slight as not worth your Notice And therefore 't is not likely that the Homiles should be any more regarded Yet however it may not be amiss to mind you of what our Homilies teach us of a sound or true Church The Passage before cited proves that a particular Company or Congregation of God's People is the Church in proper speaking And then for the Catholick visible Church we have its Definition or Description in these words The true Church is an Universal Congregation or Fellowship of God's Faithful elect People built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus himself being the Head Corner-Stone And it has always three Rules or Marks whereby it is known 1. Pure and sound Doctrine 2. The Sacraments ministred according to Christ's Holy Institution And 3. The right use of Ecclesiastical Discipline These Notes tho ascribed to all in general are manifestly to be applied respectively to select Congregations or Fellowships of Christians For 't is not possible that all can be joyned in actual Communion But in these things they are to be ready to communicate with each other as if they were one entire Body in the first without any Limitation in the two last as the Church says of the Sacraments in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same And to prevent all affected Ignorance of our Churches Sense in this particular it assures us that Christ makes Intercession not only for himself and his Apostles but indifferently for all them that believe in him through their Words that is to wit for his whole Church I leave it to you run to the Parallel between what the Church teaches and what you would impose on us in this matter I shall not repeat the Particulars but shall only observe upon your Notion of Discipline 1. That according to you the Power of the Keys is absolute in Church-men's Hands from whose Power of binding and loosing you infer that Church-Communion is absolutely necessary to Salvation Whereas our Church says Christ ordained the Authority of the Keys to excommunicate notorious Sinners and to absolve them that are truly penitent 2. And secondly Whereas you affirm That every profess'd Christian who is received into the Church by Baptism is a Church-Member and all Church-Members have a common Right to Church-Priviledges That teaches otherwise Why says it cryed the Deacon in the Primitive Church if any be holy let him draw near Why did they celebrate these Mysteries the Quire-door being shut Why were the publick Penitents and Learners in Religion commanded to avoid Was it not because this Table received no unholy unclean or sinful Guests And this it enforces from the Example of our Blessed Saviour and the conforming Practice of the Primitive Church in these words According to this Example of our Saviour Christ in the Primitive Church which was most holy and godly and in the which due Discipline with Severity was used against the wicked open Offenders were not suffered once to enter into the House of the Lord nor admitted to Common-Prayer and the use of the holy Sacraments with other true Christians untill they had done open Penance before the whole Church Here I might well leave you to bethink your self of returning into the Bosom of our Church after you have divided from the Unity of its Doctrine And I might advise you to have a care of contending too eagerly in the maintaining your own Opinions for fear of running into the Formality of that which you take such pains to fright others from Tho it may be a good way to convert Schismaticks to convince them of the Errour of their Ways yet even that may be done schismatically at least the causless Imputation of it may return upon the forward Censurer But lest you should think I say this to avoid the notice of my shameful Baffle in the Story of Pope Victor which you will have to be a feigned Case told me by some body Be it known to you that the Authority which I had next at hand was a late learned Chronologist who has these words Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus fuit Victor qui ab Anno Christi 192 sedit Annos 10 in Concilio statuit ut Pascha semper die Dominicâ celebrarètur atque adèo èxcommunicavit omnes Episcopos Ecclesias in Asiâ quae eâdem die Pascha non celebrabant Here I might as well think that the Bishop pronounc'd the Sentence of Excommunication in Council as he alone is said statuere what was done by common Consent and so we know Rex statuit is often used The Excommunication you contend to have been only his own Act not the Act of the Council And you cite Eusebius which calls that which I should take for an Exemplification of the Act of the Council his Letter I am sure Socrates his Expression of this favours me when he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sent them the Sentence of Excommunication And the matter having been agreed on in a Council at Rome where he presided 't is certainly most probable that this was not of his own Head Nor is it in the least any Argument against me that other Bishops in Communion with him resented it ill Being those other Bishops Irenaeus particularly were not at that Council For as Eusebius himself shews as Victor presided at Rome Irenaeus did in France So that those of the same Communion were only such as agreed in that Doctrine of the account of time about which I shall not dispute whether Arithmetick was concern'd or no Yet I find it a long while since by an old Emperour called Questio temporis non Fidei But I find not in Eusebius that Irenaeus prevented this from taking effect as you affirm for the Sentence was actually pronounc'd as both Eusebius and Socrates inform us But when retracted or whether at all appears not But be it as you contend that this was only the Act of a Schismatical Bishop how comes it to pass that his Church was not concerned in this St. Cyprian says Qui cum Episcopo non sunt in Ecclesiâ non sunt And St. Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both agree that there 's no being in the Church or in Christ unless they side with their Bishop And a Gentleman whose Authority I hope you will not except against says of St. Cyprian He makes all Bishops equal to have the whole Power in Solidum to be absolute Judges of their own Acts and be accountable to none but God Nay you your self have told us that it is essential to the Communion of particular Churches that their Governours should be in Communion with each other Wherefore the Asian and Latine Churches were in a State of Separation and the Laity of one side or other were necessitated to communicate in a Schism This Sir may supersede my enquiry into your Niceties upon a Case of your own making But
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
when the Question is of withdrawing or refusing because of real Scruples which you will have to be an adhering to their own private Fancies and to proceed from Pride and Opinionativeness because they don't believe as the Church believes But then you say in general Terms Whoever is excommunicated from one sound Part of the Catholick Church is excommunicated from all Whether this be upon the Supposition that every sound Church is bound to ratify the Censures of another and that he who divides from his Bishop's Altar divides from a Mystical Head answering to the Jewish High-Priest as is taught by him from whom you borrow the Notion That Christianity is nothing but Mystical Judaism perhaps one may know hereafter But if a Man excommunicated from one sound Part be as you would have him by consequence cut off from the whole Catholick Church that Church to the Unity of which you say the Influences of the Divine Spirit are confined to what purpose is your Distinction between a Judicial Sentence and an Act of a Man 's own Choice For you suppose the Man chuses that which justifies the Sentence And how can you say you will not pretend to determine the Final State of Men Whereas he who dies after such a Sentence unrestored to the Church-Communion dies in a Condition as you tell us depriv'd of all the Influences of the Divine Spirit and consequently of all Means of Salvation And 't is but small Comfort for such a Man that the Church did not design his Damnation Because the Church casts no Man out of a State of Salvation that this excludes them from a State of Salvation is not the Act of the Church but God's Act. As if you should say that when you cast an innocent Man out of your Ship into the vast Ocean where he is sure to perish that this excludes the poor Wretch from the State of Life is not your Act but God's Truly Sir how much soever you may slight the way of asking Questions I think it better to ask you Whether you believe a Man thus put out of the State of Salvation by God himself can be sav'd of his own natural Power without the Influence of the Divine Spirit which it seems he is depriv'd of by a fallible Sentence than to charge you with Pelagianism when you think you determine nothing of the Man 's Final State But I am sure Our Church teaches us that It is the Holy-Ghost and no other Thing that doth quicken the Minds of Men stirring up good and godly Motions in their Hearts which are agreeable to the Will and Commandment of God such as otherwise of their own crooked and perverse Natures they should never have The other Horn of my formidable Dilemma as you slightingly call it you avoid with becoming Caution and supposing it to be aim'd against all manner of Obligation to Communion with this Church take not its real Force which is That if this Submission or Obedience be no part of the Divine Covenant then it may so happen that a Man living here may be a Member of the Catholick Church tho he is not in Communion with this sound Church To which you give not the least colourable Answer And I believe by this time you see or at least others will see that the Supposition that he ought to communicate if Communion may be had is not to the Question Whether this be part of the Divine Covenant or no For if it be part of the Divine Covenant then I must confess 't will not be a sufficient Excuse that the Submission is not neglected or contemn'd for it ought to be actual whatever be the Scruple especially if the Thing enjoined be not unlawful in it self tho it be in the Conscience of the Party But then to the Query Whether Dissenters may not reply that they are ready to communicate if the Communion be not clogg'd with some Things which are no part of the Divine Covenant You say The Reply is weak and impertinent because Obedience in all lawful Things is in a large Notion part of the Divine Covenant and the Supposition is of communicating where Communion may be had Now the Question being put of their scrupling the Lawfulness I leave it to your self to consider whether our Church does not condemn this Opinion as Pharisaical 3. The third Head or Query which concerns the Derivation of Church-Power from Christ himself you suppose not to belong to you But surely at first sight before one hears your learned Answer one would think it strange how it should come to pass that you should admit the Dissenters to have full Church-Power amongst them and yet charge them with Schism for not communicating with us while you suppose that whoever communicates with them will be guilty of Schism Methinks Mr. D.'s Ground of charging them herein as much more plausible which is That they are Schismaticks in dividing from them who derive all Church-Power within this Nation from our Saviour and his Apostles exclusively of all others But pray is the Church-Power in the hands of our Conformists by reason of the Divine Law or because of the Civil Law which makes them the governing Part If it be by reason of the Divine Law Mr. D. is in the right notwithstanding all that you say against him If it be by the Civil Law then the Reason why I ought to communicate with Conformists and not with Dissenters is by reason of a Difference made by Human Laws And then see if you can answer what you say against Mr. Humphreys his peaceable Design of uniting the Episcopal Men Presbyterians and Independents under one Civil Government where you say If the Evil and Sinfulness of Separation consisted only in Obedience to Humane Laws I should think it a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But in Answer to my Question You own that a Lay-man may preach the Gospel where there is none of the Clergy But since you here set aside the Question of the Derivation of Power from under our Saviour and his Apostles or from the Divine Law how come dissenting Ministers to be Schismaticks for preaching the Gospel or they not to be Schismaticks who refuse to communicate with them even where they require no Terms of Communion not only not unlawful but perhaps which are no way differing from what Christ himself requires The first Query here was upon supposition that you would in no case allow a Church to be gathered without a constant Succession of Church-Ministers which tho you deny to follow from your Doctrine is but the Consequence of many of your Assertions particularly of these two 1. That it is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of baptized Christians and divide Neighbour-Christians into distinct Communions 2. That there cannot be two distinct Churches for distinct Communions in one City or Nation Taking it
for granted as I had reason that you went herein upon the Authority of the Church-Officers I ask'd Whether this would not put the Being of our Church upon an hazardous Issue and oblige your self to prove that 't was a true Church before the Reformation Which surely is no remote Consequence from the Supposition that the Church-Power was lodged with them of the Church of Rome before in opposition to which our Church was erected and out of which it was gathered But then you say to my second Query upon this That there was not the same Necessity for private Christians reforming from an Antichristian Church to usurp the Ministry as there is for a Lay-man in an Heathen Nation But you do not observe that the Force of this lies in the Supposition that the Power was lodg'd with the Popish Clergy upon which account the Acts of the Reformed Ministry in opposition to them would be but like the Acts of Lay-men And you know who has asserted That Recourse ought to be had to the Intention of the Church-Governors Ecclesiastical Power being their Gift And this does oblige all to a strict dependance on the supreme visible Power so as to leave no Place for Appeal concerning the Practice of such Government And they are the most certain as well as the most competent Judges of their own Intentions But should we have recourse to such Church-Governours pray do you think they would say you have Power of keeping up a Form of Church-Government in opposition to theirs or that your Officers are better than Lay-men To put this home to you I shall here subjoin a Passage of your own Should a Company of private Christians on their own choice separate themselves from their Bishops and unite into a Church-Society this were a Church-Faction and Schism and all they did were null and void Here you must admit that a Minister Episcopally ordained may possibly join with them in this Separation from the Bishop or else you will allow of what will overthrow your Assertion as to Separation even from the most sound Church Wherefore this being admitted and it being laid generally shew me if you can wherein this differs from Mr. D. at least how Separation from Papists or from whatever unlawful Terms of Communion can upon your Hypothesis be freed from Schism You assure us you do not charge our Dissenters with Schism from the Invalidity of their Orders but from their causless and sinful Separation And tho they have true Orders and are true Churches but yet divide Christian Communion by separating from any sound Part of the Christian Church they are Schismaticks nay if it were only in separating from each other Wherefore since Separation and ordinarily refusing to communicate where one never did but as you suppose ought come to the same thing you cannot blame me if I represent your Notion to be That where there are several Churches within a Nation which here you admit of whether one of these Churches has Authority over the Members of the other or no yet he who refuses to communicate with any one of these is a Schismatick And so you make it in relation to Churches in several Nations If this be your meaning as I take it to be then you have no reason to cry out of Mis-representation and blending together Things of a different Nature when I ask Query 4. Whether from the Supposition that there is to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one true Church within another And that the Nature of Catholick Communion is such that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the Distance of Place It does not follow Here you stop me before you make an Answer as if I did not fairly to take every one of these Propositions for yours or in tacking together some Things not very consistent with each other Because you had in some place asserted that there could be but one Church in one Place therefore it seems not only our Dissenters but also Foreigners living here are without any Church Tho to avoid the Force of my Questions now you would admit that the Dissenters may have sufficient Church-Officers and Power but however that they are Schismaticks if it were only for dividing from each other You had said further that nothing can justify the Distinction of Christians into several Churches but only such a Distance of Place as makes it necessary and expedient to put them under the Conduct and Government of several Bishops What that Distance of Place is which makes this necessary and expedient you are not pleased to inform us But nothing it seems but Distance can with you justify a Distinction of Churches be the Terms never so unlawful which is but the same in effect with what you had said elsewhere as that 't is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of baptized Christians Nay further here is more wholesom Doctrine which is That no Distinction of Churches is justifiable but under Bishops Yet alas you do not dispute against the Dissenters Form of Church-Government or deny their being rightly invested with Church-Power no not you But it lies not upon me to reconcile you to your self nor can you deny the having said a Thing in one place because of the contrary in another The only Proposition which you can seem to deny with any colour is That one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by distance of Place But surely 't is full enough to this purpose that The Exercise of true Christian Communion in a particular Church is nothing else but the Exercise of Catholick Communion in a particular Church which the Necessity of Affairs requires since all the Christians in the World cannot meet together for Acts of Worship But there is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Church Again To be in Communion with the Church signifies to be a Member of it and that not of any particular Church as distinguish'd from the whole Catholick Church but to be a Member of the one Body of Christ and of every sound Part of it Wherefore as a Man is a Member of every sound Church sure he may communicate with any sound Church if Distance do not hinder nay the refusing Communion in such Case is the very Schism which you all along declaim against Having thus fix'd upon you every one of these Propositions for the first of them I cannot believe that you will yet deny I shall consider with you what follows Wherefore I still assert Either that the French Protestants have no Church here but are Schismaticks in not communicating with ours Or that ours is guilty of Schism in making the Terms of Communion so streight that
should be Schismaticks and cut off from his Body meerly for disobeying Additions the Authority of which they soberly dispute You say in one part of your Answer to me That whatever Variety and Difference in the Rules of Worship is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the Prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient Where as you condemn such Indulgence as is inconsistent with one Communion it may be thought to be equally conclusive against the Imposition of any Thing inconsistent with one Communion or the great Law of Catholick Communion And when you confess that the Government of the Church since the Apostles Days was never so entirely in the Bishop's Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any further than he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be governed You having likewise set aside the Civil Authority and admitted that Dissenters have sufficient Church-Power amongst them I again ask How they can be Schismaticks for dividing from the Bishops upon the account of suspected Rites and Ceremonies which they believe not to agree with those Laws by which the Charch was to be governed as being greatly prejudicial to if not inconsistent with one Communion And I would willingly be satisfied how you can bring within the foregoing Rules what you assert but within three Pages where having held that there was no Schism between the Latin and Asian Churches yet you will have it that private Christians at Rome could not receive the Asians into the Communion of the Church without the Bishop's Authority But to word this Matter according to your Hypothesis Tho Conformity to the Church of England that is Obedience to the Church-Governours the Bishops is not essential to the Vnity of the Catholick Church yet it is for all that live here I should have been contented to have the Controversy confin'd to Persons living here but that you tempt me further You say indeed That Christians who live under the Government and Jurisdiction of other Churches may and do preserve the Vnity of the Church without Conformity to the Church of England But pray can they preserve the Unity of the Church without Catholick Communion to which as you have told us a Compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is absolutely necessary And then All the Churches of the World are but one Church or one Society and have the same Right or Obligation of them to communicate with each other as Opportunity serves in all those Duties for the sake of which Christian Churches are instituted as the Members of a particular Church are There are some other Passages in my third Letter which perhaps might want to have something said to them but I shall only refer the Whole with what I have here wrote to your second and cooler Thoughts But I must confess I wonder how I escap'd unrebuk'd when I observ'd that you your self made a sufficient Excuse for some even causless Separation And if the Sinfulness of Separation lies in not observing your Terms of Catholick Communion the Dissenters would think themselves pretty sake under Mr. Chillingworth's Defence against the Papists not only when he affirms That the Gospel of Christ is the whole Covenant between God and Man nor when he blames the Papists for making Salvation depend on Things casual and in the Power of Man to confer or not to confer But if it were only because of the Obscurity and Doubtfulness if not Inconsistency of the Grounds whence the Obligation to constant Communion with the Church is inferr'd for he thought it Demonstration that nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed Now Sir I take leave to tell you that I have faithfully followed you in all your subtil Windings I am sure I have nowhere perverted your Discourses how much soever I may have mistaken them And 't is no easy matter to take his Sence rightly who is inconsistent with himself It has not been the least nor perhaps the least pertinent part of my Task to fix your own Principles upon you some of which need no other Exposure but to be set in their proper Light where like the Cadmoean Issue they may be left to destroy each other If you forget in one place what serv'd your purpose in another or go to prove too little or too much for what possibly might be your general Scope and Design I hope you will for the future be more cautious of condemning Men for Dishonesty in arguing upon what they find By this time 't is likely I may in a double Sence have tir'd your Patience which you value your self upon I must confess the Substance of what lies in Dispute between us might be brought into a much narrower Compass But perhaps it was no more than requisite to put several Questions to you to prevent all colourable Evasion that one might take up what might be artfully slipt over upon another And certainly any one that observes what Skill you use in the management of this Controversy will think that many Things which might have seem'd superfluous were but necessary to oblige you to speak out Thus when I had ask'd Whether a Man has a Right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian that is as I then thought and still do a true Member of the Catholick Church I should not have added Or becomes a Christian only as received into a particular Church were it not that I wrote to one who seems to think no Man can be a true Member of the Catholick Church before he has been actually receiv'd into some particular Church But you taking no notice of the last Branch of the Question wonder I should ask you Whether a Man has a Right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian when you say The whole Design of your Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a Right to communicate with all sound Parts of the Catholick Church and bound to communicate with that Part of it in which he lives Now 't is odds but it may be as evident upon this your whole Design that every particular Church is bound to receive every Christian as such into its Communion without imposing any Terms but meer Christianity as that a Christian must communicate with that sound Part where he lives even in other Terms Yet here you speak not one Word to the Question how a Man becomes a Christian whether it be only as received into a particular Church Indeed you had said in your Resolutions which I thought you might have either justified or retracted That no Man can be in Covenant with God or a Member of his Church who is not at least visibly admitted which must be by some particular Church and surely no Man can be