am content, that Mr. Job, and his beloved Separatists, should talk on of unscriptural Terms of Communion, so they will but grant, that the Church of England is no more guilty of imposing unscriptural Terms, than the Catholic Church itself has always been; and that they separate from the Church of England for such Reasons, as equally condemn the Catholic 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 Practice of the Catholic Church.  
But Mr. Job 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. Job think, that Popery is established by this Rule, as well as indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies? Do we separate from the Church of Rome, only for the sake of some things, which are neither forbid, nor commanded in Scripture? Our Dissenters, I see, have better thoughts of Popery, than the Church of England has, and are in a nearer capacity of reconciliation with the Church of Rome.  
But there is one admirable Paragraph, which I cannot let pass without some short remarks, and it is this; To make that a part of our Religion, 
Ib. p. 79.  which is not to be found in Scripture, is to take that for a part of our Religion, which God hath not made a part thereof, which is sinful. How much more so, is the making it a Term of Communion. Wherein there are as many absurd Propositions included, as can well be in so few words.  
1. He takes it for granted, that for the Church to require the observation of any thing which is not commanded in Scripture, is to make a part of Religion of it; and yet the Church may and does enjoin such things, not as parts of Religion, but as Rules of Order and Discipline. Who then makes it a part of Religion? If it be made a part of Religion, it must be made so by God, or the Church; he acknowledges, God does not make it a part of Religion, and the Church declares she does not, how then does it come to be a part of Religion? Or does the Church make a part of Religion against her own Mind, Intention, and Declaration?  
In some cases indeed men may do, what they never intended to do, and contract a Gild, which they utterly disclaim, and disown, but than it is in such cases, where a positive Law, or the nature of the thing, determines the nature of the Action, whatever he, who does it, intends by it. Thus the Papists abhor the thoughts of Idolatry in the Worship of Saints, and Angels, and Images, and the consecrated Host, but are nevertheless guilty of Idolatry for that, because the Law of God, and the Nature of the Worship makes it so. But now how can that come to be a part of Worship, which is not so, neither by a positive Law, nor by the Nature of the thing, nor by the Institution of men? For is there any Law of God to make every thing a part of Religion, which is commanded by the Church? If there be, the Dispute is at an end; we will then own these unscriptural Ceremonies as parts of Religion, and justify ourselves, 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. Job 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. Job here supposes, that nothing must be a Term of Church Communion, but what is a necessary part of true Religion; for that is the subject of the Dispute, and to make any thing a condition of Communion, he thinks, makes it a necessary part of true Religion: And now I begin to wonder, what he means by Religion, or a part of Religion. Is Government and Discipline Religion, or a part of Religion? If they be, I would gladly know, Mr. Lob's definition of Religion; if they be not, are they any Terms of Communion? Or may Catholic Communion, and Church-Societies be preserved without any Government and Discipline? Mr. Job is mightily out, to think that nothing is necessary too Catholic 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 fling 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 intrinsic value of the thing, in which they disobey, and for which they separate, but according to the Nature of Schism and Disobedience.  
3. But the sting of all is in the Tail. He says, That to take that for a part of our Religion, which God hath not made a part thereof, is sinful. How much more so is the making it a Term of Communion. Which few words contain several very absurd and contradictory Propositions, and the Foundation of all is ridiculously false; the Absurdities are notorious.  
1. That it is worse to make such uncommanded things, Terms of Communion than parts of Worship; and yet the only reason Mr. Job and his Friends do or can assign why they are unlawful Terms of Communion, is, because they imagine them to be made parts of Worship; for if they be not parts of Worship, what is the evil of them? Why should men separate for the Surplice, or Cross in Baptism, & c.? When there is no evil in these things? The only evil they charge them with, being only this, that we make new Sacraments, and new parts of Worship by humane Authority.  
2. This supposes, that that may be a part of Worship, which is not a Term of Communion. Otherwise it can be neither better nor worse to make any thing a part of Worship, and a term of Communion. But this is a new Notion, which I believe mankind was not instructed in before, to make that no term of Communion, which we make a part of Worship; which signifies to live in Christian Communion together, without an obligation to communicate in all parts of Christian Worship.  
3. What can be more ridiculously absurd and false, than the Foundation of all this, that the terms of Communion are more sacred than the Worship of God. That it is a less Crime to make a new part of Worship, than a new term of Communion. That the purity of the divine Worship is not of that Moment and Consequence, as the conditions of Union between Christians; and yet the only reason, why Christians are to unite into one Body, is to worship God together? Methinks this should make our new Projectors careful what they do, and make Mr. H. seriously reflect, upon what he has done, who has proposed such new materials for Union, as were never known in the Christian Church before.  
11. His next Argument to vindicate themselves from Schism, is made up, as he says, 
Reply, p. 80.  of Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule compared with his Substitutes notion, but the Application and Conclusion, which is the only thing considerable, is his own. Dr. Stillingfleet's Rule is, that Separation is lawful, in case men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account. But the Church of England according to my notion, makes indifferent things necessary to Salvation. Ergo, we may, yea, we must separate, or 'tis our duty, and therefore not our sin to separate, (i.e.) we are no Schismatics. Wonderful subtle! 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 justify a Separation. 1. That they make indifferent things necessary to Salvation, that is, that they assert the very doing of such a thing to be necessary to Salvation, as the false Apostles asserted Circumcision was. But yet 2. This of itself is not sufficient to justify a Separation, unless these men divide the Church upon this account. This Mr. Job 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 justify 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 complied 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 forbidden! My notion, I never had such a thought in my life. Well! But if Mr. Job can prove this against me, I know no help for it, I'll 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 Catholic Church, is according to his Doctrine, necessary to Salvation. Now this I deny. Communion with the Catholic Church is necessary to Salvation, but whatever may be necessary to our Communion with the Catholic Church, is not therefore in its own nature necessary to Salvation. It may be necessary in order to Catholic Communion, to comply with many inconvenient, though not sinful terms of Communion, and all wise and good men have thought themselves bound to do so, when there is no other Remedy, does it hence follow then, that these good men account these inconvenient things necessary to Salvation? But to proceed, But indifferent things (says Mr. Job) are necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is one with the Communion with the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, according to his constant judgement. Ergo, I confess, what he means by this, I cannot well understand; I suppose, it may be this. That I make Communion with the Catholic Church, and consequently with the Church of England, as a sound and orthodox part of the Catholic Church to be necessary to Salvation. But the observation of some indifferent things is the facto, necessary to the Communion of the Church of England, because the Church enjoins the Observation of some indifferent things. Ergo, indifferent things are made necessary to Salvation.  
Now, 1. I would only ask Mr. Job 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 virtue 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, merely 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 sense, to have an immediate and direct influence upon our Salvation? Can any man in his wits, who owns these things to be indifferent, in the same breath assert them to be necessary in this sense? And therefore Mr. Lob's Argument is a ridiculous Sophism, or as Mr. H. speaks, has four terms in it. For necessary to Salvation in the Major Proposition, signifies very differently from necessary to Salvation in the Minor Proposition; and thus the Dean and his Substitute are reconciled.  
But, 2. How shall I bring myself 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 bore not observing such indifferent Rites with any guilt, and therefore is far enough from making them necessary to Salvation. Such indifferent things are not enjoined for their own sake, but for the sake of public Order and Decency; and therefore when they can be neglected without public 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 enjoin 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. Job 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 easy, as ever they were in any settled and constituted Church; as for public Forms of Prayer, I must except them out of the number of indifferent things, for they have at least equal Authority, and are infinitely more expedient, not to say necessary for public Worship, than their ex tempore Prayers. And than what is there required of a private Christian to do, to qualify 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 baptised; if the Minister does something more, than what they think necessary and expedient, let the Church look to that, which enjoins it: Private Christians, who have not Authority to alter public 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 join in all other parts of Christian Worship, than they can separate from the Church: So that these indifferent things can be no just cause for any private Christians to separate, and if notwithstanding they do separate, and are damned for it, they must not charge these innocent Ceremonies with their Damnation. And as for those, who cannot conform as Ministers, they may, and most of them own they can, conform as Laymen, and therefore these Ceremonies are no cause of their Separation.  
3. Suppose men do take occasion from the Disputes and Quarrels about indifferent things, to separate from the Church, and be damned for it, yet they are not damned for not observing such indifferent Customs, though that may be the remote occasion of it; but for their pride and self-conceit, for their disobedience to their Superiors, for their dividing the unity of the Church, and disturbing the peace of it. Suppose two men should be so well employed, as to play at push-pin, and should quarrel and fight, and one should be killed, and the other hanged, would you say this man was hanged for playing at push-pin? Thus it is here, it is not the occasion which peevish 〈◊〉 take to divide the Church, which must be charged with their Damnation, but their Pride, their Faction, their Obstinacy, their Disobedience and ungovernable temper of mind, which takes such small occasions to divide, and disturb the Church. If Mr. Job 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 Schismatics. 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 hearty 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. Job proves it.  
1. He says, That the Impositions are sinful, is evident, in that indifferent things (as has been proved) are made necessary to Salvation. But I presume the Reader will see, that this has not been proved yet, and therefore it is not evident. I will only ask our Author, whether these reverend Bishops by unjust Excommunications, mean excommunicating those, who refuse to submit to the just Authority of their Superiors in indifferent things. If they don't, as it is evident they don't, he only abuses them, and his Readers, by their Authority.  
2. That the Church of England excommunicates unjustly, he says, is very demonstrable, even in that the Church doth, as I would have it, by Excommunication, cast thousands out of the state of Salvation, for not complying with little uncommanded things: But now here are two great mistakes. For, 1. The Church casts no man out of a state of Salvation, but casts them out of her own Communion; that this excludes them from a state of Salvation, is not the Act of the Church, but God's Act. The Church does not desire, nor design the Damnation of any man, but excommunicates them for their correction and amendment, that God would give them repentance unto life: And there may be very just Reasons for the Church to excommunicate, when God, who knows every circumstance of things more particularly, than Church-Governors can, may continue those in the Communion of the invisible Church, who are cast out of visible Communion. Wilful Schism is in all cases a damning Schism, Excommunication is no sin at all, but a severe punishment, when it is deserved, and contracts the guilt of Schism, when it is despised. He who is unjustly cast out of the Church, ought not to despise such Censures, but to use all just and lawful means to be restored again to Communion. But the Excommunication of the Church, and the wilful Separation of Schismatics, 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 merely for the sake of some little uncommanded things, but for Schism and Church-factions, and disobedience to Government, which are inconsistent with the order and preservation of any Society, and are not the less sins, because the Dispute and Quarrel is about some little things. To excommunicate any man because he will not yield to sinful terms of Communion, i. e. because he will not break the express Laws of God, to comply with the Laws of the Church, is an unjust and Schismatical Excommunication; but it is necessary to the good Order and Government of any Society to Excommunicate those, who will not own the just Authority of the Church, be the thing never so little for which they separate.  
For we must consider, that a Church must first be Schismatical herself, 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 Schismatic from the Catholic 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 mere Excommunication, though in some respects never so unjust, is not a sufficient reason to justify a form Schism and Separation from any Church, no more than any acts of injustice, which private men suffer, will justify a Rebellion against their Prince; God is the Judge and the Protector of oppressed Virtue and Innocence, whether it suffer from Church or State, and there only lies our last Appeal. So that mere Excommunication can never make any Church schismatical, or though it may occasion, yet it can never justify a Schism.  
But now when any Church by enjoining sinful terms of Communion, separates so far from the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, and to leave such a Church to stand by herself: Here now is a form Schism between these Churches, and the Question is, who is the Schismatic, the excommunicating or the excommunicated Churches. And the answer is very plain, the excommunicating Church is the Schismatic, because she has departed from Catholic 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 Catholic Church; and therefore the whole of the Dispute comes to this, whether the enjoining the observance of some indifferent and uncommanded Ceremonies be a Schism from the Catholic Church; and when Mr. Job 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 Catholic 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. Job fails in his new attempts, to prove the Church of England the Schismatic 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 convinced.  
If Mr. Job, 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. Job 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 lest he should boast, that I decline the Dispute, I shall briefly consider, what despicable Arts he uses to impose upon his Readers.  
Mr. Job undertaken 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 Union? Must the Episcopal comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Dissenters sin and lose their Peace with God for Union? And a little after, he adds; This is the state of the Case, the Dissenters would unite, but cannot, the Episcopals can, but will not. The cannot of the Dissenters, and the Episcopals will not, doth make the division; but who is the faulty Divider? If the true reason of our division lay on the Dissenters will not, when they can, 'twould be easy to conclude them obstinate and perverse (that is, in plain English, Schismatics) 〈◊〉 not to do, what they can for Peace? But since they would, but cannot without sin, how can they be the Dividers?  
This I shown particularly, 
Defence, p. 27. etc.  was all trick and fallacy. When he says, the Church without sin can part with their indifferent Ceremonies; if by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament, it is false. For all the Bishops and Clergy in England cannot without sin part with these indifferent Ceremonies, till the Law enacting them be repealed. And if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Diocesan Episcopacy and Liturgies, as it is plain he does, the Church of England does not account these indifferent Ceremonies, nor think, she can part with them without sin. And when he says, that the Dissenters without sin cannot comply with them; if by without sin he means without breaking some divine Law, it is false; for there is no Law to forbid our obedience to Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors in indifferent things: If he means, that they must act contrary to their Conscience, that is, their own Opinion and Judgement of things, they may be the Dividers and Schismatics for all that; unless we will say, that no man, but a profligate Knave, who sins against his Conscience, can be a Schismatic.  
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 Schismatics notwithstanding, so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion: and if by the Dissenters cannot, he means their private Opinions and Persuasions, which hinder their Compliance, they may be the Dividers still, if their persuasions be erroneous.  
All this and a great deal more our Author passes over very wisely without the least notice; but to convince him of the Sophistry of this Argument, I proposed another like it, which as fairly cast the Schism upon the Dissenter, as his did upon the Church; and it was this: If the Dissenters can without sin obey their Governors in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Union, but cannot; who is the faulty Divider? What must be done for Union? Must the Dissenters comply in things, wherein they can without sin? Or must the Episcopal sin, and lose their Peace with God for Union? And I added, I would desire our Inquirer to think better of it, and answer this Argument if he can, without showing the Sophistry of his own.  
Mr. Job 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 itself, 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 showing Sophistry to be, 
Reply, p. 87.  where it is not. So that it is plain, that he durst not let his Readers know, that he had made any Argument like this, or that this had any relation to his own way of reasoning, but turns it off with, without a showing Sophistry, where it is not, instead of let him answer this Argument, if he can without showing the Sophistry of his own. It is apparent, Mr. Job was here convinced, 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 sense, they may be turned against the Church, in another sense 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. Job 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 showed 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 sense 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 public 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 clothed 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. etc.  All that Mr. Job replies to this, is, that the force of his Argument does not lie in this, That all things which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with. How then will he prove, that the Church without sin may part with her indifferent Ceremonies, if every thing, that is indifferent may not be parted with without sin? I can think of no other way to prove this; if he can, I shall be glad to hear it. But wherein then does the force of his Argument consist? Why he tells us it is this: 
Reply, p. 85.  That no one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion, as to be a term of Communion. Though I doubt, he would be troubled to apply this Proposition dexterously to the proof of his Argument, yet to make as few Disputes as may be, we will suppose the force of his Argument to lie here, and does not this come much to one? Must not the Church part with any indifferent Ceremony, which any Dissenter is pleased to dislike, if she must not make any one Ceremony a Term of Communion? And if all indifferent things must not, cannot be parted with without sin, than some indifferent things may be made the terms of Communion.  
But here are two things Mr. Job craftily or ignorantly insinuates, which must not pass without remark. 1. He will not venture his Argument merely upon indifferent things, he has had enough of that already, but on making indifferent things necessary parts of Religion, whereas the Church of England makes them no part of Religion at all. They are not necessary to the moral nature of any religious Action, but to the external performance of it, as I shown 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 sense 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 expressly 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 public Authority of the Church, and of the State in a Christian Kingdom, to which all private Christians are bound to submit, as I discoursed in the Defence. But the great difficulty seems to lie here, that any man should be denied the benefits of Christian Communion, and excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation, for not complying with some indifferent things, which God has no where commanded, and which not 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 itself. Now, 1. Is not every man as accountable to God for his own Soul, as the Church is? 2. Has any man any more warrant for excluding himself from Christian Communion, for not doing what God has not forbid, than the Church has for casting them out of Communion, for not observing some innocent Rites and Usages, though not commanded by God? For, 3. Is it not a greater encroachment on the divine Power and Prerogative to make that unlawful, which God has not forbid, than it is to enjoin the observance of that, which God has not commanded? The first altars 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 public Judgement and Authority of the Church in preserving her own Discipline and Government, and censuring obstinate and disorderly Members. Let Mr. Job consider, how to justify themselves in making that unlawful, which God has not forbid, and separating from the Communion of the Church for that reason, and I will more easily justify 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 baptise 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 enjoin 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 herself 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 itself, 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 myself 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 enjoined, 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. etc.  which are indifferent in their own nature, are yet necessary solemnities of Worship, without which the public Worship of God cannot be performed at all, or can have no face or appearance of Worship, as I have proved in the Defence.  
2. The Peace, 
Ib. p. 44, 45  and Order, and Unity of the Church, and the due care of the divine Worship, requires, that the external Circumstances of public 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 public Authority of the Church, which must determine all private Christians. For every thing of a public nature, wherein a whole Society is concerned, must be determined and overruled by public Authority, or no Society can subsist. Every private Christian. in his private Capacity may choose for himself; every Master of a Family may and aught 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 in the Church, if it is in the Power of every private Christian to make the most wholesome Constitutions of a Church, unlawful and sinful Impositions by his private dissent, and obstinate refusal of Obedience.  
4. If it be lawful for the public 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 sense, wherein indifferent things are, or can be made the terms of Communion. So that the Controversy must return, where it first began, about the lawfulness of indifferent Circumstances, and Ceremonies of Worship, and the Power of the Church to determine them; for making them terms of Communion is no new difficulty, for it signifies no more than prescribing such a way of worshipping God; and if it be lawful for the Church to prescribe the Modes and Circumstances of Worship, she cannot mistake in making them terms of Communion.  
For, 5. If the Church have Authority to prescribe the Order and Circumstances of public 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 inquire no further, than whether it be lawful for the Church to prescribe a form of Worship to herself; if it be, she needs exercise no other Authority; for those, who will not conform to it, will separate themselves without her Authority. And as for the sin and danger of Schism, let the Church look to herself, 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. Job found'st his Objection upon making indifferent things terms of Communion, every one, who understands the nature of Government, knows, that it is an unsufferable mischief, to disturb and dissolve humane Societies, though for very little things. Schism is a very great evil; and nevertheless because the Dispute is about indifferent things, the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church, the decency and solemnities of Worship, and the sacredness of Authority, is necessary to Christian Communion, without which the Church must dissolve and disband into private Conventicles, as we see at this day; and therefore whoever disturbs Christian Communion for indifferent things, does as well deserve to be cast out of the Church, as the most profligate sinners. But to return to Mr. Lob.  
The only Objection he has against all that I urged in the Defence, is, that I run from Circumstances to Ceremonies, and yet his Conscience tells him, if ever he read the Defence, 
Defence, p. 38.  that he knows the contrary; for I particularly answered that Objection in the Defence, and it seems, I have so answered it, that Mr. Job thought it the wiser course to dissemble his knowledge of any such Answer, than to attempt any Reply to it.  
And now let any man judge, what an unreasonable task Mr. Job has put on me. 
Reply, p. 84.  It lies on him (says he) either to prove to our Conviction, that we may without sin comply with their Imposition, (i. e.) he must so far effectually enlighten our Consciences, as to help us to see, that the Impositions are not sinful, and that we may lawfully conform. But how is this possible for me, or any other man to do, when he will not so much as see, what we show 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 conscientious 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 acknowledge themselves convinced, when they are convinced; 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, than 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 merely upon that account, be called Dividers or Schismatics, 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, than Mr. Job 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. Job, that he may conform against his Conscience. Make it but his Interest to conform, and his Conscience seems ready prepared.  
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  thereunto, and what is  only. But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in these; which is off from the point in hand. Had I done so, I believe Mr. Job would not have been so sparing of Paper, as not to have shown 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 called 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 than it were no longer indifferent, yet some indifferent things are necessary to public Worship, not to the moral Nature, but the external performance of Religious Actions, and therefore all indifferent things cannot be parted with without destroying public Worship; and yet if we must part with indifferent things, merely considered as indifferent, by the same Reason we must be obliged to part with all. This he calls running from what is indifferent, to what is necessary; whereas it only proves, that some things, which are indifferent in their own Natures, are necessary to public 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 stripped 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 Horseback, 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. Job, 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'll go thither, therefore you shall walk, or not go thither. The force of which Answer amounts to this, that every man must be left at liberty to choose the external Circumstances of Worship for himself, as he is to choose his own way of Travelling, whether on Foot, or by Horse, or Coach. But this also, I had particularly considered, and answered in the Defence, though our Inquirer is pleased to take no notice of it, and I suppose, should I repeat what I have said, he will take as little notice of it the second time, as he has done the first. The Inquisitive Reader may find directions in the Margin, 
Defence, p. 44.  where to seek for an Answer to it. And if Mr. Job cannot think of some better Defence, he and his beloved Dissenters must be the Dividers and Schismatics still.   

CHAP. VII. Mr. Humphrey's Materials for Union, examined.  
THE last thing I proposed to myself 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 easy to enlarge upon this Subject, I shall make but some brief Remarks upon the Materials for Union, and refer those who are inquisitive, for further satisfaction to the forementioned Treatise. And I shall only observe these four things in Mr. H's. project: 1. That it destroys the present Constitution of the Church of England. 2. That it sets up no National Church in the room of it. 3. That it cures no Schism. 4. That it is not a likely way so much as to preserve external Peace and Union in the Nation.  
1. These Materials for Union destroy the present Constitution of the Church of England; and is not this a modest Proposal in a Dissenter, to pull down the Church of England, which is established by Law, and is owned by the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation, to make way for Union? Does Mr. H. imagine, that the true Sons of the Church, will so easily part with so ancient and Apostolical a Government, which owes not its Institution to Civil Powers? And what would the Civil State get by this, to exchange the Church for Dissenters? To make an Imaginary National Church by a Combination of Dissenters, and to part with a much better Church for it? To attempt a Union on between Dissenters, who, as Mr. H. owns, can never agree their Disputes, and therefore can never unite, though they may be tied together, or comprehended in the same Vessel, as Sand or Water is, and to dissolve a Church, which is all of a piece, firmly united within itself, 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 virtue 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 Laymen, as well as ecclesiastics; 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 distinguished from the Authority of the Bishop. They have 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. expressly 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. etc.  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 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 merely some indifferent Ceremonies, (though they make a great noise about them, as if they were the only Impediments) but the Church of England itself to Peace and Unity; which I hope will open men's 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 the virtue 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 Catholic Church, is one Catholic 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 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 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 Schismatics, 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 this Union does not cure the Schism; for they still are two distinct and separate Churches, and are accounted Schismatics to each other.  
There are but two or three things, so far as I can observe, whereon Mr. H. found'st 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 Privileges and Immunities. Nothing is National, but what extends to the whole Nation, and where several Churches are established by Law, there can be no one National Church, though they be all under the Government of the same Prince, because there is no one Church-Constitution, for all the Churches in the Nation to be governed by; which is the notion of a National Church in the sense we now speak of.  
2. Another way of uniting all these separate Churches, is by the King's Ecclesiastical Officers, whom he calls Bishops, who have an equal supervising care of them all. Their work in general being to supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Dioceses, 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 shown; 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 Diocese, they cannot all live in Communion with their Bishop, and therefore cannot be one Church. For Communion with the Bishop is essential to the notion and unity of an Episcopal Church, as I have proved in the Defence. 
Defence, p 469. etc.  A supervising Power, not to govern the Church according to his own Judgement 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 Catholic Church, are Schismatics, and therefore not of the same Church with him. It is a very different thing to be a mere Visitor and a Bishop, and it is as different a thing to be in Communion with a Bishop, and to be subject to the Visitations of the King's Ecclesiastical Minister; and therefore a supervising Power cannot make those one Church, who are of different Communions.  
3. If Mr. H.'s Project should take, to make some leading Dissenters Bishops, it is still more evident, that they could in no sense make a National Church, because the Bishops of the Church would be of different Communions, For it is the Communion of Bishops with one another, which unite all their Churches into a National, Patriarchal, 
Ibid. cap. 7. 8.  or Catholic Church, as I have proved in the Defence. This is abundantly enough to show, 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 Virtue 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 Union.  
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 enjoin this occasional Communion; and what will this differ from an Act of Uniformity? For it requires Uniformity sometimes, and if Uniformity be sometimes lawful, why should it not be made always necessary? If Mr. H. by should— only intimates, what he would have them do, what then, if they won't, notwithstanding his should? What will become of this National Union then? This occasional Communion is either necessary to this National Union, or it is not. If it be not necessary, why does Mr. H. make this an expedient for National Union? If it be, how will he prove, that all Dissenters will occasionally communicate with each other, and with the Church of England?  
3. Mr. H.'s project for Union, will cure no one Schism, and therefore can make no Union. This is evident from what I have already discoursed; for if it cannot make one Church, it cannot cure the Schism; where there are two distinct and separate Churches, which are not Members of each other, there is a Schism; for Church-Unity consists in one Communion, as I have abundantly proved in the Defence. 
Defence, chap. 4.  Should Mr. H.'s Materials for Union be confirmed by Act of Parliament, it would be neither better nor worse, than either an Universal, or a limited Toleration, (as they can agree that matter among themselves) established by Law. Nay, should such an Act declare, that all such separate Churches should be parts of the National Church; the Power of Parliaments may certainly alter the signification of words, but it cannot alter the Nature of things. They would still be as many Churches as they are now, but could never be one Church, though they might be called a National Church, as that may be made to signify 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 Schismatics, 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 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 justify a Separation, but sinful terms of Communion. How is it possible then, that two Churches, which separate from each other, should not un-church one another, or un-church themselves. There is but one Church, and one Communion, and therefore where there are two separate Churches, and two Communions, they cannot both be true Catholic Churches; and Mr. H.'s contrivance to declare these separate Churches, to be all true Catholic Churches by the Decree of Convocation, is like his Act of Parliament, to make all the separate and divided Churches one National Church.  
4. Mr. H.'s Project is not a very likely way, so much as to preserve the external Peace and Union of the Nation; and if it be not good for this, it is certainly good for nothing. We see, how troubled and disturbed the State of the Nation is at this day, occasioned by the Disputes of Religion; how envenomed their Spirits are, how furious and factious their Zeal; now not to enlarge upon this unpleasant Theme, which possibly may be called railing; I would only ask Mr. H. whether such an Act of Parliament, as he dreams of, would heal any differences in Religion, would make the Dissenters think better of one another, or of the Church of England, than now they do? Would make them more Loyal in their Principles, more Charitable to one another, more cool and temperate in their Zeal? Whether such an Act could set bounds to the several Sects among us, and make them contented with their own private Persuasions, and with the Liberties and Privileges, 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 uneasy and troublesome, because the Laws are against them, and they are in constant danger of the execution of them, to the loss of their Liberties, and the impoverishing their Families, but if they had the same favour, and the same security from the Government, as others have, they would be as quiet and peaceable, and as dutiful Subjects, as others are. I reply,  
1. It does not seem very probable, that those, who are so Insolent, Daring, and Factious, when the Laws and Government are against them, should grow modest and governable, when the Law is on their side. If they cannot be governed with the Bridle in their mouths, it is hard trusting to their good Nature.  
For, 2. We have had sufficient experience, how busy, 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 overruling Power of God, who turns the hearts of Governors to favour his People, even against their own Inclinations, and therefore no thanks is due to them.  
4. These men never yet let slip an advantage and opportunity to disturb Government, or to serve their Cause. Every thing, that is granted them, gives them only a new confidence to ask and to demand more. And if ever they can stand upon equal ground with the Church of England, they will as boldly challenge a Superiority, and be as much disobliged, if they be denied. If once they get a legal Rite to their Conventicles, they will next demand the Temples and Tithes too, and declaim against the Magistrates as Sacrilegious Usurpers, if they be denied. 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 Sceptre of Christ. These things are not yet forgot among us, and I suppose, it will be hard to persuade 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 fling 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 done'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 departed from one Church to another, without a sufficient peaceable Reason. Now who must be Judge of this, but the Visitor? Suppose then, a Member of a Presbyterian Church think fit to return to the Episcopal Church, do you think, that a Presbyterian Visitor will be easily satisfied, that he has a peaceable and sufficient Reason for this? Will not every Visitor be greatly inclined 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 Trial 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 Diocese, to get a Visitor 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 Visitor? 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 Visitor 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 foretell, that they will soon find Reason to repent the Experiment.   
FINIS.