A
VINDICATION
OF
THE
DEFENCE
OF
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Vnreasonableness
of
Separation
.
CHAP.
I.
Concerning
Catholick
Vnity
.
IN
my
Defence
of
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Unreasonableness
of
Separation
,
I
have
asserted
(
and
proved
,
for
any
thing
I
see
yet
objected
to
the
contrary
)
that
Christ
has
but
one
Church
on
Earth
,
and
that
the
Unity
of
this
Church
consists
in
one
Catholick
Communion
:
Mr.
B.
Mr.
Lob
,
and
Mr.
Humphrey
,
instead
of
giving
a
fair
Answer
to
this
,
have
endeavoured
to
affix
such
a
sense
on
my
words
,
as
I
never
thought
of
,
nay
,
as
is
directly
contrary
to
the
avowed
Doctrine
of
that
Book
;
and
when
they
have
turned
every
thing
into
non-sense
and
confusion
by
their
own
senseless
Comments
,
they
set
up
a
great
Cry
of
Cassandrianism
and
Contradictions
.
For
my
part
,
when
I
read
those
Representations
these
Men
had
made
of
my
Notions
,
I
wondred
to
find
my self
such
a
stranger
to
my self
.
I
was
perfectly
ignorant
of
the
whole
business
and
Intrigue
,
and
began
to
examine
,
whether
I
had
expressed
any
thing
so
unwarily
,
as
to
lead
them
into
such
Mistakes
;
but
upon
inquiry
,
I
found
,
it
was
nothing
but
the
last
weak
Efforts
of
a
dying
Cause
,
like
the
works
and
doublings
of
a
Hare
,
when
she
is
near
run
down
,
to
lose
the
Scent
.
For
this
is
the
constant
Artifice
of
these
men
,
when
they
are
no
longer
able
to
defend
their
Cause
,
to
start
aside
,
and
by
one
Art
or
other
,
to
loose
their
first
Question
in
some
new
Dispute
.
Thus
Mr.
B.
tells
us
for
a
Conclusion
,
I
intend
,
God
willing
,
hereafter
to
let
the
Matters
of
meer
Conformity
comparatively
alone
,
and
farther
to
examine
this
fundamental
Difference
,
seeing
it
is
evident
,
that
now
Satan's
design
is
to
call
the
French
Popery
by
the
name
of
the
Protestant
Religion
,
and
the
Protestant
Religion
of
the
true
Church
of
England
by
the
name
of
Non-conformity
and
Schism
,
and
to
deceive
the
simple
by
a
noise
against
the
refusers
of
Episcopacy
,
Liturgy
,
and
Ceremonies
;
but
that
noise
shall
no
more
divert
me
from
opposing
the
Foundations
of
Popery
.
And
I
mightily
commend
the
prudence
of
Mr.
Baxter's
Resolution
;
for
it
is
an
easier
matter
to
pull
down
a
man
of
Clouts
of
his
own
setting
up
,
then
to
uphold
such
a
decayed
and
ruinous
Cause
But
I
am
resolved
not
to
lose
the
Cause
thus
,
and
therefore
shall
beat
a
little
backward
,
till
we
find
it
again
,
and
shall
1.
mind
my
Readers
of
the
occasion
of
that
Discourse
of
Church-Unity
and
Communion
.
2.
Give
a
brief
Account
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
defence
in
those
Points
,
and
consider
their
Cavils
and
Exceptions
against
it
,
and
those
perverse
senses
they
put
upon
my
words
,
to
form
them
into
a
Cassandrian
design
.
§
.
1.
I
shall
mind
my
Readers
of
the
occasion
of
that
Discourse
concerning
Church-Unity
and
Communion
,
whereby
they
may
the
better
judge
of
the
Nature
and
Tendancy
of
it
.
Now
there
were
two
things
I
apparently
designed
in
it
.
1.
To
shew
how
vain
all
those
projects
were
of
uniting
Churches
without
curing
their
Separation
,
such
as
Mr.
Humphrey's
is
,
of
making
all
separate
Churches
parts
of
the
National
Church
,
by
vertue
of
an
Act
of
Parliament
,
under
the
King
,
as
the
Accidental
Head
of
such
an
Accidental
Church
:
For
if
the
Church
must
be
but
one
,
and
the
Unity
of
this
one
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
,
it
is
impossible
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
for
all
the
power
in
the
World
,
to
make
so
many
separate
Churches
one
Church
.
The
supreme
Power
may
grant
equal
Liberties
and
Priviledges
in
the
Common-wealth
to
all
these
separate
Churches
,
but
it
can
no
more
make
them
one
,
than
it
can
make
Contradictions
to
be
true
,
the
sin
and
evil
of
Separation
still
remains
,
the
removal
of
which
is
the
only
thing
that
makes
Union
so
desirable
;
and
if
an
Act
of
Parliament
could
do
this
,
I
confess
the
Proposal
would
be
considerable
.
If
the
evil
and
sinfulness
of
Separation
consisted
only
in
disobedience
to
humane
Laws
,
I
should
think
it
a
barbarous
thing
to
make
any
Laws
,
which
shall
ensnare
men
in
so
great
a
guilt
:
And
it
is
impossible
in
such
an
Age
as
this
,
which
is
distracted
with
so
many
different
and
contrary
Perswasions
,
to
make
any
Laws
about
Religion
,
which
will
meet
with
an
universal
compliance
.
But
if
the
evil
of
Separation
consists
in
dividing
the
unity
of
the
Church
,
which
no
Laws
can
cure
,
but
those
which
cure
Separation
,
Mr.
Humphrey's
uniting
Law
can
give
no
ease
and
security
to
the
Souls
and
Consciences
of
men
,
whatever
it
may
do
to
their
Liberties
and
Estates
:
And
I
take
the
Souls
of
men
to
be
of
greater
concernement
,
than
their
Bodies
and
Estates
,
and
therefore
should
challenge
the
principal
regard
from
consciencious
men
in
their
Projects
of
Union
.
2.
Another
design
of
that
Discourse
of
Church-Unity
and
Communion
,
was
to
give
us
the
most
plain
and
easie
Notion
of
Schism
and
Separation
,
which
Mr.
B.
and
some
other
late
Writers
have
industriously
endeavoured
to
confound
,
that
no
body
might
know
what
it
is
.
Now
if
there
be
but
one
Catholick
Church
all
the
World
over
,
then
every
Separation
is
a
Schism
on
one
side
or
other
;
for
where
there
are
two
separate
Churches
,
one
,
if
not
both
,
must
be
schismatical
,
because
there
is
but
one
Church
:
And
if
the
Unity
of
this
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
,
which
exacts
a
joynt
discharge
of
all
the
Duties
of
a
Church-relation
,
in
hearing
,
and
praying
,
and
receiving
the
Lord's
Supper
,
&c.
together
,
then
to
forsake
the
Church
,
and
meet
in
private
Conventicles
,
in
distinct
and
opposite
Communions
for
Religious
Worship
,
is
Separation
;
and
when
it
is
causeless
,
is
a
Schism
,
as
I
particularly
proved
in
the
defence
from
St.
Cyprian
,
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
Catholick
Church
,
as
that
particular
Church
is
,
from
which
they
separate
:
For
when
there
is
no
obligation
upon
Christians
to
live
in
one
Communion
,
what
should
hinder
them
,
if
they
please
,
from
dividing
into
many
?
If
there
be
more
Churches
and
Communions
than
one
,
he
who
forsakes
one
Church
,
and
joyns
in
Communion
with
another
,
cannot
be
said
to
go
,
or
to
be
out
of
the
Church
,
but
only
to
remove
from
one
Church
to
another
;
and
yet
this
was
the
ancient
Character
of
a
Schismatick
,
that
he
was
Extra
Ecclesiam
foris
,
one
who
is
out
of
the
Church
without
doors
,
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
Catholick
Church
.
Take
away
the
Notion
of
one
Communion
,
and
there
are
but
two
things
,
that
I
can
think
of
,
whereon
to
found
the
charge
of
Schism
and
Separation
:
Either
,
1.
on
a
private
Contract
and
Covenant
between
the
Pastor
and
Members
of
a
particular
Church
;
or
,
2.
on
the
Authority
of
the
Magistrate
,
who
enjoyns
us
to
communicate
with
such
a
Church
.
But
now
I
observe
first
,
that
the
Notion
of
Schism
was
antecedent
to
both
these
:
The
ancient
Church
knew
no
other
Church-covenant
but
Baptism
,
which
obliges
us
to
Catholick
Communion
,
and
had
no
Christian
Magistrates
for
three
hundred
years
to
enforce
or
enjoyn
any
Communion
:
And
yet
the
Church
never
had
a
greater
sence
of
the
evil
of
Schism
in
any
Age
,
and
therefore
did
believe
Schism
to
be
a
very
evil
thing
,
without
any
regard
to
private
Contracts
or
humane
Authority
.
2.
To
break
our
Promise
and
Covenant
is
a
great
evil
,
but
it
is
not
in
its
own
nature
Schism
,
unless
there
be
something
else
to
make
it
so
,
besides
breach
of
promise
.
To
disobey
our
Governors
in
lawful
things
is
a
very
great
evil
,
but
it
is
not
in
it self
the
evil
of
Schism
,
but
of
disobedience
to
lawful
Authority
:
These
do
greatly
aggravate
the
sin
of
Schism
,
when
men
are
guilty
of
it
,
but
it
cannot
make
that
to
be
Schism
which
is
not
;
and
yet
there
is
no
such
sin
,
and
can
be
no
such
sin
as
Schism
,
if
there
be
not
one
Church
;
but
men
may
divide
into
as
many
distinct
and
separate
Churches
,
as
they
please
;
for
if
any
man
should
say
,
that
Separation
is
sinful
,
when
there
is
no
just
cause
or
reason
for
Separation
,
this
supposes
that
there
are
necessary
reasons
against
Separation
,
when
there
are
no
just
reasons
for
it
;
and
I
would
gladly
hear
,
what
those
reasons
are
against
Separation
,
when
you
have
destroyed
the
Notion
of
one
Catholick
Communion
.
But
I
have
discoursed
at
large
the
use
of
this
Notion
of
Catholick
Communion
,
in
the
Disputes
of
Schism
and
Separation
,
in
the
defence
of
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Unreasonableness
of
Separation
,
ch.
5.
p.
231.
and
thither
I
refer
my
Reader
.
Now
I
shall
hence
briefly
observe
two
things
,
with
reference
to
my
present
design
.
1.
That
the
whole
force
of
my
reasoning
aginst
Separation
in
the
defence
of
Dr.
Stillingfleet
,
depends
on
the
Doctrine
of
one
Catholick
Communion
;
and
therefore
I
was
not
at
all
concerned
to
assert
one
visible
unifying
Church-Power
under
Christ
,
2.
I
observe
farther
,
That
supposing
there
had
some
dubious
passages
about
an
universal
Church-Power
slipt
from
my
Pen
,
the
confuting
such
a
fancy
as
that
,
is
by
no
means
a
confutation
of
the
Defence
.
If
the
doctrine
of
one
Catholick
Communion
hold
good
,
as
it
will
certainly
do
,
whatever
becomes
of
Catholick
Church-Power
,
it
confounds
all
their
little
Excuses
and
Apologies
for
Separation
,
and
they
are
as
very
Schismaticks
,
as
ever
the
Novatians
or
Donatists
were
.
Here
the
Controversie
began
about
the
sinfulness
of
Separation
;
very
angry
they
were
,
and
gave
a
great
many
hard
words
to
that
excellent
Person
,
who
warned
them
of
the
danger
and
evil
of
it
;
many
Books
have
been
written
about
it
,
and
now
they
are
charged
as
high
as
ever
,
and
are
ferreted
out
of
their
Retreats
,
and
see
the
very
foundations
of
their
Cause
rooted
up
;
all
on
a
sudden
they
grow
tame
and
gentle
,
and
patiently
hear
themselves
proved
Schismaticks
,
without
saying
a
word
for
themselves
,
being
more
concerned
,
it
seems
,
to
oppose
a
French
Popery
(
which
sometimes
,
by
what
figure
I
know
not
,
they
call
a
Cassandrian
design
)
than
to
vindicate
their
own
dear
selves
from
the
charge
of
Schism
.
Some
possibly
may
think
them
very
mortified
and
self-denying
men
;
others
will
be
tempted
to
suspect
some
other
Cause
:
But
Mr.
B.
is
resolved
that
noise
shall
not
divert
him
from
opposing
the
foundations
of
Popery
;
the
plain
meaning
of
which
is
this
,
He
finds
it
troublesom
to
write
in
a
Cause
,
where
he
is
likely
to
find
some
pert
young
Doctors
to
answer
him
,
and
therefore
is
resolved
for
the
future
to
dispute
by
himself
,
where
he
is
secure
of
the
victory
,
unless
Richard
and
Baxter
should
happen
to
quarrel
;
he
having
now
Printed
a
Book
in
Quarto
of
230
pages
,
as
a
Preparatory
to
a
fuller
Treatise
;
I
suppose
he
means
a
fourth
Folio
,
he
telling
us
that
he
has
writ
three
already
.
§
.
2.
I
come
now
to
give
a
plain
and
brief
account
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Defence
concerning
one
Catholick
Church
,
and
one
Catholick
Communion
,
which
my
Adversaries
have
so
industriously
misrepresented
,
that
it
is
necessary
to
set
it
in
a
new
Light
.
In
the
third
Chapter
I
proved
at
large
,
That
the
Church
is
but
one
,
I
proved
from
the
express
Testimony
of
Scripture
,
and
the
ancient
Fathers
,
and
by
this
unanswerable
Argument
,
I
observed
also
from
St.
Cyprian
(
whose
words
I
had
cited
at
large
)
that
the
Catholick
Church
,
Here
Mr.
Lob
gives
us
the
first
taste
of
his
great
understanding
and
skill
in
Controversie
,
and
what
a
formidable
Adversary
he
is
like
to
prove
.
He
says
,
I
assert
,
that
the
universal
Church
is
in
order
of
nature
antecedent
to
particular
Churches
(
he
should
have
said
Catholick
,
for
that
was
my
word
;
but
then
he
had
lost
his
Metaphysical
subtilty
about
Universals
,
of
which
more
presently
)
well
,
what
hurt
is
there
in
that
assertion
?
why
first
,
the
Allusions
I
use
for
the
illustration
of
this
,
of
the
Sun
being
before
its
Beams
,
and
the
Root
before
its
Branches
,
and
a
Fountain
before
its
Rivers
,
are
not
ad
rem
(
that
is
,
not
to
the
purpose
,
nor
to
the
Matter
in
hand
;
for
I
know
not
what
force
English
Readers
may
imagine
to
be
concealed
in
,
ad
rem
,
unless
I
translate
it
)
but
he
knew
very
well
,
that
these
are
not
my
Allusions
(
as
he
calls
them
)
but
St.
Cyprians
'
,
whose
Authority
is
much
more
considerable
.
But
suppose
they
had
been
my
own
(
as
I
see
no
Reason
to
be
ashamed
of
them
)
what
is
their
fault
?
why
,
I
should
have
given
some
instance
of
some
one
Vniversal
,
that
was
in
order
of
nature
antecedent
to
its
Particulars
.
Now
suppose
I
think
,
that
the
Sun
and
Root
,
and
Fountain
,
are
such
Universals
,
with
respect
to
their
Beams
,
Branches
,
and
Rivers
;
or
suppose
there
were
never
an
adaequate
Example
in
nature
of
this
,
besides
the
Catholick
Church
,
what
were
this
,
ad
rem
,
if
it
appears
,
that
the
Catholick
Church
be
such
an
Universal
?
Yes
,
if
that
could
be
proved
indeed
,
it
were
somewhat
to
the
purpose
;
but
that
,
says
Mr.
Lob
,
is
impossible
,
it
being
in
the
sense
of
most
,
evident
,
that
Universale
is
unum
in
multis
,
that
is
,
in
many
particulars
,
which
Vniversal
hath
no
real
Existence
but
in
particulars
,
but
abstracted
from
all
particulars
●
't
is
only
an
Ens
Rationis
,
having
its
being
in
the
Eutopian
Common-wealth
;
whence
we
distinguish
between
the
consideration
of
Vniversal
,
as
Formal
and
as
Fundamental
.
Fundamental
and
it
is
,
Quid
singulare
;
but
formally
,
and
so
't
is
abstracted
from
all
singulars
,
the
particulars
being
the
foundation
of
the
Vniversal
,
the
root
from
which
the
Vniversal
doth
proceed
.
Now
if
it
be
the
particulars
that
are
the
foundation
of
the
Vniversal
,
how
can
the
Vniversal
be
the
foundation
of
the
particulars
?
No
way
in
the
World
,
Sir
,
Quod
erat
demonstrandum
.
This
is
a
very
Learned
and
Scholastick
Period
,
and
therefore
deserves
a
just
regard
:
And
1.
I
thank
our
Author
for
letting
me
know
,
where
to
find
those
pretty
things
called
Ens
rationis
,
which
,
it
seems
,
have
their
Being
in
the
Eutopian
Common-wealth
,
though
all
Authors
are
not
agreed
in
this
matter
;
for
some
think
it
as
probable
that
they
have
their
Being
in
the
Cassandrian
design
,
but
that
makes
no
great
difference
;
for
Learned
Geographers
say
,
that
is
the
next
County
to
Eutopia
:
But
yet
it
is
a
material
discovery
Mr.
Lob
hath
made
,
for
by
this
means
,
we
may
know
where
to
find
the
Catholick
Church
.
For
,
2.
the
Catholick
Church
being
an
Universal
,
is
no
better
than
an
Ens
rationis
,
a
meer
Metaphysical
Notion
,
and
therefore
must
have
its
Being
also
in
the
Eutopian
Common-wealth
;
I
wish
Mr.
Lob
does
not
at
last
prove
the
Creed
,
where
we
find
the
Catholick
Church
,
to
be
a
meer
Eutopian
Common-wealth
,
for
giving
entertainment
to
such
an
Ens
Rationis
.
Well
,
but
Universals
have
a
real
existence
in
particulars
!
right
,
but
not
as
Universals
,
but
as
Particulars
;
humane
nature
has
a
real
existence
in
Peter
,
James
and
John
,
because
they
are
all
men
;
but
humane
nature
considered
as
Universal
,
is
in
neither
of
them
,
unless
you
will
make
as
many
Universal
humane
natures
,
as
there
are
men
in
the
World
;
thus
there
are
a
great
many
particular
Churches
actually
existent
,
but
the
Catholick
Church
considered
as
Catholick
and
Universal
is
a
meer
figment
and
notion
,
no
where
existing
but
in
Eutopia
.
And
if
this
be
all
Mr.
Lob
means
by
his
Universal
Church
,
that
it
is
a
meer
Logical
notion
,
I
readily
grant
,
that
he
has
not
only
proved
,
that
Particular
Churches
are
before
the
Universal
Church
,
but
that
the
Universal
Church
has
no
actual
Being
at
all
,
nor
can
ever
have
any
,
and
therefore
it
is
a
vain
thing
to
dispute
,
which
of
them
exists
first
,
when
one
of
them
does
not
exist
at
all
any
where
but
in
Eutopia
.
But
all
this
is
nothing
to
me
,
who
never
troubled
my
head
about
the
existence
of
an
Ens
Rationis
in
a
Fayry
Land
,
but
assert
such
an
Universal
Church
,
as
has
an
actual
being
and
existence
,
which
always
is
or
may
be
visible
in
the
World
,
an
Universal
Church
,
which
is
the
object
of
Sense
,
not
the
creature
of
fancy
and
imagination
.
This
I
take
to
be
the
general
sense
of
all
Christians
,
of
what
Communion
soever
they
are
,
if
they
understand
any
thing
of
these
matters
,
that
the
Universal
Church
is
a
real
thing
which
does
actually
exist
;
not
as
Logical
Notions
do
,
but
as
a
Church
and
Society
of
Christians
:
For
the
Universal
Church
is
the
Body
and
the
Spouse
of
Christ
,
and
it
is
a
new fangled
Heresie
to
assert
the
Body
and
the
Spouse
of
Christ
,
to
be
an
Ens
Rationis
;
as
the
Do●●…
formerly
asserted
his
Natural
Body
,
to
be
only
an
empty
Apparition
.
Hitherto
particular
Churches
have
been
acknowledged
to
be
Members
of
the
Universal
Church
,
but
no
man
in
his
Wits
ever
dream't
before
,
that
a
thing
which
actually
exists
could
be
a
Member
of
that
,
which
has
no
real
existence
,
that
the
Church
of
England
,
suppose
,
or
the
Church
of
France
,
should
be
Members
of
an
imaginary
Universal
Church
,
which
has
no
Being
any where
but
in
Eutopia
:
And
therefore
to
help
out
our
Author
here
,
who
has
so
miserably
lost
himself
in
Logick
and
Metaphysicks
;
I
observe
,
that
the
Catholick
Church
,
is
such
an
Universal
as
a
whole
is
,
with
respect
to
its
parts
,
not
as
a
Species
is
,
with
respect
to
the
Individuals
contained
under
it
;
or
to
speak
more
plain
,
as
our
natural
Body
is
with
respect
to
its
particular
Members
,
not
as
humane
Nature
is
,
with
respect
to
particular
men
.
And
therefore
the
most
common
Reason
assigned
,
both
by
Ancient
and
Modern
Divines
,
why
the
Church
is
called
Catholick
and
Universal
,
is
,
not
because
it
is
an
universal
Notion
,
cap.
17.
made
by
a
mental
Abstraction
from
particulars
,
but
because
it
diffuses
it self
all
the
World
over
,
and
propagates
it self
into
all
parts
,
without
Division
or
Multiplication
into
new
distinct
Churches
,
but
continuing
one
and
the
same
Church
from
the
Beginning
,
fills
the
World
with
Christians
,
living
in
this
one
Communion
and
Society
.
Having
thus
redeemed
the
universal
Church
from
its
invisible
and
imaginary
State
in
the
Eutopian
Common-wealth
,
and
brought
it
back
into
the
World
again
,
let
us
now
consider
how
the
Church
becomes
Catholick
and
Universal
,
and
which
is
first
in
order
of
Nature
,
the
Catholick
Church
or
particular
Churches
.
Mr.
Lob
asks
me
,
Where
this
universal
Church
should
be
,
when
Antecedent
to
any
particular
Church
?
that
the
universal
Church
in
the
first
beginnings
of
Christianity
,
was
not
so
large
as
many
particular
Congregations
are
now
?
That
though
in
the
beginnings
of
Christianity
,
the
true
Church
of
Christ
was
consined
to
one
small
Congregation
,
yet
it
was
the
Catholick
Church
,
&c.
as
the
Root
and
Fountain
of
Vnity
,
As
St.
Cyprian
did
:
For
in
this
Sense
of
the
word
Catholick
and
Vniversal
,
as
it
signifies
,
the
Christian
Church
diffused
and
propagated
in
all
parts
of
the
World
,
it
is
absurd
and
senseless
to
affirm
,
That
the
Church
was
Planted
in
all
the
World
,
before
it
was
Planted
in
any
one
Country
;
but
I
placed
the
Catholicism
of
the
Christian
Church
,
not
meerly
in
its
actual
Extent
,
but
in
its
intrinsick
Nature
;
its
Extent
varies
in
several
Ages
,
according
to
the
Progress
or
Decrease
of
Christianity
in
the
World
,
but
the
Nature
of
the
Church
is
always
the
same
,
be
its
Extent
more
or
less
.
Catholick
,
indeed
is
a
Name
,
which
we
do
not
find
given
to
the
Church
in
Scripture
,
nor
in
the
most
ancient
Creeds
;
but
we
find
in
Scripture
,
that
Christ
has
but
one
Church
,
and
the
very
Nature
and
Constitution
of
this
Church
is
such
,
That
it
was
not
to
be
confined
to
any
one
Countrey
,
as
the
Jewish
Church
was
,
I
would
desire
to
know
,
whether
Christ
had
ever
more
than
one
Church
,
and
one
Body
?
If
he
had
not
,
Whether
that
one
Church
might
not
always
be
properly
called
the
Catholick
Church
?
If
it
might
not
,
Then
if
Christ
have
a
Catholick
Church
now
,
and
formerly
had
no
Catholick
Church
,
he
has
a
Church
now
which
he
had
not
at
first
;
and
therefore
has
either
changed
the
Church
,
which
he
once
had
,
or
has
two
Churches
;
one
which
is
not
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
another
which
is
the
Catholick
Church
.
The
Christian
Church
indeed
has
spread
it self
into
many
parts
of
the
World
,
where
it
was
not
at
the
first
planting
of
the
Gospel
,
and
therefore
is
more
Catholick
and
Universal
,
with
respect
to
its
extent
,
than
it
was
at
first
;
but
the
Church
,
which
is
now
spread
all
the
World
over
,
is
but
that
one
Church
still
which
began
at
Jerusalem
;
and
therefore
the
Church
at
Jerusalem
,
while
but
one
single
Congregation
,
was
the
Catholick
Church
in
its
Root
,
and
Fountain
,
and
principle
of
Unity
,
which
was
all
that
St.
Cyprian
,
and
I
from
him
,
affirmed
of
this
Matter
.
And
if
particular
Churches
now
may
be
Catholick
Churches
,
as
maintaining
Catholick
unity
,
which
was
the
familiar
Language
of
the
primitive
Fathers
,
much
more
might
the
first
Christian
Church
be
very
properly
called
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
being
the
Principle
and
Fountain
of
Catholick
unity
.
But
of
all
things
I
hate
to
dispute
about
Words
,
and
therefore
if
Mr.
Lob
will
but
grant
the
thing
I
contend
for
,
let
the
Words
shift
for
themselves
;
and
that
is
this
,
That
the
Church
first
planted
by
the
Apostles
in
Jerusalem
,
is
that
one
Church
,
which
was
afterwards
spread
over
all
the
World
;
that
when
the
Apostles
planted
Churches
in
other
Cities
,
Countries
,
and
Provinces
,
they
did
not
erect
new
distinct
Independent
Churches
,
but
only
enlarged
that
one
Church
of
Christ
,
and
added
new
Members
to
it
.
Let
the
Church
of
Christ
be
acknowledged
to
be
but
one
,
which
propagated
it self
in
the
Unity
of
the
same
Body
all
the
World
over
,
and
I
have
no
farther
Controversie
about
this
Matter
.
This
is
the
only
thing
I
was
concerned
for
,
to
prove
that
there
is
but
one
Church
all
the
World
over
;
and
for
this
Reason
,
I
asserted
,
That
the
Catholick
Church
considered
as
the
root
and
fountain
of
Vnity
,
was
in
order
of
Nature
antecedent
to
particular
Churches
:
The
Catholick
Church
may
subsist
in
one
particular
Church
,
otherwise
the
belief
of
the
Catholick
Church
can
be
no
necessary
Article
of
our
Creed
,
for
the
first
Christian
Church
,
was
the
particular
Church
of
Jerusalem
,
and
if
that
were
not
in
some
sense
the
Catholick
Church
,
there
was
a
Christian
Church
,
when
there
was
no
Catholick
Church
,
and
may
be
so
again
;
if
we
should
suppose
all
the
World
excepting
one
particular
Church
,
to
apostatize
from
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
which
yet
is
generally
acknowledged
possible
to
be
.
But
if
particular
Churches
were
in
order
of
Nature
antecedent
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
then
they
must
be
true
and
compleat
Churches
,
without
any
regard
to
Catholick
unity
,
and
then
it
is
impossible
ever
after
to
find
or
make
one
Catholick
Church
.
The
Notion
and
Essence
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
far
as
concerns
this
Controversie
,
consists
in
such
a
Catholick
unity
,
as
makes
all
the
Christians
,
and
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
one
Body
and
Church
,
and
Members
of
each
other
.
Now
could
we
suppose
that
there
were
two
or
three
or
more
particular
Churches
before
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
suppose
the
Churches
of
England
,
France
,
and
Spain
,
then
we
must
acknowledg
,
that
a
Church
may
be
a
true
compleat
Church
,
without
any
regard
to
Catholick
unity
,
and
then
Catholick
unity
is
not
necessary
to
the
Notion
and
Being
of
a
Church
,
and
then
there
can
be
no
necessity
of
one
Catholick
Church
.
If
it
is
possible
,
that
there
should
be
two
Christian
Churches
,
which
are
not
of
the
same
Communion
,
nor
Members
of
each
other
,
then
why
not
a
hundred
,
a
thousand
,
&c.
And
then
there
can
be
no
one
Catholick
Church
of
Christs
Institution
,
whatever
there
may
be
by
humane
Combinations
and
Confederacies
.
The
Sum
of
all
is
this
,
Christ
in
the
Institution
of
his
Church
,
designed
but
one
Church
all
the
World
over
,
which
we
call
the
Catholick
Church
.
This
Catholick
Church
must
of
necessity
have
a
beginning
somewhere
,
as
,
De
facto
,
it
had
at
Jerusalem
;
where-ever
this
beginning
is
,
there
is
the
Root
and
Fountain
of
Catholick
unity
,
because
all
other
Christians
,
and
Churches
,
which
afterwards
embrace
the
Christian
Faith
,
are
added
to
this
Church
,
and
received
into
the
Unity
of
this
one
Body
;
and
it
is
impossible
,
that
any
man
should
be
a
Christian
,
or
any
Society
of
men
a
Christian
Church
,
who
are
not
received
into
the
Unity
of
this
Church
,
not
considered
as
such
a
particular
Church
,
but
as
the
beginning
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
thus
all
particular
Churches
are
united
to
one
another
,
and
by
vertue
of
this
Catholick
union
,
are
one
Catholick
Church
.
He
who
carefully
considers
this
,
will
see
what
Reason
I
had
to
assert
,
that
the
Catholick
Church
was
in
order
of
Nature
antecedent
to
particular
Churches
;
for
a
Church
,
which
is
one
by
Institution
,
must
begin
in
one
,
and
enlarge
it self
by
receiving
others
into
the
Unity
of
the
same
Body
,
which
for
the
convenience
of
Worship
and
Discipline
,
may
form
themselves
into
distinct
,
but
not
separate
Church-Societies
.
This
is
an
intelligible
Account
,
how
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
come
to
be
but
one
Church
,
as
proceeding
from
one
principle
of
Unity
,
from
one
Root
and
Stock
,
and
by
the
necessary
Laws
of
their
Constitution
incorporated
into
one
Body
,
and
closely
united
to
each
others
;
but
those
who
make
particular
Churches
to
be
entire
and
compleat
Churches
by
themselves
,
in
order
of
Nature
and
time
too
,
antecedent
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
must
either
make
the
Catholick
Church
an
imaginary
Being
,
a
meer
Ens
Rationis
,
as
Mr.
Lob
does
,
or
else
no
better
then
an
arbitrary
Combination
,
which
may
last
as
long
as
they
please
,
and
be
dissolved
again
,
when
they
please
,
and
yet
the
particular
Churches
remain
very
entire
and
perfect
Churches
without
it
.
It
is
certain
,
that
the
Catholick
Church
cannot
be
one
Church
and
one
Body
,
if
any
particular
Churches
by
their
essential
Constitution
are
entire
compleat
Churches
,
and
not
integral
parts
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
which
they
cannot
be
without
such
a
necessary
Union
as
I
have
now
described
.
And
to
conclude
this
Argument
,
I
shall
refer
Mr.
Lob
for
better
Instruction
in
this
Matter
to
Mr.
Baxter
,
who
,
in
Answer
to
this
Question
,
Whether
a
single
Church
,
or
the
Catholick
Church
be
first
?
Christ
was
first
himself
,
and
then
,
Christians
as
Christians
were
Vnited
to
him
,
and
were
the
Catholick
Church
in
Fieri
,
or
an
Embrio
:
And
then
the
Pastor's
Office
,
was
made
as
the
Organical
Office
to
make
the
rest
,
—
And
when
the
particular
Churches
are
formed
,
they
are
thereby
parts
of
the
Vniversal
,
and
as
such
are
,
Simul
et
Semel
,
such
Churches
and
such
parts
.
Now
though
Mr.
B.
and
I
are
not
like
to
agree
very
well
in
our
Notions
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
(
a
particular
Account
of
which
I
shall
give
hereafter
)
yet
here
are
several
things
for
the
Instruction
of
Mr.
Lob
,
and
to
vindicate
my
Notion
from
such
ridiculous
Absurdity
,
as
he
charges
it
with
.
For
,
1.
Mr.
B.
acknowledges
an
universal
Church
,
In
fieri
or
Embrio
,
before
any
particular
organized
Church
,
before
the
Apostolical
Office
it self
,
which
is
more
than
I
say
,
who
only
make
the
first
Church
,
The
Root
and
Fountain
of
Catholick
unity
.
2.
He
asserts
,
That
when
particular
Churches
are
founded
,
they
are
thereby
parts
of
the
universal
Church
;
and
therefore
the
universal
Church
must
be
in
order
of
Nature
before
particular
Churches
,
which
is
very
consistent
with
their
being
,
Simul
&
semel
,
in
order
of
time
.
And
that
he
does
not
look
upon
the
universal
Church
,
to
be
a
meer
,
Ens
Rationis
,
in
an
Eutopian
Common-wealth
,
but
a
real
existent
thing
appears
from
hence
,
that
in
the
next
Paragraph
,
he
owns
,
Particular
Churches
to
be
integral
parts
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
CHAP.
II.
Concerning
Catholick
Communion
.
HAving
thus
vindicated
my
Notion
of
Catholick
unity
,
the
next
thing
in
order
(
for
I
shall
confine
my self
to
the
Method
I
observed
in
the
Defence
,
that
my
Readers
may
the
better
know
,
what
the
present
Controversie
is
,
which
my
Adversaries
have
endeavoured
to
conceal
,
as
well
as
misrepresent
)
concerns
Catholick
Communion
.
I
asserted
and
proved
at
large
,
That
the
Vnity
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
consists
in
one
Communion
.
I
explained
what
this
one
Communion
is
,
produced
variety
of
Proofs
for
it
,
from
the
Authority
of
Scripture
,
and
Ancient
Fathers
;
and
none
of
my
Adversaries
yet
have
had
the
confidence
to
attempt
any
Answer
to
it
,
either
by
shewing
that
my
Arguments
are
not
cogent
,
my
Authorities
from
Scripture
,
or
Fathers
impertinent
or
false
:
Mr.
Lob
thinks
it
sufficient
to
start
some
difficult
Cases
,
and
to
confront
me
with
the
Authority
of
some
late
Writers
of
the
Church
of
England
,
who
,
as
he
,
who
understands
neither
one
nor
th'
other
,
imagines
,
contradict
what
I
say
;
which
,
if
it
were
so
indeed
,
is
neither
a
sufficient
Answer
to
me
,
who
prefer
the
Authority
of
the
Scripture
,
and
Ancient
Fathers
,
before
any
Modern
Doctors
,
of
what
Note
soever
;
nor
a
sufficient
justification
of
himself
and
his
party
,
who
are
condemned
by
these
very
men
,
whose
Authority
they
oppose
against
me
,
though
they
do
not
value
it
themselves
.
An
Argument
,
Ad
hominem
,
can
never
establish
a
Cause
,
though
in
some
cases
it
may
silence
an
Adversary
;
and
it
is
an
evident
sign
of
great
prevarication
,
when
men
fence
only
with
such
Authorities
,
as
they
themselves
do
not
think
valid
,
as
it
is
a
desperate
Cause
,
when
they
can
neither
confute
the
Reasons
which
are
alledged
,
nor
oppose
Reason
to
Reason
;
but
Mr.
Lob
shall
have
a
fair
hearing
presently
.
Mr.
Baxter
seems
not
to
have
read
this
Chapter
,
which
is
the
main
seat
of
the
Controversie
,
but
skips
to
the
8th
.
Chapter
,
where
this
Doctrine
of
one
Communion
is
applyed
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
this
is
the
Reason
,
why
he
does
not
understand
,
what
I
mean
by
one
Communion
,
but
imagines
,
that
I
have
a
Grammar
or
Dictionary
by
my self
,
and
will
excommunicate
them
,
and
make
them
Schismaticks
,
for
speaking
as
all
mankind
do
.
Good
man
,
he
is
a
little
mistaken
in
this
Matter
,
as
usually
he
is
,
and
as
every
man
must
be
,
who
confutes
Books
before
he
reads
or
understands
them
,
and
replies
before
he
knows
what
to
answer
.
However
,
1.
He
says
,
This
is
contrary
to
the
common
course
of
Nature
,
in
which
the
Vnion
of
all
compounded
beings
maketh
them
what
they
are
,
and
goeth
before
their
Operations
and
Effects
.
The
Vnion
of
the
Soul
and
Body
goeth
before
Sensation
,
Imagination
,
Intellection
,
or
Volition
.
2.
It
is
contrary
to
all
Artificial
beings
in
a
Clock
,
a
Watch
,
a
Coach
,
&c.
The
Vnion
of
their
parts
is
their
relative
Form
,
and
goeth
before
the
Exercise
,
and
Vse
,
and
the
Effects
.
3.
It
is
contrary
to
all
Political
Beings
and
Societies
:
The
Vnion
of
King
and
Subjects
is
the
constitutive
Form
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
goeth
before
the
Administration
or
Regiment
,
by
Legislation
and
Judgement
,
and
the
Allegiance
and
Subjection
before
Obedience
.
Thus
the
Vnion
of
Husband
and
Wife
,
Master
and
Servants
,
Captain
and
Souldiers
,
Schoolmaster
and
Scholars
,
as
the
Constitution
of
the
Relation
,
go
before
their
Communion
in
the
Exercise
.
4.
If
Vnion
and
Communion
be
all
one
,
then
a
man
is
new
made
a
Christian
at
every
Act
of
Communion
;
for
Vnion
is
the
Constitution
,
and
makes
us
Christians
;
but
the
Consequence
is
not
true
.
5.
If
Vnion
and
Communion
be
all
one
,
then
Baptism
doth
no
more
make
us
Christians
,
and
unite
us
to
Christ
and
his
Church
,
than
after-Communion
in
Prayer
and
Sacraments
do
;
but
this
is
singular
and
false
.
What
pity
is
it
,
that
so
many
good
Arguments
should
be
lost
,
for
want
of
some
Thing
and
some
Body
to
oppose
?
for
all
these
Arguments
proceed
upon
this
Mistake
,
That
by
Communion
,
I
mean
only
some
transient
Acts
of
Christian
Communion
,
such
as
Praying
,
and
Hearing
,
and
Receiving
the
Lord's
Supper
together
;
that
the
Christian
Church
is
united
by
such
Acts
as
these
;
whereas
these
Acts
of
Christian
Communion
necessarily
suppose
Christian
Union
,
and
therefore
can
neither
be
the
efficient
nor
formal
Cause
of
it
:
A
man
must
first
be
united
to
the
Church
,
and
one
Church
to
another
,
before
they
can
communicate
together
in
such
Acts
of
Worship
,
or
have
any
Right
to
do
so
.
But
then
I
wonder
,
what
he
thought
I
meant
by
one
Communion
;
for
if
by
Communion
,
I
meant
only
a
transient
Act
of
Communion
,
by
one
Communion
,
I
could
mean
but
one
such
transient
Act.
And
here
he
might
have
found
out
greater
Absurdities
than
before
,
and
have
triumphed
over
this
sensless
Notion
unmercifully
;
for
what
a
ridiculous
conceit
is
it
,
to
place
Christian
Unity
in
some
one
transient
Act
?
But
possibly
Mr.
B.
might
see
this
Absurdity
,
and
be
merciful
to
it
,
for
the
sake
of
his
darling
Notion
of
Occasional
Communion
,
which
is
just
such
a
transient
Act
,
and
yet
,
as
he
thinks
,
sufficient
to
Church
Unity
,
and
to
justifie
any
man
from
the
Guilt
of
Schism
and
Separation
.
But
then
I
cannot
but
wonder
,
that
he
should
so
industriously
prove
,
that
the
Unity
of
the
Church
cannot
consist
in
such
transient
Acts
of
Communion
;
for
if
this
be
true
,
(
as
certainly
it
is
)
he
may
be
a
Schismatick
from
the
Church
of
England
,
notwithstanding
he
sometimes
holds
Occasional
Communion
with
her
.
But
had
Mr.
B.
carefully
read
and
considered
but
the
six
first
Lines
of
the
4th
.
Chap.
of
the
Defence
,
where
I
explain
,
what
I
mean
by
one
Communion
,
he
might
have
spared
all
his
Arguments
,
from
natural
,
artificial
,
and
political
Unions
.
My
words
are
these
;
The
2d
.
thing
to
be
considered
is
,
That
the
Vnity
of
the
Christian
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
;
Catholick
Vnity
signifies
Catholick
Communion
,
and
one
Communion
signifies
one
Christian
Society
,
of
which
all
Christians
are
Members
.
From
which
it
is
plain
,
That
I
did
not
place
this
one
Communion
in
any
transient
Acts
,
but
in
a
fixed
and
permanent
State
.
And
that
this
is
not
a
new
,
uncouth
way
of
speaking
,
but
very
agreeable
to
the
Language
of
Scripture
and
Antiquity
,
I
made
appear
in
the
same
place
,
and
concluded
,
This
is
sufficient
to
let
you
understand
,
what
the
Ancients
meant
by
Christian
Communion
,
which
in
a
large
notion
,
signifies
the
Christian
Church
or
Society
,
which
is
called
Communion
,
from
the
Communication
which
all
the
Members
of
it
had
with
each
other
.
So
that
when
I
say
,
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
,
the
plain
and
obvious
sense
of
it
is
this
,
That
all
the
Churches
of
the
World
are
but
one
Church
or
one
Society
,
and
have
the
same
Right
,
and
the
same
Obligation
on
them
,
to
communicate
with
each
other
,
as
opportunity
serves
,
in
all
those
Duties
,
for
the
sake
of
which
Christian
Churches
are
instituted
,
as
the
Members
of
a
particular
Church
are
.
For
all
particular
Churches
are
as
much
Members
of
the
universal
Church
,
as
particular
Christians
are
Members
of
a
particular
Church
,
and
therefore
are
as
much
bound
to
communicate
with
each
other
:
One
Communion
signifies
one
Body
and
Society
,
in
which
all
the
Members
communicate
with
one
another
.
As
to
explain
this
by
a
familiar
Comparison
:
Suppose
the
whole
World
were
one
Family
,
or
one
Kingdom
,
in
which
every
particular
man
,
according
to
his
Rank
and
Station
,
enjoys
equal
Priviledges
;
in
this
case
the
necessity
of
Affairs
would
require
,
that
men
should
live
in
distinct
Houses
,
and
distinct
Countreys
,
as
now
they
do
all
the
World
over
:
But
yet
if
every
man
enjoyed
the
same
Liberty
and
Priviledges
,
where-ever
he
went
,
as
he
does
now
in
his
own
House
and
Countrey
,
the
whole
World
would
be
but
one
great
Family
,
or
universal
Kingdom
.
And
whosoever
should
resolve
to
live
by
himself
,
and
not
to
receive
any
others
into
his
Family
,
nor
allow
them
the
liberty
of
his
House
,
would
be
guilty
of
making
a
Schism
in
this
great
Family
of
the
World
;
and
what
Nation
soever
should
deny
the
Rights
and
Priviledges
of
natural
Subjects
,
to
the
Inhabitants
of
other
Countreys
,
would
make
a
Schism
,
and
rent
it self
from
this
universal
Kingdom
.
Thus
it
is
here
:
The
Church
of
Christ
is
but
one
Body
,
one
Church
,
one
Houshold
and
Family
,
one
Kingdom
;
and
therefore
though
the
necessity
of
Affairs
requires
,
that
neighbour-Christians
combine
themselves
into
particular
Churches
and
particular
Congregations
,
as
the
World
is
divided
into
particular
Families
and
Kingdoms
,
yet
every
Christian
by
vertue
of
his
Christianity
,
hath
the
same
Right
and
Priviledge
,
and
the
same
Obligation
to
Communion
,
as
occasion
serves
,
with
all
the
Churches
of
the
World
,
that
he
has
with
that
particular
Church
wherein
he
lives
:
Where-ever
he
removes
his
Dwelling
,
whatever
Church
he
goes
to
,
he
is
still
in
the
same
Family
,
the
same
Kingdom
,
and
the
same
Church
.
I
can
hardly
be
so
charitable
to
Mr.
B.
as
not
to
believe
this
to
be
a
wilful
Mistake
;
for
it
is
impossible
for
any
man
of
common
sense
,
who
had
ever
read
what
I
discoursed
so
largely
and
particularly
of
Catholick
Communion
,
to
mistake
it
for
some
transient
Acts
of
Communion
,
when
I
so
frequently
explained
one
Communion
by
one
Body
and
Society
:
And
all
the
Arguments
whereby
I
prove
one
Catholick
Communion
,
prove
only
that
all
Christians
and
Christian
Churches
are
but
one
Body
,
and
thereby
obliged
to
all
Duties
and
Offices
,
and
Acts
of
Christian
Communion
,
which
are
consequent
upon
such
a
Relation
.
And
this
is
a
sufficient
Answer
to
his
three
first
Arguments
,
from
natural
,
artificial
,
and
political
Unions
.
But
upon
a
stricter
Examination
of
Mr.
B's
.
Arguments
,
I
find
he
is
as
much
blundered
and
confounded
about
the
notion
of
Unity
,
as
he
is
about
Communion
.
I
asserted
,
that
Catholick
Unity
consists
in
one
Communion
;
the
plain
sense
of
which
is
no
more
than
this
,
That
the
Catholick
Church
is
one
,
considered
as
one
Body
and
Society
,
wherein
all
Christians
and
Christian
Churches
have
equal
Right
and
Obligation
to
Christian
Communion
.
This
Unity
he
turns
into
Union
,
and
understands
it
of
our
Union
to
Christ
,
not
of
the
Unity
or
Oneness
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
argues
thus
:
4.
If
Vnion
and
Communion
be
all
one
,
then
a
man
is
new
made
a
Christian
at
every
Act
of
Communion
;
for
Vnion
is
the
Constitution
,
and
makes
us
Christians
.
5.
If
Vnion
and
Communion
be
all
one
,
then
Baptism
doth
no
more
make
us
Christians
,
and
unite
us
to
Christ
and
his
Church
,
than
after-Communion
in
Prayers
and
Sacraments
do
.
Where
you
see
he
misconstrues
both
the
terms
;
and
it
would
be
wonderful
to
any
Logician
,
to
hear
him
conclude
from
these
premisses
,
Ergo
,
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
does
not
consist
in
its
being
one
Body
and
Society
,
and
Communion
of
Christians
.
If
this
be
to
write
Controversies
,
we
may
e'ne
as
well
lay
Wagers
,
and
cast
Lots
for
Major
,
Minor
,
and
Conclusion
;
for
any
Propositions
well
shuffled
,
will
naturally
fall
into
as
good
Syllogisms
as
these
.
And
yet
Mr.
B.
had
notice
given
him
of
this
distinction
between
the
Union
of
the
Church
to
Christ
,
and
the
Unity
of
all
Churches
in
one
Body
and
Society
,
in
the
8th
..
Chap.
of
the
Defence
,
where
I
consider
,
what
Communion
is
essential
to
the
Catholick
or
universal
Church
;
where
the
Reader
may
find
these
words
,
which
Mr.
B.
himself
takes
notice
of
:
I
have
already
proved
the
Catholick
Church
to
be
one
visible
Body
and
Society
,
and
therefore
need
not
now
add
any
thing
more
to
confute
that
opinion
,
that
the
Catholick
Church
is
invisible
,
which
is
asserted
by
Dr.
Owen
,
and
his
Independent
Brethren
.
But
Mr.
B.
and
others
,
who
acknowledge
one
visible
Catholick
Church
,
consisting
of
all
the
particular
Churches
in
the
World
,
do
not
much
differ
from
Dr.
O
'
s.
invisible
Church
,
while
they
make
the
Vnity
of
this
Church
to
consist
only
in
their
Vnion
to
Christ
,
as
Head
of
the
Church
,
not
in
the
Vnion
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
Catholick
Church
is
united
into
one
Body
:
I
assert
,
this
is
done
by
one
Communion
;
if
he
can
tell
any
better
way
,
I
would
gladly
learn
it
,
especially
if
he
can
tell
me
,
how
all
Churches
can
be
one
Body
without
one
Communion
.
This
sudden
Humiliation
,
as
Mr.
B.
calls
it
,
in
being
contented
to
learn
of
him
,
makes
him
condescend
to
undertake
this
task
to
teach
me
,
but
very
much
suspects
my
capacity
to
learn
,
till
I
am
better
instructed
by
some
Grammarians
,
Metaphysical
and
Political
Teachers
,
what
the
meaning
of
Vnion
and
Communion
is
,
what
is
the
difference
between
Essentials
,
and
Integrals
,
and
Accidents
,
and
of
Vnion
and
Communion
in
each
of
these
,
and
how
many
sorts
of
Vnion
and
Communion
there
are
,
that
are
pertinent
to
our
Case
,
&c.
I
do
not
wonder
,
there
are
so
few
persons
who
understand
Mr.
B.
or
are
capable
of
learning
from
him
,
since
there
are
so
many
things
to
be
understood
before-hand
,
to
prepare
them
for
his
Instructions
,
as
no
man
of
sense
can
ever
understand
.
I
ask
Mr.
B.
one
plain
Question
,
How
the
whole
Catholick
Church
is
united
into
one
Body
,
so
as
to
become
one
Church
?
In
Answer
to
this
,
he
sends
me
to
Grammarians
and
Metaphysicians
,
to
learn
how
many
sorts
of
Union
there
are
;
though
I
care
not
how
many
sorts
of
Union
there
are
,
if
he
will
tell
me
,
what
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
is
.
But
he
says
,
1.
He
cannot
talk
sense
about
these
things
,
without
distinguishing
about
the
unifying
of
the
Society
,
and
the
uniting
a
single
Member
to
that
Society
.
But
I
suppose
in
my
Question
,
particular
Churches
already
formed
,
and
particular
Christians
united
to
these
Churches
,
and
only
enquire
,
how
all
these
Christians
and
all
these
Churches
are
one
Church
.
Other
men
,
I
believe
,
could
talk
sense
,
without
these
Distinctions
,
which
Mr.
B.
seems
to
be
so
fond
of
,
only
to
prevent
his
Readers
from
understanding
sense
.
2.
He
must
distinguish
also
an
essentiating
Vnion
,
and
an
integrating
or
accidental
Vnion
and
Communion
.
I
perceive
we
shall
never
come
to
the
Business
:
For
I
did
not
enquire
,
wherein
the
essence
of
the
Church
consists
,
or
what
degrees
of
Communion
are
more
or
less
necessary
to
its
Being
,
which
I
suppose
he
means
by
his
essentiating
,
integrating
,
accidental
Union
and
Communion
;
but
I
suppose
a
thousand
Churches
,
or
as
many
more
as
you
please
,
with
all
the
Essentials
,
Integrals
,
Accidentals
of
a
Church
,
and
enquire
how
these
thousand
Churches
become
one
Church
.
Possibly
these
Distinctions
may
be
the
way
of
speaking
sense
,
but
I
perceive
they
are
not
the
way
of
speaking
to
the
purpose
.
But
let
us
now
consider
the
Account
Mr.
B.
gives
us
of
this
Matter
:
And
1.
he
says
,
It
is
only
essential
to
the
Church
,
that
there
be
an
organized
Body
of
Pastors
and
People
united
to
Christ
the
Head
.
Here
I
agree
with
Mr.
B.
if
he
would
add
one
Body
;
for
that
is
the
thing
in
Dispute
,
whether
Christ
have
one
or
a
thousand
Bodies
;
if
but
one
,
how
all
the
Christians
and
Churches
in
the
World
make
up
that
one
Body
.
2.
He
adds
,
In
this
Definition
,
Christ
only
is
the
supream
,
constitutive
,
Summa
Potestas
,
or
regent
part
;
the
organized
Body
of
Pastors
and
People
,
but
the
Pars
subdita
,
and
the
Vnion
of
Christ
and
that
Body
maketh
it
a
Church
.
This
is
very
well
still
:
We
acknowledge
Christ
to
be
the
supream
Governour
of
his
Church
,
and
that
the
Union
of
Pastors
and
People
to
Christ
makes
them
a
Church
;
but
the
main
Question
still
remains
untouched
,
What
it
is
,
which
makes
all
the
Christian
Pastors
and
People
in
the
World
to
be
but
one
Church
.
Nor
does
his
Similitude
help
him
out
,
which
is
so
admirable
in
its
Philosophy
and
Application
,
that
I
cannot
let
it
pass
.
His
words
are
these
:
As
in
the
Constitution
of
Man
,
1.
The
rational
Soul
is
the
real
Form
,
which
is
,
Principium
Motus
.
2.
The
organized
Body
is
the
constitutive
Matter
:
That
there
be
Heart
,
Liver
,
Stomach
,
is
but
the
Bodies
Organization
;
that
these
parts
be
duly
placed
and
united
,
is
Forma
Corporis
,
non
Hominis
,
and
makes
the
Body
but
Materia
disposita
.
3.
The
Vnion
of
Soul
and
Body
is
that
Nexus
,
(
like
the
Copula
in
a
Proposition
)
which
may
be
called
the
relative
Form
,
or
that
which
maketh
the
Soul
become
Forma
in
actu
.
Had
this
Philosophy
been
known
in
St.
Paul's
days
,
I
should
not
much
have
wondred
,
that
he
warns
men
against
vain
Philosophy
.
I
shall
avoid
disputing
with
Mr.
B.
as
much
as
I
can
,
and
therefore
shall
not
quarrel
with
him
for
saving
,
that
the
Soul
is
Principium
Motus
,
the
Beginning
,
or
first
Cause
and
Principle
of
Motion
to
the
Body
,
though
it
may
be
some
Cartesians
will
not
like
it
:
Nor
for
affirming
,
that
the
Union
of
Soul
and
Body
,
is
but
like
the
Copula
in
a
Proposition
,
which
is
a
speck
and
spang
new
Notion
;
but
shall
only
consider
,
how
he
applies
this
to
the
Church
.
Christ
it
seems
then
is
the
Soul
,
and
Christians
the
Body
;
though
in
Scripture
he
is
represented
as
the
Head
of
the
Body
,
and
the
divine
Spirit
as
the
Soul
which
enlivens
and
animates
it
:
And
if
Christ
be
not
the
Head
of
the
Body
,
(
which
I
think
the
Soul
was
never
accounted
yet
)
the
Church
must
be
without
a
Head
,
or
have
some
other
Head
than
Christ
,
which
I
suppose
is
the
Reason
,
why
he
talks
so
much
of
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
.
But
the
organized
Body
is
the
constitutive
Matter
of
the
man
,
though
other
Philosophers
used
to
call
the
Body
a
constitutive
part
;
but
to
let
that
pass
.
Thus
an
organical
Church
is
the
constitutive
Matter
;
of
what
?
Of
Christ
,
or
of
his
Church
,
or
of
some
third
thing
compounded
of
both
?
That
there
be
Heart
,
Liver
,
Stomach
,
is
but
the
Bodies
Organization
;
this
is
easily
applied
.
Thus
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
Pastors
and
Teachers
,
and
People
,
make
an
organical
Church
;
but
that
these
parts
be
duly
placed
and
united
,
is
Forma
Corporis
,
non
Hominis
,
is
the
Form
of
the
Body
,
not
of
the
Man
;
which
what
it
means
,
I
cannot
tell
,
unless
that
a
man
would
be
a
man
,
though
the
several
parts
of
his
Body
did
not
stand
in
their
right
places
,
nor
were
united
to
one
another
;
so
they
were
all
united
to
the
Soul
.
And
thus
the
Catholick
Church
is
one
Body
,
by
being
united
to
Christ
,
though
the
parts
of
it
are
not
united
to
each
other
;
and
much
such
a
Body
it
is
,
as
the
natural
Body
would
be
,
did
the
Legs
and
Arms
grow
out
of
the
Head
,
and
every
Member
change
places
without
any
order
,
or
divide
from
each
other
,
and
hang
together
only
by
a
Magical
kind
of
Union
with
the
Soul
.
Well
,
but
this
Organization
and
due
Position
of
the
Parts
,
makes
the
Body
,
Materia
disposita
,
Matter
fitly
disposed
;
I
suppose
he
means
,
for
Union
with
the
Soul
:
But
is
this
disposition
of
the
Matter
so
necessary
,
that
a
Soul
cannot
unite
with
a
Body
otherwise
disposed
,
without
forfeiting
the
external
Form
of
a
Man
,
his
Senses
,
or
his
Understanding
?
And
consequently
,
that
no
reasonable
Soul
,
which
is
not
under
some
force
,
would
unite
with
such
a
Body
.
If
this
be
his
meaning
,
it
sits
our
present
Case
very
well
;
for
then
the
Church
cannot
be
united
to
Christ
in
one
Body
,
without
union
with
it self
;
and
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
cannot
consist
meerly
in
the
union
of
all
particular
Churches
in
and
to
Christ
,
without
any
union
among
themselves
.
But
how
to
apply
the
Copula
in
a
Proposition
,
either
to
the
union
of
Soul
or
Body
,
or
of
Christ
and
his
Church
,
I
cannot
tell
,
and
shall
never
be
able
to
learn
,
till
I
meet
with
some
new
Baxterian
Logick
,
as
well
as
Grammar
and
Metaphysicks
.
But
to
proceed
,
as
a
farther
Explication
of
this
Matter
,
he
adds
,
3.
In
this
Vnion
there
is
no
Summa
Potestas
,
or
universal
Governour
,
(
Monarchical
or
Aristocratical
)
but
Christ
.
In
this
we
agree
also
,
as
will
appear
more
hereafter
.
And
now
or
never
to
the
Point
:
4.
The
Body
is
sufficiently
organized
,
if
it
consists
of
local
Churches
,
called
single
or
particular
,
being
Pastors
and
Christian
People
,
(
having
all
the
Essentials
of
Christianity
.
)
But
is
our
Dispute
then
about
the
Organization
,
or
about
the
Unity
of
the
Body
?
The
Catholick
Church
has
no
other
Organization
,
but
that
of
particular
Churches
;
but
there
is
something
more
required
to
make
it
one
:
No
,
says
Mr.
B.
that
which
maketh
this
Body
(
that
is
,
all
the
Christians
and
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
)
to
become
a
Church
,
(
he
should
have
said
,
one
Church
)
is
no
union
of
the
Members
among
themselves
:
So
that
the
Catholick
Church
may
be
one
Body
,
without
the
union
of
its
Members
among
themselves
,
i.
e.
it
may
be
one
without
Unity
.
But
why
should
not
union
of
the
Members
among
themselves
be
necessary
to
make
a
Church
one
?
Because
,
says
Mr.
B.
that
maketh
them
only
Materia
disposita
,
i.
e.
Matter
disposed
,
prepared
,
fitted
;
but
for
what
?
To
be
one
Church
?
I
should
rather
think
,
that
the
union
of
several
Churches
makes
them
one
Church
,
and
does
not
only
prepare
and
dispose
them
to
be
one
,
unless
he
can
tell
,
how
they
can
be
more
one
than
by
Unity
.
But
however
,
are
any
other
Churches
,
which
have
no
union
among
themselves
,
this
Materia
disposita
,
or
Matter
disposed
and
fitted
to
make
one
Catholick
Church
?
If
they
be
,
then
there
is
no
need
of
any
Union
,
so
much
as
to
dispose
and
prepare
the
Matter
:
If
they
be
not
,
then
I
still
enquire
,
what
that
Union
of
Churches
is
,
which
is
necessary
to
make
them
fit
matter
for
the
Catholick
Church
?
But
this
Mr.
B.
has
not
yet
vouchsafed
to
tell
me
;
though
possibly
this
may
be
one
of
those
things
,
which
I
must
learn
from
some
Grammarians
or
Metaphysicians
,
before
I
can
be
capable
of
his
Instructions
.
But
Mr.
B.
tells
us
,
how
the
Church
is
one
without
any
Union
of
the
Members
among
themselves
,
viz.
by
their
common
Vnion
with
Christ
,
and
then
all
single
Persons
and
Churches
are
one
Catholick
Church
,
because
united
in
and
to
him
,
as
all
Lines
are
united
in
the
Center
.
So
that
there
is
no
necessity
of
any
other
Union
between
several
Churches
to
make
them
one
Catholick
Church
,
but
that
they
are
all
united
to
Christ
the
common
Center
;
they
are
one
Church
,
though
as
distant
and
opposite
to
each
other
,
as
the
two
Poles
,
because
they
meet
in
the
same
Center
.
But
1.
This
is
a
pretty
easie
way
of
determining
Controversies
to
out-face
all
the
Authority
of
Scripture
and
Antiquity
,
by
a
dogmatical
Assertion
,
without
offering
the
least
Reason
or
shadow
of
Reason
to
confirm
it
:
I
had
at
large
proved
the
necessity
of
one
Catholick
Communion
to
make
one
Catholick
Church
,
and
instead
of
answering
these
Proofs
,
he
asserts
the
contrary
upon
his
own
naked
Authority
,
and
that
must
pass
for
a
Confutation
.
And
2.
He
takes
that
for
granted
,
which
I
can
never
grant
him
,
that
those
Churches
which
are
divided
from
each
other
,
by
separate
and
opposite
Communions
,
may
yet
be
all
united
to
Christ
;
for
Christ
has
but
one
Body
,
one
Spouse
,
one
Flock
,
one
Church
,
and
if
we
be
not
Members
of
this
one
Church
,
(
as
no
Schismaticks
are
)
we
are
not
united
to
Christ
:
and
therefore
it
is
a
vain
thing
to
talk
of
uniting
those
in
Christ
,
who
are
not
united
among
themselves
;
for
Christ
hath
not
an
hundred
several
Bodies
,
but
one
Body
,
and
we
must
continue
in
the
Unity
of
this
Body
,
if
we
will
enjoy
Union
and
Communion
with
Christ
.
3.
When
he
places
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
in
the
Union
of
all
single
Persons
and
Churches
in
and
to
Christ
,
he
must
either
mean
this
of
an
external
and
visible
Union
to
Christ
,
by
an
external
and
visible
profession
of
Faith
in
him
,
or
a
real
,
internal
,
mystical
Union
.
1.
If
he
mean
the
First
,
an
external
and
visible
Union
to
Christ
,
I
observe
,
that
this
can
neither
be
made
,
nor
be
known
,
but
by
something
,
which
is
external
and
visible
.
We
cannot
know
,
that
any
Society
of
men
is
the
Church
of
Christ
,
but
by
their
external
profession
of
Faith
in
him
,
and
subjection
to
him
;
nor
can
we
know
,
that
a
hundred
Societies
are
the
same
Church
,
but
by
some
common
Profession
and
Practise
;
and
if
,
by
the
Institution
of
our
Saviour
,
one
Communion
be
essential
to
the
Notion
of
one
Church
,
as
I
have
abundantly
proved
it
is
,
then
the
visible
Union
of
all
Churches
,
in
and
to
Christ
,
consists
in
their
visible
Communion
with
each
other
.
2.
If
he
mean
a
mystical
internal
Union
,
I
have
two
things
to
say
to
him
.
1.
This
makes
the
Catholick
Church
invisible
;
for
if
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
consists
only
in
the
Union
of
all
Churches
in
Christ
,
and
this
Union
be
a
mystical
invisible
Union
,
then
the
Catholick
Church
it self
must
be
invisible
too
.
2.
Though
particular
Christians
may
be
thus
mystically
united
to
Christ
,
yet
no
particular
Churches
are
thus
united
to
Christ
much
less
all
the
particular
Churches
in
the
World
,
unless
you
will
say
,
that
none
belong
to
the
Church
,
but
those
Persons
who
are
true
and
sincere
Christians
,
which
reduces
the
Church
to
the
invisible
number
of
the
Elect
,
and
destroyes
not
only
the
Visibility
,
but
in
many
cases
the
Organization
of
the
Church
on
Earth
,
for
I
fear
the
Pastors
and
Governours
of
the
visible
Church
,
are
not
alwayes
invisibly
united
to
Christ
,
and
therefore
according
to
this
way
of
arguing
,
it
is
not
visible
,
whether
Christ
have
an
organical
Church
on
Earth
:
which
shows
how
absurd
it
is
,
to
place
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
in
this
invisible
Union
of
particular
Churches
to
Christ
.
I
may
add
3.
That
no
men
are
thus
visibly
united
to
Christ
,
who
are
not
visible
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
do
not
live
in
visible
Communion
with
it
,
when
it
may
be
had
;
for
otherwise
we
destroy
the
necessity
of
a
visible
Church
,
or
of
a
visible
Profession
,
and
Practise
of
Christian
Communion
,
even
in
particular
Churches
:
Which
shows
,
that
the
Notion
of
Catholick
Unity
,
and
a
Catholick
Church
,
does
not
consist
in
such
an
invisible
Union
to
Christ
,
for
our
invisible
Union
to
Christ
,
necessarily
supposes
our
visible
Communion
with
his
Church
;
and
since
Christ
hath
but
one
Church
,
it
requires
our
visible
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
this
supposes
that
there
is
a
visible
Catholick
Church
,
of
a
distinct
Consideration
from
the
invisible
Church
of
the
Elect
,
which
therefore
cannot
be
founded
on
an
invisible
Union
to
Christ
,
but
on
something
which
is
visible
,
such
an
external
Profession
,
and
external
Communion
,
as
may
be
seen
.
The
sum
is
this
,
No
Church
can
be
the
Church
of
Christ
,
but
upon
account
of
some
Union
to
him
,
either
visible
,
or
invisible
,
or
both
;
but
that
which
makes
all
the
Churches
of
the
World
,
the
one
Church
and
Body
of
Christ
,
must
be
an
Union
amongst
themselves
,
which
I
have
proved
,
consists
in
one
Catholick
Communion
.
What
Mr.
B.
farther
adds
,
proceeding
upon
the
same
Mistake
,
needs
no
particular
Answer
;
and
what
deserves
any
farther
Examination
,
will
fall
in
under
another
Head
.
But
Mr.
Lob
(
I
confess
)
has
pinched
harder
in
this
Cause
,
having
alleadged
some
venerable
Names
in
the
Church
of
England
against
me
,
Arch-bishop
Bramhall
,
Mr.
Hooker
,
Dr.
Field
,
all
very
great
men
,
to
whose
Memories
I
cannot
but
pay
a
just
Reverence
and
Respect
:
But
yet
if
it
should
appear
,
that
my
Notion
of
Catholick
Communion
should
differ
from
theirs
(
as
I
think
it
does
in
some
Points
from
Arch-bishop
Bramhal's
)
while
I
have
the
Authority
of
Scripture
,
and
the
primitive
Church
,
I
think
my self
very
safe
,
notwithstanding
the
dissent
of
any
modern
Doctors
,
of
what
note
soever
.
Only
hence
we
may
learn
,
with
what
Judgment
and
Honesty
Mr.
Lob
charges
me
with
carrying
on
the
Cassandrian
Design
,
when
I
differ
from
the
Arch-bishop
in
those
very
Points
,
for
which
he
was
(
though
very
unjustly
)
charged
with
it
.
But
let
us
examine
Particulars
.
I
assert
,
that
all
Christians
and
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
are
one
Body
,
Society
,
or
Church
;
and
this
is
called
Catholick
Communion
,
because
it
obliges
them
all
to
communicate
in
all
the
external
Offices
and
Duties
of
Religion
and
Church-Society
,
and
Membership
,
as
occasion
offers
,
especially
neighbour-Christians
are
bound
to
live
together
in
external
Communion
with
that
Church
in
which
they
are
;
and
that
whoever
causelesly
separates
from
any
Church
,
which
lives
in
Catholick
Communion
,
is
a
Schismatick
from
the
Catholick
Church
.
Mr.
Lob
,
to
avoid
this
,
This
great
Prelate
uses
several
distinctions
about
Communion
,
which
would
have
been
for
my
purpose
and
rectification
:
Though
whoever
reads
my
Book
,
will
find
,
that
I
was
not
ignorant
of
these
Distinctions
,
but
did
not
think
them
to
my
purpose
.
The
Bishop
sayes
,
The
Communion
of
the
Christian
Catholick
Church
,
is
partly
internal
,
partly
external
:
And
do
I
any
where
deny
this
?
The
Question
only
is
,
whether
internal
Communion
will
excuse
men
from
the
guilt
of
Schism
,
who
separate
from
the
external
Communion
of
the
Church
,
when
it
may
be
had
without
sin
?
And
this
I
deny
,
and
do
not
see
,
where
the
Bishop
asserts
the
contrary
.
But
let
us
hear
,
what
internal
Communion
is
,
which
he
sayes
,
consists
principally
in
these
things
.
To
believe
the
same
entire
substance
of
saving
necessary
Truth
revealed
by
the
Apostles
,
and
to
be
ready
implicitely
in
the
Preparation
of
the
mind
,
to
imbrace
all
other
supernatural
Verities
,
when
they
shall
be
sufficiently
proposed
to
them
:
to
judge
charitably
of
one
another
.
And
do
not
I
also
expresly
say
,
the
same
Faith
,
and
mutual
Love
and
Charity
,
are
the
Bonds
and
Ligaments
of
Christian
Vnion
?
That
the
Vnity
of
Faith
must
be
acknowledged
,
as
absolutely
necessary
to
the
Vnity
of
Christians
,
for
Hereticks
are
no
Members
of
the
Christian
Church
?
But
we
must
exclude
none
from
the
Catholick
Communion
and
hope
of
Salvation
,
either
Eastern
,
or
Western
,
or
Southern
,
or
Northern
Christians
,
which
profess
the
ancient
Faith
of
the
Apostles
and
primitive
Fathers
,
established
in
the
first
general
Councils
,
and
comprehended
in
the
Apostolick
,
Nicene
and
Athanasian
Creeds
:
Here
Mr.
Lob
makes
a
Query
,
Whether
,
seeing
the
Faith
contained
in
these
Creeds
,
is
professed
by
the
Dissenters
,
this
Gentleman
doth
not
fall
short
in
this
respect
of
Catholick
internal
Communion
,
by
excluding
the
Dissenters
from
the
Catholick
Communion
,
and
hope
of
Salvation
.
But
our
Questionist
should
have
considered
,
that
to
exclude
from
Catholick
Communion
,
is
an
ambiguous
Phrase
,
and
may
signifie
two
very
different
things
.
1.
Not
to
receive
those
into
our
Communion
,
who
are
willing
and
desirous
to
communicate
with
us
;
and
thus
no
man
,
that
I
know
of
,
but
themselves
,
exclude
Dissenters
from
Catholick
Communion
,
and
thereby
,
from
the
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
,
which
is
to
be
had
only
in
the
Unity
of
the
Church
.
Or
2.
It
may
signifie
not
owning
those
for
the
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
who
divide
themselves
from
the
external
and
visible
Communion
of
it
,
while
they
profess
the
same
Catholick
Faith
.
If
the
Bishop
meant
this
,
by
excluding
from
Catholick
Communion
,
all
that
I
shall
say
to
it
,
is
this
,
that
he
must
condemn
St.
Cyprian
,
Cornelius
,
and
all
the
Italian
and
African
Bishops
in
their
dayes
,
and
St.
Austin
,
Optatus
,
and
the
Catholick
Church
in
their
time
,
for
excluding
the
Novatians
and
Donatists
from
Catholick
Communion
,
and
the
hope
of
Salvation
,
not
for
any
Error
or
Heresie
in
Faith
,
but
for
a
Schismatical
Separation
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
I
am
contented
to
be
a
Schismatick
in
so
good
Company
,
as
the
Catholick
Church
in
St.
Cyprian's
and
St.
Austin's
dayes
.
But
I
have
proved
at
large
in
the
Defence
,
Mr.
Lob
proceeds
,
Moreover
as
to
external
Communion
,
sayes
Bramhal
,
there
are
degrees
of
Exclusion
,
and
did
I
ever
deny
this
?
Do
I
make
all
the
Censures
of
the
Church
equal
?
But
it
may
be
waved
or
withdrawn
by
particular
Churches
or
Persons
,
from
their
neighbour
Churches
and
Christians
in
their
Innovations
and
Errors
,
most
certain
!
If
they
be
such
Innovations
and
Errors
,
as
make
their
Communion
sinful
;
but
every
Innovation
,
nor
every
Error
,
which
does
not
corrupt
their
Religious
Worship
,
is
no
just
cause
for
a
Separation
,
or
for
waving
or
withdrawing
Communion
.
But
of
this
more
hereafter
.
He
adds
from
Bishop
Bramhal
,
Nor
is
there
so
strict
and
perpetual
adherence
required
to
a
particular
Church
,
as
there
is
to
the
universal
Church
:
But
how
I
am
concern'd
in
this
,
I
cannot
see
;
for
by
adherence
to
the
universal
Church
,
the
Bishop
seems
to
mean
,
adhering
to
the
Judgment
or
Decrees
of
the
universal
Church
assembled
in
a
general
Council
,
which
he
makes
the
supream
Authority
of
the
Church
on
Earth
,
and
therefore
prefers
their
Decrees
before
the
Decrees
or
Canons
of
any
particular
Church
;
and
I
agree
with
him
so
far
,
that
the
Judgment
of
a
general
Council
,
if
such
a
Council
could
be
had
,
is
to
be
preferred
before
the
Decrees
of
any
particular
Church
,
and
ought
not
,
without
some
necessary
and
apparent
Reasons
,
be
slighted
or
disobeyed
by
particular
Christians
or
Churches
;
though
I
do
not
make
a
general
Council
,
the
constitutive
regent
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
but
if
by
adherence
Mr.
Lob
will
understand
Communion
,
I
do
assert
,
that
Communion
with
a
particular
Church
,
which
is
it self
in
Catholick
Communion
,
is
as
necessary
as
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
he
that
separates
from
any
such
Church
,
separates
and
divides
himself
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
this
I
shall
believe
,
till
I
see
better
Reason
for
the
contrary
.
Let
us
now
consider
how
he
urges
me
with
the
Authority
of
Mr.
Hooker
and
Dr.
Field
.
I
assert
that
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
,
and
consequently
that
those
Christians
and
Churches
which
do
not
live
in
Catholick
Communion
,
are
no
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
but
are
out
of
the
Church
,
extra
Ecclesiam
foris
,
according
to
the
Language
of
the
primitive
Fathers
.
Whereas
I
acknowledge
,
he
has
proved
by
very
plain
Testimonies
from
Mr.
Hooker
and
Dr.
Field
,
that
they
own
all
those
for
Christians
and
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
who
profess
the
Faith
of
Christians
,
and
are
baptized
,
though
they
be
Schismaticks
,
Hereticks
,
Idolaters
,
excommunicable
or
excommunicated
Persons
;
and
therefore
either
Christ
must
have
more
Churches
than
one
,
which
I
deny
,
or
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
cannot
consist
in
one
Communion
,
as
I
assert
;
for
Schismaticks
,
Hereticks
,
Idolaters
,
are
not
in
the
same
Communion
,
and
yet
are
all
Members
of
the
visible
Church
.
I
own
his
Citations
out
of
Mr.
Hooker
and
Dr.
Field
,
and
therefore
need
not
repeat
them
,
and
have
represented
the
Objection
with
greater
Advantage
and
Perspicuity
,
than
he
has
himself
;
for
I
neither
design
to
cheat
my self
,
nor
to
impose
upon
my
Readers
,
nor
to
perpetuate
Controversies
,
as
my
Adversaries
do
,
by
false
Representations
of
Things
,
or
some
shuffling
and
sophistical
Arts
to
put
by
a
Blow
.
But
all
this
appearing
Difference
is
not
real
but
verbal
:
Mr.
Hooker
and
Dr.
Field
believe
Schismaticks
and
Hereticks
to
be
as
much
out
of
the
Church
,
as
I
do
;
and
I
believe
them
to
be
as
much
in
the
Church
,
as
they
do
.
When
Mr.
Hooker
asserts
,
That
all
that
profess
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
whatever
they
be
,
whether
Schismaticks
,
Hereticks
,
Idolaters
,
are
Members
of
the
visible
Church
of
Christ
,
he
understands
the
visible
Church
in
a
large
Notion
,
to
comprehend
the
whole
Body
of
profess'd
Christians
.
And
therefore
the
Reason
he
assigns
for
it
is
,
because
all
Mankind
are
Christians
or
Infidels
:
Those
who
believe
in
Christ
,
what-ever
their
other
Errors
in
Doctrine
,
or
Miscarriages
in
Life
and
Practice
may
be
,
are
Christians
in
some
sense
notwithstanding
,
and
therefore
visible
Members
of
the
Christian
Church
,
as
that
comprehends
all
Christians
;
but
those
who
do
not
believe
in
Christ
,
are
Infidels
.
Now
I
acknowledge
,
as
much
as
Mr.
Hooker
can
do
,
that
there
is
a
difference
between
a
profest
Christian
,
though
a
Schismatick
,
Heretick
,
Idolater
,
or
excommunicated
,
and
an
Infidel
.
Such
Persons
,
who
have
been
once
incorporated
into
the
Church
by
Baptism
,
whatever
they
prove
after
,
may
be
restored
to
the
Church
again
,
without
being
rebaptized
;
but
an
Infidel
cannot
be
admitted
without
Baptism
,
which
is
a
plain
proof
,
that
the
first
do
in
some
sense
belong
to
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
that
the
other
do
not
.
Baptized
Christians
,
though
Schismaticks
,
Hereticks
,
Idolaters
,
shall
at
the
last
day
be
judged
not
as
Infidels
,
but
as
wicked
and
apostate
Christians
;
when
men
are
made
the
Members
of
Christ's
Body
by
Baptism
,
and
an
external
profession
of
Christianity
,
they
can
never
alter
this
Character
,
but
shall
be
finally
judged
,
either
condemned
or
rewarded
as
Christians
,
and
upon
this
account
may
still
be
said
to
belong
to
the
Church
of
Christ
.
Dr.
Field
,
whose
Authority
Mr.
Lob
alledges
against
me
,
has
plainly
reconciled
this
appearing
difference
,
as
every
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
,
This
is
the
first
sort
of
them
,
that
depart
and
go
out
from
the
Church
of
God
,
and
Company
of
his
People
,
(
viz
,
Schismaticks
)
whose
departure
yet
is
not
such
,
but
that
notwithstanding
their
Schism
,
they
are
and
remain
parts
of
the
Church
of
God
;
for
whereas
in
the
Church
of
God
,
is
found
an
entire
profession
of
the
saving
Truth
of
God
,
Order
of
holy
Ministry
,
Sacraments
by
vertue
thereof
administred
,
and
a
blessed
Vnity
and
Fellowship
of
the
People
of
God
,
knit
together
in
the
bond
of
Peace
,
under
the
command
of
lawful
Pastors
and
Guides
,
set
over
them
to
direct
them
in
the
wayes
of
eternal
Happiness
:
Schismaticks
notwithstanding
their
Separation
,
remain
still
conjoyned
with
the
rest
of
God's
People
,
in
respect
of
the
Profession
of
the
whole
saving
Truth
of
God
,
all
outward
acts
of
Religion
and
Divine
Worship
,
power
of
Order
and
holy
Sacraments
,
which
they
by
vertue
thereof
administer
,
and
so
still
are
and
remain
parts
of
the
Church
of
God
:
But
as
their
Communion
and
Conjunction
with
the
rest
of
God's
People
,
is
in
some
things
only
and
not
absolutely
in
all
,
wherein
they
have
and
ought
to
have
Fellowship
,
so
are
they
not
fully
and
absolutely
of
the
Church
,
nor
of
that
more
special
number
of
them
,
that
communicate
intirely
and
absolutely
in
all
things
necessary
,
in
which
sense
they
are
rightly
denied
to
be
of
the
Church
;
which
I
take
to
be
their
meaning
,
that
say
they
are
not
of
the
Church
.
So
that
Dr.
Field
expresly
acknowledges
,
that
Schismaticks
may
be
rightly
denied
to
be
of
the
Church
,
though
they
continuing
Christians
by
external
profession
of
Faith
in
Christ
,
may
in
a
loose
and
large
sense
of
the
Word
,
be
said
to
belong
to
the
Christian
Church
,
as
they
retain
something
which
belongs
to
the
Church
still
among
them
.
But
to
make
this
more
plain
and
easie
,
I
shall
briefly
distinguish
between
the
several
Notions
and
Acceptations
of
a
Church
.
For
1.
the
Church
sometimes
signifies
the
number
of
the
Elect
,
that
is
,
all
sincere
Christians
,
who
are
vitally
united
to
Christ
by
a
true
and
lively
Faith
,
a
divine
Love
and
Charity
,
and
all
other
Christian
Graces
and
Vertues
,
who
are
living
and
fruitful
Branches
in
this
spiritual
Vine
.
And
this
Church
is
commonly
called
the
mystical
Body
of
Christ
,
by
reason
of
that
mysterious
union
which
is
between
Christ
and
good
men
,
and
the
invisible
Church
,
because
we
,
who
cannot
know
the
Hearts
of
men
,
cannot
certainly
know
who
belongs
to
this
Church
.
2.
There
is
the
visible
Catholick
Church
,
which
consists
of
all
those
Christians
and
Churches
,
who
profess
the
true
Faith
of
Christ
,
observe
his
Laws
and
Institutions
,
and
live
in
Communion
and
Fellowship
with
each
other
.
This
Church
is
called
visible
,
from
its
visible
profession
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
external
and
visible
Communion
;
and
Catholick
,
because
all
such
Churches
all
the
World
over
,
are
but
one
Communion
.
This
is
that
Church
which
is
the
visible
Body
and
Spouse
of
Christ
,
to
the
Communion
of
which
,
all
the
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
are
annexed
and
confined
.
Now
it
is
commonly
and
truly
observed
,
that
there
are
some
professed
Christians
,
who
are
only
in
this
Church
,
others
who
are
of
it
,
and
others
who
are
out
of
it
.
Those
who
are
in
the
Church
,
but
not
true
Members
of
it
,
are
those
professed
Christians
,
who
live
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
but
yet
are
either
secret
Hypocrites
,
or
openly
wicked
,
but
not
excommunicated
;
these
are
in
the
Church
by
external
Profession
,
as
dead
and
withered
Branches
are
in
the
Vine
,
till
they
be
cut
off
.
All
sincere
good
Christians
are
both
in
the
Church
and
of
it
;
they
are
in
the
Church
by
an
external
and
visible
Profession
,
and
an
external
Communion
,
which
is
absolutely
required
of
all
Christians
,
when
it
may
be
had
;
and
they
are
of
the
Church
,
that
is
,
true
and
lively
Members
of
it
,
by
a
sincere
Faith
and
Obedience
to
Christ
.
None
properly
belong
to
the
visible
Church
,
but
those
whom
we
call
the
invisible
Church
,
that
is
,
all
sincere
Christians
;
for
the
visible
and
invisible
are
not
two
,
but
one
Church
.
And
the
Reason
of
the
distinction
between
them
is
,
because
the
Government
of
the
Church
being
committed
to
men
,
who
cannot
discern
Hearts
and
Thoughts
,
and
the
necessity
of
external
Affairs
,
or
the
negligence
of
Church-Governours
,
loosening
the
Reins
of
Discipline
,
many
bad
men
continue
in
the
visible
Communion
of
the
Church
,
either
because
they
are
not
known
,
or
because
when
known
,
they
are
not
through
the
Neglect
of
Church-Officers
,
or
cannot
through
the
Iniquity
of
the
Times
,
be
cast
out
.
And
therefore
the
visible
Church
in
Scripture
is
called
the
Body
,
the
Spouse
of
Christ
,
the
Wife
of
the
Lamb
,
a
royal
Priesthood
,
a
holy
Nation
,
a
peculiar
People
,
pure
,
undefiled
,
holy
;
and
by
such
like
Characters
of
peculiar
Sanctity
,
with
respect
to
what
the
Church
is
in
its
original
Institution
,
and
what
it
actually
is
in
its
true
and
sincere
Members
,
not
regarding
what
some
visible
Professors
are
,
who
are
in
the
Church
indeed
,
but
are
not
of
it
,
and
ought
not
to
be
in
it
.
The
not
observing
of
which
,
has
occasioned
many
Divines
to
ascribe
all
such
Titles
and
Characters
,
not
to
the
visible
,
but
to
the
mystical
and
invisible
Church
,
which
in
many
Cases
is
the
Reason
of
some
considerable
Mistakes
.
But
then
all
Hereticks
,
and
Schismaticks
,
and
excommunicated
Persons
,
are
out
of
this
Church
,
till
they
either
return
,
or
be
restored
to
the
Communion
of
it
.
For
to
be
in
the
Church
,
is
nothing
else
but
to
live
in
the
Communion
of
it
,
and
to
have
a
Right
to
actual
Communion
in
some
or
all
Christian
Offices
:
And
therefore
those
,
who
either
by
their
own
Choice
,
or
by
the
Censures
of
the
Church
,
are
not
in
Communion
,
must
be
out
of
it
.
And
nothing
is
more
common
in
all
Church-Writers
,
both
ancient
and
modern
,
than
to
meet
with
such
Expressions
as
these
;
of
separating
from
the
Church
,
going
out
of
it
,
being
out
,
and
being
cast
out
of
the
Church
;
which
is
a
very
strange
way
of
speaking
,
if
Mr.
Lob's
Notion
be
true
,
That
all
professed
Christians
,
what-ever
they
are
,
are
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
for
then
it
is
impossible
for
a
professed
Christian
,
either
to
go
out
,
or
to
be
cast
out
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
it
is
for
a
man
to
go
out
of
the
World
.
This
is
that
one
Catholick
Church
,
and
Catholick
Communion
,
which
I
asserted
and
proved
in
the
Defence
,
from
whence
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
depart
and
go
out
,
and
the
Excommunicate
are
cast
out
.
But
now
the
Difficulty
is
,
Whither
these
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
go
,
when
they
go
out
of
the
Church
.
They
cannot
go
into
the
World
of
Infidels
and
Unbelievers
,
for
Heresie
and
Schism
does
not
make
men
Infidels
;
and
if
they
be
neither
in
the
Church
nor
in
the
World
,
what
third
State
shall
we
find
for
them
?
The
plain
Resolution
of
which
in
short
is
this
,
That
they
are
the
Conventicles
of
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
,
which
is
a
kind
of
middle
State
between
the
true
Catholick
Church
,
and
the
World
of
Infidels
.
They
have
not
wholly
renounced
Christianity
,
and
therefore
in
some
sense
belong
to
the
Christian
Church
,
though
they
are
not
in
it
.
There
seems
to
be
the
same
difference
between
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
,
and
Catholick
Christians
,
as
there
is
between
Rebels
and
dutiful
Subjects
:
They
are
both
natural
Subjects
to
their
Prince
,
as
being
born
in
his
Territories
,
and
under
the
same
Oaths
of
Allegiance
;
Rebels
are
not
Aliens
and
Foreigners
,
but
Subjects
still
.
Thus
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
,
though
they
have
corrupted
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
divided
the
Church
,
yet
they
have
the
Character
of
Christian
Baptism
,
and
either
retain
the
Christian
Faith
entire
,
or
so
much
of
it
as
will
denominate
them
Christians
:
They
may
have
the
Power
of
Orders
,
Officers
rightly
constituted
,
Christian
Sacraments
,
and
all
the
Essentials
of
a
true
Church
,
excepting
Christian
Peace
and
Unity
,
and
Catholick
Communion
.
This
was
the
Case
of
the
Donatist
Churches
,
which
were
in
all
things
like
the
Catholick
Churches
,
excepting
Catholick
Communion
.
Upon
this
score
many
learned
men
own
corrupt
Churches
,
which
retain
the
Essentials
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
though
mixed
and
blended
with
many
Errors
,
and
schismatical
Churches
,
which
retain
the
Purity
of
Faith
and
Worship
,
to
be
true
,
though
not
every
way
sound
and
orthodox
,
nor
Catholick
Churches
:
Which
I
hope
will
satisfie
Mr.
Lob
,
how
the
Church
of
Rome
may
be
acknowledged
to
be
a
true
Church
,
and
yet
both
corrupt
and
schismatical
.
There
is
one
Distinction
,
which
is
not
so
commonly
observed
,
which
will
make
all
this
Dispute
plain
and
easie
:
And
that
is
,
between
the
visible
Church
,
and
the
one
true
Catholick
visible
Church
.
The
visible
Church
comprehends
all
Societies
of
professed
Christians
whatsoever
,
Hereticks
,
Schismaticks
,
Idolaters
,
or
whatever
they
be
;
the
one
visible
Catholick
Church
contains
only
those
Churches
,
which
are
sound
in
the
Faith
,
and
live
in
Catholick
Communion
;
these
visible
Churches
are
Christian
Churches
by
outward
Profession
,
but
not
Parts
or
Members
of
the
one
Catholick
Church
,
which
is
the
Body
and
the
Spouse
of
Christ
,
as
Optatus
observes
,
that
besides
one
Church
,
which
is
the
Catholick
Church
,
the
other
Churches
of
Hereticks
,
are
thought
to
be
Churches
,
but
are
not
;
that
is
,
they
have
the
visible
Appearance
of
Churches
,
and
so
are
visible
Churches
,
as
bad
men
are
visible
Christians
by
a
visible
profession
;
Opt.
l.
1.
but
they
are
not
such
Churches
,
as
Christ
will
own
,
Id.
l.
2.
as
he
adds
in
another
place
,
that
there
is
but
one
Church
,
which
Christ
calls
his
Dove
and
Spouse
.
So
that
in
this
Sense
men
may
be
visible
Christians
,
and
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
and
yet
not
Members
of
the
one
Catholick
Church
.
The
not
observing
this
,
occasioned
St.
Cyprian's
,
and
the
African
Fathers
mistake
about
the
Rebaptization
of
those
,
who
were
Baptized
by
Hereticks
or
Schismaticks
,
and
upon
this
very
Mistake
,
our
Dissenters
at
this
day
dispute
the
validity
of
Orders
received
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
Mr.
B.
so
often
twits
us
with
deriving
our
Succession
from
Rome
,
which
if
it
were
true
,
is
no
Objection
against
us
,
unless
he
will
wholly
unchurch
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
assert
that
,
which
Mr.
Lob
charges
me
with
;
that
Heresie
or
Schism
does
destroy
all
relation
to
the
Church
;
for
if
they
belong
to
the
Church
still
,
they
may
retain
the
Power
of
Orders
,
and
the
Administration
of
Sacraments
among
them
.
And
therefore
to
confirm
this
Notion
,
it
will
not
be
amiss
to
give
a
plain
and
short
Account
of
the
State
of
that
ancient
Controversie
,
about
the
Rebaptization
of
Hereticks
,
as
it
was
managed
by
St.
Cyprian
and
St.
Austin
,
as
far
as
concerns
our
present
Dispute
.
Now
,
1.
Both
St.
Cyprian
and
St.
Austin
were
agreed
,
that
there
is
but
one
Catholick
Church
,
which
is
the
Body
,
and
the
Spouse
of
Christ
;
this
is
so
acknowledged
by
all
men
,
who
are
acquainted
with
their
Writings
,
especially
their
Tracts
,
De
unitate
Ecclesiae
,
That
I
shall
not
need
to
transcribe
any
particular
Sayings
to
that
purpose
.
2.
They
were
agreed
also
,
that
there
is
no
Salvation
ordinarily
to
be
had
out
of
the
Communion
of
this
one
Catholick
Church
.
Both
of
them
do
over
and
over
affirm
this
,
l.
4.
cap.
17
,
and
St.
Austin
asserts
,
that
no
Body
in
his
days
denied
it
.
But
,
3.
St.
Cyprian
would
not
allow
that
Hereticks
or
Schismaticks
did
in
any
Sense
belong
to
the
Church
;
but
denies
them
to
be
Christians
,
and
consequently
that
they
had
any
Christian
Sacraments
among
them
.
Cypr.
E●
.
52.
ad
Anton.
He
would
not
allow
Novatianus
to
be
a
Christian
,
or
to
be
in
the
Church
of
Christ
,
and
this
was
the
Reason
,
why
he
so
vehemently
urged
the
necessity
of
Baptizing
those
,
who
had
been
Baptized
by
Hereticks
or
Schismaticks
,
when
they
returned
to
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
because
Schismaticks
had
no
Church
,
and
therefore
no
Baptism
,
it
being
impossible
to
separate
the
Church
and
Baptism
,
according
to
the
Judgment
of
the
African
Fathers
in
the
Council
of
Carthage
.
St.
Austin
on
the
other
hand
considered
,
August
.
de
Baptismo
cont.
Donat.
l.
5.
ca.
15.
See
St.
Hierom.
contra
Luciferianos
in
Initio
.
that
those
,
who
were
Baptized
in
the
Catholick
Church
,
did
not
forfeit
their
Baptism
by
turning
Hereticks
or
Schismaticks
,
and
forsaking
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
for
no
man
ever
disputed
,
whether
such
Persons
upon
their
Repentance
,
might
not
be
restored
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
without
being
re-baptized
,
which
proves
that
the
Church
did
not
think
them
Infidels
,
for
Infidels
cannot
be
admitted
into
the
Church
without
Baptism
,
and
if
such
men
retain
their
Baptism
,
when
they
are
out
of
the
Church
,
then
the
Church
and
Baptism
may
be
separated
,
Ibid.
l.
1.
cap.
1.
which
overthrows
the
main
Principle
on
which
the
African
Bishops
founded
their
Doctrine
and
Practise
of
re-baptizing
Hereticks
.
From
hence
he
concludes
,
that
if
men
may
retain
their
Baptism
out
of
the
Church
,
they
may
give
Baptism
out
of
the
Church
too
;
for
the
same
Argument
,
whereby
they
opposed
the
Administration
of
Baptism
by
Hereticks
,
if
it
have
any
force
,
must
prove
also
that
they
forfeit
their
own
;
and
from
those
Answers
he
returns
to
many
Difficulties
,
wherewith
he
was
prest
;
we
may
learn
his
Judgment
in
our
present
Dispute
,
in
what
sense
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
belong
to
the
Church
:
which
will
give
some
light
also
to
St.
Austin's
whole
Dispute
with
the
Donatists
,
which
I
hope
will
not
be
ungrateful
to
an
inquisitive
Reader
.
As
,
1.
One
great
Difficulty
is
,
How
those
,
who
are
not
in
the
Church
can
administer
those
Sacraments
,
which
belong
particularly
to
the
Church
?
How
there
can
be
the
same
common
Sacraments
to
those
who
are
in
the
Church
,
and
to
those
,
who
are
out
of
it
?
To
which
he
answers
,
that
though
Schismaticks
do
forsake
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
yet
they
do
not
forsake
the
Church
in
every
thing
,
August
.
de
bapt.
l.
1.
cap.
1.
and
as
much
as
they
retain
of
the
Church
,
so
much
they
belong
to
it
;
and
whatever
they
find
of
the
Church
among
Schismaticks
,
they
are
bound
to
approve
and
allow
,
though
done
in
a
Schism
;
and
therefore
they
dare
not
reject
the
Baptism
of
Schismaticks
,
when
Persons
so
Baptized
return
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
:
so
that
though
St.
Austin
will
not
allow
Schismaticks
to
be
in
the
Catholick
Church
,
whose
Communion
they
have
forsaken
,
yet
they
retaining
something
,
which
belongs
to
the
Church
,
Ib.
cap.
7.
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
Christian
Sacraments
,
they
still
have
some
relation
to
the
Church
,
and
are
not
to
be
accounted
Heathens
,
and
Infidels
,
and
to
this
he
applies
that
saying
of
our
Saviour
,
He
that
is
not
against
us
,
is
with
us
;
that
is
,
he
is
so
far
with
us
,
as
he
is
not
against
us
;
and
therefore
is
not
to
be
rejected
in
every
thing
he
does
,
but
only
in
those
things
,
wherein
he
departs
from
us
:
And
therefore
though
Schismaticks
are
not
in
the
Church
,
as
having
forsaken
the
Communion
of
it
,
yet
so
far
as
their
Faith
and
Worship
is
truly
Christian
,
they
must
be
acknowledged
to
belong
to
the
visible
Church
,
as
the
visible
professors
of
Christianity
.
Thus
St.
Austin
thinks
the
vessels
of
Honour
,
and
the
vessels
of
Dishonour
,
(
by
which
the
Apostle
means
such
Hereticks
or
Separatists
as
Hymeneus
and
Philetus
2
Tim.
2.
)
may
be
said
to
be
in
the
same
House
,
Ib.
l.
3.
cap.
19.
upon
account
of
the
same
Sacraments
.
2.
Sometimes
he
seems
to
make
Schismaticks
to
belong
to
the
Church
,
as
other
wicked
men
do
,
who
have
not
forsaken
the
visible
Communion
of
it
;
for
otherwise
I
cannot
understand
his
Answer
to
that
great
Objection
against
the
Baptism
of
Schismaticks
,
that
Schism
is
so
great
a
Sacriledge
and
Impiety
,
and
Schismaticks
such
Rebels
against
Christ
,
that
we
cannot
think
he
will
approve
their
Baptism
,
that
they
are
Carnal
,
and
therefore
cannot
give
the
Spirit
,
which
is
conferred
in
Baptism
;
Ib.
l.
3.
cap.
17.
to
which
he
commonly
answers
,
That
the
Case
is
much
the
same
with
reference
to
Baptism
administred
by
bad
men
in
the
Church
;
those
who
are
Carnal
,
Covetous
,
Unjust
,
&c.
And
therefore
he
makes
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
to
be
only
Pseudo-Christiani
,
or
false
and
counterfeit
Christians
,
as
all
bad
men
are
,
and
bad
men
no
more
to
belong
to
the
Church
,
than
Schismaticks
do
:
Those
who
are
Enemies
to
brotherly
love
,
Ib.
cap.
19.
whether
they
be
without
,
as
Schismaticks
are
,
or
seem
to
be
within
,
as
those
who
still
live
in
visible
Catholick
Communion
,
they
are
all
counterfeit
Christians
,
and
Antichrists
.
And
therefore
he
must
allow
Schismaticks
in
some
sense
to
belong
to
the
Church
,
as
other
bad
men
do
;
they
have
indeed
made
a
more
visible
and
open
Separation
from
the
Church
,
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
,
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
Paradice
,
which
did
not
only
water
the
Garden
,
but
divided
themselves
into
all
the
World
,
as
he
discourses
elsewhere
.
c.
9.
according
to
St.
Austin
,
is
much
the
same
,
only
with
this
difference
,
c.
10.
That
he
allows
bad
men
in
the
Church
to
be
in
a
more
hopeful
Condition
to
become
good
,
than
Schismaticks
are
:
But
if
he
will
allow
bad
men
to
belong
to
the
Church
,
he
must
in
some
sense
allow
Schismaticks
to
do
so
too
,
or
else
he
does
not
fairly
conclude
from
the
Validity
of
Sacraments
administred
by
bad
men
in
the
Church
,
to
the
Validity
of
Sacraments
administred
by
Schismaticks
out
of
the
Church
.
3.
In
Answer
to
that
captious
Question
of
the
Donatists
,
whether
Baptism
administred
by
them
did
regenerate
,
which
they
would
make
a
Mark
of
the
true
Church
to
beget
Children
to
God
by
Baptism
;
he
does
acknowledg
not
only
their
Baptism
,
but
Baptismal
Regeneration
;
but
then
says
,
l.
1.
cap.
10.
that
Baptism
has
this
Effect
,
as
it
belongs
to
the
Church
,
not
upon
account
of
its
Administration
by
them
:
wherein
they
are
separated
from
the
Church
,
they
can
do
nothing
,
but
as
far
as
they
continue
united
,
as
they
did
in
the
same
Baptism
,
so
the
Sacraments
of
the
Church
will
have
their
Effect
,
though
their
Efficacy
is
immediately
lost
in
a
Schism
,
of
which
more
presently
,
which
is
a
plain
acknowledgment
,
that
Schismaticks
are
not
wholly
separated
from
the
Church
,
as
retaining
something
,
which
belongs
to
the
Church
.
And
this
he
confirms
by
a
mystical
Interpretation
of
the
Stories
of
Sarah
and
Hagar
,
and
Isaac
and
Ishmael
;
and
says
,
that
the
Church
bears
Children
not
only
by
her self
,
but
by
her
Maids
,
conceived
by
the
Divine
Seed
of
the
Sacraments
,
4.
But
then
lest
any
man
should
think
,
that
it
is
no
great
hurt
to
separate
from
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
if
Schismaticks
may
retain
the
Faith
,
and
Sacraments
of
the
Church
,
St.
Austin
adds
,
That
though
Schismaticks
may
have
the
Sacraments
of
the
Church
,
yet
they
are
not
available
to
Salvation
in
a
Schism
.
They
have
Baptism
and
give
Baptism
,
l.
1.
cap.
1.
but
without
any
profit
or
advantage
;
and
therefore
he
exhorts
the
Donatists
,
and
in
them
all
other
Schismaticks
not
to
be
puffed
up
with
a
Conceit
of
what
they
have
,
but
to
consider
what
they
want
,
and
how
many
great
and
excellent
things
profit
nothing
,
when
one
thing
is
wanting
,
and
that
this
one
thing
is
Charity
,
which
principally
consists
in
preserving
Catholick
Communion
,
without
which
,
whatever
they
have
besides
,
cannot
procure
their
Admission
into
Heaven
.
And
therefore
when
the
Donatists
pressed
him
with
that
Difficulty
,
since
he
acknowledged
Baptism
as
administred
by
them
to
be
true
Christian
Baptism
,
Ibid.
cap.
9.
which
ought
not
to
be
repeated
,
whether
this
Baptism
did
wash
away
sin
?
For
if
it
did
,
then
they
were
the
true
Church
,
wherein
alone
Remission
of
sin
is
to
be
had
;
if
it
did
not
,
then
it
is
not
true
Christian
Baptism
;
and
so
those
who
were
Baptized
by
the
Donatists
,
ought
not
to
be
received
into
the
Catholick
Church
without
Baptism
;
St.
Austin
answers
this
two
ways
,
either
,
1.
That
Baptism
though
administred
by
Donatists
,
being
not
their
Baptism
,
but
the
Baptism
of
Christ
,
From
hence
we
easily
learn
,
what
St.
Austin's
Judgment
was
in
this
Controversie
:
For
,
1st
.
Though
he
would
not
own
,
That
Schismaticks
in
a
proper
sense
had
any
Church
,
there
being
but
one
Catholick
Church
,
to
which
the
Name
of
Church
does
properly
belong
,
as
Optatus
also
asserts
,
That
the
Churches
of
Schismaticks
appear
to
be
Churches
,
but
are
not
,
nor
,
2ly
.
would
he
allow
them
to
be
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
whose
Communion
they
have
forsaken
,
Ib.
cap.
21.
though
they
have
the
same
Sacraments
.
Ib.
l.
1.
cap.
1.
Nay
,
3ly
.
He
denies
,
That
Hereticks
have
any
Sacraments
of
their
own
,
l.
4.
cap.
2.
but
have
usurped
the
Sacraments
of
the
Church
,
which
are
not
rightly
had
,
nor
rightly
given
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
though
they
are
not
to
be
repeated
when
they
are
once
given
,
but
to
be
compleated
by
Reconciliation
to
the
Church
.
But
,
4ly
.
Schismaticks
retaining
the
Christian
Faith
and
Christian
Sacraments
among
them
,
though
they
are
out
of
the
Church
,
are
not
Heathens
and
Infidels
,
but
in
some
sense
Christians
;
l.
1.
cap.
8.
and
therefore
he
acknowledges
,
that
the
Donatists
do
cure
those
whom
they
Baptize
of
Infidelity
and
Idolatry
,
but
wound
them
more
grievously
with
Schism
.
And
therefore
,
5ly
.
He
owns
them
to
be
united
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
far
as
they
retain
any
thing
of
the
Catholick
Church
among
them
,
such
as
the
same
common
Faith
,
and
the
same
Sacraments
;
but
yet
,
6ly
.
That
what-ever
they
retain
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
though
they
believe
the
same
Articles
of
Faith
,
observe
the
same
Rules
of
Worship
,
have
the
same
Sacraments
rightly
and
duly
administred
among
them
,
excepting
their
Schism
,
yet
nothing
of
all
this
will
avail
them
to
Salvation
,
unless
they
return
to
the
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
So
that
though
we
should
not
agree
what
Name
to
call
Schismaticks
by
,
whether
Christians
at
large
,
upon
account
of
their
Profession
,
without
any
relation
to
the
Church
,
whose
Communion
they
have
forsaken
;
or
,
whether
we
say
they
are
out
of
the
Church
,
as
having
forsaken
its
Communion
,
or
that
in
some
sense
they
belong
to
the
Church
,
as
retaining
its
Faith
and
Sacraments
,
or
whether
we
own
them
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
as
that
may
include
the
whole
Number
of
Christian
Professors
,
as
distinguished
from
the
one
Catholick
visible
Church
,
which
contains
only
Catholick
Christians
,
who
live
in
Christian
unity
and
Communion
,
the
Difference
is
not
great
,
while
with
St.
Austin
we
own
but
one
Catholick
Church
,
and
Catholick
Communion
,
wherein
Salvation
is
to
be
had
.
This
is
all
I
ever
intended
to
prove
,
and
I
think
no
body
need
prove
more
to
deter
any
man
from
Schism
,
who
loves
his
Soul
.
CHAP.
III.
Concerning
the
Necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
.
HAving
thus
vindicated
my
Notion
of
Catholick
Communion
,
from
the
Exceptions
of
Mr.
Baxter
and
Mr.
Lob
,
before
I
proceed
any
farther
,
it
will
be
highly
expedient
to
discourse
something
briefly
of
the
necessity
of
it
;
for
I
find
Mr.
Lob
mightily
puzled
to
conceive
,
that
those
who
believe
in
Christ
and
repent
of
their
sins
,
and
lead
an
holy
Life
in
all
Godliness
and
Honesty
,
as
they
suppose
many
may
do
,
who
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
,
and
do
not
live
in
Catholick
Communion
,
according
to
my
Notion
of
it
,
should
for
this
Reason
be
excluded
from
all
the
ordinary
Means
of
Salvation
.
They
look
upon
the
Christian
Religion
to
be
like
a
System
of
Philosophy
,
and
if
men
be
careful
to
believe
such
Laws
,
without
any
regard
to
a
Church-state
,
or
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
extreamly
indifferent
,
what
Church
they
are
of
,
so
they
be
but
watchful
over
their
Hearts
and
Lives
in
other
Matters
:
For
will
any
man
say
,
that
a
holy
man
shall
not
go
to
Heaven
,
when
all
the
Promises
of
the
Gospel
are
made
to
such
Persons
?
When
Godliness
hath
the
Promise
of
the
Life
,
that
now
is
,
and
of
that
which
is
to
come
?
Where
is
the
Man
,
who
has
so
much
Courage
,
as
to
repeat
the
Case
,
which
St.
Austin
puts
;
of
a
Man
,
l.
4.
cap.
18.
Who
is
Chast
,
Continent
,
void
of
Covetousness
,
no
Idolater
,
Hospitable
and
Bountisul
to
those
in
Want
,
Enemy
to
no
Man
,
not
Contentious
,
but
Patient
,
Quiet
,
without
Emulation
or
Envy
,
Sober
,
Frugal
,
but
a
Heretick
(
which
in
St.
Austin's
Language
in
that
Place
signifies
a
Schismatick
)
of
such
a
Person
he
says
,
That
no
man
doubts
,
but
for
this
very
Cause
,
that
he
is
a
Schismatick
,
he
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
This
it
seems
,
was
not
St.
Austin's
private
Opinion
,
but
the
received
Opinion
of
all
Christians
in
his
days
;
that
which
no
Body
then
doubted
of
:
which
makes
it
at
least
worthy
of
our
most
serious
and
impartial
Enquiry
;
and
were
men
once
throughly
satisfied
of
the
danger
of
Schism
,
and
the
absolute
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
,
a
great
many
wanton
Scruples
,
which
now
divide
and
subdivide
the
Church
,
would
vanish
of
themselves
;
for
they
would
be
then
afraid
to
venture
their
Souls
in
a
Schism
.
And
therefore
to
make
this
as
plain
and
evident
as
possible
I
can
,
I
shall
proceed
by
these
following
Steps
;
only
premising
,
That
the
whole
design
of
this
Discourse
is
pure
Charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
not
to
triumph
in
their
Ruine
and
Misery
;
for
God
forbid
,
I
should
ever
rejoyce
in
the
thoughts
of
any
Man's
Damnation
;
for
then
I
am
sure
,
I
should
never
go
to
Heaven
my self
.
1.
I
observe
then
in
the
first
Place
,
That
though
holiness
of
Life
is
the
necessary
Condition
,
yet
it
is
not
the
meritorious
Cause
of
our
Salvation
:
Without
holiness
we
shall
never
see
God
.
But
that
holiness
carries
any
man
to
Heaven
,
is
in
vertue
of
the
meritorious
Sacrifice
and
Intercession
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
unless
we
have
a
Covenant-Interest
in
this
Sacrifice
,
nothing
else
can
secure
us
of
our
Reward
.
2.
That
Catholick
Charity
,
which
is
exercised
in
Catholick
Communion
,
is
a
principal
Part
of
Evangelical
Holiness
,
without
which
nothing
else
will
be
accepted
by
God
.
Love
and
Charity
is
the
great
Gospel-Command
,
and
the
peculiar
Badge
of
the
Christian
Profession
;
and
Christian
Charity
,
as
it
is
distinguished
from
good
Nature
,
and
an
obliging
Temper
and
Conversation
,
which
is
indeed
a
necessary
moral
Vertue
,
but
not
that
which
is
peculiarly
called
Christian
Charity
,
does
unite
all
Christians
together
in
one
Body
;
is
such
a
Kindness
for
one
another
,
as
answers
to
that
Tenderness
and
Sympathy
,
which
the
Members
of
the
Natural
Body
have
for
each
other
:
So
that
Christian-charity
necessarily
preserves
Christian-unity
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
,
l.
1.
cap.
9.
l.
3.
cap.
16.
&
alibi
passim
.
to
signifie
such
a
Charity
as
preserves
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Church
;
and
does
every
where
assert
,
that
that
man
is
void
of
Charity
,
who
does
not
love
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
:
if
then
Christian
Charity
be
so
necessary
a
part
of
Christian
Holiness
,
and
consists
in
preserving
the
Peace
and
Unity
and
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
,
whatever
other
good
Qualities
Schismaticks
may
have
,
they
want
the
chief
branch
of
Holiness
,
without
which
no
man
shall
see
God
,
and
therefore
though
a
holy
man
shall
never
miscarry
,
or
fall
short
of
Heaven
,
yet
a
Schismatick
with
all
his
other
good
Qualities
may
.
3.
Since
the
best
men
must
be
saved
by
Christ
,
and
not
by
their
own
Righteousness
or
Merits
,
we
must
expect
to
be
saved
by
Christ
only
in
such
a
way
,
as
he
himself
has
appointed
;
It
is
all
free
Grace
,
and
therefore
we
must
be
contented
to
receive
it
in
such
a
way
,
as
he
is
pleased
to
give
it
.
He
is
a
Debtor
to
no
man
,
and
therefore
may
well
be
allowed
to
make
his
own
terms
;
Heaven
is
a
supernatural
State
of
Happiness
,
which
the
best
Man
,
setting
aside
the
consideration
of
his
many
Imperfections
and
Defects
,
cannot
challenge
as
the
Reward
of
his
best
Services
;
and
therefore
God
is
under
no
other
Obligation
to
bestow
Heaven
on
any
man
,
but
his
own
Promise
made
to
us
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
therefore
can
be
obliged
no
farther
than
his
own
Promise
reaches
:
If
any
hard
and
pityable
Case
happens
,
he
has
the
soveraign
Power
in
his
own
hand
,
and
can
do
,
as
he
himself
pleases
,
but
we
must
expect
no
more
from
him
,
than
he
has
promised
.
The
not
considering
this
,
is
apt
to
confound
mens
Notions
concerning
the
undertaking
of
our
Saviour
,
and
our
Redemption
by
him
:
It
runs
some
men
into
Socinianism
,
to
deny
the
Satisfaction
of
Christ
;
and
others
,
who
cannot
be
so
subtil
,
as
to
distinguish
themselves
out
of
so
plain
and
express
an
Article
of
our
Faith
,
and
therefore
do
heartily
and
sincerely
believe
the
Satisfaction
of
our
Saviour
,
that
he
dyed
as
a
true
and
proper
Sacrifice
to
expiate
our
sins
,
and
purchase
Eternal
Life
for
us
,
yet
have
no
clear
Conceptions
of
the
Reason
of
this
,
which
will
not
well
comply
with
those
other
Notions
they
have
of
God
,
and
his
natural
Obligation
,
not
to
call
it
natural
Necessity
,
to
love
and
reward
good
men
.
I
do
as
firmly
believe
God's
Goodness
to
good
men
,
and
his
Love
to
true
Holiness
,
where-ever
he
sees
it
,
as
I
do
any
Article
of
my
Creed
,
but
then
I
consider
,
that
Heaven
is
a
supernatural
Happiness
,
and
not
the
natural
Reward
of
an
earthly
Creature
,
as
man
by
Nature
is
:
And
therefore
the
best
man
,
considered
as
a
Man
,
has
no
more
reason
to
expect
,
That
God
as
a
Reward
of
his
Vertue
,
should
translate
him
from
Earth
to
Heaven
,
than
that
he
should
give
him
wings
to
flie
in
the
Air
,
and
to
visit
the
several
Planets
;
all
that
can
be
expected
from
God
upon
account
of
the
Goodness
or
Justice
of
his
Nature
,
is
to
bestow
such
a
Happiness
on
innocent
or
deserving
Creatures
,
as
their
Natures
were
made
for
,
that
is
,
an
earthly
Happiness
on
an
earthly
Creature
,
which
was
all
that
was
promised
Adam
in
Paradice
,
an
immortal
,
happy
Life
in
this
World
.
So
that
if
we
consider
the
State
of
mankind
,
we
shall
find
,
that
the
whole
Work
of
our
Redemption
,
is
wholly
owing
to
free
Grace
,
that
is
,
that
which
was
neither
due
to
our
Natures
,
nor
what
we
could
reasonably
expect
from
God
,
considered
only
as
our
Maker
.
Man
in
Innocence
was
but
an
earthly
Creature
,
the
first
Adam
was
of
the
Earth
and
earthy
;
And
an
earthly
Creature
cannot
challenge
as
his
natural
Birth-right
,
an
heavenly
and
divine
state
of
Life
:
For
Flesh
and
Blood
,
though
innocent
and
pure
,
cannot
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
A
gross
,
earthly
Body
cannot
ascend
into
Heaven
,
nor
dwell
in
those
pure
Regions
of
Light
,
and
therefore
such
a
Creature
can
no
more
challenge
Heaven
,
as
its
natural
Portion
and
Inheritance
,
than
it
can
,
that
God
should
change
its
Nature
,
and
refine
an
earthy
into
a
spiritual
Body
.
If
we
consider
man
in
his
lapsed
State
,
he
has
forfeited
even
an
earthly
Immortality
,
and
cannot
now
challenge
an
immortal
Life
in
this
World
,
much
less
in
the
next
;
For
what
natural
Reason
can
there
be
,
when
we
suffer
Death
as
the
Punishment
of
sin
,
for
God
,
to
raise
our
dead
Bodies
out
of
the
Dust
again
into
an
immortal
Life
.
So
that
whatever
may
be
the
Reward
of
Vertue
in
this
World
,
an
immortal
Life
after
Death
cannot
be
the
natural
Reward
of
it
;
for
then
it
could
not
be
in
the
Evangelical
Notion
of
it
,
the
Gift
of
God
,
or
the
Purchase
of
Christ
.
And
we
may
consider
farther
,
that
as
man
is
now
designed
for
a
supernatural
state
of
Happiness
in
Heaven
,
so
much
advanced
above
the
original
state
of
humane
Nature
,
so
there
is
required
a
divine
Holiness
and
Vertue
to
fit
and
qualifie
him
for
this
supernatural
Happiness
.
Upon
this
account
our
Saviour
so
earnestly
presses
the
Necessity
of
the
new
Birth
,
that
we
must
be
born
of
Water
and
of
the
Spirit
,
if
we
would
enter
into
Heaven
:
For
that
which
is
born
of
the
Flesh
,
is
Flesh
,
but
that
which
is
born
of
the
Spirit
,
is
Spirit
:
Whereby
our
Saviour
signifies
to
us
,
that
we
must
attain
to
such
a
pitch
of
Goodness
,
as
is
as
much
above
the
original
Attainments
of
an
earthly
and
fleshly
Nature
,
as
Heaven
is
above
the
Earth
:
For
that
saying
of
our
Saviour
,
That
which
is
born
of
the
flesh
,
is
flesh
,
is
true
in
a
state
of
Innocency
;
Innocent
flesh
is
flesh
still
,
and
therefore
we
must
be
born
into
a
diviner
State
than
innocent
flesh
,
if
we
would
enter
into
Heaven
;
that
is
,
we
must
attain
to
such
a
divine
and
spiritual
frame
of
Mind
,
as
raises
us
above
this
World
,
and
prepares
us
for
an
Angelical
state
of
Life
:
For
there
are
different
degrees
of
Vertue
fitted
to
the
different
states
of
a
reasonable
Nature
:
Unless
we
will
say
,
that
the
Vertue
of
a
Man
,
and
of
an
Angel
is
the
same
.
That
degree
of
Vertue
which
is
sufficient
to
teach
a
Man
to
use
the
good
things
of
this
World
innocently
and
happily
,
is
not
sufficient
to
raise
a
Man
above
the
World
,
and
to
make
him
contemn
all
bodily
Pleasures
and
earthly
Satisfactions
.
The
highest
and
noblest
Attainments
of
Christianity
would
be
no
Vertues
in
an
earthly
state
:
Were
we
to
live
always
happily
in
this
World
;
were
this
the
best
and
most
perfect
state
we
could
expect
,
it
would
be
no
Vertue
,
but
a
great
instance
of
Folly
to
despise
the
good
things
of
this
Life
,
and
to
live
above
them
:
For
in
such
a
State
,
the
delights
and
satisfactions
of
Flesh
and
Sense
would
be
an
essential
part
of
our
Happiness
,
and
whatever
is
so
,
cannot
and
ought
not
to
be
despised
:
It
always
becomes
a
reasonable
Creature
to
govern
all
his
appetites
and
desires
by
the
Laws
of
Reason
,
and
to
mortifie
and
subdue
his
inordinate
Affections
,
as
that
signifies
to
correct
the
Extravagancies
of
them
;
but
yet
in
an
earthly
state
he
may
indulge
himself
to
the
full
in
all
lawful
Enjoyments
,
and
is
not
bound
to
lay
restraints
upon
himself
,
nor
to
endeavour
to
stifle
and
suppress
his
sensual
Inclinations
,
nor
to
deny
them
their
proper
and
natural
satisfactions
:
That
is
,
he
who
is
to
live
always
in
this
World
,
and
has
no
bigger
or
diviner
Happiness
to
expect
,
is
not
bound
to
die
to
this
World
,
while
he
lives
in
it
.
So
that
all
those
Evangelical
duties
of
Self-denial
and
Mortification
,
and
Contempt
of
this
World
,
and
heavenly
Mindedness
,
can
be
no
Vertues
nor
Duties
in
any
earthly
state
,
much
less
a
life
of
Faith
,
and
hope
of
unseen
things
,
when
we
have
no
unseen
things
promised
to
us
,
as
the
Object
of
our
Faith
and
Hope
,
but
have
our
Portion
at
present
,
and
expect
only
a
circular
and
endless
Repetition
of
the
same
Enjoyments
.
The
Laws
of
Vertue
must
be
proportioned
to
the
State
and
Condition
of
Man-kind
,
and
must
alter
and
vary
with
it
;
that
which
becomes
an
earthly
Creature
,
who
is
to
live
always
in
this
World
,
and
in
this
Body
,
which
as
far
as
we
know
,
was
the
Original
state
of
Man-kind
,
does
not
become
one
,
who
must
put
off
this
Body
,
and
lives
in
this
World
,
not
as
his
home
,
and
place
of
rest
,
but
as
a
probation-state
,
for
a
better
and
more
spiritual
Life
.
That
Vertue
,
which
teaches
us
how
to
live
happily
in
this
World
,
and
that
which
must
prepare
us
for
the
Happiness
of
the
next
,
must
differ
as
much
as
Earth
and
Heaven
,
as
Flesh
and
Spirit
:
And
this
I
take
to
be
the
true
difference
between
Moral
Vertue
,
and
Evangelical
Graces
;
the
first
is
proportioned
to
the
state
of
a
reasonable
Creature
,
inhabiting
an
earthly
Body
,
without
any
expectations
of
a
more
Divine
and
Spiritual
Life
,
the
second
includes
a
Respect
to
the
other
World
,
and
that
Angelical
Happiness
,
which
Christ
has
promised
to
his
sincere
Disciples
.
The
Religion
then
of
our
Saviour
,
being
as
much
above
Nature
,
as
that
Glory
and
Happiness
is
,
which
is
revealed
and
promised
in
the
Gospel
,
it
is
necessary
we
should
have
some
more
divine
Principle
to
raise
us
into
this
divine
Life
,
than
meer
Nature
is
;
for
Nature
can
never
act
above
it self
;
and
that
the
Gospel
tells
us
,
is
the
holy
Spirit
of
God
,
whereby
we
are
Renewed
and
Sanctified
,
and
have
the
divine
Nature
formed
in
us
;
and
this
being
above
Nature
,
no
considering
man
will
say
,
that
the
Gift
of
the
Holy
Spirit
is
owing
to
our
Natures
,
or
that
God
is
under
any
natural
Obligation
,
as
our
Maker
,
to
bestow
it
on
us
.
The
Result
of
which
is
this
,
that
the
Gift
of
the
Holy
Spirit
,
whereby
we
are
born
again
,
and
prepared
and
qualified
for
a
divine
and
immortal
state
of
Life
,
being
an
act
of
pure
Grace
,
and
wholly
owing
to
the
Mediation
of
Christ
,
God
may
dispence
it
upon
what
terms
,
and
in
what
manner
he
pleases
,
and
we
must
expect
it
only
in
that
way
,
which
God
has
appointed
for
the
bestowing
of
it
.
I
need
not
insist
now
on
the
Pardon
of
our
sins
,
which
all
Mankind
own
to
be
an
Act
of
Grace
,
which
we
can
upon
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
,
1
Then
,
That
Christ
did
intend
to
erect
a
Church
in
the
World
,
and
to
unite
all
his
Disciples
into
one
Religious
Society
,
is
so
universally
acknowledged
,
that
it
is
a
needless
trouble
to
prove
that
which
no
body
denies
;
no
man
denies
that
Christ
has
a
Church
,
and
that
he
intended
to
have
one
,
only
the
seekers
know
not
where
to
find
it
,
now
methinks
,
if
Christ
have
instituted
a
Church
,
wherein
he
requires
all
his
Disciples
to
communicate
as
Members
of
the
same
Body
,
it
goes
a
great
way
towards
proving
,
that
the
ordinary
Means
of
Salvation
are
to
be
had
only
in
the
Communion
of
this
Church
;
for
to
what
purpose
is
this
Church
instituted
,
if
not
for
a
common
Body
and
Society
of
those
,
who
shall
be
saved
by
Christ
?
No
Society
can
be
founded
or
maintained
but
by
such
Priviledges
and
Immunities
,
as
make
it
desirable
to
enter
into
it
,
and
continue
in
it
;
without
this
all
Kingdoms
and
Common-wealths
,
Cities
,
and
Families
would
disband
,
for
nothing
can
tie
men
together
,
who
are
naturally
giddy
,
and
fond
of
Innovations
,
but
some
sensible
Advantages
,
which
they
cannot
otherwise
enjoy
.
And
therefore
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
Mosaick
Covenant
was
made
with
the
Children
of
Israel
,
as
a
Nation
,
whom
God
had
chosen
for
himself
of
the
Seed
and
Posterity
of
Abraham
:
Natural
Jews
had
no
Title
to
this
Covenant
,
till
they
were
circumcised
and
incorporated
into
the
Body
of
Israel
,
considered
as
in
Covenant
with
God
,
of
which
Circumcision
was
the
Sign
and
Seal
;
and
no
strangers
were
admitted
to
these
priviledges
of
the
Covenant
,
till
they
were
engrafted
into
the
Body
of
Israel
by
Circumcision
,
and
became
one
People
with
them
:
So
that
the
Mosaick
Covenant
,
which
was
but
the
Christian
Covenant
in
Types
and
Figures
,
was
confined
to
a
particular
Nation
,
or
Body
of
men
,
and
to
all
those
,
who
were
incorporated
into
the
same
Body
with
them
;
now
it
is
plain
,
that
the
Christian
Church
is
incorporated
into
the
Body
of
Israel
;
and
therefore
the
Apostles
call
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
,
an
holy
Nation
,
a
peculiar
People
:
So
that
the
Christian
Church
is
a
Nation
,
and
People
peculiar
to
God
,
and
chosen
by
him
out
of
the
rest
of
the
World
,
as
the
Jews
formerly
were
,
that
is
,
united
to
God
and
to
each
other
in
the
same
Covenant
,
and
therefore
as
the
Mosaical
Covenant
was
confined
to
the
Body
of
Israel
,
that
no
Strangers
or
Aliens
had
any
right
to
it
,
so
is
the
Gospel
Covenant
confined
to
the
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
:
And
therefore
Christ
is
said
to
give
himself
for
us
,
to
redeem
us
from
all
iniquity
,
and
to
purifie
to
himself
a
peculiar
People
,
zealous
of
good
Works
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
3.
To
confirm
this
,
we
may
consider
,
that
it
is
not
enough
that
Christ
has
died
for
us
,
and
purchased
the
Pardon
of
our
sins
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
unless
this
Pardon
and
Grace
be
applyed
to
us
in
such
ways
,
as
he
has
appointed
.
For
it
will
not
suffice
,
that
we
make
Christ
our
own
,
by
a
fanciful
Application
of
his
Merits
to
our selves
,
which
would
quickly
overturn
the
Church
,
and
make
the
Institutions
of
our
Saviour
very
useless
things
,
as
we
see
this
conceit
has
in
a
great
measure
done
already
,
but
we
must
receive
Christ
and
all
his
Blessings
,
as
he
is
pleased
to
bestow
them
.
Now
that
the
holy
Sacraments
of
Baptism
and
the
Lord's
Supper
are
by
the
Institution
of
our
Saviour
,
the
ordinary
Conveyances
and
Ministries
of
Grace
,
has
been
the
universal
Belief
of
the
Christian
Church
in
all
Ages
;
in
Baptism
we
receive
the
Remission
of
our
sins
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
;
and
therefore
we
are
said
,
to
be
baptized
for
the
Remission
of
sins
,
and
to
be
born
of
Water
and
of
the
Spirit
,
and
we
are
said
to
be
saved
by
the
washing
of
Regeneration
,
and
the
renewal
of
the
holy
Ghost
.
In
the
Lord's
Supper
Christ
gives
himself
to
us
as
the
Bread
of
Life
,
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
:
to
drink
into
one
Spirit
;
but
I
need
not
insist
on
the
proof
of
that
,
which
no
body
denies
,
who
has
any
Reverence
for
our
Saviours
Institutions
,
and
does
not
think
them
meer
empty
Shadows
,
and
insignificant
Ceremonies
.
If
then
our
Saviour
has
appointed
these
holy
Sacraments
as
the
Means
and
Conveyances
of
Grace
,
and
these
Sacraments
are
ineffectual
to
those
,
who
do
not
live
in
the
Unity
and
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
,
then
we
cannot
ordinarily
expect
the
Application
of
Christ's
Merits
to
us
,
or
the
Vertue
of
his
Death
and
Passion
,
out
of
Catholick
Communion
.
And
yet
this
was
as
generally
acknowledged
by
the
ancient
Fathers
,
as
the
other
,
as
I
have
already
shown
:
St.
Cyprian
would
not
acknowledg
,
that
Schismaticks
had
any
Sacraments
,
no
more
,
than
that
they
had
any
Church
;
St.
Austin
acknowledged
that
they
had
Sacraments
,
but
inutiliter
;
their
Schism
made
the
Sacraments
ineffectual
to
attain
the
end
for
which
they
were
instituted
;
and
indeed
the
very
Nature
of
the
Sacraments
will
easily
satisfie
us
,
that
it
must
be
so
.
Baptism
is
the
Sacrament
of
Pardon
and
Forgiveness
,
of
our
Regeneration
and
new
Birth
by
the
holy
Spirit
;
but
it
is
the
Sacrament
also
of
our
initiation
and
incorporation
into
the
Christian
Church
:
And
upon
this
very
account
our
sins
are
forgiven
in
Baptism
;
and
the
holy
Spirit
is
bestowed
on
us
,
because
it
makes
us
the
Members
of
Christ's
Body
,
that
is
,
of
his
Church
,
to
whom
the
Forgiveness
of
sins
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
is
promised
;
and
therefore
those
who
are
baptized
in
a
Schism
,
and
are
no
sooner
made
the
Members
of
Christ's
Church
,
but
do
immediately
divide
and
separate
themselves
from
its
Communion
,
if
they
do
receive
remission
of
their
Sins
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
Spirit
in
the
instant
wherein
they
are
baptized
,
as
St.
Austin
supposes
they
may
,
yet
do
immediately
forfeit
it
again
by
their
Schism
:
For
the
same
Sacrament
must
have
its
entire
effect
,
or
none
at
all
;
Incorporation
into
the
Christian
Church
,
and
forgiveness
of
sins
,
are
inseparably
united
in
Baptism
,
as
God's
and
man's
part
is
in
the
same
Covenant
:
Incorporation
into
the
Christian
Church
,
which
is
signified
,
represented
,
and
compleated
in
Baptism
,
is
our
part
of
the
Covenant
,
our
choice
and
resolution
,
and
actual
undertaking
of
Christianity
,
which
is
done
by
a
Profession
of
our
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
subjection
to
him
,
and
by
uniting
our selves
to
the
Society
and
Fellowship
of
his
Church
,
by
such
a
sacred
Right
,
as
he
has
appointed
for
that
purpose
:
Forgiveness
of
sin
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
is
God's
part
of
the
Covenant
,
who
has
promised
to
forgive
the
Sins
,
and
renew
and
sanctifie
those
with
his
Spirit
,
who
thus
solemnly
devote
themselves
to
the
Faith
and
Obedience
of
a
crucified
Jesus
,
and
therefore
these
two
can
never
be
separated
,
unless
God
will
perform
his
Part
of
the
Covenant
,
whether
we
perform
ours
or
not
.
Thus
the
holy
Supper
of
our
Lord
does
as
plainly
represent
the
Unity
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
the
Communion
of
all
Christians
with
each
other
,
as
it
does
their
Union
to
Christ
,
and
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
,
are
one
Bread
and
one
Body
,
for
we
are
all
partakers
of
that
one
Bread
:
And
upon
this
account
it
is
called
the
Communion
of
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
the
Body
of
Christ
cannot
be
received
in
a
Schism
;
for
where
there
is
a
Schism
,
it
is
no
longer
one
Bread
and
Body
,
nor
the
Communion
of
Christ's
Body
,
when
it
is
divided
into
different
and
opposite
Communions
.
That
which
is
the
common
Bread
of
all
Christians
,
must
be
received
in
Unity
and
one
Communion
;
for
it
loses
its
Nature
,
Vertue
,
and
Efficacy
,
in
a
Schism
.
Thus
the
Paschal
Lamb
,
which
was
a
Type
of
Christ's
Death
and
Passion
,
and
of
the
Christian
Feast
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
as
it
was
to
be
eaten
by
the
whole
Body
of
Israel
,
so
every
particular
Lamb
was
to
be
eaten
in
one
House
,
and
nothing
to
be
carried
out
of
it
.
The
like
may
be
said
of
all
the
other
Means
of
Grace
,
which
cannot
avail
any
man
,
who
does
not
live
in
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Church
:
Our
Prayers
are
effectual
only
in
the
Merits
of
Christ's
Sacrifice
and
Intercession
,
and
if
such
men
have
no
interest
in
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ
,
as
they
cannot
have
,
if
they
have
no
Title
to
the
Supper
of
our
Lord
,
which
is
the
Christian
Feast
upon
the
Sacrifice
of
the
Cross
,
and
applies
the
Merits
and
Vertue
of
it
to
us
,
then
their
Prayers
cannot
be
prevalent
neither
;
and
if
our
Saviour
would
not
allow
any
man
to
offer
any
Sacrifice
to
God
,
who
had
a
private
quarrel
with
his
Brother
,
till
he
had
reconciled
himself
to
him
,
how
unlikely
is
it
,
that
God
will
hear
the
Prayers
of
those
men
,
who
are
at
variance
with
the
Church
of
God
,
and
divide
the
Communion
of
it
.
As
for
hearing
and
reading
,
Paul
may
Plant
,
and
Apollos
may
Water
,
but
it
is
God
,
that
gives
the
Increase
,
and
if
God
deny
his
Grace
and
Spirit
to
such
external
Ministries
,
they
can
avail
nothing
,
and
yet
we
have
already
heard
,
how
little
reason
such
men
have
to
expect
it
.
St.
Paul
tells
us
,
that
Christ
gave
some
Apostles
,
and
some
Prophets
,
and
some
Evangelists
,
and
some
Pastors
and
Teachers
,
for
the
perfecting
of
the
Saints
for
the
Work
of
the
Ministry
,
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
Schismaticks
.
And
he
adds
,
But
speaking
the
truth
in
love
,
may
grow
up
into
him
in
all
things
,
which
is
Christ
the
Head
,
from
whom
the
whole
body
fitly
joyned
together
,
and
compacted
by
that
which
every
joynt
supplyeth
,
according
to
the
effectual
working
in
the
Measure
of
every
Part
,
maketh
increase
of
the
Body
,
to
the
edifying
of
it self
in
Love
.
So
that
the
Increase
and
Edification
of
Christians
is
in
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
and
consists
in
the
encrease
of
brotherly
Love
and
Christian
Charity
,
Vertues
which
cannot
be
learn't
in
a
Schism
,
nor
preserved
in
it
,
a
bitter
zeal
,
and
envenomed
Passions
,
and
uncharitable
Censures
and
Surmises
,
and
evil
speaking
,
and
an
insolent
contempt
of
all
,
who
are
not
of
their
Party
and
Faction
,
being
the
most
usual
fruits
of
a
Schismatical
Reformation
.
All
the
Metaphors
whereby
the
conveyance
of
Grace
from
Christ
to
his
Church
is
represented
in
Scripture
,
do
plainly
signifie
that
this
is
done
in
Unity
,
such
as
the
influences
which
the
Body
receives
from
the
Head
,
or
the
Branches
from
the
Vine
,
which
do
not
reach
those
Members
which
are
separated
from
the
Body
,
nor
those
Branches
,
which
are
broken
off
from
the
Vine
.
The
result
of
what
I
have
said
,
is
this
,
If
Holiness
be
not
the
meritorious
Cause
,
but
only
the
condition
of
our
Salvation
,
and
therefore
cannot
save
us
,
separated
from
rhe
Merits
of
Christ
;
if
Catholick
Unity
,
that
is
,
Christian
Charity
,
be
one
main
essential
part
of
Evangelical
Holiness
,
without
which
nothing
else
will
be
accepted
by
God
;
if
the
Work
of
our
Redemption
from
first
to
last
,
be
an
Act
of
free
Grace
,
which
we
cannot
challenge
from
God
,
as
due
to
our
Natures
,
nor
as
a
necessary
Effect
of
his
own
Goodness
,
considered
as
our
Maker
;
and
therefore
is
as
entirely
at
God's
choice
,
in
what
way
,
and
upon
what
conditions
he
will
dispence
it
,
as
it
was
,
whether
he
would
do
any
such
thing
at
all
;
if
we
must
expect
to
receive
the
Blessings
of
the
Gospel
only
in
such
ways
,
as
God
hath
appointed
,
and
if
Christ
hath
confined
all
the
Grace
of
the
Gospel
to
a
Church-state
;
this
is
sufficient
to
satisfie
any
unprejudiced
man
,
how
necessary
Catholick-unity
and
Communion
is
,
without
which
we
cannot
upon
any
good
grounds
hope
for
the
pardon
of
our
Sins
,
the
influences
of
God's
Grace
,
or
eternal
Life
.
4.
But
there
are
some
men
,
who
will
never
be
satisfied
by
the
most
clear
and
demonstrative
Proofs
,
that
a
thing
is
so
,
unless
they
can
see
the
Reason
why
it
should
be
so
;
a
way
which
of
late
has
mightily
prevailed
,
and
has
in
a
great
measure
thrust
all
revealed
and
instituted
Religion
out
of
the
World
.
We
cannot
always
give
the
natural
Reasons
of
things
,
not
because
there
are
none
,
but
because
they
lie
too
deep
for
us
to
discover
them
,
and
if
we
cannot
fathom
Nature
,
which
is
more
exposed
to
our
view
and
observation
,
how
unreasonable
is
it
to
think
to
fathom
the
unsearchable
Counsels
of
God
,
in
such
Matters
as
wholly
depend
upon
his
Soveraign
Will
,
and
have
no
apparent
Cause
,
but
his
own
good
pleasure
:
Matters
of
Revelation
can
be
discovered
only
by
Revelation
,
and
in
such
Acts
of
soveraign
Grace
,
it
is
abundantly
sufficient
,
if
God
tell
us
what
he
will
do
for
us
,
and
in
what
way
he
will
do
it
,
without
assigning
the
Reason
,
why
he
does
so
.
But
yet
to
satisfie
these
men
,
as
much
as
may
be
,
let
them
but
assign
a
Reason
,
why
Christ
would
have
a
Church
,
and
why
he
would
have
but
one
Church
,
and
I
will
give
them
a
manifest
and
necessary
Reason
,
why
Salvation
should
be
confined
to
the
Communion
of
this
Church
,
and
that
is
,
because
it
is
impossible
to
preserve
the
Unity
,
Discipline
,
or
Government
of
the
Church
without
it
.
The
Christian
Church
considered
as
a
Church
,
is
not
armed
with
any
secular
coercive
Power
,
and
if
it
have
no
spiritual
Power
neither
,
how
shall
it
maintain
and
preserve
it self
against
all
the
oppositions
of
Men
and
Devils
?
and
yet
it
can
have
no
spiritual
Power
,
if
men
may
as
well
be
saved
out
of
the
Church
,
as
in
it
:
For
who
then
will
regard
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
value
its
Censures
,
or
reverence
its
Authority
and
Government
?
Spiritual
Power
is
exercised
upon
the
Souls
and
Consciences
of
men
,
and
respects
the
Happiness
of
the
other
World
,
as
temporal
Power
Governs
the
outward
man
,
and
respects
this
present
Life
;
now
all
the
Power
Christ
hath
given
to
his
Church
,
is
that
,
which
we
call
the
Power
of
the
Keys
,
to
take
in
,
or
to
shut
out
of
the
Church
,
which
is
no
Power
at
all
,
if
the
Communion
of
the
Church
be
so
indifferent
a
thing
,
that
men
may
be
as
safe
out
of
the
Church
as
in
it
.
All
the
Censures
of
the
Christian
Church
,
which
are
purely
Spiritual
,
only
respect
Church-communion
,
and
therefore
their
Authority
too
depends
upon
the
necessity
of
this
Communion
:
Some
were
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
others
received
into
the
Number
of
Penitents
,
of
which
Albaspinaeus
reckons
four
degrees
in
the
Primitive
Church
,
which
were
the
different
Degrees
of
their
Separation
from
Christian
Communion
;
now
how
easily
may
a
man
,
who
believes
no
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
,
despise
all
this
Authority
,
and
all
these
Censures
,
and
there
can
be
no
necessity
of
it
,
if
our
Souls
be
not
greatly
endangered
by
the
want
of
it
.
And
yet
our
Saviour
calls
this
Power
of
receiving
in
,
and
shutting
out
of
the
Church
,
The
Keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
:
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
Keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
whatsoever
thou
shalt
bind
on
Earth
,
shall
be
bound
in
Heaven
,
and
whatsoever
thou
shalt
loose
on
Earth
,
shall
be
loosed
in
Heaven
.
Now
how
can
the
Keys
of
the
Church
to
let
in
,
or
to
shut
out
,
be
called
the
Keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
unless
there
be
a
necessary
Relation
between
the
Communion
of
the
Church
on
Earth
(
which
is
also
called
the
Kingdom
of
God
)
and
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
that
those
who
are
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
and
have
a
Right
to
be
in
it
,
have
a
Title
also
to
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
that
those
who
are
out
of
the
Church
,
either
by
their
own
Choice
,
or
by
a
just
Censure
,
have
no
Title
to
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
shall
never
enter
into
it
.
That
the
Church
on
Earth
,
and
the
Church
in
Heaven
is
but
one
Communion
,
and
that
no
men
are
transplanted
into
the
Church
in
Heaven
,
but
from
the
Communion
of
the
Church
on
Earth
;
upon
which
account
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
which
was
given
to
dying
Persons
under
Censures
,
was
called
the
Viaticum
,
or
a
kind
of
Pass
into
the
other
World
:
And
when
our
Saviour
so
expresly
asserts
,
whatsoever
thou
shalt
bind
on
Earth
,
shall
be
bound
in
Heaven
,
and
whatsoever
thou
shalt
loose
on
Earth
,
shall
be
loosed
in
Heaven
,
if
by
binding
and
loosing
we
will
understand
putting
out
,
or
receiving
into
the
Church
,
it
makes
the
Communion
of
the
Church
absolutely
necessary
to
Salvation
.
And
I
farther
observe
,
that
what
in
St.
Matthew
is
called
the
Keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
binding
and
loosing
,
is
in
St.
John
called
retaining
or
remitting
sins
,
Whosoever
sins
ye
remit
,
they
are
remitted
,
and
whosoever
sins
ye
retain
,
they
are
retained
:
And
therefore
if
we
expound
this
remitting
and
retaining
sins
,
by
binding
and
loosing
in
the
exercise
of
the
Keys
,
as
in
all
reason
we
must
;
then
to
remit
sins
,
is
to
restore
men
to
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Church
,
and
to
retain
them
,
is
to
cast
men
out
of
the
Church
,
or
to
keep
them
under
Church-censures
;
which
is
a
plain
demonstration
,
that
sins
are
forgiven
only
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
.
So
that
whatever
other
Reasons
our
Lord
might
have
,
in
confining
Salvation
ordinarily
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
among
which
the
Promoting
of
Catholick
Love
and
Charity
among
his
Disciples
and
Followers
is
none
of
the
least
,
which
as
I
observed
before
,
cannot
be
maintained
and
preserved
in
a
Schism
;
yet
here
is
one
manifest
Reason
for
it
,
that
the
Authority
,
and
Discipline
,
and
Government
of
the
Church
,
without
which
the
Church
cannot
well
subsist
,
does
wholly
depend
on
it
.
If
Christ
have
instituted
a
Church
,
and
invested
it
with
such
Authority
and
Power
,
as
is
necessary
to
preserve
it self
,
and
to
promote
the
great
ends
of
Church-Society
,
and
the
Church
,
as
a
spiritual
Society
can
have
no
other
Power
,
and
has
no
other
given
it
by
Christ
,
but
what
results
from
the
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
,
we
need
not
wonder
,
that
the
pardon
of
Sin
,
and
the
assistances
of
the
divine
Grace
,
and
everlasting
Life
,
should
be
confined
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
because
the
Church
cannot
Preserve
it self
,
nor
Govern
its
own
Members
,
can
neither
Instruct
,
Reprove
,
nor
Censure
with
any
Authority
and
Effect
,
without
this
,
which
by
the
way
shows
us
,
how
effectually
those
men
,
who
separate
from
the
Church
,
upon
a
pretence
of
purer
Worship
and
a
purer
Discipline
,
overthrow
and
contradict
their
own
pretences
,
and
tear
up
the
very
foundations
of
all
Church-authority
;
for
if
separation
from
the
Church
be
so
slight
and
indifferent
a
Matter
,
there
can
be
no
Authority
in
the
Church
;
for
any
man
who
is
uneasie
,
or
humersom
,
or
ungovernable
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
may
leave
it
if
he
pleases
,
and
joyn
himself
to
some
other
Communion
,
or
set
up
a
new
Communion
of
his
own
,
without
any
danger
;
and
in
this
Case
nothing
can
keep
People
together
,
but
some
great
Art
and
Cunning
in
their
Guides
,
or
some
secular
Advantages
,
or
arbitrary
Covenants
,
and
I
think
the
Independents
have
great
reason
on
their
side
to
found
a
particular
Church
,
on
a
particular
Church
Covenant
,
if
there
be
no
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
,
as
I
have
now
described
it
;
for
if
there
be
no
essential
and
inherent
Authority
in
the
Church
,
there
can
be
no
other
than
what
depends
upon
private
Contracts
.
Now
may
we
not
as
well
wonder
,
why
humane
Laws
inflict
such
severe
Punishments
upon
Rebels
,
whatever
other
good
qualities
they
may
have
,
as
that
Christ
should
so
severely
punish
Schismaticks
,
who
may
upon
other
Accounts
pass
in
the
World
for
very
good
men
;
the
Reason
of
both
is
the
same
,
Government
in
Church
and
State
is
of
such
mighty
Consequence
,
to
the
temporal
and
spiritual
Happiness
of
Mankind
,
and
Rebellion
and
Schism
so
destructive
to
all
Government
,
that
those
men
deserve
the
severest
Punishments
,
who
disturb
the
Peace
and
Establishment
of
Church
or
State
;
and
Schism
is
so
much
worse
than
Rebellion
,
as
the
happiness
of
the
Souls
of
men
,
is
of
much
greater
Concernment
,
than
their
temporal
Ease
and
Felicity
.
CHAP.
IV.
Concerning
the
Vnity
of
Church-Power
ANd
now
I
am
come
to
the
main
seat
of
the
Controversie
,
between
me
and
Mr.
Lob
,
Mr.
Humphrey
,
and
Mr.
Baxter
,
not
to
mention
the
Country-Conformist
,
who
is
such
an
insignificant
Appendage
and
Hanger-on
,
as
a
silly
flie
is
to
a
Wheel
,
though
possibly
he
may
have
no
more
wit
,
than
to
fancy
that
he
has
raised
all
this
dust
and
stir
.
They
charge
me
with
advancing
a
Cassandrian
design
,
and
promoting
an
Union
with
the
Church
of
Rome
,
rather
than
with
Protestant
Dissenters
.
And
to
insinuate
the
belief
of
this
into
his
Readers
,
Mr.
Lob
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
Arch-Bishop
Laud
had
this
design
in
his
head
;
but
what
is
this
to
me
?
I
am
no
Arch-Bishop
yet
,
and
greatly
suspect
,
I
never
shall
be
;
if
he
can
prove
that
the
Arch-Bishop
died
like
a
Papist
,
or
a
Phanatick
,
with
a
lye
in
his
mouth
;
or
that
he
attempted
any
reconciliation
with
the
Church
of
Rome
,
which
is
not
consistent
with
the
Principles
,
or
Practices
of
the
Primitive
Church
,
I
think
he
was
very
much
to
blame
for
it
,
and
am
very
glad
he
did
not
perfect
his
Design
;
but
could
a
Reconciliation
be
obtained
upon
the
principles
of
Primitive
and
Catholick
Christianity
,
accursed
be
the
man
,
who
would
hinder
this
Union
,
which
I
would
be
glad
to
effect
,
not
only
with
shedding
my
Blood
once
,
but
if
it
were
possible
a
thousand
times
,
with
all
the
Scorn
and
Obloquies
of
the
most
virulent
Phanaticks
into
the
Bargain
.
But
whatever
Mr.
Lob
may
fancy
,
I
look
upon
this
,
as
a
very
hopeless
and
impractible
design
,
and
never
had
such
a
vain
Conceit
in
my
head
,
while
I
was
a
〈◊〉
●●●iting
the
late
Defence
,
and
had
any
one
Whispered
such
an
accusation
in
my
Ear
,
without
at
the
same
time
,
shewing
the
folly
and
weakness
of
the
Charge
,
I
should
have
been
more
puzzled
,
to
have
found
out
the
Rise
and
Occasion
of
it
,
than
to
have
answered
all
the
Cavils
against
the
Church
of
England
,
which
I
have
ever
yet
seen
.
But
though
I
knew
nothing
of
a
Cassandrian
Design
,
yet
my
Adversaries
have
found
me
out
,
and
if
we
will
believe
Mr.
Lob
,
I
am
got
at
least
as
far
as
France
,
in
my
Journey
to
Rome
,
surely
there
is
some
Conjuring
in
the
Case
,
for
I
don't
know
,
that
ever
I
went
a
step
beyond
Canterbury
.
But
this
is
a
Cause
,
which
will
not
bear
an
Ignoramus
,
and
therefore
I
must
defend
my self
as
well
as
I
can
;
and
in
order
to
that
,
I
shall
1.
briefly
represent
the
Doctrine
of
the
Defence
,
with
respect
to
the
Unity
of
Church-power
and
Government
,
whereon
this
Charge
of
Cassandrianism
is
founded
,
2.
Consider
what
the
Doctrine
of
Cassander
was
in
this
matter
,
3.
Examine
the
Arts
my
Adversaries
have
used
to
pervert
the
Sense
of
my
words
,
to
turn
them
into
Non-sense
and
Ridicule
,
and
to
draw
me
head-long
into
the
Popish
Plot.
1.
As
for
the
first
,
in
order
to
prove
that
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
consists
in
one
Communion
,
I
asserted
,
that
all
the
Bishops
of
the
Church
,
are
but
one
〈◊〉
,
invested
with
the
same
Power
and
Authority
to
Govern
the
Church
,
that
as
St.
Cyprian
tells
us
,
There
is
but
one
Episcopacy
,
part
of
which
every
Bishop
holds
with
full
Authority
and
Power
:
That
all
these
Bishops
are
but
one
body
,
who
are
bound
to
live
in
Communion
with
each
other
,
and
to
govern
their
respective
Churches
,
where
need
requires
,
and
where
it
can
be
had
,
by
mutual
advice
and
consent
,
and
therefore
that
no
Bishops
are
absolutely
independent
,
but
are
obliged
to
preserve
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
or
Episcopal
Colledge
,
as
Optatus
calls
it
,
whereon
the
Unity
and
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
depends
;
for
it
is
impossible
the
Catholick
Church
should
be
one
Body
or
Society
,
or
one
Communion
,
if
it
be
divided
into
as
many
independent
Churches
,
as
there
are
absolute
and
independent
Bishops
;
for
those
Churches
must
be
independent
,
which
have
an
independent
Power
and
Government
,
as
all
those
must
have
,
which
have
independent
Governors
or
Bishops
,
and
independent
Churches
can
never
make
one
Body
,
and
one
Catholick
Communion
,
because
they
are
not
Members
of
each
other
;
and
thus
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
must
be
destroyed
,
unless
we
assert
one
Episcopacy
,
as
well
as
one
Church
,
one
Evangelical
Priesthood
,
as
well
as
one
Altar
,
all
the
World
over
.
But
to
make
this
as
plain
as
possibly
I
can
,
that
every
one
may
understand
it
,
who
will
;
I
shall
reduce
the
whole
state
of
this
Controversie
,
under
some
few
heads
.
1.
There
is
but
one
Episcopacy
,
because
all
the
Bishops
of
the
Catholick
Church
have
originally
the
same
Authority
and
Power
in
Church
Affairs
;
no
one
has
the
whole
,
but
each
of
them
has
a
part
and
equal
share
,
and
therefore
they
are
called
the
Episcopal
Colledge
,
and
a
copious
Body
of
Bishops
,
as
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
are
one
Catholick
Church
,
not
because
they
ever
do
,
or
ought
to
meet
together
for
Advice
and
Counsel
,
and
Acts
of
Government
from
all
parts
of
the
World
;
no
more
than
the
Catholick
Church
does
for
Acts
of
Worship
;
but
because
they
are
,
and
ought
to
be
in
Communion
with
each
other
,
they
have
all
the
same
Power
and
Authority
,
which
must
be
exercised
in
one
Communion
.
2.
Though
all
Bishops
have
a
Relation
to
the
whole
Church
,
every
Bishop
being
a
Bishop
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
yet
the
Rules
of
Order
and
good
Government
,
and
the
Edification
of
the
Church
,
require
,
that
the
Exercise
of
this
Power
be
in
ordinary
Cases
limited
and
confined
to
a
certain
Part
,
which
we
call
a
particular
Church
,
for
as
no
particular
Bishop
can
Instruct
and
Govern
the
Catholick
Church
,
no
more
than
he
can
be
in
all
parts
of
the
World
at
the
same
time
,
so
every
Bishop
will
be
capable
of
exercising
his
Office
to
the
best
Advantage
,
when
his
Care
is
confined
to
a
certain
Place
,
and
particular
Church
;
and
every
particular
Church
,
is
likely
to
receive
the
greatest
Benefit
from
the
Care
and
Inspection
of
a
fixed
Pastor
and
Bishop
.
3.
That
the
same
Rules
of
Order
and
Government
,
require
,
that
every
Bishop
have
the
chief
Power
of
Government
in
his
own
Diocess
,
for
if
every
Bishop
had
Authority
as
often
as
he
pleased
,
to
intermeddle
in
another
Bishops
Diocess
,
and
order
the
Affairs
of
his
Church
,
it
must
needs
cause
great
Confusion
and
Distraction
in
all
Churches
,
and
make
the
People
very
uncertain
,
whom
they
are
to
obey
,
and
therefore
it
has
been
the
constant
Practice
of
the
Apostles
,
and
all
succeeding
Ages
,
to
set
Bishops
and
Pastors
over
particular
Churches
,
and
to
confine
their
Care
and
Inspection
to
them
.
4.
But
yet
the
Power
of
every
Bishop
in
his
own
Diocess
,
is
not
so
Absolute
and
Independent
,
but
that
he
is
bound
to
preserve
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
and
to
live
in
Communion
with
his
Collegues
,
and
Fellow-Bishops
;
for
this
is
the
Foundation
of
Catholick
Communion
,
without
which
,
there
can
be
no
Catholick
Church
;
and
therefore
he
,
who
causelesly
breaks
this
Unity
,
can
be
no
Catholick
Bishop
;
and
this
is
the
Foundation
of
all
those
greater
Combinations
of
Churches
,
and
that
Authority
,
which
is
regularly
exercised
over
particular
Bishops
by
their
Colleagues
.
For
,
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
Catholick
Unity
and
Communion
,
without
any
Antichristian
Encroachments
or
Usurpations
on
the
Episcopal
Authority
.
For
,
6.
This
Combination
of
Churches
and
Bishops
does
not
,
and
ought
not
to
introduce
a
direct
Superiority
of
one
Bishop
or
Church
over
another
,
or
of
such
Synods
and
Councils
over
particular
Bishops
:
Every
Bishop
is
the
proper
Governor
of
his
own
Diocess
still
,
and
cannot
be
regularly
imposed
on
against
his
Consent
;
the
whole
Authority
of
any
Bishop
or
Council
over
other
Bishops
is
founded
on
the
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
,
which
is
the
great
end
it
serves
,
and
therefore
they
have
no
proper
Authority
,
but
only
in
such
Matters
,
as
concern
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
or
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
If
a
Bishop
be
convicted
of
Heresie
or
Schism
,
or
some
great
Wickedness
and
Impiety
,
they
may
depose
him
,
and
forbid
his
People
to
communicate
with
him
,
and
ordain
another
in
his
stead
,
because
he
subverts
the
Unity
of
the
Faith
,
or
divides
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
or
is
himself
unfit
for
Christian
Communion
;
But
if
a
Bishop
differ
from
his
Colleagues
;
assembled
in
Synods
,
or
Provincial
Councils
,
or
one
National
or
Provincial
Council
differ
from
another
,
in
Matters
of
Prudence
,
and
Rules
of
Discipline
,
without
either
corrupting
the
Faith
,
or
dividing
the
Church
,
if
we
believe
St.
Cyprian
,
in
his
Preface
to
the
Council
of
Carthage
,
they
ought
not
to
deny
him
Communion
upon
such
accounts
,
nor
to
offer
any
force
to
him
in
such
Matters
.
Thus
St.
Cyprian
,
and
the
African
Father
differed
from
Stephen
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
his
Colleagues
,
about
the
re-baptization
of
Hereticks
,
but
yet
would
not
divide
the
Church
,
nor
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
upon
that
Score
,
for
any
Bishop
to
dissent
from
his
Colleagues
,
and
obstinately
adhere
to
his
own
private
Opinions
,
without
very
great
and
necessary
Reasons
for
doing
so
,
is
great
frowardness
and
Insolence
,
which
may
be
condemned
and
censured
;
but
while
he
preserves
the
Unity
of
Faith
,
and
Catholick
Communion
,
whatever
Church
or
Council
should
deny
Communion
to
him
,
would
be
guilty
of
the
Schism
;
which
plainly
shews
,
that
there
can
be
no
constitutive
Regent
Head
on
Earth
of
a
National
,
much
less
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
since
every
Bishop
is
the
supreme
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
and
though
he
may
,
and
ought
to
take
the
Advice
of
neighbour
Bishops
or
Councils
,
yet
he
is
not
under
their
Authority
,
any
farther
than
the
Purity
of
the
Faith
,
or
the
Unity
of
the
Church
is
concerned
;
nor
yet
is
so
absolute
and
independent
,
but
that
he
is
bound
to
live
in
Communion
with
his
Colleagues
,
and
as
much
as
is
possible
,
govern
his
Church
by
mutual
Advice
and
Consent
,
and
if
he
divide
the
Church
by
Heresie
or
Schism
,
he
may
be
deposed
,
and
cast
out
of
Christian
Communion
.
These
things
I
have
discoursed
at
large
upon
several
occasions
in
the
Defence
,
and
proved
them
from
primitive
Practise
,
and
have
now
reduced
them
into
this
plain
Method
,
that
if
it
be
possible
to
prevent
it
,
it
may
not
be
in
the
Power
of
my
Adversaries
a
second
time
,
to
form
a
Popish
or
Cassandrian
Plot
,
out
of
such
Anti
-
Cassandrian
Principles
.
2.
It
is
time
now
to
consider
,
what
Cassander
taught
about
this
Matter
.
George
Cassander
was
a
very
learned
and
moderate
Papist
,
who
in
Obedience
to
the
Command
of
the
Emperors
,
Ferdinand
and
Maximilian
,
writ
his
Consultation
,
wherein
he
gives
his
judgment
of
every
Article
of
the
Augustan
Confession
,
which
was
drawn
up
by
Melancthon
,
and
dedicated
to
Charles
the
fifth
.
The
seventh
Article
concerns
the
Church
,
and
there
we
must
seek
for
his
Judgment
in
this
matter
;
and
yet
there
I
can
find
nothing
to
Mr.
Lob's
purpose
,
who
has
named
Cassander
indeed
,
but
not
cited
any
one
passage
out
of
him
.
Cassander
expresly
asserts
,
That
to
the
Vnity
of
the
Catholick
Church
is
required
obedience
to
one
supreme
Governor
,
who
succeeds
Peter
in
the
Government
of
Christ's
Church
,
and
in
the
Office
of
feeding
his
Sheep
,
and
that
this
is
agreeable
to
the
sense
of
the
Ancient
Church
.
And
that
it
is
evident
from
all
the
Records
of
the
Church
,
That
the
chief
Authority
in
the
Vniversal
Church
of
Christ
has
always
been
yielded
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
as
Peter's
Successor
,
who
sits
in
his
Chair
,
For
the
Proof
of
which
he
refers
us
to
the
Testimonies
of
Irenaeus
,
Tertullian
,
Optatus
,
and
others
,
It
is
very
true
,
as
Mr.
Lob
observes
,
that
there
have
been
some
,
who
have
advanced
the
Authority
of
a
General
Council
above
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
and
that
this
is
a
prevailing
Opinion
among
the
French
Papists
,
and
thence
concludes
,
That
such
as
assert
,
that
a
General
Council
is
the
Political
Head
,
or
Regent
part
of
the
Vniversal
Church
,
are
in
the
Number
of
French
Papists
;
which
is
an
Argument
of
his
great
Skill
in
Controversie
.
For
suppose
there
be
any
such
men
,
who
assert
a
General
Council
,
to
be
the
Political
Head
or
Regent
Part
of
the
Universal
Church
,
but
renounce
all
the
pretended
Authority
of
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
and
all
Communion
with
him
;
are
these
men
Papists
or
not
?
If
they
be
,
then
it
seems
,
that
those
who
renounce
the
Pope
,
may
be
Papists
still
,
and
then
let
Mr.
Lob
and
his
Friends
look
to
themselves
,
who
are
in
as
fair
a
way
of
being
Papists
,
as
any
men
I
know
,
notwithstanding
their
renouncing
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
and
General
Councils
;
if
they
be
not
Papists
,
then
they
are
not
French
Papists
,
unless
French
Papists
be
no
Papists
.
But
Mr.
Lob
,
if
he
had
been
at
all
acquainted
with
these
Matters
,
would
easily
have
perceived
,
that
all
who
plead
for
the
supreme
Authority
of
General
Councils
,
do
not
therein
renounce
the
Authority
of
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
and
therefore
are
Papists
still
,
call
them
French
or
Cassandrian
Papists
,
or
what
you
please
;
and
that
those
,
who
renounce
the
Authority
,
and
all
dependance
on
the
Pope
,
can
be
no
Papists
,
how
zealous
soever
they
are
for
the
Authority
of
General
Councils
.
It
were
easie
to
discourse
largely
upon
this
Argument
,
but
a
few
plain
Proofs
are
as
good
as
a
thousand
.
Mr.
Lob
instances
in
the
Councils
of
Constance
and
Basil
,
but
if
he
had
ever
seen
more
than
the
Names
of
those
Councils
,
he
would
have
found
,
how
little
they
served
his
purpose
.
I
grant
they
do
decree
,
that
a
General
Council
is
above
the
Pope
,
in
determining
Matters
of
Faith
,
in
composing
Schisms
,
and
in
reforming
the
Church
in
its
Head
and
Members
;
but
still
they
attribute
such
a
soveraign
Authority
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
as
no
Power
on
Earth
can
equal
,
or
match
,
but
only
a
General
Council
.
This
is
so
evident
and
notorious
,
that
whoever
casually
opens
these
Councils
,
can
hardly
miss
of
something
to
this
purpose
,
and
therefore
I
shall
only
produce
two
or
three
plain
and
undeniable
Proofs
of
it
,
and
refer
my
Readers
,
who
desire
farther
satisfaction
,
to
the
Councils
themselves
.
When
Amedeus
the
Duke
of
Savoy
,
who
called
himself
Felix
the
5th
,
was
elected
Pope
by
the
Council
of
Basil
,
they
call
his
Office
,
summus
Apostolatus
,
the
chief
Apostleship
,
or
the
supreme
Bishoprick
,
They
acknowledg
the
Bishop
of
Rome
to
have
the
executive
Ecclesiastical
Power
in
his
hands
,
the
Top
of
Ecclesiastical
Power
,
and
Nicholas
the
5th
.
who
after
all
this
stir
,
But
to
put
this
out
of
doubt
,
the
Council
it self
has
adjusted
this
Dispute
about
the
Authority
of
the
Pope
,
and
a
General
Council
;
for
after
some
debate
about
this
Matter
,
it
concludes
,
Who
now
can
doubt
of
the
Power
of
Councils
,
being
Superior
to
all
other
Powers
,
which
has
been
proved
by
such
irrefragable
Testimonies
?
from
whence
it
manifestly
appears
,
that
those
Authorities
which
have
been
alleadged
for
the
Power
of
the
Supream
Bishop
,
do
not
prove
,
that
the
Pope
himself
is
not
bound
to
obey
the
Decrees
of
the
Vniversal
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.
Lob
,
that
men
may
assert
the
Authority
of
General
Councils
,
and
yet
if
they
reject
the
Authority
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
they
are
not
Papists
,
nor
true
Catholicks
in
the
sense
of
the
Councils
of
Constance
and
Basil
;
both
which
ascribe
the
soveraign
Authority
to
the
Pope
in
the
vacancies
of
Councils
,
and
command
all
men
under
pain
of
Damnation
,
even
Emperors
,
Patriarchs
,
Princes
,
Prelates
,
to
obey
him
in
all
things
,
which
are
not
derogatory
to
the
Decrees
or
Authority
of
general
Councils
.
But
it
may
be
,
the
French
Church
has
proceeded
farther
in
retrenching
the
Authority
of
the
Pope
,
than
the
Council
of
Constance
or
Basil
did
,
and
therefore
since
Mr.
Lob
talks
so
much
of
French
Papists
,
I
shall
briefly
shew
his
skill
in
this
also
.
I
presume
Petrus
de
Marca
the
Learned
Arch-bishop
of
Paris
,
who
writ
in
Defence
of
the
Liberties
of
the
Gallican
Church
,
is
a
good
competent
Witness
in
this
Matter
,
and
yet
in
his
Book
,
de
Concordia
sacerdotii
&
Imperii
,
which
met
with
so
many
Censures
at
Rome
,
and
so
difficultly
passed
the
Test
,
and
kept
him
so
long
out
of
his
Bishoprick
,
he
asserts
the
Authority
of
the
Pope
,
much
higher
than
cither
of
those
Councils
;
and
to
shorten
my
Work
,
I
shall
only
set
down
some
Propositions
,
which
he
himself
collected
out
of
his
Book
,
in
answer
to
the
Roman
Censure
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
This
is
a
brief
Scheme
of
French
Popery
,
as
it
respects
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
if
we
believe
this
great
Arch-bishop
,
Men
may
assert
the
Authority
of
a
General
Council
,
without
being
Papists
;
but
no
man
can
be
a
Papist
,
who
does
not
acknowledg
the
Bishop
of
Rome
to
be
the
supreme
Head
,
and
universal
Pastor
of
the
Christian
Church
,
whom
all
Princes
,
Prelates
,
and
People
are
bound
to
obey
;
in
Communion
with
whom
consists
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
to
separate
from
whom
is
a
Schism
:
All
Papists
must
own
the
Bishop
of
Rome
for
their
universal
Pastor
,
though
they
are
not
agreed
whether
his
Power
be
absolute
,
or
under
the
Controul
of
a
general
Council
.
3.
Having
thus
prepared
the
way
,
it
will
be
no
hard
Matter
to
vindicate
the
doctrine
of
the
Defence
,
about
the
Unity
of
Church-power
,
from
those
ridiculous
and
senseless
Imputations
of
Cassandrianism
and
French
Popery
.
This
Charge
is
managed
so
knavishly
by
Mr.
Lob
,
who
hath
put
in
words
of
his
own
to
make
out
the
Charge
,
when
my
words
would
not
do
it
;
and
with
such
blind
fury
by
Mr.
Baxter
;
with
so
much
confusion
,
and
yet
with
so
much
Triumph
by
both
,
that
there
needs
no
other
Art
to
expose
and
shame
them
,
than
to
set
my
Notions
in
a
true
light
once
more
,
and
to
vindicate
them
from
the
artificial
mis-representations
of
ignorance
,
or
a
Scholastick
Buffoonery
.
The
Sum
of
their
Charge
amounts
to
this
;
that
I
place
the
supreme
governing
Power
of
the
Church
in
a
general
Council
,
and
that
the
Unity
of
the
Church
consists
in
the
Subjection
of
all
particular
Christians
and
Churches
to
a
general
Council
;
and
yet
they
are
forced
to
acknowledg
,
that
I
disown
a
Constitutive
Regent
Head
of
a
National
,
or
of
the
Universal
Church
:
And
here
they
cry
out
of
Contradictions
,
and
exercise
their
guessing
faculty
,
what
should
be
the
meaning
of
it
;
and
yet
hold
to
the
Conclusion
in
spight
of
Nonsense
and
Contradiction
,
that
I
set
up
one
soveraign
Power
over
the
Universal
Church
.
As
for
Contradictions
,
I
will
consider
them
anon
,
but
the
first
thing
to
be
done
is
to
examine
,
what
occasion
I
have
given
them
to
think
,
that
I
place
the
supreme
unifying
Power
(
as
Mr.
B.
calls
it
)
of
the
Church
in
a
general
Council
.
Mr.
Lob
lays
it
down
,
as
his
fundamental
Charge
against
me
,
the
Vniversal
Church
the
first
Seat
of
Government
,
Or
,
as
he
learnedly
speaks
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
Church
Government
,
that
it
is
a
Political
organized
Body
,
in
which
there
is
a
pars
imperans
&
subdita
,
The
Bishops
in
their
Colledge
being
the
Governors
,
Or
,
pars
Imperans
,
and
all
others
of
the
universal
Church
,
the
subdite
part
,
which
others
would
have
called
Subjects
,
and
that
in
the
very
next
words
he
adds
.
It
may
be
our
Author
,
to
gratifie
the
Dean
,
will
deny
the
universal
Church
to
be
a
Political
organized
Body
,
as
indeed
he
doth
:
So
that
it
seems
I
deny
,
what
he
says
,
I
assert
,
which
either
proves
,
that
I
did
not
understand
my
self
,
or
that
Mr.
Lob
does
not
,
or
will
not
understand
me
;
and
which
of
these
is
most
likely
,
comes
now
to
be
tryed
.
Only
we
must
first
observe
,
what
he
means
by
the
universal
Church
,
being
the
first
Seat
of
Government
,
that
it
is
a
Political
organized
Body
,
in
which
there
is
one
supreme
and
soveraign
Power
over
the
Whole
:
As
a
Kingdom
is
one
Pollitical
organized
Body
,
because
it
is
under
one
supreme
Government
,
and
all
the
Power
of
inferior
Officers
is
derived
from
the
King
,
as
the
supreme
governing
Head
,
or
as
the
Papists
make
the
Catholick
Church
one
Political
organized
Body
,
and
the
Pope
,
or
a
General
Council
the
Constitutive
Regent
Head
of
it
.
Now
then
let
us
hear
,
how
he
proves
this
Charge
against
me
,
that
I
make
the
universal
Church
the
first
Seat
of
Government
,
and
such
a
Political
organized
Body
,
as
he
here
talks
of
:
And
to
this
purpose
he
alleadges
several
things
,
which
shall
be
particularly
,
but
briefly
considered
.
1.
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.
Lob
has
expressed
it
,
would
imagine
,
that
I
made
every
Bishop
as
soveraign
a
Monarch
of
the
Church
,
as
the
Pope
of
Rome
is
;
whereas
all
that
I
say
in
that
passage
,
he
cites
out
of
the
Defence
,
is
no
more
but
this
.
(
1.
That
the
Apostles
had
a
Relation
to
the
whole
Church
,
and
as
he
observes
,
I
assert
in
another
place
,
That
every
Bishop
,
Presbyter
,
or
Deacon
by
his
Ordination
,
is
made
a
Minister
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
That
every
Bishop
and
Presbyter
receives
into
the
Catholick
Church
by
Baptism
,
and
shuts
out
of
the
Catholick
Church
by
Excommunication
,
which
they
could
not
do
,
if
they
were
not
Ministers
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
but
does
this
make
every
Bishop
an
universal
Monarch
,
that
he
is
a
Bishop
of
the
universal
Church
?
Orwill●
Mr.
Lob
deny
,
that
Bishops
or
Presbyters
have
a
Relation
to
the
universal
Church
?
If
they
be
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
and
there
be
but
one
Church
,
they
must
be
Ministers
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
for
particular
Churches
,
are
not
Churches
,
but
considered
as
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
therefore
the
primary
Relation
of
all
Catholick
Christians
,
and
Catholick
Bishops
,
is
to
the
Catholick
Church
.
This
proves
indeed
,
that
the
whole
Catholick
Church
is
but
one
Body
,
and
one
Communion
;
but
it
does
not
prove
,
that
there
is
but
one
supreme
Regent
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
2.
That
the
ordinary
Power
of
a
particular
Bishop
,
or
the
Exercise
of
the
Episcopal
Office
is
confined
to
a
certain
place
,
or
particular
Church
,
which
certainly
does
not
make
them
the
ordinary
Governors
of
the
whole
universal
Church
.
3.
I
assert
,
That
though
the
Exercise
of
their
Episcopal
Power
is
ordinarily
confined
to
a
particular
Church
,
yet
they
continue
their
Relation
to
the
whole
Church
;
that
is
,
in
their
Government
of
their
particular
Churches
,
they
act
as
Bishops
and
Ministers
of
the
universal
Church
;
for
they
are
Bishops
of
particular
Churches
,
not
considered
meerly
as
particular
,
but
as
Members
of
the
universal
Church
.
And
if
Mr.
Lob
meant
no
more
but
this
,
by
making
the
universal
Church
the
first
Seat
of
Government
,
that
all
the
Power
in
the
Church
primarily
respects
the
universal
Church
,
though
as
it
is
distributed
into
different
hands
,
the
Exercise
of
it
is
confined
to
particular
Places
and
Churches
,
I
readily
own
the
Charge
,
and
may
do
so
safely
without
making
the
Church
,
such
an
organized
Political
Body
,
as
has
one
Constitutive
Regent
Head
over
the
Whole
.
4.
I
assert
farther
,
That
Bishops
being
Ministers
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
when
Necessity
,
that
is
,
when
the
preservation
of
the
Catholick
Faith
,
or
Catholick
Communion
,
require
it
,
may
with
one
consent
oppose
the
Heresie
or
Schisms
of
neighbour
Bishops
;
depose
those
,
who
are
incorrigible
;
and
Ordain
others
in
their
stead
;
and
as
far
as
it
is
possible
take
care
,
that
no
part
of
the
Church
of
Christ
suffer
any
injury
by
the
Heresie
or
evil
Practises
of
any
of
their
Colleagues
.
And
if
Mr.
Lob
will
hence
infer
,
that
every
Bishop
has
an
original
Right
to
govern
the
whole
universal
Church
,
he
must
have
a
Logick
by
himself
,
or
some
great
flaw
in
his
Understanding
or
Conscience
.
Every
Bishop
is
a
Bishop
of
the
universal
Church
,
and
therefore
as
far
as
the
Rules
of
good
Order
and
Government
,
Catholick
Peace
and
Communion
,
and
the
possibility
of
things
will
permit
,
he
may
exercise
his
Episcopal
Office
in
any
part
of
the
Christian
Church
,
but
this
does
not
give
him
an
original
Right
to
govern
the
whole
Church
.
2.
Mr.
Lob
observes
,
The
Catholick
Church
is
united
and
coupled
by
the
Cement
of
Bishops
,
who
stick
close
together
,
for
which
I
produce
Cyprian
;
and
therefore
I
hope
,
there
is
no
Popery
in
this
,
unless
St.
Cyprian
also
,
were
a
Cassandrian
or
French
Papist
.
For
may
not
Bishops
stick
close
together
in
one
Communion
,
unless
there
be
a
supreme
Constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
?
Or
,
can
the
Church
be
one
,
unless
the
Bishops
,
who
are
the
supreme
Ecclesiastical
Governors
of
their
several
Churches
,
be
one
also
?
3.
But
I
assert
,
that
the
Vnity
and
Peace
of
the
Episcopacy
is
maintained
by
their
governing
their
Churches
by
mutual
Consent
;
Therefore
not
by
one
Constitutive
Regent
Head
.
But
he
says
,
I
mention
,
Collegium
Episcopale
,
or
Episcopal
Colledge
,
So
indeed
I
observed
Optatus
,
called
the
whole
Body
of
Bishops
,
and
upon
the
same
account
,
St.
Cyprian
and
St.
Austin
calls
them
Colleagues
.
But
this
Episcopal
Colledge
,
he
says
,
He
takes
to
be
a
Council
of
Bishops
,
But
that
is
his
mistake
,
and
a
very
silly
one
it
is
;
and
he
might
as
well
conclude
,
that
when
the
Fathers
speak
of
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
they
mean
their
Union
in
a
general
Council
.
In
St.
Cyprian's
time
there
never
had
been
a
general
Council
,
excepting
the
Council
of
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
;
and
yet
,
when
he
writ
to
Forraign
Bishops
,
with
whom
he
was
never
joyned
in
Council
,
nor
ever
like
to
be
,
he
calls
them
his
Colleagues
,
or
those
of
the
same
Colledge
with
him
;
which
signifies
no
more
,
but
that
they
were
of
the
same
Power
and
Authority
in
the
Church
,
and
united
in
the
same
Communion
.
And
yet
Mr.
Lob
takes
hold
of
this
Phrase
of
the
Episcopal
Colledge
,
to
make
me
expresly
assert
the
supreme
Authority
of
general
Councils
.
That
every
part
of
the
universal
Church
,
is
under
the
government
of
the
universal
Bishops
assembled
in
their
Colledge
,
or
in
Council
.
Which
Sentence
he
very
honestly
puts
into
a
different
Character
,
that
it
may
be
taken
for
mine
,
and
makes
it
a
distinct
head
of
accusation
,
when
I
never
writ
nor
thought
any
such
thing
;
but
this
is
the
dealing
we
must
expect
from
those
men
,
whose
Understandings
and
Consciences
are
formed
only
to
serve
a
party
.
Well
,
but
these
Bishops
have
an
original
Right
and
Power
in
relation
to
the
whole
Church
,
this
has
been
considered
already
,
only
he
adds
an
untoward
(
i.
e.
)
which
is
such
another
honest
Exposition
,
as
turning
an
Episcopal
Colledge
into
a
Council
.
For
,
(
i.
e.
)
says
Mr.
Lob
,
The
Forraign
Bishops
,
as
those
of
Alexandria
and
Rome
,
&c.
have
an
original
Power
and
Right
in
relation
to
the
whole
Church
,
a
Right
and
Power
in
relation
to
England
.
Now
this
is
very
true
in
the
sense
in
which
I
assert
it
:
The
Bishop
of
Rome
and
Alexandria
have
such
a
relation
to
the
Church
of
England
,
and
so
have
all
the
Bishops
in
the
World
,
that
if
they
live
in
the
same
Communion
with
us
,
and
should
come
over
into
England
;
with
the
leave
of
English
Bishops
,
they
might
exercise
their
Episcopal
Office
in
any
Church
in
England
;
as
Polycarp
consecrated
in
the
Church
of
Anicetus
at
Rome
:
A
Catholick
Bishop
does
not
lose
his
Character
by
going
out
of
his
own
Church
,
but
is
a
Bishop
in
what
part
of
the
World
soever
he
be
;
and
therefore
may
exercise
his
Episcopal
Office
,
as
far
as
is
consistent
with
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Christian
Communion
,
and
with
the
Rights
and
Jurisdiction
of
other
Bishops
.
Nay
,
were
there
nothing
else
to
alter
the
Case
,
but
only
the
local
distance
between
Rome
,
and
England
,
and
Alexandria
;
the
Bishops
of
Rome
and
Alexandria
might
admonish
and
censure
the
English
Bshops
,
in
case
they
fell
into
Heresie
or
Schism
,
and
deny
them
Communion
in
case
of
obstinacy
or
incorrigibleness
;
and
so
may
the
English
Bishops
admonish
those
of
Rome
,
and
Alexandria
,
and
inflict
the
like
Censures
on
them
:
The
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
consists
in
one
Communion
,
and
all
the
Authority
of
the
Church
results
from
the
necessary
Obligations
to
Christian
Communion
;
and
all
Churches
must
judge
for
themselves
by
the
Rules
of
Catholick
Communion
,
what
Churches
to
hold
Communion
with
;
and
though
we
must
expect
,
while
Bishops
are
men
,
and
subject
to
the
Weaknesses
,
Passions
,
Mistakes
of
humane
Nature
,
they
may
be
guilty
of
great
miscarriages
,
and
deny
Communion
to
each
other
upon
insufficient
Reasons
;
yet
there
is
no
help
for
this
,
that
I
know
of
,
but
either
the
Mediation
and
Interposition
of
other
Churches
,
or
an
Appeal
to
the
last
Judgment
:
That
obligation
all
Churches
are
under
,
as
far
as
in
them
lies
,
to
preserve
the
Purity
of
the
Faith
,
and
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
obliges
them
to
reject
the
Communion
of
those
,
who
violate
either
;
but
it
withal
obliges
them
,
as
they
will
answer
it
at
the
Tribunal
of
Christ
,
the
great
Bishop
of
his
Church
,
not
to
make
any
unnecessary
breaches
,
or
lightly
and
wantonly
refuse
each
others
Communion
.
But
by
the
Original
Right
and
Power
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
or
Alexandria
,
or
other
Forraign
Bishops
in
relation
to
the
Church
of
England
,
he
seems
to
mean
a
Right
of
Appeals
and
proper
Jurisdiction
,
as
he
plainly
does
in
what
he
adds
a
little
after
,
concerning
the
Independency
of
the
Church
of
England
,
on
any
Forraign
Power
:
For
because
I
assert
the
Bishops
are
not
wholly
independent
,
he
concludes
,
That
the
Church
of
England
is
not
independent
,
but
accountable
to
Forraign
Bishops
,
if
at
any
time
they
abuse
their
Power
.
And
some
Pages
after
confutes
this
,
by
saying
,
That
,
't
is
notorious
,
that
the
Church
of
England
estalished
by
Law
,
is
a
particular
National
Church
,
independent
on
any
Forraign
Power
whatsoever
.
Such
is
the
Constitution
of
our
Church
,
that
what
Bishop
soever
is
found
an
abuser
of
his
Power
,
he
is
not
accountable
to
any
Colledge
of
Bishops
,
but
such
us
are
convened
by
his
Majesties
Authority
,
and
that
what
apprehensions
soever
he
may
have
of
his
being
griev'd
through
any
undue
procedure
,
he
cannot
make
any
appeal
to
any
Forraign
Power
from
the
King
.
And
therefore
he
thinks
,
I
incur
a
Premunire
,
by
setting
up
a
Forraign
Jurisdiction
over
the
Church
of
England
.
Now
this
is
so
wild
and
absurd
a
Conclusion
,
from
any
thing
I
have
said
,
that
none
but
Mr.
Lob
,
or
some
few
of
his
size
could
have
hit
on
't
;
there
is
but
one
Episcopacy
in
the
Christian
Church
,
of
which
every
Bishop
has
an
equal
Share
and
Portion
,
and
therefore
is
a
Bishop
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
though
the
Exercise
of
his
Episcopal
Office
and
Authority
,
is
regularly
and
ordinarily
confined
to
a
particular
Church
,
yet
his
original
Right
and
Power
in
relation
to
the
whole
Church
does
still
remain
,
i.
e.
He
is
a
Bishop
in
all
parts
of
the
World
,
and
may
exeroise
his
Episcopal
Authority
where-ever
he
be
,
as
far
as
is
consistent
with
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Catholick
Communion
;
and
when
necessity
requires
,
is
obliged
to
take
care
,
as
far
as
possibly
he
can
,
that
the
Church
of
Christ
suffer
no
injury
by
the
Heresie
or
evil
Practises
of
any
of
his
Colleagues
;
ergo
,
the
Church
of
England
is
subject
to
the
Authority
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
or
Alexandria
.
But
I
believe
few
men
can
discern
,
how
such
a
Consequence
results
from
such
Premisses
,
and
what
follows
,
is
of
the
same
stamp
.
All
Bishops
have
originally
equal
Authority
in
the
Church
of
Christ
,
but
yet
are
not
so
independent
,
but
that
they
are
bound
by
the
Laws
of
Christ
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
and
to
live
in
Communion
with
their
Fellow
Bishops
,
and
in
case
of
Heresie
,
Schism
,
or
notorious
Impiety
,
may
be
censured
and
deposed
by
their
Colleagues
,
and
others
ordained
in
their
stead
,
Ergo
,
The
Church
of
England
is
subject
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
or
Alexandria
,
or
other
Forraign
Bishops
.
I
have
abundantly
proved
in
the
Defence
,
that
St.
Cyprian
owns
these
Premisses
,
but
denies
the
Conclusion
,
and
therefore
either
he
,
or
Mr.
Lob
,
are
out
in
their
Logick
,
when
St.
Cyprian
had
Excommunicated
two
of
his
Presbyters
,
Felicissimus
and
Fortunatus
,
and
they
fled
to
Rome
to
Cornelius
to
make
their
Complaints
to
him
;
St.
Cyprian
writes
a
Letter
to
Cornelius
,
wherein
he
informs
him
of
the
whole
Matter
,
and
has
this
remarkable
passage
in
it
:
That
it
was
by
a
general
Consent
agreed
among
them
,
and
is
in
it self
equal
and
just
,
that
every
ones
Cause
should
be
heard
there
,
where
the
Crime
is
committed
;
since
every
Pastor
has
a
Portion
of
the
Flock
committed
to
him
,
which
he
is
to
Rule
and
Govern
,
so
as
he
is
to
give
an
Account
of
it
to
his
Lord
,
and
therefore
those
,
who
are
under
our
Government
,
ought
not
to
run
about
from
one
Bishop
to
another
,
nor
by
their
subtil
and
fallacious
insinuations
engage
those
Bishops
,
who
are
at
Vnity
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
,
Thus
when
Marcion
for
his
lewdness
had
been
Excommunicated
by
his
own
Father
,
We
cannot
do
this
without
the
leave
of
thy
venerable
Father
,
for
there
is
but
one
Faith
,
and
one
Consent
,
and
we
cannot
go
contrary
to
thy
Father
,
our
good
Colleague
and
fellow
Labourer
.
From
these
instances
it
appears
,
that
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
or
Episcopal
Colledge
,
does
not
give
Authority
to
every
Bishop
,
to
intermedle
with
the
Affairs
of
another
Bishop's
Diocess
,
but
only
in
case
of
absolute
necessity
,
for
here
are
two
things
to
be
distinctly
considered
,
which
qualifie
each
other
,
and
set
bounds
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
.
1.
That
there
is
but
one
Episcopacy
,
in
which
every
Bishop
has
an
equal
share
;
Christ
hath
committed
the
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
Colledge
,
and
to
promote
the
Edification
and
good
Government
of
the
Church
.
Nay
,
this
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
is
the
Foundation
of
that
Authority
,
which
neighbour
Bishops
have
over
their
Colleagues
in
case
of
Heresie
and
Schism
,
or
any
notorious
Wickedness
,
for
they
being
Bishops
of
the
universal
Church
,
have
an
original
Right
and
Power
to
take
care
,
that
no
part
of
the
Church
,
which
is
within
their
reach
and
inspection
,
suffer
by
the
Heresie
or
evil
Practises
of
their
Colleagues
.
But
the
second
Consideration
,
that
every
Bishop
has
the
chief
Power
in
his
own
Church
,
prescribes
the
Bounds
and
Limits
of
this
Ecclesiastical
Authority
;
as
,
1.
Every
Bishop
having
the
chief
Power
in
his
own
Diocess
,
though
he
is
bound
by
the
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
,
and
in
order
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
to
consent
with
his
Colleagues
in
all
wholsome
Constitutions
,
and
Rules
of
Discipline
and
Government
;
yet
he
cannot
be
imposed
on
against
his
own
Consent
by
any
Bishop
or
Council
of
Bishops
,
nor
can
justly
be
deposed
upon
such
Accounts
,
while
he
neither
corrupts
the
Faith
,
nor
Schismatically
divides
the
Church
.
2.
Nor
can
any
Bishop
or
Bishops
rescind
any
Censures
justly
passed
by
another
Bishop
against
any
in
his
own
Church
,
or
receive
Appeals
about
such
Matters
,
without
his
Consent
;
for
the
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
requires
all
Bishops
to
leave
each
other
to
the
free
Exercise
of
their
Power
and
Authority
in
their
own
Churches
,
as
we
see
the
Church
of
Rome
acknowledged
in
the
Case
of
Marcion's
Appeal
from
his
Fathers
Sentence
:
For
it
is
an
usurpation
on
the
Authority
of
Bishops
,
not
to
suffer
them
to
govern
their
own
Flock
,
while
nothing
is
done
to
the
injury
of
the
Faith
,
and
the
Churches
Peace
;
and
nothing
is
more
likely
to
make
infinite
divisions
and
quarrels
between
Bishops
,
than
for
one
Bishop
to
undo
,
what
another
has
done
,
or
to
judge
over
again
that
Cause
,
which
has
been
already
judged
and
determined
,
where
it
ought
to
be
judged
;
as
St.
Cyprian
tells
Cornelius
in
the
Case
of
Felicissimus
and
Fortunatus
,
as
I
observed
above
:
I
grant
this
is
generally
practised
in
Archiepiscopal
and
National
Churches
,
and
in
many
Cases
there
is
great
use
and
reason
for
it
;
but
then
this
is
not
without
the
Consent
of
other
Bishops
;
those
Appeals
are
allowed
and
confirmed
by
Provincial
and
National
Synods
,
to
which
every
Bishop
gives
his
Consent
,
but
I
am
now
considering
what
the
original
Right
of
Bishops
is
,
not
how
far
they
may
part
with
this
Power
for
a
more
general
good
.
3.
As
every
Bishop
has
the
chief
Authority
in
his
own
Diocess
,
so
much
more
has
a
larger
Combination
of
Bishops
into
a
National
Church
,
the
supreme
Power
within
it self
,
from
whence
lies
no
Appeal
to
any
Forraign
Church
,
without
its
own
Consent
.
The
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
requires
the
Union
of
neighbour
Bishops
for
one
Government
;
but
because
all
the
Bishops
in
the
World
,
though
they
are
of
the
same
Communion
,
yet
cannot
be
united
into
one
Government
,
it
is
necessary
to
stop
somewhere
,
and
that
which
in
all
reason
must
determine
the
bounds
of
such
a
Church
,
must
be
a
convenient
distance
of
place
,
or
one
Nation
,
and
one
Civil
Government
,
such
Churches
being
more
easily
confederated
into
one
Body
,
than
those
of
different
Nations
.
Now
if
every
Bishop
be
the
supreme
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
much
more
has
a
National
Church
the
supreme
Power
of
governing
it self
.
A
National
Church
is
bound
to
maintain
Catholick
Communion
with
Neighbour
Churches
,
and
if
it
fall
into
Heresie
or
Schism
,
Neighbour
Churches
may
and
ought
to
admonish
and
censure
them
;
and
if
they
continue
obstinate
to
withdraw
Communion
from
them
;
but
while
a
National
Church
preserves
the
Unity
of
the
Faith
,
and
Catholick
Communion
,
no
other
Church
can
intermeddle
in
its
Government
,
nor
ought
to
receive
any
Appeals
from
its
Judgment
;
for
no
Bishops
or
Churches
have
any
Authority
over
each
other
,
but
only
in
order
to
Catholick
Communion
.
These
things
I
have
discoursed
more
largely
on
purpose
,
if
it
be
possible
to
prevent
the
mistakes
of
these
men
,
who
are
so
unwilling
to
see
or
to
acknowledge
the
Truth
;
and
I
hope
I
may
safely
conclude
from
the
whole
,
that
there
is
no
danger
,
that
the
Bishop
of
Rome
or
Alexandria
should
challenge
any
jurisdiction
over
the
Church
of
England
,
by
vertue
of
the
original
Right
and
Power
of
the
Catholick
Bishops
in
relation
to
the
whole
Church
of
Christ
.
But
however
Mr.
Lob
is
resolved
to
make
something
of
it
at
last
,
and
if
he
cannot
prove
,
that
I
subject
the
Church
of
England
to
any
Forraign
Bishop
,
yet
it
is
plain
,
that
I
subject
it
to
a
general
Council
;
for
he
says
,
I
assert
,
that
if
any
Bishops
abuse
their
Power
,
they
are
accountable
to
a
general
Council
,
that
is
,
unto
a
Forraign
Power
,
whereby
he
doth
his
utmost
,
to
tear
up
the
Church
of
England
by
the
Roots
,
to
subvert
his
Majesties
Supremacy
,
as
if
all
the
Laws
of
the
Land
concerning
it
,
had
not
been
of
any
force
,
all
this
by
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Defender
.
Good
man
!
What
a
happy
Reformation
is
here
!
How
is
he
now
concerned
for
the
Church
of
England
,
his
Majesties
Supremacy
,
the
Sacredness
of
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
't
is
very
wild
to
imagine
,
that
any
of
these
Persons
,
who
abuse
their
Power
,
should
not
be
accountable
to
the
rest
for
it
.
i.e.
to
the
Colledge
of
Bishops
;
which
last
words
are
not
mine
,
but
his
own
Comment
,
though
Printed
in
a
different
Character
,
as
if
they
were
mine
;
and
this
Colledge
of
Bishops
he
transforms
presently
into
a
general
Council
,
and
thus
I
subject
the
Arch-bishop
of
Canterbury
,
whom
I
first
equal
to
other
Bishops
(
as
I
do
indeed
with
respect
to
original
Right
and
Power
,
wherein
all
Bishops
are
equal
,
not
with
respect
to
Church-constitutions
)
to
some
Court
above
any
in
this
Realm
,
to
a
general
Council
,
a
Colledge
of
Bishops
,
and
now
I
am
in
danger
again
of
a
Praemunire
.
But
this
has
been
already
sufficiently
explained
,
in
what
sense
I
deny
the
Independency
of
Bishops
,
and
how
far
this
is
from
subjecting
them
to
any
Forraign
Jurisdiction
,
whether
of
Forraign
Prelates
,
or
a
general
Council
,
though
I
cannot
well
understand
,
how
a
general
Council
,
of
which
they
themselves
are
part
,
can
be
properly
called
a
Forraign
Court
,
or
Forraign
Jurisdiction
;
unless
the
Treaty
at
Nimengen
were
a
Forraign
Jurisdiction
to
all
those
Princes
and
States
,
who
sent
their
Plenipotentiaries
thither
to
act
for
them
.
However
to
satisfie
Mr.
Lob
,
I
shall
1.
freely
declare
my
thoughts
about
a
general
Council
.
2.
Consider
the
folly
of
that
suggestion
,
that
to
assert
the
Authority
of
a
general
Council
,
subverts
the
Kings
supremacy
,
and
incurs
a
Praemunire
.
1.
As
for
a
general
Council
,
my
thoughts
are
these
,
which
I
humbly
submit
to
my
Superiors
.
1.
That
there
never
was
,
nor
ever
can
be
in
a
strict
sense
,
a
general
and
oecumenical
Council
of
the
whole
Church
,
unless
the
Council
of
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
,
was
such
;
which
yet
was
not
general
,
unless
all
the
Apostles
were
there
,
which
I
suppose
will
not
be
easily
proved
;
for
it
is
not
likely
there
ever
should
be
a
Convention
on
of
Bishops
from
all
parts
of
the
Christian
World
,
nor
if
it
were
possible
,
that
there
should
be
some
few
Bishops
dispatcht
from
all
Christian
Churches
all
the
World
over
,
can
I
see
any
reason
,
why
this
should
be
called
a
general
Council
,
when
it
may
be
,
there
are
ten
times
as
many
Bishops
,
who
did
not
come
to
the
Council
,
as
those
who
did
;
and
why
should
the
less
.
Number
of
Bishops
assembled
in
Council
,
judge
for
all
the
rest
,
who
so
far
exceed
them
in
Numbers
,
and
it
may
be
are
not
inferior
to
them
in
Piety
and
Wisdom
:
Especially
considering
that
every
Bishop
has
the
supreme
Government
of
his
own
Church
,
2.
Since
every
Bishop
from
the
Unity
of
Episcopacy
,
and
his
obligations
to
Catholick
Communion
is
bound
,
as
far
as
he
can
,
to
govern
his
particular
Church
by
the
mutual
Counsel
and
Consent
of
his
Colleagues
,
we
must
acknowledg
,
that
both
Provincial
and
General
Councils
are
of
very
great
use
,
though
they
have
no
proper
jurisdiction
;
and
whatever
Bishop
should
wilfully
refuse
to
observe
the
Decrees
and
Canons
of
such
Councils
,
without
manifest
necessity
for
not
doing
it
,
would
be
guilty
of
such
pride
and
obstinacy
,
as
would
fall
very
little
short
of
the
Guilt
of
Schism
,
when
there
is
a
just
Reason
for
it
;
we
may
say
with
St.
Austin
,
St.
Cyprian
,
I
am
sure
,
thought
it
a
Matter
of
mighty
Consequence
to
manage
all
the
great
Affairs
of
the
Church
by
mutual
Advice
,
Mr.
Baxter
asks
me
,
whether
they
sent
these
Letters
all
the
World
over
;
This
way
St.
Austin
calls
an
Epistolare
Colloquium
,
Such
Councils
indeed
are
not
infallible
,
2.
But
now
,
suppose
a
man
should
assert
the
Authority
of
a
general
Council
,
how
does
this
subvert
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
or
incur
a
Premunire
?
For
let
the
Authority
of
a
general
Council
be
what
it
will
,
it
is
wholly
Spiritual
,
as
the
whole
Government
of
the
Church
is
,
considered
meerly
as
a
Church
or
Spiritual
Society
;
but
the
Supremacy
of
the
King
is
an
external
and
civil
Jurisdiction
in
all
Causes
,
and
over
all
Persons
Ecclesiastical
,
within
his
Dominions
;
and
Mr.
Lob
might
as
well
say
,
that
every
man
,
who
sets
up
any
spiritual
Authority
in
the
Church
,
subverts
the
Supremacy
of
the
King
;
and
thus
the
King's
Supremacy
makes
him
a
Bishop
and
a
Priest
too
,
a
Scandal
which
Mr.
Lob's
Predecessors
raised
in
Queen
Elizabeths
days
,
to
disswade
People
from
the
Oath
of
Supremacy
,
which
it
seems
they
were
not
then
so
fond
of
,
and
which
the
Queen
confutes
in
her
Injunctions
,
and
tells
her
Subjects
,
that
she
neither
doth
,
nor
ever
will
,
challenge
any
other
Authority
,
but
only
this
,
under
God
to
have
the
Soveraignty
and
Rule
over
all
manner
of
Persons
,
born
within
these
her
Realms
,
Dominions
,
and
Countries
,
of
what
Estate
,
either
Ecclesiastical
or
Temporal
soever
they
be
,
so
as
no
other
Forraign
Power
shall
or
ought
to
have
any
Superiority
over
them
.
When
Bishop
Jewel
writ
his
Apology
and
Defence
to
Scipio
,
a
Patrician
of
Venice
,
who
complained
of
the
English
Nation
for
not
sending
their
Legates
to
the
Council
of
Trent
,
he
never
thought
of
this
reason
against
it
,
that
it
was
contrary
to
the
King's
Supremacy
,
which
is
owned
and
confirmed
by
the
Laws
of
this
Land
;
and
we
may
observe
that
the
Statutes
of
Provisors
,
and
several
Laws
to
preserve
the
Liberties
of
the
Realm
from
the
Usurpations
of
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
or
any
other
Forraign
Potentate
,
were
made
and
confirmed
in
several
Kings
Reigns
,
long
before
Henry
the
8th
,
a
particular
Account
of
which
the
Reader
may
find
in
Dr.
Burnet's
History
of
the
Reformation
,
part
1.
Book
2.
p.
107.
&c.
upon
which
the
Clergy
were
convicted
in
a
Praemunire
by
King
Henry
the
8th
.
and
therefore
Arch-bishop
Bramhall
truly
observes
,
For
indeed
,
since
Princes
have
embraced
the
Christian
Faith
,
no
Bishops
,
excepting
the
Pope
of
Rome
,
have
pretended
to
call
a
general
Council
,
but
by
the
Will
and
Authority
of
the
Prince
,
nor
can
the
Decrees
and
Canons
of
any
Council
be
received
in
any
Kingdom
,
or
obtain
the
Authority
of
Laws
,
but
by
the
Consent
of
the
Prince
,
which
therefore
certainly
can
be
no
encroachment
upon
his
Supremacy
:
While
the
King
has
the
supreme
executive
Power
in
all
Causes
,
and
over
all
Persons
in
his
own
Hands
,
the
spiritual
Power
and
Authority
of
the
Church
is
no
invasion
of
his
Rights
.
This
is
sufficient
at
present
,
in
answer
to
Mr.
Lob's
insinuation
,
that
to
assert
the
Authority
of
general
Councils
,
subverts
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
subjects
the
Church
of
England
to
a
Forraign
Court
and
Jurisdiction
,
and
thereby
incurs
the
Penalty
of
a
Praemunire
;
whereby
we
see
,
that
he
understands
the
Law
as
little
,
as
he
does
the
Gospel
,
only
shews
his
good
Will
to
poor
Cassandrians
,
and
as
much
as
he
declames
against
penal
Laws
against
Dissenters
,
would
be
glad
to
see
the
Church
of
England
once
more
under
the
Execution
of
a
Praemunire
.
4.
Mr.
Lob
has
not
done
with
me
yet
,
but
to
make
me
a
perfect
Cassandrian
,
whether
I
will
or
not
,
he
adds
as
my
sense
,
That
this
Council
of
Forraign
Bishops
,
unto
which
they
(
i.e.
the
Bishops
of
the
Church
of
England
)
are
accountable
,
must
look
on
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
as
their
Primate
;
the
Primacy
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
being
acknowledged
,
it
seems
,
by
our
Author
himself
,
as
well
as
by
Bramhall
.
The
Primacy
(
he
saith
)
out
of
Cyprian
,
being
given
to
Peter
,
that
it
might
appear
,
that
the
Church
of
Christ
was
one
,
and
the
Chair
,
that
is
,
the
Apostolical
Office
and
Power
is
one
.
Thus
Cyprian
,
on
whom
lay
all
the
Care
of
the
Churches
,
dispatches
Letters
to
Rome
,
from
whence
they
were
sent
through
all
the
Catholick
Churches
;
all
this
is
to
be
found
from
p.
208.
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
.
This
is
a
terrible
Charge
indeed
,
and
home
to
the
Purpose
,
and
Mr.
Lob
is
a
terrible
Adversary
in
these
days
,
if
he
can
but
Swear
,
as
well
as
he
can
Write
;
for
all
this
is
Forgery
and
Villany
,
as
any
man
may
satisfie
himself
,
who
will
be
at
the
Pains
to
peruse
that
part
of
the
Defence
,
he
directs
to
;
where
I
am
so
far
from
asserting
the
Primacy
of
St.
Peter
over
all
Bishops
,
that
I
do
expresly
vindicate
that
passage
of
St.
Cyprian
,
which
the
Flatterers
of
the
Pope
alledge
for
this
Primacy
,
from
signifying
any
such
thing
;
and
for
the
Satisfaction
of
all
indifferent
Readers
,
what
Credit
is
to
be
given
to
Mr.
Lob
,
I
will
transcribe
the
whole
Passage
,
though
it
be
somewhat
long
,
as
a
sufficient
Confutation
of
this
Calumny
,
and
it
is
this
.
And
in
his
(
Cyprian's
)
Book
of
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
the
first
Argument
he
uses
to
prove
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
is
the
Unity
of
the
Apostolical
Office
(
and
what
that
means
,
I
have
already
sufficiently
explained
)
and
assigns
this
as
the
reason
,
why
our
Saviour
,
in
a
particular
Manner
,
committed
the
Keys
to
Peter
(
when
he
gave
the
same
Power
to
all
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
,
which
he
did
to
Peter
)
viz.
to
manifest
the
Unity
of
the
Apostolical
Office
and
Power
,
that
there
is
but
one
Chair
,
and
one
original
of
Vnity
,
which
begins
in
one
;
for
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
were
the
same
,
that
Peter
was
,
had
an
equal
share
in
the
Honour
and
Power
of
the
Apostolical
Office
;
but
the
beginning
is
from
Vnity
,
and
the
Primacy
is
given
to
Peter
,
that
it
might
appear
,
that
the
Church
of
Christ
is
one
,
and
the
Chair
one
,
i.e.
the
Apostolical
Office
and
Power
;
they
are
all
Pastors
,
but
there
is
but
one
Flock
,
which
is
fed
by
all
the
Apostles
with
a
joynt
Consent
.
This
is
the
plain
Scope
and
Design
of
this
Passage
of
St.
Cyprian
(
which
has
been
so
often
abused
,
especially
by
the
Romanists
)
that
our
Saviour
in
naming
Peter
only
,
in
giving
the
Apostolical
Power
,
did
signifie
,
that
the
Apostolical
Office
,
though
exercised
by
several
Persons
,
is
but
one
Office
and
Power
,
which
is
not
so
properly
divided
among
the
Apostles
,
as
administred
by
a
joynt
Consent
;
and
therefore
giving
this
Power
to
one
Apostle
,
included
the
bestowing
this
Power
on
the
whole
Apostolical
Colledge
.
And
therefore
,
when
St.
Cyprian
says
,
that
Christ
built
his
Church
upon
Peter
,
he
does
not
,
and
cannot
mean
,
the
Person
of
Peter
,
or
any
thing
peculiar
to
him
,
but
that
Apostolical
Office
and
Power
,
which
was
given
to
the
Colledge
of
the
Apostles
in
the
Name
of
Peter
,
as
the
Church
is
said
to
be
built
upon
the
Foundation
of
the
Apostles
and
Prophets
.
And
when
he
says
,
that
Christ
gave
the
Primacy
to
Peter
,
and
yet
at
the
same
time
affirms
,
that
the
other
Apostles
were
equal
sharers
with
him
in
Honour
and
Power
,
and
were
all
that
,
which
Peter
was
,
it
can
signifie
no
more
,
nor
no
less
,
than
that
Christ
named
Peter
first
,
or
rather
in
stead
of
all
the
Apostles
,
thereby
to
instruct
them
,
that
though
they
were
many
,
yet
their
Office
and
Power
was
but
one
,
which
they
must
exercise
as
one
man
with
one
Consent
.
This
I
suppose
is
sufficient
to
satisfie
any
man
,
how
far
I
am
from
ascribing
to
Peter
a
Primacy
over
all
the
Apostles
,
much
less
to
the
Pope
over
all
Bishops
,
as
Peter's
Successor
.
And
this
is
all
I
can
find
,
that
either
Mr.
Lob
or
Mr.
B.
urges
to
prove
me
engaged
in
a
Cassandrian
design
;
but
now
for
the
Contradictions
I
am
charged
with
.
Mr.
Baxter
says
,
if
he
be
Dr.
Stillingfleets
Defender
)
which
I
think
,
is
not
very
material
to
this
Controversie
,
whether
he
be
,
or
not
,
saith
and
unsaith
,
and
would
verifie
Contradictions
.
He
must
write
us
a
new
Dictionary
,
to
tell
us
,
in
what
Sense
he
takes
common
words
,
before
he
can
be
understood
.
He
defendeth
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
denial
of
any
political
,
constitutive
,
supreme
Power
,
and
yet
maintaineth
that
the
whole
Church
hath
one
Regent
part
,
which
all
must
obey
,
that
will
be
Members
.
This
I
confess
,
is
a
Contradiction
,
for
if
the
whole
Church
hath
one
Regent
Part
,
it
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
.
This
he
says
,
I
affirm
,
but
he
could
not
tell
where
,
and
therefore
never
pretends
to
cite
my
words
for
it
.
But
(
as
he
goes
on
)
he
will
not
grant
,
that
every
Political
body
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
;
and
yet
he
doth
but
say
(
if
we
deny
this
)
as
if
he
could
not
,
or
durst
not
tell
,
what
he
grants
,
or
denies
;
yet
he
grants
that
(
every
Political
body
consists
of
a
Pars
Imperans
and
Subdita
)
and
that
Church
Governors
united
and
governing
by
Consent
are
the
Pars
Imperans
,
and
Christian
People
the
Pars
Subdita
)
but
saith
he
(
all
this
is
true
without
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
)
can
you
tell
how
his
asserted
,
and
his
denyed
Propositions
differ
?
1.
It
is
not
a
Regent
part
he
denyeth
.
2.
It
is
not
,
that
this
Regent
part
is
one
to
the
whole
Body
,
the
Church
.
For
if
it
were
that
,
he
would
not
so
zealously
contradict
and
condemn
us
,
that
say
the
same
thing
as
he
.
And
here
Mr.
B.
himself
has
unridled
this
whole
Mystery
of
Contradictions
,
though
he
was
not
willing
to
understand
it
,
because
then
he
had
had
nothing
to
object
.
I
deny
,
that
there
is
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
either
of
a
National
,
or
the
Universal
Church
,
but
yet
affirm
,
that
there
is
a
Government
in
the
Church
,
and
consequently
,
that
there
is
a
governing
and
a
governed
Part
,
that
the
Bishops
are
the
Governors
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Christian
People
,
those
who
are
governed
;
now
I
thought
Mr.
B.
without
a
new
Dictionary
(
unless
it
be
a
Dictionary
to
teach
common
sense
,
which
indeed
would
be
the
best
Cure
in
the
World
for
Fanaticism
)
might
have
understood
,
that
when
I
denyed
,
that
there
is
any
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
,
and
at
the
same
time
asserted
,
that
the
Bishops
are
the
Regent
and
governing
part
of
the
Church
,
I
could
not
mean
,
that
the
Bishops
were
the
Governors
of
the
Church
,
as
united
into
one
Common
Regent
Head
over
the
whole
Church
,
but
they
were
Governors
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
every
Bishop
governed
his
own
share
and
portion
of
it
,
as
committed
to
his
Charge
.
This
was
the
State
of
the
Controversie
between
Mr.
B.
and
the
Dr.
Mr.
Baxter
will
not
allow
a
National
Church
,
to
be
one
political
Body
and
Society
,
unless
it
have
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
for
he
says
,
many
Churches
associated
for
mutual
Help
and
Concord
,
are
but
in
a
loose
sense
called
a
Church
,
not
in
a
political
Sense
,
but
equivocally
so
called
;
and
that
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
of
the
particular
Churches
severally
,
makes
it
no
Church
,
but
an
association
of
many
Churches
.
But
the
Reader
will
be
the
better
able
to
judge
of
this
Dispute
,
if
I
briefly
explain
the
true
Reason
of
all
this
zeal
for
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
,
which
I
perceive
very
few
People
understand
;
for
indeed
it
is
a
Mystery
but
lately
discovered
by
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
earnestly
espoused
by
Mr.
Humphry
,
to
justifie
all
the
Schisms
and
Separations
in
the
World
,
and
to
make
all
the
distinct
and
separate
Communions
in
a
Nation
,
one
National
Church
,
and
all
the
separate
Churches
in
the
World
,
one
Catholick
Church
.
For
,
1.
they
assert
,
that
a
particular
Congregation
associated
for
local
presential
Communion
under
a
fixed
Pastor
,
is
the
only
Church
of
Divine
institution
,
which
I
have
at
large
confuted
in
the
5
and
6
Chapters
of
the
Defence
,
and
none
of
my
Adversaries
have
been
so
hardy
yet
,
as
to
attempt
the
least
Reply
.
2.
That
all
these
single
Churches
all
the
World
over
become
one
Catholick
Church
,
not
by
any
Union
among
themselves
,
but
by
being
all
united
in
Christ
,
who
is
the
supreme
Regent
constitutive
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
there
is
no
need
they
should
be
all
united
to
one
another
,
to
make
one
Catholick
Church
,
so
they
be
all
united
to
Christ
,
the
Head
of
the
Church
.
Of
which
I
have
discoursed
above
in
the
second
Chapter
of
this
Vindication
.
3.
It
hence
follows
,
that
it
is
impossible
to
make
one
National
Church
upon
pure
Ecclesiastical
Principles
;
for
every
one
of
these
single
Churches
with
their
particular
Pastors
over
them
,
are
original
Churches
of
Divine
Institution
,
and
no
one
Church
or
Pastor
,
has
a
superior
Power
and
Jurisdiction
over
the
rest
;
and
therefore
though
particular
Churches
may
voluntarily
associate
with
each
other
for
mutual
Help
and
Concord
,
yet
this
cannot
make
them
one
Political
organized
Body
or
Church
,
but
only
a
Church
in
a
loose
equivocal
sense
;
for
it
is
contrary
to
all
the
Maxims
of
Politie
,
that
That
should
be
called
one
Political
Body
,
which
has
not
one
Political
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
that
is
,
one
superior
Power
over
the
whole
Body
,
either
Monarchical
,
Aristocratical
,
or
Democratical
;
and
since
Christ
hath
given
no
one
Pastor
or
Bishop
a
superior
Authority
to
govern
the
rest
,
which
would
make
the
Church
a
Monarchy
,
nor
united
all
Pastors
into
one
governing
Head
,
which
should
govern
the
whole
Church
,
and
their
own
Members
by
a
major
Vote
,
which
is
an
Aristocracy
,
nor
erected
a
mixt
Tribunal
of
Pastors
and
People
,
which
is
a
Democracy
,
it
is
evident
,
that
the
several
Churches
and
Pastors
in
a
Nation
,
are
not
by
divine
Institution
united
under
any
one
Ecclesiastical
governing
Head
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
one
Political
National
Church
;
which
makes
it
a
fond
thing
to
cry
out
of
Schism
and
Separation
,
from
the
National
Church
of
England
,
when
there
is
,
and
can
be
no
such
thing
,
in
a
proper
Ecclesiastical
sense
.
4.
And
therefore
the
only
Notion
of
a
National
Church
,
is
all
the
Churches
of
a
Nation
united
under
the
King
,
as
the
accidental
Head
of
the
Church
,
who
is
the
supreme
Head
,
and
Governor
of
the
Church
in
his
Dominions
.
And
thus
the
National
Church
of
England
has
no
other
Foundation
,
but
the
Laws
of
the
Land
,
and
the
Supremacy
of
the
King
;
it
is
the
Creature
of
the
supreme
Power
,
which
made
it
,
and
may
unmake
it
again
,
when
it
pleaseth
.
5.
And
therefore
the
most
effectual
way
of
uniting
all
Dissenters
,
is
not
to
enjoyn
Conformity
to
any
one
Constitution
,
but
to
give
a
legal
Establishment
to
the
different
Sects
and
Parties
among
us
,
at
least
to
all
those
,
which
are
tolerable
,
which
shall
be
under
the
Government
of
the
King's
Ministers
,
whether
Lay
or
Clergy
,
in
Ecclesiastical
affairs
,
and
thus
all
the
Dissenters
,
which
are
now
among
us
,
as
much
as
they
dissent
from
the
present
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
from
each
other
,
shall
immediately
become
the
Members
of
this
accidental
National
Church
of
England
,
under
the
King
as
an
accidental
Head
;
and
thus
the
Schism
,
which
we
so
much
complain
of
,
is
effectually
cured
,
according
to
Mr.
Humphry's
Materials
for
Union
,
which
shall
be
particularly
examined
in
their
due
place
.
This
is
the
plain
account
of
this
whole
Intrigue
,
and
that
the
impartial
Reader
may
the
better
judge
,
where
the
Dispute
lies
between
me
and
my
Adversaries
,
I
shall
as
plainly
represent
in
one
view
a
Scheme
of
my
Principles
,
upon
which
I
oppose
this
.
As
1.
That
Christ
hath
but
one
Church
,
which
we
call
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
is
antecedent
in
order
of
Nature
before
particular
Congregational
Churches
,
which
are
Churches
not
considered
as
independent
Congregations
,
but
as
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
which
I
proved
at
large
in
the
3d.
Chapter
of
the
Defence
,
and
the
1st
.
Chap.
of
this
Vindication
.
2.
That
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
are
one
Catholick
Church
,
as
united
in
one
Catholick
Communion
;
as
I
have
proved
in
the
4th
.
Chapter
of
the
Defence
,
and
the
2d
.
Chapter
of
this
Vindication
.
3.
That
the
Church
is
a
Society
under
Government
,
has
a
governing
and
a
governed
Part
;
that
the
Bishops
are
the
Governors
of
the
Church
,
and
Christian
People
,
those
who
are
governed
.
4.
That
all
Bishops
are
originally
of
equal
Power
,
and
that
every
Bishop
is
supreme
in
his
own
Diocess
.
5.
That
yet
all
Bishops
and
Churches
are
bound
to
live
in
Catholick
Communion
with
each
other
,
that
is
,
as
Members
of
the
same
great
Body
,
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
every
Bishop
,
as
far
as
possibly
he
can
,
must
govern
his
particular
Church
and
Diocess
,
by
the
mutual
Advice
and
Consent
of
neighbour
Bishops
.
6.
That
this
is
the
Foundation
of
those
greater
Combinations
of
Churches
,
considered
as
Churches
,
or
pure
Ecclesiastical
Societies
,
into
Archiepiscopal
,
Metropolitical
,
or
National
Churches
,
which
signifies
no
more
than
the
voluntary
Combination
of
such
Bishops
and
Churches
into
a
stricter
Association
,
for
the
better
Preservation
of
one
Communion
,
by
mutual
Advice
and
Counsel
,
Concord
and
Agreement
,
in
Worship
,
Discipline
,
and
Government
.
7.
That
for
the
preservation
of
Peace
and
Order
in
this
united
Body
or
Confederation
of
neighbour
Churches
,
one
or
more
Bishops
may
by
a
general
Consent
be
intrusted
with
a
superior
Power
of
calling
Synods
,
receiving
Appeals
,
and
exercising
some
peculiar
Acts
of
Discipline
,
under
the
Regulation
of
Ecclesiastical
Canons
;
which
is
the
Power
now
ascribed
to
Arch-bishops
and
Metropolitans
.
8.
That
yet
there
cannot
be
one
constitutive
Ecclesiastical
Regent
Head
in
a
National
,
much
less
in
the
Universal
Church
;
not
Monarchical
,
because
no
one
Bishop
has
an
original
Right
to
govern
the
rest
in
any
Nation
,
and
therefore
whatever
Power
may
be
granted
him
by
Consent
,
yet
it
is
not
essential
to
the
Being
or
Unity
of
the
Church
,
which
is
one
,
not
by
being
united
under
one
superior
governing
Power
,
but
by
living
in
one
Communion
;
not
Aristocratical
,
because
every
Bishop
being
supreme
in
his
own
Diocess
,
and
accountable
to
Christ
for
his
Government
,
cannot
and
ought
not
so
wholly
to
divest
himself
of
this
Power
,
as
to
be
in
all
Oases
necessarily
determined
and
over-ruled
by
the
Major
Vote
,
contrary
to
his
own
Judgment
and
Conscience
;
he
is
always
bound
to
live
in
Christian
Communion
with
his
Colleagues
,
while
they
do
not
violate
the
Terms
of
Catholick
Communion
;
and
as
far
as
possibly
he
can
,
he
must
comply
with
their
Decrees
to
preserve
Peace
and
Order
;
but
if
they
should
decree
any
thing
,
which
he
judges
prejudicial
to
his
Church
,
he
is
bound
not
to
comply
with
them
;
because
the
chief
Care
of
his
Church
is
committed
to
him
,
and
he
cannot
so
intirely
give
away
the
Government
of
it
to
others
.
From
whence
it
appears
,
that
all
the
Bishops
in
a
Nation
,
much
less
all
the
Bishops
in
the
World
,
cannot
unite
into
such
a
Colledge
,
as
shall
by
a
supreme
Authority
,
govern
all
Bishops
and
Churches
by
a
Major
Vote
,
which
is
the
Form
of
Aristocratical
Government
:
And
for
the
same
Reason
a
National
Church
considered
as
a
Church
,
cannot
be
under
the
government
of
a
Democratical
Head
,
for
if
the
Colledge
of
Bishops
have
not
this
Power
,
much
less
has
a
mixt
Colledge
of
Bishops
and
People
.
Let
any
impartial
Reader
now
judge
,
wherein
I
contradict
my self
in
this
Scheme
of
Church
Government
:
I
acknowledge
the
Church
to
be
a
governed
Society
,
to
have
a
pars
Imperans
&
Subdita
;
for
every
Bishop
is
the
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
and
thus
the
whole
Church
is
governed
by
parts
.
I
deny
,
that
there
is
any
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
a
National
or
Universal
Church
;
because
every
Bishop
is
the
supreme
Governor
of
his
Church
,
and
cannot
so
absolutely
part
with
his
original
Right
to
any
Bishop
,
or
Colledge
of
Bishops
,
as
to
oblige
himself
to
govern
his
Church
by
their
Order
and
Direction
,
though
contrary
to
his
own
Judgment
and
Conscience
;
but
yet
the
Episcopacy
is
one
,
because
all
Bishops
have
the
same
Power
,
and
are
bound
to
live
in
the
same
Communion
,
and
to
govern
their
several
Churches
by
mutual
Advice
and
Consent
;
and
in
order
to
this
,
may
unite
themselves
in
stricter
Associations
and
Confederacies
,
under
such
Rules
of
Government
,
as
do
not
encroach
upon
the
unalienable
Rights
and
Power
of
the
Episcopacy
:
And
this
is
sufficient
to
make
them
one
Church
,
for
if
the
Catholick
Church
be
one
by
one
Catholick
Communion
,
why
may
not
the
National
Church
be
one
,
by
one
Communion
?
And
those
guilty
of
Schism
,
who
separate
without
just
Cause
from
such
a
National
Union
of
Churches
,
though
it
were
not
backt
by
any
Civil
Authority
or
humane
Laws
?
And
now
I
doubt
not
,
but
every
intelligent
Reader
,
will
think
it
needless
to
give
a
particular
Answer
to
the
cavilling
Objections
of
Mr.
Baxter
and
Mr.
Humphrey
,
but
I
must
beg
his
patience
(
for
the
sake
of
others
,
who
are
very
unwilling
to
understand
these
Matters
)
while
I
particularly
apply
,
what
I
have
now
discoursed
,
in
Answer
to
them
;
being
ashamed
,
that
I
am
forced
to
prevent
such
wilful
or
ignorant
Mistakes
,
by
so
frequent
a
Repetition
of
the
same
things
;
but
I
consider
,
it
is
better
to
do
this
effectually
once
,
than
to
be
obliged
to
write
,
as
often
as
these
men
can
spit
Books
.
The
original
Dispute
was
concerning
the
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
of
England
;
in
Answer
to
which
Question
,
who
is
the
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
of
England
,
I
1.
distinguished
between
a
National
Church
,
considered
as
a
Church
,
and
as
incorporated
into
the
State
,
and
2.
reinforced
the
Deans
Answer
to
this
Question
;
and
though
I
know
not
any
one
thing
,
that
need
be
added
to
what
I
have
already
Discoursed
in
the
7th
.
Chapter
of
the
Defence
,
yet
this
being
the
Chief
,
and
almost
only
Place
my
Adversaries
have
thought
fit
to
fix
on
,
to
shew
their
great
Abilities
,
I
shall
briefly
review
this
Dispute
in
the
same
Method
,
which
I
before
observed
,
that
I
may
not
confound
my
Readers
with
altering
the
state
of
the
Question
.
I
distinguish
between
a
National
Church
,
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
.
The
Church
of
Christ
considered
in
its
self
,
is
either
Vniversal
or
Particular
,
but
it
must
be
considered
as
incorporated
in
the
State
,
to
make
it
National
.
Now
this
is
said
without
any
Reason
,
and
therefore
might
be
as
well
denyed
,
without
assigning
any
Reason
for
such
a
Denyal
;
but
to
satisfie
Mr.
H.
in
this
Point
,
I
answer
.
That
the
Church
,
considered
as
a
Church
,
is
not
necessarily
considered
,
either
as
Universal
or
Particular
.
The
essential
Notion
of
a
Christian
Church
,
is
a
Body
or
Society
of
men
confederated
in
the
Faith
,
and
for
the
Worship
of
Christ
under
such
Church
Officers
,
as
he
hath
appointed
:
That
this
Church
is
Universal
,
is
founded
on
the
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
,
which
unites
all
particular
Societies
of
Christians
into
one
Body
;
that
it
is
divided
into
particular
Churches
,
is
owing
to
the
Necessity
of
things
,
for
since
all
Christians
in
remote
and
distant
places
of
the
World
,
cannot
all
worship
God
together
,
nor
live
under
the
Care
and
Government
of
one
Bishop
,
this
makes
it
necessary
,
that
the
Episcopal
Office
and
Power
be
divided
into
many
hands
,
and
the
Multitude
of
Christians
divided
into
many
particular
Churches
,
under
their
proper
Pastors
,
but
in
the
same
Communion
.
Now
if
Catholick
Communion
makes
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
,
one
universal
Catholick
Church
,
and
a
particular
Communion
,
makes
a
particular
Church
,
why
does
not
a
National
Church-Communion
make
one
National
Church
?
A
Church
is
a
Church
,
considered
as
a
Religious
Body
and
Society
of
Christians
,
as
I
have
now
described
it
,
but
it
is
Universal
,
National
,
or
Particular
,
from
the
different
degrees
and
kinds
of
Communion
,
and
therefore
Churches
joyned
in
National
Communion
are
properly
called
a
National
Church
,
though
there
were
no
Christian
Prince
to
head
it
.
And
that
a
National
Church
is
of
a
distinct
Consideration
,
as
it
is
a
Church
,
and
as
incorporated
with
the
State
,
I
proved
in
the
Defence
from
this
Topick
,
that
de
facto
,
there
have
been
,
and
may
be
still
,
National
Churches
,
when
the
Prince
and
great
numbers
of
the
People
are
not
Christians
.
For
Patriarchal
and
Metropolitan
combinations
of
Churches
,
are
of
the
same
Nature
with
what
we
call
National
Churches
,
and
such
there
were
in
the
times
of
Paganism
under
Heathen
and
persecuting
Emperors
.
To
which
Mr.
H.
Answers
,
A
Patriarchal
Church
,
and
a
Metropolitan
Church
,
is
not
a
Church
National
.
A
Patriarchate
may
contain
in
it
the
Churches
of
many
Nations
;
A
Metropolitan
but
half
the
Christians
of
one
,
and
so
the
one
is
too
bigg
,
and
the
other
too
little
to
be
a
National
Church
,
and
a
Diocesan
much
less
:
But
what
is
this
to
the
Purpose
?
Can
Mr.
H.
prove
,
that
a
Patriarchate
must
of
necessity
be
always
larger
,
and
a
Metropolitan
Church
always
less
than
a
Nation
?
Might
not
a
National
Synod
before
the
Conversion
of
Princes
to
the
Christian
Faith
have
set
up
a
Patriarch
,
or
Metropolitan
over
themselves
?
and
may
not
the
Kings
of
England
,
France
,
and
Spain
,
do
so
still
,
if
they
please
?
And
yet
I
did
not
say
,
that
a
Patriarchal
or
Metropolitan
Church
,
was
a
National
Church
,
but
of
the
same
Nature
with
a
National
Church
,
that
is
,
they
were
a
voluntary
Combination
of
Churches
,
founded
on
the
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
,
antecedent
to
any
civil
Conjunction
,
by
the
Laws
and
Authority
of
Princes
;
and
I
would
fain
know
any
Reason
,
why
all
the
Christian
Churches
in
a
Nation
may
not
thus
unite
,
and
why
Churches
thus
united
,
may
not
be
called
a
National
Church
,
though
they
were
not
Confirmed
and
Establisht
by
humane
Laws
;
though
the
Prince
,
and
great
part
of
his
Subjects
,
were
Infidels
,
Hereticks
or
Schismaticks
.
But
Mr.
H.
observes
,
that
I
say
,
I
cannot
tell
,
why
it
is
accidental
to
the
Church
of
Christ
to
be
National
,
any
more
than
to
be
Vniversal
,
or
Patriarchal
and
Metropolitical
,
any
more
than
Vniversal
,
and
Answers
,
But
when
I
tell
him
,
that
the
Body
of
Christ
(
which
is
his
Church
)
may
subsist
,
though
there
were
never
a
Patriarch
,
or
Metropolitan
in
the
Earth
;
I
hope
,
he
can
see
(
if
he
will
)
how
the
Consederation
of
the
Church
,
as
Patriarchal
or
Metropolitical
,
and
so
National
,
must
be
accidental
to
it
.
I
am
very
willing
to
see
any
thing
,
I
can
;
but
I
can
see
nothing
here
,
but
his
Mistake
.
That
the
Church
cannot
subsist
without
a
Patriarch
or
Metropolitan
,
I
never
said
yet
,
nor
does
he
produce
any
place
,
where
I
have
said
it
,
for
what
he
says
,
are
not
my
words
,
but
his
own
Comment.
All
that
I
say
is
this
,
that
the
Association
and
Confederacy
of
neighbour
Churches
is
founded
on
the
Law
of
Catholick
Communion
,
and
that
Catholick
Communion
cannot
be
maintained
without
it
;
that
such
Combinations
of
Churches
in
several
Nations
and
Provinces
there
were
,
long
before
there
were
any
Christian
Princes
,
and
may
be
so
still
,
though
there
were
no
Christian
Kings
in
the
World
,
and
therefore
that
a
Church
may
be
National
,
without
being
incorporated
into
the
State
.
It
is
true
,
since
the
first
Records
of
Church-History
,
these
greater
Combinations
of
Churches
,
have
by
mutual
Consent
had
a
Patriarch
,
Primate
,
or
Metropolitan
set
over
them
,
and
therefore
we
cannot
speak
of
these
Churches
in
the
Ancient
Language
,
without
calling
them
Patriarchal
or
Metropolitical
Churches
;
but
my
Argument
does
not
proceed
upon
the
Union
of
Churches
under
a
Patriarch
or
Metropolitan
,
but
upon
their
Association
for
Advice
and
Councel
,
and
Discipline
,
for
the
preservation
of
Catholick
Communion
.
There
may
be
such
Associations
without
a
Patriarch
or
Metropolitan
;
but
the
universal
Church
has
always
thought
it
most
convenient
to
have
one
;
and
Mr.
H.
is
greatly
mistaken
to
think
,
that
every
thing
,
which
is
not
essential
to
a
Church
,
is
accidental
.
There
are
a
great
many
prudential
Constitutions
in
Societies
,
which
are
of
great
use
to
the
well-being
of
a
Society
,
though
not
of
absolute
necessity
to
its
being
;
and
he
would
be
thought
a
very
mean
Politician
,
who
should
call
the
Results
of
the
best
Reason
and
Consideration
,
and
most
mature
advice
for
the
publick
Good
,
accidental
Constitutions
.
The
Union
of
neighbour
Churches
for
Worship
,
Discipline
and
Government
,
is
not
accidental
to
the
Church
,
but
the
necessary
Result
of
Catholick
Communion
,
which
is
a
binding
Law
to
all
Churches
,
and
hereon
I
found
a
National
Church
;
The
Superiority
and
Jurisdiction
of
Patriarchs
or
Metropolitans
,
is
not
essential
to
the
Church
,
but
a
present
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
which
ought
not
to
be
called
Accidental
,
unless
when
they
are
the
Results
of
Chance
,
or
the
Effects
of
Folly
,
Ignorance
,
and
Rashness
,
like
Mr.
H's
accidental
National
Church
,
patcht
up
of
forty
separate
Communions
,
united
in
an
accidental
Head
;
but
this
man
,
I
perceive
,
is
an
Epicurean
Divine
,
who
makes
the
Church
,
as
that
Philosopher
did
the
World
,
by
a
fortuitous
jumble
of
Atoms
.
But
at
last
,
Mr.
H.
grants
me
all
that
I
ask
,
with
reference
to
National
Churches
;
for
to
prove
,
That
the
Vnion
of
all
the
Christian
Churches
in
a
Nation
into
one
Body
and
Society
,
is
no
more
an
accidental
Consideration
of
the
Church
,
than
the
universal
Church
it self
is
,
our
Saviour
gave
Command
to
his
Apostles
to
go
teach
all
Nations
,
and
to
plant
Churches
in
them
,
and
therefore
this
was
the
Intention
of
our
Saviour
,
that
there
should
be
Churches
in
all
Nations
,
as
well
as
in
all
the
World
;
and
if
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
must
make
but
one
Church
,
then
certainly
much
more
must
all
the
Churches
in
a
Nation
be
but
one
;
which
are
in
a
nearer
Capacity
of
Communion
with
each
other
,
than
the
Churches
of
all
the
World
are
,
and
whereby
Catholick
Vnity
and
Communion
may
be
more
easily
preserved
,
than
if
all
the
Churches
in
a
Nation
were
single
and
independent
;
there
being
a
more
easie
correspondence
between
Nations
,
than
between
every
Town
and
City
in
distant
Nations
.
To
this
Mr.
H.
replies
.
And
as
for
Christs
Command
of
planting
Churches
in
the
whole
World
,
and
so
in
Nations
,
and
Cities
and
Towns
,
requiring
Vnity
and
Communion
every
where
among
Christians
(
i.
e.
the
Unity
and
Communion
of
one
Body
,
for
that
is
my
meaning
)
it
may
warrant
the
Combinations
of
Patriarchal
,
Metropolitical
,
National
,
Diocesan
,
and
Parochial
Churches
to
this
end
(
i.
e.
to
maintain
one
Catholick
Communion
)
if
he
please
,
provided
only
,
that
these
Forms
be
held
only
accidental
Forms
,
according
to
humane
prudence
,
and
not
the
Essential
Form
of
the
Church
of
Christ
,
according
to
divine
Institution
.
But
we
are
not
a
talking
of
Church-forms
,
but
of
Church-Communion
.
The
Patriarchal
or
Metropolitical
Church-form
is
an
Ecclesiastical
Constitution
,
though
not
therefore
accidental
,
as
I
observed
before
;
but
Catholick
Communion
is
a
divine
Institution
,
and
therefore
the
Combinations
of
Churches
for
Catholick
Communion
is
divine
also
,
Now
if
Mr.
H.
will
,
as
we
see
at
last
he
does
,
own
such
Combinations
of
Churches
into
one
Body
for
Catholick
Communion
,
according
to
our
Saviours
,
that
is
,
a
divine
Institution
,
then
we
find
a
National
Church
antecedent
to
any
humane
Laws
,
and
of
a
distinct
Consideration
from
a
Church
incorporated
into
the
State
.
But
after
all
,
I
wonder
what
Church-form
Mr.
H.
will
own
to
be
of
divine
Institution
,
since
he
says
,
that
Patriarchal
,
Metropolitical
,
National
,
Diocesan
,
and
Parochial
Churches
,
must
be
held
only
accidental
forms
according
to
humane
prudence
,
there
is
no
form
left
,
that
I
know
of
,
but
an
independent
Church-form
,
to
be
of
divine
Institution
;
and
if
Mr.
H.
will
own
this
,
farewell
to
Catholick
Communion
,
for
Independency
in
the
very
Nature
of
it
,
is
a
Schism
,
as
I
have
proved
in
the
Defence
.
There
is
one
thing
more
Mr.
H.
says
,
which
,
because
it
is
very
pleasant
,
I
reserved
to
the
last
.
When
we
speak
of
a
National
Church
,
our
own
is
always
to
be
understood
,
about
which
the
Dispute
is
and
our
Church
is
a
National
Political
Church
,
no
otherwise
but
upon
this
account
(
that
is
,
that
the
People
and
the
Prince
are
Christians
)
and
the
Supposition
hereof
is
necessary
to
it
.
And
a
little
after
he
tells
us
,
By
a
National
Church
we
commonly
understand
(
I
apprehend
)
a
Political
Church
,
wherein
all
the
particular
Christians
and
Churches
in
a
Nation
,
and
those
only
,
are
combined
under
the
Government
,
through
the
supreme
Magistrate
,
to
Church-purposes
.
This
is
such
a
loose
description
of
a
National
Church
,
as
may
serve
almost
any
purpose
;
But
the
whole
force
of
his
Reasoning
is
this
,
that
the
National
Church
of
England
(
and
so
other
National
Churches
under
Christian
Princes
)
is
incorporated
into
the
State
,
ergo
,
it
is
a
National
Church
,
only
as
it
is
incorporated
into
the
State
,
and
the
Supposition
of
this
is
necessary
to
make
it
a
National
Church
;
the
last
Result
of
which
,
is
no
more
but
this
,
Bellarmine
thou
liest
.
I
had
asserted
and
proved
,
that
a
National
Church
may
be
considered
as
a
Church
,
and
as
incorporated
into
the
State
,
in
Answer
to
this
;
Mr.
H.
says
,
that
the
Church
of
England
is
a
National
Church
,
only
as
it
is
incorporated
into
the
State
,
which
is
the
thing
he
ought
to
have
proved
,
but
he
thought
it
more
convenient
only
to
affirm
it
;
how
easie
is
it
to
answer
Books
,
if
bold
denyals
,
or
bold
and
naked
Assertions
may
pass
for
an
answer
?
Or
does
Mr.
H.
indeed
think
,
that
because
the
Church
of
England
is
confirmed
and
established
by
Civil
Laws
,
and
Sanctions
,
and
humane
Authority
,
therefore
it
can
be
considered
as
a
Church
upon
no
other
account
?
May
not
the
same
thing
be
considered
under
different
Respects
and
Relations
?
Or
does
he
think
with
Mr.
Hobb's
,
that
Christianity
it self
can
be
a
Law
to
us
,
only
considered
as
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
because
it
is
now
made
the
Law
of
the
Land
?
And
if
Christian
Religion
as
the
Law
and
Institution
of
Christ
,
be
of
a
distinct
Consideration
from
its
being
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
so
must
the
Christian
Church
be
too
,
the
Institution
of
which
is
a
great
part
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
the
Sacraments
and
Promises
,
the
Remission
of
sins
,
and
eternal
Life
being
confined
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
and
the
Laws
of
Princes
can
as
well
make
a
new
Christian
Religion
,
as
a
new
Christian
Church
;
and
therefore
a
National
Church
must
be
distinctly
considered
as
a
Church
,
and
as
incorporated
into
the
State
,
for
no
Civil
Authority
can
make
that
to
be
a
Church
,
which
is
not
a
Church
,
nor
that
to
be
one
National
Church
,
which
is
not
one
National
Communion
,
one
Communion
being
necessary
to
make
any
Church
one
,
whether
it
be
the
Universal
,
National
,
or
particular
Church
.
But
of
this
more
hereafter
.
Having
thus
vindicated
a
National
Church
,
and
proved
it
to
be
a
Church
,
before
and
after
its
incorporation
into
the
State
,
the
next
inquiry
is
,
whether
a
National
Church
be
a
Political
Body
or
Society
,
now
this
Dispute
will
quickly
be
at
an
end
,
if
we
do
but
recover
the
true
State
of
the
Controversie
:
Mr.
B.
asked
,
what
is
the
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
of
England
?
the
Dean
denyed
,
that
there
is
any
such
Head
of
the
Church
of
England
considered
as
a
Church
,
though
the
King
be
the
supreme
Head
and
Governor
of
the
Church
,
as
it
is
incorporated
into
the
State
:
Mr.
B.
replyes
,
that
the
Church
must
have
such
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
because
every
political
Society
must
have
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
or
else
it
is
not
one
Politie
:
to
this
I
answered
in
the
Defence
of
the
Dean
,
that
if
the
Church
cannot
be
a
Political
Society
without
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
then
the
Church
is
not
a
Political
Society
,
for
it
neither
have
nor
can
have
any
such
constitutive
Regent
Head
on
earth
over
the
whole
.
That
the
Church
is
one
,
not
by
one
superior
Power
over
the
whole
,
an
informing
,
specifying
,
unifying
,
supreme
Power
,
as
Mr.
B.
calls
it
,
but
by
one
Communion
.
Now
Mr.
B.
in
his
Answer
to
me
,
Definition
of
Politica
,
and
observes
,
that
Politie
is
either
a
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
Commonwealth
.
That
Hooker
and
many
others
entitle
their
Books
of
Ecclesiastical
Politie
,
and
Spalatensis
's
learned
Volumns
are
de
Republica
Ecclesiastica
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
?
Does
Hooker
set
up
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
over
the
Church
?
Do
any
of
them
prove
,
that
Civil
and
Ecclesiastical
Politie
is
the
same
thing
?
Do
not
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastical
Common-wealth
differ
as
much
,
as
the
Church
and
the
State
?
And
therefore
he
must
still
prove
,
that
as
one
supreme
Regent
Head
is
necessary
to
the
Unity
of
a
State
or
Kingdom
,
so
it
is
to
the
Unity
of
the
Church
;
which
will
be
a
fair
Advance
towards
Popery
.
And
yet
I
find
nothing
like
a
Proof
of
this
,
but
a
down
right
Affirmation
without
any
Proof
,
That
the
Regent
part
,
is
the
Informing
part
;
if
it
have
not
one
Regent
part
,
it
is
not
one
Society
,
as
Political
:
If
it
have
none
,
it
is
no
Politie
;
if
it
have
many
,
it
is
many
.
This
I
grant
is
true
of
such
Societies
,
as
are
one
by
one
supreme
unifying
Power
;
but
it
is
not
true
of
such
a
Society
,
as
is
one
,
not
by
one
supreme
Power
over
the
Whole
,
but
by
one
Communion
:
And
such
a
Society
the
Church
is
,
as
I
largely
proved
in
the
Defence
,
and
therefore
the
Church
must
be
excepted
from
Mr.
B's
Rules
and
Definitions
of
Politie
.
In
another
place
Mr.
B.
suspects
,
But
do
I
not
know
,
That
Head
is
commonly
taken
for
Synonimal
with
summa
potestas
,
or
the
supreme
Power
?
Yes
I
do
,
and
deny
that
there
is
such
a
visible
Regent
Head
over
a
National
Church
,
considered
as
a
Church
.
Or
do
I
not
know
,
That
a
constitutive
Cause
,
in
the
common
Sence
of
Logicians
,
signifieth
the
essentiating
Cause
,
as
distinct
from
the
efficient
and
final
.
Yes
,
I
know
this
too
well
:
A
Political
Society
either
hath
Matter
and
Form
,
or
not
.
If
yea
,
what
is
the
Form
,
if
not
the
Regent
part
in
relation
to
the
Body
?
Its
species
is
the
specifying
Form
,
quae
dat
esse
&
nomen
,
and
in
existence
it
is
the
unifying
or
individuating
Form
.
But
if
it
have
no
Form
,
it
is
nothing
,
and
hath
no
name
.
This
is
a
formidable
man
at
Metaphysicks
and
Logick
,
and
I
do
not
wonder
,
he
was
so
often
too
hard
for
St.
Matthew
Hales
,
(
as
he
himself
tells
us
,
in
his
late
additional
remarks
on
the
Life
of
that
excellent
Person
,
whose
Name
and
Memory
is
Martyred
by
such
Historians
)
for
I
think
,
few
men
of
understanding
can
deal
with
him
.
But
the
plain
English
of
all
these
hard
words
,
and
Metaphysical
subtilty
,
is
no
more
but
this
.
That
in
every
Society
there
is
something
,
which
makes
it
such
a
kind
of
Society
,
which
in
allusion
to
Natural
beings
,
he
calls
the
Form
of
it
.
That
a
Political
Body
being
a
Society
under
one
supreme
Government
,
the
supreme
Power
must
be
the
Form
of
it
,
and
therefore
the
National
Church
being
a
Political
Society
,
considered
as
a
Church
,
must
have
a
supreme
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
as
the
Form
of
it
.
The
result
of
which
reasoning
is
this
,
that
if
the
Church
be
such
a
Political
Society
,
as
has
a
supreme
Regent
Head
on
Earth
(
which
I
always
denyed
)
then
it
must
have
a
supreme
Regent
Head
.
Which
if
Mr.
B.
calls
Disputing
and
Proving
,
I
suppose
no
body
else
will
:
But
this
will
be
better
understood
,
by
considering
Mr.
B's
Reasons
,
to
prove
this
supreme
Regent
Power
to
be
the
constitutive
Form
of
the
Church
;
which
follow
in
the
same
place
,
and
are
these
.
1.
If
the
summa
Potestas
of
the
Church
be
not
the
constitutive
Form
,
then
the
Church
is
not
a
Society
univocally
so
called
,
as
all
other
Political
Societies
are
,
but
is
Equivocally
called
a
Politie
.
i.
e.
then
the
Church
is
not
a
Political
Society
,
with
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
which
I
readily
grant
,
and
see
no
inconvenience
in
it
.
Though
Mr.
B.
cunningly
supposes
in
his
Argument
,
what
he
knows
I
denyed
him
;
that
there
is
such
a
summa
Potestas
,
or
supreme
Regent
Power
over
the
whole
Church
,
and
then
indeed
it
were
absurd
to
deny
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
.
2.
Then
a
Bishop
is
no
constitutive
part
of
a
Diocesan
Church
,
nor
a
Metropolitan
of
a
Metropolitan
Church
,
nor
a
Patriarch
of
a
Patriarchal
Church
,
nor
any
summa
Potestas
of
any
Church
:
or
else
the
Catholick
,
and
these
are
not
univocally
called
Churches
.
The
Force
of
which
reasoning
is
this
;
that
if
there
be
not
a
supreme
Regent
Head
over
the
whole
Church
,
there
cannot
be
such
a
superior
Governor
over
any
part
of
the
Church
.
A
Bishop
cannot
govern
his
own
Church
,
unless
one
Bishop
,
or
Colledge
of
Bishops
be
a
supreme
constitutive
Regent
Head
over
the
whole
Church
:
For
as
for
Metropolitans
and
Patriarchs
,
I
never
owned
their
original
Right
to
such
a
Superiority
,
but
ascribe
it
to
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
,
which
are
very
justifiable
,
and
of
great
use
to
the
Preservation
of
Catholick
Communion
:
And
I
do
not
see
,
what
inconvenience
there
is
in
granting
,
that
a
particular
,
and
the
Catholick
Church
,
are
not
univocally
called
Churches
,
that
is
,
are
not
in
the
same
sense
called
a
Church
,
any
more
than
in
saying
,
that
a
Part
,
and
the
Whole
,
are
not
in
the
same
sense
called
the
Body
of
a
man
,
for
the
Whole
contains
all
the
Parts
,
and
a
Part
is
only
a
Part
of
the
Whole
:
All
the
particular
Churches
in
the
World
,
are
univocally
called
Churches
,
as
being
under
the
Government
of
their
respective
Pastors
,
in
obedience
to
the
Laws
and
Institutions
of
our
Saviour
,
the
only
universal
Bishop
of
his
Church
,
but
the
Catholick
Church
is
called
a
Church
,
from
the
Union
of
all
particular
Churches
,
not
only
to
Christ
,
the
supreme
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
,
but
to
each
other
in
one
Catholick
Communion
.
3.
If
the
summa
Potestas
,
be
not
a
constitutive
part
of
the
Church
Catholick
,
it
is
no
essential
Part
;
unless
by
this
summa
Potestas
over
the
whole
Church
,
he
means
Christ
(
which
alters
the
state
of
the
Question
,
of
which
more
presently
)
it
is
so
far
from
being
an
essential
part
of
the
Church
Catholick
,
that
it
is
no
part
at
all
;
there
being
no
such
supreme
Power
over
the
whole
Church
:
But
,
if
so
,
the
Church
must
be
defined
without
it
;
and
why
do
they
not
give
us
such
a
Definition
,
and
tell
us
,
what
is
the
constitutive
Form
of
it
,
if
this
be
not
?
None
so
blind
,
as
those
who
will
not
see
.
How
often
have
I
told
him
,
what
it
is
,
which
makes
the
Catholick
Church
one
Catholick
Church
,
which
is
the
constitutive
Form
he
enquires
after
,
viz.
not
one
Superior
Power
over
the
whole
Church
,
but
one
Communion
?
4.
And
then
he
that
denyeth
this
summa
Potestas
,
and
separateth
from
it
,
denyeth
or
separateth
from
nothing
essential
to
the
Church
;
very
right
!
Why
then
do
they
make
obedience
essential
to
a
Member
?
Obedience
to
what
?
To
one
supreme
Regent
Head
over
the
Church
.
Who
are
they
that
make
such
obedience
necessary
to
a
Member
?
Or
may
not
every
Christian
be
bound
to
obey
his
spiritual
Guides
,
and
Pastors
,
unless
there
be
one
supreme
Regent
Head
over
the
Catholick
Church
?
Now
whatever
Lawyers
,
and
men
acquainted
with
the
common
Terms
of
Law
and
Politicks
,
to
whom
Mr.
B.
appeals
,
may
think
of
such
Disputes
,
as
these
;
I
am
confident
be
they
what
they
will
,
if
they
be
men
of
sense
,
they
will
pity
the
drudgery
of
answering
such
trifling
Cavils
.
Though
I
am
glad
to
hear
Mr.
B.
own
it
as
a
thing
beyond
Dispute
,
that
a
King
is
the
constitutive
Head
,
that
is
,
the
supreme
Regent
Head
of
his
Kingdom
,
without
whose
supreme
Government
it
is
not
a
Kingdom
.
Mr.
B.
proceeds
.
But
saith
this
Doctor
,
It
s
original
constitution
differs
from
secular
Forms
of
Government
,
by
that
ancient
Church-canon
of
our
Saviours
own
decreeing
,
it
shall
not
be
so
among
you
,
which
I
alleadged
to
prove
,
that
the
Church
could
not
be
a
Political
Society
in
Mr.
B's
notion
of
it
,
with
a
supreme
constitutive
Regent
Power
over
the
whole
:
To
which
Mr.
B.
answers
,
There
is
some
hope
in
this
Citation
.
It
seems
he
thinks
,
that
by
these
words
Christ
forbad
any
constitutive
Supreme
under
him
in
his
Church
.
Yes
verily
I
do
think
so
.
Why
then
does
the
man
so
fiercely
dispute
for
it
,
against
it
he
means
surely
,
for
that
I
have
professedly
done
,
but
never
disputed
for
it
yet
.
If
there
be
none
,
we
are
agreed
:
In
good
time
;
why
then
does
he
and
Mr.
H.
so
rudely
scorn
and
deride
the
Dean
,
as
one
who
has
betrayed
the
Church
,
by
denying
the
necessity
of
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
?
I
may
be
a
young
Doctor
,
as
he
pleasantly
adds
,
but
I
perceive
he
grows
so
old
,
that
forgets
what
he
is
for
or
against
.
But
he
is
unwilling
this
should
be
my
meaning
,
because
this
spoils
his
Notion
of
a
Political
body
;
and
therefore
spitefully
insinuates
what
he
says
he
will
not
impute
to
me
,
that
I
speak
of
a
Politie
that
hath
the
Power
of
the
Sword
;
and
yet
immediately
after
this
Complement
he
pawns
his
own
understanding
for
it
,
that
I
must
mean
so
.
I
will
therefore
rather
conclude
,
that
if
he
know
what
he
saith
,
I
am
uncapable
of
knowing
,
rather
than
impute
this
to
him
;
or
else
that
he
takes
it
to
be
no
Policy
,
that
hath
not
the
Power
of
the
Sword
:
Let
the
controversie
rest
there
then
,
and
we
will
leave
it
to
wiser
men
to
judge
between
us
.
But
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
do
not
agree
about
that
Citation
,
It
shall
not
be
so
among
you
.
Mr.
B.
thinks
it
a
hopeful
Citation
,
and
is
agreed
with
me
about
it
.
Mr.
H.
sayes
,
none
but
such
a
forward
one
,
would
have
alleadged
it
to
this
purpose
,
let
them
now
agree
this
Matter
between
themselves
.
For
now
I
shall
leave
Mr.
B.
a
while
to
hear
what
Mr.
H.
says
to
the
main
Dispute
.
He
undertook
in
Answer
to
the
Dean
,
to
produce
an
Argument
for
the
Proof
of
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
,
which
Mr.
B.
was
so
subtil
,
as
to
prove
only
by
a
Definition
.
His
Argument
was
this
.
There
is
a
Government
in
the
Church
of
England
.
—
Where
there
is
a
Government
,
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
,
for
Government
by
consent
without
superiority
,
is
Government
:
That
Church
Governors
united
and
governing
by
consent
,
are
the
pars
Imperans
;
Christian
People
in
obedience
to
the
Laws
of
our
Saviour
,
submitting
to
such
Government
,
are
the
pars
Subdita
,
and
all
this
is
true
without
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
.
The
plain
meaning
of
which
is
this
.
That
there
is
a
Government
in
the
Church
,
as
every
Bishop
is
the
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
which
is
but
one
Government
,
because
all
Bishops
are
bound
by
the
Laws
of
our
Saviour
to
govern
their
particular
Churches
by
mutual
Advice
and
Counsel
,
and
one
Consent
,
as
far
as
is
necessary
to
the
ends
of
Catholick
Communion
;
and
this
may
be
done
without
any
direct
superior
Power
of
one
Church
,
or
Bishop
,
or
Colledge
of
Bishops
over
all
the
Churches
and
Bishops
of
the
Christian
World
,
which
is
what
Mr.
B.
calls
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
over
the
whole
Church
.
Here
Mr.
H.
disputes
with
great
Triumph
,
and
wonders
,
I
should
applaud
the
Dean
for
denying
the
necessity
of
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
a
National
Church
(
considered
as
a
Church
,
for
that
is
the
state
of
the
Question
,
which
he
is
willing
to
conceal
)
when
I
my self
have
asserted
such
a
Head
,
viz.
He
says
,
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
,
That
a
National
Church
is
a
Political
Society
?
Yes
,
I
do
assert
,
that
if
Government
(
as
distinguisht
from
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
)
makes
a
Political
Society
,
then
the
Church
,
(
which
is
a
governed
Society
)
is
a
Political
Society
,
for
Government
by
consent
without
Superiority
(
i.
e.
without
one
supreme
Regent
Head
)
is
Government
.
But
if
I
grant
a
Government
by
consent
,
understanding
by
it
the
Episcopal
Colledge
,
or
Cyprians
one
Episcopacy
,
as
the
governing
Part
,
and
the
People
by
the
Law
of
Christ
subdite
to
it
,
then
I
have
found
out
a
constitutive
Head
,
and
an
Ecclesiastical
constitutive
Head
by
Christs
institution
:
For
an
united
Colledge
of
Bishops
for
Government
(
gratia
Regiminis
)
is
a
formal
Ecclesiastical
Head
.
I
need
give
no
new
Answer
to
this
,
having
already
sufficiently
explained
,
what
is
meant
by
St.
Cyprian's
one
Episcopacy
,
and
the
Colledge
of
Bishops
,
which
is
far
enough
from
being
such
an
Ecclesiastical
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Church
.
But
to
return
to
Mr.
Baxter
;
Government
by
consent
without
superiority
over
the
pars
Subdita
,
or
over
the
People
,
who
must
be
subject
to
this
Government
,
it
is
governing
sine
jure
regendi
.
But
then
I
hope
we
break
not
the
5th
.
Commandment
by
disobeying
them
.
But
this
I
suppose
,
was
only
to
shew
his
skill
in
Drollery
,
and
in
turning
plain
sence
into
non-sence
,
I
wish
at
last
he
would
give
us
as
plain
a
Proof
that
he
understood
sence
.
It
were
well
indeed
for
him
,
that
Bishops
had
no
Authority
to
govern
;
for
then
,
as
he
well
observes
,
they
might
be
Schismaticks
without
sin
.
But
Mr.
B.
did
not
think
this
answer
would
satisfie
any
man
,
though
he
knew
the
spite
of
it
would
greatly
entertain
a
true
Fanatick
Zeal
:
And
therefore
he
adds
.
But
I
rather
think
the
Doctor
meant
without
superiority
over
one
another
.
Ans.
And
verily
doth
the
Church
of
England
think
,
that
an
Aristocracy
is
no
constitutive
Head
,
or
summa
Potestas
,
or
form
of
Policy
?
Had
the
Senators
at
Rome
Power
over
one
another
,
as
such
?
Or
hath
the
Venetian
Senate
,
Or
the
Polonian
Parliament
men
?
Doth
this
novelty
and
singularity
deserve
no
word
of
Proof
,
but
ipse
dixit
?
See
how
all
Politicks
are
damned
with
the
non-Conformists
,
for
making
Aristocracy
a
Species
of
Policy
.
But
I
pray
you
,
use
them
not
all
for
it
as
hardly
,
as
you
use
us
.
But
really
thus
much
of
the
World
is
governed
.
Mr.
B.
I
see
,
(
as
Mr.
H.
says
)
is
a
man
,
who
understands
Politicks
,
and
I
dare
not
pretend
to
so
much
skill
in
the
Roman
,
Venetian
,
or
Polonian
government
,
but
this
I
think
,
I
can
safely
say
,
as
little
as
I
know
of
them
,
that
the
Colledg
of
Bishops
is
neither
one
nor
t'other
,
nor
any
kind
of
Aristocracy
;
for
when
I
speak
of
a
Government
without
superiority
(
that
is
,
without
a
supreme
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
which
was
the
Subject
of
the
Dispute
)
it
is
as
wild
to
imagine
,
that
I
mean
an
Aristocracy
,
which
is
such
a
Regent
Head
,
as
that
,
by
without
superiority
,
I
mean
,
governing
without
superiority
over
the
pars
Subdita
.
But
we
must
leave
Mr.
B.
to
his
own
way
;
who
thinks
he
has
answered
his
Adversary
sufficiently
,
when
by
a
perverse
Comment
,
he
has
made
him
speak
or
write
non-sence
;
which
must
be
acknowledged
the
best
way
of
confuting
Books
,
when
he
cannot
confute
the
true
and
genuine
sense
of
them
.
But
as
to
the
thing
;
when
I
say
there
is
a
Government
in
the
Church
without
superiority
,
or
without
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
the
plain
meaning
is
this
.
That
every
Bishop
is
the
chief
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
and
thus
the
whole
Church
is
a
governed
Society
,
as
every
particular
Church
is
under
the
Government
of
its
own
Pastor
;
no
Bishops
,
either
single
or
united
,
having
any
direct
Authority
or
Superiority
over
each
other
.
Now
though
in
Aristocracy
,
every
individual
Patrician
and
Senator
have
equal
Power
,
yet
the
Government
is
not
in
any
of
these
distinct
,
but
in
the
whole
Senate
,
whether
that
signifie
the
Majority
of
Voices
,
or
the
unanimous
Vote
of
every
Member
of
it
,
and
this
makes
it
properly
a
Regent
Head
.
But
to
help
Mr.
B.
to
understand
this
;
if
Pride
and
Interest
will
give
him
leave
,
I
shall
particularly
consider
the
difference
between
Aristocracy
,
and
the
Government
of
the
Church
by
Bishops
,
without
a
Regent
Head
.
Every
Bishop
is
the
supreme
Governor
of
his
own
Church
,
but
no
Senator
,
meerly
as
a
Senator
,
hath
any
immediate
Right
,
much
less
the
supreme
Right
of
Government
in
any
distinct
part
of
the
Nation
.
For
the
Government
of
the
Whole
is
in
the
Senate
,
who
appoint
subordinate
Governors
,
either
some
of
their
own
Members
,
or
others
;
in
dependence
on
themselves
,
who
act
not
by
their
own
,
but
by
the
Authority
of
the
Senate
.
Every
Bishop
may
govern
his
own
Church
by
his
own
prudence
,
has
his
Arbitrium
proprium
,
as
St.
Cyprian
speaks
;
may
regulate
publick
Worship
,
and
prescribe
Rules
of
Discipline
for
his
own
Church
,
without
depending
on
the
Authority
of
any
other
Bishop
,
or
Councils
of
Bishops
,
nor
is
accountable
to
any
,
while
he
preserves
the
Purity
of
Faith
and
Worship
,
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
and
Catholick
Communion
,
but
no
single
Senator
in
an
Aristocracy
has
any
Power
of
making
Laws
himself
,
but
only
in
conjunction
with
others
.
The
Combinations
of
Churches
,
and
the
Synods
and
Councils
of
Bishops
are
not
for
direct
acts
of
Government
and
Superiority
over
each
other
,
but
for
the
preservation
of
Catholick
Communion
,
which
is
most
effectually
done
by
mutual
Advice
and
Counsel
,
which
I
think
differs
a
little
from
the
Soveraign
Power
of
an
Aristocracy
.
When
Neighbour
Bishops
thus
unite
into
one
Body
,
and
agree
upon
some
common
rules
of
Worship
or
Discipline
,
they
govern
indeed
every
one
their
particular
Churches
by
common
Advice
and
Consent
,
but
still
by
their
own
Episcopal
Authority
:
They
do
not
receive
any
Authority
from
the
Synod
to
govern
their
Churches
,
but
only
agree
among
themselves
upon
some
common
rules
of
Government
,
and
therefore
the
Synod
is
not
a
Regent
Head
,
because
it
gives
no
new
Authority
;
which
is
quite
contrary
in
an
Aristocracy
,
which
is
the
Fountain
of
all
Power
for
the
Government
of
such
a
Nation
:
Which
shews
,
how
well
skilled
Mr.
H.
is
in
Politicks
,
who
thinks
,
if
the
Bishops
rule
by
a
Superiority
over
the
People
,
that
makes
it
an
Aristocratical
Government
.
And
this
may
satisfie
Mr.
B.
what
I
mean
by
a
Government
by
Consent
without
Superiority
,
or
a
Regent
Head
:
Which
he
turns
also
into
Ridicule
:
It
is
not
a
constitutive
Supremacy
,
but
a
Supremacy
by
consent
:
No
Sir
,
it
is
no
Supremacy
at
all
;
but
every
Bishop
governs
his
own
Diocess
by
his
own
Authority
,
but
with
the
Advice
and
Consent
of
a
Synod
,
or
Council
,
or
Neighbour
Bishops
:
A
consent
I
say
,
not
as
to
the
Power
of
governing
,
but
as
to
the
Rules
of
Government
.
And
therefore
I
am
not
concerned
to
Dispute
with
him
,
how
far
Consent
is
necessary
to
all
Government
:
I
shall
only
observe
,
how
Mr.
H.
mistakes
both
the
Dean
and
me
,
in
what
we
speak
about
Consent
:
The
Doctor
(
he
says
)
holds
that
Consent
is
sufficient
to
the
making
a
National
Church
,
understanding
by
Consent
,
a
Consent
to
be
of
it
:
The
Deans
Defender
holds
the
Church
to
be
a
Government
by
Consent
,
meaning
by
it
the
Consent
of
the
Bishops
;
these
are
two
contrary
things
,
the
one
making
the
Church
not
Political
,
and
the
other
makes
it
an
Aristocracy
:
But
indeed
it
is
neither
so
,
nor
so
,
but
Mr.
H.
understands
neither
,
as
appears
from
what
I
have
already
Discoursed
:
There
is
no
other
Consent
required
to
become
a
Member
of
the
National
Church
,
then
there
is
to
be
a
Member
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
that
is
,
a
Consent
to
be
a
Christian
;
for
every
Christian
is
bound
to
live
in
Catholick
Communion
,
as
a
Member
of
the
one
body
of
Christ
:
And
if
Catholick
Communion
makes
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
one
Catholick
Church
,
it
makes
all
the
Churches
in
a
Nation
one
National
Church
:
But
that
stricter
Combination
of
Churches
in
the
same
Nation
under
a
Patriarch
,
or
Metropolitan
,
or
National
Synods
is
a
National
Church
Government
by
consent
,
as
I
have
already
explained
it
,
which
is
highly
useful
to
preserve
Peace
and
Communion
between
neighbour-Churches
,
whose
neighbourhood
requires
a
more
close
and
intimate
Union
,
than
there
can
be
between
Churches
of
different
Nations
,
under
different
Princes
,
and
at
a
greater
distance
.
There
is
but
one
thing
more
remains
to
be
considered
,
and
so
I
will
put
an
end
to
this
Chapter
,
and
squabling
Dispute
.
And
that
is
to
vindicate
the
Deans
Argument
against
the
necessity
of
Mr.
B's
.
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
National
Church
,
which
in
short
was
this
.
If
every
Church
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Part
as
essential
to
it
,
then
it
unavoidably
follows
,
that
there
must
be
a
Catholick
visible
Head
to
the
Catholick
visible
Church
,
and
so
Mr.
B's
constitutive
Regent
part
of
a
Church
hath
done
the
Pope
a
wonderful
kindness
,
and
made
a
very
plausible
Plea
for
his
universal
Pastorship
.
Mr.
B.
indeed
says
,
that
the
universal
Church
is
headed
by
Christ
himself
,
but
as
the
Dean
adds
,
this
doth
not
remove
the
difficulty
;
for
the
Question
is
about
that
visible
Church
,
whereof
the
particular
Churches
are
parts
;
and
they
being
visible
parts
,
do
require
a
visible
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
as
essential
to
them
;
therefore
the
whole
visible
Church
must
have
likewise
a
visible
constitutive
Regent
part
,
i.
e.
a
visible
Head
of
the
Church
.
What
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
answered
to
the
Deans
Argument
,
I
considered
and
answered
in
the
Defence
,
and
Mr.
B.
thought
fit
to
let
this
Dispute
fall
;
but
Mr.
H.
who
has
not
discretion
enough
to
know
when
he
is
answered
,
was
resolved
to
try
one
trick
more
with
it
,
and
see
what
Logick
will
do
:
And
he
says
,
he
has
discovered
four
Terms
in
the
Deans
Argument
,
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
.
That
which
Mr.
Baxter
said
,
was
this
.
That
every
proper
Political
Church
must
have
a
constitutive
Head
,
and
the
Doctor
both
leaves
out
the
words
proper
Political
,
and
brings
in
the
term
Visible
;
Therefore
the
Catholick
Church
(
says
he
)
must
have
a
constitutive
visible
Head
.
The
Interposer
now
to
take
off
the
shame
from
the
Doctor
,
hath
taken
the
right
Course
(
I
say
)
for
he
comes
and
does
worse
,
and
that
is
,
puts
in
a
fifth
term
into
the
Argument
;
if
every
Church
(
when
he
should
say
,
every
proper
Political
Church
only
,
if
he
speaks
to
Mr.
Baxter
)
must
have
a
visible
subordinate
constitutive
Head
,
then
must
the
Catholick
Church
have
such
a
one
;
but
that
not
having
such
a
one
,
a
National
Church
,
as
well
as
the
Catholick
,
may
be
without
a
constitutive
Head
.
I
was
in
a
horrible
fright
,
when
I
heard
four
and
five
terms
,
and
began
to
blush
at
it
;
but
if
this
be
all
the
Business
,
I
shall
be
able
to
bear
this
shame
very
well
.
As
for
the
Deans
leaving
out
the
terms
proper
Political
,
I
gave
a
reasonable
account
of
that
in
the
Defence
,
which
Mr.
H.
takes
no
notice
of
:
For
Mr.
B.
defines
a
proper
Political
Church
to
be
a
Church
,
which
has
one
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
and
therefore
the
Dean
denies
,
that
a
National
Church
is
a
proper
Political
Church
,
considered
as
a
Church
,
in
Mr.
B's
sence
of
the
Words
,
and
this
certainly
was
reason
enough
to
leave
it
out
,
and
yet
to
gratifie
Mr.
H.
we
will
take
it
in
,
if
he
will
but
allow
the
Catholick
Church
to
be
as
proper
Political
a
Church
,
as
the
National
Church
is
;
and
then
the
Argument
runs
thus
.
If
a
National
Church
,
as
a
proper
Political
Church
,
must
have
a
National
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
as
essential
to
it
;
then
the
Catholick
Church
as
a
proper
Political
Church
,
must
have
a
Catholick
visible
Regent
Head
essential
to
it
.
And
thus
I
think
it
comes
much
to
one
,
and
let
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
take
their
choice
.
But
what
shall
we
do
with
the
Deans
fourth
term
the
visible
Head
,
time
was
,
when
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
thought
this
no
inconvenience
at
all
,
nor
any
surreptitious
fourth
term
crept
into
the
Argument
,
but
learnedly
disputed
,
that
Christ
is
the
visible
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
therefore
the
Catholick
Church
hath
a
visible
Head
,
as
well
as
the
National
Church
.
But
let
us
briefly
consider
,
whether
visible
be
a
fourth
Term
,
or
only
added
as
a
necessary
Explication
of
Mr.
B's
Proposition
,
if
he
mean
any
thing
by
it
:
For
I
think
Logicians
distinguish
between
a
fourth
Term
,
and
an
additional
explication
of
the
Terms
.
Mr.
B.
disputes
,
that
every
proper
Political
Church
,
and
therefore
a
National
Church
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
:
Does
he
mean
by
this
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
a
visible
Head
on
Earth
,
or
an
invisible
Head
in
Heaven
?
If
he
means
Christ
as
an
invisible
Head
in
Heaven
,
then
there
is
no
Dispute
between
us
;
for
we
will
readily
grant
,
that
Christ
is
the
Head
of
the
National
,
as
well
as
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
If
he
means
a
visible
Head
on
Earth
,
then
Visible
is
no
fourth
Term
,
but
only
an
explication
of
what
Mr.
B.
means
by
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
:
And
then
the
Argument
holds
good
from
a
National
,
to
the
Catholick
Church
.
That
if
a
National
Church
,
as
a
proper
Political
Church
,
must
have
a
visible
Constitutive
Regent
Head
on
Earth
essential
to
it
;
then
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
a
proper
Political
Church
,
must
have
a
visible
constitutive
Regent
Head
on
Earth
essential
to
it
;
or
Mr.
B's
Argument
is
not
true
,
that
every
proper
Political
Church
must
have
a
visible
Regent
Head
on
Earth
essential
to
it
.
Thus
,
I
think
,
the
Dean
is
once
more
defended
,
but
I
must
speak
one
good
word
for
my self
too
,
as
Charity
obliges
me
.
Mr.
H.
says
,
I
bring
in
a
fifth
Term
,
subordinate
visible
Head
.
But
this
is
only
a
farther
explication
of
Mr.
B's
Terms
to
prevent
their
cavilling
evasions
.
Mr.
B.
says
,
every
proper
Political
Church
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
;
does
he
mean
this
of
Christ
,
as
the
supreme
Head
of
his
Church
;
or
of
men
,
whether
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
Persons
,
as
a
subordinate
Head
under
Christ
?
if
the
first
,
there
is
no
dispute
between
us
;
for
Christ
is
the
Head
of
every
part
of
his
Church
:
If
the
second
,
a
subordinate
Head
,
then
subordinate
is
neither
a
fourth
nor
a
fifth
Term
,
but
included
in
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
;
and
I
think
I
need
not
spend
time
to
prove
,
that
Mr.
H's
instance
of
adding
Monarchical
,
to
a
visible
subordinate
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
is
not
a
parallel
case
;
because
Monarchical
would
be
properly
a
fourth
Term
,
as
not
being
necessarily
involved
in
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
as
Visible
and
Subordinate
are
;
for
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
may
be
either
Monarchical
or
Collective
,
but
signifies
neither
determinately
,
unless
it
be
expressed
.
I
shall
only
observe
,
how
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
are
apparently
guilty
of
this
fallacy
themselves
,
of
introducing
a
fourth
and
a
fifth
Term
in
answer
to
the
Deans
Argument
.
If
a
National
Church
,
as
a
proper
Political
Church
,
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
then
the
Catholick
Church
as
a
proper
Political
Church
must
have
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
:
Yes
,
saith
Mr.
B.
and
Mr.
H.
so
it
hath
;
for
Christ
is
the
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
Where
we
plainly
see
,
that
in
the
Antecedent
,
by
a
constitutive
Regent
Head
,
they
understand
a
Visible
,
Subordinate
,
and
Mr.
H.
says
,
an
accidental
Head
of
the
Church
;
and
in
the
Consequent
,
a
supreme
invisible
Head
of
the
Church
,
which
is
as
fallacious
a
way
of
answering
,
as
it
is
of
arguing
.
And
now
I
leave
the
Reader
to
judge
,
where
the
shame
,
which
Mr.
H.
so
much
talks
of
,
must
at
last
rest
.
But
Ignorance
and
Insensibility
〈◊〉
as
great
a
security
to
some
men
against
shame
,
as
Impudence
is
to
others
.
CHAP.
V.
Concerning
that
one
Communion
,
which
is
essential
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
the
practicableness
of
it
.
IN
the
eighth
Chapter
of
the
Defence
,
I
briefly
stated
,
what
the
Communion
is
,
which
is
essential
to
the
Catholick
or
Universal
Church
;
and
what
place
there
can
be
for
this
Catholick
Communion
,
in
this
broken
and
divided
state
of
the
Church
,
which
we
see
at
this
day
.
Mr.
B.
in
his
Answer
,
Chap.
6.
attempts
to
say
something
to
it
,
but
it
is
such
a
something
,
as
needs
no
farther
answer
;
for
it
all
proceeds
upon
his
own
blundering
or
wilful
mistakes
about
the
nature
of
Christian
Communion
,
and
a
supreme
Regent
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
And
both
these
I
have
discoursed
so
fully
already
,
that
I
cannot
excuse
my self
to
my
Reader
,
should
I
repeat
over
the
same
things
again
;
and
therefore
I
shall
only
briefly
consider
some
few
new
Objections
he
has
started
,
which
though
they
are
very
trifling
,
yet
may
disturb
an
injudicious
Reader
.
I
asserted
,
That
Catholick
Communion
strictly
so
called
,
In
the
agreement
and
Concord
of
the
Bishops
of
the
Catholick
Church
among
themselves
,
and
with
each
other
.
Here
Mr.
Baxter
(1)
plays
the
Critick
:
He
knows
not
,
he
says
,
how
Agreement
and
Concord
differ
;
nor
among
themselves
,
and
with
each
other
:
Nor
it
may
be
,
1.
But
he
adds
,
does
this
man
dream
,
that
no
Bishops
are
Christians
and
Catholicks
,
that
have
any
disagreement
?
That
is
no
two
in
the
World
.
I
hope
many
Bishops
agree
better
than
Mr.
B.
thinks
they
do
;
who
agreeing
with
no
body
himself
,
judges
of
others
by
his
own
wrangling
humour
:
But
yet
I
believe
Bishops
may
disagree
about
many
things
,
and
yet
preserve
the
Concord
and
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
in
one
Catholick
Communion
:
St.
Cyprian
,
I
am
sure
,
thought
this
very
possible
,
when
he
allows
of
such
differences
without
breaking
Communion
;
and
that
in
so
high
a
point
,
as
the
rebaptization
of
Hereticks
.
2.
But
is
Communion
of
Bishops
only
necessary
to
Church-unity
?
Why
not
of
Presbyters
also
?
Communion
of
Presbyters
with
their
Bishop
,
is
essential
to
the
Unity
of
a
particular
Church
,
as
I
had
discoursed
in
the
6th
.
Chapter
of
the
Defence
;
but
the
Union
of
one
Church
with
another
,
principally
consists
in
the
Agreement
and
Concord
of
Bishops
,
who
are
the
chief
Governors
of
their
Churches
:
And
those
Presbyters
,
who
live
in
Communion
with
their
Bishop
,
are
supposed
to
live
in
Communion
with
those
,
who
are
in
Communion
with
him
:
Or
if
any
Presbyter
should
dissent
,
this
makes
no
schism
between
the
Churches
,
only
makes
him
himself
a
Schismatick
.
3.
But
,
says
Mr.
B.
Who
doubts
but
there
must
be
Communion
?
I
am
glad
to
hear
this
is
out
of
doubt
;
I
assure
him
,
I
do
not
doubt
of
it
.
But
the
Question
is
,
whether
it
must
be
in
or
under
an
Aristocratical
Soveraign
?
But
whose
Question
is
this
Sir
?
It
is
none
of
mine
,
for
I
always
denyed
it
,
and
made
no
question
about
it
:
I
suppose
you
would
have
said
,
this
should
have
been
the
Question
,
and
then
you
had
had
something
to
say
to
it
.
It
is
a
troublesome
thing
,
I
confess
,
to
meet
with
a
perverse
Disputant
,
who
denies
wrong
,
and
chooses
that
side
of
the
Question
,
which
we
are
not
prepared
to
oppose
.
Well
,
but
I
assert
out
of
St.
Cyprian
,
That
no
man
can
have
the
Authority
or
Honour
of
a
Bishop
,
who
does
not
preserve
the
Peace
and
Vnity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
that
is
,
who
does
not
live
in
Vnity
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
Vnity
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
Vnity
?
No
one
that
liveth
not
in
a
Vnion
in
the
essentials
of
Christianity
and
Ministry
?
But
Chrysostom
and
Theophilus
Alex.
and
Epiphanius
,
might
all
be
Bishops
,
though
they
had
much
discord
,
and
condemned
one
another
.
And
so
might
Cyril
,
and
Memnon
,
and
Johan
.
Antioch
,
and
Theodoret
,
and
the
Orthodox
,
and
the
Novatians
,
and
the
Eastern
and
Western
Bishops
since
;
and
the
Old
and
the
New
sort
of
English
Bishops
,
if
they
differ
not
totâ
Specie
.
I
wondered
this
totâ
Specie
did
not
come
in
before
:
For
these
Quarrels
and
Contentions
of
Diocesan
Bishops
is
one
principal
Argument
,
whereby
Mr.
B.
proves
,
that
they
differ
totâ
Specie
,
from
the
true
Apostolical
,
i.
e.
Parochial
Bishops
;
and
we
have
got
some
ground
by
this
,
that
he
owns
,
they
may
be
Bishops
,
notwithstanding
they
had
much
Discord
,
and
condemned
one
another
.
As
for
the
Novatian
Bishops
,
who
were
guilty
of
a
formal
Schism
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
they
may
be
called
Bishops
,
as
the
Novatian
People
might
be
called
Christians
,
which
I
have
already
given
a
particular
Account
of
from
St.
Austin
,
but
they
were
not
Catholick
Bishops
,
as
the
Novatians
were
not
Catholick
Christians
;
though
for
ought
I
perceive
Mr.
B.
thinks
the
Novatians
as
good
Bishops
as
the
Orthodox
.
As
for
the
Case
of
St.
Chrysostom
,
Theophilus
Alexandrinus
,
and
Epiphanius
,
that
was
a
personal
Quarrel
,
and
though
this
indeed
destroyed
that
Unity
,
which
ought
to
have
been
maintained
between
these
good
men
,
who
were
all
of
them
Bishops
,
yet
it
did
not
destroy
the
Peace
and
Vnity
of
the
Episcopacy
,
which
was
the
only
Unity
of
Bishops
,
I
asserted
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
;
though
Mr.
B.
was
pleased
to
conceal
that
,
to
make
his
Argument
appear
more
plausible
.
The
Unity
of
the
Episcopacy
consists
in
this
,
that
all
Bishops
live
in
the
Communion
of
the
same
Church
,
as
members
of
the
same
Body
,
and
as
near
as
they
can
,
govern
their
Churches
by
mutual
Advice
and
Consent
;
This
St.
Chrysostom
,
and
Theophilus
,
and
Epiphanius
did
in
the
height
of
their
Quarrel
:
They
owned
the
same
Church
,
and
governed
their
respective
Churches
by
the
same
Ecclesiastical
Laws
and
Canons
,
which
preserved
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
,
So
do
the
Independents
and
Presbyterians
;
what
do
they
do
?
Write
Letters
?
No
doubt
of
it
!
And
so
did
the
Novatians
,
and
the
Donatists
,
and
yet
were
Schismaticks
for
all
that
.
And
this
was
one
reason
,
why
the
Catholick
Bishops
gave
an
account
to
each
other
,
who
were
their
Colleagues
,
that
so
they
might
be
aware
of
the
Letters
of
Schismaticks
.
I
hope
,
it
is
no
argument
,
that
Catholick
Bishops
cannot
express
and
maintain
Catholick
Communion
by
such
Letters
,
because
Schismaticks
may
in
the
same
way
maintain
a
Schismatical
Confederacy
.
But
says
Mr.
B.
do
none
this
(
i.
e.
write
Letters
)
but
a
Soveraign
Senate
?
Yes
,
particular
Bishops
did
,
as
I
instanced
in
St.
Cyprian
,
who
sent
a
Catalogue
of
the
names
of
Catholick
Bishops
to
Cornelius
.
But
2.
Is
this
the
Communion
that
unifyeth
the
Church
?
I
hope
it
is
a
Church
,
and
men
are
members
of
it
,
before
they
write
Letters
.
No
doubt
at
all
!
But
did
I
say
,
that
the
Communion
of
the
Church
consisted
in
writing
Letters
,
or
that
it
was
expressed
and
maintained
by
it
?
Mr.
B.
is
a
very
unhappy
man
at
distinctions
;
he
can
never
find
a
good
distinction
,
when
there
is
want
of
it
;
and
never
wants
distinctions
,
where
there
is
no
difference
.
2.
The
next
way
of
maintaining
Catholick
Communion
among
Bishops
,
I
observed
,
was
by
advising
together
about
the
publick
affairs
of
the
Church
,
and
Communicating
Counsels
with
each
other
,
and
giving
an
account
of
the
reasons
of
their
Actions
,
(
that
there
might
be
no
misunderstanding
between
them
)
these
last
words
,
which
I
have
included
in
a
Parenthesis
,
Mr.
Baxter
has
left
out
of
his
Citation
,
because
they
did
too
plainly
discover
,
how
this
mutual
Advice
and
Counsel
did
tend
to
maintain
Catholick
Unity
.
And
answers
,
1.
This
Independents
are
ready
to
do
:
What
then
?
Does
it
hence
follow
,
that
they
are
Catholick
Bishops
?
Schismaticks
may
do
many
things
,
which
true
Catholick
Christians
do
,
and
be
Schismaticks
still
.
2.
How
doth
this
differ
from
the
former
?
Do
you
not
mean
advising
by
Letters
or
Messengers
?
If
not
,
is
it
general
Councils
you
mean
,
or
what
?
I
told
my
meaning
very
plain
:
Sometimes
one
particular
Bishop
writ
to
another
.
Sometimes
Neighbour
Bishops
met
in
Provincial
Synods
,
and
sent
their
Synodical
Letters
to
Forraign
Churches
.
But
this
is
writing
Letters
still
,
and
how
does
it
differ
from
the
former
?
Why
Sir
,
only
as
a
Letter
containing
an
account
of
the
present
state
of
the
Church
,
what
Bishops
die
,
and
who
are
ordained
in
their
stead
,
who
are
Catholicks
,
and
who
are
Schismaticks
,
does
from
a
Letter
of
Advice
and
Counsel
,
&c.
but
how
is
it
we
must
advise
with
them
of
Armenia
,
Abassia
,
and
the
rest
?
When
Mr.
B.
can
prove
,
that
I
make
it
necessary
to
do
so
,
I
will
undertake
to
find
out
a
way
to
do
it
;
but
this
,
and
what
follows
about
Provincial
Counsels
,
has
been
sufficiently
considered
above
.
3.
Mr.
B.
proceeds
,
But
how
?
Is
it
only
publick
Affairs
that
the
Colledge
adviseth
you
about
?
The
Man
dreams
,
who
talks
of
the
advice
of
the
Colledge
?
Who
is
it
then
that
must
dispose
of
the
Church
,
State
,
and
Souls
of
all
us
Individuals
?
Every
particular
Bishop
with
the
assistance
of
his
Presbyters
,
must
take
care
of
his
own
Church
,
and
the
Souls
committed
to
him
;
and
that
he
may
do
this
the
better
,
in
all
difficult
〈◊〉
,
especially
such
as
concern
the
whole
Church
,
must
take
the
best
Advice
of
his
Fellow-Bishops
,
that
he
can
,
where
is
the
absurdity
of
all
this
?
Surely
Mr.
B.
makes
himself
more
ignorant
than
he
is
,
when
he
adds
,
It
seems
it
is
some
body
below
the
Senate
,
that
is
meant
,
when
we
are
told
,
that
we
must
obey
the
universal
Church
.
I
thought
whither
it
would
come
at
last
.
And
well
he
might
think
whither
it
would
come
,
when
he
was
resolved
whither
to
carry
it
.
3.
I
observed
another
way
of
expressing
and
maintaining
this
Catholick
Communion
,
was
by
Letters
of
recommendation
granted
to
Presbyters
,
or
private
Christians
(
who
had
occasion
to
travel
)
from
those
Churches
of
which
they
were
members
,
to
other
Churches
,
whither
they
went
,
which
were
called
Formed
or
Communicatory
Letters
,
the
use
of
which
I
there
explained
.
To
which
Mr.
Baxter
answers
.
1.
Are
not
all
these
three
Proofs
the
same
,
writing
Letters
of
Church-affairs
,
Consultation
,
and
Communication
?
Yes
,
writing
Letters
is
writing
Letters
most
certainly
,
but
I
imagine
there
may
be
some
difference
with
reference
to
the
Subject
about
which
men
write
:
And
that
Letters
of
recommendation
differ
something
from
Letters
of
advice
.
2.
Do
any
of
us
deny
his
Conclusion
,
that
this
proveth
Communion
among
them
?
Why
then
does
he
not
own
this
Catholick
Communion
which
I
contend
for
,
and
which
infallibly
proves
him
to
be
a
Schismatick
?
No
,
but
I
should
prove
an
Episcopal
Colledge
,
as
one
Aristocratical
supreme
Regent
Head
.
I
thank
him
for
nothing
,
I
am
not
at
leisure
to
write
such
Books
on
purpose
for
him
to
confute
them
.
But
,
3.
He
says
,
these
communicatory
Letters
the
Non-conformists
are
greatly
for
;
that
no
man
may
be
admitted
to
Communion
in
any
particular
Church
,
without
either
a
Personal
understanding
,
owning
of
his
Baptismal
Covenant
,
or
a
Testimonial
,
that
he
hath
done
it
,
and
been
received
into
Communion
with
some
Church
,
with
whom
we
have
such
Communion
as
is
due
between
several
Churches
.
Quidlibet
ex
Quolibet
!
How
cleverly
has
Mr.
B.
turned
these
Communicatory
Letters
into
an
examination
by
Lay
Elders
,
or
an
Independent
Church-covenant
;
and
the
one
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
into
such
a
Communion
as
is
due
between
several
Churches
?
I
could
wish
as
heartily
as
Mr.
B.
that
greater
care
were
taken
in
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
,
though
they
who
make
the
greatest
Complaints
of
the
want
of
it
,
are
the
true
cause
of
this
defect
.
But
what
is
this
to
Communicatory
Letters
?
Or
what
if
Schismaticks
are
for
Communicatory
Letters
among
themselves
,
are
they
ever
the
less
Schismaticks
for
that
?
All
that
I
designed
to
prove
by
these
Communicatory
Letters
,
was
this
;
that
the
Ancient
Church
did
believe
,
that
every
Christian
as
a
Christian
was
a
member
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
had
a
right
to
Christian-communion
where
he
came
;
which
cannot
be
,
unless
all
Christians
are
one
Body
,
and
all
particular
Churches
,
members
of
one
Catholick
Church
.
And
here
I
had
occasion
to
express
my
dissent
from
a
very
great
man
,
whose
memory
is
as
dear
and
venerable
to
me
,
as
to
most
of
his
particular
and
intimate
Friends
.
I
mean
Dr.
Barrow
,
and
I
think
I
express
my
dissent
from
him
with
all
that
modesty
,
and
just
respect
,
which
is
due
to
his
memory
.
I
acknowledged
that
he
had
abundantly
confuted
that
notion
of
a
Constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
but
yet
that
he
made
Catholick
Communion
too
arbitrary
a
thing
,
like
the
Confederacies
of
Soveraign
Princes
.
I
should
be
heartily
glad
to
see
my self
confuted
in
this
point
,
and
to
find
that
I
was
mistaken
in
his
judgment
in
this
matter
;
if
at
least
it
may
be
called
his
Judgment
,
and
not
rather
his
Inadvertency
.
I
will
not
dispute
with
Mr.
B.
about
the
judgment
of
this
Reverend
Person
;
for
I
do
not
find
,
that
he
understands
either
of
us
:
I
am
sure
he
urges
such
things
in
his
Defence
,
as
that
great
man
would
be
ashamed
of
;
and
I
will
not
be
so
injurious
to
his
memory
so
much
as
to
repeat
them
:
I
may
have
occasion
to
take
notice
of
what
he
says
upon
some
other
score
,
but
Dr.
Barrows
name
shall
not
be
concerned
in
it
.
And
now
I
come
to
the
grand
difficulty
of
all
,
which
I
did
but
just
name
in
the
Defence
:
What
place
there
can
be
for
Catholick
Communion
in
this
broken
and
divided
state
of
the
Church
,
which
we
see
at
this
day
:
If
there
be
no
Catholick
Church
without
Catholick
Communion
,
where
shall
we
find
the
Catholick
Church
at
this
day
,
when
so
very
few
Churches
live
in
Communion
with
each
other
?
This
makes
some
men
suspect
,
that
Catholick
Communion
is
a
pretty
Romantick
notion
of
a
Catholick
Church
,
but
so
impracticable
,
that
it
is
of
no
use
to
us
now
,
nor
will
put
an
end
to
any
one
Controversie
or
Schism
in
the
Christian
Church
.
But
this
difficulty
,
when
it
is
thorowly
examin'd
,
will
vanish
of
it self
.
For
1.
That
there
are
Schisms
in
the
Christian
Church
,
is
certainly
no
very
good
Argument
against
the
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
;
and
yet
this
is
the
whole
force
of
the
Objection
:
That
if
Catholick
Communion
be
essential
to
the
Catholick
Church
,
we
must
reduce
the
Catholick
Church
into
a
very
narrow
compass
,
and
un-Church
most
of
the
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
,
as
not
maintaining
this
Catholick
Communion
:
If
this
be
so
,
I
am
heartily
sorry
for
it
,
as
every
good
man
will
be
for
the
Degeneracy
and
Apostacy
of
any
part
of
the
Christian
Church
.
But
would
Mr.
Baxter
have
me
frame
some
new
Notions
of
Catholick-unity
and
Schism
,
to
justifie
the
many
Schisms
and
Separations
of
the
Christian
World
?
Must
we
fit
our
Notions
of
Church-unity
to
the
present
divided
state
of
the
Church
,
or
endeavour
to
reduce
a
broken
and
divided
Church
to
a
true
Primitive
state
of
Unity
?
Suppose
I
had
proved
,
that
Catholick
Doctrine
instead
of
Catholick
Communion
,
had
been
only
essential
to
the
being
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
such
another
Objector
as
Mr.
B.
should
urge
me
with
this
inconvenience
,
that
then
there
are
very
few
Churches
,
that
are
true
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
Because
in
most
Ages
,
and
at
this
day
,
there
are
such
great
breaches
between
several
famous
Churches
about
what
they
think
the
most
fundamental
Articles
of
our
Faith
;
must
I
therefore
deny
the
necessity
of
Catholick
Doctrine
to
a
Catholick
Church
,
for
fear
of
that
inference
,
that
then
there
are
many
large
and
famous
Churches
,
which
are
not
true
Catholick
Apostolick
Churches
?
This
is
the
way
,
I
confess
,
never
to
be
without
a
Catholick
Church
;
to
make
the
Catholick
Church
to
be
what
the
present
Churches
are
,
not
what
they
ought
to
be
:
But
it
is
the
way
also
to
make
a
new
Christianity
in
every
Age.
And
this
is
the
more
considerable
,
because
many
of
the
Schisms
,
which
now
are
,
and
have
been
in
many
Ages
of
the
Church
,
are
owing
to
different
apprehensions
in
matters
of
Faith
,
which
either
are
,
or
have
been
thought
to
be
Catholick
Doctrines
:
Such
are
the
differences
between
the
Greek
and
Latine
Churches
;
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
the
Reformed
Churches
;
the
Lutheran
and
Zuinglian
Churches
:
So
that
Mr.
B.
must
either
find
out
a
Church
without
Catholick
Doctrine
,
as
well
as
without
Catholick
Communion
,
or
must
reduce
the
Catholick
Church
almost
into
as
narrow
a
compass
for
want
of
Catholick
Doctrine
,
as
for
want
of
Catholick
Communion
:
Unless
he
can
prove
,
that
these
doctrinal
Disputes
are
not
of
that
Moment
,
as
to
cause
Schisms
in
the
Church
;
and
then
he
will
mightily
enlarge
Catholick
Communion
,
and
answer
this
formidable
Objection
himself
.
II.
No
man
can
pretend
,
that
Catholick
Communion
is
in
its
own
nature
impracticable
,
because
it
was
de
Facto
,
religiously
observed
in
the
Primitive
Church
for
several
Ages
.
Thus
it
was
in
St.
Cyprian's
,
thus
it
was
in
St.
Austin's
time
,
who
made
Catholick
Communion
essential
to
the
being
of
a
Catholick
Church
:
And
that
cannot
reasonably
be
thought
an
impracticable
Notion
,
which
has
been
practised
in
the
Christian
Church
,
and
which
is
equally
necessary
to
be
practised
in
all
Ages
.
III.
For
what
should
hinder
all
good
Christians
from
maintaining
Communion
with
all
Christian
Churches
,
which
are
sound
and
orthodox
in
Faith
,
and
Worship
?
If
there
be
such
Churches
to
be
found
in
France
,
in
Germany
,
in
Holland
,
&c.
What
should
hinder
any
sober
Christian
,
who
travels
into
those
Countries
and
understands
their
Language
,
from
joyning
with
them
in
all
acts
of
Worship
,
as
Members
of
the
same
Body
of
Christ
?
Those
Churches
,
which
are
not
sound
and
Orthodox
,
are
not
the
Objects
of
Christian
Communion
,
and
it
is
no
breach
of
Catholick
Communion
,
not
to
communicate
with
them
:
And
nothing
can
reasonably
hinder
our
Communion
with
those
,
that
are
.
For
where
there
are
no
sinful
terms
of
Communion
imposed
,
we
are
bound
to
all
Acts
of
Communion
,
as
opportunity
serves
.
So
that
those
,
who
think
it
such
an
impossible
thing
to
maintain
Catholick
Communion
among
the
Christian
Churches
of
this
Age
,
must
necessarily
suppose
,
that
there
are
very
few
Churches
in
the
World
at
this
time
,
which
a
sound
and
orthodox
Christian
can
communicate
with
;
for
nothing
else
can
make
Catholick
Communion
impossible
.
And
if
this
be
true
,
it
is
a
very
sad
consideration
,
and
deeply
to
be
lamented
of
all
Christians
,
but
it
is
that
,
which
I
cannot
help
:
Catholick
Communion
is
very
feasible
,
when
there
are
〈◊〉
Catholick
Churches
to
communicate
with
,
but
when
there
are
none
,
it
cannot
be
had
;
or
if
there
be
but
a
few
such
,
it
must
be
maintained
among
those
few
,
that
are
;
and
that
is
true
Catholick
Communion
,
which
includes
all
true
Catholick
Churches
,
be
they
more
or
less
.
But
the
thing
at
present
to
be
considered
,
is
this
,
whether
he
,
who
denies
any
Church
to
be
a
true
Catholick
Church
,
which
does
not
maintain
Catholick
Communion
,
makes
the
Catholick
Church
any
narrower
than
he
does
,
who
denies
the
possibility
of
Catholick
Communion
,
because
there
are
very
few
Churches
,
which
a
good
Christian
can
safely
communicate
with
.
For
I
suppose
,
those
are
no
true
Catholick
Churches
,
which
a
Catholick
Christian
must
not
communicate
with
;
and
Catholick
Communion
may
be
maintained
among
all
other
Churches
,
whose
Communion
is
not
sinful
and
dangerous
.
As
for
instance
,
IIII.
We
may
consider
farther
,
that
in
this
present
state
of
things
,
there
are
not
many
positive
Acts
of
Communion
necessary
to
preserve
Catholick
Communion
between
Forraign
Churches
;
and
therefore
Catholick
Communion
is
not
so
impracticable
,
as
some
may
imagine
.
The
Churches
of
distant
Nations
cannot
worship
God
together
,
nor
easily
meet
for
Advice
and
Counsel
,
but
they
may
own
and
receive
each
others
Members
,
as
occasion
serves
,
which
signifies
their
Communion
with
each
other
.
Nay
,
where
there
is
no
breach
of
Communion
,
no
declared
disowning
of
each
other
,
nor
express
denial
of
any
Act
of
Communion
between
distant
Churches
,
those
Churches
may
be
said
to
be
in
Communion
with
each
other
.
There
are
some
Christian
Churches
,
which
we
know
little
or
nothing
of
,
nor
they
of
us
;
but
while
we
break
not
Communion
with
any
sound
part
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
profess
Communion
with
all
that
are
so
,
we
may
be
truly
said
to
live
in
Catholick
Communion
with
the
whole
Christian
Church
.
It
is
true
,
as
I
observed
in
the
Defence
,
in
the
Primitive
Church
they
maintained
Communion
with
distant
Churches
,
by
Formed
and
Communicatory
Letters
;
by
giving
notice
to
each
other
of
the
state
of
their
several
Churches
,
and
advising
and
consulting
about
Church
Affairs
;
which
was
a
prudent
means
of
maintaining
a
stricter
Communion
and
fair
Correspondence
between
them
;
and
was
especially
necessary
at
that
time
,
when
they
lived
under
Pagan
Emperors
,
and
the
external
Unity
of
the
Church
was
upheld
only
by
Ecclesiastical
Authority
:
But
this
was
not
absolutely
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
,
and
is
in
a
great
measure
impracticable
now
:
The
Empire
being
divided
into
the
hands
of
several
Independent
Christian
Monarchs
,
who
have
the
supreme
Power
in
all
Ecclesiastical
,
as
well
as
civil
Causes
,
there
can
be
no
such
actual
Correspondence
between
the
Churches
of
several
Nations
,
but
by
their
consent
and
leave
:
Soveraign
Princes
,
not
Subjects
,
whether
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
Persons
,
must
treat
with
one
another
about
the
great
Affairs
of
Church
and
State
,
though
with
the
advice
of
their
Civil
or
Ecclesiastical
Counsellors
:
But
still
those
Churches
are
in
Communion
with
each
other
,
who
own
each
other
as
Members
of
the
same
Body
,
and
deny
no
Act
of
Christian
Communion
to
each
other
,
as
opportunity
serves
.
And
whether
this
be
so
very
difficult
,
much
less
impossible
,
let
any
man
judge
.
V.
To
make
this
appear
still
more
easie
and
practicable
,
we
may
consider
,
that
the
Terms
of
Catholick
Communion
are
not
so
straight
and
narrow
,
as
some
men
make
them
.
This
is
the
true
reason
of
most
of
the
Schisms
in
the
Christian
Church
,
that
some
rash
and
inconsiderate
People
think
,
that
every
little
difference
,
and
petty
controversie
is
a
sufficient
reason
to
divide
the
Church
and
set
up
distinct
and
separate
Communions
:
and
have
espoused
such
narrow
Principles
of
Church
Communion
,
that
it
is
almost
impossible
any
two
Churches
should
long
hang
together
;
much
less
that
all
the
Churches
in
the
world
should
agree
in
such
matters
.
This
Argument
deserves
a
more
particular
consideration
,
as
discovering
the
original
of
Church-divisions
and
the
cure
of
them
;
and
therefore
I
shall
briefly
consider
upon
what
terms
Catholick
Communion
may
be
maintained
in
the
Christian
Church
.
Now
the
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
may
be
reduced
to
these
four
general
Heads
;
1.
Doctrine
;
2.
Government
;
3.
Discipline
;
4.
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
.
I.
As
for
what
concerns
the
Doctrines
of
Christianity
,
I
presume
my
Adversaries
will
readily
grant
,
that
an
agreement
in
Fundamentals
is
a
sufficient
Foundation
for
Catholick
Communion
;
and
I
will
as
readily
grant
,
that
no
Church
which
denies
any
Fundamental
Article
of
our
Religion
,
ought
to
be
owned
for
a
Catholick
Church
,
or
received
into
Catholick
Communion
.
To
deny
Communion
to
any
such
person
,
or
Church
,
is
no
schism
,
no
more
than
it
is
to
cut
off
a
rotten
and
gangreened
Member
from
the
Body
.
And
if
it
should
appear
,
that
many
or
most
Christian
Churches
are
over-run
with
such
Heresies
,
as
destroy
the
foundations
of
Christianity
,
this
must
of
necessity
mightily
straighten
Catholick
Communion
;
not
because
Catholick
Communion
is
in
it self
an
impracticable
notion
,
but
because
there
are
but
few
Catholick
Churches
to
communicate
with
;
for
it
is
as
necessary
a
duty
not
to
communicate
with
Churches
,
which
renounce
Catholick
Doctrine
,
as
it
is
to
communicate
with
those
,
which
own
it
;
we
being
under
the
same
Obligations
to
maintain
all
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Faith
,
as
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
:
For
indeed
it
is
an
ill
way
to
preserve
the
Peace
of
the
Christian
Church
,
by
forfeiting
our
Christianity
,
as
every
fundamental
Heresie
does
;
or
to
enlarge
Christian
Communion
,
by
receiving
those
into
our
Communion
,
who
are
no
Catholick
Christians
.
And
I
suppose
,
none
of
my
adversaries
will
require
me
to
give
such
a
Catalogue
of
fundamental
Doctrines
,
as
are
necessary
to
qualifie
any
Church
for
Catholick
Communion
:
Both
Papist
and
Protestants
in
their
Disputes
about
Fundamentals
,
have
always
waved
this
,
and
there
is
no
reason
any
harder
terms
should
be
put
upon
me
;
and
thus
I
might
end
this
Dispute
honourably
enough
;
for
as
far
as
respects
Doctrines
,
every
man
must
acknowledg
,
that
Catholick
Communion
,
may
be
as
large
as
Catholick
Doctrine
,
and
that
is
as
large
,
as
it
ought
to
be
.
But
yet
for
the
greater
satisfaction
of
my
Readers
,
and
of
my self
,
I
shall
discourse
this
matter
more
particularly
;
for
I
confess
,
I
do
not
understand
the
reason
,
why
so
many
great
men
of
our
Church
,
as
have
writ
against
the
Papists
,
since
the
happy
reformation
of
Religion
among
us
,
have
been
so
tender
in
this
point
;
if
we
cannot
tell
,
what
are
the
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Christianity
,
how
can
we
be
assured
,
that
we
,
or
any
other
Church
do
not
err
fundamentally
?
and
how
can
we
know
,
that
the
whole
Church
has
not
so
erred
,
but
only
by
that
general
promise
,
that
the
whole
Church
should
not
fall
into
fundamental
errors
?
and
if
we
can
tell
what
Doctrines
are
fundamental
,
methinks
it
is
not
impossible
,
if
occasion
were
,
to
give
a
Catalogue
of
them
.
I
am
far
enough
from
being
of
that
mind
,
That
a
Catalogue
of
Fundamentals
is
impossible
,
because
to
some
,
more
is
fundamental
,
to
others
less
,
to
others
nothing
at
all
,
because
God
requires
more
of
them
to
whom
he
gives
more
,
and
less
of
them
,
to
whom
he
gives
less
.
Which
indeed
does
not
only
prove
,
that
it
is
impossible
to
assign
a
Catalogue
of
Fundamentals
,
but
that
there
is
nothing
in
its
own
nature
fundamental
in
Christianity
,
but
only
for
every
man
to
believe
,
as
much
of
it
as
he
can
.
Yet
the
Caution
of
so
many
great
men
in
this
Matter
,
makes
me
very
sensible
,
how
nice
a
thing
it
is
to
talk
of
Fundamentals
,
and
what
unpardonable
arrogance
it
would
be
in
any
private
man
,
to
be
peremptory
and
dogmatical
in
assigning
a
Catalogue
of
them
;
and
therefore
I
shall
only
pretend
to
make
some
Essay
of
this
nature
,
which
the
argument
I
am
now
engaged
in
,
and
the
clamorous
Objections
of
some
men
extort
from
me
;
for
if
we
cannot
in
some
measure
tell
,
what
are
the
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
,
Catholick
Communion
must
needs
be
a
very
impracticable
notion
.
And
to
prepare
the
way
,
I
shall
briefly
observe
some
few
things
to
prevent
some
cavilling
Objections
,
and
Prejudices
against
the
following
Discourse
.
1.
That
by
Fundamentals
,
I
mean
such
Doctrines
as
are
essential
to
Christianity
,
and
distinguish
the
Christian
Religion
from
all
other
Religions
:
Now
if
we
will
acknowledg
,
that
Christian
Religion
is
a
fixt
and
certain
thing
,
we
must
acknowledg
,
that
there
are
such
Fundamentals
,
as
are
fixt
and
certain
too
,
and
do
not
alter
with
mens
different
Apprehensions
,
Capacities
,
and
Opportunities
of
Instruction
;
and
if
it
be
possible
to
understand
the
true
difference
between
Christianity
,
and
all
other
Religions
,
it
is
possible
to
understand
,
what
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
are
.
2.
The
greatest
difficulty
,
which
is
objected
against
a
Catalogue
of
Fundamentals
,
does
equally
lie
against
the
belief
of
Christianity
it self
.
The
difficulty
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
it self
.
Whoever
asserts
it
necessary
to
Salvation
to
believe
in
Christ
,
damns
all
Jews
,
Pagans
,
Mahometans
,
and
all
Infidels
,
which
seems
at
least
as
hard
a
thing
,
as
to
damn
all
Hereticks
,
who
bear
no
proportion
at
all
to
the
number
of
Infidels
;
and
yet
if
the
Christian
Faith
it self
be
necessary
to
Salvation
,
it
must
be
necessary
to
Salvation
,
to
believe
some
Articles
of
the
Christian
Faith
;
for
we
cannot
believe
Christianity
,
without
believing
such
Articles
as
contain
the
essentials
of
Christian
Faith
,
which
do
not
alter
with
the
Prejudices
,
Prepossessions
,
and
Capacities
of
men
,
no
more
than
Christianity
it self
.
And
yet
neither
I
,
nor
any
man
else
,
have
any
thing
to
do
to
pass
a
final
Sentence
,
either
upon
Infidels
or
Hereticks
,
but
they
must
stand
or
fall
to
their
own
Master
.
There
may
be
a
standing
rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
whereby
men
shall
be
judged
,
but
how
far
the
soveraign
and
uncovenanted
Grace
of
God
may
dispence
with
this
rule
in
equitable
Cases
,
is
not
my
business
to
determine
.
But
of
this
more
hereafter
.
3.
I
observe
,
there
are
some
Doctrines
,
which
,
if
they
be
true
,
must
be
fundamental
Truths
,
if
they
be
false
,
must
be
fundamental
Errors
;
because
they
alter
the
very
Foundations
of
Christianity
,
and
make
two
very
different
Religions
of
it
,
as
I
shall
shew
in
what
follows
.
There
are
indeed
a
great
many
erroneous
Doctrines
,
which
make
great
alterations
in
the
Scheme
of
Religion
,
as
all
the
Antinomian
Doctrines
do
,
which
yet
I
cannot
call
fundamental
Errors
,
because
they
make
no
essential
difference
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
which
is
the
great
Fundamental
of
Christianity
,
as
you
shall
see
more
presently
;
every
erroneous
Doctrine
does
not
make
a
new
Religion
,
though
it
may
in
a
great
measure
observe
the
Glory
,
or
spoil
the
influence
of
it
upon
mens
minds
.
4.
I
observe
further
,
that
there
are
some
Doctrines
,
which
are
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
,
because
the
denial
of
them
makes
an
essential
difference
in
Christian
Worship
.
Christian
Communion
is
principally
exercised
in
all
the
Offices
of
Christian
Worship
,
and
those
,
who
cannot
Worship
God
together
,
cannot
maintain
Christian
Communion
with
each
other
.
Thus
the
belief
or
denial
of
the
sacred
Trinity
,
the
incarnation
of
Christ
,
the
satisfaction
of
his
death
,
&c.
makes
an
essential
alteration
in
most
of
the
Acts
of
Christian
Worship
:
And
we
see
to
this
day
,
the
very
Gloria
Patri
,
is
an
effectual
bar
to
the
Socinians
,
from
joyning
in
our
Communion
.
Now
that
which
I
am
principally
concerned
for
at
present
,
is
such
an
account
of
Fundamentals
,
as
is
necessary
to
maintain
Catholick
Communion
in
the
Christian
World
.
To
state
this
matter
then
,
as
plainly
and
briefly
as
I
can
,
I
shall
1.
endeavour
to
fix
the
plain
notion
of
fundamental
Doctrines
,
and
consequently
,
of
fundamental
Errors
.
2.
I
shall
consider
the
Case
of
those
men
,
who
heartily
believe
all
the
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Christianity
,
and
yet
entertain
such
corrupt
Doctrines
,
as
in
their
immediate
and
necessary
Consequences
overthrow
Foundations
,
and
whether
they
may
be
said
to
err
Fundamentally
.
3.
How
far
,
and
in
what
Cases
,
we
may
Communicate
with
such
men
and
Churches
,
as
believe
all
Fundamentals
,
but
yet
profess
such
other
erroneous
Doctrines
,
as
seem
to
overthrow
Foundations
.
I
think
this
is
all
,
that
is
necessary
in
order
to
clear
this
point
of
Catholick
Communion
,
as
it
respects
Doctrines
.
1.
To
fix
the
plain
notion
of
fundamental
Doctrines
;
now
a
fundamental
Doctrine
is
such
a
Doctrine
,
as
is
in
a
strict
sence
of
the
essence
of
Christianity
:
A
fundamental
Doctrine
,
without
which
the
whole
building
and
superstructure
must
fall
.
The
belief
of
which
,
is
necessary
to
the
very
being
of
Christianity
,
like
the
first
principles
in
any
Art
or
Science
,
which
must
be
acknowledged
,
or
else
there
can
be
no
such
Science
.
Now
St.
Paul
tells
us
,
that
this
Foundation
is
Christ
.
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
,
These
are
written
,
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
,
Jesus
and
the
Resurrection
,
which
the
Philosophers
of
the
Epicureans
and
Stoicks
mistake
for
strange
Gods
.
to
preach
Repentance
and
remission
of
Sins
in
his
Name
.
So
that
Salvation
by
Christ
is
the
general
fundamental
Doctrine
of
the
Gospel
.
Take
away
this
,
and
you
destroy
the
essential
Character
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
whereby
it
is
distinguish'd
from
all
other
Religions
.
But
then
as
for
particular
Doctrines
and
Articles
of
Faith
,
those
are
Fundamental
,
which
are
either
necessarily
included
in
,
or
inseparably
conjoyned
with
this
general
fundamental
of
Salvation
by
Christ
.
For
we
must
not
think
it
enough
to
believe
in
general
,
that
Jesus
is
the
Christ
the
Son
of
God
,
without
a
more
explicite
understanding
of
the
meaning
of
that
Proposition
;
who
this
Jesus
is
,
what
it
is
to
be
the
Christ
and
the
Son
of
God
,
and
how
we
are
saved
by
him
;
and
this
we
must
learn
from
the
Revelations
of
the
Gospel
;
the
more
necessary
connexion
there
is
between
any
particular
Doctrine
,
and
that
great
fundamental
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
the
more
necessary
and
fundamental
it
is
;
which
seems
to
me
to
be
the
truest
and
easiest
Character
,
that
can
be
given
of
a
fundamental
Doctrine
.
Thus
far
I
think
I
am
safe
,
but
it
may
be
thought
a
hazardous
attempt
to
launch
out
any
farther
,
or
particularly
to
define
,
what
those
particular
Doctrines
of
Christian
Religion
are
,
without
which
we
cannot
rightly
believe
Salvation
by
Christ
.
Though
I
cannot
see
,
but
that
this
may
be
done
safely
enough
,
if
we
use
due
caution
in
it
:
and
I
shall
venture
to
offer
something
of
this
nature
,
both
to
satisfie
inquisitive
men
,
why
such
and
such
Doctrines
have
always
been
accounted
fundamental
by
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
to
distinguish
what
is
fundamental
from
some
more
nice
and
curious
speculations
,
which
is
of
mighty
use
in
the
present
dispute
about
Catholick
Communion
.
And
not
to
pretend
to
give
a
perfect
Catalogue
of
Fundamentals
,
I
shall
only
give
a
taste
of
this
in
some
few
particulars
,
which
have
given
occasion
to
the
fiercest
Disputes
in
the
Christian
Church
.
1.
I
shall
begin
with
the
Doctrine
of
the
holy
Trinity
,
which
hath
in
all
Ages
been
accounted
a
fundamental
Article
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
hath
as
good
reason
to
be
thought
so
,
as
any
other
,
since
we
are
baptized
into
this
belief
:
For
to
baptize
into
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
according
to
the
most
proper
signification
of
the
words
,
and
the
exposition
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
signifies
to
baptize
into
the
Faith
and
Worship
of
the
sacred
Trinity
;
as
I
think
,
I
could
easily
shew
at
large
,
were
it
proper
upon
this
occasion
.
And
how
essential
this
belief
is
to
the
right
understanding
of
the
Doctrine
of
man's
Salvation
by
Jesus
Christ
,
which
is
the
comprehensive
fundamental
of
Christian
Religion
,
will
easily
be
acknowledged
by
any
man
,
who
carefully
considers
,
how
each
Person
in
the
ever
blessed
Trinity
is
concerned
in
the
Oeconomy
of
man's
Salvation
.
The
Father
in
infinite
pity
and
compassion
to
fallen
man
,
gives
his
only
begotten
Son
,
that
whosoever
believes
in
him
,
might
not
perish
,
but
have
everlasting
Life
:
He
gives
him
to
become
man
,
and
to
die
as
a
Sacrifice
for
sin
,
and
to
seal
a
Covenant
of
Grace
and
Mercy
in
his
blood
.
The
Son
moved
by
the
same
love
and
pity
,
gives
himself
,
becomes
man
,
dies
for
the
attonement
and
expiation
of
our
sins
;
rises
again
from
the
dead
,
and
takes
possession
of
his
mediatory
Kingdom
,
becomes
the
Lord
and
Judge
both
of
the
quick
and
the
dead
,
and
according
to
his
promise
sends
his
Spirit
upon
his
Apostles
in
miraculous
gifts
and
powers
,
to
qualifie
them
for
the
work
of
the
Ministry
;
and
bestows
the
same
holy
Spirit
upon
the
whole
Christian
Church
,
and
every
sincere
member
of
it
,
as
an
abiding
principle
of
Sanctification
,
and
a
new
Life
.
The
holy
Spirit
accordingly
comes
,
and
dwells
in
his
Church
,
and
in
good
men
,
as
in
his
Temple
,
sanctifies
them
in
this
World
to
be
vessels
of
Honour
,
and
will
hereafter
raise
their
dead
bodies
into
immortal
Life
.
So
that
each
Person
in
the
Sacred
Trinity
is
peculiarly
concerned
in
the
Salvation
of
Mankind
;
and
we
cannot
truly
believe
the
great
fundamental
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
without
the
belief
of
the
holy
Trinity
,
of
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
,
one
eternal
and
infinite
God
.
The
God-head
of
the
Father
is
acknowledged
by
all
,
but
whoever
denies
the
Godhead
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
overthrows
the
whole
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
as
it
is
taught
in
the
new
Testament
,
and
makes
it
quite
another
thing
,
and
a
very
little
thing
too
;
as
to
shew
this
briefly
.
He
who
makes
Christ
to
be
either
the
most
excellent
Creature
,
as
the
Arians
did
,
or
a
meer
man
,
as
the
Socinians
do
,
mightily
lessen
the
Grace
and
goodness
of
God
to
sinners
,
which
is
represented
as
such
a
stupendious
act
of
Love
,
that
God
so
loved
the
World
,
that
he
gave
his
only
begotten
Son
:
now
if
this
only
begotten
Son
,
be
only
the
most
glorious
and
excellent
Creature
,
especially
if
he
be
but
a
meer
man
,
the
love
and
the
design
is
not
so
stupendious
and
astonishing
;
for
God
has
an
equal
propriety
in
all
his
Creatures
,
and
it
is
no
such
prizing
Mystery
,
that
a
good
God
should
give
one
of
his
Creatures
,
though
never
so
excellent
,
especially
if
he
be
but
one
excellent
man
,
for
the
redmption
of
so
many
Millions
;
especially
when
he
promises
to
reward
this
undertaking
with
such
a
superexcellent
degree
of
Glory
and
Power
.
The
love
of
God
in
redeeming
us
,
by
what
means
soever
,
is
very
great
;
but
his
love
in
giving
his
only
begotten
Son
for
our
redemption
,
where
Christ
himself
lays
the
emphasis
,
if
this
only
begotten
Son
be
but
a
Creature
or
a
man
,
is
not
so
wonderful
.
Thus
it
sounds
very
odly
,
for
a
Creature
to
be
the
Saviour
of
mankind
,
to
be
the
object
of
a
religious
Faith
,
and
Hope
,
and
Trust
,
and
Dependance
:
The
Worship
of
Christ
cannot
be
divine
Worship
,
if
he
be
not
God
,
and
a
made
God
is
a
contradiction
in
the
terms
,
unless
we
mean
only
a
titular
God
,
and
a
titular
God
,
cannot
be
the
Object
of
Religious
Worship
.
It
is
unintelligible
,
how
the
blood
of
a
Creature
can
make
a
proper
atonement
and
expiation
for
sin
,
and
therefore
the
Socinians
,
who
deny
Christ
to
be
God
,
are
very
consistent
with
themselves
in
denying
his
satisfaction
:
A
Creature
is
not
capable
of
infinite
and
omnipotent
Power
,
no
more
than
a
finite
Nature
,
(
as
the
most
excellent
created
Nature
is
)
can
be
the
Subject
of
infinite
perfections
;
and
therefore
if
Christ
be
not
God
,
he
cannot
have
all
Power
in
Heaven
and
Earth
committed
to
him
;
he
cannot
have
it
in
his
own
Person
,
because
he
is
not
capable
of
it
,
and
cannot
exercise
it
:
He
can
at
most
only
bear
the
name
,
but
the
Government
of
the
World
,
must
be
in
another
hand
,
which
is
able
to
manage
it
.
Let
us
then
now
consider
,
what
a
fundamental
difference
the
denyal
of
the
divinity
of
our
Saviour
makes
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
which
I
shall
represent
by
drawing
two
Schemes
of
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
one
proceeding
upon
the
belief
of
the
Divinity
of
our
Saviour
,
the
other
upon
supposition
,
that
he
is
only
an
excellent
Creature
,
or
meer
man
.
Christ
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
1.
God
out
of
infinite
love
to
fallen
man
,
gave
his
eternal
and
only
begotten
Son
to
be
our
Saviour
.
2.
This
eternal
Son
of
God
in
the
fulness
of
time
,
appeared
in
the
World
in
humane
nature
,
preached
the
Gospel
,
confirmed
his
Authority
by
miracles
,
which
he
wrought
by
his
own
divine
Power
,
purchased
and
redeemed
his
Church
by
his
own
Blood
,
by
which
he
made
a
full
and
perfect
expiation
for
our
sins
,
and
sealed
the
Covenant
of
Grace
and
Pardon
.
3.
This
incarnate
God
according
to
his
promise
,
on
the
third
day
raised
himself
from
the
dead
by
his
own
divine
Power
;
and
took
possession
of
his
mediatory
Kingdom
,
as
the
reward
and
the
purchase
of
his
death
.
4.
Which
consists
in
his
Power
to
forgive
sins
,
as
a
Priest
,
in
vertue
of
his
Sacrifice
offered
on
the
Cross
;
to
give
Commission
to
his
Apostles
to
preach
Repentance
and
forgiveness
of
sins
in
his
Name
;
to
send
the
holy
Spirit
into
the
World
;
to
protect
his
Church
from
all
Enemies
;
and
finally
to
judge
the
World
,
to
raise
the
dead
,
topunish
the
wicked
and
unbelievers
,
and
to
reward
his
true
and
faithful
Disciples
;
and
all
this
by
his
own
Power
and
Authority
,
inherent
in
himself
,
though
received
from
his
Father
.
Christ
an
excellent
Creature
,
or
meer
man
.
1.
God
sent
his
most
excellent
Creature
,
or
created
a
most
excellent
man
to
redeem
sinners
.
2.
This
glorious
and
excellent
Creature
,
or
this
excellent
man
,
was
at
the
prefixt
time
born
into
the
World
,
and
preached
the
Gospel
,
and
God
confirmed
his
Authority
,
as
he
did
the
Authority
of
other
great
Prophets
,
by
Miracles
;
and
when
he
was
persecuted
for
it
,
he
owned
the
truth
to
the
very
death
,
and
set
a
great
example
of
constancy
,
and
patience
,
and
submission
to
God
in
his
sufferings
;
as
other
great
Prophets
had
done
before
him
,
though
not
in
so
extraordinary
a
manner
.
3.
This
crucified
Jesus
was
raised
by
God
from
the
dead
the
third
day
,
though
being
but
a
Creature
or
a
Man
,
he
was
not
able
to
raise
himself
;
and
was
advanced
by
God
to
great
Power
and
Glory
.
4.
Which
Power
consists
in
all
those
Acts
which
are
specified
in
the
opposite
Scheme
,
with
this
difference
,
that
his
Power
is
not
owing
to
his
Priesthood
or
Sacrifice
,
nor
has
any
dependance
on
it
,
but
he
is
a
Saviour
,
forgives
sins
,
&c.
by
a
Soveraign
Power
given
him
by
God
,
not
by
Merit
or
Purchase
,
or
the
expiation
of
his
Sacrifice
:
And
there
is
this
contradiction
in
it
,
that
a
Creature
is
invested
with
Almighty
Power
;
and
this
riddle
in
it
,
that
God
should
make
a
Creature
the
Saviour
of
mankind
,
and
this
Blasphemy
,
that
God
should
advance
a
Creature
to
be
his
own
Rival
or
Partner
in
divine
Honour
.
This
short
account
makes
it
very
evident
,
what
a
fundamental
difference
the
belief
or
denial
of
the
Divinity
of
our
Saviour
,
makes
in
the
whole
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
.
The
first
makes
it
an
Act
of
stupendious
love
in
God
,
in
giving
his
own
Son
to
be
a
Propitiation
for
our
sins
;
the
second
is
a
great
act
of
love
in
saving
sinners
,
but
the
manner
is
not
so
full
of
Wonder
,
and
mysterious
Goodness
.
The
first
makes
it
an
act
of
infinite
Love
and
Condescention
in
Christ
to
become
Man
,
a
Minister
and
a
Servant
,
and
to
submit
to
an
accursed
death
for
our
sakes
.
That
though
he
were
rich
,
yet
for
our
sakes
he
became
poor
,
that
we
through
his
poverty
might
be
rich
:
But
the
second
infers
no
such
thing
,
as
I
can
see
:
If
he
were
nothing
greater
than
a
man
,
it
was
no
condescention
in
him
to
be
made
a
man
;
especially
if
he
had
no
being
before
he
was
born
of
the
Virgin
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
,
alters
the
very
foundations
of
Christianity
,
and
destroys
all
the
powerful
arguments
of
the
Love
,
Humility
,
and
Condescention
of
our
Lord
,
which
are
the
peculiar
motives
of
the
Gospel
.
Thus
the
belief
of
the
Divinity
of
Christ
makes
God
to
be
our
Saviour
,
the
object
of
our
Faith
,
and
Hope
,
and
Relyance
;
the
denial
of
it
makes
a
Creature
to
be
our
Saviour
,
and
the
object
of
a
Religious
Faith
and
Worship
;
which
I
think
differ
as
much
,
as
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
of
a
Creature
.
The
first
contains
a
visible
union
of
our
Nature
to
the
Deity
,
which
is
a
visible
demonstration
of
God's
love
and
tender
regard
to
mankind
;
the
second
deprives
us
of
this
sensible
Consolation
.
The
first
exhibits
to
us
a
Saviour
by
Purchase
and
by
Redemption
,
which
is
both
more
endearing
,
and
a
greater
security
to
our
guilty
fears
;
the
second
makes
Christ
a
Saviour
,
only
as
a
Prophet
or
a
King
may
be
a
Saviour
,
who
saves
by
wise
instructions
,
by
preaching
the
way
of
Salvation
,
or
by
Power
.
The
first
respects
the
guilt
of
sin
,
and
the
just
Wrath
and
Displeasure
of
God
,
which
is
the
Object
of
our
guilty
fears
.
It
offers
a
Saviour
to
us
,
who
is
a
Mediator
between
God
and
man
,
and
powerfully
intercedes
for
our
Pardon
in
vertue
of
his
meritorious
Sacrifice
;
The
second
has
no
respect
to
the
atonement
and
reconciliation
of
God
,
which
is
the
only
security
to
a
guilty
Conscience
,
but
only
contains
proposals
of
Peace
and
Reconciliation
without
a
Sacrifice
:
A
thing
which
mankind
will
not
easily
believe
,
when
they
are
thorowly
convinced
of
the
evil
of
sin
,
and
the
inflexible
purity
and
holiness
of
the
divine
Nature
;
not
to
take
notice
now
,
how
irreconcileable
this
is
with
all
the
ancient
Types
of
the
Law
of
Moses
.
In
a
word
,
he
who
believes
Christ
to
be
perfect
God
,
as
well
as
perfect
man
,
is
easily
satisfied
of
his
Power
to
save
,
as
well
as
of
the
Vertue
of
his
Sacrifice
.
For
omnipotent
Power
is
essential
to
the
Notion
of
a
God
,
and
when
God
becomes
our
Saviour
,
he
can
exercise
all
that
Power
,
which
is
necessary
to
our
Salvation
;
but
he
who
believes
Christ
to
be
but
an
exalted
Creature
,
can
never
understand
how
he
can
exercise
omnipotent
Power
,
which
is
peculiar
to
God
:
For
I
think
it
is
somewhat
harder
to
understand
,
how
a
Creature
can
be
made
a
God
,
and
be
possest
of
divine
Perfections
,
such
as
omnipotent
Power
is
,
than
to
believe
,
that
God
can
take
a
Creature
into
a
personal
union
with
himself
.
This
,
I
think
,
is
sufficient
to
satisfie
any
man
,
what
a
fundamental
Change
the
denial
of
Christ's
Divinity
makes
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
.
It
makes
a
new
Gospel
and
a
new
Religion
;
and
therefore
the
Divinity
of
Christ
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
a
fundamental
Doctrine
,
because
the
denial
of
it
subverts
Foundations
.
Thus
to
proceed
,
our
Salvation
by
Christ
does
not
only
consist
in
the
expiation
of
our
sins
,
and
the
proposal
of
terms
of
Reconciliation
,
and
the
promise
of
Pardon
and
a
Reward
,
but
in
the
Communications
of
divine
Grace
and
Power
to
renew
and
sanctifie
us
;
and
this
is
every
where
in
Scripture
attributed
to
the
holy
Spirit
,
as
his
peculiar
Office
in
the
Oeconomy
of
man's
Salvation
;
and
it
must
make
a
fundamental
change
in
the
Doctrine
of
divine
Grace
and
assistance
,
to
deny
the
Divinity
of
the
holy
Spirit
.
For
can
a
Creature
be
the
universal
Spring
and
Fountain
of
divine
Grace
and
Life
?
Can
a
finite
Creature
be
a
kind
of
universal
Soul
to
the
whole
Christian
Church
,
and
to
every
sincere
member
of
it
?
Can
a
Creature
make
such
close
Applications
to
our
minds
,
know
our
thoughts
,
set
bounds
to
our
Passions
,
inspire
us
with
new
affections
and
desires
,
and
be
more
intimate
to
us
,
than
we
are
to
our selves
?
If
a
Creature
be
the
only
instrument
and
principle
of
Grace
,
we
shall
soon
be
tempted
,
either
to
deny
the
grace
of
God
,
or
to
make
it
only
an
external
thing
,
and
entertain
very
mean
conceits
of
it
.
All
those
miraculous
gifts
,
which
were
bestowed
on
the
Apostles
and
primitive
Christians
for
the
edification
of
the
Church
,
were
the
gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
all
the
graces
of
the
Christian
Life
,
are
the
fruits
of
the
Spirit
.
The
divine
Spirit
is
the
principle
of
Immortality
in
us
,
which
first
gives
life
to
our
Souls
,
and
will
at
the
last
day
raise
our
dead
bodies
out
of
the
dust
,
works
which
sufficiently
proclaim
him
to
be
God
,
and
which
we
cannot
heartily
believe
in
the
Gospel-notion
of
them
,
if
he
be
not
.
Thus
,
we
see
,
how
fundamental
the
doctrine
of
the
ever
blessed
Trinity
is
in
the
Christian
Religion
,
because
we
cannot
rightly
understand
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
nor
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
without
this
belief
;
which
seems
to
be
the
true
reason
,
why
the
more
perfect
discovery
of
this
was
reserved
for
Gospel-times
,
and
only
obscurely
hinted
under
the
Law
,
because
the
peculiar
use
of
it
is
under
the
Gospel
;
each
sacred
Person
having
a
peculiar
interest
and
concernment
in
the
work
of
our
Redemption
.
And
therefore
all
those
,
who
expresly
deny
the
Divinity
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
as
many
ancient
Hereticks
did
of
old
,
and
as
the
Socinians
do
at
this
day
,
do
err
fundamentally
,
however
God
may
be
merciful
to
their
ignorance
or
prejudice
,
which
it
does
not
concern
us
to
meddle
with
.
But
though
it
is
necessary
and
essential
to
the
Christian
Faith
,
to
acknowledg
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
to
be
one
eternal
God
,
yet
there
are
a
great
many
little
subtilties
started
by
over-curious
and
busie
heads
,
which
are
not
fundamental
Doctrines
,
and
ought
not
to
be
thought
so
:
God
forbid
that
all
the
nice
distinctions
and
definitions
of
the
Schools
,
about
Essence
,
Subsistence
,
Personalty
,
about
eternal
Generation
and
Procession
,
the
difference
between
Filiation
,
and
Spiration
,
&c.
should
be
reckon'd
among
Fundamentals
of
our
Faith
:
For
though
we
understood
nothing
of
these
matters
(
as
indeed
we
don't
,
and
it
had
been
happy
the
Church
had
never
heard
of
them
)
yet
if
we
believe
the
Divinity
of
each
Person
,
we
believe
enough
to
understand
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
.
And
though
that
fatal
Dispute
between
the
Greek
and
Latine
Church
about
the
Filioque
,
be
of
more
importance
than
such
Scholastick
subtilties
,
yet
I
cannot
see
,
that
it
concerns
the
foundation
of
our
Faith
.
For
the
Gr●ek
Church
did
firmly
believe
the
holy
Spirit
to
be
true
God
,
though
they
would
not
own
,
that
he
proceeded
from
the
Father
,
and
the
Son
,
but
from
the
Father
only
:
And
though
we
must
acknowledg
this
to
be
a
mistake
,
yet
it
is
not
a
fundamental
mistake
;
for
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
is
secured
by
believing
the
holy
Spirit
to
be
true
God
,
without
defining
the
manner
of
his
Procession
.
2.
Upon
the
same
account
that
the
Doctrine
of
the
sacred
Trinity
is
a
fundamental
Article
of
our
Faith
,
the
Doctrine
of
Christ's
Incarnation
also
,
and
what
he
did
and
suffered
in
order
to
our
Salvation
,
the
meritorious
Sacrifice
of
his
death
,
his
Resurrection
from
the
dead
,
Assenscion
into
Heaven
,
Intercession
for
us
at
God's
right
hand
,
and
that
he
shall
come
again
to
judge
the
World
,
to
reward
his
faithful
Disciples
with
a
glorious
Resurrection
,
and
eternal
Life
,
and
to
punish
the
wicked
with
eternal
Death
,
must
be
reckoned
also
among
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
,
because
we
cannot
rightly
understand
,
nor
rightly
believe
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
without
a
belief
of
these
Matters
.
This
is
so
obvious
at
the
first
proposal
,
that
I
need
not
insist
on
the
Proof
of
it
:
And
therefore
those
who
deny
Christ
to
be
true
and
perfect
man
,
as
well
as
those
who
deny
him
to
be
God
,
err
fundamentally
,
for
he
could
not
die
for
us
,
nor
expiate
our
sins
by
his
blood
,
if
he
were
not
man
.
As
for
the
Modus
of
this
Hypostatical
union
,
how
the
divine
and
humane
nature
are
united
in
Christ
,
it
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
very
unconceivable
by
us
,
and
it
is
no
great
wonder
it
should
be
so
when
we
do
not
perfectly
understand
any
one
sort
of
natural
union
,
not
so
much
as
how
the
parts
of
matter
hang
together
,
much
less
how
the
Soul
and
Body
is
united
to
make
one
man
.
But
yet
it
is
fundamental
to
the
Christian
Faith
to
believe
,
that
the
divine
and
humane
nature
are
united
in
Christ
,
that
the
same
Christ
is
both
perfect
God
,
and
perfect
man
,
or
we
must
err
fundamentally
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
;
for
neither
God
nor
man
distinctly
and
separately
considered
,
can
be
our
Saviour
according
to
the
Gospel-notion
of
Salvation
.
God
cannot
suffer
and
die
,
and
the
death
of
a
man
cannot
expiate
sin
,
nor
his
Power
save
us
;
and
therefore
we
must
acknowledg
,
that
God
and
man
is
so
united
in
Christ
,
that
the
Actions
and
operations
of
each
nature
do
as
properly
belong
to
one
Christ
,
as
the
distinct
Operations
of
Body
and
Soul
,
are
the
actions
of
the
same
man
.
Upon
this
account
,
the
Catholick
Church
condemned
the
Heresies
of
Nestorius
and
Eutyches
.
For
Nestorius
divided
not
only
the
Natures
,
but
the
Persons
in
Christ
,
only
united
them
in
Authority
and
Dignity
:
And
thus
Christ
was
not
an
Incarnate
God
in
one
Person
;
but
the
Man
Christ
was
taken
into
a
nearer
relation
to
the
second
Person
of
the
Trinity
,
than
any
other
Man
or
Creature
is
,
but
not
so
as
to
become
one
with
him
;
which
destroyes
the
Mystery
of
our
Redemption
by
the
Blood
of
God
:
For
whatever
Dignity
and
Honour
were
conferr'd
upon
the
man
Christ
by
his
relation
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
divine
Word
,
yet
his
Blood
was
not
the
Blood
of
God
,
because
notwithstanding
this
Relation
to
God
the
Son
,
he
remained
as
much
a
distinct
Person
and
Subsistence
,
as
any
other
man
is
.
The
Heresie
of
Eutyches
is
certainly
equally
dangerous
;
for
he
ran
so
far
from
the
Nestorian
Heresie
of
two
Persons
,
that
he
denyed
two
natures
in
Christ
:
He
did
not
deny
,
but
that
there
was
a
humane
and
divine
nature
before
their
union
,
but
he
asserted
such
an
union
of
natures
in
Christ
,
as
made
a
mixture
and
confusion
of
natures
:
That
Christ
did
not
remain
perfect
God
and
perfect
man
,
after
this
union
,
but
the
humane
and
divine
natures
were
so
blended
together
,
as
to
become
one
nature
,
as
well
as
one
Person
:
Id.
l.
15.
cap.
6.
And
therefore
he
denyed
the
very
Body
of
Christ
to
be
of
the
same
nature
with
our
Bodies
,
or
subject
to
the
same
passions
;
nay
,
he
asserts
the
divine
nature
it self
to
be
passible
.
And
I
think
,
I
need
not
shew
,
how
this
overthrows
the
fundamental
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
which
proves
it
to
be
a
fundamental
Heresie
.
I
shall
only
observe
that
Leo
Bishop
of
Rome
in
his
Letter
to
Flavian
,
(
who
was
then
Bishop
of
Constantinople
,
and
was
afterwards
murdered
by
the
Eutychian
Faction
in
the
packt
Council
of
Ephesus
)
confutes
the
Heresie
of
Eutyches
from
the
very
Principle
,
This
I
think
is
sufficient
to
shew
,
how
fundamental
the
belief
of
the
sacred
Trinity
,
and
the
Incarnation
of
our
Saviour
is
in
the
Christian
Religion
;
Salvation
by
Christ
is
a
fundamental
Doctrine
,
or
nothing
is
fundamental
in
the
Christian
Faith
;
and
yet
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
is
necessarily
founded
on
the
belief
of
the
holy
Trinity
,
each
sacred
Person
being
peculiarly
concerned
in
the
Oeconomy
of
man's
Salvation
.
And
I
confess
,
it
does
mightily
confirm
me
in
this
way
of
stating
the
notion
of
Fundamentals
,
that
it
does
so
plainly
discover
the
necessity
of
that
Faith
,
which
has
always
been
accounted
sacred
and
inviolable
by
the
Catholick
Church
:
This
is
the
Faith
we
are
baptized
into
,
according
to
our
Saviours
Command
,
to
baptize
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
This
is
the
sum
of
all
the
ancient
Creeds
:
The
Apostles
Creed
being
little
else
than
the
explication
of
the
form
of
Baptism
,
what
we
are
to
believe
of
God
the
Father
,
what
of
God
the
Son
,
and
what
of
God
the
Holy
Ghost
.
And
when
Hereticks
arose
,
who
corrupted
this
Faith
,
the
Catholick
Church
expressed
greater
Zeal
in
nothing
,
than
in
preserving
this
Faith
pure
and
sincere
:
This
was
the
occasion
of
the
first
general
Councils
,
wherein
Arius
,
Nestorius
,
Eutyches
,
Macedonius
,
and
such
other
Hereticks
were
condemned
:
This
occasioned
the
Nicene
,
Constantinopolitan
,
and
the
Athanasian
Creeds
,
which
contain
only
the
Catholick
exposition
of
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
,
in
opposition
to
these
ancient
Heresies
.
And
it
would
be
very
strange
,
if
that
which
is
the
chief
,
nay
almost
the
only
Subject
of
all
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
entred
upon
a
Discourse
of
such
vast
Importance
,
to
give
the
greater
satisfaction
to
inquisitive
men
,
I
shall
venture
one
step
further
,
and
I
think
no
man
need
go
any
further
.
3.
The
next
inquiry
therefore
shall
be
,
what
is
fundamental
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
it self
.
Now
this
our
Saviour
briefly
comprehends
in
that
Commission
he
gave
to
the
Apostles
,
to
preach
Repentance
and
Forgiveness
of
sins
in
his
Name
:
through
Faith
in
his
Blood
,
as
St.
Paul
expounds
it
.
Now
not
to
dispute
this
point
at
present
with
the
Socinians
,
all
who
believe
that
Christ
died
to
make
atonement
for
our
sins
,
must
acknowledg
the
atonement
and
expiation
of
Christs
death
to
be
a
fundamental
Article
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
whereon
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
is
built
:
For
therefore
he
is
our
Saviour
,
because
he
saves
his
People
from
their
sins
,
and
how
this
is
,
we
are
often
told
,
viz.
by
dying
for
our
sins
,
the
just
for
the
unjust
,
that
he
may
reconcile
us
to
God
.
Now
if
this
be
true
(
as
I
shall
at
present
take
for
granted
)
then
it
must
be
a
fundamental
Doctrine
,
upon
these
two
accounts
;
1.
Because
the
belief
or
the
denial
of
the
atonement
of
Christ's
death
,
makes
a
specifical
change
in
Religion
.
A
Religion
with
a
Sacrifice
,
and
a
Religion
without
a
Sacrifice
differ
in
the
whole
kind
;
the
first
respects
the
atonement
of
our
past
sins
,
and
our
daily
infirmities
;
it
respects
God
,
as
the
Judge
and
avenger
of
wickedness
,
as
well
as
the
rewarder
of
those
,
who
diligently
seek
him
;
the
other
is
a
kind
of
Philosophical
institution
to
train
men
up
in
the
practice
of
Piety
and
Vertue
:
That
is
,
a
Religion
without
a
Sacrifice
is
at
most
but
half
as
much
as
a
Religion
with
a
Sacrifice
;
and
that
half
wherein
they
agree
of
a
quite
different
nature
from
each
other
.
That
Religion
which
requires
an
expiatory
Sacrifice
,
to
make
atonement
for
sin
,
and
to
obtain
the
Pardon
of
it
,
does
also
strictly
enjoyn
the
practiee
of
an
universal
Righteousness
,
which
is
the
whole
of
a
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
vertue
of
his
Sacrifice
,
vastly
differs
from
a
natural
hope
and
trust
in
God's
mercy
,
or
in
his
bare
promise
,
or
in
the
Power
and
Interest
of
a
great
Favourite
,
though
appointed
to
be
our
Mediator
,
not
in
vertue
of
his
Sacrifice
,
but
by
Royal
Favour
:
Not
but
that
God's
Promise
of
Pardon
and
acceptance
confirmed
to
us
by
such
a
powerful
Favourite
,
whom
God
himself
hath
appointed
to
be
our
Advocate
,
may
give
us
sufficient
security
,
that
God
will
hear
and
answer
our
Prayers
;
but
this
assurance
is
of
a
different
nature
from
the
vertue
of
a
Sacrifice
,
and
affects
our
minds
in
a
different
manner
,
and
excites
different
Passions
,
and
very
different
acts
of
Devotion
,
and
makes
our
Worship
differ
as
much
,
as
a
Mediator
by
Sacrifice
does
from
a
Mediator
by
Interest
and
Power
.
As
for
the
other
parts
of
Religion
,
which
concern
our
Conversation
with
men
,
or
the
Government
of
our
own
Appetites
and
Passions
,
there
seems
to
be
some
new
instances
,
or
new
degrees
of
Vertue
,
which
have
a
necessary
dependance
on
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ's
death
,
as
the
example
or
reason
of
them
.
As
that
high
degree
of
brotherly
love
which
Christ
requires
of
us
,
as
the
Badg
of
our
Discipleship
,
to
love
one
another
,
as
he
hath
loved
us
,
to
forgive
one
another
even
as
God
for
Christ's
sake
hath
forgiven
us
;
all
Acts
of
kindness
and
charity
to
our
poor
Brethren
,
as
knowing
the
Grace
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
that
though
he
were
rich
,
yet
for
your
sakes
he
became
poor
,
that
you
through
his
poverty
may
be
rich
,
the
force
and
prevalency
of
which
example
,
and
of
which
reason
,
I
think
is
greatly
abated
by
denying
the
expiation
of
Christ's
death
.
However
I
think
it
is
very
plain
,
that
the
true
principle
of
Gospel-obedience
,
that
which
makes
all
our
actions
in
a
strict
and
proper
sence
Christian
Graces
and
Vertues
,
has
a
necessary
respect
to
the
expiation
of
Christ's
death
:
We
must
cheerfully
obey
the
Will
of
God
,
not
only
considered
as
our
Creator
,
but
as
a
Redeemer
;
we
must
give
up
our selves
to
Christ
,
as
the
purchase
of
his
Blood
,
for
we
are
not
our
own
,
but
bought
with
a
price
,
and
therefore
must
glorifie
God
both
with
our
Bodies
,
and
with
our
Spirits
,
which
are
God's
;
we
must
yield
our selves
willing
Captives
to
the
conquering
and
constraining
Power
of
his
Love
:
the
Love
of
Christ
constrains
us
,
for
we
thus
judg
,
that
if
Christ
dyed
for
all
,
then
were
all
dead
,
and
that
he
dyed
for
us
,
that
we
who
live
,
might
not
henceforth
live
unto
our selves
,
but
unto
him
,
who
dyed
for
us
.
If
Christ
did
not
redeem
and
purchase
us
by
his
Blood
,
all
this
signifies
nothing
;
it
is
all
but
Phrase
,
and
Metaphor
,
and
Allusion
,
which
cannot
form
a
principle
of
Action
:
And
yet
the
Apostles
of
Christ
do
not
so
much
insist
on
the
Authority
of
God
,
as
our
Maker
and
Governor
,
as
on
his
purchase
as
Redeemer
,
on
the
love
of
our
dying
Lord
,
who
is
our
Priest
,
our
Sacrifice
,
and
Mediator
;
and
were
it
possible
to
obey
the
Gospel
without
any
regard
to
the
redemption
of
Christ
,
and
that
stupendious
love
of
God
in
it
,
it
were
not
true
Evangelical
obedience
,
no
more
than
it
is
obedience
to
God
,
to
do
what
he
commands
for
some
private
end
and
reason
of
our
own
,
without
any
regard
to
his
Authority
and
Government
.
So
that
whether
the
Doctrine
of
the
atonement
and
satisfaction
of
Christ's
death
be
true
or
false
,
it
is
certainly
fundamental
either
way
,
either
a
fundamental
Article
of
Faith
,
or
a
fundamental
Error
,
because
it
alters
Foundations
,
and
changes
the
whole
frame
of
Christian
Religion
.
If
Christ
have
made
atonement
and
expiation
for
our
sins
,
Christianity
is
one
thing
,
if
he
have
not
,
it
is
quite
another
thing
,
as
different
,
as
it
is
possible
;
which
I
think
is
a
plain
argument
,
that
the
expiation
of
Christ's
Blood
is
a
fundamental
or
foundation
.
Doctrine
,
since
the
whole
Fabrick
of
Christian
Religion
,
as
it
is
taught
in
the
Gospel
,
is
built
on
it
.
2.
There
is
one
consideration
more
,
which
will
confirm
this
,
that
the
atonement
and
expiation
of
Christ's
death
is
a
fundamental
Doctrine
,
because
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
the
expiation
of
his
Blood
,
is
the
peculiar
object
of
justifying
Faith
;
now
certainly
that
must
be
fundamental
,
which
is
essential
to
justifying
Faith
.
Salvation
or
Justification
by
Christ
being
the
sum
of
the
Gospel
,
whatever
is
essential
to
justifying
Faith
,
is
certainly
a
fundamental
Doctrine
of
Christianity
,
if
there
be
any
such
thing
as
Fundamentals
.
Repentance
in
its
full
Extent
and
Latitude
,
as
it
includes
not
only
a
sorrow
for
our
past
sins
,
but
the
reformation
of
our
lives
,
and
an
actual
obedience
to
all
the
Laws
of
the
Gospel
,
is
a
necessary
condition
of
our
Pardon
and
Justification
,
or
necessarily
required
in
those
,
whom
God
will
justifie
:
But
Repentance
and
a
new
Life
cannot
justifie
us
:
No
Religion
,
that
ever
was
in
the
World
,
taught
men
certainly
to
expect
Pardon
of
sin
meerly
upon
their
Repentance
:
And
it
is
plain
,
that
mankind
never
did
;
for
both
Heathens
and
Jews
thought
the
expiation
of
Sacrifices
as
necessary
,
and
more
prevalent
than
meer
Repentance
,
to
obtain
their
Pardon
:
And
the
reason
why
God
hath
appointed
us
no
Sacrifice
but
a
broken
heart
,
or
the
living
Sacrifice
of
an
obedient
Soul
and
Body
,
to
offer
to
him
,
is
because
he
has
provided
an
expiatory
Sacrifice
himself
,
hath
given
his
own
Son
to
be
a
Sacrifice
for
us
;
and
the
Pardon
of
our
sins
is
every
where
attributed
to
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
the
meritorious
Cause
.
But
then
as
Christ
hath
dyed
for
our
sins
,
and
redeemed
us
with
his
Blood
,
and
God
for
Christ's
sake
will
pardon
and
justifie
all
repenting
sinners
,
so
we
must
consider
,
that
meer
repentance
can
no
more
apply
or
appropiate
the
Sacrifice
and
Expiation
of
Christ's
death
to
us
for
our
Pardon
,
than
it
can
justifie
us
without
a
Sacrifice
:
That
is
the
peculiar
Office
of
Faith
in
Christ
,
or
Faith
in
his
Blood
:
as
St.
Paul
expresly
tells
us
.
Being
justified
freely
by
his
Grace
,
through
the
redemption
which
is
in
Christ
Jesus
,
whom
God
hath
set
forth
to
be
a
Propitiation
through
Faith
in
his
Blood
.
For
though
Faith
in
Christ
is
very
often
used
in
a
very
large
sence
for
the
whole
Gospel
of
our
Saviour
,
and
to
comprehend
all
Acts
of
Obedience
and
a
holy
Life
,
as
the
Principle
from
whence
they
flow
,
and
no
other
is
true
justifying
Faith
,
but
that
which
includes
Obedience
and
a
holy
Life
:
Yet
sometimes
Faith
is
distinguisht
from
Repentance
and
a
holy
Life
;
and
so
has
Christ
,
and
in
a
peculiar
manner
his
Blood
,
for
its
Object
.
Thus
the
sum
of
St.
Paul's
preaching
was
Repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
:
And
the
Commission
Christ
gave
to
his
Apostles
,
was
,
to
preach
Repentance
and
Remission
of
sins
in
his
Name
;
that
is
,
through
Faith
in
his
Name
:
So
that
Faith
in
Christ
is
distinguisht
from
Repentance
in
the
work
of
Justification
;
and
so
denotes
a
particular
respect
to
the
expiation
of
Christ's
death
,
as
the
meritorious
Cause
of
Pardon
.
Under
the
Law
,
a
Sacrifice
was
available
only
for
those
,
for
whom
it
was
offer'd
,
but
under
the
Gospel
instead
of
offering
a
Sacrifice
to
God
,
we
must
believe
in
that
Sacrifice
,
which
is
already
offered
,
which
does
particularly
apply
the
merit
and
vertue
of
it
to
our selves
,
as
the
Oblation
of
the
Sacrifice
did
under
the
Law
;
for
if
we
would
have
Christ
for
our
Saviour
,
or
have
any
interest
in
the
expiation
of
his
death
,
we
must
choose
him
for
our
Saviour
by
Faith
in
his
Blood
.
For
I
cannot
see
,
but
why
Repentance
may
be
as
well
accepted
from
us
without
a
Sacrifice
,
as
without
respect
and
relation
to
a
Sacrifice
,
and
yet
the
only
thing
,
that
can
entitle
our
Repentance
in
particular
to
the
vertue
of
Christ's
Sacrifice
,
is
Faith
in
his
Blood
,
which
,
I
think
,
is
a
plain
argument
,
that
the
atonement
of
Christ's
death
is
a
fundamental
Doctrine
of
Christianity
,
because
it
is
essential
to
a
justifying
Faith
.
But
then
there
are
a
great
many
other
opinions
relating
to
the
atonement
.
and
satisfaction
of
Christ's
death
,
which
are
true
or
false
,
but
not
fundamental
:
For
as
St.
Paul
observes
,
the
Foundation
is
Christ
,
but
yet
men
may
build
upon
this
Foundation
either
Gold
and
Silver
,
or
Hay
and
Stubble
,
that
is
,
true
or
false
Doctrines
,
which
are
of
great
use
in
the
Christian
Life
,
or
of
very
dangerous
consequence
;
but
yet
while
they
retain
the
Foundation
,
though
their
works
perish
,
i.
e.
the
superstructure
of
their
private
Opinions
be
condemned
and
rejected
,
yet
they
themselves
may
escape
,
though
with
great
difficulty
,
so
as
by
fire
.
Thus
while
men
heartily
believe
,
that
Christ
dyed
for
our
sins
,
and
has
made
expiation
for
them
by
his
Blood
,
and
expect
the
Pardon
of
their
sins
only
in
Christ's
Name
,
that
is
,
in
vertue
of
his
Sacrifice
and
Intercession
,
they
may
fall
into
great
mistakes
about
the
Nature
,
Extent
,
and
Application
of
this
Sacrifice
,
and
yet
not
err
Fundamentally
,
though
their
Errors
may
be
dangerous
,
and
always
are
so
,
when
they
betray
them
to
sin
.
Of
this
Nature
I
reckon
some
of
those
unhappy
Disputes
,
which
have
torn
and
divided
the
Church
in
these
late
days
of
Liberty
and
Confusion
,
Whether
Christ
bore
our
sins
,
or
only
the
punishment
of
sin
,
whether
he
were
the
greatest
sinner
,
or
only
the
greatest
Sacrifice
for
sin
:
Whether
he
suffered
the
same
Punishments
,
which
all
sinners
should
have
suffered
,
had
they
been
damned
for
their
sins
,
or
suffered
that
which
was
equivalent
to
it
,
and
which
God
accepted
for
a
complete
and
perfect
satisfaction
.
Whether
the
expiation
of
Christ's
death
was
so
absolutely
necessary
to
the
Pardon
of
our
sins
,
that
God
could
not
forgive
sin
without
it
,
or
whether
God
choose
this
way
,
as
most
agreeable
to
the
wise
methods
of
Government
,
and
the
most
glorious
Illustration
of
all
his
Attributes
.
Whether
the
death
of
Christ
made
satisfaction
to
a
natural
vindictive
Justice
,
and
was
paid
to
God
,
as
the
offended
Party
,
or
as
the
Governor
of
the
World
.
Whether
Christ
made
a
general
atonement
for
sin
,
or
satisfied
only
for
the
sins
of
the
Elect
;
whether
all
the
sins
of
the
Elect
were
actually
laid
upon
Christ
from
Eternity
,
and
actually
pardoned
before
they
were
committed
,
or
whether
they
are
pardoned
in
time
,
when
we
repent
and
believe
.
Whether
what
Christ
suffered
for
us
,
is
so
imputed
to
us
,
as
if
we
our selves
had
done
it
;
which
makes
the
greatest
sinners
perfectly
Innocent
,
and
looked
upon
by
God
,
as
never
to
have
sinned
,
or
whether
it
be
imputed
to
us
only
for
our
Pardon
and
Justification
.
Whether
the
active
as
well
as
passive
Obedience
of
Christ
be
imputed
to
us
for
Justification
.
These
and
such
like
Doctrines
,
some
of
which
are
of
a
very
dangerous
nature
,
and
a
great
state
of
temptation
,
yet
are
not
fundamental
Errors
,
because
they
do
not
destroy
the
Foundation
,
the
atonement
and
satisfaction
of
Christ's
death
is
acknowledged
on
all
hands
,
though
some
of
these
Doctrines
do
greatly
obscure
the
grace
of
God
,
and
his
stupendious
wisdom
in
the
redemption
of
the
World
by
Jesus
Christ
,
and
therefore
must
be
reckon'd
as
Hay
and
Stubble
built
upon
the
Foundation
,
which
will
prove
a
great
loss
and
dammage
to
such
Builders
,
when
every
man's
work
comes
to
be
tryed
.
But
to
proceed
;
among
the
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
we
must
reckon
,
not
only
the
atonement
and
expiation
of
his
death
,
but
the
gift
of
his
holy
Spirit
to
renew
and
sanctifie
us
:
For
this
makes
him
a
complete
Saviour
,
to
deliver
us
from
the
punishment
of
our
sins
,
and
from
the
power
and
dominion
of
them
.
Now
that
it
is
fundamental
to
the
Christian
Religion
,
and
to
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
to
believe
the
divine
influences
and
assistances
of
the
holy
Spirit
to
work
Faith
,
and
all
other
Christian
graces
in
us
,
appears
from
these
considerations
.
1.
The
gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
is
the
most
glorious
effect
of
Christ's
Power
and
Intercession
,
and
therefore
one
of
the
principal
fruits
and
benefits
of
his
Sacrifice
;
by
which
we
may
understand
the
value
and
necessity
of
it
;
to
deny
the
intercession
of
Christ
,
whereby
he
daily
dispenses
and
applyes
the
merits
of
his
Sacrifice
,
does
as
much
alter
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
as
to
deny
the
atonement
of
his
death
,
and
to
deny
the
assistances
of
the
divine
Spirit
,
is
in
effect
to
deny
his
Intercession
,
of
which
the
Communications
of
divine
Life
and
Power
is
the
principal
part
.
2.
To
deny
the
assistances
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
turns
the
Gospel
into
a
meer
external
Ministration
,
which
makes
as
fundamental
a
difference
in
the
Christian
Religion
,
as
there
is
between
the
Ministration
of
the
Letter
and
of
the
Spirit
.
3.
This
in
a
great
measure
takes
away
the
Office
of
the
holy
Spirit
in
the
Oeconomy
of
man's
Salvation
,
and
consequently
destroyes
his
Worship
,
which
is
peculiar
to
the
Christian
Religion
.
The
light
of
nature
directs
us
only
to
the
Worship
of
one
God
,
the
Christian
Religion
consecrates
us
at
our
baptism
,
to
the
Worship
of
three
divine
Persons
,
and
one
God
.
For
since
each
sacred
Person
is
peculiarly
concerned
in
the
Salvation
of
sinners
,
each
of
them
ought
to
be
acknowledged
and
adored
by
us
.
But
whoever
denies
the
efficacy
of
the
holy
Spirit
in
the
work
of
Salvation
,
destroys
the
foundation
of
his
Worship
too
,
considered
as
a
distinct
Person
in
the
Trinity
.
4.
To
deny
the
assistances
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
makes
the
Sacraments
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
meer
external
Ceremonies
,
which
were
instituted
as
the
Ministries
and
Conveyances
of
Grace
,
and
so
makes
a
fundamental
change
in
the
Institutions
of
Christianity
.
5.
Nay
it
makes
a
fundamental
change
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
of
our
Saviour
.
The
Christian
Worship
principally
consists
,
in
praising
God
and
our
Saviour
for
spiritual
mercies
,
in
ascribing
the
glory
of
all
the
good
we
do
to
his
free
Grace
,
and
continual
succors
,
in
begging
his
holy
Spirit
,
and
the
constant
supplies
of
Grace
,
that
we
may
increase
and
persevere
in
all
goodness
;
this
we
have
frequent
examples
of
in
the
Writings
of
the
Apostles
;
but
whoever
denies
the
assistances
of
supernatural
Grace
,
both
defrauds
God
of
his
Glory
,
and
himself
of
the
benefit
and
comfort
of
it
.
He
cannot
praise
God
for
,
nor
beg
that
of
God
,
which
he
believes
,
God
does
not
give
;
which
makes
our
Worship
very
defective
,
and
deprives
us
of
the
assistances
of
Grace
,
which
we
shall
never
have
,
if
we
never
ask
.
But
then
all
,
that
I
can
judge
fundamental
in
this
point
,
is
,
that
the
beginnings
,
progress
,
and
perfection
of
all
Christian
graces
and
vertues
,
are
owing
to
the
influences
and
operations
of
the
holy
Spirit
.
But
those
other
nice
disputes
about
the
manner
of
the
Spirits
working
in
us
,
whether
it
be
a
natural
or
moral
efficacy
,
whether
it
be
a
sufficient
,
or
efficacious
Grace
,
resistable
or
irresistable
,
how
the
operation
of
the
Spirit
is
reconcileable
with
the
freedom
of
humane
action
;
whether
the
habits
of
grace
be
immediately
infused
,
or
acquired
by
frequent
Acts
,
these
I
say
,
and
such
like
Disputes
are
not
fundamental
;
for
though
it
is
of
great
moment
for
the
government
of
our
lives
,
which
of
these
we
believe
,
yet
the
Foundation
which
is
the
assistance
of
the
divine
Spirit
,
is
secured
either
way
,
and
all
that
men
are
to
look
to
is
,
that
they
do
not
entertain
such
ill
notions
of
God's
Grace
,
as
shall
make
them
secure
and
careless
of
a
holy
Life
.
All
that
I
can
think
necessary
to
add
more
concerning
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
is
what
I
have
already
sufficiently
hinted
,
the
necessity
of
Repentance
and
a
holy
Life
.
There
are
,
I
confess
,
a
great
many
dangerous
Disputes
about
this
matter
,
what
place
Repentance
and
a
holy
Life
have
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
.
And
though
it
is
of
very
great
moment
to
understand
this
matter
rightly
,
and
as
particularly
as
we
can
,
for
fear
of
that
ill
influence
which
such
mistakes
may
have
upon
our
lives
,
and
too
apparently
have
upon
the
lives
of
many
professed
Christians
;
yet
I
cannot
think
,
that
man
errs
fundamentally
,
who
believes
,
that
God
will
justifie
and
pardon
none
but
true
penitent
and
reformed
sinners
,
and
that
not
for
the
sake
and
merit
of
Repentance
and
good
Works
,
but
for
the
sake
of
Christ
,
and
through
Faith
in
his
Blood
,
though
he
may
differ
about
the
necessity
of
Repentance
and
Obedience
,
and
what
place
it
has
in
the
justification
of
a
sinner
.
Whether
it
be
a
necessary
Condition
,
or
a
necessary
requisite
and
Qualification
,
or
a
necessary
concomitant
and
effect
of
Justification
,
or
whether
it
be
necessary
only
to
our
Salvation
,
but
not
to
our
Justification
:
Whether
Faith
justifie
as
an
Instrument
,
or
as
a
Condition
,
&c.
For
while
Faith
in
Christ
and
Obedience
to
his
Laws
are
both
secured
,
without
either
derogating
from
the
Grace
of
God
,
or
the
Purity
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
other
mistakes
,
though
dangerous
,
when
persued
to
their
just
Consequences
,
and
when
men
own
,
and
live
by
such
Consequences
,
yet
I
hope
,
are
very
harmless
and
Innocent
,
when
they
do
not
corrupt
mens
lives
,
nor
hinder
the
efficacy
of
the
divine
Grace
.
Thus
I
have
given
an
Essay
(
and
I
hope
it
may
pass
for
an
Essay
)
towards
the
Discovery
,
what
are
fundamental
Doctrines
of
the
Christian
Religion
.
I
have
strictly
confined
my self
to
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
,
though
there
are
some
principles
of
natural
Religion
,
which
are
antecedently
necessary
to
be
believed
,
but
they
are
more
generally
known
and
agreed
in
.
I
have
had
a
tender
regard
to
the
weaknesses
and
mistakes
of
mankind
,
and
to
the
enlargement
of
Catholick
Communion
,
and
therefore
have
,
as
far
as
was
consistent
with
preserving
the
essentials
of
Christianity
,
cast
most
of
our
modern
controversies
out
of
the
number
of
Fundamentals
;
which
,
if
carefully
considered
,
would
asswage
that
intemperate
heat
,
with
which
they
are
managed
,
and
more
easily
reconcile
our
differences
;
and
yet
I
have
not
rejected
any
Doctrine
out
of
the
number
of
Fundamentals
,
which
was
ever
defined
to
be
such
by
any
received
general
Council
of
the
Christian
Church
;
which
gives
me
some
hope
,
that
I
am
come
pretty
near
the
mark
.
But
to
give
some
new
light
to
this
matter
,
and
to
prevent
such
objections
,
as
I
can
foresee
,
there
are
some
few
things
,
which
I
shall
further
observe
,
before
I
proceed
.
1.
The
first
concerns
the
judgment
of
that
truly
great
and
learned
Person
Mr.
Joseph
Mede
.
is
the
Fundamentum
ipsum
,
or
the
Foundation
it self
,
though
what
that
is
,
he
does
not
tell
us
,
and
therefore
how
far
I
agree
with
Mr.
Streso
in
that
,
I
know
not
.
The
other
two
he
measures
by
their
relation
to
it
,
either
à
parte
ante
,
and
such
he
terms
sub
Fundamentales
,
(
which
by
Mr.
Mede's
censure
I
perceive
,
did
not
strictly
belong
to
Christianity
,
but
either
to
the
principles
of
natural
Religion
,
or
the
Jewish
State
)
or
à
parte
post
,
which
may
be
called
super
Fundamentales
,
which
he
makes
such
as
are
by
immediate
and
necessary
consequence
deducible
from
the
Fundamentum
salutis
,
where
he
observes
,
that
he
had
inserted
some
Doctrines
of
pure
speculation
among
Fundamentals
,
which
I
confess
to
be
a
great
fault
:
But
from
this
imperfect
account
of
Mr.
Streso's
notion
,
I
cannot
guess
,
how
far
my
way
might
fall
under
the
same
censure
.
As
for
those
two
faults
,
he
has
observed
in
Mr.
Streso's
way
,
viz.
reckoning
such
Doctrines
among
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
,
as
are
not
strictly
Christian
Doctrines
,
or
are
matters
of
meer
speculation
,
I
have
carefully
avoided
them
both
;
and
as
for
judging
what
particular
Doctrines
are
fundamental
to
Christianity
,
from
some
general
comprehensive
Fundamental
,
which
contains
the
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
it self
is
,
unless
the
Letters
or
Words
of
the
Article
be
Fundamental
,
but
not
the
true
sence
of
it
;
and
within
these
bounds
I
have
kept
my self
;
I
have
asserted
no
Doctrine
to
be
Fundamental
,
but
what
is
necessary
to
our
belief
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
which
is
a
very
different
thing
from
drawing
fundamental
consequences
.
Mr.
Mede
indeed
assigns
another
ratio
of
fundamental
Articles
;
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
meerly
speculative
,
and
contained
only
in
the
understanding
,
but
of
such
only
as
have
a
necessary
influence
upon
practise
,
and
not
all
those
neither
,
but
such
as
have
necessary
influence
upon
the
Acts
and
Functions
of
Christian
Life
,
or
whereon
the
Acts
,
without
which
a
Christian
lives
not
,
depend
.
Such
namely
,
as
without
the
knowledg
and
belief
whereof
,
we
can
neither
invocate
the
Father
aright
,
nor
have
that
Faith
and
relyance
upon
him
,
and
his
Son
our
Mediator
Jesus
Christ
,
which
is
necessary
to
remission
of
sins
,
and
the
hope
of
the
Life
to
come
.
Where
he
seems
evidently
to
confine
Fundamentals
to
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
for
nothing
else
is
necessary
to
what
he
calls
the
proper
acts
and
functions
of
the
Christian
Life
.
But
he
proceeds
.
How
far
this
ratio
of
a
Fundamental
Article
will
stretch
,
I
know
not
,
but
believe
it
will
fetch
in
most
of
the
Articles
of
the
Apostles
Creed
;
and
by
it
also
those
two
main
errors
of
the
Socinians
,
the
one
denying
the
divine
Nature
,
the
other
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
may
be
discerned
to
be
Fundamental
;
for
without
the
belief
of
the
first
,
the
Divine
Majesty
cannot
be
rightly
,
that
is
,
incommunicably
worshipp'd
,
so
as
to
have
no
other
Gods
besides
him
.
For
he
that
believes
not
Christ
to
be
consubstantial
to
the
Father
,
and
yet
honours
him
with
the
same
Worship
,
worships
not
the
Father
incommunicably
,
which
is
the
formalis
ratio
of
the
Worship
of
the
true
God
,
from
whom
we
look
for
eternal
Life
;
and
without
the
belief
of
the
second
,
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
there
can
be
,
I
suppose
,
no
saving
Faith
nor
relyance
on
Christ
for
the
forgiveness
of
sins
.
How
well
this
agrees
,
with
what
I
have
discours'd
about
Fundamentals
,
every
one
will
easily
perceive
.
Some
other
learned
men
go
the
same
way
with
Mr.
Mede
,
in
assigning
the
general
Ratio
or
Notion
of
Fundamentals
,
that
they
are
such
Doctrines
,
as
have
a
great
influence
upon
a
Christian
Life
,
though
they
do
not
confine
it
,
as
he
does
,
to
some
peculiar
acts
of
the
Christian
Life
,
and
he
could
have
no
reason
to
do
so
,
had
he
not
some
other
Notion
of
Fundamentals
in
his
mind
,
than
what
he
expressed
,
for
all
the
acts
of
Piety
and
Vertue
are
equally
required
of
us
by
the
Laws
of
the
Gospel
,
and
therefore
it
is
most
reasonable
in
this
way
,
to
extend
the
Notion
of
Fundamentals
to
all
those
Doctrines
,
which
have
an
universal
influence
upon
a
good
Life
;
but
I
have
something
to
offer
with
all
modesty
,
and
just
respect
and
deference
to
such
great
names
against
this
Notion
of
Fundamentals
.
1.
That
a
holy
Life
is
not
the
only
design
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
and
therefore
if
we
will
judge
of
fundamental
Doctrines
by
the
end
,
they
are
intended
to
serve
,
we
must
take
in
the
whole
and
entire
end
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
which
is
forgiveness
of
sins
,
as
well
as
holyness
of
Life
:
And
therefore
whatever
is
necessary
to
be
believed
for
the
forgiveness
of
sins
is
a
fundamental
Doctrine
of
Christianity
,
though
we
could
not
see
,
what
direct
and
immediate
influence
it
has
upon
the
reformation
of
our
Lives
.
2.
The
Doctrine
of
the
ever
blessed
Trinity
,
hath
in
all
ages
of
the
Church
been
accounted
a
fundamental
Article
,
and
yet
nothing
is
more
plain
,
than
that
the
belief
of
three
divine
Persons
,
considered
only
as
three
Persons
,
has
no
greater
force
in
it
to
make
men
good
,
than
the
belief
of
one
supreme
and
eternal
God
.
It
is
true
,
when
we
consider
all
these
divine
Persons
as
concerned
in
the
Oeconomy
of
Man's
Salvation
;
so
the
belief
of
each
Person
has
a
distinct
and
powerful
influence
upon
our
minds
,
but
this
is
not
owing
immediately
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
,
but
to
the
Doctrine
of
man's
Salvation
by
Christ
,
who
was
sent
into
the
World
by
his
Father
,
to
accomplish
the
Work
of
our
redemption
,
and
when
he
left
the
World
,
sent
his
holy
Spirit
to
abide
with
us
.
3.
All
those
Doctrines
,
which
have
a
powerful
influence
upon
a
good
life
,
are
not
in
a
strict
and
proper
sence
Christian
Doctrines
,
much
less
fundamental
Articles
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
therefore
this
can
be
no
good
Criterion
of
a
Fundamental
;
such
are
all
the
natural
arguments
to
Religion
and
a
vertuous
Life
,
which
though
they
be
adopted
into
Christianity
,
yet
will
hardly
pass
for
fundamentals
of
Christianity
with
any
man
,
who
can
distinguish
between
natural
knowledg
and
Revelation
.
4.
Men
may
live
very
holy
lives
without
the
knowledg
or
belief
of
many
Doctrines
,
which
are
excellently
fitted
to
promote
holiness
,
and
therefore
every
Doctrine
,
which
will
advance
holiness
,
is
not
Fundamental
,
and
yet
this
general
rule
does
not
direct
us
,
how
to
distinguish
them
.
5.
Nay
,
many
Doctrines
,
which
are
so
far
from
being
Fundamental
,
that
they
are
false
,
may
yet
prevail
with
,
and
encline
some
men
to
the
practise
of
real
holiness
.
6.
Some
Doctrines
,
which
naturally
tend
to
debauch
mens
lives
,
are
not
yet
fundamental
Errors
,
for
men
may
believe
them
and
yet
live
well
;
and
therefore
we
shall
still
want
a
Rule
to
judg
of
fundamental
Heresies
by
,
unless
no
Heresie
be
Fundamental
,
but
when
it
debauches
mens
lives
,
and
by
the
same
rule
,
no
Doctrine
is
Fundamental
,
but
when
it
actually
governs
and
reforms
our
lives
.
7.
This
leaves
men
at
great
liberty
to
believe
what
Doctrines
they
please
to
be
Fundamental
,
and
to
change
even
Christianity
it self
into
a
new
Religion
;
for
if
they
think
they
can
obey
God
without
such
Doctrines
,
nay
without
the
belief
of
Christianity
it self
,
I
cannot
see
,
why
they
should
believe
Christianity
it self
to
be
a
fundamental
Doctrine
to
them
.
8.
I
readily
grant
,
that
no
Doctrine
can
be
a
fundamental
Article
of
Faith
,
which
has
not
one
way
or
other
an
influence
upon
a
Christian
life
.
But
then
all
the
peculiar
Arguments
of
the
Gospel
,
all
the
principles
of
pure
evangelical
Obedience
,
as
well
as
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Faith
,
are
contained
in
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
.
That
it self
is
the
great
motive
of
the
Gospel
,
and
every
part
and
branch
of
it
is
big
with
arguments
and
perswasives
to
Vertue
.
Take
away
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
and
no
other
consideration
can
have
any
force
;
and
there
needs
no
other
Arguments
to
a
Christian
,
nay
,
there
are
no
other
Gospel-Motives
,
but
what
are
contained
in
it
.
Whatever
is
essential
to
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
is
a
Fundamental
Article
and
a
powerful
Motive
of
Christianity
,
and
nothing
else
is
either
.
So
that
there
is
no
such
certain
way
to
discern
Fundamentals
,
though
they
were
to
be
tryed
by
their
tendency
to
promote
real
Righteousness
,
as
to
consider
,
what
is
essential
to
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
Christ
,
which
is
an
acknowledged
Fundamental
,
and
contains
in
it
all
the
principles
of
a
Christian
Life
.
2.
I
desire
,
it
may
be
further
observed
,
that
when
I
discourse
of
Fundamentals
,
I
do
not
reject
all
other
Doctrines
besides
what
are
strictly
Fundamental
,
as
useless
in
the
Christian
Life
,
or
unfit
terms
of
Church
Communion
.
God
affords
us
more
than
what
is
barely
necessary
,
for
our
spiritual
,
as
well
as
for
our
natural
life
;
and
expects
from
us
,
that
we
should
make
daily
improvements
in
Knowledg
and
Vertue
:
And
if
this
be
the
duty
of
private
Christians
,
it
is
much
more
the
duty
of
particular
Churches
to
arrive
at
the
greatest
perfection
of
Knowledg
,
and
to
instruct
her
Children
,
not
only
in
those
Doctrines
,
which
are
absolutely
necessary
to
the
being
of
Christianity
,
but
in
all
those
great
truths
,
which
advance
our
Progress
in
the
Christian
Life
.
And
therefore
no
doubt
,
but
every
Church
has
Authority
over
her
own
Members
,
to
require
,
as
the
terms
of
Communion
,
an
explicite
assent
to
many
great
and
useful
truths
,
and
an
abrenunciation
of
many
dangerous
Errors
,
which
are
not
in
a
strict
sence
Fundamental
;
or
else
she
has
no
Authority
to
teach
the
whole
mind
and
will
of
God
,
nor
to
preserve
the
purity
of
Christian
Doctrine
:
For
there
are
many
Doctrines
of
vast
use
in
the
Christian
Life
,
and
many
very
fatal
and
pernicious
Errors
,
which
are
not
properly
Fundamental
,
and
yet
it
may
be
,
have
occasioned
the
final
Damnation
of
many
more
,
than
ever
fundamental
Errors
have
done
.
And
if
the
Church
be
bound
to
take
care
of
mens
Souls
,
she
is
bound
also
to
root
out
such
pernicious
Doctrines
.
But
the
use
I
designed
the
Doctrine
of
Fundamentals
for
in
this
place
,
is
the
preservation
of
Catholick
Communion
between
distinct
Churches
,
which
have
no
Power
and
Authority
over
each
other
:
For
though
a
Church
have
entertained
many
corrupt
and
dangerous
Doctrines
,
yet
if
she
profess
to
believe
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Faith
,
we
have
no
Authority
upon
the
account
of
Doctrines
to
divide
from
her
Communion
:
We
must
not
indeed
communicate
in
her
Errors
,
though
not
Fundamental
,
and
no
Church
,
but
the
Church
of
Rome
imposes
such
hard
terms
of
Communion
upon
other
Churches
,
but
while
she
retains
all
the
essentials
of
Christian
Faith
,
she
is
so
far
a
true
Church
;
and
if
there
be
nothing
to
hinder
it
,
may
and
ought
to
be
received
into
Catholick
Communion
.
3.
When
I
assert
,
that
such
and
such
Doctrines
are
Fundamental
,
by
Fundamentals
I
understand
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Knowledg
,
without
which
,
no
man
can
understand
and
believe
like
a
Christian
,
which
plainly
proves
,
that
they
are
necessary
to
the
very
being
of
a
Christian
Church
,
and
therefore
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
:
Which
is
all
I
am
concerned
to
prove
.
But
if
any
man
should
put
hard
Cases
to
me
with
respect
to
the
final
Salvation
of
particular
Christians
,
and
inquire
how
far
the
explicite
knowledg
and
belief
of
Fundamentals
is
necessary
to
Salvation
:
What
shall
become
of
so
many
Christians
as
are
guilty
of
gross
ignorance
for
want
of
good
Instruction
,
and
scarce
understand
any
thing
distinctly
of
the
Christian
Religion
?
or
what
shall
become
of
those
,
who
through
the
prejudices
and
prepossessions
of
Education
,
deny
any
fundamental
Article
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
as
the
Divinity
of
Christ
,
or
his
satisfaction
for
sins
,
and
yet
are
otherwise
very
pious
,
devout
,
and
useful
men
?
I
say
,
I
do
not
think
my self
bound
to
answer
these
Questions
,
nor
to
search
into
the
secret
Counsels
of
God
,
to
determine
how
he
will
judge
the
World
,
or
what
allowances
he
will
make
in
some
favourable
Cases
;
but
yet
I
have
some
few
things
to
offer
,
which
possibly
may
give
some
satisfaction
to
modest
Inquirers
.
1.
We
must
not
deny
the
necessity
of
Christian
Faith
and
Knowledg
for
the
sake
of
any
difficult
Cases
;
for
that
is
to
deny
the
necessity
of
Christianity
it self
,
or
of
Faith
in
Christ
,
to
the
Salvation
of
sinners
;
and
thus
our
Charity
to
other
men
will
make
us
our selves
the
greatest
Hereticks
of
all
.
And
if
any
part
of
Christian
Faith
and
Knowledg
is
necessary
to
Salvation
,
certainly
the
knowledg
and
belief
of
Fundamentals
is
,
which
are
therefore
commonly
described
by
this
Character
,
the
knowledg
and
belief
of
which
is
necessary
to
Salvation
:
And
if
Infidelity
be
a
damning
sin
,
why
should
not
a
fundamental
Heresie
be
so
,
which
is
infidelity
with
respect
to
some
essential
and
saving
Doctrine
of
Christianity
,
and
in
its
consequence
overthrows
some
material
and
essential
part
of
the
Christian
Faith
.
2.
There
is
a
vast
difference
between
the
Case
of
those
men
,
who
for
want
of
good
Instruction
,
have
not
an
explicite
understanding
of
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Faith
,
and
of
those
,
who
deny
any
Fundamental
.
As
for
the
first
,
a
very
little
indistinct
knowledg
of
Christ
,
if
it
govern
their
lives
,
and
teach
them
to
live
in
Obedience
to
their
Saviour
,
will
carry
them
safely
to
Heaven
,
for
God
requires
little
of
those
to
whom
little
is
given
.
Now
there
is
no
man
,
that
deserves
the
name
of
a
Christian
,
who
has
not
learnt
his
Creed
,
who
does
not
know
and
believe
,
that
Jesus
Christ
came
into
the
World
to
die
for
sin
,
and
to
save
sinners
,
and
that
God
for
Christ's
sake
will
forgive
our
sins
,
if
we
repent
of
them
,
and
live
a
new
life
;
now
such
a
general
knowledg
as
this
,
without
any
fundamental
Error
to
spoil
the
vertue
and
efficacy
of
it
,
may
suffice
to
produce
all
those
Acts
of
a
Christian
life
,
which
are
absolutely
necessary
to
a
state
of
Salvation
,
such
as
Repentance
from
dead
works
,
and
a
trust
and
affiance
in
God
through
the
Blood
of
Christ
for
forgiveness
of
sins
.
The
Thief
upon
the
Cross
cannot
well
be
supposed
to
have
known
so
much
,
and
the
Jewish
Converts
,
who
embraced
the
Faith
upon
St.
Peters
preaching
to
them
,
and
were
immediately
baptized
in
great
numbers
,
cannot
be
supposed
at
that
time
to
know
more
;
and
yet
this
was
accepted
from
them
at
that
time
,
and
in
that
state
of
things
,
and
by
the
same
reason
will
be
accepted
from
those
,
who
want
the
opportunities
of
better
instruction
:
And
if
there
be
any
baptized
and
nominal
Christians
,
who
do
not
know
thus
much
,
it
is
a
great
scandal
to
the
Christian
Church
,
but
I
know
not
,
how
we
are
more
concerned
for
their
Salvation
,
than
for
Pagans
and
Infidels
.
But
as
for
those
,
who
deny
any
fundamental
Article
,
they
are
got
above
this
state
of
a
general
and
implicite
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
err
not
for
want
of
instruction
,
but
from
a
certain
wantonness
and
pride
of
understanding
.
They
inquire
into
the
particular
Doctrines
of
Faith
,
and
understand
,
what
has
been
,
and
is
,
the
general
Faith
of
Christians
in
such
matters
,
for
otherwise
they
would
have
no
occasion
to
deny
such
Catholick
Doctrines
;
it
appears
,
they
have
a
great
conceit
and
confidence
of
their
own
knowledg
,
that
they
dare
oppose
their
private
opinions
and
reasonings
against
the
declared
sence
of
the
universal
Church
,
which
is
such
unpardonable
immodesty
,
as
admits
of
no
excuse
,
if
they
lose
themselves
in
the
Mazes
and
Labyrinths
of
their
own
making
,
and
mistake
their
way
to
Heaven
.
And
though
such
Persons
may
be
otherwise
very
pious
and
useful
men
,
yet
I
do
not
see
,
why
we
should
deny
the
necessity
of
believing
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Faith
any
more
for
their
sakes
,
than
for
the
sake
of
devout
and
vertuous
Jews
and
Heathens
.
2.
Having
thus
,
as
plainly
as
I
can
,
stated
and
notion
of
Fundamentals
,
the
next
inquiry
is
concerning
those
Churches
,
which
professedly
own
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Christianity
,
and
yet
together
with
the
belief
of
all
Fundamentals
entertain
such
corrupt
Doctrines
,
as
in
their
immediate
and
necessary
consequences
overthrow
Foundations
,
and
whether
such
Churches
may
be
said
to
err
Fundamentally
.
I
will
but
briefly
touch
on
this
head
,
and
though
I
might
give
too
many
instances
of
it
,
I
shall
at
present
confine
my self
to
the
Church
of
Rome
.
I
know
no
fundamental
Article
of
our
Faith
,
that
is
expresly
denyed
by
the
Church
of
Rome
.
She
receives
all
the
ancient
Creeds
,
professes
the
Faith
of
the
holy
Trinity
,
the
Incarnation
,
the
satisfaction
of
Christ's
death
,
his
Intercession
for
us
at
the
right
hand
of
God
,
but
then
she
teaches
such
other
corrupt
Doctrines
,
as
all
the
wit
of
man
cannot
reconcile
with
this
Faith
:
As
to
shew
this
briefly
with
reference
to
the
satisfaction
,
and
intercession
of
Christ
.
The
Doctrine
of
Christ's
satisfaction
seems
many
ways
to
be
overthrown
by
the
Church
of
Rome
:
As
by
the
propitiatory
Sacrifice
of
the
Mass
,
which
is
offered
for
the
quick
and
for
the
dead
:
For
if
Christ
made
a
perfect
satisfaction
for
sin
by
his
death
upon
the
Cross
,
what
need
of
repeating
this
Sacrifice
every
day
,
which
represents
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ
,
to
be
as
imperfect
as
the
Sacrifices
of
the
Law
,
which
could
not
take
away
sin
,
nor
make
the
comers
thereunto
perfect
,
and
therefore
were
repeated
again
every
year
.
Thus
the
Doctrine
of
humane
Penances
and
Satisfactions
,
especially
the
fire
of
Purgatory
,
the
merits
of
good
Works
,
and
the
superabundant
merits
of
some
eminent
Saints
,
which
compose
the
Treasury
of
the
Church
,
and
may
be
applyed
by
the
Pope
to
other
sinners
to
purchase
their
Pardon
,
which
is
the
Foundation
of
the
Doctrine
of
indulgences
,
seem
mightily
to
disparage
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
for
if
he
have
made
a
perfect
atonement
for
all
our
sins
,
we
need
not
invent
so
many
other
ways
of
satisfaction
.
And
whoever
considers
what
the
Church
of
Rome
teaches
about
the
Intercession
of
Saints
and
Angels
and
the
Virgin
Mary
,
could
hardly
think
that
she
did
believe
,
that
there
is
but
one
Mediator
between
God
and
Men
,
the
Man
Christ
Jesus
.
But
I
need
not
enumerate
many
particulars
,
the
truth
of
this
being
too
evident
and
notorious
:
The
great
Question
then
is
this
,
whether
such
a
Church
may
be
said
to
be
guilty
of
Fundamental
Errors
;
for
this
sounds
like
a
contradiction
,
that
a
Church
which
believes
all
the
fundamental
Articles
of
that
Christian
Faith
,
should
yet
be
guilty
of
fundamental
Errors
.
And
indeed
if
by
fundamental
Errors
,
we
mean
such
Errors
as
deny
any
fundamental
Article
,
so
it
is
plain
,
that
a
Church
which
owns
and
professes
all
Fundamentals
,
cannot
be
guilty
of
fundamental
Errors
,
but
if
by
fundamental
Errors
,
we
mean
such
Errors
,
as
contradict
the
Fundamentals
of
Faith
,
so
she
may
be
guilty
of
fundamental
Errors
,
because
it
is
possible
for
a
Church
to
believe
two
Doctrines
,
which
contradict
each
other
,
when
the
Contradiction
is
not
in
express
terms
,
but
consequential
:
For
all
men
or
Churches
do
not
see
,
or
will
not
own
the
immediate
and
necessary
consequences
of
their
own
Doctrine
;
as
may
easily
be
observed
among
a
great
many
other
men
besides
those
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
And
the
use
of
this
observation
is
very
considerable
upon
many
accounts
,
but
especially
in
our
present
Dispute
about
Catholick
Communion
,
as
will
appear
by
considering
.
3.
How
far
and
in
what
Cases
we
may
communicate
with
such
a
Church
,
as
believes
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Faith
,
and
yet
teaches
such
Doctrines
,
as
in
their
immediate
and
necessary
consequences
overthrow
Foundations
.
This
is
a
very
material
difference
between
a
Church
,
which
denies
any
fundamental
Article
of
Faith
,
and
a
Church
,
which
believes
all
Fundamentals
,
but
superadds
some
corrupt
Doctrines
,
which
in
their
Consequences
destroy
Foundations
;
that
the
first
is
never
capable
of
Catholick
Communion
,
because
she
denies
Catholick
Doctrine
,
which
is
the
necessary
condition
of
Catholick
Communion
;
but
the
second
in
some
cases
may
be
,
because
she
retains
all
saving
knowledg
,
i.
e.
all
which
is
of
absolute
necessity
to
Salvation
,
though
intermixt
with
dangerous
Errors
.
Now
to
state
this
matter
,
how
far
we
may
communicate
with
such
a
Church
as
professes
all
the
fundamental
Articles
of
Faith
,
but
yet
superadds
other
very
corrupt
and
dangerous
Doctrines
,
we
may
consider
these
two
things
.
1.
I
think
,
I
need
not
tell
any
man
,
that
we
must
not
purchase
the
Communion
of
such
a
Church
,
by
professing
our
Assent
to
any
corrupt
Doctrine
,
though
it
be
not
a
fundamental
Error
.
No
one
Church
ought
thus
to
impose
upon
another
,
nor
does
any
Church
pretend
to
it
,
but
only
the
Church
of
Rome
.
Every
Church
is
bound
to
preserve
her
own
Faith
,
as
pure
and
perfect
,
as
she
can
;
but
she
has
not
that
Authority
over
any
other
Church
,
as
to
impose
upon
their
Faith
.
An
orthodox
Church
may
and
ought
to
admonish
neighbour
Churches
of
any
doctrinal
Corruptions
,
but
must
not
reject
their
Communion
for
every
Error
,
though
of
dangerous
Consequence
,
if
it
be
not
Fundamental
.
The
belief
of
all
fundamental
Articles
of
Faith
,
does
mightily
qualifie
the
evil
and
malignant
influence
of
many
very
corrupt
Doctrines
;
which
is
the
true
reason
,
why
many
men
are
observed
to
live
much
better
than
they
believe
,
because
,
though
they
have
entertained
a
great
many
corrupt
Doctrines
,
which
in
their
natural
Consequences
are
very
apt
to
tempt
men
to
sin
,
and
to
encourage
them
in
it
;
yet
,
when
withal
they
heartily
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
poyson
of
them
;
nay
many
times
it
so
happens
,
that
men
are
so
far
from
seeing
the
ill
Consequences
of
their
Doctrines
,
that
they
draw
only
good
Consequences
from
them
,
which
may
make
them
as
good
or
better
men
,
than
many
are
,
who
have
a
better
Faith
.
Thus
to
instance
at
present
in
some
very
popular
and
prevailing
Doctrines
,
not
disputing
whether
they
be
true
or
false
.
The
Doctrine
of
absolute
Election
and
Reprobation
,
the
Inconditionality
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
the
no-necessity
of
holiness
to
our
justification
,
the
absolute
impotency
of
humane
nature
to
do
the
least
good
,
the
irresistibility
of
the
divine
Grace
,
and
such
like
Antinomian
Doctrines
,
are
charged
by
their
Adversaries
with
as
dismal
consequences
,
as
any
Doctrines
are
capable
of
,
even
to
the
overthrow
of
all
Religion
;
and
I
doubt
not
but
have
very
ill
effects
upon
mens
minds
,
who
are
not
throughly
possest
with
some
other
Principles
to
qualifie
and
allay
them
.
But
yet
if
after
all
this
,
these
men
do
firmly
believe
the
infinite
goodness
and
justice
of
God
,
the
inflexible
holiness
and
purity
of
his
nature
,
his
irreconcileable
enmity
to
all
sin
,
and
that
they
shall
never
go
to
Heaven
without
holiness
,
it
is
impossible
,
they
should
make
any
ill
use
of
these
Doctrines
to
encourage
themselves
in
sin
;
and
on
the
other
hand
,
if
they
believe
,
right
or
wrong
,
that
these
Doctrines
do
mightily
advance
the
grace
of
God
in
the
Salvation
of
sinners
,
it
may
increase
their
love
to
God
,
inflame
their
Devotions
;
and
make
them
very
active
in
all
holy
obedience
.
For
when
men
are
possest
with
a
prevailing
sence
of
the
grace
and
love
of
God
and
our
Saviour
,
they
may
spare
a
great
many
other
arguments
to
obedience
.
Now
we
must
not
hence
infer
,
that
it
is
indifferent
,
whether
men
believe
right
or
wrong
,
for
every
practical
Error
is
a
state
of
Temptation
,
and
erroneous
Doctrines
do
oftner
hinder
the
efficacy
of
an
orthodox
Faith
,
than
an
orthodox
Faith
prevents
the
mischief
of
an
erroneous
perswasion
,
as
is
lamentably
seen
in
the
lives
of
too
many
men
:
But
the
only
inference
I
draw
from
hence
is
this
,
that
every
Error
,
though
in
it self
of
dangerous
consequence
,
is
not
a
sufficient
reason
to
deny
Communion
to
such
a
Church
,
as
notwithstanding
such
Errors
,
professes
all
the
fundamental
Articles
of
the
Christian
Faith
,
if
we
can
maintain
Communion
with
her
without
professing
her
Errors
.
2.
While
the
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Faith
are
secure
,
no
corrupt
Doctrines
are
a
sufficient
reason
to
break
Communion
,
which
do
not
corrupt
the
Christian
Worship
.
The
principal
Acts
of
Christian
Communion
consist
in
Christian
Worship
;
and
if
any
Church
have
so
corrupted
divine
Worship
,
that
a
good
Christian
must
not
joyn
in
it
,
we
must
of
necessity
abstain
from
their
Communion
,
though
we
are
not
equally
bound
to
deny
them
ours
.
For
there
are
some
Fundamentals
of
Worship
,
as
well
as
Faith
,
as
the
Worship
of
one
God
,
through
one
Mediator
Jesus
Christ
,
and
when
any
Church
corrupts
the
Worship
of
God
in
its
vital
and
essential
parts
,
as
the
Church
of
Rome
does
in
the
Worship
of
Saints
and
Angels
,
and
the
Virgin
Mary
,
and
Images
,
and
the
consecrated
Host
,
it
is
necessary
then
to
withdraw
our selves
from
such
a
corrupt
Communion
.
But
then
as
for
those
Doctrines
,
which
though
they
may
be
corrupt
and
erroneous
,
are
neither
fundamental
Errors
,
nor
introduce
any
such
fundamental
Corruptions
into
religious
Worship
;
I
can
see
no
imaginable
reason
,
why
they
should
break
Communion
between
neighbour
Churches
;
if
no
Churches
must
communicate
with
each
other
,
which
do
not
exactly
agree
in
all
the
Disputes
and
Controversies
of
Religion
,
it
will
be
hard
to
find
any
two
Churches
in
the
World
,
that
can
maintain
this
Christian
Communion
.
Certainly
,
Catholick
Communion
requires
us
to
communicate
with
all
those
Churches
,
with
whom
we
can
communicate
without
sin
;
and
therefore
when
a
Church
denies
no
fundamental
Article
of
Faith
,
nor
corrupts
the
Christian
Worship
in
any
fundamental
and
essential
part
of
it
,
nor
requires
us
to
believe
any
Doctrine
,
which
we
believe
to
be
erroneous
,
as
the
necessary
terms
of
Communion
with
her
,
that
is
,
when
we
may
communicate
with
her
without
doing
any
thing
that
is
evil
,
nothing
can
justifie
our
breach
of
Communion
.
As
for
instance
,
I
take
the
Lutheran
Doctrine
of
Consubstantiation
to
be
a
very
great
Error
,
and
if
they
should
deny
Communion
to
me
,
unless
I
would
profess
my
belief
of
it
,
I
should
judge
it
a
sufficient
reason
to
withdraw
Communion
from
them
;
yet
if
no
such
Condition
be
imposed
on
me
,
I
would
make
no
scruple
to
communicate
with
them
,
because
,
though
Consubstantiation
be
an
Error
,
yet
it
does
not
corrupt
their
Worship
,
as
the
Doctrine
of
Transubstantiation
does
the
Worship
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
The
Lutheran
Churches
observe
the
Institution
of
our
Saviour
,
without
any
Idolatrous
Worship
of
the
Host
,
their
Doctrine
makes
no
change
in
their
Worship
,
and
therefore
can
be
no
reason
to
withdraw
our
Communion
.
The
Errors
of
any
Church
cannot
make
its
Communion
sinful
,
unless
they
make
its
Worship
so
.
Were
Transubstantiation
it self
(
as
absurd
a
Doctrine
,
as
it
is
)
a
meer
speculation
,
without
any
influence
upon
Worship
,
did
the
Church
of
Rome
strictly
observe
the
Institutions
of
our
Saviour
in
celebrating
the
Lord's
Supper
,
without
either
taking
from
it
,
or
adding
a
new
Idolatrous
Worship
to
it
,
they
might
enjoy
their
Opinion
,
if
they
pleased
,
so
they
would
let
me
enjoy
mine
,
and
I
would
not
break
with
them
meerly
upon
this
score
.
Nothing
can
be
vainer
,
than
to
dream
of
reconciling
all
the
Disputes
of
Christendom
,
and
of
making
all
men
or
all
Churches
of
a
mind
in
every
thing
,
and
if
Catholick
Communion
cannot
be
maintained
among
Churches
of
a
different
belief
and
perswasion
in
some
controverted
points
,
we
must
never
hope
for
any
such
thing
:
And
if
it
may
be
,
our
only
Inquiry
is
,
what
difference
and
variety
of
Opinions
is
consistent
with
Catholick
Communion
;
and
I
know
no
other
answer
to
it
but
this
,
that
we
may
safely
communicate
with
any
Church
,
how
different
soever
our
Opinions
in
other
matters
may
be
,
while
we
agree
in
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Christian
Faith
,
and
Essentials
of
Worship
.
Those
animosities
indeed
,
which
the
heats
of
disputation
occasion
too
often
,
not
only
between
private
men
,
but
Christian
Churches
,
set
them
at
a
much
greater
distance
from
each
other
,
than
the
most
distant
Opinions
;
but
yet
that
this
is
practicable
,
to
maintain
Christian
Communion
notwithstanding
this
variety
of
Opinions
,
is
evident
,
not
only
from
the
intrinsick
reason
of
the
thing
,
but
from
manifest
experience
.
We
know
how
many
Sects
there
were
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
especially
those
two
famous
Sects
of
the
Pharisees
and
Sadduces
,
and
yet
they
lived
in
the
Communion
of
the
same
Church
,
offered
the
same
Sacrifices
,
worshipped
God
at
the
same
Temple
,
and
observed
the
same
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
;
and
confined
their
Disputes
to
their
several
Schools
.
The
Jewish
and
the
Heathen
Converts
in
the
time
of
the
Apostles
differed
about
a
very
material
point
,
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
yet
according
to
St.
Paul's
exhortation
and
command
,
they
lived
in
the
Communion
of
the
same
Church
,
and
in
the
joynt
exercise
of
all
the
Acts
of
Christian
Worship
,
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
Catholick
Communion
upon
as
easie
terms
.
The
breaches
between
the
Lutheran
and
Zuinglian
Churches
have
been
often
times
composed
,
especially
between
the
Polonian
Churches
;
an
account
of
which
we
have
at
large
in
Pareus
his
Irenicum
,
which
is
a
plain
argument
,
that
it
is
not
meerly
the
difference
of
Opinions
,
but
the
distempers
of
mens
minds
,
if
such
agreement
and
concord
be
not
perpetual
;
so
that
no
doctrinal
Disputes
ought
to
divide
the
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
,
but
such
as
subvert
the
foundations
of
our
Faith
,
or
corrupt
the
essentials
of
Christian
Worship
,
and
this
may
suffice
for
the
first
inquiry
,
what
are
the
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
with
respect
to
Doctrines
,
from
which
it
evidently
appears
,
that
Catholick
Communion
is
neither
in
its
self
an
impracticable
notion
,
nor
the
practise
of
it
very
difficult
to
all
good
Christians
.
II.
It
is
time
now
to
consider
the
next
Inquiry
,
what
are
the
necessary
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
,
with
respect
to
Church-government
.
And
the
only
Question
I
shall
endeavour
to
resolve
under
this
Head
,
is
this
.
Whether
,
and
in
what
Cases
,
it
is
lawful
to
communicate
with
a
Church
,
which
is
not
governed
by
Bishops
,
nor
by
Presbyters
,
who
were
ordained
by
Bishops
.
The
reason
of
this
Inquiry
is
plainly
this
.
It
is
sufficiently
known
,
that
there
are
several
Protestant
Churches
of
great
note
,
governed
without
Bishops
,
by
a
Colledge
of
Presbyters
,
who
have
no
other
Orders
,
but
what
they
received
from
Presbyters
.
Now
if
Episcopacy
be
so
essential
to
the
Constitution
of
a
Church
,
that
we
must
not
own
any
Church
which
has
no
Bishops
,
we
must
renounce
the
Communion
of
the
Protestant
Churches
of
France
and
Holland
,
and
Geneva
,
and
some
others
,
which
is
both
a
very
invidious
and
uncharitable
thing
,
and
a
great
injury
to
the
Reformed
Profession
,
and
does
mightily
streighten
Catholick
Communion
.
If
Episcopacy
be
not
so
essential
to
the
Constitution
of
a
Church
,
but
that
we
may
communicate
with
those
Churches
which
have
no
Bishops
,
why
do
we
,
reject
our
Dissenters
at
home
,
and
condemn
them
of
Schism
,
for
rejecting
the
Episcopal
Authority
,
and
forming
themselves
into
Church-societies
without
Bishops
?
Why
are
we
not
as
kind
to
our
own
Friends
,
Neighbours
,
and
Countrey-men
,
as
we
are
to
Foreign
Churches
?
Now
though
the
Church
of
England
has
always
asserted
the
Authority
of
Bishops
,
and
condemned
those
of
her
own
Communion
,
who
have
separated
from
their
Bishops
,
yet
she
has
been
so
far
from
condemning
Foreign
reformed
Churches
for
the
want
of
Bishops
,
that
she
has
always
lived
in
Communion
with
them
,
and
defended
them
against
their
accusers
;
and
I
resolve
to
steer
by
this
Compass
,
so
to
vindicate
the
Reformed
Churches
,
as
neither
to
injure
the
Episcopal
Authority
,
nor
to
justifie
our
Schisms
at
home
.
And
to
do
this
with
all
possible
plainness
,
I
shall
proceed
by
these
steps
.
1.
I
observe
,
there
is
a
vast
difference
between
separating
from
Episcopal
Communion
,
where
Episcopacy
is
the
setled
Government
of
the
Church
,
and
living
without
Episcopal
Government
,
where
we
cannot
have
it
;
which
makes
a
great
difference
between
our
Dissenters
,
and
some
Foreign
Churches
.
Some
of
the
Foreign
Protestant
Churches
indeed
have
no
Protestant
Bishops
,
nor
ever
had
,
and
it
may
be
,
could
not
have
;
but
Episcopacy
has
been
the
establisht
Government
of
the
Church
of
England
,
ever
since
the
Reformation
;
and
for
any
Christians
to
separate
from
their
Bishops
,
was
always
accounted
Schism
by
the
Christian
Church
,
unless
there
were
some
very
necessary
reasons
to
justifie
such
a
Separation
;
but
in
some
cases
not
to
have
Bishops
may
be
no
Schism
.
If
any
man
should
object
,
that
the
Case
of
our
Dissenters
,
and
the
reformed
Churches
is
the
very
same
;
for
the
Foreign
Churches
had
Bishops
also
of
the
Roman
Communion
,
but
separated
from
them
,
upon
account
of
those
intolerable
Corruptions
,
which
made
their
Communion
unlawful
,
and
many
of
them
set
up
no
Bishops
of
their
own
;
and
thus
our
Dissenters
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
,
and
her
Bishops
,
upon
account
of
the
corruptions
in
her
Worship
,
and
are
as
excusable
as
the
French
Protestant
Churches
,
for
setting
up
a
Government
without
Bishops
;
I
answer
.
Not
to
take
notice
now
,
what
a
vast
difference
there
is
between
separating
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
from
the
Church
of
England
,
there
is
one
very
obvious
difference
in
this
very
matter
,
which
takes
off
the
whole
objection
.
For
our
Dissenters
make
Diocesan
Episcopacy
to
be
one
reason
of
their
Separation
,
which
no
reformed
Church
ever
did
before
:
The
Reformed
Churches
abroad
separated
from
Popish
Bishops
,
our
Dissenters
separate
from
Episcopacy
it self
.
All
the
reformed
Churches
abroad
owned
Episcopacy
,
though
they
disowned
Popish
Bishops
;
several
of
them
retain
both
the
name
and
thing
,
as
the
Churches
of
Sweden
,
and
Denmark
:
Others
retain
the
Office
,
though
they
have
changed
the
name
;
as
several
Lutheran
Churches
,
which
have
their
superintendents
,
Generales
and
Generalissimi
,
who
answer
to
our
Bishops
and
Arch-bishops
;
and
as
for
those
Churches
which
have
them
not
,
they
never
reject
Episcopal
Communion
,
but
all
of
them
have
owned
Communion
with
the
Church
of
England
,
reverenced
our
Bishops
,
highly
commended
the
Constitution
of
our
Church
,
censured
and
condemned
our
Schismaticks
,
and
declared
their
judgments
in
favour
of
Episcopacy
,
and
wished
the
restitution
of
it
,
and
the
most
some
of
their
most
learned
men
have
pretended
to
,
was
only
to
justifie
the
Lawfulness
of
a
Presbyterian
parity
.
2.
As
it
is
Schism
without
absolute
necessity
to
cast
off
the
Authority
of
our
Bishops
,
and
to
separate
from
them
,
so
it
is
much
more
so
to
reject
Episcopal
Communion
and
the
Government
of
Bishops
,
as
unlawful
and
Antichristian
;
which
makes
a
very
material
difference
between
our
Dissenters
,
and
those
reformed
Churches
abroad
,
who
have
no
Bishops
of
their
own
.
There
is
nothing
our
Dissenters
more
vehemently
oppose
than
Episcopal
Government
,
for
which
,
they
never
think
,
they
can
find
names
bad
enough
:
Not
to
mention
others
at
present
,
this
is
the
great
design
of
Mr.
Baxter's
late
History
of
Episcopacy
,
to
prove
,
that
Diocesan
Episcopacy
in
the
very
Nature
and
Constitution
of
it
,
overthrows
the
Government
of
Christ's
Institution
:
This
is
his
great
design
in
his
Abridgement
of
Church-History
,
to
bespatter
and
vilifie
the
most
renowned
Bishops
of
the
Church
,
to
reproach
all
their
Actions
,
to
charge
them
with
all
the
Heresies
and
Schisms
,
which
have
disturbed
the
Church
,
and
to
paint
them
in
such
frightful
shapes
,
that
all
Christians
may
flie
from
them
as
the
great
troublers
of
our
Israel
:
I
cannot
imagine
,
what
service
he
could
think
to
do
by
this
to
common
Christianity
,
which
is
concerned
in
nothing
more
,
than
in
the
Credit
and
Reputation
of
the
chief
Ministers
of
Religion
,
but
I
must
acknowledge
,
all
this
was
admirably
calculated
to
serve
a
Faction
.
But
the
Foreign
Churches
,
which
have
no
Bishops
,
do
not
condemn
Episcopacy
,
nor
separate
from
it
,
as
an
unlawful
Communion
,
and
whoever
does
so
,
is
a
Schismatick
from
the
Catholick
Church
.
This
is
so
plain
,
that
there
needs
no
proof
of
it
.
For
let
men
talk
never
so
ill
of
Bishops
,
and
their
Government
,
the
matter
of
fact
is
evident
,
that
the
Church
of
Christ
has
for
many
hundred
years
had
no
other
Government
,
than
that
of
Bishops
.
They
can
shew
no
Church
till
the
Reformation
,
which
was
governed
without
Bishops
;
even
such
Diocesan
Bishops
;
as
our
Dissenters
now
vent
their
Spleen
against
.
Dr.
Owen
indeed
and
Mr.
Baxter
would
gladly
except
the
two
first
Centuries
,
but
what
little
reason
they
have
for
it
,
has
been
already
examined
in
the
Defence
;
but
however
,
they
are
all
forc'd
to
acknowledg
,
that
in
the
succeeding
Ages
of
the
Church
till
the
Reformation
,
which
was
above
twelve
hundred
years
,
the
Church
was
governed
by
Diocesan
Bishops
,
as
it
is
at
this
day
;
so
that
by
renouncing
the
Episcopal
Communion
of
the
Church
in
our
Age
,
they
separate
from
the
whole
Catholick
Church
for
so
many
hundred
years
.
As
far
as
Episcopal
Government
is
concerned
,
they
condemn
the
whole
Catholick
Church
in
their
separation
from
the
Church
of
England
,
as
governed
by
Diocesan
Bishops
;
nay
herein
they
separate
also
from
all
the
reformed
Churches
,
who
hold
Communion
with
the
Episcopal
Church
of
England
;
and
if
this
be
not
enough
to
prove
them
Schismaticks
,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
Schism
from
the
Church
;
for
there
was
no
Church
for
near
fifteen
hundred
years
,
nor
is
there
at
this
day
,
which
they
can
communicate
with
upon
these
Principles
,
but
their
own
beloved
Conventicles
;
for
it
has
always
been
accounted
as
unlawful
,
to
communicate
with
such
a
Church
,
as
communicates
with
another
Church
,
whose
Communion
is
sinful
,
as
it
is
to
communicate
with
such
a
Church
our selves
,
and
it
must
be
so
according
to
the
Principles
of
Catholick
Communion
.
And
therefore
if
it
be
unlawful
to
communicate
with
the
Church
of
England
,
as
governed
by
Bishops
,
it
must
be
unlawful
also
to
communicate
with
those
Protestant
Presbyterian
Churches
,
which
communicate
with
the
Church
of
England
.
This
,
I
suppose
,
may
satisfie
any
man
,
what
little
reason
our
Dissenters
have
to
talk
so
much
of
Foreign
reformed
Churches
,
for
their
case
is
very
different
;
that
which
will
justifie
those
Foreign
Churches
which
have
no
Bishops
,
will
not
justifie
our
Dissenters
,
who
have
Bishops
,
but
separate
from
them
.
For
though
they
have
no
Bishops
,
they
do
not
separate
from
Episcopal
Churches
,
nor
condemn
Episcopacy
,
as
an
unlawful
or
Antichristian
Government
,
but
hold
Communion
with
the
Church
of
England
,
which
our
Dissenters
have
rent
and
divided
by
Schismatical
separations
.
3.
Let
us
then
consider
,
what
may
be
said
in
justification
of
those
reformed
Churches
,
which
have
no
Bishops
,
whether
their
want
of
Bishops
does
unchurch
them
,
and
make
it
unlawful
for
us
to
hold
Communion
with
them
.
This
is
a
very
nice
and
tender
point
;
for
to
condemn
all
the
reformed
Churches
,
which
have
no
Bishops
,
seems
so
hard
and
uncharitable
,
that
the
Church
of
England
has
always
declined
it
;
but
then
absolutely
to
justifie
them
,
overthrows
the
ancient
government
by
Bishops
,
and
is
made
use
of
by
our
Dissenters
to
pull
down
Episcopacy
,
if
the
present
Bishops
do
not
please
them
;
which
is
impossible
for
any
Bishop
to
do
,
who
will
be
true
to
his
own
Authority
,
and
to
the
constitutions
of
our
Church
.
And
therefore
in
stating
this
matter
,
I
must
go
a
middle
way
,
neither
absolutely
to
condemn
,
nor
absolutely
to
justifie
them
;
For
,
1.
As
believing
the
divine
right
of
Episcopal
Government
,
which
I
shall
not
now
go
about
to
prove
,
I
must
acknowledg
those
Churches
,
which
have
no
Bishops
,
to
be
very
imperfect
and
defective
,
and
that
they
are
bound
,
as
far
as
they
can
,
to
endeavour
to
restore
the
Episcopal
Authority
;
and
if
they
fail
in
this
,
so
far
as
they
are
chargeable
with
this
neglect
,
what
in
some
cases
is
a
pardonable
defect
,
may
become
,
especially
in
the
Governors
of
such
a
Church
,
a
very
great
Crime
.
For
no
Church
must
wantonly
change
a
divine
Institution
;
we
condemn
the
Church
of
Rome
for
taking
away
the
Cup
from
the
Laity
,
and
I
think
every
divine
Institution
has
something
so
sacred
in
it
,
as
not
to
be
lightly
rejected
or
altered
without
absolute
necessity
.
2.
But
yet
the
case
may
be
such
,
that
the
want
of
Episcopal
Government
may
not
un-church
such
a
society
of
Christians
,
nor
make
it
unlawful
for
other
Christians
to
maintain
Communion
with
them
.
As
will
appear
from
these
following
considerations
.
1.
That
the
change
of
some
positive
Institutions
does
not
presently
un-church
those
,
who
are
guilty
of
it
.
2.
Especially
if
there
be
an
absolute
or
very
great
necessity
for
doing
it
.
3.
Especially
if
the
case
be
such
,
that
at
least
they
have
a
presumptive
allowance
from
the
Catholick
Church
to
do
it
.
1.
That
the
change
of
some
positive
Institutions
does
not
presentlyun-church
those
,
who
are
guilty
of
it
.
I
need
not
spend
many
words
to
prove
this
,
for
when
the
case
is
proposed
in
general
,
I
think
no
man
will
deny
it
.
The
observation
of
all
divine
Institutions
is
necessary
to
the
perfection
of
a
Church
,
but
it
is
not
so
to
the
being
of
it
:
That
is
,
though
God
does
strictly
require
the
observance
of
all
his
Statutes
,
yet
every
positive
command
is
not
of
that
moment
,
that
God
will
disanul
his
Covenant
with
such
a
People
for
the
neglect
or
change
of
it
.
If
ever
God
would
have
done
this
,
we
might
most
reasonably
expect
it
under
the
Jewish
Oeconomy
,
in
which
every
minute
Circumstance
was
so
strictly
commanded
by
God
,
as
having
something
Sacred
and
Typical
in
it
,
and
yet
it
does
not
appear
,
that
every
deviation
from
their
Rule
,
though
in
some
very
material
parts
of
it
,
did
provoke
God
to
cast
them
off
.
God
had
appointed
a
certain
place
,
where
they
should
offer
their
Sacrifices
to
him
,
and
when
this
place
was
actually
fixed
and
determined
,
it
was
unlawful
for
them
to
offer
Sacrifice
in
any
other
place
.
And
yet
when
the
Temple
at
Jerusalem
was
built
,
which
was
the
only
place
God
had
appointed
for
Sacrifice
,
the
People
continued
to
offer
Sacrifice
in
their
high
places
,
even
in
the
Reign
of
very
good
Kings
,
and
though
this
practise
was
condemned
,
yet
it
did
not
un-church
them
.
God
had
appointed
Aarons
Family
for
the
Priesthood
,
Thou
shalt
appoint
Aaron
and
his
Sons
,
and
they
shall
wait
on
the
Priests
Office
,
and
the
stranger
that
cometh
nigh
shall
be
put
to
death
.
God
did
not
reject
the
Church
of
Israel
for
the
irregularities
of
their
Priests
,
but
owned
them
for
his
Church
and
People
many
years
after
this
,
till
they
defiled
themselves
with
the
worship
of
Baal
,
and
other
Heathen
Gods
.
And
Josephus
observes
,
that
after
the
death
of
Menelaus
,
Joseph
.
Antiq
.
l.
12.
cap.
14.
Antiochus
made
Alchymus
High-Priest
,
who
was
not
of
the
Family
of
the
Priests
;
and
yet
I
should
be
loth
to
say
,
that
such
an
irregular
promotion
did
un-church
the
Jewish
Church
;
and
whoever
considers
in
what
manner
the
High-Priests
were
advanced
and
deposed
even
in
the
time
of
our
Saviour
,
possibly
may
think
it
,
as
inconsistent
with
the
first
Institution
of
that
Office
,
as
the
irregular
Ordinations
of
Presbyters
.
2.
We
ought
especially
to
consider
the
force
and
power
of
necessity
to
dispence
even
with
divine
Institutions
:
No
necessity
can
dispence
with
the
eternal
Laws
of
good
and
evil
,
because
no
necessity
can
be
pleaded
to
justifie
men
in
sin
,
though
in
some
cases
it
may
extenuate
the
evil
and
guilt
of
it
,
for
the
internal
necessity
in
the
nature
of
things
is
stronger
than
any
external
necessity
can
be
;
no
external
force
can
compel
men
to
sin
,
which
is
an
Act
of
their
own
will
and
choice
,
and
the
obligations
to
Vertue
remain
in
the
most
extreme
necessity
.
But
in
positive
Institutions
,
which
depend
upon
the
Will
of
God
,
we
find
necessity
has
often
dispensed
,
and
that
with
God's
allowance
and
approbation
.
As
to
give
some
few
examples
of
it
.
1.
The
necessity
of
the
divine
Worship
has
dispensed
with
positive
Institutions
.
Thus
in
Hezekiah's
Sacrifice
,
the
Priests
being
too
few
,
And
therefore
I
think
,
a
late
learned
and
ingenious
Author
,
who
disputes
so
earnestly
,
that
the
Power
of
administring
Sacraments
must
be
derived
from
God
,
and
that
this
Power
now
is
given
only
by
Episcopal
Ordination
,
ought
to
have
distinguished
between
the
ordinary
and
extraordinary
conveyance
of
Power
.
Whoever
administers
in
holy
things
,
must
derive
his
Power
from
God
,
because
he
acts
in
God's
Name
,
and
when
it
may
be
done
,
he
must
derive
his
Power
in
such
a
way
,
as
God
hath
appointed
by
a
positive
Law
,
and
whoever
rejects
this
way
without
necessity
,
can
have
no
valid
Power
,
but
whatever
he
does
,
is
null
and
void
;
as
I
doubt
not
,
but
all
Ordinations
of
Presbyters
are
in
opposition
to
,
and
contempt
of
their
Bishops
,
as
I
think
,
that
learned
man
hath
sufficiently
proved
:
But
the
case
of
necessity
ought
to
be
considered
,
it
being
contrary
to
the
Nature
of
all
positive
Institutions
to
oblige
in
case
of
necessity
;
and
I
take
that
to
be
a
case
of
necessity
,
when
Episcopal
Orders
cannot
be
had
,
and
yet
the
Church
must
sail
without
them
.
Bishops
are
for
the
Church
,
not
the
Church
for
Bishops
;
and
when
the
ordinary
conveyance
of
this
Authority
fails
,
necessity
legitimates
other
extraordinary
ways
.
We
have
all
the
reason
in
the
World
to
presume
in
such
cases
,
that
God
will
confirm
and
ratifie
the
choice
and
designation
of
the
People
,
much
more
the
Ordinations
of
the
Presbytery
,
where
Episcopal
Ordination
cannot
be
had
.
For
I
see
no
reason
,
why
Presbyters
may
not
do
the
Bishops
work
in
case
of
necessity
,
as
well
as
Levites
do
the
work
of
Priests
.
2.
The
necessity
of
mens
lives
dispense
with
positive
Laws
.
Upon
this
account
our
Saviour
justifies
David's
eating
the
Shew-Bread
,
when
he
was
an
hungred
,
which
was
not
lawful
for
him
to
eat
,
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
Catholick
Church
will
rather
allow
the
Ordinations
of
Presbyters
,
though
they
are
not
regularly
qualified
for
that
Office
,
where
there
are
no
Bishops
to
Ordain
,
than
that
a
considerable
member
of
the
Christian
Church
should
want
a
succession
of
Pastors
to
instruct
and
govern
them
,
and
administer
all
religious
Offices
to
them
;
but
besides
the
reason
of
the
thing
,
the
practise
of
the
Church
is
a
sufficient
ground
for
this
presumption
.
For
we
know
the
use
of
Orders
is
to
confer
Authority
and
Power
to
administer
the
Sacraments
,
and
yet
the
Church
has
allowed
even
Lay-men
to
baptize
,
I
alledge
Tertullian's
Authority
,
not
for
the
sake
of
his
reason
,
but
as
a
witness
of
primitive
Practise
:
The
reasonings
of
particular
men
do
not
always
express
the
sence
of
the
Church
,
but
their
own
private
Opinions
,
though
they
may
be
allowed
to
be
good
Witnesses
,
what
the
practise
of
the
Church
was
in
their
days
:
Though
I
confess
,
I
cannot
see
,
that
any
thing
Tertullian
says
,
does
derogate
from
the
Evangelical
Priesthood
,
or
destroy
the
distinction
between
the
Clergy
and
Laity
,
or
encourage
private
Christians
to
invade
the
Ministerial
Function
.
To
what
purpose
then
is
all
this
?
But
the
force
of
Tertullian's
reason
seems
to
consist
in
this
;
That
all
Christians
being
an
Evangelical
Priesthood
,
to
offer
up
the
spiritual
Sacrifices
of
Prayers
and
Thanksgivings
to
God
,
through
the
merits
and
mediation
of
our
great
High-Priest
,
they
are
not
debarr'd
by
any
personal
incapacity
,
nor
by
the
typical
and
mysterious
Nature
of
the
Christian
Institutions
,
from
performing
any
religious
Office
,
which
Christ
has
commanded
his
Church
;
but
yet
for
the
better
security
of
publick
Instructions
,
for
the
more
regular
Administration
of
religious
Offices
,
for
the
preservation
of
Unity
,
Order
,
Discipline
,
and
Government
in
the
Church
,
Christ
hath
committed
the
power
of
Government
and
Discipline
,
and
publick
Administration
of
religious
Offices
,
to
Persons
peculiarly
devoted
and
set
apart
for
the
work
of
the
Ministry
.
But
the
Institution
of
this
Order
being
wholly
for
the
service
of
the
Church
,
and
not
for
any
other
mystical
reasons
,
in
case
of
failure
,
where
there
are
none
of
this
holy
Order
to
perform
religious
Offices
,
the
universal
Priesthood
of
Christians
takes
place
,
and
any
private
Christian
without
a
regular
and
external
Consecration
to
this
Function
,
may
perform
all
the
Duties
and
Offices
of
a
Priest
.
For
there
are
two
things
,
wherein
the
Aaronical
and
Evangelical
Priesthood
differ
,
which
make
a
mighty
alteration
in
this
case
.
The
Aaronical
Priesthood
was
Typical
or
Mystical
,
and
Mediatory
,
the
Evangelical
Priesthood
is
neither
:
Now
all
men
cannot
pretend
a
right
to
a
Mystical
,
much
less
to
a
Mediatory
Priesthood
,
but
only
such
,
as
have
a
divine
appointment
and
designation
to
this
Office
;
for
the
nature
of
Types
and
Mysteries
is
lost
,
if
the
Person
be
not
fitted
to
the
Mystery
,
and
the
vertue
of
the
Mediation
is
lost
,
(
at
least
our
absolute
assurance
of
it
)
if
the
Person
do
not
act
by
Authority
and
Commission
:
But
now
under
the
Gospel
,
the
Institutions
of
our
Saviour
are
plain
and
simple
,
without
any
shadows
and
figures
,
and
therefore
there
is
nothing
in
the
nature
of
the
Worship
,
which
requires
peculiar
and
appropriate
Persons
;
and
Christ
is
now
our
only
Mediator
between
God
and
men
,
and
therefore
we
need
not
any
other
Mediators
of
divine
appointment
,
in
vertue
of
the
Sacrifice
and
Mediation
of
Christ
,
every
Christian
is
a
Priest
,
who
may
approach
the
Throne
of
Grace
,
and
offer
up
his
prayers
and
thanksgivings
in
an
acceptable
manner
to
God
.
Gospel-Ministers
indeed
are
to
pray
for
the
People
,
and
to
bless
in
God's
name
,
but
they
pray
in
no
sense
as
Mediators
,
but
in
the
name
of
our
great
Mediator●
and
that
,
which
makes
their
Prayers
more
effectual
than
the
Prayers
of
a
private
Christian
,
is
,
that
they
are
the
publick
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
and
therefore
offer
up
the
Prayers
of
the
Church
,
which
are
more
powerful
than
the
Prayers
of
private
Christians
.
And
therefore
St.
Austin
reproves
Parmenianus
the
Donatist
,
for
making
the
Bishop
a
Mediator
between
God
and
the
People
,
which
no
good
Christian
can
endure
the
thoughts
of
,
but
must
needs
account
such
a
man
rather
to
be
Antichrist
,
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
publick
Administration
of
religious
Offices
.
It
was
very
requisite
indeed
,
that
Christ
himself
should
invest
the
Governors
of
his
Church
with
Authority
and
Power
for
this
Office
,
and
it
is
necessary
to
the
Peace
,
Order
,
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
that
no
man
should
usurp
this
Power
and
Authority
to
himself
,
but
receive
it
from
the
hands
of
those
,
who
have
Power
to
give
it
;
and
therefore
this
Apostolical
Power
,
excepting
the
case
of
necessity
,
is
as
saored
and
inviolable
as
the
Priesthood
it self
;
but
in
case
of
necessity
,
where
the
succession
of
Apostolical
Power
fails
,
or
a
plenary
Authority
to
convey
it
,
it
admits
of
a
more
easie
redress
,
than
the
failure
of
a
Mystical
or
Typical
Priesthood
would
do
:
For
there
is
no
Office
of
Religion
,
but
in
such
a
case
any
Christian
may
perform
,
we
being
all
Priests
to
God
through
Jesus
Christ
;
and
as
for
Authority
,
necessity
and
the
designation
of
fit
Persons
by
the
Church
,
when
the
regular
ways
of
conveyance
fail
,
may
be
very
easily
presumed
to
be
approved
and
confirmed
by
God
.
This
I
take
to
be
the
true
sence
of
Tertullian's
argument
,
which
I
have
explained
the
more
largely
,
because
some
men
are
very
apt
to
abuse
all
such
passages
to
the
diminution
of
the
Ministerial
Office
,
though
with
what
little
reason
,
I
think
,
is
very
evident
;
but
whatever
becomes
of
Tertullian's
Argument
,
or
whether
the
Church
proceeded
upon
these
Principles
,
or
not
in
granting
Liberty
to
Lay-men
,
to
baptize
in
case
of
necessity
,
the
Practise
of
the
Church
is
plain
in
this
matter
,
thus
it
was
in
Tertullian's
time
,
and
thus
it
has
been
in
most
Ages
of
the
Church
ever
since
,
and
is
to
this
day
allowed
in
the
Church
of
Rome
;
and
if
the
Church
allows
Lay-men
in
case
of
necessity
to
administer
Sacraments
;
we
may
reasonably
presume
,
it
will
in
the
same
necessity
allow
of
the
Ordinations
of
Presbyters
.
I
shall
only
observe
further
,
that
this
practise
of
the
Church
in
allowing
the
baptism
of
Lay-men
in
case
of
necessity
,
seems
to
me
utterly
to
overthrow
those
Principles
,
which
a
learned
Author
has
Published
in
his
late
Discourse
of
Schism
.
Some
of
his
Principles
are
these
;
That
Salvation
is
not
ordinarily
to
be
expected
without
an
external
participation
of
the
Sacraments
.
That
the
Validity
of
the
Sacraments
,
depends
upon
the
Authority
of
the
Persons
by
whom
they
are
administred
;
they
being
the
Seals
of
the
Covenant
,
which
as
in
all
Covenants
between
man
and
man
,
are
void
in
Law
,
if
they
be
not
applyed
by
Persons
,
who
have
Authority
to
seal
.
This
Authority
of
applying
the
Seals
of
the
Covenant
can
be
derived
only
from
God
,
and
that
only
by
Episcopal
Ordinations
.
Now
I
must
profess
my
dissent
from
this
Learned
man
upon
more
accounts
than
one
,
at
present
it
may
suffize
,
that
either
these
Principles
are
false
,
or
the
Catholick
Church
has
been
in
a
dangerous
mistake
,
in
allowing
the
Baptism
of
private
Christians
,
where
there
were
no
Ecclesiastical
Ministers
to
do
it
.
For
if
the
Validity
of
Baptism
depends
upon
the
Authority
of
him
,
who
baptizes
,
then
the
Baptism
of
Lay-men
,
who
according
to
his
Principles
can
have
no
such
Authority
,
must
be
actually
void
,
and
have
no
saving
effect
,
and
then
the
Catholick
Church
ever
since
Tertullian's
time
has
erred
in
a
matter
necessary
to
Salvation
:
And
how
specious
soever
any
Arguments
may
be
,
I
shall
be
always
jealous
of
such
a
Conclusion
,
as
charges
the
Primitive
and
Catholick
Church
with
ignorance
and
error
,
so
dangerous
and
destructive
to
mens
Souls
.
This
learned
man
was
aware
of
this
,
For
my
part
I
do
not
understand
,
how
the
validity
of
Laicks
,
and
much
more
womens
Baptism
(
who
by
the
Apostles
rule
are
much
less
capable
of
Fcclesiastical
Authority
)
can
be
defended
,
unless
it
may
possibly
be
by
that
general
delegation
,
which
may
be
conceived
to
have
been
granted
to
them
by
the
Governors
,
by
those
customs
and
constitutions
,
which
permit
them
to
administer
it
.
But
it
would
then
be
a
further
doubt
,
how
far
such
Persons
as
these
are
capable
of
such
a
delegation
?
To
which
I
do
not
intend
at
present
to
digress
.
But
indeed
this
had
been
no
digression
,
or
the
most
useful
digression
in
all
his
Book
.
The
matter
of
Fact
is
confessed
by
him
,
that
in
case
of
necessity
Laicks
were
allowed
to
baptize
,
which
overthrows
his
whole
Hypothesis
,
whereby
he
confines
this
to
Ecclesiastical
Ministers
in
all
cases
whatsoever
.
If
the
Church
in
case
of
necessity
has
permitted
Laicks
to
baptize
,
we
may
presume
,
that
in
the
same
necessity
,
she
will
allow
Presbyters
to
Ordain
;
if
Laicks
are
not
capable
of
such
a
delegation
,
then
the
Catholick
Church
has
erred
in
a
fundamental
Practise
,
which
is
necessary
to
Salvation
;
if
they
be
,
then
the
administration
of
Sacraments
is
not
in
all
cases
absolutely
confined
to
the
Clergy
,
for
all
such
cases
must
be
excepted
,
wherein
the
Church
has
Power
to
dispense
;
for
this
delegated
Power
does
not
make
them
Ecclesiastical
Officers
,
but
gives
Authority
or
Permission
to
Laicks
in
such
cases
to
do
the
work
of
a
Bishop
,
or
of
other
consecrated
Persons
.
And
yet
we
find
the
first
Foundations
of
a
very
great
Church
,
laid
in
this
manner
by
Frumentius
in
India
,
who
was
only
a
Laick
,
and
yet
erected
Churches
,
whether
those
Christians
,
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
,
both
by
his
Covenant
for
the
graces
conveyed
in
the
Sacraments
,
and
by
his
design
of
establishing
Government
through
all
Ages
of
succession
to
supply
those
failures
.
So
that
it
seems
,
there
is
great
reason
in
some
cases
,
that
God
should
supply
the
failures
of
a
valid
Authority
;
that
God
should
make
and
account
those
Sacraments
valid
,
which
have
not
the
validity
of
a
just
Authority
:
And
if
this
may
be
done
in
any
case
,
certainly
the
case
of
necessity
is
as
considerable
as
any
:
And
the
necessity
of
preserving
the
being
of
the
Church
,
seems
to
me
as
considerable
,
as
the
preservation
of
Government
,
which
is
only
in
order
to
the
preservation
of
its
being
.
But
this
is
a
matter
of
such
great
moment
,
that
I
cannot
pass
it
over
without
a
more
particular
Examination
of
some
Principles
,
on
which
that
learned
man
grounds
that
severe
conclusion
of
the
Invalidity
of
all
Sacraments
,
which
are
not
administred
by
Bishops
,
or
by
Presbyters
Episcopally
Ordained
;
which
,
I
hope
,
I
may
do
in
such
a
Cause
as
this
,
wherein
so
many
foreign
Churches
are
concerned
,
without
the
least
infringement
of
that
real
honour
and
friendship
I
have
for
him
.
And
to
proceed
with
all
possible
clearness
in
this
matter
,
I
shall
reduce
the
state
of
the
Controversie
between
us
to
a
narrow
point
,
and
briefly
shew
,
wherein
we
agree
,
and
wherein
we
differ
.
1.
Then
I
readily
grant
,
that
the
external
participation
of
the
Christian
Sacraments
,
of
Baptism
and
the
Lord's
Supper
,
is
ordinarily
necessary
to
Salvation
.
2.
I
grant
also
,
that
the
Bishops
and
Ministers
of
the
Church
regularly
ordained
,
have
the
only
ordinary
Power
of
administring
Sacraments
,
and
that
all
Sacraments
administred
and
received
in
opposition
to
,
and
contempt
of
the
ordinary
Governors
of
the
Church
,
are
invalid
,
or
inefficacious
.
3.
But
I
absolutely
deny
,
that
the
validity
of
the
Sacraments
depends
upon
the
Authority
of
the
Persons
administring
This
is
the
parting
point
,
and
therefore
must
be
carefully
examined
.
And
I
find
but
two
general
Arguments
this
learned
man
uses
for
the
Proof
of
it
.
From
the
nature
of
the
Sacraments
,
and
from
the
ends
of
Government
,
considering
God
as
a
Covenanter
,
and
as
a
Governor
.
1.
From
the
nature
of
the
Sacraments
,
or
considering
God
as
a
Covenanter
;
and
so
the
administration
of
Sacraments
is
celebrating
or
making
a
Covenant
in
God's
Name
,
so
as
to
oblige
him
to
performance
of
it
,
which
no
man
can
do
,
unless
God
signifie
it
to
be
his
Pleasure
to
empower
him
to
do
so
,
as
in
Law
,
no
man
can
be
obliged
by
anothers
act
,
who
has
not
been
empowered
to
act
in
his
Name
by
his
Letters
of
Proxy
.
And
he
that
presumes
of
himself
to
make
a
Covenant
,
wherein
God
is
by
him
engaged
as
a
Party
,
without
being
so
empowered
by
God
,
as
what
he
does
,
cannot
in
any
legal
exposition
be
reputed
as
God's
act
,
so
neither
can
it
infer
any
legal
obligation
of
him
to
performance
.
This
Argument
is
drawn
out
to
a
great
length
,
but
this
I
take
to
be
the
sum
of
it
,
and
it
were
a
very
strong
Argument
,
if
the
Foundation
of
it
were
not
false
;
but
I
must
deny
that
,
which
this
Author
has
all
along
taken
for
granted
without
any
Proof
;
that
the
administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
as
suppose
of
Baptism
,
is
the
Ministers
making
a
Covenant
with
the
Person
baptized
in
God's
Name
.
I
know
of
but
one
Covenant
,
which
God
has
made
with
mankind
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
that
is
the
Gospel-Covenant
;
and
I
know
of
but
one
sealing
and
confirmation
of
this
Covenant
,
and
that
is
by
the
Blood
of
Christ
;
and
therefore
the
Sacraments
cannot
be
such
Seals
,
as
ratifie
and
confirm
the
Covenant
,
and
give
validity
to
it
,
or
pass
an
Obligation
on
God
to
stand
to
his
Covenant
.
The
Christian
Sacraments
are
necessary
parts
,
duties
,
or
conditions
of
the
Covenant
,
either
for
our
admission
to
the
Priviledges
,
or
conveyance
of
the
Grace
of
the
Covenant
,
and
therefore
they
cannot
in
a
proper
sence
be
Seals
of
,
or
making
a
Covenant
in
God's
Name
.
All
mankind
are
capable
of
being
received
into
this
Covenant
;
the
Covenant
is
actually
made
to
the
Christian
Church
,
and
every
Member
of
it
;
Baptism
is
our
admission
into
the
Christian
Church
,
and
consequently
to
all
the
priviledges
of
the
Covenant
;
it
is
very
fitting
,
that
the
ordinary
Power
of
such
admissions
should
be
in
the
hands
of
Church
Governors
,
and
so
it
is
by
divine
appointment
,
but
all
this
is
a
very
different
thing
,
from
making
a
Covenant
in
God's
Name
,
which
shall
validly
oblige
God
to
the
performance
of
it
.
This
,
it
is
plain
,
no
man
can
do
,
without
the
most
express
Authority
,
but
the
external
solemnities
of
a
Covenant
,
which
are
ratified
,
confirmed
,
commanded
by
God
,
need
not
in
all
cases
such
express
Authority
;
for
in
this
case
we
do
not
presume
to
make
a
Covenant
in
God's
Name
,
or
to
oblige
him
by
our
Act
,
but
only
to
do
what
he
has
required
and
commanded
to
be
done
,
though
not
expresly
commanded
us
in
particular
to
do
it
.
We
neither
make
any
new
terms
for
God
,
which
he
has
not
already
made
,
and
obliged
himself
to
the
performance
of
,
nor
admit
any
Persons
to
the
Priviledges
of
this
Covenant
,
whom
God
has
excluded
,
for
the
Covenant
is
made
with
all
mankind
,
who
believe
the
Gospel
,
but
we
only
do
the
ordinary
work
of
Church
Governors
,
without
the
regular
Authority
of
Governors
,
upon
a
reasonable
presumption
,
that
God
will
allow
of
this
,
where
there
are
not
ordinary
Governors
to
do
it
:
Which
is
a
reasonable
presumption
in
all
humane
Governments
,
where
a
regular
Authority
fails
,
and
cannot
be
supplyed
in
an
ordinary
way
;
a
Topick
,
which
this
learned
Author
makes
great
and
frequent
use
of
.
And
methinks
,
it
might
satisfie
any
reasonable
man
,
what
a
vast
difference
there
is
between
making
a
Covenant
in
God's
Name
,
and
performing
some
external
Solemnities
of
it
,
if
he
only
consider
that
Covenant
,
which
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
the
sign
of
this
Covenant
,
which
was
Circumcision
,
a
Seal
of
the
righteousness
of
Faith
.
Whatever
this
learned
man
urges
to
prove
the
necessity
of
a
valid
Authority
in
the
Administrator
to
make
Baptism
valid
,
will
prove
the
same
necessity
of
a
valid
Authoirty
to
make
Circumcision
valid
;
for
what
Baptism
is
in
the
new
Covenant
,
that
Circumcision
was
in
God's
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
both
equally
alike
Signs
or
Seals
or
external
Solemnities
of
the
Covenant
;
and
yet
it
is
sufficiently
known
,
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
administring
Baptism
should
be
reserved
in
their
hands
;
but
hence
it
appears
,
that
in
administring
the
Sacraments
,
they
do
not
act
,
as
legal
Covenanters
in
God's
Name
,
but
as
Governors
of
the
Church
.
2.
And
this
brings
me
to
consider
his
Arguments
from
the
Nature
and
Ends
of
Government
,
which
as
far
as
I
understand
them
amount
to
this
.
That
it
is
necessary
for
God
to
maintain
and
preserve
the
Authority
of
subordinate
Governors
.
That
the
Authority
of
Church
Governors
consists
in
the
power
of
administring
Sacraments
,
which
confer
a
Title
to
all
the
Priviledges
and
Graces
of
the
Covenant
.
That
this
Authority
cannot
be
maintained
,
if
unauthorized
Persons
may
validly
administer
the
Sacraments
,
and
therefore
we
cannot
suppose
,
that
God
will
countenance
such
an
usurpation
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
as
to
confirm
and
allow
,
what
is
so
illegally
done
.
Now
in
Answer
to
this
,
I
readily
grant
,
1.
That
this
is
a
very
good
Argument
to
prove
,
that
the
Authority
of
administring
Sacraments
is
in
ordinary
cases
confined
to
the
regular
Clergy
,
for
indeed
this
is
all
the
Authority
Church
Governors
have
,
to
receive
in
,
and
to
put
out
of
the
Church
,
and
take
away
this
,
and
all
Church-societies
must
immediately
dissolve
,
or
hang
together
only
by
some
arbitrary
Compacts
and
Covenants
,
which
last
as
long
as
every
man
pleases
.
But
then
2.
I
observe
,
that
it
is
sufficient
to
secure
the
Authority
and
Government
of
the
Church
,
to
confine
the
administration
of
Sacraments
,
and
all
acts
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
to
Church-Governors
,
where-ever
there
are
such
to
be
found
.
For
if
no
private
man
must
presume
to
administer
Sacraments
in
a
constituted
Church
,
where
there
are
Ecclesiastical
Ministers
,
though
we
grant
Laicks
the
liberty
of
administring
Sacraments
,
where
there
are
no
regular
Ministers
to
do
it
;
this
can
be
no
reasonable
pretence
for
their
invading
the
Ministerial
Function
,
or
disturbing
the
Peace
and
Order
of
the
Church
,
where
there
are
.
He
who
attributes
the
only
valid
Authority
of
administring
Sacraments
to
the
regular
Clergy
,
where
there
are
such
Persons
to
be
found
,
does
as
effectually
secure
the
Authority
of
Church-Governors
,
as
he
,
who
makes
it
absolutely
unlawful
for
private
Christians
,
in
any
case
whatsoever
,
to
administer
the
Sacraments
.
For
the
Authority
of
Church-governors
is
a
meer
notion
without
any
effect
,
where
there
are
no
such
Governors
,
and
where
there
are
,
their
Authority
is
secure
this
way
.
No
man
thinks
it
any
injury
to
the
Authority
of
Princes
and
Civil
Governors
,
to
assert
,
that
every
private
man
has
liberty
to
defend
his
own
Life
and
Fortune
,
where
he
is
not
under
the
protection
of
Laws
,
and
publick
Justice
,
no
more
is
it
any
invasion
of
the
Authority
of
the
Clergy
,
for
private
Christians
to
do
the
Office
of
a
Bishop
or
a
Presbyter
,
where
there
is
no
Bishop
or
Presbyter
to
do
it
.
No
doubt
,
but
God
is
greatly
concerned
to
maintain
the
Authority
of
Church-governors
,
because
the
welfare
and
preservation
of
the
Church
depends
on
it
,
but
we
cannot
think
,
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Government
are
so
strict
,
as
to
dissolve
the
Society
of
the
Church
which
it
is
designed
to
maintain
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
it
is
very
dangerous
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
to
grant
the
least
indulgence
or
liberty
to
Laicks
,
or
an
irregular
Clergy
,
in
any
case
whatsoever
,
to
inermeddle
in
sacred
Offices
;
for
they
will
always
be
apt
to
take
more
than
is
granted
;
and
thus
that
Liberty
,
which
is
allowed
in
extraordinary
cases
,
will
be
improved
into
an
ordinary
usurpation
of
the
Ministerial
Office
.
I
answer
,
It
may
be
so
,
and
I
know
no
way
to
prevent
those
ill
Consequences
,
which
foolish
Reasoners
may
draw
from
Truth
it self
,
nor
that
ill
use
,
which
wild
and
giddy
People
may
make
of
the
justest
Liberties
,
but
must
we
deny
Truth
,
or
deny
our
own
just
Liberties
and
Rights
for
this
reason
?
But
yet
this
is
not
the
case
here
,
for
there
is
a
greater
security
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
than
the
Power
of
Sacraments
its
self
,
and
that
is
,
the
necessary
obligations
to
Catholick
Communion
,
which
cannot
be
preserved
without
a
just
deference
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
:
It
may
be
lawful
in
some
cases
for
Laicks
to
administer
the
Sacraments
,
but
it
is
never
lawful
for
them
to
separate
from
their
Governors
,
or
to
oppose
their
Authority
.
Should
a
company
of
private
Christians
on
their
own
choice
separate
themselves
from
their
Bishops
,
and
unite
into
a
Church-Society
,
this
were
a
Church-Faction
and
Schism
,
and
all
they
did
were
null
and
void
;
but
if
private
Christians
,
who
live
in
Communion
with
their
Bishops
,
and
own
their
Authority
,
being
reduced
to
that
necessity
,
that
they
cannot
enjoy
the
Sacraments
,
nor
other
religious
Offices
from
Persons
,
who
have
a
regular
Authority
,
should
administer
the
Sacraments
themselves
,
and
celebrate
religious
Offices
for
their
spiritual
Comfort
,
I
cannot
see
,
that
it
is
either
Schism
,
or
Usurpation
,
and
the
perpetual
obligations
to
Catholick
Communion
will
prevent
both
.
Indeed
nothing
can
secure
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Authority
of
Ecclesiastical
Governors
,
but
the
necessity
of
Catholick
Communion
;
for
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
and
the
just
Authority
of
Bishops
,
may
be
destroyed
by
an
Episcopal
,
as
well
as
by
a
Presbyterian
,
or
a
Lay
Schism
.
Thus
it
was
by
the
Schism
of
the
Donatists
.
They
were
governed
by
Bishops
,
as
well
as
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
their
Orders
,
and
Sacraments
administred
by
them
were
allowed
to
be
valid
,
and
yet
they
were
Schismaticks
,
and
their
Sacraments
,
though
valid
with
respect
to
the
Authority
,
which
administred
them
,
yet
without
effect
,
as
administred
in
a
Schism
,
as
I
have
already
shewed
from
St.
Austin
.
And
therefore
that
Father
in
his
Writings
against
the
Donatists
,
does
not
oppose
their
Schism
from
the
Invalidity
of
their
Orders
,
or
of
their
Sacraments
,
which
is
no
argument
against
an
Episcopal
Schism
,
(
though
it
be
the
only
argument
used
by
this
learned
man
,
to
shew
the
evil
and
danger
of
Schism
)
but
from
their
breach
of
Catholick
Communion
,
which
made
all
their
Sacraments
,
though
not
invalid
,
yet
inefficacious
.
So
that
Ecclesiastical
Authority
may
be
secured
,
though
we
allow
Laicks
in
case
of
necessity
a
liberty
to
administer
Sacraments
in
the
Unity
and
Communion
of
the
Church
.
It
were
easie
to
add
a
great
deal
more
of
this
Nature
,
but
this
is
sufficient
to
my
present
design
.
And
the
result
of
this
whole
Discourse
is
,
that
it
is
not
in
all
cases
and
circumstances
unlawful
to
maintain
Catholick
Communion
with
such
a
Church
,
as
being
forced
to
it
by
necessity
,
is
neither
governed
by
Bishops
,
nor
by
Presbyters
Episcopally
ordained
.
III.
There
still
remains
the
third
and
fourth
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
to
be
considered
,
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
,
and
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
which
I
shall
briefly
speak
to
both
together
.
Now
Discipline
in
the
ancient
use
of
the
Word
has
a
large
signification
,
and
includes
all
religious
Worship
,
as
well
as
Church
Censures
,
especially
the
Christian
Sacraments
;
for
Church
Discipline
consists
in
admitting
men
to
,
or
excluding
them
from
the
Communion
,
Worship
,
and
Sacraments
of
Christians
.
Thus
Disciplina
sacerdotis
,
in
Tertullian
signifies
the
whole
exercise
of
the
Priestly
Office
,
even
the
administration
of
Sacraments
,
of
Baptism
,
and
the
Lord's
Supper
.
And
by
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
I
mean
such
external
circumstances
and
appendages
of
Worship
,
Time
,
Place
,
Habits
,
Postures
,
or
significant
Rites
,
as
are
of
humane
Institution
,
and
may
be
either
enjoyned
or
altered
by
Church
Governors
,
and
do
actually
differ
according
to
the
Customs
of
several
Churches
.
Now
to
reduce
what
I
have
to
say
under
this
Head
,
into
as
narrow
a
compass
as
I
can
,
I
shall
premise
several
things
,
which
I
presume
will
be
acknowledged
without
a
Proof
by
the
Persons
I
have
now
to
deal
with
.
1.
That
it
is
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
,
that
every
Church
observe
all
the
essentials
of
Christian
Worship
,
and
particularly
the
Christian
Sacraments
,
as
instituted
by
our
Saviour
.
2.
That
their
Worship
be
pure
from
all
Idolatrous
mixtures
,
and
corruptions
;
which
is
a
sufficient
justification
of
our
separation
from
the
Church
of
Rome
.
3.
I
suppose
,
it
will
be
granted
also
that
there
is
no
Church
so
pure
,
but
that
it
has
bad
men
,
and
too
often
bad
Ministers
in
its
Communion
.
4.
That
there
have
in
all
ages
been
various
Rites
and
Ceremonies
used
in
the
Christian
Church
,
and
very
different
in
different
Churches
.
This
no
man
will
deny
,
but
one
,
who
is
either
very
ignorant
himself
,
or
a
very
impudent
imposer
upon
the
ignorance
of
others
.
5.
That
among
true
and
orthodox
Churches
,
which
believe
all
the
Fundamentals
of
Faith
,
and
observe
all
the
Essentials
of
Worship
,
there
are
different
degrees
of
purity
in
Discipline
,
and
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
and
Ceremonies
,
some
more
,
some
less
,
for
the
edification
of
the
Church
.
This
having
been
in
former
Ages
,
and
being
now
at
present
the
state
of
the
Christian
Church
,
it
is
evident
,
what
a
Catholick
Christian
must
do
,
who
will
maintain
Catholick
Communion
with
the
several
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
.
As
,
1.
He
must
communicate
with
Churches
,
which
are
not
so
strict
and
regular
in
their
Discipline
,
as
he
could
wish
.
There
being
few
Churches
in
the
World
,
so
exact
in
this
matter
,
but
a
wise
and
good
man
may
discover
such
defects
in
their
Discipline
,
as
he
could
wish
amended
.
And
he
,
who
will
not
communicate
with
any
Church
,
nor
live
in
any
Common-wealth
,
which
has
any
defects
in
its
Government
,
is
not
fit
to
live
in
this
World
,
where
there
is
no
absolute
perfection
to
be
found
,
either
in
Church
or
State
.
2.
He
must
communicate
with
such
Churches
,
wherein
there
are
a
great
many
bad
,
as
well
as
good
men
,
for
this
is
the
state
of
all
Churches
on
Earth
,
where
the
Tares
grow
up
with
the
Wheat
.
3.
They
must
communicate
with
Churches
,
which
observe
several
uncommanded
and
significant
Ceremonies
,
for
thus
most
Churches
in
the
World
do
,
and
have
always
done
.
4.
Nay
they
must
communicate
with
Churches
,
which
have
very
different
,
if
not
contrary
Customs
.
There
being
few
Churches
,
wherein
the
external
Modes
,
Rites
,
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
are
in
all
things
alike
.
It
is
evident
,
as
any
matter
of
Fact
can
be
,
that
no
true
Christian
Churches
in
the
World
,
can
communicate
with
each
other
upon
any
other
terms
than
these
,
and
therefore
it
is
a
vain
thing
to
talk
of
any
other
,
and
to
condemn
these
terms
of
Communion
,
as
unlawful
,
makes
Catholick
Communion
impossible
.
Whoever
separates
from
any
Church
,
upon
a
pretence
of
some
defects
and
imperfections
in
Worship
or
Discipline
,
when
all
the
essentials
of
Christian
Worship
are
preserved
entire
and
pure
,
without
any
such
corrupt
mixtures
as
make
their
Worship
sinful
;
whoever
separates
from
a
Church
,
because
there
are
a
great
many
bad
men
in
it
,
or
for
the
sake
of
some
indifferent
Customs
,
and
significant
Ceremonies
,
must
for
the
same
reason
separate
from
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
,
even
from
the
most
Primitive
and
Apostolical
Churches
of
the
first
ages
of
Christianity
.
Now
if
Catholick
Communion
be
so
essential
to
the
being
and
notion
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
those
Principles
must
be
false
and
Schismatical
,
which
are
so
irreconcileable
with
Catholick
Communion
.
For
it
is
plain
we
cannot
at
this
day
,
nor
ever
could
,
communicate
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
if
every
defect
in
Worship
or
Discipline
,
if
indifferent
rites
and
usages
in
religious
Worship
,
if
corrupt
and
vicious
Members
make
the
Communion
of
any
Church
unlawful
,
and
be
a
just
reason
for
Separation
.
This
indeed
has
always
been
the
pretence
both
of
ancient
and
modern
Schismaticks
.
The
Novatians
and
Donatists
separated
for
a
stricter
Discipline
,
and
purer
Communion
,
and
were
condemned
for
it
by
the
Catholick
Church
.
And
St.
Austin
proves
at
large
against
the
Donatists
,
that
neither
the
wickedness
of
the
Minister
,
nor
of
the
People
,
corrupt
the
Worship
,
or
make
the
Communion
of
such
a
Church
sinful
,
though
through
the
defect
of
Discipline
,
the
one
should
not
be
deposed
,
nor
the
other
removed
from
Christian
Communion
.
For
indeed
the
ancient
Fathers
thought
Catholick
Communion
so
absolutely
necessary
,
that
very
few
things
could
come
in
Competition
with
it
.
We
have
a
famous
example
of
this
in
St.
Cyprian
,
who
disputed
very
earnestly
for
the
necessity
of
baptizing
those
,
who
had
been
baptized
by
Hereticks
,
whenever
they
returned
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
.
Stephen
Bishop
of
Rome
did
as
vehemently
oppose
it
,
with
some
sharp
reflexions
upon
St.
Cyprian
,
and
did
admit
those
to
Communion
without
Baptism
,
who
had
been
baptized
by
Hereticks
.
But
St.
Cyprian
,
like
a
true
Catholick
Christian
,
the
Lord
is
able
of
his
own
mercy
to
grant
Pardon
and
Indulgence
to
those
,
who
returning
to
the
Church
,
and
being
only
barely
admitted
to
the
Communion
of
it
,
dyed
in
its
Peace
and
Communion
,
and
not
to
separate
them
from
the
Rewards
of
his
Church
.
That
is
,
that
living
in
Communion
with
the
Church
,
is
able
to
supply
even
the
want
of
Baptism
itself
.
And
St.
Austin
discourses
very
much
to
the
same
purpose
;
As
for
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
there
is
an
admirable
Epistle
of
St.
Austin
to
Januarius
,
which
states
this
whole
matter
.
He
first
observes
,
But
there
are
other
things
observed
by
the
Church
,
which
are
not
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
but
received
by
tradition
,
and
such
observances
as
these
which
are
received
by
the
whole
Catholick
Church
,
are
either
of
Apostolical
Institution
,
or
the
Decrees
of
General
Councils
,
which
have
the
greatest
and
most
beneficial
Authority
in
the
Church
.
Such
are
the
Annual
Solemnities
in
memory
of
the
Passion
,
Resurrection
,
Ascension
of
our
Lord
,
and
the
descent
of
the
Holy
Ghost
upon
the
Apostles
,
which
are
observ'd
in
all
parts
of
the
Church
.
For
it
seems
,
in
St.
Austin's
time
the
superstition
of
these
days
had
not
been
discovered
.
But
there
are
some
Customs
,
which
are
observed
differently
in
several
Churches
.
As
some
fast
on
the
Saturday
,
others
do
not
.
Some
receive
the
Communion
of
the
Body
and
Blood
of
Christ
every
day
,
others
only
at
certain
times
,
others
only
on
Saturday
,
and
Sunday
,
others
only
on
Sundays
.
CHAP.
VI.
An
Examination
of
Mr.
Lob's
suggestions
to
prove
the
Dissenters
,
according
to
my
own
Principles
,
to
be
no
Schismaticks
,
and
a
further
inquiry
who
is
the
divider
.
IT
will
not
be
amiss
now
after
all
this
grave
and
serious
Discourse
,
to
divert
my
Readers
a
little
with
a
more
pleasant
and
entertaining
Scene
.
For
Mr.
Lob
seems
to
me
to
be
a
great
Droll
,
and
to
maintain
a
Dispute
by
the
irresistible
power
of
Wit
,
and
pleasant
Conceits
,
where
Arguments
fail
.
It
is
wonderful
to
observe
with
what
admirable
art
and
dexterity
he
has
retorted
my
Arguments
upon
my self
,
and
given
life
to
a
dying
and
languishing
Cause
,
with
the
same
Weapons
,
which
gave
it
its
mortal
Wound
.
I
thought
,
I
had
proved
our
Dissenters
,
who
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
,
to
be
Schismaticks
,
as
far
as
proving
their
Separation
to
be
Schism
,
and
answering
their
several
Pleas
for
Separation
,
proved
them
Schismaticks
;
but
Mr.
Lob
has
discovered
,
that
I
have
been
kinder
to
them
,
than
I
was
aware
of
,
and
by
my
own
Principles
have
excused
them
from
Schism
,
which
,
I
assure
you
,
if
it
prove
so
,
will
be
the
best
Confutation
of
my
Principles
,
and
make
me
greatly
suspect
them
my self
.
There
are
several
insinuations
of
this
nature
scattered
here
and
there
in
his
reply
,
which
require
no
very
serious
answer
;
for
if
he
designed
them
for
serious
Arguments
,
he
is
a
wit
indeed
.
As
to
give
some
instances
of
this
nature
.
1.
He
says
,
Schism
in
a
separating
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
which
notion
taken
singly
will
stand
the
Dissenters
,
and
all
true
Christians
,
who
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
in
great
stead
,
freeing
them
from
the
odious
sin
of
Schism
.
The
Dissenters
divide
not
themselves
from
the
Communion
of
the
Vniversal
Church
,
ergo
not
Schismaticks
.
Now
I
would
desire
all
Dissenters
to
remember
,
what
Mr.
Lob
grants
;
that
there
is
such
a
sin
as
Schism
,
and
that
it
is
a
very
odious
sin
,
which
would
stand
them
in
more
stead
,
if
they
seriously
thought
of
it
,
than
his
Defence
and
Apology
will
do
.
But
Dissenters
,
he
says
,
do
not
divide
themselves
from
the
Communion
of
the
Universal
Church
:
What
he
means
by
this
I
cannot
well
tell
,
for
I
am
sure
,
their
Principles
,
upon
which
they
divide
from
the
Church
of
England
,
do
equally
divide
them
from
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
:
And
if
upon
meer
humour
they
will
divide
from
one
Church
,
and
not
from
another
,
where
the
reason
of
Separation
is
the
same
,
they
are
nevertheless
Schismaticks
for
that
.
Let
Mr.
Lob
tell
me
,
what
Church
for
above
twelve
hundred
years
,
they
could
have
communicated
with
upon
so
good
terms
,
as
they
may
now
with
the
Church
of
England
?
If
Diocesan
Episcopacy
,
Forms
of
Prayer
,
Defects
in
Discipline
,
Corrupt
Members
in
Church
Communion
,
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
or
unscriptural
Impositions
,
as
they
call
them
,
be
a
sufficient
reason
to
justifie
Separation
,
what
Church
they
ever
could
,
or
can
to
this
day
communicate
with
?
The
Foreign
Protestant
Churches
,
though
they
differ
in
some
things
from
the
Church
of
England
,
not
in
Judgment
,
but
in
Practise
,
of
which
I
have
given
some
account
above
,
yet
they
communicate
with
the
Church
of
England
,
which
according
to
the
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
,
makes
it
as
unlawful
to
communicate
with
them
,
as
with
the
Church
of
England
it self
.
But
he
says
,
Dissenters
,
and
all
true
Christians
(
though
I
hope
,
all
true
Christians
are
not
Dissenters
,
whether
Dissenters
be
true
Christians
or
not
)
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
members
of
the
Catholick
Church
:
How
far
this
must
be
acknowledged
,
I
have
examined
above
;
Schismaticks
in
a
loose
general
Notion
belong
to
the
Church
,
though
they
are
not
Members
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
which
is
but
one
Communion
;
and
thus
dissenting
Separatists
are
Schismaticks
still
.
But
though
it
were
possible
,
that
our
Dissenters
might
find
some
other
Church
,
beside
their
own
Conventicles
,
to
communicate
with
,
yet
they
actually
divide
themselves
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
by
breaking
Communion
with
any
one
sound
part
of
it
,
especially
with
such
a
part
of
the
Church
,
as
they
are
more
particularly
bound
to
communicate
with
.
The
Catholick
Church
is
but
one
Communion
,
and
whoever
causelesly
breaks
this
Communion
,
as
he
does
,
who
separates
from
any
sound
part
of
the
Church
,
is
a
Schismatick
,
especially
he
that
separates
from
the
Church
wherein
he
lives
,
which
is
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
in
separating
from
the
Church
of
England
.
If
you
separate
the
Arm
from
the
Shoulder
,
you
separate
it
from
the
whole
Body
;
the
Union
of
every
Member
with
the
Body
,
is
its
Union
to
that
part
of
the
Body
which
is
next
;
for
the
whole
Body
is
nothing
else
,
but
all
the
parts
united
to
each
other
in
their
proper
place
and
order
:
And
if
the
Church
be
one
Body
,
and
one
Communion
,
he
that
separates
from
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
where
he
lives
,
is
a
Schismatick
,
though
he
may
pretend
to
an
imaginary
Communion
with
French
or
Dutch
Churches
,
with
the
Churches
of
Greece
or
Russia
.
But
as
much
as
Mr.
Lob
pretends
,
that
notion
will
stand
the
Dissenters
in
stead
,
that
Schism
is
a
Separation
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
it
is
plain
,
he
does
not
like
it
,
and
therefore
reproaches
it
,
as
a
Popish
notion
,
generally
asserted
by
Papists
:
I
should
be
heartily
glad
to
see
any
Papist
assert
this
,
for
it
would
bid
fair
to
put
an
end
to
Popery
;
but
I
doubt
,
Mr.
Lob
wrongs
the
Papists
,
and
mistakes
Catholick
for
Roman-Catholick
Church
:
They
own
no
Catholick
,
but
the
Roman-Catholick
Church
,
and
know
no
Schism
,
but
a
Separation
from
the
Church
of
Rome
.
But
Mr.
Lob
thinks
this
is
no
great
matter
;
for
I
only
change
England
for
Rome
,
and
set
up
an
English-Catholick
,
instead
of
the
Roman-Catholick
Church
,
which
whatever
other
fault
it
have
,
I
hope
,
he
will
acknowledg
to
be
a
change
a
little
for
the
better
;
but
let
us
hear
his
own
words
.
He
says
,
I
close
with
the
same
Popish
Faction
,
in
asserting
,
that
separating
from
the
Church
of
England
,
is
a
Separation
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
as
if
the
Catholick
Church
had
been
as
much
confined
within
the
bounds
of
the
Church
of
England
,
as
the
Papists
say
within
the
limits
of
Rome
:
What
a
blessed
thing
is
Ignorance
,
which
helps
men
to
confute
Books
without
fear
or
wit
!
What
Papists
are
those
,
who
confine
the
Catholick
Church
within
the
limits
of
Rome
?
Do
not
they
own
the
Churches
of
Italy
,
Spain
,
France
,
Germany
,
to
be
Catholick
Churches
,
and
would
own
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
to
be
so
,
would
they
subject
themselves
to
the
Pope
of
Rome
?
They
do
not
desire
to
confine
the
Catholick
Church
within
the
limits
of
Rome
,
but
desire
to
extend
it
as
far
as
England
,
and
all
the
World
over
.
But
still
Rome
is
the
beginning
of
Unity
and
Catholicism
,
and
no
Church
must
be
owned
for
a
Catholick
Church
,
which
does
not
live
in
Communion
with
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
pay
homage
and
subjection
to
the
Bishop
of
Rome
:
This
is
the
Roman-Catholick
Church
,
not
which
is
confined
within
the
limits
of
Rome
,
but
which
has
the
Bishop
of
Rome
for
its
constitutive
Regent
Head
.
And
is
not
Mr.
Lob
a
very
pleasant
man
,
who
would
perswade
the
World
,
that
I
am
for
setting
up
such
a
Catholick
Church
in
England
,
as
the
Papists
have
done
at
Rome
.
The
Papists
make
it
Schism
from
the
Catholick
Church
to
separate
from
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
considered
as
the
Head
of
the
Church
;
I
assert
it
to
be
Schism
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
to
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
,
not
meerly
as
the
Church
of
England
,
but
as
a
true
and
sound
part
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
which
we
especially
are
bound
to
communicate
with
:
And
is
there
no
difference
between
these
two
?
But
who-ever
separates
from
the
Church
of
England
,
cuts
himself
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
puts
himself
out
of
a
state
of
Salvation
.
He
is
extra
Ecclesiam
,
extra
quam
nulla
salus
,
they
are
all
the
while
Schismaticks
in
a
state
of
Damnation
:
This
no
jesting
matter
,
but
a
sad
and
serious
Truth
,
which
I
would
beg
Mr.
Lob
,
as
he
loves
his
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
dyed
.
And
methinks
,
they
should
be
as
much
concerned
to
take
care
of
their
own
Souls
,
as
we
are
to
take
care
of
them
,
and
not
to
divide
the
Church
for
the
sake
of
such
Trifles
,
as
they
call
them
.
As
for
removing
all
unscriptural
Impositions
,
as
he
calls
them
,
by
which
he
means
the
whole
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
this
we
cannot
do
without
destroying
all
the
external
Solemnities
of
Worship
,
and
dissolving
the
Bands
of
Church-Society
;
of
which
more
presently
:
And
if
this
could
be
done
,
they
would
be
Schismaticks
still
,
unless
they
could
perswade
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
to
do
so
too
:
For
they
could
not
maintain
Catholick
Communion
with
any
Church
,
which
used
any
unscriptural
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
as
most
Churches
in
the
World
at
this
day
do
:
Nay
they
would
be
Schismaticks
from
the
Catholick
Church
for
many
hundred
years
before
the
Reformation
;
for
their
very
Principles
are
Schismatical
,
and
it
is
not
the
removing
some
few
Ceremonies
,
which
would
cure
their
Schism
.
But
suppose
the
Church
of
England
were
out
of
their
way
,
would
that
cure
their
Schism
?
would
Presbyterians
,
Independents
,
and
meer
Anabaptists
,
cement
into
one
Communion
?
We
know
,
how
it
has
been
formerly
,
and
have
reason
to
guess
,
how
it
would
be
again
;
when
they
cease
to
be
Schismaticks
from
the
Church
of
England
,
they
will
be
Schismaticks
to
one
another
.
And
therefore
we
may
without
breach
of
Charity
defend
our
Church
,
and
they
are
bound
in
Charity
to
look
to
their
own
Souls
.
And
therefore
I
wonder
,
what
our
Author
means
,
when
he
puts
the
whole
Dispute
upon
this
issue
:
Let
their
terms
be
as
Catholick
,
as
they
pretend
their
Church
is
,
and
we
'll
comply
;
i.
e.
let
them
keep
to
a
few
,
certain
,
and
necessary
things
;
let
them
not
impose
as
terms
of
Vnion
,
any
thing
but
what
is
according
to
the
Word
of
God
in
Scripture
,
we
are
satisfied
,
the
Controversie
is
at
an
end
.
This
is
a
certain
Argument
,
that
our
Author
is
no
great
Traveller
,
not
so
much
as
in
Books
;
that
he
knows
nothing
of
any
Church
,
but
his
own
dear
Conventicles
,
unless
he
modestly
dissembles
his
knowledg
to
serve
his
Cause
.
For
the
terms
of
our
Communion
are
as
Catholick
,
as
our
Church
is
;
Diocesan
Episcopacy
,
Liturgies
,
and
Ceremonies
,
have
been
received
in
all
Churches
for
many
hundred
years
,
and
are
the
setled
Constitution
of
most
Churches
to
this
day
;
and
this
is
the
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
the
terms
of
our
Communion
;
and
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
Catholick
Terms
,
if
by
Catholick
Terms
,
he
means
,
what
has
actually
been
received
by
that
Catholick
Church
,
and
not
what
he
fancies
,
ought
to
be
made
the
Terms
of
Catholick
Communion
:
Could
Mr.
Lob
indeed
have
the
new
Modelling
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
make
what
Catholick
Terms
of
Communion
he
pleased
,
he
would
be
satisfied
,
and
the
Controversie
were
at
an
end
;
but
wiser
men
consider
,
that
Catholick
Terms
of
Communion
are
not
to
be
made
now
,
no
more
than
the
Catholick
Faith
is
;
and
therefore
it
is
not
our
private
Reasonings
,
but
the
Practise
of
the
Catholick
Church
in
all
Ages
,
which
will
acquaint
us
,
what
the
Catholick
Terms
of
Communion
are
;
and
he
,
who
will
not
maintain
Communion
with
the
Church
upon
such
Terms
,
must
be
a
Schismatick
,
and
there
is
an
end
of
that
Controversie
.
And
if
by
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
he
means
,
that
nothing
must
be
made
a
Term
of
Catholick
Communion
,
but
what
is
agreeable
to
the
general
Rules
of
Scripture
,
I
readily
grant
it
,
and
assert
,
that
the
Church
of
England
requires
nothing
,
as
a
Term
of
Communion
,
but
what
is
so
:
But
if
he
means
,
that
the
Church
must
require
nothing
,
but
what
is
expresly
commanded
by
the
Word
of
God
,
I
deny
,
that
this
ever
was
a
Term
of
Catholick
Communion
,
nay
nor
of
any
particular
Church-Communion
;
Dr.
Owen
himself
rejects
it
,
and
of
late
,
it
has
been
thought
a
very
great
Scandal
upon
the
Dissenters
to
charge
them
with
;
but
it
is
happy
for
a
Faction
to
have
some
ignorant
Writers
,
as
well
as
Readers
;
for
the
first
are
bold
,
and
the
other
credulous
,
and
the
Argument
must
be
acknowledged
,
to
be
very
useful
to
divide
and
disturb
the
best
constituted
Church
,
though
wise
and
cunning
men
are
ashamed
to
use
it
.
And
that
Mr.
L.
means
this
by
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
appears
from
an
admirable
Argument
,
he
uses
to
prove
it
.
That
we
our selves
look
on
them
as
indifferent
,
i.
e.
as
what
is
not
enjoyned
us
in
the
Word
of
God
,
q.
d.
as
what
is
not
according
to
the
Word
of
God
.
such
things
,
as
are
not
to
be
found
in
Scripture
.
Now
we
do
indeed
by
indifferent
things
,
mean
such
things
,
as
are
not
commanded
in
Scripture
,
but
are
left
to
the
prudence
of
Governors
to
injoyn
or
alter
,
as
the
Edification
of
the
Church
shall
require
;
but
yet
we
assert
indifferent
things
to
be
according
to
Scripture
,
both
as
the
use
of
indifferent
things
is
allowed
in
Scripture
,
and
as
these
particular
usages
,
which
are
enjoyned
by
the
Church
,
though
they
may
be
in
their
own
natures
indifferent
,
yet
are
agreeable
to
the
general
Rules
of
Scripture
for
decency
and
order
.
But
Mr.
Lob
requires
us
to
shew
the
Scriptures
,
that
declare
the
things
imposed
,
to
be
so
necessary
a
part
of
true
Religion
,
as
to
be
a
Form
of
our
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
;
that
we
must
not
only
shew
,
that
these
things
are
agreeable
to
true
Religion
,
but
moreover
that
it
is
such
a
necessary
part
thereof
,
that
whoever
conforms
not
to
them
,
when
imposed
,
is
,
ipso
facto
,
cut
off
from
the
Catholick
Church
.
Now
this
were
something
to
the
purpose
,
did
we
assert
,
that
the
bare
not
doing
these
things
,
as
for
instance
,
the
not
wearing
the
Surplice
,
or
not
using
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
or
not
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
,
did
in
their
own
nature
,
ipso
facto
,
cut
men
off
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
but
we
never
said
,
we
never
thought
this
:
But
we
say
,
that
to
separate
causelesly
from
any
true
and
sound
part
of
the
Christian
Church
,
cuts
such
Separatists
off
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
to
separate
,
where
no
sinful
terms
of
Communion
are
imposed
,
is
a
causeless
Separation
.
So
that
it
does
not
lie
on
us
to
prove
,
that
every
thing
that
is
injoyned
,
is
in
its
own
nature
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
;
but
if
they
would
justifie
their
Separation
,
they
must
prove
,
that
what
is
enjoyned
,
is
sinful
.
I
will
only
ask
Mr.
Lob
,
whether
it
be
a
sufficient
justification
of
Separation
from
any
Church
,
that
there
are
such
things
imposed
,
as
are
not
indeed
expresly
commanded
,
but
yet
are
agreeable
to
the
Word
of
God
,
and
to
true
Religion
;
if
this
be
a
just
Cause
of
Separation
,
it
is
impossible
,
that
any
Schismatick
should
ever
want
Reasons
for
their
Separation
;
for
there
is
no
Church
in
the
World
,
but
does
something
or
other
,
which
they
have
no
Command
to
do
:
If
this
be
no
sufficient
reason
of
Separation
,
then
it
is
sufficient
for
us
to
prove
,
that
the
Church
imposes
nothing
,
but
what
is
agreeable
to
true
Religion
,
to
prove
them
guilty
of
a
causeless
Schism
.
Can
any
thing
be
sinful
,
which
is
agreeable
to
true
Religion
?
Or
can
the
Church
sin
in
commanding
things
which
are
not
sinful
?
If
not
,
it
is
sufficient
to
prove
,
that
the
Church
imposes
nothing
,
but
what
is
agreeable
to
true
Religion
:
For
whatever
justifies
the
Church
,
condemns
the
Schismaticks
.
It
may
be
,
it
is
a
harder
matter
than
Mr.
Lob
is
aware
of
,
to
determine
,
what
is
in
its
own
nature
absolutely
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
;
but
I
can
tell
him
,
de
facto
,
what
is
,
viz.
a
Complyance
with
the
Order
,
Government
,
Discipline
and
Worship
,
as
well
as
the
Doctrine
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
he
who
will
not
do
this
,
must
separate
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
try
it
at
the
last
day
,
who
was
in
the
right
;
I
am
content
,
that
Mr.
Lob
,
and
his
beloved
Separatists
,
should
talk
on
of
unscriptural
Terms
of
Communion
,
so
they
will
but
grant
,
that
the
Church
of
Englan
is
no
more
guilty
of
imposing
unscriptural
Terms
,
than
the
Catholick
Church
it self
has
always
been
;
and
that
they
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
for
such
Reasons
,
as
equally
condemn
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
when
they
have
the
confidence
to
deny
this
,
I
will
prove
it
,
and
shall
desire
no
better
Vindication
of
the
Church
of
England
,
than
the
Practise
of
the
Catholick
Church
.
But
Mr.
Lob
observes
,
that
this
is
the
Rule
Costerus
the
Jesuit
gives
his
young
Scholar
,
If
any
object
,
where
are
these
points
,
viz.
of
Invocation
of
Saints
,
the
worshipping
of
Images
,
the
abstaining
from
Flesh
,
and
the
like
,
found
in
Scripture
,
and
because
not
found
in
Scripture
,
therefore
to
be
rejected
?
To
which
,
saith
the
Jesuit
,
answer
thus
:
Ask
,
where
it
is
forbidden
in
Scripture
?
If
not
forbidden
in
Scripture
,
it
is
no
sin
to
observe
them
,
for
where
there
is
no
Law
,
there
is
no
Transgression
:
But
what
of
all
this
?
The
Rule
is
a
very
good
Rule
,
though
used
in
a
bravado
by
the
Jesuit
.
Does
Mr.
Lob
think
,
that
Popery
is
established
by
this
Rule
,
as
well
as
indifferent
and
uncommanded
Ceremonies
?
Do
we
separate
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
only
for
the
sake
of
some
things
,
which
are
neither
forbid
,
nor
commanded
in
Scripture
?
Our
Dissenters
,
I
see
,
have
better
thoughts
of
Popery
,
than
the
Church
of
England
has
,
and
are
in
a
nearer
capacity
of
reconciliation
with
the
Church
of
Rome
.
But
there
is
one
admirable
Paragraph
,
which
I
cannot
let
pass
without
some
short
remarks
,
and
it
is
this
;
To
make
that
a
part
of
our
Religion
,
which
is
not
to
be
found
in
Scripture
,
is
to
take
that
for
a
part
of
our
Religion
,
which
God
hath
not
made
a
part
thereof
,
which
is
sinful
.
How
much
more
so
,
is
the
making
it
a
Term
of
Communion
.
Wherein
there
are
as
many
absurd
Propositions
included
,
as
can
well
be
in
so
few
words
.
1.
He
takes
it
for
granted
,
that
for
the
Church
to
require
the
observation
of
any
thing
which
is
not
commanded
in
Scripture
,
is
to
make
a
part
of
Religion
of
it
;
and
yet
the
Church
may
and
does
enjoyn
such
things
,
not
as
parts
of
Religion
,
but
as
Rules
of
Order
and
Discipline
.
Who
then
makes
it
a
part
of
Religion
?
If
it
be
made
a
part
of
Religion
,
it
must
be
made
so
by
God
,
or
the
Church
;
he
acknowledges
,
God
does
not
make
it
a
part
of
Religion
,
and
the
Church
declares
she
does
not
,
how
then
does
it
come
to
be
a
part
of
Religion
?
Or
does
the
Church
make
a
part
of
Religion
against
her
own
Mind
,
Intention
,
and
Declaration
?
In
some
cases
indeed
men
may
do
,
what
they
never
intended
to
do
,
and
contract
a
Guilt
,
which
they
utterly
disclaim
,
and
disown
,
but
then
it
is
in
such
cases
,
where
a
positive
Law
,
or
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
determines
the
nature
of
the
Action
,
whatever
he
,
who
does
it
,
intends
by
it
.
Thus
the
Papists
abhor
the
thoughts
of
Idolatry
in
the
Worship
of
Saints
,
and
Angels
,
and
Images
,
and
the
consecrated
Host
,
but
are
nevertheless
guilty
of
Idolatry
for
that
,
because
the
Law
of
God
,
and
the
Nature
of
the
Worship
makes
it
so
.
But
now
how
can
that
come
to
be
a
part
of
Worship
,
which
is
not
so
,
neither
by
a
positive
Law
,
nor
by
the
Nature
of
the
thing
,
nor
by
the
Institution
of
men
?
For
is
there
any
Law
of
God
to
make
every
thing
a
part
of
Religion
,
which
is
commanded
by
the
Church
?
If
there
be
,
the
Dispute
is
at
an
end
;
we
will
then
own
these
unscriptural
Ceremonies
as
parts
of
Religion
,
and
justifie
our selves
,
by
the
Command
of
God
,
and
the
Authority
of
the
Church
.
Or
can
the
Nature
of
things
make
that
a
part
of
Religion
,
which
is
not
so
in
its
own
Nature
?
That
is
,
can
the
Nature
of
things
make
an
Action
to
be
that
,
which
in
its
own
Nature
it
is
not
?
Or
can
the
Institution
of
the
Church
make
that
a
part
of
Religion
,
which
the
Church
never
instituted
as
a
part
of
Religion
?
I
would
desire
Mr.
Lob
and
his
Friends
to
take
a
little
time
to
answer
these
Questions
,
before
they
talk
again
of
the
Churches
making
parts
of
Religion
and
humane
Sacraments
,
against
her
own
express
Declarations
to
the
contrary
.
2.
Mr.
Lob
here
supposes
,
that
nothing
must
be
a
Term
of
Church
Communion
,
but
what
is
a
necessary
part
of
true
Religion
;
for
that
is
the
subject
of
the
Dispute
,
and
to
make
any
thing
a
condition
of
Communion
,
he
thinks
,
makes
it
a
necessary
part
of
true
Religion
:
And
now
I
begin
to
wonder
,
what
he
means
by
Religion
,
or
a
part
of
Religion
.
Is
Government
and
Discipline
Religion
,
or
a
part
of
Religion
?
If
they
be
,
I
would
gladly
know
,
Mr.
Lob's
definition
of
Religion
;
if
they
be
not
,
are
they
any
Terms
of
Communion
?
Or
may
Catholick
Communion
,
and
Church-Societies
be
preserved
without
any
Government
and
Discipline
?
Mr.
Lob
is
mightily
out
,
to
think
that
nothing
is
necessary
to
Catholick
Communion
,
but
the
profession
of
the
true
Religion
;
Government
and
Discipline
is
necessary
to
preserve
any
Society
,
and
therefore
obedience
to
Ecclesiastical
Governors
is
a
necessary
Duty
,
and
a
necessary
Term
of
Church
Communion
;
and
let
a
man
be
never
so
sound
and
orthodox
in
Faith
and
Worship
,
if
he
be
of
a
restless
,
turbulent
Spirit
,
and
disobedient
to
his
Governors
,
and
their
Orders
and
Constitutions
,
he
deserves
to
be
flung
out
of
Church-Communion
,
if
he
does
not
separate
himself
,
and
will
be
damned
for
it
too
without
Repentance
.
Though
a
very
little
thing
may
make
a
Schism
,
yet
a
Schism
is
a
great
and
damning
sin
,
and
the
less
the
Cause
is
,
the
greater
is
the
Sin
.
For
the
guilt
of
Schism
and
Disobedience
is
not
estimated
from
the
intrinsick
value
of
the
thing
,
in
which
they
disobey
,
and
for
which
they
separate
,
but
according
to
the
Nature
of
Schism
and
Disobedience
.
3.
But
the
sting
of
all
is
in
the
Tail
.
He
says
,
That
to
take
that
for
a
part
of
our
Religion
,
which
God
hath
not
made
a
part
thereof
,
is
sinful
.
How
much
more
so
is
the
making
it
a
Term
of
Communion
.
Which
few
words
contain
several
very
absurd
and
contradictory
Propositions
,
and
the
Foundation
of
all
is
ridiculously
false
;
the
Absurdities
are
notorious
.
1.
That
it
is
worse
to
make
such
uncommanded
things
,
Terms
of
Communion
than
parts
of
Worship
;
and
yet
the
only
reason
Mr.
Lob
and
his
Friends
do
or
can
assign
why
they
are
unlawful
Terms
of
Communion
,
is
,
because
they
imagine
them
to
be
made
parts
of
Worship
;
for
if
they
be
not
parts
of
Worship
,
what
is
the
evil
of
them
?
Why
should
men
separate
for
the
Surplice
,
or
Cross
in
Baptism
,
&
c.
?
When
there
is
no
evil
in
these
things
?
The
only
evil
they
charge
them
with
,
being
only
this
,
that
we
make
new
Sacraments
,
and
new
parts
of
Worship
by
humane
Authority
.
2.
This
supposes
,
that
that
may
be
a
part
of
Worship
,
which
is
not
a
Term
of
Communion
.
Otherwise
it
can
be
neither
better
nor
worse
to
make
any
thing
a
part
of
Worship
,
and
a
term
of
Communion
.
But
this
is
a
new
Notion
,
which
I
believe
mankind
was
not
instructed
in
before
,
to
make
that
no
term
of
Communion
,
which
we
make
a
part
of
Worship
;
which
signifies
to
live
in
Christian
Communion
together
,
without
an
obligation
to
communicate
in
all
parts
of
Christian
Worship
.
3.
What
can
be
more
ridiculously
absurd
and
false
,
than
the
Foundation
of
all
this
,
that
the
terms
of
Communion
are
more
sacred
than
the
Worship
of
God
.
That
it
is
a
less
Crime
to
make
a
new
part
of
Worship
,
than
a
new
term
of
Communion
.
That
the
purity
of
the
divine
Worship
is
not
of
that
Moment
and
Consequence
,
as
the
conditions
of
Union
between
Christians
;
and
yet
the
only
reason
,
why
Christians
are
to
unite
into
one
Body
,
is
to
worship
God
together
?
Methinks
this
should
make
our
new
Projectors
careful
what
they
do
,
and
make
Mr.
H.
seriously
reflect
,
upon
what
he
has
done
,
who
has
proposed
such
new
materials
for
Union
,
as
were
never
known
in
the
Christian
Church
before
.
11.
His
next
Argument
to
vindicate
themselves
from
Schism
,
is
made
up
,
as
he
says
,
Separation
is
lawful
,
in
case
men
make
things
indifferent
necessary
to
Salvation
,
and
divide
the
Church
upon
that
account
.
But
the
Church
of
England
according
to
my
notion
,
makes
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
.
Ergo
,
we
may
,
yea
,
we
must
separate
,
or
't
is
our
duty
,
and
therefore
not
our
sin
to
separate
,
(
i.e.
)
we
are
no
Schismaticks
.
Wonderful
subtil
!
The
Dean's
Rule
I
own
,
and
will
stand
to
,
that
if
men
make
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
and
divide
the
Church
upon
that
account
,
we
may
lawfully
separate
from
them
;
where
the
Dean
makes
two
things
necessary
to
justifie
a
Separation
.
1.
That
they
make
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
that
is
,
that
they
assert
the
very
doing
of
such
a
thing
to
be
necessary
to
Salvation
,
as
the
false
Apostles
asserted
Circumcision
was
.
But
yet
2.
This
of
it self
is
not
sufficient
to
justifie
a
Separation
,
unless
these
men
divide
the
Church
upon
this
account
.
This
Mr.
Lob
thought
fit
to
leave
out
of
his
Argument
,
because
it
would
have
spoiled
his
Argument
to
have
put
it
in
.
The
bare
asserting
indifferent
things
to
be
necessary
to
Salvation
,
if
they
do
not
divide
the
Church
upon
it
,
will
not
justifie
a
Separation
.
This
many
believing
Jews
did
.
They
thought
Circumcision
and
the
Observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
necessary
to
Salvation
,
and
yet
St.
Paul
commands
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
receive
each
other
,
and
to
maintain
one
Communion
;
and
St.
Paul
himself
complyed
sometimes
with
them
to
avoid
any
scandal
.
But
when
some
false
Apostles
did
not
only
assert
the
necessity
of
such
things
to
Salvation
,
but
would
impose
this
upon
all
Christians
,
or
break
Communion
with
them
;
when
they
separated
from
the
Church
,
it
was
very
lawful
to
separate
from
them
.
And
therefore
we
must
correct
Mr.
Lob's
Major
Proposition
thus
.
From
such
as
make
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
and
divide
the
Church
upon
that
account
,
we
must
separate
.
This
is
Dr.
Stillingfleets
.
Let
us
now
consider
his
Minor
Proposition
,
which
,
he
says
,
is
mine
.
But
the
Church
of
England
makes
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
.
This
is
the
Dr's
.
Substitutes
notion
.
God
forbid
!
My
notion
,
I
never
had
such
a
thought
in
my
life
.
Well!
But
if
Mr.
Lob
can
prove
this
against
me
,
I
know
no
help
for
it
,
I
'le
make
my
Defence
,
as
well
as
I
can
.
But
let
us
hear
what
he
says
.
He
attempts
two
or
three
ways
to
prove
this
,
but
blunders
in
each
;
the
first
way
is
this
.
That
which
is
necessary
to
our
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
is
according
to
his
Doctrine
,
necessary
to
Salvation
.
Now
this
I
deny
.
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
is
necessary
to
Salvation
,
but
whatever
may
be
necessary
to
our
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
is
not
therefore
in
its
own
nature
necessary
to
Salvation
.
It
may
be
necessary
in
order
to
Catholick
Communion
,
to
comply
with
many
inconvenient
,
though
not
sinful
terms
of
Communion
,
and
all
wise
and
good
men
have
thought
themselves
bound
to
do
so
,
when
there
is
no
other
Remedy
,
does
it
hence
follow
then
,
that
these
good
men
account
these
inconvenient
things
necessary
to
Salvation
?
But
to
proceed
,
But
indifferent
things
(
says
Mr.
Lob
)
are
necessary
to
our
Communion
with
the
Church
of
England
,
which
is
one
with
the
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
in
that
,
according
to
him
,
they
are
made
necessary
to
our
Communion
with
the
Church
of
England
,
which
is
one
with
the
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
according
to
his
constant
judgment
.
Ergo
,
I
confess
,
what
he
means
by
this
,
I
cannot
well
understand
;
I
suppose
,
it
may
be
this
.
That
I
make
Communion
with
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
consequently
with
the
Church
of
England
,
as
a
sound
and
orthodox
part
of
the
Catholick
Church
to
be
necessary
to
Salvation
.
But
the
observation
of
some
indifferent
things
is
de
facto
,
necessary
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
England
,
because
the
Church
enjoyns
the
Observation
of
some
indifferent
things
.
Ergo
,
indifferent
things
are
made
necessary
to
Salvation
.
Now
,
1.
I
would
only
ask
Mr.
Lob
in
his
ear
,
whether
his
own
Conscience
don't
tell
him
,
that
he
has
prevaricated
here
;
whether
he
has
not
used
that
term
,
Necessary
to
Salvation
,
in
different
senses
,
on
purpose
to
abuse
the
Dean
and
his
Substitute
together
,
and
to
impose
upon
his
ignorant
Proselytes
.
By
making
indifferent
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
the
Dean
plainly
meant
,
that
they
taught
,
that
those
things
,
which
were
indeed
indifferent
,
though
not
acknowledged
so
by
them
,
had
such
a
natural
and
moral
,
or
instituted
vertue
and
efficacy
to
our
Salvation
,
that
without
observing
of
them
,
no
man
can
be
saved
;
that
they
are
necessary
to
Salvation
,
as
any
other
necessary
and
essential
part
or
duty
of
Religion
is
,
the
neglect
of
which
,
meerly
upon
account
of
such
a
neglect
will
damn
us
.
Now
does
the
Dean
,
does
his
Substitute
,
does
the
Church
of
England
,
teach
indifferent
things
to
be
necessary
in
this
sence
,
to
have
an
immediate
and
direct
influence
upon
our
Salvation
?
Can
any
man
in
his
wits
,
who
owns
these
things
to
be
indifferent
,
in
the
same
breath
assert
them
to
be
necessary
in
this
sense
?
And
therefore
Mr.
Lob's
Argument
is
a
ridiculous
Sophism
,
or
as
Mr.
H.
speaks
,
has
four
terms
in
it
.
For
necessary
to
Salvation
in
the
Major
Proposition
,
signifies
very
differently
from
necessary
to
Salvation
in
the
Minor
Proposition
;
and
thus
the
Dean
and
his
Substitute
are
reconciled
.
But
,
2.
How
shall
I
bring
my self
off
;
for
though
I
do
not
assert
a
direct
necessity
of
indifferent
things
to
Salvation
,
yet
I
bring
in
a
necessity
at
a
back
Door
,
and
necessity
is
necessity
,
and
if
it
be
a
damning
necessity
,
it
is
no
matter
of
what
kind
and
nature
the
necessity
be
.
I
make
Communion
with
the
Church
of
England
necessary
to
Salvation
,
and
indifferent
observances
are
necessary
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
therefore
are
themselves
necessary
to
Salvation
.
But
yet
I
doubt
not
to
make
it
appear
,
that
though
the
Church
of
England
does
require
the
observance
of
such
indifferent
things
from
all
in
her
Communion
,
yet
she
makes
these
things
in
no
sense
necessary
to
Salvation
.
For
,
1.
In
many
cases
she
does
not
charge
the
bare
not
observing
such
indifferent
Rites
with
any
guilt
,
and
therefore
is
far
enough
from
making
them
necessary
to
Salvation
.
Such
indifferent
things
are
not
enjoyned
for
their
own
sake
,
but
for
the
sake
of
publick
Order
and
Decency
;
and
therefore
when
they
can
be
neglected
without
publick
Scandal
and
Offence
,
without
a
contempt
of
the
Government
,
without
the
guilt
of
Schism
and
Separation
,
it
is
no
fault
,
nor
accounted
such
by
the
Church
.
And
yet
did
she
enjoyn
these
things
as
necessary
to
Salvation
,
they
would
equally
oblige
in
all
times
,
and
in
all
cases
without
exception
.
2.
Though
Schism
be
a
damning
sin
;
yet
the
imposition
of
such
indifferent
things
is
no
necessary
cause
of
a
Schismatical
Separation
.
Men
may
communicate
in
all
or
in
most
parts
of
Christian
Worship
with
the
Church
of
England
,
without
assenting
to
such
unscriptural
Impositions
,
or
yielding
any
active
obedience
to
them
,
and
I
suppose
,
Mr.
Lob
will
confess
,
that
there
is
a
very
material
difference
between
an
active
and
passive
Obedience
in
doubtful
cases
.
The
terms
of
Lay-Communion
are
as
easie
,
as
ever
they
were
in
any
setled
and
constituted
Church
;
as
for
publick
Forms
of
Prayer
,
I
must
except
them
out
of
the
number
of
indifferent
things
,
for
they
have
at
least
equal
Authority
,
and
are
infinitely
more
expedient
,
not
to
say
necessary
for
publick
Worship
,
than
their
ex
tempore
Prayers
.
And
then
what
is
there
required
of
a
private
Christian
to
do
,
to
qualifie
him
for
Church-Communion
;
if
he
does
not
like
the
Surplice
,
he
does
not
wear
it
himself
,
and
let
the
Minister
look
to
that
.
What
hurt
is
it
to
Parents
or
their
Children
,
to
submit
to
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
in
using
the
sign
of
the
Cross
in
Baptism
?
They
only
offer
their
Children
to
be
baptized
;
if
the
Minister
does
something
more
,
than
what
they
think
necessary
and
expedient
,
let
the
Church
look
to
that
,
which
enjoyns
it
:
Private
Christians
,
who
have
not
Authority
to
alter
publick
Constitutions
,
are
not
concerned
in
that
:
So
that
there
is
but
one
Ceremony
,
wherein
they
are
required
to
be
active
,
and
that
is
,
receiving
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's
Supper
kneeling
,
which
men
thus
peaceably
disposed
,
may
easily
be
satisfied
in
the
lawfulness
and
fitness
of
,
and
till
they
can
be
satisfied
,
may
more
innocently
abstain
from
the
Lord's
Table
,
and
joyn
in
all
other
parts
of
Christian
Worship
,
than
they
can
separate
from
the
Church
:
So
that
these
indifferent
things
can
be
no
just
cause
for
any
private
Christians
to
separate
,
and
if
notwithstanding
they
do
separate
,
and
are
damned
for
it
,
they
must
not
charge
these
innocent
Ceremonies
with
their
Damnation
.
And
as
for
those
,
who
cannot
conform
as
Ministers
,
they
may
,
and
most
of
them
own
they
can
,
conform
as
Lay-men
,
and
therefore
these
Ceremonies
are
no
cause
of
their
Separation
.
3.
Suppose
men
do
take
occasion
from
the
Disputes
and
Quarrels
about
indifferent
things
,
to
separate
from
the
Church
,
and
be
damned
for
it
,
yet
they
are
not
damned
for
not
observing
such
indifferent
Customs
,
though
that
may
be
the
remote
occasion
of
it
;
but
for
their
pride
and
self-conceit
,
for
their
disobedience
to
their
Superiors
,
for
their
dividing
the
unity
of
the
Church
,
and
disturbing
the
peace
of
it
.
Suppose
two
men
should
be
so
well
employed
,
as
to
play
at
push-pin
,
and
should
quarrel
and
fight
,
and
one
should
be
killed
,
and
the
other
hanged
,
would
you
say
this
man
was
hanged
for
playing
at
push-pin
?
Thus
it
is
here
,
it
is
not
the
occasion
which
peevish
〈◊〉
take
to
divide
the
Church
,
which
must
be
charged
with
their
Damnation
,
but
their
Pride
,
their
Faction
,
their
Obstinacy
,
their
Disobedience
and
ungovernable
temper
of
mind
,
which
takes
such
small
occasions
to
divide
,
and
disturb
the
Church
.
If
Mr.
Lob
does
not
think
this
enough
in
answer
to
his
Argument
,
I
think
,
he
is
a
little
unreasonable
.
III.
Our
Author
has
another
device
still
to
prove
from
my
own
Concessions
,
that
Dissenters
are
not
Schismaticks
.
He
says
,
that
Dr.
Gunning
,
and
Dr.
Pearson
,
(
now
two
learned
and
reverend
Prelates
,
whose
bare
Authority
,
I
confess
,
is
more
considerable
to
me
,
than
all
our
Author's
Arguments
)
in
a
Conference
with
the
Papists
,
assert
,
That
a
Superiors
unjust
casting
out
of
the
Church
,
is
Schismatical
.
And
this
I
heartily
assent
to
.
But
according
to
my
notion
,
the
Church
of
England
is
guilty
of
such
impositions
,
and
does
unjustly
excommunicate
Dissenters
.
This
I
utterly
deny
.
But
let
us
hear
,
how
Mr.
Lob
proves
it
.
1.
He
says
,
That
the
Impositions
are
sinful
,
is
evident
,
in
that
indifferent
things
(
as
has
been
proved
)
are
made
necessary
to
Salvation
.
But
I
presume
the
Reader
will
see
,
that
this
has
not
been
proved
yet
,
and
therefore
it
is
not
evident
.
I
will
only
ask
our
Author
,
whether
these
reverend
Bishops
by
unjust
Excommunications
,
mean
excommunicating
those
,
who
refuse
to
submit
to
the
just
Authority
of
their
Superiors
in
indifferent
things
.
If
they
don't
,
as
it
is
evident
they
don't
,
he
only
abuses
them
,
and
his
Readers
,
by
their
Authority
.
2.
That
the
Church
of
England
excommunicates
unjustly
,
he
says
,
is
very
demonstrable
,
even
in
that
the
Church
doth
,
as
I
would
have
it
,
by
Excommunication
,
cast
thousands
out
of
the
state
of
Salvation
,
for
not
complying
with
little
uncommanded
things
:
But
now
here
are
two
great
mistakes
.
For
,
1.
The
Church
casts
no
man
out
of
a
state
of
Salvation
,
but
casts
them
out
of
her
own
Communion
;
that
this
excludes
them
from
a
state
of
Salvation
,
is
not
the
Act
of
the
Church
,
but
God's
Act.
The
Church
does
not
desire
,
nor
design
the
Damnation
of
any
man
,
but
excommunicates
them
for
their
correction
and
amendment
,
that
God
would
give
them
repentance
unto
life
:
And
there
may
be
very
just
Reasons
for
the
Church
to
excommunicate
,
when
God
,
who
knows
every
circumstance
of
things
more
particularly
,
than
Church-Governors
can
,
may
continue
those
in
the
Communion
of
the
invisible
Church
,
who
are
cast
out
of
visible
Communion
.
Wilful
Schism
is
in
all
cases
a
damning
Schism
,
Excommunication
is
no
sin
at
all
,
but
a
severe
punishment
,
when
it
is
deserved
,
and
contracts
the
guilt
of
Schism
,
when
it
is
despised
.
He
who
is
unjustly
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
ought
not
to
despise
such
Censures
,
but
to
use
all
just
and
lawful
means
to
be
restored
again
to
Communion
.
But
the
Excommunication
of
the
Church
,
and
the
wilful
Separation
of
Schismaticks
,
are
two
as
different
things
,
as
can
well
be
imagined
.
I
never
asserted
,
that
Church-Censures
and
Excommunications
always
put
men
out
of
a
state
of
Salvation
,
but
I
assert
,
that
wilful
Schism
does
.
2.
Nor
does
the
Church
excommunicate
meerly
for
the
sake
of
some
little
uncommanded
things
,
but
for
Schism
and
Church-factions
,
and
disobedience
to
Government
,
which
are
inconsistent
with
the
order
and
preservation
of
any
Society
,
and
are
not
the
less
sins
,
because
the
Dispute
and
Quarrel
is
about
some
little
things
.
To
excommunicate
any
man
because
he
will
not
yield
to
sinful
terms
of
Communion
,
i.
e.
because
he
will
not
break
the
express
Laws
of
God
,
to
comply
with
the
Laws
of
the
Church
,
is
an
unjust
and
Schismatical
Excommunication
;
but
it
is
necessary
to
the
good
Order
and
Government
of
any
Society
to
Excommunicate
those
,
who
will
not
own
the
just
Authority
of
the
Church
,
be
the
thing
never
so
little
for
which
they
separate
.
For
we
must
consider
,
that
a
Church
must
first
be
Schismatical
her self
,
before
she
can
excommunicate
Schismatically
.
Any
Church
,
which
either
forbids
the
doing
what
God
has
commanded
,
or
commands
,
what
God
hath
forbid
,
is
so
far
a
Schismatick
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
whose
Communion
must
be
regulated
by
the
divine
Laws
;
and
if
she
excommunicates
any
single
Persons
,
or
Churches
,
for
not
complying
with
these
unlawful
and
Schismatical
terms
of
Communion
,
her
Excommunications
are
Schismatical
,
because
her
terms
of
Communion
are
so
,
which
is
the
case
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
But
it
is
impossible
,
that
a
Church
,
which
is
not
Schismatical
,
can
excommunicate
Schismatically
.
A
man
,
who
is
unjustly
excommunicated
,
is
cast
out
of
the
external
Communion
of
the
Church
,
but
does
not
schismatically
separate
himself
.
Nay
,
though
he
be
upon
other
accounts
unjustly
excommunicated
,
if
there
be
nothing
unlawful
in
the
Communion
of
that
Church
,
(
which
is
the
unjust
Excommunication
,
which
these
learned
Bishops
assert
to
be
schismatical
)
or
he
be
not
excommunicated
upon
any
such
account
,
he
must
patiently
bear
it
,
and
use
all
means
to
be
restored
,
but
must
not
set
up
a
distinct
and
opposite
Communion
,
which
would
be
a
causeless
Schism
.
For
meer
Excommunication
,
though
in
some
respects
never
so
unjust
,
is
not
a
sufficient
reason
to
justifie
a
formed
Schism
and
Separation
from
any
Church
,
no
more
than
any
acts
of
injustice
,
which
private
men
suffer
,
will
justifie
a
Rebellion
against
their
Prince
;
God
is
the
Judge
and
the
Protector
of
oppressed
Vertue
and
Innocence
,
whether
it
suffer
from
Church
or
State
,
and
there
only
lies
our
last
Appeal
.
So
that
meer
Excommunication
can
never
make
any
Church
schismatical
,
or
though
it
may
occasion
,
yet
it
can
never
justifie
a
Schism
.
But
now
when
any
Church
by
enjoyning
sinful
terms
of
Communion
,
separates
so
far
from
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
excommunicates
all
Persons
and
Churches
,
who
will
not
communicate
with
her
in
such
unlawful
things
,
it
is
lawful
and
justifiable
,
nay
necessary
for
such
Persons
to
preserve
the
purity
of
their
own
Communion
,
or
to
form
themselves
into
a
distinct
Communion
in
the
Unity
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
and
to
leave
such
a
Church
to
stand
by
her self
:
Here
now
is
a
formed
Schism
between
these
Churches
,
and
the
Question
is
,
who
is
the
Schismatick
,
the
excommunicating
or
the
excommunicated
Churches
.
And
the
answer
is
very
plain
,
the
excommunicating
Church
is
the
Schismatick
,
because
she
has
departed
from
Catholick
Communion
,
by
imposing
unlawful
terms
of
Communion
.
So
that
Excommunication
can
never
be
Schismatical
,
but
when
the
terms
of
Communion
are
a
Schism
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
therefore
the
whole
of
the
Dispute
comes
to
this
,
whether
the
enjoyning
the
observance
of
some
indifferent
and
uncommanded
Ceremonies
be
a
Schism
from
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
when
Mr.
Lob
can
prove
this
,
I
will
readily
grant
the
Church
of
England
to
be
schismatical
,
whether
she
excommunicate
Dissenters
or
not
.
But
this
will
be
a
hard
matter
for
him
to
do
,
when
the
Catholick
Church
has
always
asserted
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
these
matters
,
and
has
always
practised
a
great
many
uncommanded
Ceremonies
in
all
Ages
;
but
this
I
have
discoursed
sufficiently
above
.
Thus
we
see
,
how
Mr.
Lob
fails
in
his
new
attempts
,
to
prove
the
Church
of
England
the
Schismatick
from
my
own
Principles
and
Concessions
.
Let
us
now
consider
,
how
he
justifies
his
old
Argument
to
prove
the
Church
the
divider
;
and
certainly
never
any
man
was
more
hard
put
to
it
,
to
make
some
little
insignificant
appearance
of
an
Answer
,
than
he
was
,
and
yet
he
puts
a
very
good
face
on
it
,
and
with
a
brave
Confidence
,
huffs
it
off
,
as
if
there
were
nothing
said
that
deserved
an
Answer
.
And
I
confess
,
it
abundantly
satisfies
me
,
what
a
vain
attempt
it
is
,
to
convince
men
,
who
are
resolved
,
not
to
be
convinc'd
.
If
Mr.
Lob
,
or
any
other
for
him
will
give
a
fair
and
particular
Answer
to
those
few
Pages
in
the
Defence
,
from
p.
22.
to
p.
53.
I
promise
them
to
be
their
Convert
,
and
a
zealous
opposer
of
all
indifferent
Ceremonies
in
Religion
.
But
because
Mr.
Lob
would
have
the
World
believe
,
that
he
has
done
this
already
,
I
shall
desire
my
Readers
to
look
over
those
few
Pages
in
the
Defence
,
and
compare
them
with
his
Reply
;
and
if
this
could
be
obtained
,
I
would
venture
to
leave
it
,
just
as
it
is
without
any
further
remarks
.
But
least
he
should
boast
,
that
I
decline
the
Dispute
,
I
shall
briefly
consider
,
what
despicable
Arts
he
uses
to
impose
upon
his
Readers
.
Mr.
Lob
undertook
to
prove
the
Church
,
not
the
Dissenter
,
to
be
the
divider
by
this
Argument
.
The
Church
without
sin
can
part
with
their
indifferent
Ceremonies
,
but
Dissenters
without
sin
cannot
comply
with
them
;
what
then
must
be
done
for
Vnion
?
Must
the
Episcopal
comply
in
things
,
wherein
they
can
without
sin
?
Or
must
the
Dissenters
sin
and
loose
their
Peace
with
God
for
Vnion
?
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
,
't
would
be
easie
to
conclude
them
obstinate
and
perverse
(
that
is
,
in
plain
English
,
Schismaticks
)
〈◊〉
not
to
do
,
what
they
can
for
Peace
?
But
since
they
would
,
but
cannot
without
sin
,
how
can
they
be
the
Dividers
?
This
I
shewed
particularly
,
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
Judgment
of
things
,
they
may
be
the
Dividers
and
Schismaticks
for
all
that
;
unless
we
will
say
,
that
no
man
,
but
a
profligate
Knave
,
who
sins
against
his
Conscience
,
can
be
a
Schismatick
.
Thus
as
for
his
will
not
and
cannot
.
If
by
the
Episcopals
will
not
,
he
means
,
that
they
will
not
do
,
what
they
may
by
divine
and
humane
Laws
,
and
with
a
just
respect
to
the
good
Order
and
Government
and
Edification
of
the
Church
,
and
regular
Administration
of
holy
Offices
,
they
are
faulty
in
it
,
but
may
be
no
Schismaticks
notwithstanding
,
so
long
as
they
exact
no
sinful
terms
of
Communion
:
and
if
by
the
Dissenters
cannot
,
he
means
their
private
Opinions
and
Perswasions
,
which
hinder
their
Complyance
,
they
may
be
the
Dividers
still
,
if
their
perswasions
be
erroneous
.
All
this
and
a
great
deal
more
our
Author
passes
over
very
wisely
without
the
least
notice
;
but
to
convince
him
of
the
Sophistry
of
this
Argument
,
I
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
Vnion
,
but
cannot
;
who
is
the
faulty
Divider
?
What
must
be
done
for
Vnion
?
Must
the
Dissenters
comply
in
things
,
wherein
they
can
without
sin
?
Or
must
the
Episcopal
sin
,
and
lose
their
Peace
with
God
for
Vnion
?
And
I
added
,
I
would
desire
our
Inquirer
to
think
better
of
it
,
and
answer
this
Argument
if
he
can
,
without
shewing
the
Sophistry
of
his
own
.
Mr.
Lob
it
seems
,
had
enough
of
his
own
Argument
,
and
durst
not
venture
his
Readers
with
it
a
second
time
;
but
he
repeats
my
Argument
by
it self
,
without
taking
notice
upon
what
occasion
it
was
urged
,
which
must
needs
make
it
look
oddly
;
only
wonders
,
why
I
call
this
an
Argument
,
and
that
I
should
say
,
that
this
cannot
be
answered
without
a
shewing
Sophistry
to
be
,
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
shewing
Sophistry
,
where
it
is
not
,
instead
of
let
him
answer
this
Argument
,
if
he
can
without
shewing
the
Sophistry
of
his
own
.
It
is
apparent
,
Mr.
Lob
was
here
convinc'd
,
that
he
had
reasoned
foolishly
,
but
had
not
the
honesty
and
ingenuity
to
own
it
.
For
indeed
the
fallacy
of
both
these
Arguments
consists
in
the
different
acceptation
of
cannot
,
and
will
not
;
in
one
sence
,
they
may
be
turned
against
the
Church
,
in
another
sence
against
the
Dissenter
,
with
equal
force
and
truth
;
and
therefore
without
a
more
particular
explication
of
these
ambiguous
terms
,
it
is
a
good
Argument
against
neither
;
which
must
needs
make
it
a
very
pleasant
entertainment
to
any
man
,
who
understands
the
Laws
of
reasoning
,
to
see
Mr.
Lob
so
gravely
confute
my
Argument
without
taking
any
notice
of
his
own
;
when
all
that
I
pretended
was
,
that
this
was
as
good
an
Argument
against
Dissenters
,
as
his
was
against
the
Church
,
and
were
both
to
be
answered
the
same
way
,
by
distinguishing
the
different
significations
of
those
terms
,
as
I
have
shewed
above
.
But
that
this
Inquirer
might
not
say
,
that
I
had
used
some
Art
to
wave
the
Dispute
,
but
had
not
answered
his
Argument
,
I
granted
him
his
own
sence
of
the
Words
,
and
reduced
the
force
of
his
Argument
to
these
two
Propositions
.
1.
That
all
things
,
which
are
in
their
own
nature
indifferent
,
may
without
sin
be
parted
with
:
2.
That
the
Opinion
of
Dissenters
,
that
indifferent
things
are
unlawful
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
is
a
just
reason
for
parting
with
them
.
The
first
I
discoursed
at
large
from
this
Topick
,
That
there
can
be
no
publick
and
solemn
Worship
,
no
face
or
appearance
of
any
Discipline
or
Government
in
the
Church
,
without
the
use
of
some
such
indifferent
things
.
For
all
actions
must
be
cloathed
with
some
such
external
Circumstances
,
as
though
they
are
not
essential
to
the
moral
nature
of
the
Action
,
yet
are
necessary
to
the
external
performance
of
it
:
Which
is
proved
at
large
in
the
Defence
.
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
:
That
no
one
indifferent
Ceremony
must
be
made
so
necessary
a
part
of
Religion
,
as
to
be
a
term
of
Communion
.
Though
I
doubt
,
he
would
be
troubled
to
apply
this
Proposition
dexterously
to
the
proof
of
his
Argument
,
yet
to
make
as
few
Disputes
as
may
be
,
we
will
suppose
the
force
of
his
Argument
to
lie
here
,
and
does
not
this
come
much
to
one
?
Must
not
the
Church
part
with
any
indifferent
Ceremony
,
which
any
Dissenter
is
pleased
to
dislike
,
if
she
must
not
make
any
one
Ceremony
a
Term
of
Communion
?
And
if
all
indifferent
things
must
not
,
cannot
be
parted
with
without
sin
,
then
some
indifferent
things
may
be
made
the
terms
of
Communion
.
But
here
are
two
things
Mr.
Lob
craftily
or
ignorantly
insinuates
,
which
must
not
pass
without
remark
.
1.
He
will
not
venture
his
Argument
meerly
upon
indifferent
things
,
he
has
had
enough
of
that
already
,
but
on
making
indifferent
things
necessary
parts
of
Religion
,
whereas
the
Church
of
England
makes
them
no
part
of
Religion
at
all
.
They
are
not
necessary
to
the
moral
nature
of
any
religious
Action
,
but
to
the
external
performance
of
it
,
as
I
shewed
at
large
.
2.
He
insinuates
a
proof
of
this
,
that
these
indifferent
things
are
made
necessary
parts
of
Religion
,
because
they
are
made
terms
of
Communion
.
Whereas
the
terms
of
Communion
are
of
two
forts
,
either
the
essentials
of
Faith
and
Worship
,
and
what
is
in
this
sence
made
a
term
of
Communion
,
is
indeed
a
necessary
part
of
Religion
;
but
the
Church
of
England
never
made
indifferent
things
terms
of
Communion
in
this
notion
of
it
,
but
does
expresly
declare
against
it
.
But
,
2.
The
external
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
and
the
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
are
terms
of
Communion
also
,
because
some
such
external
Circumstances
or
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
are
necessary
to
the
external
solemnities
and
decency
of
Worship
;
and
it
is
fit
,
that
they
should
not
be
left
at
liberty
,
but
determined
by
the
publick
Authority
of
the
Church
,
and
of
the
State
in
a
Christian
Kingdom
,
to
which
all
private
Christians
are
bound
to
submit
,
as
I
discoursed
in
the
Defence
.
But
the
great
difficulty
seems
to
lie
here
,
that
any
man
should
be
denied
the
benefits
of
Christian
Communion
,
and
excluded
from
the
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
,
for
not
complying
with
some
indifferent
things
,
which
God
has
no
where
commanded
,
and
which
no
Christian
had
been
bound
to
observe
,
had
they
not
been
commanded
by
the
Church
,
which
seems
to
make
these
indifferent
things
as
necessary
,
as
the
most
substantial
parts
of
Worship
.
Now
as
great
as
this
difficulty
may
seem
to
be
,
it
is
but
turning
the
Tables
,
and
there
are
as
great
difficulties
on
the
other
side
.
For
,
1.
It
is
as
unaccountable
to
me
,
that
any
Christian
should
exclude
himself
from
the
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
the
ordinary
means
of
Salvation
,
for
such
things
,
as
have
neither
any
moral
evil
in
them
,
nor
are
forbid
by
any
positive
Law
of
God
,
which
makes
the
not
doing
such
things
to
be
more
necessary
than
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
or
the
Worship
of
God
it self
.
Now
,
1.
Is
not
every
man
as
accountable
to
God
for
his
own
Soul
,
as
the
Church
is
?
2.
Has
any
man
any
more
warrant
for
excluding
himself
from
Christian
Communion
,
for
not
doing
what
God
has
not
forbid
,
than
the
Church
has
for
casting
them
out
of
Communion
,
for
not
observing
some
innocent
Rites
and
Usages
,
though
not
commanded
by
God
?
For
,
3.
Is
it
not
a
greater
encroachment
on
the
divine
Power
and
Prerogative
to
make
that
unlawful
,
which
God
has
not
forbid
,
than
it
is
to
enjoyn
the
observance
of
that
,
which
God
has
not
commanded
?
The
first
alters
the
nature
of
things
,
makes
that
sinful
,
which
God
has
not
made
sinful
.
The
second
only
determins
the
circumstances
of
Action
,
which
God
had
not
determined
,
but
left
to
the
Determination
of
humane
Prudence
,
or
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
And
,
4.
Which
is
likely
to
be
the
best
justification
,
the
Opinion
of
a
private
man
in
opposition
to
the
Authority
,
and
to
the
disturbance
of
the
Peace
and
Communion
of
the
Church
,
or
the
publick
Judgment
and
Authority
of
the
Church
in
preserving
her
own
Discipline
and
Government
,
and
censuring
obstinate
and
disorderly
Members
.
Let
Mr.
Lob
consider
,
how
to
justifie
themselves
in
making
that
unlawful
,
which
God
has
not
forbid
,
and
separating
from
the
Communion
of
the
Church
for
that
reason
,
and
I
will
more
easily
justifie
the
Church
in
denying
Communion
to
those
,
who
refuse
to
comply
with
innocent
,
but
uncommanded
Rites
.
But
,
2.
This
Difficulty
is
the
same
in
all
Communions
,
as
well
as
in
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
England
.
Neither
Presbyterians
,
nor
Independents
,
will
allow
disorderly
Members
in
their
Communion
,
who
will
not
submit
to
the
Constitutions
of
their
several
Churches
;
and
thereby
they
make
the
Peculiarities
of
their
Churches
necessary
terms
of
their
Communion
.
They
will
no
more
suffer
a
man
to
receive
the
Sacrament
kneeling
,
nor
to
pray
in
a
Surplice
,
nor
to
baptize
with
the
sign
of
the
Cross
in
their
Churches
,
than
the
Church
of
England
will
suffer
her
Members
to
neglect
these
Ceremonies
;
and
therefore
they
make
the
not
doing
such
indifferent
things
as
necessary
terms
of
Communion
,
as
the
Church
of
England
does
the
doing
of
them
,
and
do
as
strictly
enjoyn
Conformity
to
their
own
way
and
modes
of
Worship
,
as
the
Church
of
England
does
to
hers
,
and
therefore
the
Church
may
as
easily
defend
her self
from
this
difficulty
,
as
the
Conventicles
can
.
But
the
bare
retorting
of
a
difficulty
does
not
answer
it
,
though
such
men
ought
in
modesty
to
be
silent
,
till
they
can
answer
for
themselves
,
and
then
they
will
be
ashamed
to
urge
this
Argument
against
the
Church
:
And
it
is
a
sign
,
such
men
think
but
of
one
side
,
who
use
such
Arguments
against
their
Adversaries
,
as
recoil
upon
themselves
.
But
indeed
the
Difficulty
it self
,
when
it
is
fairly
stated
is
no
difficulty
,
as
will
appear
in
these
following
Propositions
,
some
of
which
are
already
proved
in
the
Defence
;
and
therefore
to
save
my self
the
trouble
of
transcribing
,
I
shall
only
direct
my
Reader
,
where
to
find
them
proved
.
The
Difficulty
is
,
why
those
things
,
which
are
acknowledged
to
be
indifferent
,
should
be
so
strictly
enjoyned
,
as
to
exclude
those
from
Christian
Communion
,
who
will
not
,
or
cannot
comply
with
them
.
Now
to
this
I
answer
by
these
steps
.
1.
That
some
things
,
2.
The
Peace
,
3.
Since
some
external
Circumstances
and
Solemnities
of
Worship
must
be
determined
,
and
yet
are
not
determined
by
any
positive
Law
of
God
,
it
is
plain
,
that
they
are
left
to
the
determination
of
the
publick
Authority
of
the
Church
,
which
must
determine
all
private
Christians
.
For
every
thing
of
a
publick
nature
,
wherein
a
whole
Society
is
concerned
,
must
be
determined
and
over-ruled
by
publick
Authority
,
or
no
Society
can
subsist
.
Every
private
Christian
.
in
his
private
Capacity
may
choose
for
himself
;
every
Master
of
a
Family
may
and
ought
to
choose
for
his
Family
,
as
far
as
concerns
the
Government
of
it
;
and
the
supreme
Authority
of
every
Society
must
choose
for
the
Society
.
For
how
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
wholsom
Constitutions
of
a
Church
,
unlawful
and
sinful
Impositions
by
his
private
dissent
,
and
obstinate
refusal
of
Obedience
.
4.
If
it
be
lawful
for
the
publick
Authority
of
the
Church
,
to
determine
the
indifferent
Circumstances
,
and
external
Solemnities
of
Worship
,
it
is
necessary
to
make
them
the
terms
of
Communion
;
that
is
,
it
can't
be
avoided
,
but
it
must
be
so
.
For
when
the
Church
determines
the
indifferent
and
undetermined
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
all
that
is
meant
by
it
,
is
,
that
she
requires
all
in
her
Communion
to
worship
God
in
such
a
manner
,
which
is
the
only
sence
,
wherein
indifferent
things
are
,
or
can
be
made
the
terms
of
Communion
.
So
that
the
Controversie
must
return
,
where
it
first
began
,
about
the
lawfulness
of
indifferent
Circumstances
,
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
and
the
Power
of
the
Church
to
determine
them
;
for
making
them
terms
of
Communion
is
no
new
difficulty
,
for
it
signifies
no
more
than
prescribing
such
a
way
of
worshipping
God
;
and
if
it
be
lawful
for
the
Church
to
prescribe
the
Modes
and
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
she
cannot
mistake
in
making
them
terms
of
Communion
.
For
,
5.
If
the
Church
have
Authority
to
prescribe
the
Order
and
Circumstances
of
publick
Worship
,
it
is
unreasonable
to
think
,
that
she
may
not
justly
deny
those
her
Communion
,
who
will
not
submit
to
her
Authority
,
and
comply
with
her
Orders
and
Constitutions
;
Which
is
to
say
,
that
she
has
Authority
,
and
that
she
has
none
.
For
it
is
sufficiently
known
,
that
the
Church
,
as
such
,
has
no
other
Authority
,
but
to
receive
in
,
or
to
shut
out
of
her
Communion
;
and
if
she
cannot
assist
her
commanding
Authority
,
with
her
Authority
of
Censures
,
it
is
little
worth
.
Nay
,
6.
In
the
nature
of
the
thing
it
cannot
be
otherwise
.
Those
,
who
will
not
conform
to
the
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
must
forsake
her
Assemblies
,
for
there
is
no
other
way
of
Worship
to
be
had
there
.
And
therefore
we
need
enquire
no
further
,
than
whether
it
be
lawful
for
the
Church
to
prescribe
a
form
of
Worship
to
her self
;
if
it
be
,
she
needs
exercise
no
other
Authority
;
for
those
,
who
will
not
conform
to
it
,
will
separate
themselves
without
her
Authority
.
And
as
for
the
sin
and
danger
of
Schism
,
let
the
Church
look
to
her self
,
that
she
give
no
just
occasion
for
it
,
and
let
scrupulous
and
tender
Consciences
look
to
themselves
,
that
they
take
no
unjust
Offence
;
and
this
is
the
only
remedy
I
know
of
in
this
case
,
without
prostituting
Church-Authority
,
and
the
Worship
of
God
,
to
a
blind
and
factious
Zeal
.
And
yet
I
suppose
,
no
Church
is
bound
to
own
those
of
her
Communion
,
who
separate
from
her
Worship
,
and
despise
her
Authority
.
7.
And
whereas
Mr.
Lob
founds
his
Objection
upon
making
indifferent
things
terms
of
Communion
,
every
one
,
who
understands
the
nature
of
Government
,
knows
,
that
it
is
an
unsufferable
mischief
,
to
disturb
and
dissolve
humane
Societies
,
though
for
very
little
things
.
Schism
is
a
very
great
evil
;
and
nevertheless
because
the
Dispute
is
about
indifferent
things
,
the
preservation
of
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
the
decency
and
solemnities
of
Worship
,
and
the
sacredness
of
Authority
,
is
necessary
to
Christian
Communion
,
without
which
the
Church
must
dissolve
and
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
,
And
now
let
any
man
judge
,
what
an
unreasonable
task
Mr.
Lob
has
put
on
me
.
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
shew
him
?
When
he
is
so
far
from
an
impartial
Examination
of
the
Reason
of
what
is
proposed
,
that
he
will
not
so
much
as
own
,
that
it
was
ever
proposed
.
It
is
not
in
our
Power
to
give
him
eyes
,
or
to
make
him
open
his
eyes
,
when
he
wilfully
shuts
them
.
Much
less
do
we
desire
,
as
he
proceeds
,
That
they
should
conform
against
their
Consciences
,
and
yield
a
blind
obedience
to
such
Commands
;
we
have
had
too
much
experience
of
such
consciencious
men
in
the
Church
already
,
who
have
conformed
against
their
Consciences
,
that
they
might
raise
a
Church
of
England-Rebellion
,
as
this
Author
impudently
suggests
,
and
takes
the
first
opportunity
to
pull
down
the
Church
,
and
to
expiate
their
sins
of
Conformity
by
a
thorough
Reformation
.
There
is
something
lies
on
them
to
do
,
as
well
as
on
us
;
and
that
is
freely
and
impartially
to
consider
,
what
is
offered
for
their
Conviction
;
to
acknowledg
themselves
convinc'd
,
when
they
are
convinc'd
;
to
prefer
the
Salvation
of
their
own
Souls
,
and
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
before
private
Fame
,
or
serving
a
Party
;
that
is
,
in
a
word
,
to
be
honest
,
and
then
there
will
be
no
need
for
the
Church
to
part
with
her
Impositions
.
II.
The
second
thing
wherein
I
observed
the
force
of
his
Argument
lay
,
was
this
:
That
the
Opinion
of
the
Dissenters
,
that
indifferent
things
are
unlawful
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
is
a
just
and
necessary
Reason
for
parting
with
them
.
Now
he
does
not
take
notice
of
any
one
word
of
Answer
I
return
to
this
,
nay
,
does
not
so
much
,
as
represent
the
Reason
,
why
I
place
the
force
of
his
Argument
in
this
,
which
is
,
that
if
the
Opinion
of
Dissenters
,
that
all
indifferent
things
are
unlawful
,
be
not
a
sufficient
Reason
for
parting
with
them
,
then
there
may
be
no
fault
in
the
Episcopals
will
not
,
or
a
sufficient
justification
or
excuse
in
the
Dissenters
cannot
.
Instead
of
which
,
he
says
,
I
give
this
Reason
for
it
;
if
it
be
not
lawful
to
part
with
every
thing
that
is
indifferent
,
those
who
retain
the
use
of
(
some
,
which
he
leaves
out
)
indifferent
things
,
cannot
meerly
upon
that
account
,
be
called
Dividers
or
Schismaticks
,
which
does
not
refer
to
the
second
,
but
to
the
first
thing
,
wherein
I
placed
the
force
of
his
Argument
.
That
all
things
,
which
are
in
their
own
nature
indifferent
,
may
without
sin
be
parted
,
with
.
Certainly
never
any
man
was
in
a
greater
turmoil
and
confusion
of
thoughts
,
than
Mr.
Lob
appears
to
have
been
in
all
this
time
,
when
he
was
resolved
to
answer
,
but
knew
not
what
to
say
.
No
man
,
I
fear
,
need
convince
Mr.
Lob
,
that
he
may
conform
against
his
Conscience
.
Make
it
but
his
Interest
to
conform
,
and
his
Conscience
seems
ready
prepar'd
.
Well
,
but
however
,
that
he
might
seem
to
return
some
Answer
to
my
Confutation
of
that
Principle
,
that
the
Opinion
of
Dissenters
,
that
indifferent
things
are
unlawful
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
is
a
just
and
necessary
Reason
for
the
Church
to
part
with
them
;
he
just
names
it
,
and
then
picks
some
Quarrels
with
what
I
had
said
upon
the
first
thing
,
that
all
indifferent
things
cannot
be
parted
with
,
without
sin
,
and
this
must
pass
for
an
Answer
to
the
second
.
And
how
is
it
possible
to
enlighten
such
a
man
as
this
?
But
let
us
hear
,
what
he
says
.
You
should
remember
,
that
I
distinguished
between
Ceremonies
and
Circumstances
,
between
what
is
a
part
of
Religion
,
and
intrinsecal
thereunto
,
and
what
is
extrinsecal
only
.
But
you
run
to
external
Circumstances
that
are
necessary
in
these
;
which
is
off
from
the
point
in
hand
.
Had
I
done
so
,
I
believe
Mr.
Lob
would
not
have
been
so
sparing
of
Paper
,
as
not
to
have
shewn
his
Readers
,
how
I
did
it
.
But
I
have
already
answered
that
Suggestion
,
and
directed
my
Readers
where
they
may
find
the
contrary
,
if
they
dare
believe
their
own
eyes
.
But
he
says
,
I
run
from
what
is
indifferent
,
to
what
is
necessary
,
as
if
we
call'd
you
to
part
with
any
necessary
thing
.
This
is
another
trick
.
The
case
is
this
:
He
charges
the
Church
of
England
with
being
the
Divider
,
because
she
does
not
part
with
indifferent
things
,
which
she
may
part
with
without
sin
.
I
prove
,
that
though
no
particular
indifferent
Ceremony
can
be
said
to
be
necessary
,
for
then
it
were
no
longer
indifferent
,
yet
some
indifferent
things
are
necessary
to
publick
Worship
,
not
to
the
moral
Nature
,
but
the
external
performance
of
Religious
Actions
,
and
therefore
all
indifferent
things
cannot
be
parted
with
without
destroying
publick
Worship
;
and
yet
if
we
must
part
with
indifferent
things
,
meerly
considered
as
indifferent
,
by
the
same
Reason
we
must
be
obliged
to
part
with
all
.
This
he
calls
running
from
what
is
indifferent
,
to
what
is
necessary
;
whereas
it
only
proves
,
that
some
things
,
which
are
indifferent
in
their
own
Natures
,
are
necessary
to
publick
Worship
,
which
was
very
much
to
my
purpose
,
though
not
to
his
.
I
gave
an
Instance
of
this
in
some
Actions
,
which
cannot
possibly
be
stript
from
all
external
Circumstances
.
As
a
man
,
who
is
to
travel
from
London
to
York
,
is
not
bound
either
to
go
thither
on
Foot
,
or
to
ride
on
Horse-back
,
or
in
a
Coach
,
each
of
these
ways
are
in
themselves
indifferent
;
but
yet
if
he
will
travel
to
York
,
he
must
use
one
or
other
of
these
ways
of
Motion
,
not
any
one
in
particular
is
necessary
,
but
yet
some
or
other
is
.
But
says
Mr.
Lob
,
One
has
not
strength
to
walk
,
York
they
must
go
.
If
you
will
keep
to
your
point
,
you
must
say
to
him
,
that
can't
walk
,
some
way
of
Motion
is
necessary
to
your
going
to
York
,
if
you
'l
go
thither
,
therefore
you
shall
walk
,
or
not
go
thither
.
The
force
of
which
Answer
amounts
to
this
,
that
every
man
must
be
left
at
liberty
to
choose
the
external
Circumstances
of
Worship
for
himself
,
as
he
is
to
choose
his
own
way
of
Travelling
,
whether
on
Foot
,
or
by
Horse
,
or
Coach
.
But
this
also
,
I
had
particularly
considered
,
and
answered
in
the
Defence
,
though
our
Inquirer
is
pleased
to
take
no
notice
of
it
,
and
I
suppose
,
should
I
repeat
what
I
have
said
,
he
will
take
as
little
notice
of
it
the
second
time
,
as
he
has
done
the
first
.
The
Inquisitive
Reader
may
find
directions
in
the
Margin
,
CHAP.
VII
.
Mr.
Humphrey's
Materials
for
Vnion
,
examined
.
THE
last
thing
I
proposed
to
my self
for
the
Conclusion
of
this
Work
,
was
to
examine
Mr.
Lob's
Preface
,
and
Mr.
H's
Materials
for
Union
:
But
this
Vindication
is
already
much
larger
,
than
I
intended
it
,
and
I
find
this
Work
done
very
sufficiently
by
Mr.
Long
,
in
a
late
Treatise
,
Entitled
,
No
Protestant
,
but
the
Dissenters
Plot
;
and
therefore
though
it
were
easie
to
enlarge
upon
this
Subject
,
I
shall
make
but
some
brief
Remarks
upon
the
Materials
for
Union
,
and
refer
those
who
are
inquisitive
,
for
further
satisfaction
to
the
forementioned
Treatise
.
And
I
shall
only
observe
these
four
things
in
Mr.
H's
.
project
:
1.
That
it
destroys
the
present
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
.
2.
That
it
sets
up
no
National
Church
in
the
room
of
it
.
3.
That
it
cures
no
Schism
.
4.
That
it
is
not
a
likely
way
so
much
as
to
preserve
external
Peace
and
Union
in
the
Nation
.
1.
These
Materials
for
Union
destroy
the
present
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
;
and
is
not
this
a
modest
Proposal
in
a
Dissenter
,
to
pull
down
the
Church
of
England
,
which
is
established
by
Law
,
and
is
owned
by
the
greatest
and
most
considerable
part
of
the
Nation
,
to
make
way
for
Union
?
Does
Mr.
H.
imagine
,
that
the
true
Sons
of
the
Church
,
will
so
easily
part
with
so
ancient
and
Apostolical
a
Government
,
which
owes
not
its
Institution
to
Civil
Powers
?
And
what
would
the
Civil
State
get
by
this
,
to
exchange
the
Church
for
Dissenters
?
To
make
an
Imaginary
National
Church
by
a
Combination
of
Dissenters
,
and
to
part
with
a
much
better
Church
for
it
?
To
attempt
a
Union
on
between
Dissenters
,
who
,
as
Mr.
H.
owns
,
can
never
agree
their
Disputes
,
and
therefore
can
never
unite
,
though
they
may
be
tied
together
,
or
comprehended
in
the
same
Vessel
,
as
Sand
or
Water
is
,
and
to
dissolve
a
Church
,
which
is
all
of
a
piece
,
firmly
united
within
it self
,
and
to
its
Prince
?
But
what
need
all
this
?
Will
Mr.
H.
say
,
I
never
designed
to
dissolve
the
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
but
only
to
bring
Dissenters
into
the
legal
Establishment
.
Let
this
then
be
tried
,
whether
his
Materials
for
Union
do
not
destroy
the
present
Constitution
,
Root
and
Branch
.
The
present
Constitution
of
our
Church
,
in
Conformity
to
the
Ancient
Apostolical
Government
,
consists
of
Bishops
,
Presbyters
,
and
Deacons
;
let
us
try
then
,
whether
we
can
find
either
of
these
in
Mr.
H.'s
Materials
for
Union
.
As
for
Deacons
,
he
has
not
one
word
of
them
,
though
Mr.
Lob.
acknowledges
,
they
were
owned
for
an
Ecclesiastical
Order
by
the
necessary
Erudition
;
but
a
great
Oracle
thinks
,
this
Order
may
be
spared
,
though
it
has
been
continued
in
the
Church
ever
since
the
Apostles
days
,
and
therefore
we
will
let
this
pass
.
But
we
must
not
deny
,
but
Mr.
H.
owns
Bishops
,
nay
,
proposes
,
that
some
leading
Dissenters
themselves
should
be
made
the
next
Bishops
;
and
that
his
Project
shall
advance
,
and
not
lessen
the
outward
Power
and
Honour
of
Bishops
.
But
still
we
must
have
a
care
not
to
be
cheated
with
a
Name
,
instead
of
the
thing
.
Are
Mr.
H.'s
Bishops
true
Apostolical
Bishops
,
as
the
Bishops
of
the
Church
of
England
are
?
Otherwise
he
may
retain
the
Name
of
Bishops
,
and
yet
destroy
the
Episcopacy
of
the
Church
of
England
.
And
this
is
the
plain
truth
of
the
Case
.
Mr.
H.'s
Bishops
are
not
Bishops
of
the
Church
,
but
the
King
's
Ecclesiastical
Officers
acting
circa
sacra
,
only
by
vertue
of
his
Authority
and
Commission
.
And
therefore
can
exercise
no
other
Authority
in
the
Church
,
than
the
King
can
,
which
is
not
the
Authority
of
a
Bishop
.
Mr.
Humphrey's
Bishops
may
be
Lay-men
,
as
well
as
Ecclesiasticks
;
for
though
called
Bishops
,
they
cannot
do
any
one
Act
of
a
primitive
Bishop
.
They
have
no
Ecclesiastical
Superiority
over
their
Clergy
,
but
what
the
King
has
,
which
used
to
be
distinguish'd
from
the
Authority
of
the
Bishop
.
They
have
not
the
Power
of
Ordination
,
nor
Confirmation
as
the
King's
Bishops
,
whatever
they
may
have
as
Congregational
Bishops
,
for
the
King
has
no
Power
to
ordain
or
confirm
.
They
cannot
excommunicate
as
Bishops
,
as
Mr.
H.
expresly
asserts
,
That
as
the
Magistrate
does
not
take
away
or
invade
,
but
preserve
the
Power
of
the
Keys
(
invested
in
the
Minister
,
but
given
with
the
Pastor
himself
to
the
Church
)
no
more
can
the
Diocesans
that
derive
from
him
,
assume
it
to
themselves
,
and
deprive
the
particular
Churches
of
it
.
And
since
Mr.
H.'s
Bishops
have
no
proper
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
it
is
no
wonder
,
that
they
have
no
body
to
govern
;
for
these
are
all
such
Diocesan
Bishops
,
as
have
no
Presbyters
under
them
,
every
Congregational
Minister
being
a
Congregational
Bishop
,
as
Mr.
H.
owns
.
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
vertue
of
an
Act
of
Parliament
.
I
would
(
says
he
)
have
all
our
Assemblies
that
are
tolerable
,
to
be
made
legal
by
such
an
Act
,
and
thereby
parts
of
the
National
Church
,
as
well
as
the
Parochial
Congregations
.
But
though
the
Power
of
an
Act
of
Parliament
,
I
confess
,
is
very
great
,
yet
it
cannot
reconcile
Contradictions
,
nor
make
Division
to
be
Union
,
nor
a
great
many
Schismatical
Conventicles
,
which
divide
from
one
another
,
to
be
one
Church
.
For
a
Church
is
a
Communion
of
Christians
,
a
Parochial
Congregation
is
a
Parochial
Communion
,
a
Diocesan
Church
is
a
Diocesan
Communion
,
a
National
Church
,
is
a
National
Communion
,
and
the
Catholick
Church
,
is
one
Catholick
Communion
,
as
I
have
proved
at
large
in
the
Defence
,
but
Communion
is
always
essential
to
the
notion
of
a
Church
,
of
what
denomination
soever
.
Now
suppose
a
Parliament
should
by
Law
establish
Presbyterian
,
and
Independent
Churches
of
all
sorts
,
as
well
as
the
Church
of
England
,
yet
how
can
an
Act
of
Parliament
make
them
all
one
National
Communion
,
when
after
such
an
Act
,
they
would
remain
as
much
divided
and
separated
from
one
another
,
and
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
Schismaticks
,
and
therefore
do
not
own
them
to
be
any
part
of
their
National
Church
;
nor
from
the
Protestants
,
who
do
as
much
abhor
to
be
thought
Members
of
the
Popish
Church
;
and
yet
this
is
such
a
legal
National
Church
,
as
Mr.
H.
contends
for
,
united
under
one
Prince
,
who
,
according
to
his
Principles
,
is
the
accidental
Head
of
this
accidental
National
Church
,
and
yet
this
Union
does
not
cure
the
Schism
;
for
they
still
are
two
distinct
and
separate
Churches
,
and
are
accounted
Schismaticks
to
each
other
.
There
are
but
two
or
three
things
,
so
far
as
I
can
observe
,
whereon
Mr.
H.
founds
this
National
Union
between
all
these
divided
and
separate
Churches
.
1.
That
they
are
all
united
under
the
King
,
as
the
constitutive
Regent
Head
of
the
National
Church
.
And
this
,
I
grant
,
makes
them
all
legal
Churches
,
as
he
speaks
,
or
legal
parts
of
the
Church
,
but
it
does
not
make
them
one
Church
.
You
may
as
well
say
,
that
England
,
Scotland
,
and
Ireland
,
are
one
Kingdom
,
because
they
are
united
under
one
Prince
;
or
that
all
the
Corporations
in
England
are
one
National
Corporation
,
though
they
have
distinct
Charters
,
and
different
Priviledges
and
Immunities
.
Nothing
is
National
,
but
what
extends
to
the
whole
Nation
,
and
where
several
Churches
are
established
by
Law
,
there
can
be
no
one
National
Church
,
though
they
be
all
under
the
Government
of
the
same
Prince
,
because
there
is
no
one
Church-Constitution
,
for
all
the
Churches
in
the
Nation
to
be
governed
by
;
which
is
the
notion
of
a
National
Church
in
the
sense
we
now
speak
of
.
2.
Another
way
of
uniting
all
these
separate
Churches
,
is
by
the
King
's
Ecclesiastical
Officers
,
whom
he
calls
Bishops
,
who
have
an
equal
supervising
care
of
them
all
.
Their
work
in
general
being
to
supervise
the
Churches
of
both
sorts
in
their
Diocesses
,
that
they
all
walk
according
to
their
own
Order
,
agreeable
to
the
Gospel
,
and
to
the
Peace
of
one
another
.
Now
that
this
cannot
make
them
one
National
Church
,
will
appear
from
these
Considerations
.
1.
That
these
Bishops
,
though
they
may
be
Ecclesiastical
Persons
,
yet
are
not
properly
Ecclesiastical
,
but
Civil
Officers
,
they
act
not
by
an
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
but
are
Ministers
of
the
Regal
Power
in
Ecclesiastical
Affairs
,
as
I
have
already
shewn
;
and
therefore
if
their
Union
under
one
Prince
,
cannot
make
them
one
Church
,
much
less
can
their
Union
under
the
King's
Ministers
.
2.
Suppose
they
were
true
Primitive
Bishops
,
yet
where
there
are
separate
Churches
in
any
Diocess
,
they
cannot
all
live
in
Communion
with
their
Bishop
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
one
Church
.
For
Communion
with
the
Bishop
is
essential
to
the
notion
and
unity
of
an
Episcopal
Church
,
as
I
have
proved
in
the
Defence
.
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
,
4.
Another
way
Mr.
H.
proposes
,
to
unite
all
these
Churches
into
one
National
Church
,
is
by
the
Vertue
of
occasional
Communion
.
That
when
a
man
hath
his
choice
to
be
of
one
Church
,
which
he
will
,
in
regard
to
fixed
Communion
,
he
should
occasionally
come
also
to
the
other
,
for
maintaining
this
National
Vnion
.
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
,
p
132
,
&c
can
contribute
nothing
to
a
National
Union
.
2.
Of
what
nature
shall
this
occasional
Communion
be
?
Shall
they
communicate
in
all
Acts
of
Worship
,
or
only
hear
a
Sermon
now
and
then
together
?
If
in
all
Acts
of
Worship
,
why
should
there
be
distinct
Communions
at
any
time
?
Why
cannot
he
communicate
always
with
that
Church
,
with
which
he
can
communicate
in
all
Acts
of
Worship
some
times
?
If
our
occasional
Communion
be
only
in
some
few
less
material
Acts
,
this
makes
no
Union
of
Churches
;
for
if
there
be
any
Acts
of
Worship
,
wherein
they
can
at
no
time
communicate
with
each
other
,
no
man
will
say
such
Churches
are
united
in
one
Communion
.
3.
What
is
the
meaning
of
this
should
:
would
Mr.
H.
have
an
Act
of
Parliament
to
enjoyn
this
occasional
Communion
;
and
what
will
this
differ
from
an
Act
of
Uniformity
?
For
it
requires
Uniformity
sometimes
,
and
if
Uniformity
be
sometimes
lawful
,
why
should
it
not
be
made
always
necessary
?
If
Mr.
H.
by
should
—
only
intimates
,
what
he
would
have
them
do
,
what
then
,
if
they
won't
,
notwithstanding
his
should
?
What
will
become
of
this
National
Union
then
?
This
occasional
Communion
is
either
necessary
to
this
National
Union
,
or
it
is
not
.
If
it
be
not
necessary
,
why
does
Mr.
H.
make
this
an
expedient
for
National
Union
?
If
it
be
,
how
will
he
prove
,
that
all
Dissenters
will
occasionally
communicate
with
each
other
,
and
with
the
Church
of
England
?
3.
Mr.
H.'s
project
for
Union
,
will
cure
no
one
Schism
,
and
therefore
can
make
no
Union
.
This
is
evident
from
what
I
have
already
discours'd
;
for
if
it
cannot
make
one
Church
,
it
cannot
cure
the
Schism
;
where
there
are
two
distinct
and
separate
Churches
,
which
are
not
Members
of
each
other
,
there
is
a
Schism
;
for
Church-Unity
consists
in
one
Communion
,
as
I
have
abundantly
proved
in
the
Defence
.
But
Mr.
H.
thinks
,
he
has
found
out
a
device
to
cure
the
Schism
,
viz.
That
it
should
be
decreed
in
the
Convocation
,
that
neither
Church
should
un-church
one
another
.
This
is
a
wonderful
Power
he
gives
to
the
Decree
of
a
Convocation
;
that
Churches
,
which
separate
from
each
others
Communion
,
yet
shall
not
un-church
one
another
.
For
what
does
he
mean
by
un-churching
?
To
assert
the
Communion
of
any
Church
to
be
sinful
and
unlawful
,
I
think
,
is
to
un-church
it
,
that
is
,
to
make
it
no
Church
to
us
;
and
whoever
separates
from
any
Church
,
though
he
be
never
so
silent
,
does
by
his
Separation
,
either
condemn
the
Communion
of
that
Church
to
be
unlawful
,
or
condemn
himself
of
Schism
,
for
nothing
can
justifie
a
Separation
,
but
sinful
terms
of
Communion
.
How
is
it
possible
then
,
that
two
Churches
,
which
separate
from
each
other
,
should
not
un-church
one
another
,
or
un-church
themselves
.
There
is
but
one
Church
,
and
one
Communion
,
and
therefore
where
there
are
two
separate
Churches
,
and
two
Communions
,
they
cannot
both
be
true
Catholick
Churches
;
and
Mr.
H.'s
contrivance
to
declare
these
separate
Churches
,
to
be
all
true
Catholick
Churches
by
the
Decree
of
Convocation
,
is
like
his
Act
of
Parliament
,
to
make
all
the
separate
and
divided
Churches
one
National
Church
.
4.
Mr.
H.'s
Project
is
not
a
very
likely
way
,
so
much
as
to
preserve
the
external
Peace
and
Union
of
the
Nation
;
and
if
it
be
not
good
for
this
,
it
is
certainly
good
for
nothing
.
We
see
,
how
troubled
and
disturbed
the
State
of
the
Nation
is
at
this
day
,
occasioned
by
the
Disputes
of
Religion
;
how
envenomed
their
Spirits
are
,
how
furious
and
factious
their
Zeal
;
now
not
to
enlarge
upon
this
unpleasant
Theme
,
which
possibly
may
be
called
railing
;
I
would
only
ask
Mr.
H.
whether
such
an
Act
of
Parliament
,
as
he
dreams
of
,
would
heal
any
differences
in
Religion
,
would
make
the
Dissenters
think
better
of
one
another
,
or
of
the
Church
of
England
,
than
now
they
do
?
Would
make
them
more
Loyal
in
their
Principles
,
more
Charitable
to
one
another
,
more
cool
and
temperate
in
their
Zeal
?
Whether
such
an
Act
could
set
bounds
to
the
several
Sects
among
us
,
and
make
them
contented
with
their
own
private
Perswasions
,
and
with
the
Liberties
and
Priviledges
,
which
the
Law
grants
them
,
without
encroaching
upon
their
Neighbours
,
or
affecting
Rule
and
Dominion
,
and
using
all
imaginable
Arts
to
make
Proselytes
,
and
enlarge
their
Party
?
This
is
the
Original
of
all
our
Disturbance
now
,
and
what
hope
is
there
,
when
the
Cause
remains
,
that
the
Effect
will
cease
?
If
men
still
have
the
same
fondness
for
their
own
Opinions
and
Churches
,
the
same
Aversion
to
others
,
the
same
Zeal
to
promote
a
Party
;
if
still
they
think
themselves
as
much
bound
as
ever
,
to
advance
the
Cause
of
God
,
and
to
set
Christ
on
his
Throne
,
according
to
their
old
pretence
,
how
fond
is
it
to
imagine
,
that
we
shall
enjoy
more
Peace
and
Security
,
than
we
do
now
?
If
it
be
answered
,
that
the
Dissenters
are
at
present
uneasie
and
troublesom
,
because
the
Laws
are
against
them
,
and
they
are
in
constant
danger
of
the
execution
of
them
,
to
the
loss
of
their
Liberties
,
and
the
impoverishing
their
Families
,
but
if
they
had
the
same
favour
,
and
the
same
security
from
the
Government
,
as
others
have
,
they
would
be
as
quiet
and
peaceable
,
and
as
dutiful
Subjects
,
as
others
are
.
I
reply
,
1.
It
does
not
seem
very
probable
,
that
those
,
who
are
so
Insolent
,
Daring
,
and
Factious
,
when
the
Laws
and
Government
are
against
them
,
should
grow
modest
and
governable
,
when
the
Law
is
on
their
side
.
If
they
cannot
be
governed
with
the
Bridle
in
their
mouths
,
it
is
hard
trusting
to
their
good
Nature
.
For
,
2.
We
have
had
sufficient
experience
,
how
busie
,
turbulent
,
and
factious
the
Spirit
of
Fanaticism
has
always
been
,
and
we
see
no
Symptoms
of
their
changing
for
the
better
.
3.
We
know
by
experience
,
how
impossibly
it
is
to
oblige
these
men
by
any
favours
.
The
kindness
and
moderation
of
Government
is
always
thought
a
just
debt
to
their
great
merit
and
desert
,
or
the
effect
of
fear
and
weakness
,
or
the
over-ruling
Power
of
God
,
who
turns
the
hearts
of
Governors
to
favour
his
People
,
even
against
their
own
Inclinations
,
and
therefore
no
thanks
is
due
to
them
.
4.
These
men
never
yet
let
slip
an
advantage
and
opportunity
to
disturb
Government
,
or
to
serve
their
Cause
.
Every
thing
,
that
is
granted
them
,
gives
them
only
a
new
confidence
to
ask
and
to
demand
more
.
And
if
ever
they
can
stand
upon
equal
ground
with
the
Church
of
England
,
they
will
as
boldly
challenge
a
Superiority
,
and
be
as
much
disobliged
,
if
they
be
denyed
.
If
once
they
get
a
legal
Rite
to
their
Conventicles
,
they
will
next
demand
the
Temples
and
Tythes
too
,
and
declaim
against
the
Magistrates
as
Sacrilegious
Usurpers
,
if
they
be
denyed
.
Their
Discipline
will
not
long
be
confined
within
their
own
Conventicles
,
will
reach
Bishops
and
Princes
too
,
whose
Authority
shall
be
no
longer
owned
,
than
they
submit
to
the
Scepter
of
Christ
.
These
things
are
not
yet
forgot
among
us
,
and
I
suppose
,
it
will
be
hard
to
perswade
any
Prince
to
make
a
second
Experiment
,
when
he
paid
so
dear
for
the
first
.
5.
We
have
made
a
sad
Experiment
already
,
how
tame
and
gentle
Dissenters
prove
,
when
the
restraints
of
Laws
are
gone
.
When
the
Church
of
England
was
dissolved
,
and
the
enclosures
flung
open
,
and
every
man
did
as
he
list
,
there
was
no
more
Peace
,
than
there
is
now
,
only
instead
of
railing
at
the
Church
of
England
,
they
railed
at
one
another
.
But
enough
of
this
.
Mr.
H.
thinks
all
this
will
be
prevented
by
his
Episcopal
Visiters
,
who
are
to
see
,
that
the
Churches
of
both
sorts
walk
according
to
their
own
Order
,
and
the
Peace
of
one
another
.
But
,
1.
Who
shall
undertake
,
that
all
these
Churches
shall
quietly
submit
to
these
Visiters
,
and
quietly
obey
their
Orders
,
any
more
than
they
do
to
the
Visitation
of
their
Ordinaries
now
?
And
what
means
of
Union
is
there
left
,
if
they
don
't
?
2.
Who
shall
undertake
,
that
these
Visiters
themselves
shall
not
prove
factious
and
partial
,
and
secretly
foment
,
instead
of
suppressing
Disputes
and
Quarrels
between
the
Churches
,
for
the
Visiters
are
to
be
of
all
sorts
too
,
as
well
as
the
Churches
;
Independent
,
Presbyterian
,
and
Episcopal
Visiters
,
by
the
name
of
the
King's
Bishops
,
or
Ecclesiastical
Officers
?
now
I
doubt
Episcopal
Churches
would
find
no
great
comfort
in
the
Visitation
of
such
Independent
and
Presbyterian
Visiters
,
as
Dr.
Owen
and
Mr.
Baxter
;
I
confess
for
my
own
part
,
I
should
not
much
care
to
come
under
their
Visitation
.
And
I
will
not
answer
for
all
Episcopal
Visiters
,
that
they
shall
always
carry
an
equal
hand
to
Dissenters
.
As
for
Instance
.
Mr.
H.
says
,
That
no
Members
of
either
Church
should
depart
from
one
Church
to
another
,
without
a
sufficient
peaceable
Reason
.
Now
who
must
be
Judge
of
this
,
but
the
Visiter
?
Suppose
then
,
a
Member
of
a
Presbyterian
Church
think
fit
to
return
to
the
Episcopal
Church
,
do
you
think
,
that
a
Presbyterian
Visiter
will
be
casily
satisfied
,
that
he
has
a
peaceable
and
sufficient
Reason
for
this
?
Will
not
every
Visiter
be
greatly
enclined
to
favour
and
enlarge
the
Communion
of
that
Church
,
to
which
he
himself
belongs
?
And
what
Quarrels
is
this
like
to
occasion
between
the
several
Churches
?
It
may
be
much
greater
,
than
any
thing
else
has
yet
done
.
But
the
great
Tryal
of
Skill
will
be
in
the
promoting
of
these
Visiters
.
For
though
the
King
have
the
Nomination
and
Appointment
of
them
,
their
Ordination
being
only
a
broad
Seal
(
a
new
way
of
Consecrating
Bishops
)
yet
what
Art
will
be
used
by
the
different
Churches
in
the
Diocess
,
to
get
a
Visiter
of
their
own
Communion
?
What
a
task
will
the
King
have
to
please
all
these
several
Interests
?
What
a
noise
and
clamour
will
the
Dissenters
raise
(
who
know
how
to
take
every
occasion
for
that
)
if
they
have
not
a
dissenting
Visiter
?
Nay
,
it
will
not
be
enough
then
,
that
he
is
a
Dissenter
in
general
,
but
he
must
be
a
Presbyterian
or
Independent
Dissenter
,
according
to
the
Interests
of
these
several
Churches
.
This
will
be
a
perpetual
occasion
of
Quarrel
,
and
every
Party
will
think
themselves
injured
and
disobliged
,
who
have
not
a
Visiter
of
their
own
Communion
.
These
are
Mr.
H.'s
Materials
for
Union
,
and
if
Princes
and
Parliaments
think
fit
to
make
the
Experiment
,
I
cannot
help
it
.
But
I
will
venture
to
turn
Prophet
for
once
,
and
foretel
,
that
they
will
soon
find
Reason
to
repent
the
Experiment
.
FINIS
.