Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A26183
|
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.
|
Atwood, William, d. 1705?
|
1683
(1683)
|
Wing A4182; ESTC R7909
|
57,215
|
86
|
straggle into a Church which is not in Communion with our Bishops This Confinement to one Bishop you must say upon your grounds would be contrary to the Nature of Catholick Communion but we have your Authority for it that the other is not Yet it seems if Presbytery should have the Advantage of Authority they who refuse Communion with the National Church upon pretence of purer Ordinances and the Belief that Episcopacy is the Ordinance of God must be as bad as Murderers and Adulterers that is very Schismaticks And judg you whether 't would not be a barbarous Thing to make any Laws which shall ensnare Men in so great a Guilt But here you take notice of a Passage or two in my Preface The one That perhaps it is no Absurdity to suppose that Men may as well continue Members of the National Church notwithstanding their breaking many positive Laws made for the outward management and ordering of it tho not fundamental and necessary to its Being as he who incurs the Penalty of any Statute of the Realm about Civil Affairs may however be a sound Member of the State if he keep from Treason or other Capital Crimes This you answer by a begging and indeed mistaking the Question and will have it of a Schismatical Separation which you elswhere express by renouncing Communion And this you may compare to Treason and Rebellion in the State if you think fit But the Church is not much beholden to you for making that in which Conformity is expected fundamental and necessary to its Being And when you compare a Man that communicates sometimes with one true Church sometimes with another to a Man that joins sometimes with his Prince's Forces and sometimes with his Enemies the Comparison is either very impertinent or very uncharitable in supposing that a Church which differs from this in what is really accidental how essential soever you make it is Antichristian or an Enemy to Christ which surely no true Church is yet I must confess herein you agree with your self when you say There may be a true Church which is no Catholick Church that is no true part of the Catholick Church I add Nay possibly that there should be several Religious Assemblies living by different Customs and Rules and yet continuing Members of the National Church is not more inconsistent than that particular Places should have their particular Customs and By-Laws distinct from the Common-Law of the Land without making a distinct Government This you condemn without vouchsafing it a fair Hearing as nibling at that Healing Project for which you think you have sufficiently exposed Mr. Humphreys But I shall chuse the Protection of the great Protestant Champion Mr. Chillingworth and if you are resolved to wound him through my Side I will bear the Brunt of it as well as I can To reduce Christians to Unity there are but two Ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away Diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion the other by shewing that the Diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no Hinderance to their Unity in Communion The first he looks on as not likely without a Miracle What then remains says he but that the other way must be taken and Christians must be taught to set an higher value upon those high Points of Faith and Obedience wherein they agree than upon Matters of less moment wherein they differ and understand that Agreement in those ought to be more effectual to join them in one Communion than their Difference in other Things of less moment to divide them When I say One Communion I mean in a common Profession of those Articles of Faith wherein all consent a joint Worship of God after such a way as all esteem lawful and a mutual Performance of all those Works of Charity which Christians owe one unto another And to such a Communion what better Inducement could be thought of than to demonstrate that what was universally believed of all Christians if it were joined with a Love of Truth and holy Obedience was sufficient to bring Men to Heaven For why should Men be more rigid than God Why should any Error exclude any Man from the Churches Communion which will not deprive him of eternal Salvation To the same Sence is the Passage I had in that Preface cited out of Dr. Tillotson's Sermon and you may as well ask him as me Is the Catholick Church then and Communion of Saints no part of our Creed Your Notion of Communion is a new Article But to re-assert what I had observed of your managing the Charge of Schism I had said People might not well understand what it is unless it be taken to lie wholly in want of Charity And in the Errata to avoid the Cavil of its being common such as we have for all Mankind I had added the Epithete of Christian I say further to my thinking as St. Paul speaks of it He supposes a continuance still of the same Body and ascribes it to Christians continuing such nay and communicating with each other And this you were not able to deny nay you well know that not only the Thing but the very Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had by that Apostle been applied to such Hence you would argue That I will not allow causless Separation from a sound Part of the Catholick Church to be Schism but place Schism wholly in want of Charity But 't is obvious that I do it no more than the Apostle himself does But besides it induces the Belief that Schism is not such a Crime as you imagine For if the Corinthians were Schismaticks whilst they continued in Communion with each other and yet were particular Members of Christ's Body then Schism does not cut off from Christ's Body nor do you rightly apply the Addition of Apostate Christian Further by what Authority do you apply that to a refusing Communion with any sound Church whatever upon your supposed Notion of Catholick Communion from a Text which mentions no other Schism but what was between them who liv'd in the same Communion And still beyond all this it seems demonstrable from the Text that the Causa formalis or that which constitutes Schism is not Separation tho it be causless unless it be accompanied with want of Charity For since there may be Schism where there is no Separation of Communion then it must be something which consists with joint Communion and find out something besides Want of Charity if you can The Apostle's Notion of Schism we have seen but I wonder by what Authority you affirm'd That Schism is nothing else but a Breach of Christian Communion and that where the Vnity of the Church is broken by distinct and opposite Communions there is the full Nature of Schism and where this is not there is either no Schism or only a partial Schism which is like a great
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