A Seasonable VINDICATION OF THE Truly Catholick Doctrine OF THE Church of England IN REPLY TO Dr. Sherlock's ANSWER to Anonymus his three Letters concerning Church-Communion Errare possum Haereticus aut Schismaticus esse nolo LONDON Printed for Jonathan Robinson at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's Church-yard 1683. Anonymus his REPLY to Dr. Sherlock's Answer to his Three Letters about Church-Communion SIR BEING neither Prophet nor Prophet's Son nor having any outward Sign whereby I might judg of your pleasure to teach me my Catechism in private I by publishing my Objections against your Discourses about Church-Communion have given you the opportunity of glutting and satiating your Revenge according to your own decent Expression of Divine Justice and insulting over the Ignorance of an ill-taught Lay-man who knew not what it was to press Dr. Sherlock to explain himself in a Matter wherein his own Brethren such as are as far from the Imputation of Deism or Socinianism as himself and are not likely to contemn the Notion of a Church and of the Evangelical Priesthood and Sacraments have been highly dissatisfied as he himself well knows You blame me for offering no Argument to disprove any Thing you say nor shewing wherein lay the Weakness of your Arguments As if it were nothing to urge to a Man the plain Consequences of his Doctrine which as you know who teaches us is a plain way of Reasoning which all Men allow of to convince Men of the Vnsoundness of their Doctrines This perhaps I may have done in the first and second Letters And for my third where you say I run nothing but Dregs and Lees and where you think little new but Repetitions of old Queries perhaps some will belive it was not altogether impertinent to shew wherein your Art lay in applying that to a Church in one Sence which belong'd to it in another But admit all this were nothing to the disproof of what you undertook I think it had been enough if I had only put such Questions as might oblige you to explain your self And if your Discourse stood in need of it you may well think your self concerned in my Queries and ought to thank me for putting you upon a Purgation Which you have made in such a manner as if your Trial had been by Fire Truly I should have been glad to have found it done with such Charity and Candor as becomes a Messenger of the Prince of Peace and might have given some reasonable satisfaction that you aim at something better than running down at any rate those who have the misfortune to think otherwise than you do You complain indeed that I have not treated you with that Civility which I owe your Person or your Profession nay as good as tell me I have been scandalously rude when you wish for my own sake I had carried my self better Truly if it be such Rudeness to charge a Clergy-man with what one takes to be the Import of his Doctrine and calling it uncharitable or owing to ill Principles where he believes it so I confess my self guilty Yet I appeal to all unbiass'd Men whether those foul Representations of Christianity which I still conceive to lurk within the former general Assertions were animadverted on with that Severity which ought to have been But yet it seems you were resolved to be even with me in the worst Sence Wherefore to pass by the telling me in effect that a Fool may ask more Questions than a wise Man can answer but that mine are very foolish and impertinent Questions generally nothing to the purpose which is such a Rebuke as if you should bid me ask no more with a dirty Face you insinuate That I espouse a Schism or Faction only to shew my Wit in defending it and to make my self considerable by espousing a Party and am no hearty Lover of the Church of England that it is not in my Nature to be civil to a Clergy-man That I disown part of the due Authority of Bishops That I think of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a very indifferent Ceremony That I designed to affront Dr. Stilling fleet and Dr. Tillotson whom I greatly reverence and particularly would charge the former with endeavouring to prove all Church-Communion needless That I excuse Dissenters upon such Principles as tendâ— to undermine Christianity c. But these Insinuations to which I shall not give their due Epithete were not enough for your purpose but you must come to a positive Charge which you scatter up and down your Answer as that I never spare any Man's Reputation to serve my Designs and that my Reproaches and Commendations are but different Ways of Abuse Nay you are so indiscreet to charge upon me what I chiefly write against and blame you for which is That where two Churches are not in Communion with each other they cannot both belong to the same Body but that it is evident that one of these mast needs be cut off from Christ's Body Where you take advantage of the Printer's Mistake putting it is for is it which I made by way of Question as manifestly appears by the Coherence But the dreadfullest part of your Charge is in the ghostly Counsel which you vouchsafe me where you tell me It is evident I have a great Spite at the whole Order of the Clergy That I am guilty of too plain a Contempt of all Church-Authority That tho I pretend to be in Communion with the Church of England I make the Church it self a very needless and insignificant Thing for I know no necessity of communicating with any Church That I will not allow it to be Schism to separate from the Church And that I think it a pretty indifferent thing whether Men be baptized or not or by whom Then to deal plainly with me you think I have more need to be taught my Catechism than to set up for a Writer of Books And that the Consequence of the Way I am in is no less than a Contempt of all revealed and instituted Religion And what of most Men I should not have expected from Dr. Sherlock my Notions are condemned as owing to Deists and Socinians And thus Sir in the Spirit of Meekness and Charity you have drawn up a very fair Charge You may treat me with as much scorn and contempt as you please and I shall consider it but as your natural Infirmity where God Almighty makes allowances we ought But I ought not to be silent under such Reproaches of which your own Conscience cannot but acquit every Thing that I have said or wrote to you And further no reasonable Man can think me concerned to vindicate my self The most solemn Protestations concerning my more private Thoughts would be but scoffed at by them who are resolved to believe the worst And my Comfort is no Orthodox Clergy-man that knows me will be so
Wound in the Arm which does not sever it from the Body 'T is not every Quarrel or Contention agreeably to your Notion you might add tho it be such as the Apostle calls Schism which makes a Schism but the Breach of Christian Communion Let me desire you to consider whether by departing from the Scripture-Account of this misled perhaps by the Disputes of some of the Ancients thundring against each other you will not enter at least into the Confines of Donatism You say of those Hereticks They confined the Church of Christ to Africa and to their own Communion Mr. Chillingworth gives us a fuller Account wherein their Heresy lay in these Words That upon a vain Pretence of the Corruption of the Church they separated themselves from the Communion of other Parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary Condition to make a Man a Member of the Church that he should be of their Communion and divide himself from all other Communions from which they were divided It seems according to them to use your Words Tho a Church retained the Purity of the Faith and Worship and was so far true yet it was not every way sound and Orthodox nor a Catholick Church unless it observ'd those Conditions of Catholick Communion which were two 1. That it must be in Communion with theirs 2. That it must divide from all other Communions from which they are divided 1. For the first you teach us that The visible Vnion of all Churches in and to Christ consists in their visible Communion with each other and Communion with a particular Church which is it self in Catholick Communion is as necessary as Communion with the Catholick Church Whoever lives in England and renounces Communion with the Church of England is a Schismatick from the Catholick Church And if occasionally we communicate with some other sound Part of the Catholick Church in the same Communion we may do it without Schism so this be as owning our selves Members But an ordinary withdrawing upon a profest Dislike you make as destructive of a State of Communion as a formal Renunciation Wherefore as you hold that we are bound to maintain Communion with all sound Parts of the Catholick Church and that in other Matters besides the Agreement in all the Articles of Faith and Essentials of Worship it does follow that it must be in those very Matters which distinguish one Communion from another And the National Church being that sound Part wherewith every Christian here is to communicate herein you have found out a Root Fountain and Principle of Vnion or Beginning of the Catholick Church to which all particular Churches are or ought to be united and by virtue of this Catholick Vnity are one Catholick Church If it be ask'd What 't is which brings one with safety to this Beginning of the Catholick Church 'T is not humane Law as it has plac'd us under such a Government and Discipline and which makes the only Distinction of Churches you allow of but the Principles of Catholick Communion against which whatever Church offends you will not yield it to be sound and Orthodox And you assure us We have nothing else to do but to judg whether that part of the Church wherein we live be so sound and Orthodox that we may communicate with it according to the Principles of Catholick Communion If it be we are bound to communicate with it under peril of Schism from the Catholick Church if we do not And consequently whatever Church refuses our Communion 't is not sound and Orthodox or any part of the Catholick Church as not retaining the true Principles of Catholick Communion Thus far Donatus might have gone taking it for granted that his Church was the Beginning of the Catholick Church 2. This first Point being setled 't is no wonder if it be likewise required that we must divide from the Communion of all that are divided from this sound part of the Catholick Church And methinks Donatus himself might argue That 't is evident the pretended Catholicks understand not the true Principles of Catholicism for if they did they would never proffer a Composition with us and yield that the surviving Bishop should govern these which are now distinct Communions They must own either that they are not any part of Christ's Body or else that we are not for 't is impossible that two Churches which are not in Communion with each other can both belong to the same Body And therefore the Obligation to Catholick Communion does equally oblige us to renounce the Communion of Schismaticks You in effect justify Donatus his Terms of Communion and when you say Their Churches were in all Things like the Catholick Churches excepting Catholick Communion you as good as tell us he only mistook the Church which he should have made the Beginning of the Catholick Church If he had been with St. Austin he had been no Heretick for refusing to receive Hereticks into the Church without Re-baptization and damning all that were of a Communion divided from his or that would not consent to have them excommunicated who without proof had been accused of being Traditors But as you teach us that that Church is not sound which keeps not to the Principles of Catholick Communion Mr. Chillingworth shews wherein they swerv'd from that sound Principle The Condition of their Communion says he was both unnecessary and unlawful to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicism For ought yet appears Donatus and you are pretty well agreed in the Notion of Catholick Communion and of the Breach of this Unity wherein we are taught that the full Nature of Schism lies He with you confin'd the Influences of the Holy Spirit to this Vnity Yet whether he would have intreagu'd this Business of Church-Communion as you have done I cannot tell All the Sence which I can gather out of your Notion as the Leaf-Gold is spread out is this That to be a Member of the Christian Church and in a State of Communion with it 't is not enough to be admitted into the Church by Baptism nor to exercise any Acts of Communion with a particular Church unless it be in Communion with every sound part of the Christian Church and that so as to own your self for a Member of every such sound Church And tho you do own your self a Member as perhaps every one will that agrees in Essentials yet if you ordinarily withdraw from that sound Church where you are which must always be the only sound Church on the Place upon any profest Dislike or communicate with them that are of a divided and consequently a Schismatical Communion you forfeit your Membership even tho that other Church has nothing sinful in its Communion Which in one place you think enough to make any Church sound and Orthodox whereas in others
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
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
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
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
part of the Catholick Church Is Christ's Body made up only of sound Members Are all that are unsound divided from the Body But if a true Member be of the Body as well as that which is sound do not you by refusing to communicate with any true Member upon your own Principles refuse to be of the Body especially when the only Unsoundness is that it differs by reason of some Accidentals from that Church where you exercise the Acts of Catholick Communion And it might be well to know whether you own that there is any sound Church besides the Church of England with which you can communicate how much soever you talk of Catholick Communion Or at least whether you are not Schismatical in dividing from some true Churches And may not you be charged with denying the very Notion of a Catholick Church and asserting that Christ has not one but twenty or a hundred several Bodies But whereas you affirm that he who divides from one sound Part divides from all is it not rather demonstrable that he who communicates with one sound Part or one true Part communicates with all as being united to Christ's Body As he that touches a Man's Finger touches his Body but it does not follow that one cannot touch his Body unless he touch his Finger But since you are so fond of this Notion give me leave to turn your own Artillery upon you and if you have condemned your self or the Church in which you live of Schism and dividing from Christ's Body you may thank your self If it follows from the Identity of Christ's Body that whoever is divided from any sound Member is divided from the whole being that Member is united to the Body so it must necessarily be if you divide from any true Member unless a true Member is no Member And you your self being sensible of this have taught that 't is absurd to gather a Church out of a Christian Church and divide Neighbour-Christians into distinct Communions Nay you left your self no possible Evasion when you affirmed that the only thing that can give us in particular a Right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the Conditions of this Covenant and live in Vnity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World If therefore there be any true Christian Church with which you refuse to communicate have you not made a good Rod for your own Back The Church of Rome as you own is a true tho a corrupt Church but you I suppose refuse to communicate with this true Church are you not therefore cut off from Christ's Body You will say perhaps you cannot communicate but upon sinful Terms But what 's that to the purpose If this is stil a true Church and Member of Christ's Body you know Christ has but one Body one Spouse one Flock one Church And if we be no Members of this one Church we are not united to Christ The Parts of this Body must be united to each other that they may be united to Christ else it would be as if the Parts of the natural Body should divide from each other and hang together by a magical kind of Vnion with the Soul AndVnion to the Body consists in being united to that part of the Body which is next You have foreclosed your self from saying that you are united in what is essential to its being a Member of Christ's Body and have a participation of the same vital Heat and animal Spirits but think it hard that one Member should be charged with the putrid Sores or Wounds of another and to speak plainly that you forsake it only in its Uncatholick Terms This would come too nigh that very Fanaticism which you deride And you having told us that a Compliance with the Order Government Discipline and Worship as well as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church is absolutely necessary to Catholick Communion 'T is upon your own Grounds necessary to comply with every true part of the Catholick Church in all these as well as with every sound Part. Wherefore might not the Papists beat you into their Church with those Weapons which you have forg'd against others Might not they tell you that you want Christian Charity unless you are united in one Communion with this one Body That you want the chief Branch of Holiness without which none shall see God That all the Blessings of the Gospel are promised to us in a Church-State That the Effects and Application of the Grace Merit and Satisfaction of Christ Jesus is confined to this Body consisting of Members sound and unsound That the Gospel-Covenant is confin'd to the Communion of the Christian Church That to remit Sins is to restore Men to the Peace and Communion of the Church and to retain them is to cast Men out of the Church or keep them under Church-Censures which is a plain Demonstration that Sins are forgiven only in the Communion of the Church But yet further 't is a Question whether you are in Communion even with every Church which requires nothing sinful as a Term of its Communion and is upon that account sound and Orthodox You say indeed you should make no scruple to communicate with the Lutheran Church if it did not require of you the Belief of Consubstantiation Yet certainly you did not attend to your own Grounds when you said so For if that be not in Communion with our Church you know you would be a Schismatick if you communicated with it But that their Church is not in Communion with ours appears upon your own Rule for that the Governors are not in Communion with each other which you make essential to the Communion of particular Churches And for this 't is not necessary to shew that the Governors of each side condemn the others Constitution 'T is enough if the Governors of that Church which you are of do condemn the Constitution of the other or of any part of it You say indeed that our Church is so far from condemning Foreign Reformed Churches for the want of Bishops that it has always lived in Communion with them If this be so then as a Bishop in the same Communion with us might with the leave of English Bishops exercise his Episcopal Office in any Church in England so might a Protestant Minister ordained abroad without Episcopal Ordination But I take it you will not say that he may If he may not this is a condemning with a witness For if any of them have no Orders amongst them where is their regular Church-Society Nay as you believe the Right of Episcopal Government 't is questionable whether you do Divine not deny that such have any proper Church-Officers And further that you may not take the Difference about the Constitution of Churches or the Validity of a particular kind of Ordination to be meerly between the Bishops of our Church and the
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
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