who you say shall at the last day be judged not as Infidels but as wicked and Apostate Christians 7. The seventh Query which goes upon that Ground which you give and do not yet recede from for the Belief of your lodging Church-Power so with the Clergy that they who conform not to them or who incur their Displeasure would be in a woful Case you answer only with a Scoff but say not whether the Clergy are the Church Representative or whether what I urge would follow from that Supposition or no. These were the general Questions and whether most of them were impertinent or are now fairly answered 't is for others to determine From hence I am obliged to follow you to my three Sets of Queries as you call them relating to sveral Propositions and the parting-blow of four Queries relating to the Text. Because of my asking Questions concerning your Sense of our Saviour's Promise to his Apostles which you seem to suppose to go along with Church-Governours in Succession as distinguish'd from the Body of Christians and without allowing private Christians that share which the Words of the Promise import you intimate my designing to confute our Saviour and burlesque his Institution But to use mostly your own Expressions if my design of Charity and to deliver that blessed Institution from the Freaks of an Enthusiastick Fancy and to expound it to a plain and easy Sense such as is agreeable to the Vnderstanding of Men and worthy of the Spirit of God be to burlesque Scripture I acknowledg the Charge To my first Qustion Whether our Saviour's Promise of Divine Assistance did not extend to all the Members of the Church considering every Man in his respective Station and Capacity as well as to the Apostles as Church-Governours You answer That there are Promises which relate to the whole Church and Promises which belong to particular Christians as well as Promises which relate particularly to the Apostles and Governours of the Church Well for the comfort of us poor Lay-men there are some Promises which relate to us It being so then I may well ask 2. Whether it signifies any thing to say there is no Promise to particular Churches provided there be to particular Persons such as are in Charity with all Men and are ready to communicate with any Church which requires no more of them than what they conceive to be their Duty according to the Divine Covenant You think it hard to know what this Query means But surely 't is material to know whether or no such Men may be saved otherwise than under Church-Governors And truly you tell us pretty plainly I wish for your own sake it had been a little more covert that such have no Promises but as Members of the Church that is of the visible Church under Church-Officers if you answer to the purpose You add indeed When Communion may be had upon lawful Terms I hope this implies that 't is possible the Terms may be unlawful Which yields me my fourth Question upon this Matter But it likewise yields That if the Terms are unlawful private Christians are entitled to these Promises tho not visibly admitted into a Church-State which is contrary to what you all along drive at But it seems however your Charity to these Men who think the Terms such as they ought not to comply with is so great to believe them guilty of Schism as adhering to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority out of Pride and Opinionativeness which God alone can judg 3. The third Query is Whether if the Promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governors it will not exclude the Civil Power To which you answer That the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power are very distinct but very consistent But such a Power in the Church-Officers as would make them the Church-Representative and prevent a National Reformation tho by the Civil Power is of another Nature Nor do you think fit yet to declare what the Power is which you would have lodged in Church-Officers But for fear you should go beyond your Warrant in this Matter I shall mind you of what our Church teaches us which is that We must not think that this Comforter was either promised or else given only to the Apostles but to the Vniversal Church of Christ dispersed through the whole World And speaking of Christ's Promise that the Spirit of Truth should abide with them for ever and that he would be always with them he meaneth saith our Church by Grace Vertue and Power and that it says was indifferently to all that should believe in him through their the Apostles Words that is to wit for his whole Church To my Inferences from the second Proposition which I consider apart You make such an Answer as if we had been at cross Purposes For my Questions were grounded upon your asserting without any limitation That 't is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians And indeed it is but a Golden Aphorism wherein you epitomize a great Part of your Discourses on this Subject And you answer That the Independents are out in their way of gathering Churches and that we separated not from the Papists upon their Principles Which is nothing to the purpose But you do confess indeed that we may separate from any Church of baptized Christians if their Communion be sinful But wherein the Difference lies I know not except by Separation you would only have a withdrawing from Communion but will not allow the setting up a distinct Church-Communion be the Cause of withdrawing never so just Which unless you mean I hope you will be so ingenuous to confess this was not so warily worded and so sound as might have been But if you have a Patent to make Words signify what you please besides their natural and presumable Intendment to make generals particular or vice versâ much good may it do you provided they afford you not a Loop-hole for the most uncharitable Censures Yet give me leave before I quit this to demonstrate that you have not answered fairly in restraining this as if spoke only of Independents These were your own Words When there is one Church within the Bowels of another a new Church gathered out of a Church already constituted and formed into a distinct and separate Society this divides Christian Communion and is a notorious Schism This is the plain case of the Presbyterian and Independent Churches and those other Conventicles of Sectaries which are among us They are Churches in a Church Churches formed out of the National Church by which means Christians who live together refuse to worship God in the same Assemblies Pray Sir would you have me fancy some general Scope and Design which no Man can understand from the Words you utter in any particular Place This I suppose may satisfy reasonable Men that all my Queries under this Head
consequently ought to be done when fit Circumstances concur yet not being enjoin'd as the necessary Means to Salvation when such Circumstances are wanting the actual Exercise is not required yet it does not follow that therefore 't is indifferent What the Judicious Hooker says of Baptism is doubtless equally applicable to the other Sacrament and all the Parts of the Office of the Ministry That God saith he hath committed the Ministry of Baptism unto special Men it is for Order's sake in his Church and not to the end that their Authority might give being or add force to the Sacrament it self To this purpose I did before cite the deservedly esteemed Authors Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Tillotson and their Forerunner Mr. Chillingworth yet certainly this does not overthrow the Necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church It were an easy matter here to make a pompous shew of Reading I shall only observe to you that some of my Questions related to the supposed absolute Necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism others to the Authority of them who administer it Indeed that of the Lord's Supper was not mentioned by me because as you had handled the Matter the chief Dispute was about the forming of a Church and Church-Communion which you tell us is something antecedent to all the Acts and Offices of Communion I must tell you I had my Warrant for such Interrogations as I made upon both Heads from very great Lights in our Church Mr. Hooker when he was to argue against the Dissenters of his Time found them to stand much upon the Authority of their Ministry which they contended to be by Divine Right and that others could not duly administer the Sacraments Now tho that great Man asserts That it hath been constantly held as well touching Believers as Martyrs that Baptism taken away by Necessity is supplied by desire of Baptism and to Children by a presumed Desire Yet he chiefly addresses himself to prove That Baptism by any Man in case of Necessity is valid which he says was the Voice of the whole World heretofore But a learned Oxford Professor Mr. George Abbot in a Theological Lecture there de Circumcisione Baptismo goes to prove it unlawful for any of the Laity to usurp upon the Ministerial Office in this because Baptism is not absolutely necessary in it self He concludes his elaborate Reading thus Interea tamen ista sunt quae hodiernâ oratione accepistis Externo Sacramento non sic astringi alligari Dei gratiam ut sine ipso salvare aliquando nolit Ideoque diffidenter quoad Deum audacter quoad se Faeminas Laicosque facere qui baptizare aggrediuntur Tertiò tamen cum sigillum sit impressum non esse iterandum Fifth Article The fifth Article which is not so explicit as the foregoing of being guilty of Deism Socinianism and what not is laid but as a Consequence of the former wherefore that Imputation being wip'd off I fear no Man's charging me with this And to deal as plainly with you as you I think you have done with me I should have expected this sooner from another Man Whatever you or I say the World will judg whether he is most likely to be guilty of Deism undermining Christianity and contemning all revealed Religion who calls your Opinions in question or he who will argue that it is as necessary to communicate with every sound Part of the Catholick Church as with any and that one is as much obliged to communicate as a Member with some particular visible sound Part as to be a Christian and that not only by joining in the Purity of Faith and Worship for that he tells us Hereticks might do but in all other Acts or Terms of Communion And that notwithstanding the Efficacy which God Almighty has promised to a true lively Faith in the Merits of Christ Jesus it is as necessary to Salvation to know which of the Churches divided in Accidentals is in the right and with which we are bound to communicate rejecting all divided Communions for Schismatical as it is to be of the Christian Religion Such sort of Mediums must needs do as great Disservice to Christianity as counterfeit Miracles to the true and he who imposes the Belief of both as of equal Authority or under equal Necessity to my thinking bids prety fair for the undermining and contempt of all For Socinianism not knowing upon what account I should come to be caution'd against it I should think it used meerly as a Term of Reproach to be given of course when a Man is angry and wants better Arguments were it not that perhaps you might do it designedly to prevent my joining in that Charge which others have in this respect undertaken to make good against your self and crying Whore first as they say would oblige me to find another Addition for you Truly I shall not go about to retort it not being at leisure to tell you wherein you may seem not to have answered fully or to have slighted many Things as Buffoonry which have been very closely as well as acutely urged I shall only observe upon good Authority that the Socinians give themselves a greater Liberty of enquiring into the Modes of Existencies and the Nature of Divine Mysteries than becomes short-sighted Mortals And if other Men equally full of themselves happen to differ from them when they adventure upon their own way of explaining those sublime Truths which retire to be the Objects of our Admiration rather than of a distinct Perception If the Scripture-Account which the Homilies of our Church afford them be look'd on as too great a stinting of their Spirit of Enquiry they have no great reason to expect that God's Grace should be engaged to protect them from dangerous Errors seeing they attempt to be wise above what is written And perhaps he who will reproach as magical any Notion of the Union of true Believers with Christ Jesus and with each other which does not agree with his Political Scheme or with the visible Connection of the Parts of a natural Body may take to himself as dangerous a Latitude and then we need not wonder if he apply to the Church of Christ what he has observed of a natural Body Viz. That the Vnion of every Member with the Body is its Vnion with that part of the Body which is next c. Had he but made Provision for the Cloaths too and had argued that that part of the Body which is naked cannot be united to that which is cloathed it might have come up more fully to his purpose of proving a necessity of Union in Accidentals as well as in Essentials Pray the next time you see our loving Friend W. S. tell him so much is expected from him Having said what I conceiv'd fitting for an Antidote against the spreading of your Reflections upon me I shall here
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
are not impertinent The third which was still under the same Head tho you would divide it was this Whether as in the Primitive Times there was but one Bishop and consequently one Church in a City there are not now as many Churches within the National as there are Bishopricks To which you answer Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church Well then how does that agree with the Primitive Rule from which in another place you had occasion to argue And you know to mention no more St. Ignatius who liv'd in the first Century says Every Church has but one Altar and one Bishop with the College of Presbyters and the Deacons which Bishop the People with the Magistrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay and Caesar himself must obey Now except you will make all the Bishops and the Arch-Bishop of York but Pastors to the Metropolitan of Canterbury it may be a Question how that Rule would hold good here And how will this correspond with what you say in the Book you would have your Notions tried by where you say Every particular Bishop is the supreme Governour in his own Diocess When according to this he would be but one of the College of Presbyters And that seems in your own Sence to have been the Heresy or Schism of the Novatians that they would pretend to a Bishop of their own independent upon him whom the Catholicks supposed to have been lawfully possest of the Church And you know in that case Occupancy is adjudg'd to be a good Title But then you say Every Bishop has relation to the whole Christian Church and is to take care of Neighbouring Churches and therefore those Bishops should govern their Churches by mutual Advice and Counsel But suppose they will not any more than one Prince will be governed by the Advice of his Neighbour do not you make Independent Soveraigns of them But admit the Civil Power should not interpose to the uniting of them 4. Would not that which was the fourth Query prove to be not very impertinent Which is Whether it is more absurd that there should be Independent or Presbyterian Churches within the National than that there should be so many Bishopricks But further as the Primitive Fathers made Schism to be in a dividing from the Bishop that is as you will have it were it only upon the account of Accidentals tho St. Ignatius particularly goes upon a Schism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dividing from Truth How even upon the Notion of dividing in Accidentals will he that divides from one Bishop but yet communicates with another be guilty of Schism 5. And then my 5th Supposal which you here admit that the Independents or Presbyterians have among them sufficient Church-Officers and Power as much as clears them from the Imputation of Schism as it does that Bishop and his Flock who will not be impos'd upon by his Neighbouring Bishop but will have Rites and Ceremonies different from the other and with which he expects that all should comply that communicate at his Altar And if it be lawful for him to determine indifferent Circumstances and external Solemnities you know 't is necessary to make them the Terms of Communion 6. Then the 6th Query relates to the Charitableness of your Censure of such honest-minded Men as communicate with them Where you say Indeed you know not what Allowances Christ will make for the Mistakes of well-meaning Men. Tho else-where as I have shewn you deprive them of all the means of Salvation The Queries upon your Supposition that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new Covenant no part of the Baptismal Vow I need not take any great pains to re-assert 1. The first was Whether any Obstacle to Catholick-Communion brought in by Men may not be a means of depriving Men of it as well as Covenant or Contract 2. If it may which you do not deny will you not upon this account make our Church more guilty than the Independants Baptism you own is the only thing which admits into the Catholick Church but they require no new Covenant at Baptism ergo they admit into the Church without any clog or hinderance of human Invention Now you who it seems have been better acquainted with the ways of Separation than I can pretend to deny my Minor and say that they baptize no Child but of such Parents as were in Church-Covenant with them Having no time to be at present instructed in their way I will admit all this to you and will admit them faulty But then the Question is Whether your Argument will not equally concern our Church For it being put as I do it just after concerning an Adult Person that would be received to Baptism he finds this Rite of Admission instituted by our Church Upon which he scruples 1. Whether the Rite of Admission into this Church being made necessary to his Admission into the Catholick Church the Rite ought not to have been only of Divine Institution 2. Whether the Canon declaring that 't is used as a lawful outward Ceremony and honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of him who died upon the Cross there is not according to the common and natural Intendment of the Words as much Efficacy ascribed to this Rite as there is to Baptism it self of which our Church Catechism hath it Wherein I was made a Member of Christ the Child of God and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven Wherein seems here of like Signification with whereby and to be so taken by our Church when it says By holy Promises with calling the Name of God to witness we are made lively Members of Christ when we profess his Religion receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Wherefore Quest 1. Whether such a Man may not honstly scruple this 2. Whether it ought to be made a Term of Communion to such an one 3. Whether in such case the enjoying this under a Penalty would not sufficiently answer the end of Church Government without making it a Term of Communion which you suppose necessary in every lawful Injunction But waving this till you know my own Exceptions against the Sign of the Cross which 't is not likely I shall ever have occasion to except against upon my own account or my Childs since I think there can be no Magick in it to affect the Infant You would avoid the Suspition of yielding to the like Accusation against our Church with that which you set up against the Independents by this Distinction That the Independent Church is schismatical in its Constitution for admit this an unlawful and sinful Term of Communion yet say you the Frame and essential Constitution of the Church is not Schismatical But except you yield to me that a matter enjoyn'd tho it be not sinful in its own nature may be so to the Party of whom 't is required and
call this a sinful Term in that Respect be pleas'd to consider again how a Church commanding things sinful and admitting none into Communion with it but upon those sinful Terms can avoid the Imputation of being Schismatical in its Frame and essential Constitution any more than the Independents for requiring a new Church-Covenant If you say the Church may quit those Terms and still continue a sound Church so may they and yet continue Independent But if I ought to learn my Catechism from our Church it self rather than from any Doctor in it I should think that whereever there is any Congregation or Fellowship of God's faithful and elect People built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Head Corner-stone that must be such a Church as cannot possibly differ in its essential Frame and Constitution from any other sound Church But when you say 'T is impossible that a Church which is not Schismatical should excommunicate Schismatically 't is worth enquiring whether you mean That tho it does enjoin Terms sinful and unlawful in themselves and excommunicate them who cannot comply in such Matters it has by that exercise of its Power of the Keys deprived those Dissenters of Catholick Communion as not being Schismatical in its essential Frame and Constitution Being excellent good at leaving out the Force of any Question to which you are loth to give a direct Answer you say my three first Queries relating to the meaning of the Text come onely to this Whether every particular Church may not be called the Body of Christ Whereas it was Whether it might not be an entire Body And you yield my Question yet you say all the Churches in the World are but one Body and must be but one Communion Which if you will allow to be by virtue of a mystical or spiritual Union need not be disputed Yet it being a Question Whether you would yield a particular Church to be a proper Body of Christ why might I not ask Whether it may not at least be taken so in a Metaphorical Sence And surely you who have been charg'd to turn the Priesthood of our Saviour from proper into Metaphorical might well enough understand what I meant by this Word But if you consider the Force of the Question upon the Text it is to know your Warrant for arguing that it is always Schism to refuse the Communion of any sound Church where-ever you find it whether it has Authority over you or no from a Text which only charges Schism upon Members of the same particular Church or Body of Christ with which they did actually communicate For my 4th Query from the Text of the Nature of Schism you condemn me to the Drudgery of examining the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet But as you speak not directly to it I shall here take it for unanswered yet I shall not deny it some Consideration in its due time But thus you say you have honestly answered all my Queries in my first Letter And truly the Judgment of Charity obliges me to hope that you have according to the Intention of your own Mind And yet 't is a very difficult thing to believe that you should not have discernment enough of your self to see through all your false Colours If they are Errors of your Understanding I hope God will not call you to so severe an Account for them as you threaten to well-meaning Dissenters My second Letter you may if you please term peevish for conjuring you as a Protestant Divine to answer my Doubts categorically and that without referring me to what Mr. D. or any profest Papist had writ on that Subject But perhaps very few Men that observe the Neighbourhood of the Doctrines through Mediums not far differing leading to the like End will much condemn the Caution which I there gave you Wherefore to vindicate my self to you I shall give a taste of your Agreement with Popish Mediums And since you disown D lism shall as much as conveniently may be strip your Positions of what is directly his way And perhaps it will not seem improbable that you should have borrowed some of those Arguments which I look upon as tending to or proceeding from Uncharitableness from the Author of Charity maintained by Catholicks His Labour is to prove all Protestants Schismaticks because they withdrew from the Communion of the visible Church that is in his Sence the Church of Rome and those that were in Communion with her And he cites St. Austin to prove That not a diverse Faith but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismaticks From whence he argues That the Catholick or Universal Church is one Congregation or Company of Faithful People and therefore implies not only Faith to make them faithful Believers but also Communion or common Union to make them one in Charity which excludes Separation and Division He goes on By the Definition of Schism may be inferred that the Guilt thereof is contracted not only by Division from the Universal Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocess which agrees with the Universal You would prove That Men as they would avoid the Sin of Schism must communicate with the National Church or with some Church that is in Communion with it and reject the Communion of all other Parties and Sects of Christians Indeed you will say that you qualify it if the National Church be sound that is if there be nothing sinful in its Constitution and Worship Yet 't is a Question whether your Arguments go not as far as the Jesuit's For you suppose with him that there must be some particular Church with which we must communicate under Church-Officers Or to use your own Words We must of necessity join in the actual and visible Communion of the Church Suppose the Dissenters say with Mr. Chillingworth We don't leave the Church but only its external Communion You look upon that as absurd and wonder that they should assign Reasons why they cannot communicate with us and yet at the same time will not own that they have made any Separation Nay you affirm That for two Churches to renounce each others Communion or at least to withdraw ordinary Communion from each other from a profest Dislike and yet still to continue in a State of Communion with one another is a downright Contradiction Well be it so then it seems Protestants by withdrawing from the Communion of the Romish Church put themselves out of a State of Communion with the Christian Church just as Dissenters do Yet our great Champion thought he had furnish'd us with a litle Armour which might repel all the Jesuit's Batteries and could not understand it to be a Contradiction to say One leaves the Church by ceasing to be a Member of it by ceasing to have those Requisites which constitute a Man a Member of it as Faith and Obedience But we leave the external Communion of
for me to desire you to define what you meant by it when considered as Catholick and Universal when in a more restrained Sence seeing as I had shewn you seem to have no other Idea of it but as particular visible nay and that national too or at least as being the only true Church within the Nation or City where one resides Here I shew'd that you applied that to the Visible National Church which belongs to the Invisible as well as Visible Church where it lay not upon me to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible Church 'T was enough to have shewn that you had no ground for what you had said from the Text which will not bear that restraint And the same thing is obvious of what you call my Attempt to prove Congregational Churches from 1 Cor. 14. 23. For how can you prove that one ought to communicate with the National Church and not communicate with any other Congregation from what proves no more than that you ought to meet in some publick Place of Worship even according to your own Argument in the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet which is no beter than to argue that because you must go to some Church therefore you must to this Not being concern'd for Congregational Churches more than others I should not give my self the trouble to examine what you say against them did not you oblige me to a small Diversion to observe how wonderfully you prove that it is very plain that the Apostle in 1 Cor. cap. 14. means no more but that all the Members of the Church do worship God in the publick Assembly of the Church tho not all in the same Assembly and Congregation where to oppose aright you should have made it in those publick Assemblies which meet together in one place for there is no doubt but successive Assemblies must be meant or else there could be no Provision for more than one Meeting and then how can you without begging the Question maintain that when the Women are commanded to keep silence in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might not be spoke of several successive Assemblies still in one place Nor are you more happy in encountring the difficulty upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You say indeed it is very plain that it does not always signify one place And who says it does when Circumstances determine it another way but how can you affirm it to be so here without still begging the Question For your purpose you instance in Acts 4. 26 27. The Kings of the Earth stood up and the Rulers were gathered together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Lord and against his Christ c. This you say well signifies no more than an Agreement and Conspiracy in one Design But would not the most proper Inference from this Quotation be that as a Conspiracy may by a Figure be called a Meeting together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore t is not to be proved from that Text which prohibits a forsaking the assembling together that those who live in a Church need actually to assemble together but if they agree in the same Lord the same Faith the same Baptism they may be said to gather together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You cite another Text Acts 2. 44. And all that believed were together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed this signifies no more then that they were together and being together may be granted not to refer to their religious Assemblies but their common Abode but what is this to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If therefore the whole Church come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where one would think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not added for nothing but must signify the same place And to my thinking there is another Passage in this Epistle to the Corinthians which regards them as a Church that used to assemble together in one place which is where the Apostle directs them to excommunicate a notorious Sinner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When ye are met together and my Spirit c. Do you think that there was any need of a Miracle to pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication and that it must be done in the very same moment in distant Congregations I may be bold to say that neither Scripture nor the Homilies take notice of your fancied Catholick or National Communion If you say that what we find in the Homilies to this purpose being spoke in a Church already constituted must relate to the present Constitution so may it be said of the Apostle's Exhortation to that Church to which he wrote which for ought yet appears was a single Independent Congregation Yet it may be a Question whether such Limitation can be supposed to have been intended in the following Words which you may read in the Homilies Churches are not destitute of Promises for as much as our Saviour Christ saith Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst among them A great number therefore coming to Church together in the Name of Christ have there that is to say in their Church their God and Saviour Christ Jesus present among the Congregation of his faithful People by his Grace by his Favour and godly Assistance according to his most and comfortable Promise Now concerning the Place where the People of God ought to resort together and where especially they ought to celebrate and sanctify the Sabbath-Day that Place is called the Temple or Church because the Company or Congregation of God's People which is properly called the Church doth there assemble themselves The holy Patriarchs for a great Number of Years had neither Temple nor Church to resort unto In the time of Christ and his Apostles there were no Temples nor Churches for Christian Men for why they were always or for the most part in Persecution Vexation and Trouble so that there could be no Liberty nor Licence obtained for that purpose yet God delighted much that they should often resort together in one Place c. But then speaking of the building of Churches afterwards it says And to these Temples have Christians customably used to resort c. True it is that the chief and special Temples of God wherein he hath greatest Pleasure and most delighteth to dwell are the Bodies and Minds of true Christians and the chosen People of God according to the Doctrine of Holy Scriptures c. Yet this notwithstanding God doth allow the material Temple made with Lime and Stone c. How far this agrees with your Notion That such Temples of God cease to be so if they are divided from or shut out of these material Temples I cannot see nor how you have brought your Notion of a Church into Conformity with the 19th Article which I before mentioned but you thought fit to
the same which you suppose Victor 's to have been you say was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those Days who separated from each other as Mr. Chillingworth has it of them Divers times it hath happen'd as in the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius that particular Men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued Difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other Herein you agree with that great Champion that however they maintained Communion with the Catholick Church Yet how that is possible upon your grounds I cannot imagine But it seems poor Tertullian and his Followers were not worth your Pity and you would not vouchsafe them a taste of your Skill I should think upon your own Principles since two Churches which are not in Communion with each other cannot both belong to the same Body or the one Catholick Church that the Bishops with their Followers on the one side or other were extra Ecclesiam foris The Contradiction which I charged you with about occasional and constant Communion you would avoid by affirming that you no-where assert that the Communion of the Church does not make us Members of any particular Church you having added as such These Words I find elsewhere explained by as distinguish'd from the Vniversal Church And a little before you had said that this Membership may extend to the remotest Part of the World if the Body whereof we are Members reach so far This I think comes up to what I urg'd which I find no reason to retract I had produced Mr. Chillingworth to prove that it may happen that one is not obliged so much as sometimes to communicate with a sound Part of the Catholick Church because you live where there is such an one And this because such a sound Church may impose upon you the Belief of some Error not destructive of the Faith or some unnecessary Conditions of Communion if not unlawful And you Sarcastically call me a subtil Arguer for calling such a Church sound as if it might not however be sound in its Vitals and such an one as our Homilies would call a true Church Surely you do not consider what Advantage you give Dissenters in this But however a Man of your Parts knows how to bring himself off in any case And methinks 't is a wonderful Instance of your Art that what Mr. Chillingworth says in opposition to the Necessity of communicating with a corrupt Church having all the Face of Authority and that however Christ may have a visible true Church on Earth a Company of Men professing so much as was necessary to Salvation should be turned into his meaning a formed and visible Church-Society and pleading for the corrupt Church when he was justifying the Separation of private Christians When I had said that if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation it could not blame Men for dividing from it you say The Church could and would blame Men in such case and whether you do not put the Church in Christ's stead may be worth a Thought The last Passage in my Letters which you thought worth your Notice was this He who tells us or he says nothing that the Divine Spirit confines his Influences to the Vnity of the Church in such Conformity not only makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation but imputes to the Church the Damnation of many thousands of Souls who might expect to be saved upon other Terms I am persuaded that there are very few of our Orthodox Clergy that will not concur with me in this and think that whoever makes such Conformity necessary to Salvation and will affirm that our Church warrants him in so doing brings the greatest Reproach upon it and gives the greatest Advantage to Separation imaginable and therefore will be far from thinking that he encourages the Dissenters in their Non-communion with us who removes so great a Bar to an entire Communion Before the Book of Common-Prayer there is a Declaration the Authority of which I hope you will not dispute which is That some Ceremonies are retained in our Church for a Discipline and Order which upon just Causes may be altered and changed and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's Laws Where I take it the Reason why they are not to be esteemed equal with God's Laws is not meerly because of their Mutability for God's own positive Laws have been changed but because they are enjoined only for Discipline and Order some Determination of which may be necessary to Government tho not to Christianity This I conceive may be a good Warrant for the above-mentioned Remark To serve which as you did that of the Divine Covenant you would have it spoke in relation to those that live elsewhere in any part of the World But as to them who live here to whom the Subject Matter related you do own that Subjection to Church-Authority in all lawful Things that is such Conformity is necessary to the Vnity of the Church and necessary to Salvation Tho some may not know what Idea to form of the Church of England distinct from other sound Churches but as incorporated with the State and relying on a Civil Sanction you cautiously confine this Question to Church-Authority Wherefore admitting that our Bishops have possession of the Churches by a Right antecedent to any Humane Authority and consequently may exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction within their respective Diocesses without any such Authority What will you say to that Statute which enacts That all Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm or any of the King's Dominions consecrated and at this present time taken and reputed for Archbishops and Bishops may by Authority of this present Parliament and not by virtue of any Provision or other Foreign Authority c. keep enjoy and retain their Archbishopricks and Bishopricks in as large and ample manner as if they had been promoted elected confirmed and consecrated according to the due Course of the Laws of this Realm Was this impertinent or presumptuous But as that very Act permits them to minister use and exercise all and every Thing and Things pertaining to 〈◊〉 Office or Order of an Archbishop and Bishop Quere Whether our Saviour himself did not set the utmost Bounds of their Power when having commissioned his Apostles to teach all Nations baptizing them he adds as it were by way of necessary Caution teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you How extensive soever the Civil Power is it may be a Question from hence What Right they who claim to be lawful Successors to the Apostles have to command Things not forbid by Christ without being tied up to his positive Institutions And how comes it to pass that they who are entred into Christ's Church by Baptism and continue in the Profession of his pure Religion
uncharitable But to bring Compurgators of such whose Friendships as they are dulce decus meum so they are praesidium too against such fatal Miscarriages would but expose their venerable Names to such Usage as I have met with But be that never so hard for once I will set an Example to a Clergy-man and shew that I can contain my self after all these causeless Calumnies tho you cannot bear to be told of the Truth Wherefore I shall calmly shew I. How groundless both your open and imply'd Accusations are against me II. What cause I had to put you upon explaining your self III. How unsatisfactory your Explanation is in its own Nature So much of your Charge as I am concern'd to answer particularly resolves it self into these general Heads 1. My Want of Love to the Church of England and taking part with Dissenters out of Zeal for their Cause or Vain-Glory 2. That I have a Spite at the whole Order of Clergy-men and disown part of the Power of Bishops 3. That I designed to affront Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Tillotson 4. That I discover a Contempt of all Church-Authority and think the Church it self an insignificant Thing 5. And lastly That I am guilty of Deism and Socinianism And That my Principles tend to undermine Christianity and to the Contempt of all revealed Religion First Article In the first Article you would argue me guilty of Hypocrisy in pretending to be in constant Communion with the Church of England when I want that Love for it which is essential to Union and Communion with it or of a great deal of Vanity in labouring to shew my Wit in the Defence of a Cause which I my self know to stand in need of Wit and Artifice But if it happen that the Church of England is no more concerned in your Censures than perhaps you may think your self to be in the Doctrine of its Articles or Homiles And that it gives you no warrant to call the Dissenters Schismaticks and such as are deprived of the Influences of the Divine Spirit while they scruple Conformity My taxing you with want of Charity towards Dissenters will be as far from the suspicion of such a Zeal for them as implies a Dis-esteem of our Church or such a Defence of their Cause as may be imputed to Wantonness or Vanity that it may be more like the Act of that Samaritan who took care of the poor Man who had been most barbarously used by Thieves and could meet with no pity from the Priest and the Levite who past by on the other side Whatever you think of this Matter I am bold to affirm that our Church no-where warrants your Assertions either in its Articles Homilies or Canons Indeed in the Canons of King James the Authority of which as to us Lay-men I need not here enquire into I find Schismatici mentioned in some of the Titles but not in any of the Canons to be sure by no means applied in your manner But then you tell me No Man who had any kindness for the Church with which he pretends to hold Communion would make such a vile Insinuation as if profest Atheists were admitted to Communion But certainly there may be a profest Atheist tho he doth not profess himself so at the time of his communicating for want of that Euphemia which one cannot greatly offend against by one single Word of no ill signification I am sure you of all Men have no reason to press hard upon me in this Particular Third Article That I may be depriv'd of the Patronage of two such great Luminaries of our Church as Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Tillotson you tax me with a Design of affronting Dr. S. and dealing with the other great Man at the same rate Secret Things belong to God but I am sure you could have no Revelation from above of any such Design nor can any thing that I have said look that way Assure your self I cited the Words against the absolute Necessity of Church-Communion whence you ground your Reflection in the same Sence as I receive them which is in their utmost Latitude but by no means as if they would set aside all Government in the Church But you are certainly guilty of the Affront against them if you think there is any harm in the Quotations or as if I expose their Failings thereby I will not here return upon you That you never spare any Man's Reputation to serve your Design c. which would come as properly from me as it did from you But when you were upon such Authorities you would have done well to have reconciled your self to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sence of Schism which if his Judgment be valuable in competition with Dr. Sherlock's lies not in a voluntary Departure out of any particular Church but the true Catholick Church And the Reason which he gives for it is the Ground which I go upon If you will teach me my Catechism better in this Point I am very ready to learn Fourth Article The fourth Article has many in the Belly of it for under the supposed Contempt of Church-Authority are in your Sence contained 1. The thinking the Church it self an insignificant Thing and that no causeless Separation from it can be a Schism 2. A despising the Evangelical Priesthood as you call it 3. The looking upon the Sacraments as very indifferent Ceremonies 1. In the first you as is usual with you would take advantage of your own Confusion in blending together the Notion of the Catholick and of a particular Church For tho one may think that it signifies not much or is not one's Duty to communicate with every particular sound Church yet it is no doubt always his Duty to communicate actually or in Inclination with the Church of Christ in that which essentially constitutes it his Church Nay and there may be a Schismatical Separation even upon the account of lesser Matters But my Question is Whether there may not be a Separation causeless in the Nature of the Thing occasioning it tho not in relation to the Party's Conscience who scruples it and that without Schism But as Dr. Stillingfleet rightly distinguishes between what is necessary to Salvation and what is necessary to the Government of the Church my receiving his Sence has sufficiently anticipated and removed this Imputation unless you will fix it upon him too 2. But for the second If by an Evangelical Priesthood you mean such as is necessary to offer up Sacrifices for us I know of no such upon Earth by the Gospel-Institution 3. For the third which may take in what may seem omitted on the foregoing Head I desire to be inform'd what one Passage has faln from me which looks like an excusing the Contempt or Neglect of the Sacraments or of them to whom ordinarily it belongs to administer them Yet methinks you do not duly consider that a Thing may be one's Duty by virtue of a positive Command and
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
when the Question is of withdrawing or refusing because of real Scruples which you will have to be an adhering to their own private Fancies and to proceed from Pride and Opinionativeness because they don't believe as the Church believes But then you say in general Terms Whoever is excommunicated from one sound Part of the Catholick Church is excommunicated from all Whether this be upon the Supposition that every sound Church is bound to ratify the Censures of another and that he who divides from his Bishop's Altar divides from a Mystical Head answering to the Jewish High-Priest as is taught by him from whom you borrow the Notion That Christianity is nothing but Mystical Judaism perhaps one may know hereafter But if a Man excommunicated from one sound Part be as you would have him by consequence cut off from the whole Catholick Church that Church to the Unity of which you say the Influences of the Divine Spirit are confined to what purpose is your Distinction between a Judicial Sentence and an Act of a Man 's own Choice For you suppose the Man chuses that which justifies the Sentence And how can you say you will not pretend to determine the Final State of Men Whereas he who dies after such a Sentence unrestored to the Church-Communion dies in a Condition as you tell us depriv'd of all the Influences of the Divine Spirit and consequently of all Means of Salvation And 't is but small Comfort for such a Man that the Church did not design his Damnation Because the Church casts no Man out of a State of Salvation that this excludes them from a State of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. As if you should say that when you cast an innocent Man out of your Ship into the vast Ocean where he is sure to perish that this excludes the poor Wretch from the State of Life is not your Act but God's Truly Sir how much soever you may slight the way of asking Questions I think it better to ask you Whether you believe a Man thus put out of the State of Salvation by God himself can be sav'd of his own natural Power without the Influence of the Divine Spirit which it seems he is depriv'd of by a fallible Sentence than to charge you with Pelagianism when you think you determine nothing of the Man 's Final State But I am sure Our Church teaches us that It is the Holy-Ghost and no other Thing that doth quicken the Minds of Men stirring up good and godly Motions in their Hearts which are agreeable to the Will and Commandment of God such as otherwise of their own crooked and perverse Natures they should never have The other Horn of my formidable Dilemma as you slightingly call it you avoid with becoming Caution and supposing it to be aim'd against all manner of Obligation to Communion with this Church take not its real Force which is That if this Submission or Obedience be no part of the Divine Covenant then it may so happen that a Man living here may be a Member of the Catholick Church tho he is not in Communion with this sound Church To which you give not the least colourable Answer And I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that the Supposition that he ought to communicate if Communion may be had is not to the Question Whether this be part of the Divine Covenant or no For if it be part of the Divine Covenant then I must confess 't will not be a sufficient Excuse that the Submission is not neglected or contemn'd for it ought to be actual whatever be the Scruple especially if the Thing enjoined be not unlawful in it self tho it be in the Conscience of the Party But then to the Query Whether Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to communicate if the Communion be not clogg'd with some Things which are no part of the Divine Covenant You say The Reply is weak and impertinent because Obedience in all lawful Things is in a large Notion part of the Divine Covenant and the Supposition is of communicating where Communion may be had Now the Question being put of their scrupling the Lawfulness I leave it to your self to consider whether our Church does not condemn this Opinion as Pharisaical 3. The third Head or Query which concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself you suppose not to belong to you But surely at first sight before one hears your learned Answer one would think it strange how it should come to pass that you should admit the Dissenters to have full Church-Power amongst them and yet charge them with Schism for not communicating with us while you suppose that whoever communicates with them will be guilty of Schism Methinks Mr. D.'s Ground of charging them herein as much more plausible which is That they are Schismaticks in dividing from them who derive all Church-Power within this Nation from our Saviour and his Apostles exclusively of all others But pray is the Church-Power in the hands of our Conformists by reason of the Divine Law or because of the Civil Law which makes them the governing Part If it be by reason of the Divine Law Mr. D. is in the right notwithstanding all that you say against him If it be by the Civil Law then the Reason why I ought to communicate with Conformists and not with Dissenters is by reason of a Difference made by Human Laws And then see if you can answer what you say against Mr. Humphreys his peaceable Design of uniting the Episcopal Men Presbyterians and Independents under one Civil Government where you say If the Evil and Sinfulness of Separation consisted only in Obedience to Humane Laws I should think it a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But in Answer to my Question You own that a Lay-man may preach the Gospel where there is none of the Clergy But since you here set aside the Question of the Derivation of Power from under our Saviour and his Apostles or from the Divine Law how come dissenting Ministers to be Schismaticks for preaching the Gospel or they not to be Schismaticks who refuse to communicate with them even where they require no Terms of Communion not only not unlawful but perhaps which are no way differing from what Christ himself requires The first Query here was upon supposition that you would in no case allow a Church to be gathered without a constant Succession of Church-Ministers which tho you deny to follow from your Doctrine is but the Consequence of many of your Assertions particularly of these two 1. That it is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of baptized Christians and divide Neighbour-Christians into distinct Communions 2. That there cannot be two distinct Churches for distinct Communions in one City or Nation Taking it
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
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
straggle into a Church which is not in Communion with our Bishops This Confinement to one Bishop you must say upon your grounds would be contrary to the Nature of Catholick Communion but we have your Authority for it that the other is not Yet it seems if Presbytery should have the Advantage of Authority they who refuse Communion with the National Church upon pretence of purer Ordinances and the Belief that Episcopacy is the Ordinance of God must be as bad as Murderers and Adulterers that is very Schismaticks And judg you whether 't would not be a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But here you take notice of a Passage or two in my Preface The one That perhaps it is no Absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it tho not fundamental and necessary to its Being as he who incurs the Penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil Affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason or other Capital Crimes This you answer by a begging and indeed mistaking the Question and will have it of a Schismatical Separation which you elswhere express by renouncing Communion And this you may compare to Treason and Rebellion in the State if you think fit But the Church is not much beholden to you for making that in which Conformity is expected fundamental and necessary to its Being And when you compare a Man that communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another to a Man that joins sometimes with his Prince's Forces and sometimes with his Enemies the Comparison is either very impertinent or very uncharitable in supposing that a Church which differs from this in what is really accidental how essential soever you make it is Antichristian or an Enemy to Christ which surely no true Church is yet I must confess herein you agree with your self when you say There may be a true Church which is no Catholick Church that is no true part of the Catholick Church I add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular Places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws distinct from the Common-Law of the Land without making a distinct Government This you condemn without vouchsafing it a fair Hearing as nibling at that Healing Project for which you think you have sufficiently exposed Mr. Humphreys But I shall chuse the Protection of the great Protestant Champion Mr. Chillingworth and if you are resolved to wound him through my Side I will bear the Brunt of it as well as I can To reduce Christians to Unity there are but two Ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away Diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion the other by shewing that the Diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no Hinderance to their Unity in Communion The first he looks on as not likely without a Miracle What then remains says he but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set an higher value upon those high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree than upon Matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that Agreement in those ought to be more effectual to join them in one Communion than their Difference in other Things of less moment to divide them When I say One Communion I mean in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith wherein all consent a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual Performance of all those Works of Charity which Christians owe one unto another And to such a Communion what better Inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joined with a Love of Truth and holy Obedience was sufficient to bring Men to Heaven For why should Men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any Man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation To the same Sence is the Passage I had in that Preface cited out of Dr. Tillotson's Sermon and you may as well ask him as me Is the Catholick Church then and Communion of Saints no part of our Creed Your Notion of Communion is a new Article But to re-assert what I had observed of your managing the Charge of Schism I had said People might not well understand what it is unless it be taken to lie wholly in want of Charity And in the Errata to avoid the Cavil of its being common such as we have for all Mankind I had added the Epithete of Christian I say further to my thinking as St. Paul speaks of it He supposes a continuance still of the same Body and ascribes it to Christians continuing such nay and communicating with each other And this you were not able to deny nay you well know that not only the Thing but the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had by that Apostle been applied to such Hence you would argue That I will not allow causless Separation from a sound Part of the Catholick Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity But 't is obvious that I do it no more than the Apostle himself does But besides it induces the Belief that Schism is not such a Crime as you imagine For if the Corinthians were Schismaticks whilst they continued in Communion with each other and yet were particular Members of Christ's Body then Schism does not cut off from Christ's Body nor do you rightly apply the Addition of Apostate Christian Further by what Authority do you apply that to a refusing Communion with any sound Church whatever upon your supposed Notion of Catholick Communion from a Text which mentions no other Schism but what was between them who liv'd in the same Communion And still beyond all this it seems demonstrable from the Text that the Causa formalis or that which constitutes Schism is not Separation tho it be causless unless it be accompanied with want of Charity For since there may be Schism where there is no Separation of Communion then it must be something which consists with joint Communion and find out something besides Want of Charity if you can The Apostle's Notion of Schism we have seen but I wonder by what Authority you affirm'd That Schism is nothing else but a Breach of Christian Communion and that where the Vnity of the Church is broken by distinct and opposite Communions there is the full Nature of Schism and where this is not there is either no Schism or only a partial Schism which is like a great
Presbyters of another I take leave to inform you that the Stat. 14. of this King cap. 4. has provided that every Person which was not then in holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination or should not be so ordained before a Day prefixt should be utterly disabled and ipso facto depriv'd from all manner of Ecclesiastical Promotions and that none for the future should be admitted to any such Promotion nor should presume to consecrate and administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless Episcopally ordained The Penalty indeed is not made to extend to Foreigners of Reformed Churches allowed here but quere whether the Declaration of Disability does not If you say by the Lutheran Church you mean only those religious Societies of Lutherans which are in Sweden and Denmark under Bishops or at least that have Superintendents or Generales ordained and ordaining Episcopally which surely some Lutheran Societies want you may avoid the Consequence as to such and all others of the Reformation which are without Episcopal Orders by denying them to be Christian Churches if you please for then indeed it would not follow from your condemning such Societies that you thereby refuse Communion with a sound Church This brings me to our Churches Sence and Application of this Matter O says it how the Church is divided O how the Cities be cut and mangled O how the Coat of Christ which was without Seam is all to rent and torn O Body mystical of Christ where is that holy Unity out of which whosoever is he is not in Christ If one Member be pulled from another where is the Body If the Body be drawn from the Head where is the Life of the Body We cannot be joined to Christ our Head except we be glued with Concord and Charity to one another For he that is not of this Unity is not of the Church of Christ which is a Congregation or Vnity together not a Division St. Paul saith that as long as Emulation or Envying Contention and Factions or Sects be among us we be carnal and walk according to the fleshly Man And St. James saith If ye have bitter Emulation or Envying and Contention in our Hearts glory not of it for where Contention is there is Vnstedfastness and all evil Deeds And why do we not hear St. Paul which prayeth us whereas he might command us I beseech you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you speak all one Thing and that there be no Dissention among you but that you will be one whole Body of one Mind and of one Opinion in the Truth If his Desire be reasonable and honest why do we not grant it If his Request be for our Profit why do we refuse it And if we list not to hear his Petition of Prayer yet let us hear his Exhortation where he saith I exhort you that you walk a becomes the Vocation in which you be called with all submission and meekness with lenity and softness of Mind bearing one another by Charity studying to keep the Vnity of the Spirit by the Bond of of Peace For there is one Body one Spirit one Faith one Baptism There is saith he but one Body of the which he can be no lively Member that is at variance with the other Members There is one Spirit which joineth and knitteth all Things in one and how can this Spirit reign in us when among our selves we be divided There is but one Frith and how can we then say He is of the Old Faith and he is of the New Faith There is but one Baptism and then shall not all they which be baptized be one Contention causeth Division wherefore it ought not to be among Christians whom one Faith and Baptism joineth in an Unity If all Differences in Opinions be here forbid as cutting Men off from Christ's Body it may be said perhaps that Schism cannot possibly be avoided But what seems intended by the Apostles and by our Church is That notwithstanding such Differences Men should be united in the same Faith by the Bond of Charity which you may call a magical Vnion when Men divide from each other in their Opinions if you please Certain it is neither the Scriptures nor our Church speak of dividing Communions yet there is no doubt but that may be Schism in a divided Communion which is in a joint And whoever want true Christian Charity they are the Schismaticks whether in communion with a Visible Church or withdrawing from it Having shewn what Account the Scriptures and our Church give of Schism it may not be improper to shew in what sence it has been taken by some of the greatest Eminency in our Church I had before shewn how Dr. Stillingfleet had defended our Church against the Imputation of Schism in dividing Communion from the Papists and how the Primitive Fathers ought to be understood when they write of this That Schism did not lie in a voluntary Departure out of any particular Church upon the account of any Thing extrinsecal and accidental Christian Charity to be sure is essential I shall only subjoin the Testimony of Mr. Hooker and if I have these two on my side I shall think my self sufficiently well back'd The Apostle affirmeth plainly saith he of all Men Christian that be they Jews or Gentiles bond or free they are all incorporated into one Company they all make but one Body the Vnity of which visible Body and Church of Christ consisteth in that Vniformity which all several Persons thereunto belonging have by reason of that one Lord whose Servants they all profess themselves that one Faith which they all acknowledg that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated The Visible Church of Christ is therefore one in outward Profession of those Things which supernaturally appertain to the very Essence of Christianity and are necessarily required in every particular Man Let all the House of Israel know for certain faith Peter that God hath made him both Lord and Christ even this Jesus whom ye have crucified Christians therefore they are not which call not him their Master and Lord. But this extraordinary Person could not think himself obliged in Charity to his own Soul and to deliver himself from the Guilt of the Blood of Dissenters to instruct them in the Necessity of one Communion in Accidentals if they would continue Christians Nay he thought that altho they should be excommunicated yet even that could not cut them off from Christ's Body His Words are these As for the Act of Excommunication it neither shutteth out from the Mystical nor clean from the Visible Church but only from Fellowship with the Visible in Holy Duties But you it seems have considered this Matter better than Mr. Hooker and affirm That every Bishop and Presbyter shuts out of the Catholick Church by Excommunication And this leads me to the Notion of a true or sound Church And surely it was not impertinent
Letter to Anon p. 14. Vindic. of the Def. of Dr. Stil p. 360. Page 16. Page 18. Resol of Cases pag. 15. Letter p. 15. Pag. 15. Pag. 20. Defence of Dr. S. p. 585. Page 566 supra Vid. Preface to the 3 Letters Vindic p. 24. Vindic. of the Defence p. 14 Dr Stil of the Mischief of Separ p. 172. Gal. c. 2. 13. Vers 14. pag. 18. Answer to Anonym p. 21. Resol p 6. Vindic. of the Defence of Dr. Still p. 62. Vid. 3 Letters to the Dr. p. 8. Letter to Anon p. 22. Vid his Answer to Owen in his Defence of the Discourse of the Knowledg of Christ p. 107. Letter to Anon. p. 23. Vid. Query 4. Letter to Anonymus p. 24. Letter to Anonym p. 24. Homily concerning the Holy-Ghost f. 212. Letter to Anonymus p. 25. Vid. the Case of indifferent Things Resol of Cases of Consc p. 21. Letter to Anonym p. 46. S. Ignatii Ep. Defence of Dr. Stilling p. 568. Vid. Vindic. of the Def. p. 57. Vid. Mr. D 's owe Priesthood Def. of Dr. S. p. 568. Letter p. 10. Dr. p. 26. Ignat. Ep. ad Phil. Vindic. of the Defen p. 433. Vid. Pag. Pag. 27. Vid. proved from Dr. Still Mischief of Separat Homily of swearing f. 47 Pag. 29. Homilies f. 213. Vid. his Def. and Continuation p. 119. Vide Chilling-worth cap. 5. Page 39. Page 38. Reply p. 34. Reply p. 22. Pag. 23 Chillingworth p. 265. Resol p. 30. Page 31. Vindicat. of Dr. Stilling p. 116 117. Letter to Anonimus p. 32. Vindic. of the Def. of Dr. Stil p. 6. Resol of Cases pag. 2â— Page 13 Page 7. page â—7 page 44. Letter to Anonym p. 26. Resol of Cases of Consc p. 5. Letter to Anonymus p 30. Page 30. Letter to Anon p 31. Answer to Anon p 31. Resol of Cases of Consc p. 38 Viâ—â—ic of the Defence p. 5 Ibid. Vid Preface to the 3 Letters Vindic p 70. Letter to Anon p. 32. Chillingworth ed. anno 1664 f. 187. Letter to Anon p. 50. pag. 33. Resol of Cases p 47. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Letter to Anon p. 33. Defence of Dr. S. p. 59. Ibid. p. 60. Defence of Dr. S. p. 61. Chillingworth f. 151. Vindic. of the Defence p. 70. Ibid. p. 51. Ibid. p. 59. Letter to Anonym p. 7. Resol p. 29. Resol p. 23. Letter p. 9. Resol p. 19. Vindic. of the Defen p. 23. Ibid. p. 26. Resol of Cases p. 27. Resol p. 19. Answer to Anonym p. 45. Ibid. p. 15. Vindic. p. 70. Chillingworth f. 151. Def. of Dr. S. p. 60. Resol p. 43. Resol of Cases p. 12. Answer to Anon p. 33. Resol p. 13. Answer p. 17. Resol p. 13. Pag. 29. Page 7. Page 9. Page 11. Page 28. Vindic. of the Def. p 6. Resol p. 38. Resol p 9. Resol p. 35. Resol p. 14 15. Letter to Anon p. 16. Answer to Anon p. 18. Ibid. p. 19. Resol of Cases p 8. Vindic. of the Def. p. 70. Def. of Dr. St. p. 139. Resol p. 22. Ibid. p. 10. Resol p 16. Answer to Anon p. 10. Vindic. p. 50. Ibid. p 46. Vindic of the Defen p. 396. Vindic p. 90. Ibid. p. 91. Ibid. p. 100. page 104. page 1â—7 Resol p. 43. Vindic. of the Defen p. 725. Resol p. 25. Vindic. of the Def. p. 396. Ibid. p. 148. Page 338. Defence of Dr. S. p. 332. Homily against Contention f. 9. Vid. where it places the Unity Sects for Doctrine as well as distinct Communion Vid. Mr. Hales of Eaton his Tract of Schism in his Remains edit Anno 1673. Vid. Prefaced to the 3 Letters Eccles Polit. f. 83. Answer to Anonymus p. 5â— Eccles Polit. f. 88. Def. of Dr. St. p. 208. Vid 3 Letters p. 18 23. Letter to Anon. p. 34. Def. of Dr. Stil p. 393. Ibid. p. 394. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 5 v. 1â— Hom. for reparing to Churches Hom. of the place and time of Prayer fol. 126. Dr. Stilling Ibid. p. 127. Ibid. Fol. 120. Vid. Pref to 3 Letters Hom. f. 213. 9th Article Homilies Vindic. of Dr. Still p. 116. Hom. f. 213. Resol of Cases pag. 6. Pag. 10. Hom. of the Sacram. f. 205. Homily of the right use of the Church f. 9. Pag. 51. Pag. 36. Hen. Gutherit p. 235. Socrat. lib. 5. f. 695. Antigonus Palaeologus Letter p. 36. Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 9. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph One Priesthood one Altar p. 253. Resol p. 25. Resol p. 43 Chillingworth f. 255. Letter to Anonym p. 42. Vid. Preface to 3 Letters Answer to Anonym p. 45. Letter to Anon p. 45. Three Letters p. 26. Page 46 Page 14. Vid. 3 Letters p. 25 26. Letter to Anonym p. 47. Letter to Anon p. 48. Ibid. p. 51. Answer to Anon p. 51. Answer to Anon p. 52. Defence of Dr. S. p. 585. 28 Hen. 8. cap. 16. Mat. 28. 20. Answer to Anon p. 32. Ibid. p. 40. Ibid. p. 4. Answer p 40. Ibid. p. 52. Ibid. p. 52. Vindic. of the Defen p. 396. Ibid. p. 36. Chillingworth f. 56. Ibid. p. 79. Chillingworth f. 92. Letter to Anonymus p. 5. Answer to Anon p. 46. 3d Letter to Dr. S. p. 18. Answer to Anonymus p. 34. Resol p. 5. Def. of Dr. Stil Vindic. Aliud agendo Homily against Contention f. 91. Vindic. of the Def. of Dr. St. p 57. Not excluded c. for any Error or Heresy in Faith but for a Schismatical Separation from the Catholick Church