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 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
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
and I hope there is no contradiction for one that believes and is Baptized to be nessarily a Member of the Universal Church and yet to be voluntarily a Member either of particular Worshiping Congregation either in England or Holland His second deduction is as wild for saith he hence we may see how extravagantly they discourse that talk of Chrstianity at large without relation to a Church or Communion with a Society This I say is strangely inferred as if we could not discourse of men as men without relation to Cities or Kingdoms and certainly we may with a very good reason sometimes discourse of Christians as Christians without relation to any Church whether particular or Universal and this without any extravagancy His second Proposition That every one is bound to joyn in Communion with the established national Church to which he belongs supposing there be nothing in the Terms of its Communion that renders it unlawful for him so to do This he saith is plain because external Communion cannot be had with the Catholick Church but by externally Communionicating with some part of it To this I have already answered that there is no such thing as an external Politick Communion to be had with the Catholick Church neither immediately which himself confesseth no nor mediately by Communicating with some part of it as I conceive I have made evident in my answer to the former Proposition But in case any such Communion could be had immediately or mediately yet I would have it remembred that this sort of Communion is not to be sought by every Christian upon the very account of his being so but upon the account of his being a visible professing Christian And how let us come to some Issue we will grant you that every Christian considered as visible ought to endeavour to joyn with some part of the Catholick visible Church for publick Worship and the edification of himself and others but why this particular Church must be national I do not understand I am sure there is no need it should be national for I do as truly declare my self to be a visible Member of the Catholick visible Church by joyning in external Communion with one single visisible Congregation as if I was united a Member to a National Church But in very Truth I do much doubt whether any such thing is to be had as an external Communion with a National Church any more than with the Catholick visible Church for you place the Acts of external Communion to consist in meeting together in solemn worship and in mutual Edification Now I would fain know where any Nation of Christians do meet together for solemn Worship true if you could find any Nation of Christians that did often meet at one place to Worship God and to rejoyce before the Lord together as the Tribes of Israel used to do when they came up to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord I should not stick to call such a National Church united external Communion but to speak of a joyning with a National Church of Christians in external Communion where Millions of the Members of the supposed National Church never perhaps came nigh one the other for scores of Miles especially so as to Hear or Pray or receive the Supper together or to Edifie each other is to talk without any solid ground If you say but if we joyn with any one Worshipping Congregation in external Communion we do thereby joyn with the whole Nation of Christians in external Communion If you say so I think you say more than you can prove for I do not understand that because I Worship God with a Congregation in London that therefore I Worship God with a Congregation at York True by my Worshipping at London I do declare my self to be of the same Faith with those that Worship at York and I am therefore bound to account of them as my brethren and so to love and Pray for them as such by which means an internal Communion is maintained as among Members that are supposed and hoped to be united to Christ but yet I am to seek how this external Communion can be had when perhaps we shall never see each other as long as we live If you say that all the Christians in a Nation may hold an external Communion in being all under one Discipline the management whereof being deposited in the hands of one visible Head as was the High Priest to the Church of the Jews This indeed were something if it could be proved that Jesus Christ did ever appoint such an Officer for the Government of all his Disciples in each Nation but if it be made to appear that all Ministers or Pastors of particular Worshiping Congregations have equal Power to Govern their respective Churches and that they have no Power of jurisdiction one over another and that there is no instituted Officers appointed by Christ Superior to them with any Power of jurisdiction over them Then I say there can be no such external Communion of all Christians in a Nation under the jurisdiction of any such High Priest and that therefore there is no such thing as a National Church of Christians wherewith an external communion can be held You know well who they are that are for an equality of Pastoral Power Many more things may be said of this matter but I shall at present wave them and proceed to consider what he further saith He hath already said that every Christian ought to joyn in external Communion with a National Church that thereby he might hold Communion with the Catholick But presently he starts an Objection But it may be said that there may be several distinct Churches in the place where we live there may be the fixed regular Assemblies of the National Church and there may be separate Congregations both which are or pretend to be parts of the Catholick Church so that it may be all one as to our Communicating with that which of these we joyn with supposing we joyn but with one of them and consequently there is no necessity from that principle that we should hold Communion with the Assemblies of the National Church So far he Answ Very good now let us see how he answers it which part of the Argument in the Objection doth he deny doth he deny such separate Congregations to be parts of the Catholick Church or doth he deny that in joyning with any part of the Catholick Church we thereby joyn with the whole he denies neither Then I say he grants the whole for these two being granted the conclusion follows that they who joyn with those separate Congregations do thereby preserve the Catholick Union and therefore there is no need of joyning with a National Church to attain the end proposed What saith he now He seems not to deny this but tells us that notwithstanding if we separate or refuse Communion with them that we do not preserve the Vnity of the Body so far as in
withdraw Communion from them But if it shall so fall out that the Governours of a Church and a great body of the People be so erroneous and this sufficiently known and though reproved yet they abidè obstinate maintainers thereof I say in this Case it is sufficient ground for sound Members to withdraw and save themselves from so dangerous a Society and why because I may not lawfully joyn with such a Church where possibly I may every time I joyn the Lord Christ and the Holy Ghost Blaspheme whose Deity is denied by these Sects nor may I joyn lest I indanger my Faith for evill words do not only Corrupt good manners but have a direct tendency to corrupt a sound Faith and certainly the safety of a Soul is of greater worth than the preservation of a Corrupt Peace or Unity of a Corrupt Church And what I have said upon a supposition of such grosse errours in the Rulers and many of the people of a Church the same may be said of either Idolaters or grosly profane practices for if Ministers or many of the Members should degenerate to a Popish Idolatry or should prove Common Drunkards or Whore-mongers or Opposers c. and being admonished thereof should deride the admonition as Precise and fanatical or if the Members only were Commonly so and the Rulers wittingly Connive thereat and seek not their Cure by Reproofs and Censures as Christ hath commanded in such cases I say again it is a sufficient ground for the sound Members to withdraw especially if a more pure Church may be had yea though neither these errours or practices are imposed and that first lest under the pretence of Peace they should be guilty of the greatest uncharitablenesse and that is the hardning and incouraging them in their abominable Impieties Again because the sound ought by the law of God and Nature to provide for their own safety Certainly if there be a Contagion in evill words to corrupt good manners there is much more in wicked Practices and therefore they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such and certainly in so doing there is nothing done contrary to the Fundamental reason of Christs Instituting discipline in his Church which as I conceive was for the Cure of the unsound and for the preservation of the sound from the infection of the unsound Now if no care be taken for the cure of the same but that infectious Crew is kept in the Church to the palpable endangering of the sound it is apparent that the Foundations of discipline are rooted up and in effect there is no discipline at all and that therefore every good Christian may seek his safety as he can since he cannot obtain it in a Church by the means of the Gospel Discipline which through the Corruption of the Rulers and the swaying part of the Corrupt Members is made void But no more of this till by and by when I shall have a fresh occasion to speak further to this point At present let us again return to inquire into a full sence of his Proposition if by any means we can find it out You say in generall terms without any Limitation that errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice when found in a Church but not imposed is no just ground of separation I Answer Methinks by this generall way of Expressing your self that you are not afraid of your Readers understanding this Proposition without any Limitation I pray tell me what if Socinian or Popish Errours and Corrupt practices were got into the Rulers of a Church and a great body of the People and that they should only tollerate them but not impose them on any what hinders if what you here say be true but that every sound Christian may yea and ought to Communicate with such a Church especially if Providence had cast him into such a place where no other could be had so that one of a Protestant Faith might lawfully joyn with a Popish Church not only in hearing their Friars Preach but likewise in receiving the Mass of them provided they would 〈…〉 him to profess their Errors or to Practise the Superâ—… 〈◊〉 Idolatry in the Mass but permit him to receive it in both 〈◊〉 in his own sence though he knows the Priest delivers 〈…〉 the rest of the Communicants receive it in the Popish sence I would not be so unmerciful to charge you as holding this but this I say that so much seems to follow Clearly from this your Position if taken without any Limitation and I can discern none in this Paragraph If you say that there is enough said by you pag. 22. concerning the Popish Church to clear you in this particular I Answer It is true you say there that the great and general Corruption of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practice doth endanger the Salvation of such as Communicate with her and that therefore a totall separation from her and an erection of new Churches may be Lawfull I say notwithstanding all this yet I doubt whether you there mean that her Errors and Corruptions in themselves or of their own nature do so far endanger mens Salvation that though they were not imposed yet we were bound to a totall separation or do you mean they therefore so endanger our Salvation because imposed as to warrant such a separation If your Proposition there may be understood in the sormer sence then what you say here taken universally must needs be false for if the very being of some sorts of Errors and Corruptions in a Church though not imposed are so dangerous as to warrant a separation how can it then be universally true as you seem here to assert that Errours in Doctrine and Corruptions in Practice so long as they are only suffered but not imposed cannot be a sufficient Cause of separation but if you are there to be understood in the latter sence that is to say that the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome only as imposed are so dangerous to mens salvation as to warrant a separation then that which I even now suggested is true that Christians may Lawfully here be Baptized go to Mass with the Church of Rome Provided they were not forced to make a Profession of believing their Errors or had leave to receive those Sacraments with all the Superstitions thereto belonging in their own sence though it was well known that they administred them in an other I will not at present as aforesaid charge this opinion upon the Author though it seems to be a consequence rightly inferred from this and other principles of his in this discourse because he saith pag. 31. A man may believe a proposition and not believe all that follows from it So that at no hand are we to charge such Consequences upon him unless he doth explicitly own them but whether you will explicitly own them or no I am not certain Yet this I know that I have heard a Minister of the Church
from censuring their brethren as being to stand or fall to a higher Master he censureth them as guilty of Schism obstinately maintained pag. 7. And instead of perswading them to forbear doing those things which some think they may lawfully do as the making use of prescribed Prayers and Ceremonies least a stumbling block should be cast before their weak brethren he falls pag. 5. into Encomiums of the excellency of the present Church Government the easiness of the Terms of Communion the Lawfulness of the use of the publick Service and Antiquity of the Ceremonies and then doth conclude that Sober men should be ashamed to call the penalties which the Laws inflict on those that separate from the Church in these things Persecutions The plain English of all this is that the great Apostle and this Person are of two minds concerning these things which make for Peace the Apostle is for not judging the Lords Servants and he is for judging them The Apostle is still for holding Communion notwithstanding those differences remain but he is for forcing them to say and do as the Church doth or else for punishing them with fines imprisonments as the Laws require But certainly as he herein leaves the Apostle so the Apostle leaves him and in this deserted Condition as we find him I hope it will be no presumption to call his reasonings about this matter to an account The strength of what he hath said to justifie his charge of Schisme against this people he hath comprised in five Propositions which we shall examine in order His first Proposition begins pag 10. which is this That every Christian upon the very account of being so is a member of the Church of Christ and is bound to joyn in external Communion with it where it can be had I answer this Proposition is very obscurely laid down nor is it releived by any light afforded in the after explication and certainly if it be to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and phrases therein contained as it ought to be I shall not scruple to call the Truth thereof into Question For. First If we consider a Christian upon the very account of his being so which is the Subject of the Proposition who can think but thereby as you phrase it you intend to affirm nothing of him as such but what doth necessarily and essentially belong to him without which he could be no Christian and consequently if he be a Christian he must necessarily be a Member of Christs Church in the sence of Church in the Proposition which is such as therewith an external Communion may be held If this be your meaning as I suppose it is because in your explication of this Proposition you seem to hold that Christ died primarily for his Church and but in a secondary sence for individual Believers so that it seems to follow that none can be true Christians or in a salvable state but as they are considered incorporated into and so made one of this Church so that Church-Member-ship is esâ—ential to them If this I say be your meaning then give me leave to take the boldness to deny the Proposition for I cannot understand that a Christian as such includes any essential relation to a Church in your sence That I may clear up this matter a little give me leave to tell you that this term Christian may fall under divers considerations as first by a Christian we may understand a man whose Nature is changed by the Preaching of the Gospel so as thereby he is of an ignorant Infidel and wicked man made an intelligent Believer and a good man certainly in this sence it is easie to understand a Christian without any such correlate as a Church so that in this sence a Christian as such is no more related to a Church than a man considered as a man speaks any Relation to a Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore your Proposition in this scence cannot be true But because this change of Nature can't be wrought in any man but by the Power of God co-working with the Gospel and since this exertion of Power is called Regeneration upon this account a Christian is to be considered as a relative viz. as a Son of God the correlate is God his Father and the Foundation of this Relation is Regeneration But here a Christian is not considered as any ways related to a Church but only as realted to God and who is not able to understand a Christian as well as Adam to be a Son of God without any Relation to any Society of men whatever But since it is certain that God hath exerted this Regenerating Power to more than one and that he hath many Sons and Daughters hence it is that every Son of God stands in an other Relation and that is to all the rest that are in the same manner born of God which in conjunction make up Gods family or Church But them I say that the Church here is to be taken for the invisible Church for the Father or Head of this Family is the invisible God and the Children are Members who considered as to their Regeneration that is the Foundation of the Relation are also invisible and therefore neither in this sence can the Proposition be true for every Christian upon the account of his internal Membership is not therefore a Member of a visible Church for there may be 7000 such invisible Members in Israel when there was no appearance of a visible Church as to them where any external Communion was held and yet this is that the Proposition drives at that every Christian as such is a Member of such a Church with which external Communion may be held which is in this sence apparently false Yet again all these internal Members of God's Family may be considered as outwardly professing their Faith and associateing together as they can for the Worship of God among whom creep in many Hypocrites by professing the same Faith and joyning in the same Worship with them which together make up the Catholick Visible Church in this sence I grant that every professing Christian may be reckoned as a Member of the Catholick visible Church But yet I deny that this relation is essential and necessary to him upon the very account of his being a Christian for he might be a Believer and a Son of God and internally related to all invisible Members without this Catholick visible Membership nor doth he indeed deny it for in case says he that no such visible Church can be found or in case they be scattered by extream Persecution or in case of an unjust excommunication Christians may be Christians without being members of Christs visible Church which indeed are concessions that overturn the Truth of his Proposition for if a man may be a Christian without being a Member of Christs visible Church then it can not be true that every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a
Authority that enjoynes them before we withdraw our obedience to it otherwise we do not proceed upon safe grounds but now we are absolutely certain that God hath commanded us to obey them that have the rule over us but we are not certain that the Actions we here speak of are any where forbid by him for if they were they would be no longer doubtful or suspected they would be certain sins so that if we will follow the surer side as all Christians in these cases are bound to do we must continue our obedience to the Church notwithstanding we suspect or doubt of the lawfulness of her commands Thus far he I answer this Argument notwithstanding the prittiness of its contrivance is certainly falatious for ex vero nihil sequi potest nisi verum for the rule there laid down of always obeying the Church Rulers where the Conscience is in doubt is in many instances a ready way to involve many a weak Conscience in damnable guilt For suppose there had been many a doubtful Conscience among the Israelites in Ahabs time as it seems there were who halted betwixt the VVorship of Jehovah and Baal suppose yet a little further that the Consciences thus doubting were rather inclined to believe Jehovah the true God and Baal but an Idol but yet were not absolutely certain what say you now what Councel would you have given such an one if he had askt your advice do but look how ill-favouredly such an answer as this would seem true might you say according to your rule I do believe that Jehovah is the only true God and Baal but a Devil and that your worshiping a Devil is a damnable sin but as for you you are not so certain hereof as I am yet your Conscience is inclined to believe as I do my advice therefore is this that since your Rulers have commanded you to worship that Devil I Counsel you so to do till your Conscience be better resolved and why because you are certain God hath commanded you to obey your rulers but you are not yet so certain that Baal is a Devil I dare say you abhor such a resolution of the case and yet I see not but you must be forced to give no better if you follow the rule laid down in this argument I might instance in other like cases as if a Jew in the dayes of Messiahs being in the Flesh had been inclined to believe in him as the Messiah but yet was not so absolutely certain thereof as he was of this command thou shalt obey the Rulers of thy people according to you he must go against the inclination of his doubting Conscience in disowning and rejecting Christ that he might yeild obedience to his Rulers who command him so to do in like manner if a poor man were inclined to believe the Masse Idolatry he must go on in that sin against his doubting Conscience till he comes to be as certain it is Idolatry as he is that God hath commanded us to obey our Rulers From what hath been said it is evident there is a fallacy in your Argument and now to shew you where it lies give me leave to tell you it lies in your arguing from particulars to an Universal vel a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter That because I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my rulers in some things therfore I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in every thing yea in such things which I suspect to be sin Do but you make this Evident that in that very Command which I suspect to be sinfull that I may be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey and then I will give up the Cause But this you can never do for upon those very arguments upon which I suspect the sinfulnesse of the Command upon the same Arguments I suspect whether God hath given them Authority to Command or whether God would have me to obey for I can never be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in such instances where I suspect my Rulers Command me to sin So that whereas your Argument supposeth that a Doubting conscience may be more certain that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers than he is of the thing he doubts and so he is therefore to take the surer side and so to obey his Rulers against his Conscience I have made the contrary appear by shewing that a man can never be sure that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers in such cases where he suspects they Command him to sin So that in obeying them he doth not take the surer side Thus is the strength of this Argument and so the strength of his second Charged upon the Nonconformists broken wherein he hath been endeavouring to prove they have no just Cause of Separation though it be upon the account of avoiding what they suspect to be sinfull which is made the Condition of Communion Thirdly saith he Neither can it be true that Errours in a Church as to matter of Doctrines or Corruptions as to matter of Practice so long as these Errours and Corruptions are only suffered but not imposed can be a sufficient Cause of Separation The reason is because the things are not sin in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church in them I Answer First I would fain know what kind of Errours of Doctrines or Corruptions of Practice you do here mean for they are of divers sorts and kinds and accordingly what you here say may be either True or False If by Errours of Doctrine you mean such that are consistent with the holding of Christ the head or such that touch not upon the Fundamentals of the Christian Doctrine some such were those in the Apostles days that related to the Abstaining from meats and observation of days in such cases doubtlesse Christians ought without imposing to bear with one another and to continue Communion with each other notwithstanding such differences which was the Apostles counsel in that case in this sence what you say is true Or if by Corruptions in Practice you should mean such infirmities that all Members of Churches are subject to more or lesse for who can say that he is without sin in this sence you are right or if you mean by errours and Corruptions such that are of a more Grosse and Hainous nature which are not publickly known or of which the Members cannot have sufficient proof for the conviction of themselves that those that are accused are really guilty so also I grant what is here said for till it be evident by some overt Act that Judas hath a Devill and is a Traytor he ought to be look'd on as an Apostle and might be heard In like manner if the Governours of the Church were with many of the Members Arrians or Socinians in their judgments but not known evidently to be such it may be the Duty of sound Christians not to