a Church by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and Worship What tho according to Mr. Chillingworth's Rule 't is possible to be a Member of the Church without actual Communion You say 'T is as necessary actually to communicate with some Church or other as 't is to be a Christian Wherefore it seems those Protestants in Popish Countries who did actually communicate with no Church had not what essentially constituted them Christians You will say that you make allowance for Cases of Necessity when Communion cannot be had but upon sinful Terms But surely 't is absolutely necessary to be a Christian Nay in that very Book which you refer me to for your Thoughts at large you assert from your own and the Popish Notion of the Power of the Keys that the Communion of the Church is absolutely necessary to Salvation Wherefore methinks many of your Expressions would make no improper Sound out of a Papist's Mouth We are the Visible or National Church your Division from us is Schism and Separation from the Church and every Separation is a Schism on one side or other Nay you renounce our Communion for to withdraw your selves from ordinary Communion with the Church in which you live into distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to renounce their Communion And he who disputes the Authority or destroys the Vnity of the Church renounces his Membership and Communion with it Besides 't is enough that 't is a Separation and gathering a Church out of a Church which did before consist of baptized Christians Ye are Schismaticks in dividing your selves from the Body of Christians and all your Prayers and Sacraments are not Acts of Christian Communion but a Schismatical Combination You may pretend that if you do not divide upon the account of sinful Terms yet you do it for greater Edification and purer Ordinances And that at least 't is very doubtful whether the Church on Earth has power of clogging God's Ordinances with such Rites as shall be made Terms and Conditions of receiving them Well 't is no matter for all this Doubt and divide from us and be damn'd It 's pleasant that you should pretend Edification to break the Vnity of the Church Be assured that the Influences of the Divine Spirit are confined to this Vnity What Allowances Christ will make for the Mistakes of well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine but his Mercies in such a Case are uncovenanted and such an one is no Member of the Invisible Church that we do or can know of And if he separate from the Visible Church tho upon the account of sinful Terms the Thread of this Reasoning affords him no Clue to lead him to the Gate of Life For having no visible Church that he knows of with which to communicate or by Misfortune being depriv'd of the Opportunity he was thereby denied the ordinary Means of Salvation And it may be said in your Words I do not now speak of the invisible Operations of the Divine Spirit Truly Sir to my thinking either I have rightly represented your Agreement here or Words are to be governed by some Authority which you have not yet produced The half Answer which you suppose already given to the Question with which I closed my second Letter had I doubt not its due Consideration where-ever 't was met with But the Question was this Whether if the Nature of Catholick Communion requires a readiness to communicate with any sound Church and yet a Church obliges us to communicate with that alone exclusive of other sound Churches while Distance does not hinder the occasional and frequent Communion with others is not that Church guilty of Schism in such an Injunction contrary to the Nature of Catholick Communion Your Answer is That no Church can be supposed to forbid Communion with any Church which is in Communion with her But 't is its Duty to forbid Communion with Schismatical Conventicles Which is as much as to say that the French the Greek Church or any other that is not in Communion with our Church is a Schismatical Conventicle And such you observe that I am pleased to call sound Churches wherein you intimate That no Church which is not in Communion with ours that is not ready actually to communicate in all its Accidentals can be sound and Orthodox But then the frequent Communion with another Church being in the Question what provision does your Answer make for so much as the ordinary Communion which you call constant with the National Church But then you having admitted that Dissenters have proper Church-Officers and Power what Answer will you make to what follows Or at least is it not impossible that he who communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another can be a Schismatick or any more than an Offender against a positive Humane Law You say indeed he is an Offender against the Vnity of the Church and the Evangelical Laws of Catholick Communion but you have not yet been pleased to produce those Evangelical Laws which oblige Men upon the pain of Damnation consequent upon Schism to communicate with the Church-Officers allowed of by the Civil Power rejecting others as Schismatical tho admitted to have the same Evangelical Institution Indeed you look upon it as self-evident That where-ever there is a Church establish'd by Publick Authority if there be nothing sinful in its Constitution and Worship we are bound to communicate with that Church and to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians for the Advantage always lies on the side of Authority But how this is made out by any thing you say I cannot find In my Judgment you afford no other Notion of Catholick Communion but as an Agreement and Readiness to communicate in Accidentals as well as Essentials with any sound Church be it National or otherwise Indeed you suppose Dissenters to have no sound Church for want of a National Establishment but then you make no manner of provision for so much as the ordinary actual Communion in any Episcopal Church where one lives if so be that one communicates actually with any other Church which is in Communion with that But if it should happen that the true Notion of Catholick Communion consists only in a Communion in Essentials and being united by the Christian Bond of Charity notwithstanding Separations for lesser Matters then by the same reason I may communicate with any sound Church and nothing but Humane Law can restrain me which by your own Confession can neither make nor cure a Schism And indeed what should hinder but that Humane Law may as well confine me to the Communion of the Bishop of the Diocess where I live which you know were but according to the old Rule of One Altar one Bishop as well as to give me a Latitude for any Diocess provided I do not
it serves your purpose to have it believed that it cannot be sound and Orthodox unless it maintain Communion in Accidentals with every other sound Part. Upon the erecting this Scheme and observing the Rules of Art you have already given one may be able to resolve a great many nice horary Questions Yet some of them must stay for your own Solution or Elias's Quest If Baptism lets one into the Church and entitles one to all the Privileges of Church-Membership how comes it to pass that one who ordinarily dissents is an Intruder when he exercises an Act of Communion Answ You had your Answer already if you had Eyes to see it He who despises the Authority or destroys the Vnity of the Church renounces his Membership and Communion with it Quest What tho he does actually communicate Resp Yes thou Man of perverse Understanding Church-Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion but in Membership Quest Well then if neither Baptism nor particular Acts of Communion are enough to make or at least continue me a Member pray how many Acts of Communion will do the Business Resp Why I tell you it must be constant Communion Quest What do you mean by constant Communion Resp I mean ordinary Communion that is always sometimes Quest Well what is it that obliges me always sometimes to communicate with a particular Church Does Baptism do it Resp No we know no Church but all Christians are made Members of by Baptism Quest What then if I chuse ordinarily to communicate with another Church Resp If you divide your self from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which you call Churches but which are not Members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church you cannot carry your Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with you Quest But do you not tell us that our Communion with the Church consists in being Members of the Church which we are made by Baptism And they being baptized into the same Faith I should think they hold Communion with the Church Resp But let me tell you tho sometimes I maintain That Baptism makes us Members of the whole Church and gives us a Right to communicate with every sound part of it yet in spite of Contradiction I hold That Baptism at most gives Men only a Disposition to be Church-Members but does not make them Members of any Church Besides where there are two separte Churches one if not both must be Schismatical And the National Church having the Advantage of Authority you are bound to reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians as Schismatical If you do not you renounce your Membership and by destroying the Unity of the Church forfeit your Interest in the Divine Charter and cannot carry your Right and Title to the Convenant out of the Church with you Quest Suppose I do not communicate with any other Church yet ordinarily withdraw from Communion with yours at the Times appointed for Worship or other Acts of Communion is it enough to own my self a Member Or if not how long Suspension will amount to a Forfeiture Resp 'T is not enough to own your self a Member for to withdraw from the visible Communion of the Church is Separation Now if Separation from Religious Assemblies be to break Cowmunion then to live in Communion with the Church requires our actual Communion Quest Well then thus far I have learnt my Catechism that there must be actual Communion and that actual Communion must be constant or ordinary otherwise a Man wilfully separates himself and forfeits his Interest in the Divine Charter So it seems tho Acts of Communion are but Effects and Applications of Church-membership yet the Non-user of them forfeits the Right one had by Baptism even tho one be not cast out of the Church by any Sentence and nothing but ordinary Communion amounts to owning a Membership How many Acts are necessary to avoid the Forfeiture we are yet to learn And further if we live where Communion may be had with another Church in communion with that which expects our constant Attendance we as well own our selves Members by a constant Communion with the other as with that For as you inform us there is nothing in Baptism nor in all the Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church And 't is no Interruption of Communion to communicate actually with any Church that is in Communion with another sound Part. But if it should fall out that notwithstanding the Division of Communions upon lesser Matters a divided Communion may continue a sound part of the Christian Church the Necessity of constant Communion with a Church where occasional is lawful will stand in need of some other Medium to support it Resp O but there is a differene between being a Member of the Vniversal Church and of all particular Churches which are Parts and Members of the sniversal Church Quest Why so may I not communicate with any sound Part which is in communion with this Church and professing no dislike of its Communion thereby own my self a Member especially since my communicating with the one does not interrupt the Communion with the other and neither Baptism nor all the Acts of Communion unite me more to one than another Resp I care not for that for constant Communion in a particular Church confines Church-Membership to that particular Church in which you communicate Quest If I may not offend I should say my Question is What obliges to constant Communion But you seem to say no more than that constant Communion obliges to constant Communion or in your own Phrase confines Church-Membership to that particular Church So it seems if constant Communion be omitted that Obligation or Confinement ceases I shall trouble you but with one Question more in this place and that is Whether the Necessity of re-baptizing those who were of a separate Communion does not follow upon your Grounds as well as upon Donatus's and that tho the Party had not been baptized in a Schism Certainly this is no remote consequence from the Supposition that Separation makes a forfeiture of all the Privileges acquired by Baptism For if they were forfeited how can they be restor'd without a new Grant Nay they are your own Words that the guilty Divider forfeits his Interest in the Covenant without a new Grant But a little to examine the Foundation of your charitable Positions You suppose that Christ's Body being but one whoever separates from any sound Part separates from the whole But is it not equally evident that whoever separates from any true Part separates from the whole Surely a true Member is a Member tho it be not sound Yet you say there may be a true Church tho no Catholick Church that is according to your Argument no
should be Schismaticks and cut off from his Body meerly for disobeying Additions the Authority of which they soberly dispute You say in one part of your Answer to me That whatever Variety and Difference in the Rules of Worship is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the Prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient Where as you condemn such Indulgence as is inconsistent with one Communion it may be thought to be equally conclusive against the Imposition of any Thing inconsistent with one Communion or the great Law of Catholick Communion And when you confess that the Government of the Church since the Apostles Days was never so entirely in the Bishop's Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any further than he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be governed You having likewise set aside the Civil Authority and admitted that Dissenters have sufficient Church-Power amongst them I again ask How they can be Schismaticks for dividing from the Bishops upon the account of suspected Rites and Ceremonies which they believe not to agree with those Laws by which the Charch was to be governed as being greatly prejudicial to if not inconsistent with one Communion And I would willingly be satisfied how you can bring within the foregoing Rules what you assert but within three Pages where having held that there was no Schism between the Latin and Asian Churches yet you will have it that private Christians at Rome could not receive the Asians into the Communion of the Church without the Bishop's Authority But to word this Matter according to your Hypothesis Tho Conformity to the Church of England that is Obedience to the Church-Governours the Bishops is not essential to the Vnity of the Catholick Church yet it is for all that live here I should have been contented to have the Controversy confin'd to Persons living here but that you tempt me further You say indeed That Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Vnity of the Church without Conformity to the Church of England But pray can they preserve the Unity of the Church without Catholick Communion to which as you have told us a Compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is absolutely necessary And then All the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right or Obligation of 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 There are some other Passages in my third Letter which perhaps might want to have something said to them but I shall only refer the Whole with what I have here wrote to your second and cooler Thoughts But I must confess I wonder how I escap'd unrebuk'd when I observ'd that you your self made a sufficient Excuse for some even causless Separation And if the Sinfulness of Separation lies in not observing your Terms of Catholick Communion the Dissenters would think themselves pretty sake under Mr. Chillingworth's Defence against the Papists not only when he affirms That the Gospel of Christ is the whole Covenant between God and Man nor when he blames the Papists for making Salvation depend on Things casual and in the Power of Man to confer or not to confer But if it were only because of the Obscurity and Doubtfulness if not Inconsistency of the Grounds whence the Obligation to constant Communion with the Church is inferr'd for he thought it Demonstration that nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Now Sir I take leave to tell you that I have faithfully followed you in all your subtil Windings I am sure I have nowhere perverted your Discourses how much soever I may have mistaken them And 't is no easy matter to take his Sence rightly who is inconsistent with himself It has not been the least nor perhaps the least pertinent part of my Task to fix your own Principles upon you some of which need no other Exposure but to be set in their proper Light where like the Cadmoean Issue they may be left to destroy each other If you forget in one place what serv'd your purpose in another or go to prove too little or too much for what possibly might be your general Scope and Design I hope you will for the future be more cautious of condemning Men for Dishonesty in arguing upon what they find By this time 't is likely I may in a double Sence have tir'd your Patience which you value your self upon I must confess the Substance of what lies in Dispute between us might be brought into a much narrower Compass But perhaps it was no more than requisite to put several Questions to you to prevent all colourable Evasion that one might take up what might be artfully slipt over upon another And certainly any one that observes what Skill you use in the management of this Controversy will think that many Things which might have seem'd superfluous were but necessary to oblige you to speak out Thus when I had ask'd Whether a Man has a Right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian that is as I then thought and still do a true Member of the Catholick Church I should not have added Or becomes a Christian only as received into a particular Church were it not that I wrote to one who seems to think no Man can be a true Member of the Catholick Church before he has been actually receiv'd into some particular Church But you taking no notice of the last Branch of the Question wonder I should ask you Whether a Man has a Right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian when you say The whole Design of your Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a Right to communicate with all sound Parts of the Catholick Church and bound to communicate with that Part of it in which he lives Now 't is odds but it may be as evident upon this your whole Design that every particular Church is bound to receive every Christian as such into its Communion without imposing any Terms but meer Christianity as that a Christian must communicate with that sound Part where he lives even in other Terms Yet here you speak not one Word to the Question how a Man becomes a Christian whether it be only as received into a particular Church Indeed you had said in your Resolutions which I thought you might have either justified or retracted That no Man can be in Covenant with God or a Member of his Church who is not at least visibly admitted which must be by some particular Church and surely no Man can be
when the Question is of withdrawing or refusing because of real Scruples which you will have to be an adhering to their own private Fancies and to proceed from Pride and Opinionativeness because they don't believe as the Church believes But then you say in general Terms Whoever is excommunicated from one sound Part of the Catholick Church is excommunicated from all Whether this be upon the Supposition that every sound Church is bound to ratify the Censures of another and that he who divides from his Bishop's Altar divides from a Mystical Head answering to the Jewish High-Priest as is taught by him from whom you borrow the Notion That Christianity is nothing but Mystical Judaism perhaps one may know hereafter But if a Man excommunicated from one sound Part be as you would have him by consequence cut off from the whole Catholick Church that Church to the Unity of which you say the Influences of the Divine Spirit are confined to what purpose is your Distinction between a Judicial Sentence and an Act of a Man 's own Choice For you suppose the Man chuses that which justifies the Sentence And how can you say you will not pretend to determine the Final State of Men Whereas he who dies after such a Sentence unrestored to the Church-Communion dies in a Condition as you tell us depriv'd of all the Influences of the Divine Spirit and consequently of all Means of Salvation And 't is but small Comfort for such a Man that the Church did not design his Damnation Because the Church casts no Man out of a State of Salvation that this excludes them from a State of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. As if you should say that when you cast an innocent Man out of your Ship into the vast Ocean where he is sure to perish that this excludes the poor Wretch from the State of Life is not your Act but God's Truly Sir how much soever you may slight the way of asking Questions I think it better to ask you Whether you believe a Man thus put out of the State of Salvation by God himself can be sav'd of his own natural Power without the Influence of the Divine Spirit which it seems he is depriv'd of by a fallible Sentence than to charge you with Pelagianism when you think you determine nothing of the Man 's Final State But I am sure Our Church teaches us that It is the Holy-Ghost and no other Thing that doth quicken the Minds of Men stirring up good and godly Motions in their Hearts which are agreeable to the Will and Commandment of God such as otherwise of their own crooked and perverse Natures they should never have The other Horn of my formidable Dilemma as you slightingly call it you avoid with becoming Caution and supposing it to be aim'd against all manner of Obligation to Communion with this Church take not its real Force which is That if this Submission or Obedience be no part of the Divine Covenant then it may so happen that a Man living here may be a Member of the Catholick Church tho he is not in Communion with this sound Church To which you give not the least colourable Answer And I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that the Supposition that he ought to communicate if Communion may be had is not to the Question Whether this be part of the Divine Covenant or no For if it be part of the Divine Covenant then I must confess 't will not be a sufficient Excuse that the Submission is not neglected or contemn'd for it ought to be actual whatever be the Scruple especially if the Thing enjoined be not unlawful in it self tho it be in the Conscience of the Party But then to the Query Whether Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to communicate if the Communion be not clogg'd with some Things which are no part of the Divine Covenant You say The Reply is weak and impertinent because Obedience in all lawful Things is in a large Notion part of the Divine Covenant and the Supposition is of communicating where Communion may be had Now the Question being put of their scrupling the Lawfulness I leave it to your self to consider whether our Church does not condemn this Opinion as Pharisaical 3. The third Head or Query which concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself you suppose not to belong to you But surely at first sight before one hears your learned Answer one would think it strange how it should come to pass that you should admit the Dissenters to have full Church-Power amongst them and yet charge them with Schism for not communicating with us while you suppose that whoever communicates with them will be guilty of Schism Methinks Mr. D.'s Ground of charging them herein as much more plausible which is That they are Schismaticks in dividing from them who derive all Church-Power within this Nation from our Saviour and his Apostles exclusively of all others But pray is the Church-Power in the hands of our Conformists by reason of the Divine Law or because of the Civil Law which makes them the governing Part If it be by reason of the Divine Law Mr. D. is in the right notwithstanding all that you say against him If it be by the Civil Law then the Reason why I ought to communicate with Conformists and not with Dissenters is by reason of a Difference made by Human Laws And then see if you can answer what you say against Mr. Humphreys his peaceable Design of uniting the Episcopal Men Presbyterians and Independents under one Civil Government where you say If the Evil and Sinfulness of Separation consisted only in Obedience to Humane Laws I should think it a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But in Answer to my Question You own that a Lay-man may preach the Gospel where there is none of the Clergy But since you here set aside the Question of the Derivation of Power from under our Saviour and his Apostles or from the Divine Law how come dissenting Ministers to be Schismaticks for preaching the Gospel or they not to be Schismaticks who refuse to communicate with them even where they require no Terms of Communion not only not unlawful but perhaps which are no way differing from what Christ himself requires The first Query here was upon supposition that you would in no case allow a Church to be gathered without a constant Succession of Church-Ministers which tho you deny to follow from your Doctrine is but the Consequence of many of your Assertions particularly of these two 1. That it is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of baptized Christians and divide Neighbour-Christians into distinct Communions 2. That there cannot be two distinct Churches for distinct Communions in one City or Nation Taking it
for granted as I had reason that you went herein upon the Authority of the Church-Officers I ask'd Whether this would not put the Being of our Church upon an hazardous Issue and oblige your self to prove that 't was a true Church before the Reformation Which surely is no remote Consequence from the Supposition that the Church-Power was lodged with them of the Church of Rome before in opposition to which our Church was erected and out of which it was gathered But then you say to my second Query upon this That there was not the same Necessity for private Christians reforming from an Antichristian Church to usurp the Ministry as there is for a Lay-man in an Heathen Nation But you do not observe that the Force of this lies in the Supposition that the Power was lodg'd with the Popish Clergy upon which account the Acts of the Reformed Ministry in opposition to them would be but like the Acts of Lay-men And you know who has asserted That Recourse ought to be had to the Intention of the Church-Governors Ecclesiastical Power being their Gift And this does oblige all to a strict dependance on the supreme visible Power so as to leave no Place for Appeal concerning the Practice of such Government And they are the most certain as well as the most competent Judges of their own Intentions But should we have recourse to such Church-Governours pray do you think they would say you have Power of keeping up a Form of Church-Government in opposition to theirs or that your Officers are better than Lay-men To put this home to you I shall here subjoin a Passage of your own 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 Here you must admit that a Minister Episcopally ordained may possibly join with them in this Separation from the Bishop or else you will allow of what will overthrow your Assertion as to Separation even from the most sound Church Wherefore this being admitted and it being laid generally shew me if you can wherein this differs from Mr. D. at least how Separation from Papists or from whatever unlawful Terms of Communion can upon your Hypothesis be freed from Schism You assure us you do not charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but from their causless and sinful Separation And tho they have true Orders and are true Churches but yet divide Christian Communion by separating from any sound Part of the Christian Church they are Schismaticks nay if it were only in separating from each other Wherefore since Separation and ordinarily refusing to communicate where one never did but as you suppose ought come to the same thing you cannot blame me if I represent your Notion to be That where there are several Churches within a Nation which here you admit of whether one of these Churches has Authority over the Members of the other or no yet he who refuses to communicate with any one of these is a Schismatick And so you make it in relation to Churches in several Nations If this be your meaning as I take it to be then you have no reason to cry out of Mis-representation and blending together Things of a different Nature when I ask Query 4. Whether from the Supposition that there is to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one true Church within another And that the Nature of Catholick Communion is such that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the Distance of Place It does not follow Here you stop me before you make an Answer as if I did not fairly to take every one of these Propositions for yours or in tacking together some Things not very consistent with each other Because you had in some place asserted that there could be but one Church in one Place therefore it seems not only our Dissenters but also Foreigners living here are without any Church Tho to avoid the Force of my Questions now you would admit that the Dissenters may have sufficient Church-Officers and Power but however that they are Schismaticks if it were only for dividing from each other You had said further that nothing can justify the Distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a Distance of Place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops What that Distance of Place is which makes this necessary and expedient you are not pleased to inform us But nothing it seems but Distance can with you justify a Distinction of Churches be the Terms never so unlawful which is but the same in effect with what you had said elsewhere as that 't is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of baptized Christians Nay further here is more wholesom Doctrine which is That no Distinction of Churches is justifiable but under Bishops Yet alas you do not dispute against the Dissenters Form of Church-Government or deny their being rightly invested with Church-Power no not you But it lies not upon me to reconcile you to your self nor can you deny the having said a Thing in one place because of the contrary in another The only Proposition which you can seem to deny with any colour is That one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by distance of Place But surely 't is full enough to this purpose that The Exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the Exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the Necessity of Affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Church Again To be in Communion with the Church signifies to be a Member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguish'd from the whole Catholick Church but to be a Member of the one Body of Christ and of every sound Part of it Wherefore as a Man is a Member of every sound Church sure he may communicate with any sound Church if Distance do not hinder nay the refusing Communion in such Case is the very Schism which you all along declaim against Having thus fix'd upon you every one of these Propositions for the first of them I cannot believe that you will yet deny I shall consider with you what follows Wherefore I still assert Either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that
straggle into a Church which is not in Communion with our Bishops This Confinement to one Bishop you must say upon your grounds would be contrary to the Nature of Catholick Communion but we have your Authority for it that the other is not Yet it seems if Presbytery should have the Advantage of Authority they who refuse Communion with the National Church upon pretence of purer Ordinances and the Belief that Episcopacy is the Ordinance of God must be as bad as Murderers and Adulterers that is very Schismaticks And judg you whether 't would not be a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But here you take notice of a Passage or two in my Preface The one That perhaps it is no Absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it tho not fundamental and necessary to its Being as he who incurs the Penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil Affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason or other Capital Crimes This you answer by a begging and indeed mistaking the Question and will have it of a Schismatical Separation which you elswhere express by renouncing Communion And this you may compare to Treason and Rebellion in the State if you think fit But the Church is not much beholden to you for making that in which Conformity is expected fundamental and necessary to its Being And when you compare a Man that communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another to a Man that joins sometimes with his Prince's Forces and sometimes with his Enemies the Comparison is either very impertinent or very uncharitable in supposing that a Church which differs from this in what is really accidental how essential soever you make it is Antichristian or an Enemy to Christ which surely no true Church is yet I must confess herein you agree with your self when you say There may be a true Church which is no Catholick Church that is no true part of the Catholick Church I add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular Places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws distinct from the Common-Law of the Land without making a distinct Government This you condemn without vouchsafing it a fair Hearing as nibling at that Healing Project for which you think you have sufficiently exposed Mr. Humphreys But I shall chuse the Protection of the great Protestant Champion Mr. Chillingworth and if you are resolved to wound him through my Side I will bear the Brunt of it as well as I can To reduce Christians to Unity there are but two Ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away Diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion the other by shewing that the Diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no Hinderance to their Unity in Communion The first he looks on as not likely without a Miracle What then remains says he but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set an higher value upon those high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree than upon Matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that Agreement in those ought to be more effectual to join them in one Communion than their Difference in other Things of less moment to divide them When I say One Communion I mean in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith wherein all consent a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual Performance of all those Works of Charity which Christians owe one unto another And to such a Communion what better Inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joined with a Love of Truth and holy Obedience was sufficient to bring Men to Heaven For why should Men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any Man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation To the same Sence is the Passage I had in that Preface cited out of Dr. Tillotson's Sermon and you may as well ask him as me Is the Catholick Church then and Communion of Saints no part of our Creed Your Notion of Communion is a new Article But to re-assert what I had observed of your managing the Charge of Schism I had said People might not well understand what it is unless it be taken to lie wholly in want of Charity And in the Errata to avoid the Cavil of its being common such as we have for all Mankind I had added the Epithete of Christian I say further to my thinking as St. Paul speaks of it He supposes a continuance still of the same Body and ascribes it to Christians continuing such nay and communicating with each other And this you were not able to deny nay you well know that not only the Thing but the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had by that Apostle been applied to such Hence you would argue That I will not allow causless Separation from a sound Part of the Catholick Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity But 't is obvious that I do it no more than the Apostle himself does But besides it induces the Belief that Schism is not such a Crime as you imagine For if the Corinthians were Schismaticks whilst they continued in Communion with each other and yet were particular Members of Christ's Body then Schism does not cut off from Christ's Body nor do you rightly apply the Addition of Apostate Christian Further by what Authority do you apply that to a refusing Communion with any sound Church whatever upon your supposed Notion of Catholick Communion from a Text which mentions no other Schism but what was between them who liv'd in the same Communion And still beyond all this it seems demonstrable from the Text that the Causa formalis or that which constitutes Schism is not Separation tho it be causless unless it be accompanied with want of Charity For since there may be Schism where there is no Separation of Communion then it must be something which consists with joint Communion and find out something besides Want of Charity if you can The Apostle's Notion of Schism we have seen but I wonder by what Authority you affirm'd That Schism is nothing else but a Breach of Christian Communion and that where the Vnity of the Church is broken by distinct and opposite Communions there is the full Nature of Schism and where this is not there is either no Schism or only a partial Schism which is like a great
slight as not worth your Notice And therefore 't is not likely that the Homiles should be any more regarded Yet however it may not be amiss to mind you of what our Homilies teach us of a sound or true Church The Passage before cited proves that a particular Company or Congregation of God's People is the Church in proper speaking And then for the Catholick visible Church we have its Definition or Description in these words The true Church is an Universal Congregation or Fellowship of God's Faithful elect People built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus himself being the Head Corner-Stone And it has always three Rules or Marks whereby it is known 1. Pure and sound Doctrine 2. The Sacraments ministred according to Christ's Holy Institution And 3. The right use of Ecclesiastical Discipline These Notes tho ascribed to all in general are manifestly to be applied respectively to select Congregations or Fellowships of Christians For 't is not possible that all can be joyned in actual Communion But in these things they are to be ready to communicate with each other as if they were one entire Body in the first without any Limitation in the two last as the Church says of the Sacraments in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same And to prevent all affected Ignorance of our Churches Sense in this particular it assures us that Christ makes Intercession not only for himself and his Apostles but indifferently for all them that believe in him through their Words that is to wit for his whole Church I leave it to you run to the Parallel between what the Church teaches and what you would impose on us in this matter I shall not repeat the Particulars but shall only observe upon your Notion of Discipline 1. That according to you the Power of the Keys is absolute in Church-men's Hands from whose Power of binding and loosing you infer that Church-Communion is absolutely necessary to Salvation Whereas our Church says Christ ordained the Authority of the Keys to excommunicate notorious Sinners and to absolve them that are truly penitent 2. And secondly Whereas you affirm That every profess'd Christian who is received into the Church by Baptism is a Church-Member and all Church-Members have a common Right to Church-Priviledges That teaches otherwise Why says it cryed the Deacon in the Primitive Church if any be holy let him draw near Why did they celebrate these Mysteries the Quire-door being shut Why were the publick Penitents and Learners in Religion commanded to avoid Was it not because this Table received no unholy unclean or sinful Guests And this it enforces from the Example of our Blessed Saviour and the conforming Practice of the Primitive Church in these words According to this Example of our Saviour Christ in the Primitive Church which was most holy and godly and in the which due Discipline with Severity was used against the wicked open Offenders were not suffered once to enter into the House of the Lord nor admitted to Common-Prayer and the use of the holy Sacraments with other true Christians untill they had done open Penance before the whole Church Here I might well leave you to bethink your self of returning into the Bosom of our Church after you have divided from the Unity of its Doctrine And I might advise you to have a care of contending too eagerly in the maintaining your own Opinions for fear of running into the Formality of that which you take such pains to fright others from Tho it may be a good way to convert Schismaticks to convince them of the Errour of their Ways yet even that may be done schismatically at least the causless Imputation of it may return upon the forward Censurer But lest you should think I say this to avoid the notice of my shameful Baffle in the Story of Pope Victor which you will have to be a feigned Case told me by some body Be it known to you that the Authority which I had next at hand was a late learned Chronologist who has these words Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus fuit Victor qui ab Anno Christi 192 sedit Annos 10 in Concilio statuit ut Pascha semper die Dominicâ celebrarètur atque adèo èxcommunicavit omnes Episcopos Ecclesias in Asiâ quae eâdem die Pascha non celebrabant Here I might as well think that the Bishop pronounc'd the Sentence of Excommunication in Council as he alone is said statuere what was done by common Consent and so we know Rex statuit is often used The Excommunication you contend to have been only his own Act not the Act of the Council And you cite Eusebius which calls that which I should take for an Exemplification of the Act of the Council his Letter I am sure Socrates his Expression of this favours me when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sent them the Sentence of Excommunication And the matter having been agreed on in a Council at Rome where he presided 't is certainly most probable that this was not of his own Head Nor is it in the least any Argument against me that other Bishops in Communion with him resented it ill Being those other Bishops Irenaeus particularly were not at that Council For as Eusebius himself shews as Victor presided at Rome Irenaeus did in France So that those of the same Communion were only such as agreed in that Doctrine of the account of time about which I shall not dispute whether Arithmetick was concern'd or no Yet I find it a long while since by an old Emperour called Questio temporis non Fidei But I find not in Eusebius that Irenaeus prevented this from taking effect as you affirm for the Sentence was actually pronounc'd as both Eusebius and Socrates inform us But when retracted or whether at all appears not But be it as you contend that this was only the Act of a Schismatical Bishop how comes it to pass that his Church was not concerned in this St. Cyprian says Qui cum Episcopo non sunt in Ecclesiâ non sunt And St. Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both agree that there 's no being in the Church or in Christ unless they side with their Bishop And a Gentleman whose Authority I hope you will not except against says of St. Cyprian He makes all Bishops equal to have the whole Power in Solidum to be absolute Judges of their own Acts and be accountable to none but God Nay you your self have told us that it is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governours should be in Communion with each other Wherefore the Asian and Latine Churches were in a State of Separation and the Laity of one side or other were necessitated to communicate in a Schism This Sir may supersede my enquiry into your Niceties upon a Case of your own making But
consequently ought to be done when fit Circumstances concur yet not being enjoin'd as the necessary Means to Salvation when such Circumstances are wanting the actual Exercise is not required yet it does not follow that therefore 't is indifferent What the Judicious Hooker says of Baptism is doubtless equally applicable to the other Sacrament and all the Parts of the Office of the Ministry That God saith he hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special Men it is for Order's sake in his Church and not to the end that their Authority might give being or add force to the Sacrament it self To this purpose I did before cite the deservedly esteemed Authors Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Tillotson and their Forerunner Mr. Chillingworth yet certainly this does not overthrow the Necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church It were an easy matter here to make a pompous shew of Reading I shall only observe to you that some of my Questions related to the supposed absolute Necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism others to the Authority of them who administer it Indeed that of the Lord's Supper was not mentioned by me because as you had handled the Matter the chief Dispute was about the forming of a Church and Church-Communion which you tell us is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion I must tell you I had my Warrant for such Interrogations as I made upon both Heads from very great Lights in our Church Mr. Hooker when he was to argue against the Dissenters of his Time found them to stand much upon the Authority of their Ministry which they contended to be by Divine Right and that others could not duly administer the Sacraments Now tho that great Man asserts That it hath been constantly held as well touching Believers as Martyrs that Baptism taken away by Necessity is supplied by desire of Baptism and to Children by a presumed Desire Yet he chiefly addresses himself to prove That Baptism by any Man in case of Necessity is valid which he says was the Voice of the whole World heretofore But a learned Oxford Professor Mr. George Abbot in a Theological Lecture there de Circumcisione Baptismo goes to prove it unlawful for any of the Laity to usurp upon the Ministerial Office in this because Baptism is not absolutely necessary in it self He concludes his elaborate Reading thus Interea tamen ista sunt quae hodiernâ oratione accepistis Externo Sacramento non sic astringi alligari Dei gratiam ut sine ipso salvare aliquando nolit Ideoque diffidenter quoad Deum audacter quoad se Faeminas Laicosque facere qui baptizare aggrediuntur Tertiò tamen cum sigillum sit impressum non esse iterandum Fifth Article The fifth Article which is not so explicit as the foregoing of being guilty of Deism Socinianism and what not is laid but as a Consequence of the former wherefore that Imputation being wip'd off I fear no Man's charging me with this And to deal as plainly with you as you I think you have done with me I should have expected this sooner from another Man Whatever you or I say the World will judg whether he is most likely to be guilty of Deism undermining Christianity and contemning all revealed Religion who calls your Opinions in question or he who will argue that it is as necessary to communicate with every sound Part of the Catholick Church as with any and that one is as much obliged to communicate as a Member with some particular visible sound Part as to be a Christian and that not only by joining in the Purity of Faith and Worship for that he tells us Hereticks might do but in all other Acts or Terms of Communion And that notwithstanding the Efficacy which God Almighty has promised to a true lively Faith in the Merits of Christ Jesus it is as necessary to Salvation to know which of the Churches divided in Accidentals is in the right and with which we are bound to communicate rejecting all divided Communions for Schismatical as it is to be of the Christian Religion Such sort of Mediums must needs do as great Disservice to Christianity as counterfeit Miracles to the true and he who imposes the Belief of both as of equal Authority or under equal Necessity to my thinking bids prety fair for the undermining and contempt of all For Socinianism not knowing upon what account I should come to be caution'd against it I should think it used meerly as a Term of Reproach to be given of course when a Man is angry and wants better Arguments were it not that perhaps you might do it designedly to prevent my joining in that Charge which others have in this respect undertaken to make good against your self and crying Whore first as they say would oblige me to find another Addition for you Truly I shall not go about to retort it not being at leisure to tell you wherein you may seem not to have answered fully or to have slighted many Things as Buffoonry which have been very closely as well as acutely urged I shall only observe upon good Authority that the Socinians give themselves a greater Liberty of enquiring into the Modes of Existencies and the Nature of Divine Mysteries than becomes short-sighted Mortals And if other Men equally full of themselves happen to differ from them when they adventure upon their own way of explaining those sublime Truths which retire to be the Objects of our Admiration rather than of a distinct Perception If the Scripture-Account which the Homilies of our Church afford them be look'd on as too great a stinting of their Spirit of Enquiry they have no great reason to expect that God's Grace should be engaged to protect them from dangerous Errors seeing they attempt to be wise above what is written And perhaps he who will reproach as magical any Notion of the Union of true Believers with Christ Jesus and with each other which does not agree with his Political Scheme or with the visible Connection of the Parts of a natural Body may take to himself as dangerous a Latitude and then we need not wonder if he apply to the Church of Christ what he has observed of a natural Body Viz. That the Vnion of every Member with the Body is its Vnion with that part of the Body which is next c. Had he but made Provision for the Cloaths too and had argued that that part of the Body which is naked cannot be united to that which is cloathed it might have come up more fully to his purpose of proving a necessity of Union in Accidentals as well as in Essentials Pray the next time you see our loving Friend W. S. tell him so much is expected from him Having said what I conceiv'd fitting for an Antidote against the spreading of your Reflections upon me I shall here
who you say shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels but as wicked and Apostate Christians 7. The seventh Query which goes upon that Ground which you give and do not yet recede from for the Belief of your lodging Church-Power so with the Clergy that they who conform not to them or who incur their Displeasure would be in a woful Case you answer only with a Scoff but say not whether the Clergy are the Church Representative or whether what I urge would follow from that Supposition or no. These were the general Questions and whether most of them were impertinent or are now fairly answered 't is for others to determine From hence I am obliged to follow you to my three Sets of Queries as you call them relating to sveral Propositions and the parting-blow of four Queries relating to the Text. Because of my asking Questions concerning your Sense of our Saviour's Promise to his Apostles which you seem to suppose to go along with Church-Governours in Succession as distinguish'd from the Body of Christians and without allowing private Christians that share which the Words of the Promise import you intimate my designing to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institution But to use mostly your own Expressions if my design of Charity and to deliver that blessed Institution from the Freaks of an Enthusiastick Fancy and to expound it to a plain and easy Sense such as is agreeable to the Vnderstanding of Men and worthy of the Spirit of God be to burlesque Scripture I acknowledg the Charge To my first Qustion Whether our Saviour's Promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every Man in his respective Station and Capacity as well as to the Apostles as Church-Governours You answer That there are Promises which relate to the whole Church and Promises which belong to particular Christians as well as Promises which relate particularly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church Well for the comfort of us poor Lay-men there are some Promises which relate to us It being so then I may well ask 2. Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no Promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in Charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their Duty according to the Divine Covenant You think it hard to know what this Query means But surely 't is material to know whether or no such Men may be saved otherwise than under Church-Governors And truly you tell us pretty plainly I wish for your own sake it had been a little more covert that such have no Promises but as Members of the Church that is of the visible Church under Church-Officers if you answer to the purpose You add indeed When Communion may be had upon lawful Terms I hope this implies that 't is possible the Terms may be unlawful Which yields me my fourth Question upon this Matter But it likewise yields That if the Terms are unlawful private Christians are entitled to these Promises tho not visibly admitted into a Church-State which is contrary to what you all along drive at But it seems however your Charity to these Men who think the Terms such as they ought not to comply with is so great to believe them guilty of Schism as adhering to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority out of Pride and Opinionativeness which God alone can judg 3. The third Query is Whether if the Promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governors it will not exclude the Civil Power To which you answer That the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power are very distinct but very consistent But such a Power in the Church-Officers as would make them the Church-Representative and prevent a National Reformation tho by the Civil Power is of another Nature Nor do you think fit yet to declare what the Power is which you would have lodged in Church-Officers But for fear you should go beyond your Warrant in this Matter I shall mind you of what our Church teaches us which is that We must not think that this Comforter was either promised or else given only to the Apostles but to the Vniversal Church of Christ dispersed through the whole World And speaking of Christ's Promise that the Spirit of Truth should abide with them for ever and that he would be always with them he meaneth saith our Church by Grace Vertue and Power and that it says was indifferently to all that should believe in him through their the Apostles Words that is to wit for his whole Church To my Inferences from the second Proposition which I consider apart You make such an Answer as if we had been at cross Purposes For my Questions were grounded upon your asserting without any limitation That 't is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians And indeed it is but a Golden Aphorism wherein you epitomize a great Part of your Discourses on this Subject And you answer That the Independents are out in their way of gathering Churches and that we separated not from the Papists upon their Principles Which is nothing to the purpose But you do confess indeed that we may separate from any Church of baptized Christians if their Communion be sinful But wherein the Difference lies I know not except by Separation you would only have a withdrawing from Communion but will not allow the setting up a distinct Church-Communion be the Cause of withdrawing never so just Which unless you mean I hope you will be so ingenuous to confess this was not so warily worded and so sound as might have been But if you have a Patent to make Words signify what you please besides their natural and presumable Intendment to make generals particular or vice versâ much good may it do you provided they afford you not a Loop-hole for the most uncharitable Censures Yet give me leave before I quit this to demonstrate that you have not answered fairly in restraining this as if spoke only of Independents These were your own Words When there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us They are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to worship God in the same Assemblies Pray Sir would you have me fancy some general Scope and Design which no Man can understand from the Words you utter in any particular Place This I suppose may satisfy reasonable Men that all my Queries under this Head
Presbyters of another I take leave to inform you that the Stat. 14. of this King cap. 4. has provided that every Person which was not then in holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination or should not be so ordained before a Day prefixt should be utterly disabled and ipso facto depriv'd from all manner of Ecclesiastical Promotions and that none for the future should be admitted to any such Promotion nor should presume to consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless Episcopally ordained The Penalty indeed is not made to extend to Foreigners of Reformed Churches allowed here but quere whether the Declaration of Disability does not If you say by the Lutheran Church you mean only those religious Societies of Lutherans which are in Sweden and Denmark under Bishops or at least that have Superintendents or Generales ordained and ordaining Episcopally which surely some Lutheran Societies want you may avoid the Consequence as to such and all others of the Reformation which are without Episcopal Orders by denying them to be Christian Churches if you please for then indeed it would not follow from your condemning such Societies that you thereby refuse Communion with a sound Church This brings me to our Churches Sence and Application of this Matter O says it how the Church is divided O how the Cities be cut and mangled O how the Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all to rent and torn O Body mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is the Body If the Body be drawn from the Head where is the Life of the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity to one another For he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Vnity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be among us we be carnal and walk according to the fleshly Man And St. James saith If ye have bitter Emulation or Envying and Contention in our Hearts glory not of it for where Contention is there is Vnstedfastness and all evil Deeds And why do we not hear St. Paul which prayeth us whereas he might command us I beseech you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you speak all one Thing and that there be no Dissention among you but that you will be one whole Body of one Mind and of one Opinion in the Truth If his Desire be reasonable and honest why do we not grant it If his Request be for our Profit why do we refuse it And if we list not to hear his Petition of Prayer yet let us hear his Exhortation where he saith I exhort you that you walk a becomes the Vocation in which you be called with all submission and meekness with lenity and softness of Mind bearing one another by Charity studying to keep the Vnity of the Spirit by the Bond of of Peace For there is one Body one Spirit one Faith one Baptism There is saith he but one Body of the which he can be no lively Member that is at variance with the other Members There is one Spirit which joineth and knitteth all Things in one and how can this Spirit reign in us when among our selves we be divided There is but one Frith and how can we then say He is of the Old Faith and he is of the New Faith There is but one Baptism and then shall not all they which be baptized be one Contention causeth Division wherefore it ought not to be among Christians whom one Faith and Baptism joineth in an Unity If all Differences in Opinions be here forbid as cutting Men off from Christ's Body it may be said perhaps that Schism cannot possibly be avoided But what seems intended by the Apostles and by our Church is That notwithstanding such Differences Men should be united in the same Faith by the Bond of Charity which you may call a magical Vnion when Men divide from each other in their Opinions if you please Certain it is neither the Scriptures nor our Church speak of dividing Communions yet there is no doubt but that may be Schism in a divided Communion which is in a joint And whoever want true Christian Charity they are the Schismaticks whether in communion with a Visible Church or withdrawing from it Having shewn what Account the Scriptures and our Church give of Schism it may not be improper to shew in what sence it has been taken by some of the greatest Eminency in our Church I had before shewn how Dr. Stillingfleet had defended our Church against the Imputation of Schism in dividing Communion from the Papists and how the Primitive Fathers ought to be understood when they write of this That Schism did not lie in a voluntary Departure out of any particular Church upon the account of any Thing extrinsecal and accidental Christian Charity to be sure is essential I shall only subjoin the Testimony of Mr. Hooker and if I have these two on my side I shall think my self sufficiently well back'd The Apostle affirmeth plainly saith he of all Men Christian that be they Jews or Gentiles bond or free they are all incorporated into one Company they all make but one Body the Vnity of which visible Body and Church of Christ consisteth in that Vniformity which all several Persons thereunto belonging have by reason of that one Lord whose Servants they all profess themselves that one Faith which they all acknowledg that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated The Visible Church of Christ is therefore one in outward Profession of those Things which supernaturally appertain to the very Essence of Christianity and are necessarily required in every particular Man Let all the House of Israel know for certain faith Peter that God hath made him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified Christians therefore they are not which call not him their Master and Lord. But this extraordinary Person could not think himself obliged in Charity to his own Soul and to deliver himself from the Guilt of the Blood of Dissenters to instruct them in the Necessity of one Communion in Accidentals if they would continue Christians Nay he thought that altho they should be excommunicated yet even that could not cut them off from Christ's Body His Words are these As for the Act of Excommunication it neither shutteth out from the Mystical nor clean from the Visible Church but only from Fellowship with the Visible in Holy Duties But you it seems have considered this Matter better than Mr. Hooker and affirm That every Bishop and Presbyter shuts out of the Catholick Church by Excommunication And this leads me to the Notion of a true or sound Church And surely it was not impertinent
a Christian who is not in Covenant with God Wherefore according to you no Man can be a Christian before he has been received into a particular Church Nay further either every Christian as such has not a Right to communicate with all sound Parts of the Catholick Church or else he who is excommunicated tho for a wrongful Cause ceases to be a Christian But alas Sir it were endless to insist upon all the Advantages which I might take from your Assertions assure your self I have not wittingly shun'd the Encounter of any Thing that might look like an Argument for you many Things have had a particular Consideration meerly as they were yours And since for a more large Account of your exterminating Hypothesis you directed me to certain oracular Writings formerly publish'd I was willing to be at a little pains to pick out the choicest Flowers from every Place and having sorted them together to present you with a Nosegay out of your own Garden you know even the same Flowers yield some variety of Scent according to their different sortings Finding which before I was ignorant of that your Sermons were but the Gleanings of those Notions which you have been cultivating for some Years I have not the Vanity to believe that I should by the mispending a few Hours oblige you to condemn them and the Books out of which they were extracted for waste Paper Wherefore all that I can now expect besides the undeceiving some and provoking others to lay your Errors more convincingly before you is to have fairly rid my hands of this Controversy in which I shall not willingly engage further However if press'd to it I shall not decline the Honour as far as my mean Abilities and many Avocations will permit to vindicate the Catholick Doctrine of our sound and Orthodox Church from such Misrepresentations on this Point as tend to the giving Men ill Impressions concerning it And what I have already done perhaps may not appear more to answer the Obligation of Christian Charity to Dissenters than of Gratitude that indulgent Mother which requires nothing of me but what I can chearfully and readily obey Let Men teach no other Doctrine but what that warrants and very few at least will be likely to stray for better Edification Sure I am 't is not the Thundering of Damnation against Men that convinces them tho it may fright them out of their Wits They may listen to mild Instruction from one that not only preaches up humble Obedience to its Authority but practises it and had rather read an Homily to his Parish than have the Glory of leading a Sect after his profound Notions and of giving Authority to the severest Censures upon Men who are suffâ—ciently unhappy that they cannot conform The truly Pious and such both you and I ought to believe there are amongst them will as far as they are able submit to the Authority that is over them and in the mean while will use all diligence to inform their Understandings of the Lawfulness of what is required of them For them who are not so 't is enough that humane Law has made Conformity their Secular Interest and if that won't drive them within the Church-Walls nothing will And now Sir lest you or I should be carried too far in the heat of Dispute I shall instead of that Ghostly Counsel which you gave me in great Charity set down that of our good Church If any Thing be necessary to be taught reasoned or disputed let us do it with all meekness softness and lenity If any Thing shall chance to be spoken uncomely let one bear another's Frailty He that is faulty let him rather amend than defend that he hath spoken amiss lest he fall by Contention from a foolish Error into an obstinate Heresy As you seem careful to clear Novatianus from the Guilt of Heresy in believing that they who had once through Infirmity communicated with Idolaters could upon to Terms whatever obtain God's Pardon I cannot tell how far I may have offended beyond the hopes of yours tho I am Reverend Sir Yours to serve you ANONYMUS ERRATA PAge 34. line 32. dele sound P. 39. l. 6. read rigorously Ibid. l. 13. r. the Jews and Gentiles uniting Ibid. l. 17. r. Jews and Gentiles P. 71. l. 15. r. Divine-Right l. 16. dele Divine P. 73. l. 1. r. Faith Dr. Sherlock 's Letter to Anonym pag. 54. Sherlock 's Discourse of the knowledg of Christ 2d ed. p. 32. 43. See his Letter p. 55. Ibid. p. 57. Sherlock's Answer to Danson p. 6. His Letter to Anonym p. 33. Ibid. p. 57. Ibid. p. 5. Ibid. p. 53. His Letter p. 57. Pag. 56. Pag. 21 56. Pag. 53. Pag. 54. Pag. 48 50. Pag. 56. His Letter p. 50. Pag. 45. Anonymus's 3d Letter p. 26. Pag. 53. Pag. 54. Pag. 55. Luke 10. His Letter pag. 21. Pag. 49. Pag. 50. Vid. Preface to the three Letters Pag. 54. Preface to the three Letters Hooker's Eccles Pol. p. 332. Answer to Anon. p. 49. Resolut of Cases p. 10. Hooker f. 317. Ibid. f. 320. Questiones in Scholâ Theol. per G. Abbot edit 1598 p. 106. Res of Cases p. 9. Gods Coven is with the whole Body of Christians as united in one Communion Ibid. p. 30. Vindicat. of Def. p. 70. Resolut of Cases p. 37 38. His Letter to Anonym p. 35. Vid. his Defence and Continuat p. 534. Mr. Chillingworth's Pref. Vindic. of the Def. of Dr. Stilling p. 46. Vindic p. 38. Letter to Anonym p. 2. Vid. Dr Still The Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles p. 487. Vid. Mr. D's Reply to Mr. Baxter Resol of Cases of Consc p. 38 Vid. è contra B. Morton's Apol. Cathol p. 32 p. 40. Resol p. 31. Ibid. p. 5. N. B. VVhen I had charg'd the Consequence of your Opinion to be such as Church Governours please you opposed it not Vid. 3d Letter p. 28. Resol of Cases p. 5. Ibid. p. 33. Letter to Anon p. 8. Ibid. p. 41. Ibid. p 6. Ibid. p. 7. Homilies 2d Serm. of good VVorks f. 35. Or part of the Divine Covenant Rom. 14. 23. Vindic. of the Def. of Dr. S. p. 416. Ibid. p. 116. Letter to Anonymus p. 24. Page 7 Resol of Cases of Consc p. 48. Letter to Anonymus p. 7. Vid. Vindic. of the Def. p. 4.4 Letter to Anon p. 7. Homily f. 209 Pag. 8. Letter p. 8. Letter p. 8. Letter p. 9. Letter to Anon p. 9. Letter p. 4 5. Vindicat. of Dr. Stilling p. 4 5. Letter p. 10. Resol of Cases p. 7 22. Ibid. p. 42. Letter p. 10. Vid. Mr D's Reply to Mr. Baxter p 43 81 22. Vid. Def. of Dr Stil p. 369 Letter p. 11. Pag. 11. Ibid. Pag. 12. Answer to Anon p. 11. Ibid. p. 12. Letter to Anonym p. 4. Discourse concerning Church Communion p. 14 15. Ibid. p. 26. Viz. but one Church-Covenant Three Letters p. 13. Resol of Câ—ses p. â—5