Catholic Communion Defended Against Both Extremes, Chapter 2 – Chapter 3
CHAP. II. Of his first Case.
§. 1. PAge 31. His first Case, Whether Communion with some Church or other be a necessary Duty incumbent on Christians:] And he thinks the Resolution of this is as plain, as whether it be necessary for every man to be a Christian: For every Christian is baptized into the Communion of the Church.
A. In this I know no Christian adversary to him: But it being the Vniversal Church that he giveth his proof of necessary Communion with, it's odde to say, We must have Communion with some Church or other: As if there were more than one Universal Church. 2. But we grant more, that all that can well, should be also members of some single Church.
§. 2. P. 32. He saith [External and Actual Communion is an Essential duty of a Church-member (meaning a Christian.)]
A. 1. And yet before he denyed that Communion lay essentially in this Exercise, but only in Vnion: Yea and Nay is his Custom. 2. Some few Christians (as those that live where such Communion cannot be had without sin, &c.) are not bound to it; therefore it is not true that it is Essential to Universal Church-membership. And I think sickness endeth not the essentials, that disableth men.
3. Note Reader, that by this mans Doctrine we are all unchristened and damned if we do not gather into disallowed Churches, if we be unjustly cast out of the allowed ones: For all must be Church members that will be Christians, and an unjust Excommunication cannot disoblige us from Christianity, nor bind us to consent to be damned. Now read the 5th 6th 7th 8th, &c. Canons of the Church of England, which ipso facto Excommunicate all that affirm any thing in their Liturgy, Articles, Ceremonies or Government sinful, and answer Spalatensis arguments against Excommunicating ipso facto, and prove all this just, and you may prove what you will just. But you see where he layeth the Controversie: If any be Excommunicated without sufficient cause, or by Lay Civilians to whom God never gave that power, or by such Bishops or Pastors as have no just Authority for want of a true call or Consent; or if any unlawful thing be made necessary to Communion, all such persons must by his own confessions hold Church-communion whether these imposers will or not; for all Christians are bound to be of some Church.
§. 3. p. 33, 34. He saith that [None but publick Prayers are the Prayers of the Church properly, and acts of Communion, that is, such as are offered by the hands of men authorized and set apart for that purpose, &c.]
Ans. Who would have thought that we are more for the Liturgy than he? I undertake to prove, that all the Responsal Prayers, and all the Litany Prayers, in which the Minister names but the matter to them, and the People make it a Prayer by speaking the petitioning parts, are all the publick Prayers of the Church, and so are all the petitioning Psalms spoke or sung by the People, and not only that which is offered by the Priest: I do not think that he believeth what he carelesly saith here, himself.
But the Independents are stiffer for his first Thesis (of the necessity of Church-communion) than he is, his unfit words I pass by.
CHAP. III. Of his second Case.
§. 1. THE next question of Occasional Communion as distinct from fixed, he turns out of doors, as if there could be no such thing, and it's very true as to the Church universal; but as to visible, actual Communion with this or that particular Church, it is not true.
1. A Traveller of another Country, who on his journey communicateth with every Church where he passeth, is not a fixed Member of that Church: for, 1. The Pastor or Bishop hath not that peculiar Charge of him as of fixed members. 2. He is not bound where he passeth to take such notice of the lives of Communicants or Pastors, and to admonish the Offenders, and tell the Church, as fixed members are. 3. He hath not the right in chooseing Pastors or Deacons as the fixed Members have. 4. An itinerant Bishop in transitu is not their fixed Bishop; ergo an Iterant Lay-man is not a fixed Member.
The same I may say of one that is a fixed member of another Church in the same City, and cometh to that only to signifie universal Communion, or neighbourly; which, though he deny to be lawful, I shall further prove anon.
And the same I may say of those that dwell where there is no fixed single Church at all, for want of a Pastor, but they congregate only when some strange Minister passeth through the Town.