as you assert that Pope Victor in a Council Excommunicated the poor Asians what he did was only his own Act which was displeasing to other Bishops and which he was forc't to undo So that here was a great deal of Heat and Warmth and tendency towards a Schism but no Schism followed upon it among the Catholick Churches But suppose Pope Victor had Excommunicated the Asian Churches and this Excommunication had taken effect this could not make the Asian Churches Schismaticks for there is a great deal of difference between being cast out of the Communion of a Church and forsaking the Communion of a Church The first is matter of censure the second is our own choice the First is an Ecclesiastical Punishment the Second when it is causeless is Schism So that had the Church of Rome Excommunicated the Asian Churches unless the Asian Churches upon this had made a Separation from the Church of Rome this Excommunication could not make them Schismaticks and therefore any one might safely Communicate with them without partaking in a Schism Nor was it a just reason for the Asian Churches to have renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome though they had been Excommunicated by Victor for this had been to do as ill a thing as Victor had done for no other reason but because Pope Victor had set them an example And therefore we find Saint Cyprian of another temper when he and the African Bishops were threatned in the same manner by Pope Stephen upon occasion of that warm Dispute about rebaptizing Hereticks At that very time in his Epistle to Jubaianus he declares his resolution not to break Communion with any Church or Bishops upon that account and therefore not with Pope Stephen himself notwithstanding his rash and furious Censures And concludes that Patience and Forbearance was the best Remedy in such Cases and therefore upon this occasion he says he wrote his Book de bono Patientiae Well but if the Asiatick Churches were not Schismaticks yet Pope Victor had been a Schismatick had he Excommunicated the Churches of Asia or withdrawn Communion from them And this had made the case of the Roman Christians very hard for they must either have suspended Communion with both these divided Churches and lived without the comfort and advantages of Christian Communion or they must have rejected the Communion of their own Bishop and Churches or have rejected the Communion of the Churches of Asia or have maintained Communion with them both that is with two Separate Churches which according to my Principles is to Communicate in a Schism If they Communicate with their own Schismatical Bishop this is to Communicate in a Schism by Communicating with a Schismatick if they Renounce his Communion when he imposes no new unlawful Terms of Communion upon them this is to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church for the sake of a Schismatical Bishop If they Communicate with the Churches of Asia this is to break Communion with their own Bishop who has Excommunicated them if they separate from the Churches of Asia for no other reason but because they are unjustly Excommunicated this is to Separate for an unjust cause which is a Schism if they communicate with both they Communicate with two Separate Churches and therefore must be Schismaticks on one side or other If you can find any more difficulties in this matter you may And yet after all this I do believe the Christians of Rome might have Communicated both with the Roman and Asian Churches without Schism and this I believe upon these Principles which I shall briefly explain and confirm 1. That the Personal miscarriage of the Bishop in the exercise of Ecclesiastical Censures cannot involve his whole Church in the guilt of Schism though it may make him a Schismatick and certainly since Bishops are but Men and Subject to the like passions and infirmities that other men are it would be a very hard case if his personal Schism should be imputed to the whole Church Though the Bishop have the chief Authority in the Church yet it is hard to say that every abuse of his Authority is the Act of the whole Church and therefore the Church may not be Schismatical when the Bishop is and it is possible to Communicate with a Church whose Bishop is a Schismatick without Communicating in the Schism And therefore though Victor had Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches the Christians of Rome at that time might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without partaking in Victors Schism For tho a particular Church-Society consists in that Relation which is between the Bishop and his Clergy and People yet it is possible that the Bishop in the exercise of his Authority may violate the Fundamental Laws of Communion on which the Christians of such a Church unite into one Body and Society and when he does so it being an abuse of his Episcopal Authority it is his personal fault which cannot affect the whole Church The case is very plain where there is an Established constitution in a Church as it is in the Church of England which obliges the Bishops as well as People For should any English Bishop require any thing of his Clergy or People which is contrary to the Establish't Laws and Canons of the Church or should exercise any Authority in Censures and Excommunications which is not allowed him by those Canons this can in no sense be called the Act of the Church nor is any one bound to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between
as are above described Ans. Neither Atheists nor Schismaticks are Members of the Catholick Church But this is a vile insinuation against the Governours and Government of our Church as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion Though possibly there may be some Atheists yet I never met yet with one who would profess himself an Atheist If I should I assure you I would not admit him to Communion and I hope there is no Minister of the Church of England would and I am sure no Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would ask such a question 7. Query Whether as the Catholick Church is compared to a Body of Men incorporated by one Charter should upon supposition of a possibility of the forfeiture of the Charter to the whole Body by the Miscarriages of any of the Officers does it likewise follow that the Miscarriages of any of the Officers or the Church Representative as I remember Bishop Sanderson calls the Clergy may forfeit the Priviledges given by Christ to his Church or at least may suspend them As suppose a Protestant Clergy taking their Power to be as large as the Church of Rome claim'd should deny the Laity the Sacraments as the Popish did in Venice and here in King Johns time during the Interdicts quid inde operatur Ans. Just as much as this Query does the reason of which I cannot easily guess I asserted indeed that as there is but one Covenant on which the Church is founded so there can be but one Church to which this Covenant belongs and therefore those who divide and separate themselves from this one Body of Christ forfeit their right to this Covenant which is made onely with the one Body of Christ which I illustrated by the instance of a Charter granted to a particular Corporation which no Man had any interest in who divided himself from that Corporation to which this Charter was granted but what is this to forfeiting a Charter by the Miscarriages of Officers I doubt Sir your Head has been Warmed with Quo Warranto's which so affect your Fancy that you can Dream of nothing else I was almost afraid when your hand was in I should never have seen an end of these Questions and I know no more reason why you so soon left off asking Questions than why you askt any at all for I would undertake to ask five hundred more as pertinent to the business as most of these You have not indeed done yet but have a reserve of particular Queries but general Queries are the most formidable things because it is harder to find what they relate to than how to Answer them You have three sets of Queries relating to three several Propositions besides a parting blow of four Queries relating to my Text. The first Proposition you are pleased to question me about is this That our Saviour made the Apostles and their Successors Governours of his Church with promise to be with them to the end of the World Which I alledged to prove that when the Church is called the Body of Christ it does not signifie a confused multitude of Christians but a regular Society under Order and Government Now Sir is this true or false if it be false then the Church is not a governed Society is not a Body but a confused heap and multitude of Independent Individuals which is somewhat worse than Independent Churches If it be true why do you ask all these Questions unless you have a mind to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institutions but since I am condemned to answer questions I will briefly consider them 1. Whether our Saviours 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 the Apostles as Church-Governours For which you may compare St. John with St. Matthew Ans. No doubt but there are promises which relate to the whole Church and promises which belong to particular Christians as well as promises which relate peculiarly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church in the exercise of their Ministerial Office and Authority but what then Christ is with his Church with his Ministers with particular Christians to the end of the World but in a different manner and to different purposes and yet that promise there is peculiarly made to the Apostles including their Successors also for the Apostles themselves were not to continue here to the end of the World but an Apostolical Ministry was 2. Therefore Query 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 Ans. It seems to me to be a harder Query what this Query means or how it concerns that Authority which our Saviour has given to his Apostles for the Government of the Church to which this Query relates I asserted indeed that Christ hath made no Covenant with any particular but onely with the Universal Church which includes particulars as Members of it nor has he made any promise to particular Persons but as Members of the Church and in Communion with it when it may be had upon lawful terms Whoever breaks the Communion of the Church without necessary reason tho he may in other things be a very good natur'd man yet he has not true Christian Charity which unites all the Members of the same Body in one Communion and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans. There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans. The promise is that Christ will be with be them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any
Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that 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 In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans. It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty of Schism or to discover on which side the Schism lies or to avoid it without renouncing all Communion with the Church which course soever they take I leave all such Cases to God who knows when it is fit to dispence with his own Laws and will take care of my own Duty according to Scripture-Rules and not hope to justifie the ordinary breach of known Laws by some extraordinary Cases And yet the Case which you propose is not so unanswerable a difficulty as you imagine Several Councils in Palestine in Rome in Pontus and other places Determine the Celebration of Easter on the day of the Resurrection not on the Fourteenth Day of the Month which was the Jewish Passover which dispute you call a Mistake in Arithmetick but for what reason I know not the Bishops of Asia at the same time decree the observation of Easter on the Fourteenth Day whatever Day of the week it fell on according to the Ancient Observation of the Asian Churches Pope Victor upon this writes to several Bishops very bitterly against them and was very desirous to have them Excommunicated and did as much as in him lay denounce the Sentence against them But this was ill resented by other Bishops in Communion with him and particularly Ireneus wrote a Letter to him about it and earnestly disswades him from it and did prevent it from taking effect if we will believe Eusebius So far is it from being true
the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear nor suspend Communion with the Asian Churches unless they will justifie this Schismatical Excommunication The Jurisdiction of a particular Bishop is confined within the Bounds of his own Church and every Christian is Subject to the Authority of the Church where he is and therefore though the Roman Christians at Rome cannot receive the Excommunicated Asians to their Communion without the Authority of their Bishop yet when they are in Asia where the Bishop of Rome has no Authority over them they may and ought to joyn themselves to the Communion of the Asian Churches during their abode among them if the Asians would receive them without Commendatory Letters from their Bishop which they could not have in such a case as this Thus Sir I have considered the Case you put about Pope Victors Excommunicating the Asian Churches which is not a real but a feigned Case for there was no actual Schism upon it as I perceive some body had told you there was And yet supposing it had been so I have shewn you how the Roman and Asian Churches might have maintained Communion with each other and that the case of private Christians was not so desperate as you represent it Your following exceptions concerning National Communion and National Churches and the possibility that there should be several Sound and Orthodox parts of the Church at the same place have been sufficiently considered already and you twit me so often with my repetitions that though I find you want very
Christians or Members of Christs Body I make no inquiry by whom they have been Baptized or whether they were rightly Baptized or not but taking all these things for granted I inquire whether Baptism do not make us Church-Members whether it makes us Members of a Particular or Universal Church whether a Church-Member be not bound to Communion with the whole Catholick Church whether he that separates from any sound part of the Catholick Church be not a Schismatick from the whole Church whether we be not bound to maintain constant Communion with that particular Church in which we live and with which we can when we please Communicate occasionally whether it be consistent with Catholick Communion to communicate with two Churches which are in a state of Separation from each other if you have any thing to say to these matters you shall have a fair hearing but all your Queries which proceed upon a mistaken Hypothesis of your own do not concern me and yet to oblige you if it be possible I shall briefly consider them 1. Your first Query is Whether a Pious Dissenter supposed to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Power is in as bad a condition as a Moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist Ans. The Catholick Church has been so indulgent to Hereticks and Schismaticks as to determine against the Necessity of Rebaptization if they have been once though irregularly baptized This you may find a particular account of in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 22. c. But the question is whether if they continue Schismaticks whatever their other pretences to Piety be their Condition be not as dangerous as the Condition of Moral Heathens and Papists 2. Whether the Submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which Vnites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other Ans. This is a captions question which must be distinctly answered A general Submission and Obedience to the Authority and Censures of the Church though it cannot properly be called a part of that Divine Covenant whereon the Church is founded which primarily respects the promise of Salvation by Christ through Faith in his Bloud yet it is a necessary Church Duty and Essential to Church-Communion and so may be called a part of the Covenant if by the Covenant we understand all those Duties which are required of baptized Christians and Members of the Church by a Divine positive Law as Obedience to Church-Governours is But then Obedience to the Church of England is not an universal Duty incumbent on all Christians but onely on those which are or ought to live in Obedience to this particular Church for the particular exercises of Church-Authoritie and Jurisdiction is consined within certain limits as of necessitie it must be and though all Orthodox Churches must live in Communion with each other yet no particular Church can pretend to any original Authority over another Church or the Members of it as is the constant Doctrine of Protestants in opposition to the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But I perceive Sir you know no difference between the Authority and Power and the Communion of the Church But you add If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the benefits of being a Member of Christs Body so is it with every one who is excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful cause Truly Sir I know not how any man is admitted into the Church of England any otherwise than as he is admitted into the whole Catholick Church viz by Baptism which does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal Church which Obliges us to Communicate with that part of the Catholick Church wherein we live and whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church And whoever is Excommunicated from one sound part of the Catholick Church is Excommunicated from the whole But then there is this difference between Excommunication and Schism the first is a Judicial Sentence the second is a Man 's own Choice the first is not valid unless it be inflicted for a just cause the second is always valid and does in its own nature cut Men off from all Communion with Christs Body I say in its own Nature for I will not pretend to determine the final States of Men for I know not what gracious allowances God will make for some Schismaticks no more than I do what favour he may allow to other Sinners But you proceed If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this Sound Church This is another Horn of your formidable Dilemma If Obedience to the Authoritie and Censures of the particular National Church of England is no part of the Divine Covenant then those Baptized Christians who live in England are not bound to the Communion of the Church of England and may be Catholick Christians for all that As if because the Subjects of Spain are not bound to obey the King of England therefore English Men are not bound to obey him neither but may be very good Subjects for all that We are bound by the Divine Law to live in Communion with all true Catholick Churches and to obey the Governours of the Church wherein we live and therefore though Obedience to the Church of England be not a Law to all the World yet it is a Law to all English Christians inhabiting in this Church But your way of arguing is as if a Man should say It is a Divine Law to obey Civil Magistrates but there is no Divine Law that all the World should obey the King of England France or Spain therefore French or English Subjects are not bound to obey their own Prince Oh what comfortable Doctrine is this to some Men You proceed But you will say which I think is not much to the question that he ought to Communicate if Communion may be had Yes I do say this and I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that it is much to the question But then Query whether the Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to Communicate if the Communion be not clog'd with some things which are no part of the Divine Covenant Yes they may replie so if they please or Anonymus for them but whoever does it the replie is very weak and impertinent It is weak because Obedience to Authority in all lawful things is in a large notion part of the Divine Covenant And it is very impertinent because the Supposition of Communicating where Communion may be had
supersedes that Query For Communion cannot be had where there are any sinful Terms of Communion and though I assert that the Church must be founded on a Divine Covenant I never said that nothing must be enjoyned by the Church but what is express'd in that Covenant A Corporation which is founded upon a Royal Charter you know may have Authoritie to make By-Laws which shall oblige all the Members of it and so are Terms of Communion with it and yet it is the Charter not these By-Laws whereon the Corporation is founded I was not concerned to Examine the Terms of Communion that is and will be done by other hands but supposing nothing Sinful in our Communion whether all Christians that live in this Church are not bound to live in Communion with it Q. 3. Your next Query concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself without any immediate Derivation from other Church-Governours which does not at all concern my Doctrine of Church-Communion for whether it be so or so still we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound parts of the Catholick Church so Church-Authoritie be Derived from Christ any way it is well enough but then we must be sure that it is so and if Christ have appointed no ordinarie way for this but by the hands of Men who received their Authoritie immediately from himself I know not who can appoint any other way But may not a Lay-man preach the Gospel and gather a Church in a Heathen Country where there is none of the Clergy to do it I suppose he may and if you please to consult the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleets Unreasonableness of Separation p. 331 c. you will finde this case largely debated But it seems it doth not satisfie you that this be allowed onely in case of Necessity for then up start two other Queries 1. Whether this will not put the being of our Church upon a very hazardous issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a true Church before the Reformation Ans. This is no hazard at all for the Church of England was certainly a true though a corrupt Church before the Reformation as the Church of Rome is at this day A true Church is that which has every thing Essential to the being of a Church though mixt with such other Corruptions as make its Communion dangerous and sinful as a Diseased Man is a true Man and remove these Corruptions and then it is not onely a true but a sound Church as the Church of England is at this day And if you will not allow this I doubt Sir all private Christians will be at as great a loss for their Baptism as the Church will be for Orders But the case of a True and Sound and Catholick Church if you please you may see Stated in the same Book to which I referred you before And thus your second Query is answered that though this Church was Antichristian before the Reformation yet there was not the same Necessity for private Christians to usurp the Ministerial Office without a regular Authoritie as there is for a Lay-man in a Heathen Nation because an Antichristian that is the most corrupt Church retains the Power of Orders as well as of Sacraments As for that Independent Principle that Christ has instituted a Power in the Church to ordain her own Officers you may see it Examined in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr. of Sep. p. 306 c. But what now is all this to me I don't charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but for their causeless and sinful Separation Let us suppose that they have no need of any Orders or that such Orders as they have are good or that they had Episcopal Orders and were Governed by Bishops of their own as the Donatists were yet they would be never the less Schismaticks for that while they separate from the Church of England and from each other If Orders be necessary and they have no Orders then they are no Churches at all if 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 4. Q Whether from the Supposition that there ought 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 do's not follow Ans. Fair and Softly let us first consider the Suppositions before we consider what follows from them for you have so mis-represented so eurtailed these Propositions and so mixt and blended things of a different Nature that it is necessarie to restore them to their true Sense and proper Place again before we can tell what follows I asserted that the Christian Church is founded upon a Divine Covenant and since God hath made but one Covenant with mankind in Christ Jesus therefore there can be but one Christian Church throughout the World founded on this one Covenant Having explained the general notion of Church-Communion which signifies no more than Church-Fellowship and Society that to be in Communion with the Church is to be a Member of the Church I came to enquire what made a Separate Church For if there be but one Church and one Communion of which all true Christians and Christian Churches are or ought to be Members then those Churches which are not Members of each other are Separate Churches And for a fuller explication of this I observed several things I. That there must be but one Church in one Place Because there is no other Rule of Catholick-Communion but to Communicate in all Religious Offices and all Acts of Government and Discipline with those Christians with whom they live For to Renounce the Ordinary Communion of Christians or true Christian Church is to divide the Vnity and Communion of the Church and to withdraw our selves from Ordinary Communion with the Church in which we live into distinct and separate Societies for Worship is to Renounce their Communion and when there is not a necessary cause for it is a Schismatical Separation And a little after I added If all Christians are Members of the one Body of Christ nothing can justifie the distinction of Christians into several Churches but onely such a distance of place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops for the greater Edification of the Church in the more easie and regular Administration of Discipline And therefore nothing can justifie the gathering a Church out of a Church and dividing Neighbour-Christians into distinct Communions Now then let us consider what follows 1. You say either that the French Protestants have no church here but are Schismaticks in not Communicating with ours