Disobedience but methinks it is a little absurd to say that those continue Members of the Church who separate from it Schism and Separation from the Church is just what Treason and Rebellion is in the State and such persons by your own confession cease to be sound Members You 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 differing from the Common Law of the Land without making a distinct Government Ans Whatever variety and difference in the Rules of Worship in several Congregations is consistent with one Communion may be granted when the prudence of Governours sees it fit and expedient But Mr. Humphry's project which I perceive you are nibling at of making a National Church by an Act of Parliament which should declare Presbyterians Independants c. to be Parts of the National Church is certainly the cunningest way of curing Schism that ever was thought on but you may find that expedient for Union at large considered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still And thus Sir I proceed to your Third Letter and here you run nothing but Dregs and Lees and I hope you will not think it any neglect of you if I do not answer you Paragraph by Paragraph as I have done your first Letter there being little new in this but only a Repetition of your old Queries and though you know Repetitions are very convenient to lengthen a Sermon there is no need of such Arts to lengthen this Answer which is too long already Your first Charge upon me is that I only amuse People with Equivocal Words and Terms that I play Letters 3. p. 16. with the words Church and Schism which had been no fault had I played the right way with them that is had I ridiculed them as you do who think them words only fit to be played with who have found out a Church without any Government which is only an Intreague p. 12. between Clergy-men on all sides who will not allow causeless Separation from a Sound part of the Catholick p. 17. Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity and make it nothing else but some Divisions and Contentions between the Members of the same Church who still live in Communion with one another a true Independent Notion to justifie causeless Separations Divisions in the Church are certainly very Sinful and a degree of Schism as unnatural as if the Members of the same Body should fight with each other while they are United to the same Body but to divide from the same Body is the perfection of Schism unless a quarrel be a Rent and Schism but Separation be none You desire me to define what I mean by a Church when considered as Catholick and Universal and when taken in a more restrained sense But this I think I have done already if you had eyes to see it and you may find it done more largely in the Defence of Dr. Still But would not any Man who had ever seen this discourse which you undertake to confute wonder to hear you ask me whether a Man has a right to be of a particular p. 18. Church as he is a Christian when the whole design of that Tract is to prove that every Christian by being so is a Member of the Catholick Church and has a right to Communicate with all sound parts of the Catholick Church and bound to Communicate with that part of it in which he lives In the next place you attempt to prove that the Influences and Operations of the Holy Spirit are not confined to the Visible but Invisible Church but not p. 19. to examine your proof of it which is nothing to the purpose you may consider that the Visible and Invisible Church on Earth are not two but one Church not that every Member of the Visible Church is a Member also of the Invisible that is every profest Christian is not a true Believer but whoever is not a Member of the Visible Church and does not live in Communion with it when it may be had is not that we know of a Member of the Invisible Church We have no way to prove that any Man is a Member of the Invisible who is not a Member of the Visible Church and what we do not and cannot know does not concern us secret things belong to God and with him it becomes us to leave them But this also you may find more largely discourst in the Vindication of the Defence You urge the case of Pope Victor who as you say in a Council or full representative of that Church excommunicated p. 21. the poor Asians upon the Paschal Controversy And that each Church was far enough from owning each others Members for their own What should the poor Lay-Christians do in this divided State could they not Communicate with both or either without danger of Schism themselves Ans It is an easie matter to put hard Cases almost about any thing and if a particular hard Case which either may possibly happen or has sometimes happened is sufficient to overthrow a standing and general Rule and to confute the most plain and convincing Evidence for it there is nothing in Religion can be firm and stable In the very same manner Men Dispute against the Being of a God and a Providence against the necessity of Baptism and the Lords Supper against the Apostolical Power and Ministry and all Church-Government against the necessity of Believing many fundamental Articles of our Faith because many otherwise very good Men from the Power and Prejudice of Education or through weakness of understanding may be guilty of some damnable Heresies But must there be no standing Laws or Rules because there may happen some hard and difficult Cases Does not humane Power make Provision against such Cases by Courts of Chancery or the Prerogative of the Prince and yet maintain the Authority and Sacredness of Laws And will we not allow God himself a Power of Dispensing with Laws in hard Cases without destroying the Authority of his Laws Is not Church-Communion a necessary Duty because it may so happen that sometimes I cannot Communicate with any Church Is not Schism a very grievous and damning sin because it may happen that Men may be unavoidably innocently and without a Schismatical mind engaged in a Schism I have evidently proved the necessity of Church-Unity and Communion and the evil and danger of Schism and if you can answer the Scripture-Evidence produced in this Cause I will carefully consider it but it is no confutation of a plain Law to urge hard Cases against it which will overthrow all Laws that ever were made If you imagine or can produce any real Case wherein it is almost impossible for the Persons concerned to know that they are guilty
and tho the Church may prescribe Rules of Worship which are not expressed in the Divine Covenant this will not justifie a Separation if she commands nothing which is forbid for the very Authority Christ has committed to his Ministers requires our obedience to them in things lawful and if Men will adhere to their own private Fancies in opposition to Church-Authority they are guilty of Schism and had best consider whether such pride and opinionativeness will be allowed for excuse 3. Whether if the promise you mention be confined to the Apostles as Church-Governours it will not exclude the Civil Power Ans There are peculiar promises made to Church-Governours and to Civil Magistrates their Authority and Power is very distinct but very consistent 4. What was the extent of the promise whether it was to secure the whole Church that its Governours should never impose unlawful Terms of Communion or that there never be a defection of all the Members of the Catholick Church but that there should always be some true Members Ans The promise is that Christ will be with them in the discharge of their Ministry and Exercise of their Power and this is all I know of the matter our Saviour gave them Authority to Govern the Church and this was to last to the end of the World as long as there is any Church on Earth which is all I cited it for and so much it certainly proves The Second Proposition you raise Queries on is this 'T is absurd to gather a Church out of a Church of Baptized Christians This I do indeed assert that since the Church is founded on a Divine Covenant and to be in Covenant with God and to be Members of his Church is the same thing therefore Baptism whereby we are received into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church also and this makes it very absurd to gather a Church out of Churches of Baptized Christians which supposes that they were not a Church before instead of considering the reason whereon this is founded as every honest Writer should do you onely put a perverse Comment on it By which say you I suppose you mean That Men ought not to Separate from such and live in a distinct Church-Communion from any Church of Baptized Christians which I conceive needs explaining But if this were true it were plain enough but the fault is that it is not true for we may Separate from any Church of Baptized Christians if their Communion be Sinful which justifies a Separation from the Church of Rome and answers your two first Queries But indeed the Proposition as asserted by me does not so much as concern a Separation from a Church let the cause be what it will just or unjust For the Independents who are the Men for gathering Churches do not own that they Separate from any Church but that they form themselves into a Church-State which they had not before and which no Christians according to their Principle have who are not Members of Independent Churches Baptism they acknowledge makes Men Christians at large but not Church-Members which I shewed must needs be very absurd if the Church be a Body and Society of Men founded on a Divine Covenant for then Baptism which admits us into Covenant with God makes us Members of the Church and they may as well rebaptize Christians as form them into new Church-Societies This I suppose may satisfie you how impertinent all your Queries are under this head Your two first concern the Separation from the Church of Rome which was not made upon Independent Principles because they were no Church but because they were a corrupt Church 3. Whether every Bishoprick in England be not so many Churches within the National Ans Every Bishoprick is a distinct Episcopal Church and the Union of them in one National Communion makes them not so many Churches within a National but one National Church which you may see explained at large in the Defence of Dr. Still Vnr of Separation 4. And therefore Independent and Presbyterian Churches are indeed within the National Churches within a Church which is Schismatical but not one National Church as Bishopricks are 5. And therefore tho we should allow them to have the External Form and all the Essentials of a Church which is a very liberal grant yet they are not in Catholick Communion because they are Schismaticks 6. And this is all I am to account for that they are not in Visible Communion with that one Church and Body of Christ to which the promises are made But what allowances Christ will make for the mistakes of honest well-meaning Men who divide the Communion of the Church I cannot determine I can hope as Charitably as any Man but I dare not be so Charitable as to make Church-Communion an indifferent thing which is the great Bond of Christian Charity 3dly You take occasion for your next Queries from what I say of the Independent Church-Covenant you say I suppose that the Independents exclude themselves from Catholick Communion by requiring of their Members a new contract no part of the Baptismal vow I prove indeed from their placing a Church-State in a particular explicite Covenant between Pastor and People that they separate themselves from the whole Body of Christians for no other Christians which are not in Covenant with them are Members of their Church nor can they be Members of any other Church And I proved that those are Separate Churches Resol of Cases p. 10. 32. which are not Members of each other and do not own each others Members for their own For the Notion of Church-Communion consists in Church-Membership and therefore no Man is in Communion with that Church of which he is no Member and if no Man can be a Member of a Church but by such an explicite Independent Covenant then he is a Member of no Church but that with which he is in Covenant and consequently is in Communion with no Church but that particular Independent Congregation of which he is a Member by a particular Covenant And if those be Schismaticks and Schismatical Churches which are not in Communion with each other then all Independents must be Schismaticks for they are in Communion with none but their own Independent Congregations Let us now hear your Queries Q. 1. 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 Ans Yes it may but with this Material difference Other things hinder Communion as Sinful Terms of Communion this Independent Covenant in its own Nature Shuts up Encloses and breaks Christian Communion into as many Separate Churches and Communions as there are Independent Congregations Sinful Terms of Communion are a just cause of Separation an Independent Church-Covenant is a State of Separation in its own Nature The Communion of the Church may be restored by removing those Sinful Terms of Communion but there can be no
the words are these I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that profest at least so much as was necessary to Salvation and I believe there will be some where or other such a Church to the Worlds end This is his answer to that Popish Question about the perpetuity of the Visible Church whereby it appears that this Company of Men he speaks of are not single and scattered Individuals which are no Visible Church but he means a Formed and Visible Church-Society and his Answer is true though there were never a sound Church in the World For a corrupt Church which retains all the Essentials of Faith and Worship is a true Visible Church and this is the meaning of Mr. Chillingworth's Answer but how this proves that there is no need there should be any Visible Church at all or that Christians are not bound to actual Communion with the sound and Orthodox Church wherein they live is past my understanding At the same rate you defend your self against me in your Preface by the Authority of those two excellent Persons the Dean of Canterbury and the Dean of Saint Pauls Dr. Stillingfleet had asserted That all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture to all that sincerely endeavour to understand them hence S. C. infers That the Governours of our Church have no Authority to teach Truth or to condemn Errours and all the People are become Prophets and all their Articles Answer to several Treatises p. 272. c. Constitutions and Ordinances have been composed and enjoyned by an usurped Authority and if he had added as he might have done with the same reason And all Church-Communion is needless it had been exactly what you aim at in this Citation The Dr. vindicates his Doctrine from such a wild Fanatical inference 1. By shewing the intention of those Principles which was plainly to lay down the Foundations of a Christian Faith living in the Communion of our Church And if this was his design as he says it was certainly he could neither before nor after say any thing which should overthrow the necessity of Church-Communion and then he can say nothing against me nor for you 2. He distinguishes between the necessaries to Salvation and to the Government of the Church that is what is necessary for every Christian considered in p. 275. a private Capacity to know and believe to make him capable of Salvation and what care the Church must take to instruct the ignorant to satisfie the doubting to direct the unskilful and to help the weak and not barely to provide for necessity but safety and not barely the safety of particular persons but of it self which cannot p. 276. be done without prudent Orders setting the bounds of Mens Employments c. i. e. though it is possible for a private Christian who lives alone and has the use of the Bible in a Language which he understands by diligent and honest inquiries to find out so much truth as is absolutely necessary to Salvation yet this does not overthrow the necessity of a setled Ministry and a regular Authority in the Church all this I firmly assent to and yet do as firmly believe the necessity of Church-Communion when it may be had upon Lawful Terms and so does this Reverend Person also and therefore I cannot look upon your alleadging his Authority against me to have any other design than to affront the Dean for his excellent Pains in vindicating the Communion of our Church and shewing people the Evil and Danger of Separation He has sufficiently declared what his Judgment is about Separation and therefore I need not concern my self any farther to prove that he is not my Adversary in this Cause At the same rate you deal with that great Man as you deservedly call him Dr. Tillotson who says I had much rather perswade any one to be a good Man than Preface to be of any Party and 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 How does this oppose me who assert the necessity of Church-Communion Is the Catholick Church then and the Communion of Saints no part of our Creed and is not Schism destructive to these great Articles of our Faith or is Schism which is the breach of Christian Charity properly so called which is the Love and Charity which the Members of the same Body ought to have for each other and consists in Unity and Communion consistent with a good Life if by that we understand an Universal goodness of which Charity is the most vital and essential part But do you indeed think Sir that the Dean believes a Man may be saved without Communion with any Church when it may be had without Sin when in the very next Paragraph he so earnestly exhorts them to Communion with the Church of England I can easily forgive your usage of me since I find you cannot Read the best Books without perverting them and that you never spare any Mans Reputation to serve your Designes for your Reproaches and your Commendations are but different ways of abuse though I confess I should rather chuse to be reproached by you Your last Consideration is whether it be a good way to convert Schismaticks to prove that Schism is as Letter 3. p. 29. Damning a Sin as Murder or Adultery Truly Sir St. Cyprian and St. Austin and all the Ancient Fathers of the Church thought this a very good way for they insisted very much upon this Argument and if Men will not forsake their Schism though the Salvation of their Souls be endangered by it I am apt to think that no other Arguments will perswade them And if this be true as I verily believe it is and shall believe so till I see the Third Chapter of the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Still fairly answered I think it the greatest Charity in the World to warn Men of it and if it should prove by their perverseness no Charity to them it is Charity to my own Soul and delivers me from the guilt of their Bloud whether such Doctrine Preach Men into or out of the Church And now for your parting Blow Certainly if our Church required Conformity to its Rites and Ceremonies as necessary to Salvation It could not blame Men for dividing from it Yes certainly upon such a Supposition the Church could and would blame Men for their Separation though it may be they might not deserve to be blamed for no doubt the more necessary the Church judges her Constitutions the more she will blame Dissenters But he who tells us or he
That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies This is not only frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball (g) (g) (g) Trial p. 121 129 140 156. but little less even by Mr. Norton (h) (h) (h) Resp ad Apol c. 13. who saith It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in Publick Worship are in use neither doth it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter c. Is it not a high degree Sacril desert p. 102. Defence Part 2. p. 65. Balls Trial p. 138. Rogers 7 Tr. p. 224. of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ's Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day have offered such Worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms and that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the old Non-conformists were unworthy your Communion I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer but I know also that these are answered by them But since the most common is that of quenching and stinting the Spirit I shall briefly give their sence of it They say 1. To say that Persons should use no set Form but Roger's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223. Balls Tryal c. 5. p. 83. pray as moved by the Spirit is a fond Error 2. They say that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask not in what phrase of speech It stirreth up in us holy Desires but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our Hearts in a fit method and significant words Ability of Speech is a common Gift of the Spirit which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad c. 3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Ibid. p. 91. Words and Forms but in fervent Sighs and Groans 4. That there is nothing letteth but that in such Rogers Ibid. Forms the Hearers Hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble to quicken and to comfort And Dr. Owen cannot deny but that they may Disc of Prayer p 222 231 232. be for edification and that Persons in the use of them may have Communion with God 5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this Case are grounded upon Mistakes and are misapplied as Mr. Tombs in particular hath clearly manifested Theodulia p. 164 238. Fourthly I shall consider what their Opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common-Prayer both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it As to the Liturgy it self it 's acknowledged 1. That the Matter for the most part is good sound Bryan's dwelling with God Serm. 6 p. 312. Baxt. Def. pa. t 1. p. 29 59. Crofton Refor no Separ p. 25. T. D. Jerubbaal p 35. and divine and that there is not any Doctrinal Passage in any of the Prayers that may not bear a good construction and so Amen may be said to it as Dr. Bryan with others do maintain 2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its Publick Forms so ours is the best So the old Non-conformists Compare the Doctrines Leâ—ter of the Minist in Old-Engl p. 12. Prayers Rites at those Times throughout in use in the Churches with ours and in all these blessed be the Name of the Lord we are more pure than they And it 's not much short that we find in Mr. Baxter in the name of Second Plea for Peace p. 101. the present Non-conformists 3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable and hinders not but that it 's acceptable to God and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons Tolerable So Mr. Corbet The Worship contained Plea for Lay-Communion p. 2. V. Ball 's Tryal c. 9. p. 58. in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in it being sound for substance in the main and the mode thereof being laudable in divers Forms and Orders and passable in the most though in some offensive inconvenient or less perfect Acceptable to God So the old Non-conformists Letter of the Minist in Old-England p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers according to Christ's Command and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed notwithstanding the Corruptions we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God c. Edifying to well-disposed Persons To this purpose Mr. Hildersham Mr. Rogers c. Treat 3. c. 4. p. 224l And accordingly Mr. Corbet professeth his own experience (a) (a) (a) Corbet Plea p. 3. Though I judg their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired yet I have found my Heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein and more especially in receiving the Lord's Supper I judg this Form may be used formally by the Formal and spiritually by those that are Spiritual It is my part to make the best of it being the established Form As to Communion in the Liturgy it is granted 1. That there is no cause to renounce it or the Communion of the Church for it and that so to do is a Sin (b) (b) (b) Gifford's plain Declaâ—ation Ball 's Trial c. 7. p. 121. Sacril desert p. 105. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come among us where it is used (c) (c) (c) Mr Baxter's Def. of Cure p. 68. 3. It 's declared on the part of the old Non-conformists That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their Publick Ministrations (d) (d) (d) Ball 's Tryal p. 121. c. 8. p. 155. and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it (e) (e) (e) Let. of Ministers of Old-Engl p. 14. And for the present it 's declared We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer but read it our selves (f) (f) (f) Mr. Mead's Case p. 7. M. Humphry's Healing Paper p. 5. Mr. Baxter's Disp 4. of Church-Gov p. 364. Mr. S. Fairclough's Life p. 157. I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Objections against the Liturgy and the Answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-conformists but shall content my self with that which it seems was much Trial. c. 8. p. 152. insisted upon in the days of Mr. Ball and their Reply to it The Liturgy in the whole Matter and Form thereof is Object too like unto the Mass-Book If the Liturgy be Antichristian it is so either in Answ respect of the Matter or of the Form Not of the Matter for that which properly belonged to Antichrist the foul and gross Errors is purged out Not of the Form for Order and Phrase of