so to do why else do you call this a clearing of that now it is evident you take Church in the Proposition for the Catholick visible Church existing in the World with whom you say an external Communion is to be sought as hath been before shew'd But how absurd is what you say if you take Church in this sence For First you hereby say that Christ did primarily design to save this present existing Catholick Church what can be more absurd did not Christ think you as primarily design all those parts of his Church that in their past Generations did once exist here on Earth and doth not he alike design to save that part that is yet to be born Again you herein say that Christ primarily designed to save the Catholick visible Church which is evidently false for Christ never designed to save his visible Catholick Church much lesse considered as visible and therefore cannot be said Primarily to design Their Salvation for Christs design was to save only a part of his visible Church and that part not considered as visible but as invisibly united to himself by a livving Faith Yet again if the quite contrary be true viz. That Christ first designed the Salvation of particular Christians and but in a secondary sence the Church that is made up of them then what you say must needs be false viz. that Christ designed Salvation to the Church primarily and to particular Members secondarily as in Union with the Church The former of which I affect for these reasons First Because all individual sincere Christians have all qualifications that are absolutely necessary to Salvation antecedently to a visible Church state as actual Faith and Repentance if they be adult or the promise of the Covenant upon their Parents Faith if they be Infants which are Foundations of and give Title to a visible Church State Therefore our Saviour primarily designed to save them as such and as for his designing such to be admitted into a visible Church State by Baptism it was but to Seal that Salvation to them and to promote and carry on that Salvation that was antecedently secured to them by the Covenant upon their Repentance and Faith in the Lord Jesus the very Truth is Christ did not intend at all to save men as visible Church Members but only as true Believers for the fundamental saving Doctrine of the Gospel doth not run thus he that is a Member of the visible Church shall be saved but he that Believeth shall be saved and he that Believeth not shall be damned If it be objected But doth not the Apostle Peter Preach not only Repentance but likewise Baptism as necessary to Remission of sins and consequently to Salvation when he says Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins And is not Baptisme an Ordinance of admission into a visible Church State Acts 2.30 I answ they are both indeed commanded but not as equally necessary for Repentance gives the fundamental title to remission Baptisme doth only give the Seal the former is so necessary that without it no remission can be obtained the other is but for the more comfortable assurance of that priviledge to the penitent but not absolutely necessary as the other and this our Saviour most clearly intimates when he saith Mark 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that Believeth not shall be damned Men shall be damned meerly upon the account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of Baptism provided they have Faith And yet Baptism hath its great use as I have acknowledged but as I said not absolutely necessary for if men only Believe and never have an opportunity of being Baptized and so of being admitted into a visible Church state thereby then Salvation is not at all hazarded My next reason is this It cannot be true that Christ only designed to save particular Christians as Members of the visible Church because it were impossible then that any Christians that were not visible Church Members should be saved for if it must fare with particular Christians with respect to this body Politick as he is pleased to call it the Church as it doth with the Members of the natural Body where it is confest that God by his Providence only intends to give life to each Member and likewise the continuance of Life as united together in one body it will certainly follows that if any Member of the Church be separated from the Church it must necessarily perish as if a hand or a foot were separated from the natural body it doth certainly perish But by his leave this is very false as to particular Christians with respect to the Church for first all Christians do not spring out of the Church as the Members of the natural body do out of that body for when Infidels belive they spring out of the World or Masse of mankind and not out of the Church and by believing are first united to Christ and then as Saul converted they essay to joyn themselves to the Church so that first they are internal members of a Church or are fit matter to be made members of and afterwards making a profession of Faith are made formal Members of a visible Church which is solemnized by Baptisme Secondly and if it so happen that by unjust excommunication any true Christian be cut off from the visible Church yet it keeps its Life as no Member in a natural body can do The conclusion is this that if Christians are in a salvable state before Union to a visible Church and if they may be in a salvable state when wrongfully cut off by Excommunication then it cannot be true that Christ did but in a secondary way intend the Salvation of particular Christians viz. as united to a Church My third and last reason is this I say Christ did not primarily design to save his Church and but secondarily particular Members as he asserts which I thus prove That respect which individual men have to civil Society as Kingdomes or Republicks that respect have particular Christians to the visible Church of Christ according to his own notion of a Church which he considers as a body Politick Now I say God in making the World did not primarily design Kingdomes and Commonwealths but he primarily designed the giving of particular men their existences and secondarily Kingdoms and Republicks for their better accommodation Men were not made for Kingdoms but Kingdoms for Men. Therefore so did Christ he first designed the putting of particular men into a State of Salvation by giving to them Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins and then designed as a consequent thereof to collect them into a Society or Societies under Governours of his appointment to be ruled by Laws of his own Ordination for the building them up in their Faith and comforts to his Glory so that this Society or Societies of Church or Churches with the Laws and Ordinances thereto
belonging are but for the sakes and subordinated to the welfare of particular Christians and therefore it is necessary that Christ should first intend the welfare or Salvation of particulars before the meer associating them into Church or Churches under government which is but a means to that great end of saving particulars For certainly that which is more excellent in the Nature of things is primarily designed by every rational Agent before that which is lesse excellent so certainly is the restauration of particular Persons in giving them renewed Natures Remission of sins and a Title to Salvation before that meer order that ought to be amongst them for their security and comfort which is acquired by associations or Church Government If it yet be not clear give me leave to illustrate this matter yet further by this similitude Let us consider Christ as the general of an Army who is by the Apostle called the Captain of our Salvation and the Church under him as an Army under several Officers for their better Order and Government and all particular Christians as so many particular Souldiers Now let us consider the several ends which a general hath in gathering his Souldiers into an Army and which end is more principally intended and which end lesse principally or subordinately intended His first end is to subdue his Enemies to the Praise of his Justice and Valour the next end intended is the preservation of his Souldiers without which the more principal end cannot be obtained and that which is an end subordinate to both these is the keeping his Souldiers in Union and Order under their several Officers for without this Union and Order the particular Souldiers cannot so well be preserved so that here it is evident that the uniting of his Men and keeping them under Discipline is subordinately intended for the preservation of particulars In like manner God in Christ designing to save sinners First he intends the Praise of his Glorious Grace Secondly he intends the Salvation of particular sinners by Regenerating and pardoning of them And lastly he intends the Collection of them into a body or bodies under Discipline for their better safety and security this last is not principally or lesse principally but that which is subordinately intended to both the other The conclusion that ariseth hence is this that this Author is much mistaken when he saith that Christ did primarily intend the Salvation of his Church and secondarily the Salvation of particular Christians cujus contrarium verum est as I have shewed We shall now further consider what he hath said for the confirmation of this his nation concerning Christs primary intention to save his Church c. This saith he is no more than what is the sence and Language of the Holy Scriptures wherein whatever Christ is said to have done and suffered for mankind he is said to have done for them not as scattered individuals but as incorporated into a Church Thus Christ sav'd the Church Eph. 5.25 Act. 20.25 Eph. 5.23 and gave himself for it Christ Redeemed the Church with his own precious Blood Christ is the Saviour of his Body The plain consequence from hence is saith he that every person so far as he is a Christian so far he is a Member of the Church and by virtue of that Relation to the Church it is that he hath any Relation to Christ or any Title to the Priviledges of the Gospel I answer it is a wonder to me to see the Authour otherwise a Person of good abilities so strangely misled into the confidence of a conclusion that is raised upon such palpable mistaken principals He says that what ever Christ hath done and suffered for mankind he hath done it for them not as scattered individuals but as incorporated into a Church I perceive by this that the Authour is not for Universal Redemption as some of his brethren are for I cannot see how Christ dying for all is consistent with Christ's dying for men considered as incorporated into his Church for it is certain that the greatest number of individuals that hath been or are in the World were or are not like to be so incorporated Yet further certainly the Author doth run himself and his Reader into much confusion for want of a Regular stating of the several Aspects which Christs sufferings have to mankind as they fall under divers considerations As first if mankind be considered as lapsed into a state of sin and death so they are said to be Enemies to God and Righteousness Dead in Trespasses and sins without God without hope I hope the Author doth not take men so considered as in any Church state and yet it is certain that according to Scriptures Christs suffering was with Relation to men as such Rom. 5.8 God commendeth his Love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us So Col. 1.21 And you that were sometime alienated and Enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the Body of his Flesh through Death In these Texts it 's evident that Christ's death respected men as incoporated in the corrupt Masse of mankind and not as incorporated into a Church Secondly Christs sufferings respects men considered as such that de futuro were to partake of the benefits of Christ's Death which benefits are either of an absolute or of a Relative and Politick Consideration Those that are absolute are such as the changing of mens Natures Remission of Sins Faith in Christ Repentance from dead Work these are all given and bestowed on en with respect to what Christ did and suffered for them Here men are to be considered absolutely as individual Christians and not as any members of a Society or a Church for I can as any man else may easily consider a man as a Believer as a Penitent as in favour with God without considering him under any Politick Relations as we may conceive of men as wise just and innocent without conceiving them as Citizens or Subjects There are other benefits that are likewise the purchase of Christs death and they are of a relative and Politick consideration and here it is that the Communion of the Saints or church Fellow-ship hath its place which Communion is either internal and this is a priviledge peculiar only to that Church of Christ which every Member is considered as really and sincerely united to Christ by a true Faith and to each other in a love unfeigned or external which properly belongs to Christians co-united together in an external profession of Faith in associating for publick worship and submitting to Christs Discipline Now of all these benefits some are more principall some less some are of absolute necessity to Salvation others not Those that are of a more principal consideration and of absolute necessity to Salvation are such that belong to Christians as individuals such as Faith and Repentance Remission of sins and such like which they have by virtue of Union
with Christ without any respect to any Politick Union with one another as for those benefits which are of a Politick or relative consideration they are lesse principal and not of that necessity to Salvation such are the Love of all Saints and their mutual Prayers for each other Such are worshiping together and the benefits of Christs Discipline now though these are excellent in their kinds yet much inferiour to those of Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins as being not so absolutely necessary to Salvation as these are Now I would fain know of the Author whether it be more true to say that Christ by his death did primarily intend to save men as Believers as Penitent as Renewed and pardoned which belongs to Christians considered as individuals which is what I affirm or to say he primarily intended to save men as hearing praying praising and receiving the Lords Supper together and likewise by being under Discipline which are the priviledges that belong to Christians as falling under a Politick consideration which is what he seems to affirm If the former be true then the latter which he hath asserted is false for both of them cannot be primarily intended Now I conceive the former true because it is every where affirmed in Scripture that he that believes he that repents he that is regenerate he that is pardoned shall be saved But it is no where promised that those that pray and praise c. with the Church that they shall be saved except it be with respect unto Faith and Repentance which as I have said belong to Christians as individuals and not as Members of a Church But he saith that herein he speaks but the sence and Language of the Holy Scriptures and here he quoteth three texts as Eph. 5.25 Acts 20.28 Eph. 5.23 well what doth he gather thence Hence saith he it is plain that Christ died primarily for his Church and for individuals not as scattered but as incorporated into his Church But by your favour here is more in your conclusion than is in those premised Texts indeed I read there that Christ gave himself for his Church and that he redeemed his Church with his blood and that he is the Saviour of his body which is his Church But I find not a word there of dying primarily for his Church and but secondarily for individuals as incorporated into his Church If any shall say all this is implyed if not exprest I say who ever so thinks is obliged to shew how and which way it comes to be implied but to save them the Labour I am bold to affirm the contrary that there is no such thing implyed my reason is this because Church in each of those places is taken for a collection of particular Christians considered primarily as true believers as true penitents and but secondarily as in Union one with another and as in Fellowship in Church Ordinances My reasons are first because there is nothing in the words or context that can force a contrary interpretation Secondly because the nature of the thing spoken of in these verses will bear no interpretation but such as I give Because the intents of Christs dying must be measured according to the Nature of things so that what is more excellent must be intended before that which is lesse excellent now mens being particularly united to Christ by Faith their having their Natures changed and their sins pardoned are more excellent than their Union and Communion with each other in external Ordinances that are but inferior Ministeries subservient to their Faith and their renewed Natures and the edification of them therein therefore Christ must intend his death primarily for his Church as Believers now as I have formerly said Believers as such are not Members of a Church for Faith speaks a relation to Christ but no relation immediately to any other Christian or Christians whatever Again under what qualification and for what reason Christ is said primarily to be Saviour of the Church his body under that qualification and for that reason Christ is said primarily to dye and shed his blood for his Body But Christ doth not save his Church under the qualification or for that reason primarily because they are united in external Acts of Worship and Discipline and upon that account it is they are of your visible Politick body or Church but because its particular Members are Believers and penitent but Christians quatenus Believers or penitent are not consider as Members of a Church for indeed Faith and Repentance speak no relation immediately to any but God and Christ that of Church Membership comes in as a consequent thereof to which priviledge Faith gives the Title Therefore Christ did not dye to save his Church quatenus a Society united for worship c. but quatenus its Members are true Believers and no further and for this cause I assert that the primary end of Christs death was to save individual Believers and but secondarily to save his Church so far as it consisted of such and no further Yet again if Christ intended primarily to save men because they were Members of a Church Then certainly the first thing that the Gospel should presse upon sinners is that they should first unite themselves to the Church which to say it doth is both false and absurd its false for the first cry of the Gospel is to men considered in a state of sin and Death and it is that they would repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus upon the doing of which it promiseth remission and a Title to Salvation and till this be done there is no mention of any command obliging them to become a Member of a Church and reality or profession men are no more capable of being Members of a Church than a Hog or Horse are capable of being Citizens of London He that considers what hath been said may soon see what little help those Scriptures he mentions afford his notion and upon what slender grounds he builds that confident conclusion of his viz. That by virtue of that relation to the Church it is that a Christian hath any relation to Christ He addes Agreeable to this notion it is saith he very plain that Baptism which is by all acknowledged to be the Ceremony of initiating us into Christianity is in Scripture declared to be the Rite whereby we are entred and admitted into the Church this St. Paul expresly tells us That we are all Baptized into one Body again that Christ hath sanctified i. e. hath separated his Church by the washing of Water and the Word I wonder that the Author should say that these Scriptures are agreeable to his notion that Christ intends the Salvation of no particular Christians but considered as members of a Church I answer they are ever just so much agreeable to his notion as the texts before-named He says all acknowledge that Baptisme is a ceremony initiating us into christianity I wonder who acknowledges
Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
so in your sence I am sure not all or but very few for Christianity objectively is the doctrine of Christ subjectively the same Doctrine as believed by us with a resolution to obey it but assuredly the Doctrine of Christ is first preached and heard and believed and a resolution taken up to obey it and all this is antecedent in the adult to baptisme or ought to be so As for Baptisme it is but a professing sign of my being a Christian or a seal of the promises that God hath made to me as such and is not a Ceremony that makes me a Christian or gives me my Christianity Abraham was a Believer and a Friend of God and justified by his faith antecedent to circumcision and so are the seed of Abraham they are believers friends of God justified by their Faith in Christ antecedent to Baptisme But it is added doth not Paul say we are all by one Spirit baptized into one body True he doth so But I deny your consequence thence deduced that therefore Christ died primarily for his Church and but secondarily for the individual members thereof or that we have primarily a relation to the Church and but secondarily to Christ i.e. by virtue of the former relation There is not one word or syllable in the text tending that way For First what is there in these words we are baptized into one body to signifie a priority of our relation to the Church any more than in those Rom. 6.3 where it is said we are baptized into Christ to signifie a priority of our relation to Christ and by him to his Church reconcile these if you can to the sence of your consequence and give us some evident reason why we must needs understand that thereby is meant we are baptized into the Church primarily and into Christ secondarily But I shall be bold to tell you such an interpretation is evidently absurd as is manifest in several instances in other kind of relations Whoever said that King Charles the 2d was only related to Charles the First as he is related to his brother James Duke of York and the rest of the Royal Family certainly as he is the Elder Brother his relation to his Father was first both in nature and time to any relation he stood in to his younger brethren Or whoever said that the individuals of a Kingdome cannot be considered in relation to their King and Soveraign antecedently to their being considered as fellow subjects when certainly the relation of fellow subjects doth arise upon the supposed relation of those individuall subjects to their soveraign for the formal reason why you and I are fellow subjects is because we are individually related to the same King and therefore relation to him is antecedent to our relation to one another as subjects The sence of this text now urged so far as I understand is only this that all that are baptized upon a just title are supposed to partake of the sanctifying operation of the Spirit of which the washing of the water of baptisme is a sign by which they are declared to be animated by one and the self-same Spirit as all the living members of Christ are and consequently that they are one with them and that therefore they ought all of them to be both internally and externally as usefull and helpfull to each other as possibly they can But how you can draw such a conclusion hence that therefore these individuals are no ways related to Christ but as they are thus united to one another I cannot understand for the reasons before given The other text is Eph. 5.22 where it is said that Christ hath sanctified or separated his Church by the washing of water and the word Very well what of this we grant you that every Church member if adult is converted by the word and afterward if it may be ought to be baptized upon this account it is said that the Church is separated by water and the word because all its individual members are or ought to be so converted and baptized Therefore saith he every individual Christian is saved as incorporated into the Church I deny the consequence for conversion by the word is antecedent to Baptisme or to a Visible Church State and of it self gives a title to Salvation though never any such visible Church state by baptisme follows But if Baptisme follows I say again Christians are not saved primarily as baptized and as externally Church members but primarily as true believers and internally united to Christ And certainly a believer as such speaks no necessary relation to any Church or visible society whatever and therefore it could not possibly be the Apostles intendment in that place or the other to signifie that Christians had no relation to Christ or saving interest in him but what they derived from a participation of Baptisme and a conjunction with a visible Church Having thus finished his proof that all Christians are members of the catholick visible Church he proceeds to the proof of the second part of the proposition which is that therefore every Christian is bound to joyn in external communion with the said Church This he thinks is clear upon two reasons First because without such a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be obtained which ends are the solemn worship of God the publick profession of our religion and the mutual edification one of another Secondly Because without such a conjunction in external communion with the Catholick visible Church we cannot be made partakers of the benefits and priviledges that Christ hath made over to the members of his Church such are the pardon of sin and the grace of the holy Spirit and so he concludes we have no promises of spiritual Graces but of those means so that in order to the partaking of them there is an absolute necessity laid upon us of joyning and communicating with the Church Thus far he I answer first whereas he says that he hath made it evident that every Christian upon the account of his very being so a member of the catholick visible Church that I have already denied and upon what grounds and reasons I have denied it is before shewn as for his consequence that therefore every Christian is bound upon the very account of his being so to joyn with the Church catholick visible in external communion That I have also denyed and the reasons why I have shewed as First there is no such external communion to be had with that vast body as the catholick Church is besides if there were it might be unlawfull because if communion could not be had but upon sinfull conditions or without a manifest hazard of my salvation or in case one were wrongfully excommunicated there is in these cases no obligation on a Christian as such to any such external communion but a Christian may be still a Christian without it But let us see how he proves his consequence His first reason is because without such
a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be had which are solemn worship and mutual Edification Ans What not without a conjunction with the catholick visible Church certainly meetings for solemn worship and mutuall Edification are not terms wherein Christians hold communion with the catholick visible Church for they are proper only to particular worshiping congregations I wonder in what Assemblies do the Christians in England and the Christians in Prestor Johns country meet for solemn worship and mutual Edification I know he thinks the matter if salved by telling us that Christians meeting in any congregation in England for worship and mutual Edification do thereby hold externall communion in those things with the whole Church throughout the world But I conceive this will not serve his turn without the could equally imagine how a man by holding communion with the City of London might be said thereby to hold a civil external communion with all mankind which I think is so wild a conceit as no man yet ever asserted for he must remember he is speaking of such an external communion that is proper to a politick visible Body to the constituting of which kind of communion it is not enough to have the same laws the same customes no nor the same kind of solemn meetings for worship to speak all visible Christians to be of the same external politick communion for suppose in France they had the same laws and customs the same kind of officers as Constables Justices Parliament and a King as we have in England and all under the Government of the very same invisible God it doth not follow so long as there is no dependance of these Kingdomes each on the other that therefore the people of England are of the same external politick communion with those in France Yea further though these two Kingdoms may mutually in times of peace advise with each other for their mutual profits and in case of differences betwixt them they may forbid trading or converse with each other which is a kind of civil excommunication yet for all this they may not be said to be of the same external civil politick communion and why because their respective Magistrates are independent and have no jurisdiction over each other Upon the very same ground I deny any such thing as an external Politick Communion betwixt the Members of the Catholick Church for though they have all the same Laws the same Sacraments the same kind of solemn meetings for Worship and all under the same kind of visible Governours and all this under the same invisible Head the Lord Jesus though so far as they can and the distances of places will admit they may advise with each other for their mutual good and in case that any prove Hereticks they may so far as may be disown or refuse Communion as in the instances before said yet all this no more proves them to be of the same external Politick communion than the like agreements might speak the Kingdom of France and that of England of the same politick civil communion and why but because Christ hath left no visible politick Head to have jurisdiction over the rest If you say this notion speaks a good word for the Headship of the Pope I Answer no such matter for there is no need of such a Head nor of any such external Politick Communion in the Church no more than in the World God hath well enough Governed the World without any such Universal civil Monarch and doth as well govern the Church without any such Universal visible Head And now let us see what of force then is in his second reason which is this such a conjunction in external Communion with he Catholick visible Church is necessary else we cannot possibly partake of the priviledges that Christ hath made over to this his Church as the Remission of Sins and the Graces of the Holy Spirit I Answer He says that Christ hath made over the priviledges of pardon of sin and the Graces of his Spirit to the Church primarily and that before any particular person can partake of pardon of Sin and the Graces of the Spirit he must joyn with the Church in external Communion But how absurd is all this by Church he here means the Catholick visible Church but I wonder how it can be truly said that pardon of sin or the Graces of the Spirit can be said to be made over to the visible Church as priviledges when as it is very certain that Christ never made over such priviledges to the Church as visible But I perceive he understands it ministerially that is to say that a man is pardoned or partake of the Graces of the Spirit but by the Ministry of the Church well let this be granted what will thence follow I am sure that will not follow which you say doth follow that therefore we must first be made Members of the Church before we can be pardoned or sanctifyed by the Spirit for suppose the Church meets for solemn worship and the minister is Preaching and there comes in one or more Infidels for curiosity to see and hear I hope you will not say that these Infidels because they are in the same place with the Church that therefore they are joyned as Members with the Church suppose now these Infidels are by the Sermon convinced and perfectly converted to a true Faith in Jesus Christ I now demand These men that thus are converted do they believe without or with the Grace of the Spirit again so soon as they have believed are they pardoned or are they not I say they could not have believed without the Grace of the Spirit and that so soon as they truly believed they were pardoned and you dare not I think say the contrary Now I pray you is not this Grace of the Spirit and pardoning of sin Communicated before these men were joyned to the Church as visible Members How then can you say that men are obliged to joyn with the Church as Members else they have neither Grace nor pardon the very Truth is the primary reason of Christs institution of visible Church Membership was not for the giving of the first Grace of the Spirit or giving pardon but it was appointed as a means of conveying further degrees of Grace and clearer assurance of pardon visible Church Membership doth suppose the Grace of conversion in the adult and pardon but doth not give or Communicate it I had now done with his first Proposition but that for two inferences he draws from a consideration of the whole as first saith he therefore their position is untrue who maintain that our obligation to Church Communion ariseth from a voluntary admission of our selves into some particular congregation But I say notwithstanding all he hath said that position may be true for he hath been all this while speaking of the Universal visible Church But they that hold that position maintain it only with respect to a particular Church
High Priest and that the great body of the Nation should meet by his command at one place as the Jews at the Temple of Jerusalem for publick Worship then I confesse he will have some colour for asserting of National Christian Churches and of a National Membership therein but till then I shall take the boldness to deny that any Christian is capable of any such National Church Membership But if he doth here mean by Church a particular Worshiping Congregation such are the parochial Churches of England and such are the Congregations of Non-conformists then we shall consider what he further saith which is this That no Christians can have just cause of withdrawing Communion from the Church whereof they are Members if we should understand it indifferently of Non-conformists Churches as parochial the meaning would be that no Member that either is joyn'd to the one or the other have just cause to withdraw Communion from either of them but when c. If you say that the parochial Churches are the true regular Churches because established by the Law of the Land and all other are Schismaticall I answer this is sooner said than proved for did the regularity or Schismaticalnesse of a Church depend on such an externall fickle consideration as the Law of the Land then might one and the same Church be Regular or Schismatical as often as the wind of the Legislative power might chance to Change so that an Act of Parliament that makes the Episcopal Churches regular to day the very same Churches by a change of an Act might be made Schismatical to morrow and so if the Legislative Power pleased both Episcopal Independant Presbyterian Anabaptistical Churches may be regular and Schismatical in their turns Lastly when you say no Communion may justly be with drawn from but when it cannot be continued without the Commission of sin here again I desire to know whether by sin you mean such that may be evidenced to be such to the conviction of the imposers or only such that is evidenced to the conviction of the Consciences of those that withdraw you cannot in reareason require the first except you will run y our selves upon these straits either to turn Papists or undertake to convince the Papists that the reason why you came off from them and their Worship was because you could not Communicate with them therein without sin we know you tell them so and give yours reasons why you say so but notwithstanding all you say they are not convinced but yet persist to call you Schismaticks But what then are you moved with their censure no for if your reasons will not convince them yet they satisfie your own Consciences and therein you rest and so you may very reasonably do I desire now but the like equity for the Non-conformists and that is that if they have reasons sufficient to convince their own Consciences that the things imposed are sinful though their reasons convince not their imposers that you would give them that liberty of Acquiescing therein as you take in bearing up your selves against the Censures of the Papists But yet further What though the things Imposed be not clearly evidenced to their own Consciences but onely so far as to leave them under strong suspitions that they are sinfull it is sufficient to justifie their withdrawing for what if the things Imposed on the Non-conformists were such as they might as lawfully do or practise as the Christian Jews might have eaten of the once-forbidden meats yet so long as their doubts remain if they should so practise they would sin as the Jews would have done if they had eaten so long as their scruple remained And so that unquestionable Casuist the Apostle determines in the case Rom. 14 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in it self yet to him who thinks any thing unclean to him it is unclean So again He that doubteth and eateth is Damned And if it were not to light up Candles while the Sun shines I would tell you that a meer suspition of a sin is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion in the Judgments of other very great men So says that universally admired man Mr. Hales of Schisme pag. 8. says he In these Schismes which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but onely to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. For not only in Reason but in Religion too that maxime admits of no release Cautissimi cujusque preceptum quod dubitas nefeceris To load saith he our publick Formes with private phantasies upon which we differ is the most Soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading the Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick or of many other Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended there Schisme began to break in he goes on If the spiritual Guides of the Church would be a little spareing of incumbering Churches with superfluities c. there would be far lesse Cause of Schisme or Superstition and all the inconveniences were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yeild a little to the imbecillity of their Inferiours a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do Mean while I pray mark this wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a piece of Church Liturgie he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawfull to make a profession of known or suspected falsehood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions And of this mind is Dr. Stilling fleet a Person no whit inferior to the other whose words are these in his Iren. p. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schisme which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks than prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration if our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her Communion then wherever such things are required of any Church Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is Lawfull there can be no Schisme in it If it be said here that the Popes power was a usurpation which is not in Lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed that the Popes usurpation mainly lies in imposing