Schism detected in both extreams, or, Two sorts of sinful separation the first part detecteth the schismatical principles of a resolver of three cases about church-communion, the second part confuteth the separation pleaded for in a book famed to be written by Mr. Raphson.

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 Vni∣versal 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 du∣ty 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 with∣out 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 es∣sentials, 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 Chri∣stianity, nor bind us to consent to be damned. Now read the 5^th 6^th 7^th 8^th, &c. Canons of the Church of England, which ipso facto Excommunicate all that affirm any thing in their Liturgy, Articles, Ceremonies or Govern∣ment

sinful, and answer Spala••••••••ensis 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 suffici∣ent 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 Con∣sent; or if any unlawful thing be made necessary to Communion, all such per∣sons must by his own confessions hold Church-communion whether these Im∣posers 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 Li∣tany 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.