justify the Pertinency of my Questions to you and shew II. What Cause I had to put you upon explaining your self concerning the Notions of Church-Communion My apparent Design being to do this you have no reason to blame me for not giving you your own Words with that dependance and connection in which the whole Strength of the Discourse consists for had that been never so well laid together I ought to believe it to proceed upon some false Ground as being contrary to those Notions which must be antecedent to the Belief of all revealed Religion You know one who thinks himself not concern'd what Consequences are charged upon his Hypothesis so that he prove it positively true Perhaps you may may be as confident of yours as he was of his 'T was enough for me to oblige you to speak plainly what your Notion was I must confess I did suspect it of D lism which indeed you overthrow in that Book to which you refer me for my Satisfaction but would establish one much weaker and with less shew of Reason That which made me suspect your Principle to be that way was Your asserting the absolute Necessity for every Man who lives here as he would be a Member of Christ's Body to communicate with the National Church because of its being a sound part of the Catholick Church To which end you held 1. That 't is as necessary for every Man to communicate with some particular visible sound Church as to be a Christian 2. That the only visible way God has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant which is the Divine Charter whereon the Church is founded and investing some Persons with Power and Authority to receive others according to the Terms and Conditions of the Covenant and by such Covenant-Rites and Forms of Admission as he is pleased to institute which under the Gospel is Baptism is under the Law it was Circumcision 3. That no Man can be a Member of the Church or in Covenant with God who is not visibly admitted into God's Covenant by Bapptism 4. That which makes any thing in a strict Sence an Act of Church-Communion is that it is performed in the Fellowship of the Apostles or in Communion with the Bishops and Ministers of the Church supposes that we ought to communicate with a sound Church whether it has Authority over us or no which wants no more to expose it than to retort some of your own Words For your way of arguing is as if a Man should say there is a divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates Therefore into whatever Government you come whether as Ambassador from a Foreign Prince or otherwise you are bound to live according to the Laws of that Government in every respect as much as a Native And for Foreigners to enjoy several Immunities from Taxes and the like is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Government But you are positive that Obedience to the Church of England is a Duty incumbent on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church That is they who ought to live in Obedience ought to live in Obedience which is a greater Blunder surely than my speaking only of Power and Censures when I was talking of Communion For surely the submitting to the Churches Terms of Communion is submitting to its Power Well however this Submission you say may be called a Part of the Divine Covenant Which gives me occasion to mind you of what our Homilies say about Obedience to Human Laws God hath appointed his Laws whereby his Pleasure is to be honoured His pleasure is also that all Mens Laws not being contrary unto his Laws shall be obeyed and kept as good and necessary for every Common-Weal but not as Things wherein principally his Honour resteth And all Civil and Man's Laws either be or should be made to bring Men the better to keep God's Laws that consequently or following God should be the better honoured by them Howbeit the Scribes and Pharisees were not content that their Laws should be no higher esteemed than other positive and Civil Laws nor would not have them called by the Name of Temporal Laws but Holy Traditions and would have them esteemed not only for a right and true worshipping of God as God's Laws be indeed but also for the most high honouring of God to which the Commandments of God should give place St. Paul speaking of those who scrupled eating some Meats upon their apprehension that they were unclean which he tells them was a causless Scruple in the Nature of the Thing tho not as to their Consciences assures them that He that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin If you will say this was spoke where there was no humane Law to determine its Indifference I desire you to consider whether such an Answer savours not of that Pharisaism which our Church condemns But certain it is if active Obedience in the Matter which one scruples which is Submission to the Power of the Church be or may be called Part of the Divine Covenant which unites us to God and to each other there can be no Suspension of Communion because of doubt but he is out of God's Covenant and must be damn'd continuing so who does not actually conform to those very Things which he conscienciously scruples nay and the Church may excommunicate him while he is under this Doubt For you know who teaches us that it is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical in its Terms that is as seems there meant which imposes nothing in it self contrary to God's Law can excommunicate schismatically Indeed the Excommunication according to that Notion does but declare the State he was in before for by not actually obeying that part of the Divine Covenant the Man was depriv'd of all other possible Means of Salvation agreeably to which the Defender of Dr. Stillingfleet says 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 which that Author plainly doth but immediatly before it makes the Communion of the Church absolutely necessary to Salvation This shews that my Consequence was rightly inferr'd when I argued That if Submission to the Power and Censures of the Church be part of the Divine Covenant then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no Right to any of the Benefits of being a Member of Christ's Body so it is with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures tho excommunicated for a slight Contempt or Neglect nay for a wrongful Cause Your Answer to this is of one who lives in England and renounces Communion
it is not the Duty of every one tho a licensed Stranger to communicate with this Church Now to avoid the Question here you have a pretty Notion whereby you would make French Protestants to have no Church calling them an Ecclesiastical Colony belonging to the Church abroad But all Church-Power being exercised amongst themselves here you have no more ground to call them an Ecclesiastical Colony in respect of the French Church than you may call ours so in respect of any other to which we might have formerly belonged especially since they cannot meet with the Mother-Church in France for Acts of Worship and therefore have your own allowed Distinction from that But if these refuse to communicate with our Church you make Schismaticks of them only excuse them as being exempted from the Jurisdiction of this Church But this you condemn as being contrary to the Practice of the Primitive Church and besides consider not what you said to Mr. Humphreys his Project nor your charging the Dissenters with Schism for not communicating with each other notwithstanding that one cannot pretend Jurisdiction over the other and so must be in the same case with those that are priviledged or exempted Wherefore the French Protestants are beholden to you for a good Lift. But taking it for granted that 't is the Duty of these French Protestants to communicate with our Church when ever they are required you take no notice of the Consequence from your Tenent which is that they ought notwithstanding an Exemption for else it follows that our Church is too streight in its Terms of Communion And you cannot surely but remember where we are taught That Vnion to the Body consists in Vnion to that Part which is next 2. But I ask'd you further Whether it does not follow from the Obligation to communicate or to be ready to communicate with any true Church where Distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with that Church but may occasionally communicate with the French Church nay with Dissenters too if he believes that any of their Congregations is a true Member of the Catholick Church Here I lie under your sore displeasure for turning your own Artillery upon you And you think No Man in his Wits ever understood this Question in any other Sence than that whatever Church I can occasionally communicate with I am also bound to communicate constantly with whenever such Reasons as are necessary to determine my Communion to a particular Church make it my Duty so to do And a very doughty Question this is for surely 't is beyond dispute that whatever necessarily determines my Communion to a particular sound Church makes constant Communion with it my Duty and is no more than that what makes it my Duty makes it my Duty But the Question is Whether any thing necessarily determines my Communion to a particular Church and what it is And thus I might leave you upon your Mistake of the Question But I think 't is demonstrable from what you your self say that the Place does not determine my Communion with a sound Church no not so much as ordinarily You distinguish between a State of Communion and Acts of Communion But unless a Man tho he has sufficient Opportunities may be in a State of Communion without any actual Communion I know not what is meant by saying No Act of Communion more peculiarly unites us to any particular Church than to the whole Christian Church and that 't is no Interruption of our Communion with the Church of England to communicate actually with any Church that is in Communion with it And yet a Member as a Member is in constant Communion Perhaps indeed if the Communion of Churches is suppos'd to be upon the Catholick essential Terms actual Communion with a Church which is in Communion with this is no Interruption or Suspension of Communion with this But admit now that the French Church which you say is in Communion with ours would be ready if required to hold communion with us in every Point wherein we may seem to differ but yet should keep up their separate Meetings or Assemblies and an English Protestant believing that he may receive most Benefit from their Preachers should never actually communicate with our Church but always with that would he be in a State of Communion with our Church or no And tho the Civil Power has made a Distinction of Parishes and some other Places appointed or allowed by its Laws in one of which it requires the Sacraments to be received at such and such times If they receive not in any of these Places will the receiving with the French Church justify them and free them from the danger of being excommunicated as Schismaticks If it will not as you must acknowledg then either the French Church is not in communion with us whereas you say they are in communion with us or else communicating with a Church in communion with ours is not a Communion with our Church Nay and you say that according to the Laws of Catholick Communion nothing but Distance of Place can suspend our Obligation to actual Communion But if I may communicate with the French Church as being in communion with us then the Place does not determine even my ordinary presential or actual Communion to ours nor does it yet appear what does But you offer at it when you tell us 't is separate Power and Jurisdiction which determines this Matter but separate Communion would be Schismatical But still what Jurisdiction can there be to oblige me contrary to the Terms of Catholick Communion which according to your own concession will suffer me to wander Is it the Civil Power as it unites us under a National Church Pray remember how you run Mr. Humphreys down upon the Supposition that the Civil Power should take off the Obligation to Episcopal Communion Is it the Divine Right Pray consider Mr. D. again and then you may think your self beholden to me for bringing your Notions under the Protection of so ingenious a Person In the mean while be pleased to shew wherein you differ from him when you suppose you have found a National Church antecedent to any Human Authority For this is either as you make the Union of the Bishops to be the National Church or the Union of the Clergy and Laity together If you make it to consist in the Union of the Bishops then certainly to make that antecedent to Human Authority you must betake your self to D lism at least you have not yet invented any other way who a working Head may do Wonders If the Union be of Clergy and Laity together then it is by Consent which is Humane Contract or Agreement and is the same with Humane Law by you exploded And Consent you say is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Society in one Communion But then this
Consent you hold to be necessary by a Divine Law And here indeed is Cardo rei Well then this Consent which is necessary by a Divine Law is either in Fundamentals only or in Fundamentals and Accidentals too Whatever Church differs from a sound Church in Fundamentals is certainly ipso facto cut off from Christ's Body without Excommunication But the Question is Whether if in Accidentals only the danger be the same Dr. Stillingfleet says it is not and you have not yet proved it is Indeed you talk very wisely of the Catholick Church which is the Root and Fountain of Vnity and was antecent to particular Churches But I would gladly know whether these Accidentals were antecedent too or whether it is not the Fountain of Unity only upon the account of the Fundamentals essential to it Speak home to this and shame all the Orthodox Writers before you and of this Age if you please Assure your self my concern was only to admonish your self and your unthinking Hearers of the Danger I conceiv'd to lie in your way If neither you will retract nor they distrust your Authority however I have discharg'd my self But it not being improper for me to make some Enquiry into the Political Constitution of a Church viz. as it is founded on Consent which as was before cited is all that is necessary to unite a Body or Society into one Communion Here 't is presumed that the Consent of the Minor Part is so included in the Major that every one is bound as he would avoid the damnable Sin of Schism to conform to that sound Church or particular Way of Worship which carries it by most Voices But suppose that according to Mr. Humphreys his Model several Ways should be left indifferent or that the Number of Voices should be equally divided or where there are three Negatives it could not be agreed by all three dividing by a National Act from a false Way of Worship which of the distinct Communions in the true Way should be the National Would not more than one Church in such case be consistent with one Civil Government And can it be made appear which of these is the Root and Fountain of Vnity according to your Cabalistical Terms to which the others ought to unite But suppose one of the Churches carries it by plurality of Votes and looking upon all others as Schismatical and therein as Heretical too should with the African Fathers deny these Schismaticks their Communion unless they should be re-baptized which you own to have been a Mistake in those Fathers Pray would they still continue Schismaticks who would refuse to come in upon those Terms Or would the prevailing Party which vigorously insisted on this be Schismatical But as you say that there ought to be but one Church and one Communion in one place and that Dissenters are Schismaticks in separating from each other as well as from the Church of England while they live in England I desire you to resolve me one Question which is this Whether the Christian Church at Rome gathered out of the Gentiles in the time of the Apostles or that distinct Church which was gathered out of Jews was the Church of the Place You will say No doubt that the Church gathered from among the Gentiles was the only sound Church But what think you then of those poor Jews who through the Mis-fortune of their Education were so wedded to the Jewish Rites that they thought them necessary to be retained along with Christianity which as you do probably they thought to be nothing else but mystical Judaism and would not communicate in those Christian Congregations which believed those Rites to be abolished by the Christian Religion Were these poor Men Schismaticks and as bad as Murderers and Adulterers If they were they might well argue that our Saviour introduced a very hard Law which not only obliged them to a severer Mortification of their Appetites and Desires but required of them upon pain of Damnation to act against their Consciences in those very things which they scrupled as they thought by Divine Warrant But as to their Case Dr. Stillingfleet tells us that It was agreed by all the Governours of the Christian Church that the Jewish Christians should be left to their own Liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extreamly hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Jewish Customs among the Jews themselves But if it had been absolutely necessary to Catholick-Communion that there should be but one Church in a place The Apostles who were the Governours would never have suffer'd this Which since they did I conceive it directly conclusive against your Notion Nor is it to be suppos'd that these Jews had no distinct Church-Officers For Timothy might have been over a Church of converted Jews being circumcis'd which for ought we know was for that very end Nay St. Peter himself withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles And as St. Paul told him would compel to wit by his Example the Gentiles to live as do the Jews But will you say as you must if you are consistent with your self that St. Peter was a Schismatick by this You say There cannot be any competition betwixt two Churches because there must be but one in the same place How far this agrees with the fore-going Instance you would do well to consider If in this matter I have fastened many absurd Proposions upon you t is not I conceive for want of due regard of my own Reputation or the common Principles of Honesty you well know the old Observation uno dato absurdo sequuntur mille 5. As to my Query about virtual Baptism you say You speak only of the necessity of visible Communion in visible Members And these you suppose not capable of Communion with the visible Church not being made Members But the Question is Whether they be not made Members of the invisible And if they be your Notion of the absolutle necessity of being visibly received into Communion falls 6. As to that of a profest Athiest you here place both him and a Schismatick in the same state of Exclusion from the Catholick Church Yet it may be a Question Whether by our unwary wording things you do not suppose that the Atheist is intituled to Acts of Communion but the Schismatick is not The first you seem to suppose to be in a State of Covenant with God For a Church-State and a Covenant-State you make the same thing And if it be not or that Baptism does not give us this you argue that then a Man may be in Covenant with God through Christ and yet be no Member of Christ or he may be a Member of Christ viz. as baptiz'd and yet no Member of his Body which is the Church Nay in your glorious Vindication you number Schismaticks among them
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
Wound in the Arm which does not sever it from the Body 'T is not every Quarrel or Contention agreeably to your Notion you might add tho it be such as the Apostle calls Schism which makes a Schism but the Breach of Christian Communion Let me desire you to consider whether by departing from the Scripture-Account of this misled perhaps by the Disputes of some of the Ancients thundring against each other you will not enter at least into the Confines of Donatism You say of those Hereticks They confined the Church of Christ to Africa and to their own Communion Mr. Chillingworth gives us a fuller Account wherein their Heresy lay in these Words That upon a vain Pretence of the Corruption of the Church they separated themselves from the Communion of other Parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary Condition to make a Man a Member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided It seems according to them to use your Words Tho a Church retained the Purity of the Faith and Worship and was so far true yet it was not every way sound and Orthodox nor a Catholick Church unless it observ'd those Conditions of Catholick Communion which were two 1. That it must be in Communion with theirs 2. That it must divide from all other Communions from which they are divided 1. For the first you teach us that The visible Vnion of all Churches in and to Christ consists in their visible Communion with each other and Communion with a particular Church which is it self in Catholick Communion is as necessary as Communion with the Catholick Church Whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church And if occasionally we communicate with some other sound Part of the Catholick Church in the same Communion we may do it without Schism so this be as owning our selves Members But an ordinary withdrawing upon a profest Dislike you make as destructive of a State of Communion as a formal Renunciation Wherefore as you hold that we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound Parts of the Catholick Church and that in other Matters besides the Agreement in all the Articles of Faith and Essentials of Worship it does follow that it must be in those very Matters which distinguish one Communion from another And the National Church being that sound Part wherewith every Christian here is to communicate herein you have found out a Root Fountain and Principle of Vnion or Beginning of the Catholick Church to which all particular Churches are or ought to be united and by virtue of this Catholick Vnity are one Catholick Church If it be ask'd What 't is which brings one with safety to this Beginning of the Catholick Church 'T is not humane Law as it has plac'd us under such a Government and Discipline and which makes the only Distinction of Churches you allow of but the Principles of Catholick Communion against which whatever Church offends you will not yield it to be sound and Orthodox And you assure us We have nothing else to do but to judg whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so sound and Orthodox that we may communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion If it be we are bound to communicate with it under peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not And consequently whatever Church refuses our Communion 't is not sound and Orthodox or any part of the Catholick Church as not retaining the true Principles of Catholick Communion Thus far Donatus might have gone taking it for granted that his Church was the Beginning of the Catholick Church 2. This first Point being setled 't is no wonder if it be likewise required that we must divide from the Communion of all that are divided from this sound part of the Catholick Church And methinks Donatus himself might argue That 't is evident the pretended Catholicks understand not the true Principles of Catholicism for if they did they would never proffer a Composition with us and yield that the surviving Bishop should govern these which are now distinct Communions They must own either that they are not any part of Christ's Body or else that we are not for 't is impossible that two Churches which are not in Communion with each other can both belong to the same Body And therefore the Obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks You in effect justify Donatus his Terms of Communion and when you say Their Churches were in all Things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion you as good as tell us he only mistook the Church which he should have made the Beginning of the Catholick Church If he had been with St. Austin he had been no Heretick for refusing to receive Hereticks into the Church without Re-baptization and damning all that were of a Communion divided from his or that would not consent to have them excommunicated who without proof had been accused of being Traditors But as you teach us that that Church is not sound which keeps not to the Principles of Catholick Communion Mr. Chillingworth shews wherein they swerv'd from that sound Principle The Condition of their Communion says he was both unnecessary and unlawful to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicism For ought yet appears Donatus and you are pretty well agreed in the Notion of Catholick Communion and of the Breach of this Unity wherein we are taught that the full Nature of Schism lies He with you confin'd the Influences of the Holy Spirit to this Vnity Yet whether he would have intreagu'd this Business of Church-Communion as you have done I cannot tell All the Sence which I can gather out of your Notion as the Leaf-Gold is spread out is this That to be a Member of the Christian Church and in a State of Communion with it 't is not enough to be admitted into the Church by Baptism nor to exercise any Acts of Communion with a particular Church unless it be in Communion with every sound part of the Christian Church and that so as to own your self for a Member of every such sound Church And tho you do own your self a Member as perhaps every one will that agrees in Essentials yet if you ordinarily withdraw from that sound Church where you are which must always be the only sound Church on the Place upon any profest Dislike or communicate with them that are of a divided and consequently a Schismatical Communion you forfeit your Membership even tho that other Church has nothing sinful in its Communion Which in one place you think enough to make any Church sound and Orthodox whereas in others
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
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
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