it So when Men are considered barely as Christians no more ought to be thought necessary for them as such but what makes them capable of Salvation But if we consider them as joining together in a Christian Society then many other things are necessary for that end For then there must be Authority in some and Subjection in others there must be Orders and Constitutions whereby all must be kept within their due Bounds And there must be Persons appointed to instruct the Ignorant to satisfy the Doubting to direct the Unskilful and to help the Weak It belongs to such a Society not barely to provide for Necessity but Safety and not meerly the safety of particular Persons but of it Self which cannot be done without prudent Orders fixing the Bounds of Mens Employments and not suffering every pretender to Visions and Revelations to set up for a new Sect or which is all one a new Order of Religious Men. This I should think were enough not only to justify me but to draw to my side all the moderate Church-men yet that it may not be said that I bring but one Doctor 's Opinion against another I shall take in the Suffrage of the worthy Dean of Canterbury and that delivered very solemnly in the presence of his Sacred Majesty I do assure you says that great Man in his Sermon at Court I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than to be of any Party or Denomination of Christians whatsoever for I doubt not but the belief of the Ancient Creed provided we entertain nothing that is destructive of it together with a good Life will certainly save a Man and without this no Man can have reasonable hopes of Salvation no not in an infallible Church if there were any such to be found in the World But since the setling the true Notion of Schism will go a great way towards the satisfying our Enquiries in this Matter it may not be improper to transcribe some part of Dr. Stillingfleet's sense of it where he vindicates the Church of England from the imputation of Schism The Being of the Catholick Church says he lies in essentials for a Particular Church to disagree from all other Particular Churches in some extrinsecal and accidental Things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church but still whatever Church makes such extrinsecal things the necessary Conditions of Communion so as to cast Men out of the Church who yield not to them is Schismatical in so doing for it thereby divides it self from the Catholick-Church and the Separation from it is so far from being Schism that being cast out of that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick-Church On which ground it will appear that the Church of Rome is the Schismatical Church and not Ours For although before this imposing Humour came into particular Churches Schism was defin'd by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any Particular but the true Catholick Church for not only Persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church and in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which depart from the Catholick are guilty of the Schism Three LETTERS to Dr. Sherlock upon his Sermons concerning Church-Communion Reverend Sir NOT doubting but you will be willing to stoop to the capacity of the meanest of your Auditory I who have often heard you with great satisfaction and I hope not without edifying thereby take leave to intimate to you as nigh as I can in your own words what I conceive to have been the substance of your Discourse this last Sunday upon I Cor. 12. 27. Now ye are the Body of Christ and Members in particular And to propound some Queries which perhaps you may think fit in some part at least to take notice of in your further progress upon this nice Subject However I hope you will candidly interpret this friendly Intimation from one who is a Member of the same Church with you and is as hearty â—â—â— his desires of a firm Union amongst Protestants as any Man can be And therefore is the more concern'd at any Discourse which may represent all Dissenters as such as Men depriv'd of the ordinary means of Salvation and consequently to be in as bad a case as the Moral Heathens And as most Men of such Notions believe or would infer in a worse condition than those of the Romish Communion Which I hope was not in your Intention how liable soever your Assertions may seem to that Interpretation Not but that many things which you then taught us are of a far different import Be pleas'd to take your own again with as little alteration of the words or order in which they were delivered as may be without the Repetition of many things whereby 't is convenient to lengthen out a Sermon You may remember that you told us That The Church is a Body of Men separated from the World and united to God and themselves by a Divine Covenant That 't is an entire Body and every Member united to the whole Church by Christian Communion That our Saviour ordained the Apostles and gave the Government of the Church to them and their Successors with a promise to be with them to the end of the World That there can be but one Church where all Priviledges and Duties are common And but one and the same Institution of God's Appointment That the Gospel-Covenant is the Foundation of the Christian Church God only can make a Church not Man's Invention The only way God has of forming a Church is by granting a Church-Covenant and investing some Persons with power of receiving others according to the Terms with such Rites as they are pleas'd to institute As that can be no Church which is not in Covenant with God so he can be no Member who is not visibly admitted into Covenant You farther observ'd under distinct Heads 1. That a Covenant-State and a Church-State is the same 2. Every profess'd Christian received into Covenant is a Member 3. Nothing else is necessary to make Members but Baptism 4. A Church-State cannot depend upon humane Contract or Covenant 'T is God's Covenant which is in our Church required of the Adult The Independents found their Church upon humane Contract which they will not say is any part of the Baptismal Vow 5. 'T is absurd to gather Churches out of Churches of Baptiz'd Christians 6. The Doctrine of the Unity of the Church confirm'd from the Notion of a Charter to any Body Politick They who are not admitted into the Corporation have no right to the Privileges and are Usurpers if they exercise any Act belonging to the Members God considers all Men as united into one Church or Body has made no Covenant with Geneva or England in particular The only thing that
can give us right to Church-Membership is to observe the Conditions of the Covenant He destroys the Unity of the Church who is not subject to its Censures Every Member is a Member of the Whole Baptism does not make us Members of any particular Church but of the Universal founded only on Divine Covenant Every Act of Christian Communion must be an Act of Communion with the whole Church And 't is impossible to live in Communion with the whole without Communion with some part when it may be had ' T is necessary to communicate with some Church by Communion with the Church in which we live if it be a sound Member I communicate with the whole According to the Primitive Rule of but one Bishop in a City they who divide from the National Church are guilty of Schism Nothing can justify Division but such a distance as hinders the Exercise of Joint-Communion To sum up what I take to be the force of all this The Apostles and their Successors were by our Saviour invested with a power of receiving Members into his Church upon his Terms and with such Rites as they should think fit And they who are not so receiv'd into the Church have no right to any of the Benefits promis'd to the Members of Christ's Body This Power is by an uninterrupted Succession derived upon the Governors of our National Church Wherefore all others that pretend to the exercise of this Power within this Nation are Usurpers And all the Laity baptiz'd by their Pastors not being duly admitted into any particular Church are so far from being Members of Christ's Body that they are Usurpers and Traitors to that Power which is deriv'd from him in a right Line Durus hic Sermo Wherefore I may well upon the whole desire that you would seriously consider 1. Whether a pious Dissenter suppos'd to be received into the Church by such as he believes to be fully invested with sufficient Church-power is in as bad a condition as a moral Heathen or in a worse than a Papist 2. Whether the submission to the Power and Censures of this Church which all must own to be a sound Church be part of the Divine Covenant which unites the Members of the Catholick Church to God and to each other If it be then as he who is not admitted into this Church is no Member of the Catholick and has no right to the Benefits of being a Member of Christ's Body So it is with every one excluded by Church-Censures though excommunicated for a slight contempt or neglect nay for a wrongful Cause If it be no part of the Divine Covenant then a Man that lives here may be a true Member of the Catholick Church though he is not in Communion with this sound Church But you will say which I think is not much to this Question That he ought to communicate if Communion may be had But then Query Whether the 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 As for instance An adult Person would be baptized if he could be admitted without the Sign of the Cross Or would receive the Sacrament if he might not be obliged to kneel Which he supposes to have been in use and required only since the Doctrine of Transubstantiation divided the Church Yet however Query 3. Whether where Communion may not be had upon those Terms which our Saviour Instituted a Church may not at least in some cases be gathered without any immediate derivation from other Church-Governors besides Christ himself if it may not What think you of a Lay-Christian quietly permitted to teach the Word of God amongst Heathens and to Disciple such as will receive his Doctrine If a Church in such case may be erected then surely God's only way of forming Churches and investing some Persons with Power of receiving others is not from a constant succession from the Apostles but from under his Institution who has appointed a Power in his Church which expires no more with any particular Governors than the Power of Kings his Vicegerents dies in any Nation for want of some Monarch just going before from whom the Claim is to be made Though the Power of a King be God's Power yet I dare say you will own that at least in some Kingdoms a King may be duly chosen to this Power by Men. You will say perhaps though still the force of my Objection will remain that this is an extraordinary Case of utmost necessity not to be instanced in amongst us But then I ask 1. Whether upon allowing no other Case you will not put the Being of our Church upon a very hazardous Issue and oblige your self to prove that it was a True Church before the Reformation 2. Whether supposing this Church to have been Antichristian before which I think is the Doctrine of our Homilies The Case I put of a Layman's discipling Heathens supposes a more violent necessity of acting without Authority from a succession of Church-Officers than at least 't is possible may be the Case of our own Church 4. Q. Whether from the Supposition that there ought to be but one Church-Covenant throughout the Catholick Church that there cannot be one True Church within another and that the nature of Catholik-Communion is such that one ought to be ready to communicate with any sound Church from which one is not hindred by reason of the distance of place It do's not not follow 1. 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 it is not the Duty of every one though a licensed Stranger to communicate with this Church 2. Does it not follow from the Obligation to communicate or to be ready to communieate with any True Church where distance does not hinder that a Member of the Church of England is not obliged to constant Communion with the 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 If they may then constant Communion is not always a Duty where occasional is lawful Dr. Stillingfleet indeed says That if a Man were obliged to be a Member of the French Church or the like and thought it lawful to communicate sometimes constant Communion would be a Duty But according to you no Man is obliged to be a Member of one sound Church more than another provided the distance is not so great but that he may communicate with both 5. Query Whether a true Christian though not visibly admitted into Church-Communion where he wants the means has not a virtual Baptism in the Answer of a good Conscience towards God according to 1 Pet. 3. 21. 6. Query Why a profess'd Atheist who has been Baptiz'd and out of
THREE LETTERS TO Dr. Sherlock CONCERNING Church-Communion WHEREIN 'T is enquired whether the Doctor 's Notion of Church-Communion be not too narrow and uncharitable both to Dissenters and Men of larger Principles By a LAY-MAN of the Church of England and in constant Communion with it LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-yard 1683. To the Reader I Hope these Papers will not fall into any Man's Hands who counts it not a great blessing to have Kings for Nursing Fathers to God's Church To have the true Religion establish'd and guarded by humane Laws And perhaps 't 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 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 differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Sure I am an outward Government in the Church is requisite if it were only for the restraining those Men who out of confidence of their own Abilities will be venting Notions which none but Men of great subtilty can make one believe to be agreeable either to Scripture or to that Doctrine to which they have subscribed and declared their unfeigned Assent and Consent And me-thinks it were enough to remove Mens prejudices against Episcopal Government to consider how needful it is that some of the most learned and discreet should be chosen from among the Herd of Clergy-men to oversee admonish and censure those who are apt to go beyond their due Bounds Yet even within this Government it may sometimes become the Duty of one of the Laity to take upon him to reprove his Teacher when he apprehends the Doctrine to be dangerous In which case unless he remonstrate against it he may be thought to communicate with him in his Error which possibly may be as sinful as communicating in a Schism which Dr. Sherlock frights us with Out of respect to whom I must say that I had rather be mistaken in that sense which I conceive ought to be put upon his Sermons about Church-Communion than be able to justify That the Objections to which he never vouchsafed an Answer were meither impertinent to his Discourses nor frivolous His Notion of a Political Union of true Believers to Christ I had long since read but the hearing of it fix'd my Attention and put me upon sending him my Objections against it in a private manner The more I think of his Sermons the more I am perswaded that they are contrary to the whole Tenor of the Gospel and the Doctrine of our Church The Scripture tells us That God is no respecter of Persons but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted with him But the Doctor says That the only visible way of forming a Church for I do not now speak of the invisible Operations of the Divine Spirit 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 into this Covenant c. And then to be taken into Covenant with God and to be received into the Church is the very same thing So it seems according to him no Man is in Covenant with God who is not actually received into Covenant by a visible Church that is by the Bishops and Ministers of the Church As he elsewhere has it speaking of what makes any thing in a strict sense an Act of Church-Communion Indeed he may seem to have a reserve when he says he speaks not of the invisible Operations of the Spirit Yet what room he leaves for that out of the Pale of a particular visible Church is a great Question when he confines the Influences and Operations of the Divine Spirit to the Unity of the Church That is if he speaks to the purpose to Vniformity to that sound part of the Catholick Church where a Man lives But if a Man fall into a Nation where there are no Bishops or inferior Clergy authorised by them the Lord have Mercy upon his Soul for 't is a question how that Scripture can be fulfilled which saith God is no respecter of Persons c. But if the Bishops where he lives fall out Wo be to him if his Bishop be singular And God knows but one of the Primitive Fathers Tertullian notwithstanding all his Zeal for the Christian Religion lies in Purgatory to this day with all his Followers to St. Austin ' s Time For though as Dr. Cave says in his excuse He lived in an Age when a greater latitude of opining was indulged and good Men were infinitely more solicitous about Piety and a good Life than about the Modes of Speech and how to express every thing so critically that it should not be liable to a severe Scrutiny and Examination Yet this good Man having had Disputes with others of the Primitive Fathers the Doctor tells us Whether ever he was reconciled to Catholick Communion appears not 't is certain for the main he forsook the Cataphrygians and kept his separate Meetings at Carthage and his Church was yet remaining in St. Augustine's time By whose Labours the very Reliques of his Followers called Tertullianists were dispers'd and quite disappeared What our Church determines in this case we may see in the 19th Article And I will leave it to Dr. Sherlock to reconcile himself to its Doctrine in this Point Which is That The Church visible of Christ is a Congregation of faithful Men in which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministred according to Christ's Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same If any Man tax me with undermining the Authority of the Church in objecting against Dr. Sherlock's way of supporting it Dr. Stillingfleet has furnish'd me with a sufficient Apology Men of any common understanding says he would distinguish between the necessaries of Life and of civil Society So would any one but S. C. or N. O. of the Necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church For Men must be considered as Christians and then as Christians united together As in Civil Societies they are to be considered first as men and then as Cives To say that a Man hath all that is necessary to preserve his Life as a Man doth not overthrow the Constitution of a Society altho' it implies that he might live without
a Man has a right to be of a particular Church as he is a Christian that is I should think a true Member of the Catholick Church or becomes a Christian only as receiv'd into a particular Church I take it Infants are received with us by virtue of the federal right in the Parents and as the Apostle says The believing Wife sanctifies the unbelieving Husband else were the Children unclean Nor I conceive doth our Church receive any adult Person whom it does not believe to be a true Christian before But to make your Fallacy the more evident you tell us The Divine Spirit confines his Influences and Operations to the Unity of the Church as the same Apostle tells us That there is but one Body and one Spirit which plainly signifies that the Operations of this one Spirit are appropriated to this one Body as the Soul is to the Body it animates I would fain know what need any Man has to deny this for avoiding the Consequence that therefore 't is an improper way for edification to forsake Communion with a National sound Church where he lives for the Apostle makes it as plain as words can make it that he speaks of the Invisible as well as Visible Church For the Passage you cite Ephes. 4. 4. is but a continuation of what the Apostle taught in the foregoing Chapter where he says For this cause I bow my Knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Of whom the whole Family in Heaven and in Earth is named This which is there called a Family is elsewhere the whole Body of which Christ is the Head the increase and edifying of which Body in love is ascribed to his Influence If I should enter my self of another Family not owned by Christ I thereby should renounce all claim to the Promises of the Gospel But admit several parts of this great Family live by different Customs and Rules not owning each others Members for their own in which case you will have them separate Churches as well as upon the account of Doctrine Government or Worship provided the things wherein they differ and for which they make distinct Communions are not destructive of common Christianity doth he put himself out of Christ's Family who can and actually doth comply with the Rules and Customs of both One would think that a Member of the Church of England communicating with Presbyterians here does not thereby enter into a state of Separation even from this Particular Church because he does not thereby so much as virtually renounce the Communion of our Church being nothing is required of him to capacitate him for Communion with them which is not required in our Church much less any thing contrary to it and perhaps the Independents may come within the last circumstance But to be sure neither of them forsake our Church in what essentially constitutes it a Church of Christ and therefore it does yet remain a Question whether this can be a separation from the Communion of Catholick Church that happy Family above-mentioned You know even in the Primitive Times about the end of the second Century there fell out a Division between the Latin and Asian Churches and that upon what one would think were neither Matter of Doctrine of Government nor of Worship for it was only about the Time of keeping Easter Holy-day Victor the Bishop of the Latin Church in a Council or as some will have it a full representative of that Church excommunicates the poor Asians for a little mistake in Arithmetick each Church was far from owning the others Members as its own Here was a Schism perhaps on both sides especially on theirs who were so peremptory in imposing their own computation for Catholick But what should the poor Lay Christians do in this divided state could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves or was it as necessary to know which was in the right as to know which is the True Religion 'T was not enough in such case to know which of these divided Communions was a true and sound Member of the Catholick Church which when known they were bound to communicate with for here both were sound Members at least they might be notwithstanding this Difference And yet according to you they who communicated with both these were contrary to themselves and on one side or other went sure to be Schismaticks and if you please you may say the Prayers and Sacraments in those Churches were not Acts of Christian Communion but of Schismatical Combinations But secondly I must desire you to consider whether you do not enforce the necessity of communicating with the National Church from Arguments which prove no more than that Men ought to serve God in publick in distinct Congregations as well as in private and so apply that to a National Church which belongs to the Church in a more limited sense But this is no wonder since you manifestly go upon the Supposition that there can be no True Church which is not National at least which is not the only true Church within the Nation or City where one resides Upon which Ground you affirm That Actual Communion during our residence in any certain place must be confined to that particular Church in which we live if it be a sound part of the Christian Church or as you elsewhere vary it the sound and orthodox Part of the Catholick Church which he finds in that place Now if there be a possibility that there should be several sound and orthodox Parts in the same place be it the same City or same Nation all your building here falls to the Ground Wherefore I desire you to consider whether it is not possible that at Aleppo for the purpose or any other place where the National Religion is Ethnick there may be several sound parts of the Catholick Church as the Greek or the French Protestants and the English Churches with either of which one may communicate as sound parts of the Catholick But to come back to your method of bringing all into the National you tell us that you suppose no Man will deny but that every Christian is bound to worship God according to our Saviour's Institution and what that is we cannot learn better than from the Example of the Primitive Christians of whom St. Luke gives us this account They continued stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Worship and in breaking of Bread According to your own Argument here would it not seem that the only Church of our Saviour's instituting is such an one as is described 1 Cor. 14. 23. where 't is said If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place and all speak with Tongues and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers will they not say that ye are mad Pray Sir is it absurd to suppose that there should be several such Churches in a City