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
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
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
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
the Doctrines of the Church of England as that they dare deride some sober Christians under the notion of being acquainted with the Person of Christ or that dare Teach there is no difference betwixt Grace and Morality or that there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a sinner or that the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the Conversion of men than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity in Scriptures and inabled such to confirm the Truth of it with Miracles so that men are left in the working out of their Salvation to their Bibles and the use of their natural Faculties exclusive of any other operation of the Spirit either to their illumination or sanctification I say if the People withdraw from such Teachers or Congregations where such Doctrines are owned for securing their Faith or Salvation there so doing is justifiable because the law-of self preservation is to be regarded before any positive law of visible Church Union and I hope there is no true Son of the Church that hath any zeal for the purity of their Church Doctrine will be my adversary herein and thus much shall suffice to be said concerning your Doctrines and of the lawfulness of separating from some of the particular Congregations in case the Teachers do grossely pervert Some of the weighty Doctrines of your own Church We shall in the next place consider what you have here offered as to corrupt practices which you say is no just ground if only tollerated but not imposed of withdrawing especially if they be no worse than are found in the Church of England I Answer first if all the corrupt practices in your Church were only tollerated but not imposed you would have much more reason of your side against us than you have because several things which you enjoyn to be practised we in our Consciences believe to be unlawful and we cannot must not have Communion with you except we comply therein so that should it be yielded that unimposed corruption in a Church is no just ground of separation yet is it of no force against us because some of these we conceive to be corruptions are imposed But to come close to the case as it stands related to this Proposition suppose no imposition of any of those things that are in controversie between us which is the supposition in the Proposition what will follow but first that all the Ministers of Christ in England would be capable of places for they are Impositions that are the principal reasons why they are kept out Secondly it would follow that those that are for the use of the Liturgy and Ceremonies and a promiscuous Communion withall that had but the name of Christians in the Sacraments might therein act according as they saw fit and as for other Ministers they might freely exercise their Ministry without Liturgy or Ceremonies and might exercise Discipline toward their rerespective Members according to Christ's direction in the case The question now arising can be only this whether it would be lawful for a Member of that Congregation where the Liturgy and Ceremonies are in use and Discipline neglected that conceived these things to be corruptions to separate and joyn with another free from these conceived corruptions I say he might first because were ther is no imposition ther can be no law of Superiors binding him to a Communion with such a conceived corrupt Church so that your great reason ordinarily produced in this case would be of no force here Secondly because that it is much safer for his soul to be joyned to a pure Church than a corrupt and self preservation is founded on a law Superior to that of visible church-Church-Union to this or that particular Church David might eat of the Shew-Bread to save his life which had not been lawful if positive laws were not to give place to natural Thus have I examined the third position both generally and as it particularly respecteth our present differences and shewn both its unsoundness in the former and impertinency as to the latter I have onely one word to say to the Reason given upon which the supposed Truth thereof is founded and so shall dismisse it The reason why he says that Errors in a Church as to matter of Doctrine and corruptions as to matter of practice if but suffered and not imposed is on just ground for separation because these things are not sins in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church therein I Answer if he mean that other mens Errors or Corruptions are not properly or formally mine by being in their Company and joyned with them in things lawful I grant it But yet it follows not that therefore I may joyn with them if I can otherways help it a man may buy and sell and eat and drink with Fornicators or other unclean and Debauched Creatures if he cannot trade and get provision for his body but in their Company But certainly if a Trade might be as well managed with sober men and that Meat may be had in better Company it would be sinful then to Trade and Eat with such and why because the law of self preservation warranteth me in the former but not in the latter I may not neglect the preservation of my life by eating nor geting a lively hood by trading which is ordinarily necessary to the preservation of my life present being A meer occasion of hardning others in sin or scandalizing weak Brethren but when no such necessity doth lye on me then the preventing of a scandal or giving occasion to the hardning others in the their sin and the safety of my self from their contagion are reasons of force to bind me from such Societies In like manner if the Word of God could be no where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be Lawfull yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without sin But if other Churches may be had which are regular according to Gods law and only irregular according to mans then it is a Duty to withdraw to prevent scandals and hardning a Church in its Corruptions together with the preservation of themselves from the danger of being infected with those Corruption which are reasons of another nature than that only one which you give for though as I said by joying with such I make not their sins formally mine yet I sin therein upon other accounts now named which may justifie my withdrawing I come now to his fourth which is this That the enjoying of a more profitable Ministry or living under a more pure Discipline in an other Church is no just Cause of forsaking the Communion of that whereof we are members Because we are not to commit the least Crime for the attaining of the greatest good in the World now it is a Crime to for sake
Communion with a Church of which we are members where we may continue without sin I Answer Whatever may be thought of this position I am perswaded that the reason annext is too weak to bear the weight of it for the reason supposeth that which is not to be supposed that is to say that to withdraw from a Church for the benefit of a more profitable Ministry is a Crime You call it a crime because you suppose it is a transgression of the Law of visible Communion with some particular Church but I say that the Laws of Visible Communion with this or that Particular Church are but positive and therefore subordinate to laws more naturall and necessary such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our souls and salvation So that if Christians do shift particular Churches for the obtaining of very apparent advantages to their Salvation above what they could have had where they were I see therein no crime at all committed except such an one wherewith the Pharisees charged our Saviour as the Breaking of the Sabbath that he might heal the sick Certainly the cure and Salvation of sick Souls as of sick Bodies is of greater account with God than keeping to Parish Churches or the observation of a day Sure I am that very many Souls that have for many years lain Blind and Dead in trespasses under their Parish Ministers I speak not partially as to those only that are now in place but formerly when the Non-conformists held their places but upon changing of their Minister received their conviction and reall Conversion I dare say it would be a very hard Task to convince such of the sin of separation in so doing I have much wondered that men should think it but reasonable that every man should be permitted to chuse his own Physitian and who will blame one that is sickly if he waveing the advice of his Neighbour though a Physitian shall apply himself to the most skillfull and successfull that he can hear of for his health yet that it should be accounted so criminal to use the same care for a mans salvation And what though the Physitian I speak of be not of the Colledg nor can be suffered to be thereof because perhaps he will not swear to the truth of all the Aphorisms of Hypocrates or the truth of all and every part of the Colledges dispensations who think you will stand upon such a Nicety if he yet believes him exceeding skillfull and successefull in the cure of such distempers under which he groaneth and certainly when you have writ your self a weary to prove the contrary yet men herein will follow the Conduct of their Reason and the instinct of Self-Preservation which is not only seen verified among the Non-conformists but among your selves What else is the reason that some of your own Churches are thronged with auditors when in others the People sit thinly scattered like the gleanings ofter Harvest and I think it almost as easie to stop the Sun in its course or the Sea in its flowing as to prevent these concourses of the People to such Ministers that are eminently most able and successefull Thus much I have said concerning the Reasonableness of forsaking Communion with one Church for the obtaining a more profitable ministry in another The next thing to be examined is that which you have said concerning the unlawfullness of for saking one Church to enjoy a more pure Discipline in an other To this I say it must be confessed that a regular execution of Church Discipline as it was ordained by Christ for great ends So when so executed it is found of very great use and benefit to the Church for thereby is there a means provided to inform the ignorantly sinning members to correct the Wilfull to reclaim Apostates to establish and confirm the sound that their Souls may be saved in the day of the Lord Christ And certainly a neglect of this Discipline must be a very dangerous consequence to a Church and to the Salvation of its members And therefore if Christians withdraw from such a Church where this Discipline is next to wholly neglected to joyn with another where it is exercised to the great advantage of its members I see no sin therein as this author imagineth For shall I say the Law of Self-preservation is superior to the Law of Visible Union to a Particular Church and therefore must firstly be obeyed May Parents Lawfully Change a School for their Children where the Schollars by connivance are suffered to Curse and Swear c. and yet are kept in the School especially if great Mens Children perhaps some poor mans childe for some one of these sins may now and then be cast out but readmited upon very slender satisfaction I say may Parents in this case tendering the Souls of their Children remove them to another and yet be blameless I wonder then why it should be so Criminal for a Christian to remove from such a Church where such sins are in like manner tollerated for the benefit of a better Disciplined Church True if Learning was as necessary as Christianity and if no other School could be had it were better their Children to be kept in such a School than to be suffered to run about the streets to their more certain ruine For the Rule of Practice to every Christian in this case is of two evils to choose the least But as things stand with us in England there are more pure Disciplined Churches to be had and therefore no Christian can be thought to be in such straits If ye say these more pure Disciplined Churches are irregular as not having the Establishment of an humane Law I answer it is not necessary For the Constitution of Churches and their Establishment is founded on a Law of Christ and not on Humane Laws Christs Ministers have a right to Preach the Gospell and Gather Churches and Govern them by his Rules without the leave of any Magistrates The powers of the Earth may be Nursing Fathers to the Church but as such they neither give them their Being or Constitution When Christ sent the first Preachers of the Gospell to Discipline Nations and gather to him Churches he did not direct them first to ask the Governours of those Nations leave so to do for his own Commission was warrant sufficient without their Licence but when God is pleased to stir up the hearts of Princes to give leave and encourage the work it is a great Blessing which Christs Ministers are to pray for and to be greatly thankfull when they have it Yet again I answer that those Churches are most Regular that are Taught and Governed with the greatest conformity to the Rule of Christ and if those of the Non-conformists prove such I know not why any should be blamed for joyning with them upon the account of their irregularity Thus have I answered this Fourth position of yours and have shewed how far an unprofitable Ministry and
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
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
us lies which the Fundamental Laws of Society and the expresse precepts of Christianity require of every Member Answ I would now fain know of him what are those Fundamental Laws of Society as suppose of Kingdomes or Corporations that oblige its Subjects or Citizens to seek the Unity and Peace of those Societies or Citizens to seek the Unity the known Laws of the said Kingdoms and the orders of Corporations regulated by the Charters granted by their Princes but if any inferiour Officers of Kingdoms or Corporations shall impose Laws upon the Subjects or Citizens that are not agreeable to but rather seem contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom and the Power granted in those Charters if such Subjects or Citizens oppose and refuse subjection and will not communicate in those things who dare say that such do not seek the Peace of Kingdoms and Corporations as much as in them lies or as much as is fit And let him likewise tell us what are those expresse precepts of Christianity that oblige its Members any further to seek the Unity of the Church than to believe do and observe those things which Christ the Head of his Church hath commanded Christians then seek the Unity of the Body so far as in them lies when they seek it according to a Gospel rule for it doth not lye in their Power to seek it any other ways But saith he to separate from Congregations with whom we may lawfully Communicate is not to seek the Vnity of the Body so far as in us lies Answ This is not universally true for what if one shifteth his Habitation to another Parish for the benefit of the Labours of a more pious Minister here is a separation from an established Assembly and yet no breach upon the Unity of the Body But suppose one still abides in the Parish and yet constantly Hears and Communicates with a Church of an other Parish as I suppose some of your own do how can you say such so long as they continue Communion with your National Church seek not the Union of the Body as sar as is fit or needful If you say but neither of these are the cases of those you speak of because they hold Communion with you to be sinful Very true and you deny not that in case they could not Communicate with you without sin but that they may lawfully separate without being guilty of any breach of union If you had here proved they might hold Communion with you without sin or what they extreamly suspect to be sinful you had said something but since you have reserved your pretended proof thereof to the fourth Proposition I shall therefore referre my answer thereto His third Proposition That the being a Member of any Church doth oblige a man to submit to all the Laws and Constitutions of that Church I Answer if by Laws and Constitutions he understands such that Christ either by himself or his Apostles hath ordained such as to meet together to Pray Praise Preach Hear Baptize or Eat the Lords Supper or to Admonish Comfort Reprove or cast out the Obstinate so I grant the Truth of the Proposition But if by Laws and Constitutions he means such that are meerly of mens devising and imposing under the penalty of Excommunication without any command from Christ for so doing of which kind are the Observations of Days Abstaining from Meats Crossing in Baptism Kneeling at the Supper Reading Prayers and that in a Surplice without the use and observation whereof it shall not be lawful for men to Preach the Gospel or partake of the Sacrament but for refusal shall be cast out and not esteemed worthy of the name of Christians In this sence I say the proposition is very false And whereas he saith that this Proposition is in the general so unquestionable that no sober man will deny it I on the contrary say that in the general without a sound limitation it is so mischievous that no sober man but may be ashamed to assert it For who will deny but that our Saviour with his Apostles were of the Church of the Jews and who dares say that either Christ or they thought themselves obliged to observe the humane Laws and Traditions of that Church either in washing before Meat or in not Healing on the Sabbath-day which Traditions they made no scruple to transgresse and to justifie such Transgression to the shame and confusion of their Imposers Again who knows not that the Rulers of the Jewish Church had agreed and so made it a Constitution of that Church that if any confessed Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogue and what Christian hath the Forehead to say that all the Members of that Church were obliged thereby not to confesse Christ or to bear any part in casting out such as did confesse him from their Synagogues He adds this is the Basis upon which all Societies are founded and by which they do subsist He means that the Truth of that Proposition is at the bottom of all Societies whether Civil or Ecclesiastical but I pray how is it the Basis of Kingdoms which are civil Societies Thus far I grant that all the just Laws Enacted by the supream Power in such Kingdoms do oblige all the Subjects Answerably all the Laws and Constitutions in the Church that are Enacted by Jesus Christ its supream King and Governour do bind all the Members But in civil Societies if the Inferiour Magistrates as suppose the Heads of Corporations shall Enact Laws and make Constitutions and bind them on the Subjects so as in case of refusal to submit they shall be deprived of the right and priviledges of Subjects and that without any Authority from the supreme Power for so doing I say in this case that this Proposition is so far from being the Basis of these Societies without which they cannot subsist that I say it 's the Basis of all Confusion to such Societies answerably if any Officers of Churches shall presume without warrant from Christ to make Laws and bind them on the Disciples necks upon the penalties of depriving them of the rights and priviledges of Christians as they do by excommunication I say this is a meer usurpation of the Regall power of Christ and tends directly to run Churches into confusion and all manner of disorders as the sad Effects thereof do cleerly demonstrate And whereas he saith To suppose a Society and yet to suppose the members of it not under an obligation to obey its Laws and Government is to make Ropes of sand and to suppose a body without sinews and ligaments to hold the parts together I Answer That t is confessed that the just Laws of the supream Authority of any Society are Sinews and Ligaments of that society But if the Laws be either unjust or imposed by any Authority inferiour to the Supream such Laws are not the natural sinews in any Government but are certain Monstrosities in the body politick as such kind of Sinews