if the erring church imposes the belief of its errors, as a condition of its communion, no church or christian, that believes them to be errors can lawfully communicate with them, for no man can believe that which is false.*

So that there is no error can separate any church or christian from the catholic communion of faith, but only heresy, which is a perverse renunciation of some essential part, or fundamental article of that faith.

II. The particular churches into which the catholic church is divided, hold communion with each other, in all the ESSENTIALS of CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. By these, I mean, the invocation of the one eternal God, through the one mediator Jesus Christ, and the participation of the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. Hence the apostle tells us, that as there is but one common faith wherein all true christians communicate with each other, so there is but "one Lord," Eph. 4. 4. to address to, and" one mediator between God and man," for us to address by, 1 Tim. 2. 5. and therefore to address to this one God, by this one Mediator, is an essential part of christian worship. And the same apostle tells us that there is but one baptism," Eph. 4. 4. and the cup of blessing," and "bread," " of which we are all partakers," 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. and therefore to participate of these sacraments, must also be essential to christian worship; so that all those particular churches that admit each others members upon lawful terms, to communicate with them in worshipping this one God, through this one mediator, and in this one baptism, and one eucharistical bread and cup, are so far in communion with the church

* "A church may be guilty of some speculative errors, which may do no injury to common christianity, and then we may very safely communicate with that church, if they do not impose on us the belief of those errors; which few churches do, but upon their own immediate members, excepting the church of Rome. For instance, the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, is as false, though not so absurd as the Popish transubstantiation, but yet we may lawfully communicate with the Lutheran church, where we may do it without professing our belief of consubstantiation.-If the errors be such as are not merely speculative, but corrupt their worship; then we must not join in those acts of worship, that are corrupted by them; as the Popish Mass is by the doctrine of transubstantiation." Preservative against Popery, Tit. 4. 69.

catholic. For in these acts of worship consists the prin cipal part of christian communion, and therefore that church which refuses either to admit other churches to communicate with her in these acts of worship, or to communicate with them in these, upon lawful terms, doth so far separate itself from the christian communion. If on the one hand, it has sophisticated its worship with any unlawful intermixtures, so that there is no participating with her in the one, without partaking with her in the other if we cannot pray with her to the one God by the one mediator, without praying to creatures too, or praying to other mediators also; if we cannot partake with her in her baptism, without partaking in some sinful rites of baptism; if we cannot be admitted to receive the Lord's supper with her, without receiving it by halves, or being obliged to pay divine homage to its elements, in this case all christians and churches are utterly excluded by her from communicating with her in the essentials of christian worship. And so on the other hand, if a church forbid its members to communicate upon occasion with any other church, upon lawful terms, in so doing, it divides itself from the communion of the church catholic; and though that church it refuses to communicate with, should through the neglect of its discipline have a great many bad men as well as good in it; though it should require the observation of a great many different rites and ceremonies; yet so long as the essentials of its worship are kept pure and entire, and are not so blended with unlawful intermixtures, but that we may safely partake of them, without being obliged to partake of any sin; in this case, I say, to refuse to communicate with it, is to separate from the communion of the catholic church. For the same reason that any church refuses to communicate with this church, it must refuse to communicate with all other churches in the world; because we cannot to this day, nor ever could communicate with any church in the world, in which there are not some defects of discipline, some mixtures of bad men with good, and some indifferent modes and ceremonies of worship.

III. And lastly, another thing wherein those particular churches, into which the catholic church is distributed, communicate with each other, is in all the ESSENTIALS of CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE.

For though the particular modes and circumstances of

christian government and discipline are not determined by divine institution, but left for the most part free to the prudent disposal of the governors of particular churches; yet there is a standing form of government and discipline in the church, instituted by our Saviour himself, which is this, that there should be an Episcopacy, or order of men authorized in a continued succession from the apostles, (who were authorized by himself,) to govern and oversee all those particular churches into which the catholic church should be hereafter distributed, to ordain inferior ministers, to teach and instruct and administer the holy offices to particular congregations; and having ordained them, to guide and direct them in the discharge of their functions; to prescribe the particular rules of outward order and decency, to the people of the respective churches committed to their charge; to confirm the weak and admonish the disorderly, and to correct the obstinate by excluding them from the communion of the church of Christ. These things therefore, being all of divine institution, are the essentials of christian government and discipline, in which all christian churches are obliged to communicate with each other. And this being the standing government and discipline of the catholic church, no particular church can refuse to communicate with it, without dividing itself from the communion of the catholic church; I say refuse to communicate, because it is possible for a church to be without this government and discipline, which yet neither refuses it, nor the communion of any church for the sake of it. A church may be debarred of it by unavoidable necessities against its consent, and under this circumstance, I can by no means think such a church to be separated from the church catholic; it is indeed an imperfect and defective part of the catholic church,* Yet it is a plain case, that if it rejects the episcopacy, and separates from the communion of it, it thereby wholly divides itself from the communion of

* See Bellarmiu's fifth note, viz. succession of bishops examined by Dr. Thorp; Presery. against popery, Tit. III. 98. The Preservative against popery contains a collection of the best treatises against popery written in the reign of King James II. and collected into 3 vols. folio, by bishop Gibson in 1738. "It is an excellent collection, says Mr. Le Mesurier, and ought to be in every protestant clergyman's library." Bampt. lect. 1808. P. 215.

the catholic church. "Whoever, says dean Sherlock' separates from episcopacy, as an unlawful communion, is a schismatic from the catholic church." This is so plain that there needs no proof of it. For whether episcopacy be of divine institution or not, this is matter of fact granted on all hands, that for 1400 Years at least, ail those churches into which the catholic church has been distributed, have been subject to the episcopal government, and therefore they who now separate from it, as such, must in so doing, separate from the communion of all churches for 1400 years together, and then either all those churches must be out of communion of the catholic church, and consequently during all that time there must be no such thing as a visible catholic church upon earth; or else, those communities of christians which separate from all those churches, must be schisms and separations from the catholic church.

*

It has now been proved that the catholic church is the one universal society of all christian people, and that the notes, by which it is distinguished from all other societies in the world, are, that the churches into which it is distributed, should hold communion with each other in all the essentials of Faith, Worship, and Government. Now, as the episcopal government is rejected by many who agree with us in the essentials of faith and worship, it is incumbent on such, either to prove the divine institution of their schemes of church government, or, if they cannot, to unite in communion with the church of Ireland, unless they can prove that the terms of lay communion with us, are absolutely sinful, and such as, if complied with, would endanger their salvation.

For where there are two churches, which are not members of each other, there is a schism, though they agree in all the articles of faith, and essentials of worship. For thus the Novatians and Donatists did, who yet were schismatics from the catholic church. And it is very evident the episcopal churches of these countries, and those churches set up in opposition to them, are not members of each other, but are formed into distinct bodies, under different governors, who have

*These three, and none others, are the notes of the catholic church. See Dr. Sherlock's discourse on the notes, with reflections on Bellarmine's fifteen notes, and defence of ditto against Fairfax. Preservative against popery Tit. 3. Grascome's anwer to Huddleston's plain way, &c. 1703. p. 64. to 80,

no communion with each other.I shall now briefly prove that episcopacy is the true form of government instituted by our Saviour.

CHAP. II.

The three distinct orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, proved from the scriptures.

"It

I confess indeed that the orders which we now call bishops, priests, and deacons, are not distinguished in scripture by these names. The orders themselves are plainly distinguished in scripture, but each name is not particularly and constantly applied to a distinct order. For those whom we now call bishops, were then distinguished by the name of apostles, and the names of bishops and presbyter, are there promiscuously used for that order, which we now call presbyter or priest. is not be wondered, (says king Charles I. in his second answer to the presbyterian ministers,) if it should happen that in the new testament, the word episcopus or bishop, is usually applied unto presbyters, who were indeed overseers of the flock, rather than unto church governors, who had then a title of greater eminency, viz. apostles. 1 But when the government of churches came into the hands of their successors, the names were by common usage very soon appropriated, that of bishop to the go-" vernor or bishop of a diocese, that of presbyter to the ordinary minister or priest." This is a distinction I would desire the reader carefully to observe, because upon the community of the names bishop and presbyter in scripture, depend most of the arguments of presbyterians. But it is not the distinction of names, but of the office which we contend for. I shall therefore briefly prove from scripture, that there were three orders instituted by Christ, and his apostles; and then show from ancient authors that the names, bishops priests and deacons, have been, from the apostles times, appropriated to these orders.*

* See Dr. Brett's church government, 2d edition 1710, and