debt to his Memory to subjoin here a true Copy of these Papers there being several of them abroad both to prevent an imperfect Edition from some other hand and lest Mr. Gooden and his Friends who were so silent in his Life-time should take occasion to raise any false Reports of this Encounter if they thought they could not be disproved now he is dead And if the great Esteem I had for that excellent Person and most useful Instrument of God's Service in our late dangerous ond critical Times does not render me a very incompetent Judge of whatever comes from his hand the Reader will find even in these short Notes enough to reward his Pains and to keep him from thinking the time lost that he shall please to spend in the perusal of them A Private Conference BETWEEN Dr. Clagett and Father Gooden ABOUT Transubstantiation c. FAther Gooden Proposed the Rule of Faith to be the Subject of the Conference but upon the Request of the Lady for whose sake it was the Question of Transubstantiation was taken And the Father desiring that the Doctor would be the Opponent the Question was stated on both sides Dr. That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false Doctrine and That the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament but in Heaven Fa. That after the Words of Consecration the true Body and Blood of Christ are in the Holy Eucharist and that the manner is well exprest by Transubstantiation Dr. This is not all the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Church of Rome the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is this That the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body and the Substance of the Wine is changed into the Substance of Christ's Blood which Change the Church of Rome does conveniently call Transubstantiation If the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist then it is not chang'd into the Substance of Christ's Body But the Substance of Bread remains in the Eucharist Therefore the Substance of Bread is not changed into the Substance of Christ's Body Fath. I deny the Minor viz. that the substance of Bread does remain D. If Bread remains the Substance of Bread remains But Bread remains Therefore the Substance of Bread remains Fath. If the Nature of Bread remains Bread remains but if only the Name of Bread and Species remain then Bread does not remain Dr. That Bread which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist is proved from 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Now from hence we argue thus If that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ be properly natural Bread then that which is properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I grant the Major Dr. But that which is here said to be broken and to be the Communion of the Body of Christ is properly natural Bread Ergo Properly natural Bread remains in the Eucharist Fath. I deny the Minor Dr. The Bread of which Saint Paul speaks is Bread that may be broken and therefore it is truly and properly natural Bread Fath. I distinguish the Antecedent as to the Accidents and Appearance of Bread it may be broken as to the Nature of Bread it cannot because it is not there Dr. This is to beg the Question for the Question is whether Bread be there or not and the Argument to prove that it is there is because Saint Paul speaks of Bread that might be and was broken but it is no sufficient Answer to this to say that the Accidents of Bread may be broken because the Bread is not there it self which is the thing that was disproved Fath. The Question to be proved was that the Nature of Bread was there therefore it is not a begging of the Question according to the Distinction given to say that the Nature of Bread is not there and consequently could not be broken For the Bread there spoken of is not meant of Natural Bread but of Bread which came down from Heaven and which is the flesh of Christ John 6.41 I am the bread which came down from Heaven John 6.48 I am the bread of Life Ver. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58. From whence I infer my Answer to be good that though the H. Eucharist be called Bread and broken as to the Species of Bread yet it is not natural Bread but only in appearance of which St. Paul spoke for the same St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. speaking of the same Bread saith He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the body of our Lord. Christ also speaking of the same bread saith Take eat this is my body Matt. 26.26 Also Luk. 22.19 speaking of the same Eucharist This is my body which is given for you Dr. The Answerer forgetting the Part of a Disputant has pretended to prove largely by the sixth Chapter of St. John and other places of Scripture That St. Paul in the aforementioned places did not speak of Bread properly so called although he spoke of Bread that was to be broken All which places when it is my turn to answer I will consider particularly But if that which is here said is to go for an Answer the force of it lies in this That by the Bread which St. Paul spoke of we are to understand the Bread which St. John spoke of namely the bread which came down from Heaven by which the Answerer understands the natural and proper Flesh of Christ But that the Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the natural Flesh of Christ I prove thus The Bread which St. Paul speaks of was broken But the natural Body of Christ cannot be broken Ergo The Bread which St. Paul speaks of cannot be the natural Body of Christ Fath. As to the Species and Appearance of Bread it was broken I grant it as to any Nature contained under those Species of Bread I deny it Dr. This Distinction does not avoid the Argument because if the Bread in St. Paul and the Bread in St. John are really and properly the same and the Bread in St. John be really and properly the Flesh of Christ then what is affirmed of the one must be true of the other and therefore if the Bread be broken in St. Paul then the natural Body of Christ must be broken too which cannot be I add further That if by breaking of Bread St. Paul means breaking the Accidents of Bread only and if the Bread that is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid it follows also that the Accidents of Bread are properly the Body of Christ Fath. That which St. Paul calls Bread had in it both the Accidents of Bread and the substance of Christ's Body As to the
Accidents of Bread it might be broken as to the substance of Christ's body which is mentioned in St. John it is not broken unless you mean as Christ's body was broken upon the Cross And if the bread which is broken be really that which is spoken of in St. John as aforesaid both as to the Accidents and nature of bread I grant that the Accidents of bread would be the Body of Christ and if it be not the same both as to the Nature and Accidents I deny it This I profess not to understand Fath. As to the Doctor 's Argument it includes a Sophism as will appear when brought into form because it involves four Terms because he supposes in one Proposition for the Accidents of Bread and in the other for the Nature Dr. In the Argument I used I went upon this Supposition That the Accidents of Bread were only to be understood as the Answerer supposes and therefore I have not confounded the Nature and the Accidents of Bread together Besides the Distinction between the Nature of Bread and the Accidents of Bread was not to be remembred any more by the Answerer because I proceed upon his Supposition that the Accidents only are broken Now if St. Paul speaks of nothing but what is broken and Accidents only are broken and yet if he speaks of the very Flesh of Christ too then the Accidents of the Bread are the very Flesh of Christ And whereas the Answerer by his last Answer means the nature of Christ's body as he says I understood him of the Nature of Bread And now once more I desire him to shew me where the four Terms are Fath. The Text of St. Paul the Dr. takes for his Medium and argues from a double Supposition as first taking it for the Accidents of Bread which were broken and afterwards for the substance of Christ's Body under the Accidents in which latter sense it signifies the same that is meant by our Saviour in St. John Dr. I observe the Answerer will allow nothing to be broken but Accidents I observe also that nothing is said to be the Body of Christ or the Communion of the Body of Christ but what is broken If therefore nothing is broken but Accidents then Accidents are either according to the Answerer's long proof the very Body of Christ or according to the Apostle the Communion of the Body of Christ But neither are the Accidents of Bread the Body of Christ nor the Communion of the Body of Christ And this I say is not answered and believe will not be answered by any Man that maintains that St. Paul does not here speak properly of Bread Fath. All along in my Discourse I have supposed that when St. Paul speaks of this Bread he spoke of the H. Eucharist in which were contained both the Accidents of Bread and the true body of Christ How the Doctor has disproved this Doctrine so clearly as to justifie the Reformation I understand not Because I conceive no private Persons or particular Church ought to pretend a Reformation without clear Evidence whether the Doctor has given such I leave to the consideration of the Readers And whether having broken off from the great Body of the Vniversal Church and its Testimony he can possibly have any certain Rule to arrive at Christian Faith If Scripture be pretended interpreted by a fallible Authority how Certainty can be obtained or why a Socinian following Scripture for his Rule of Faith is not to be believed as well as any other Reformer following the same Rule I see not Signed W. Clagett Peter Gooden Dr. CLAGETT's Answer TO A PAPER Delivered to Him By Father GOODEN The Paper ARticles of Christian Faith are Truths Truths are impossible to be False Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are impossible to be False Therefore those who obtain Articles of the Christian Faith must have some Rule to acquire them by which cannot deceive them To a Parliamentary Protestant the ancient Fathers cannot be such a Rule because they are accounted Fallible Nor Councils because they also are accounted Fallible Nor Scriptures sensed by a Fallible Authority because all such Interpretations may be False And therefore Faith cannot be obtained by any such means For that which is doubtful can only create Opinion which is also doubtful And he that doubts in Faith the Apostle says is Infidelis And a Company of Doubters are not a Church of Faithful but a Society of such as the Apostle calls Infidels Signed Peter Gooden The ANSWER Pap. Articles of Christian Faith are Truths Ans The Design of the Disputer is to prove that we are Doubters and therefore Infidels But never did any Man begin a Business more unluckily for at the very first dash he takes it for granted that we do undoubtedly believe Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths for otherwise he ought to have proved that they are so But there is another Misfortune he is faln into no less than that For his Argument to prove that we must needs be Doubters is that we want an Infallible Rule Now if he is sure that we want an Infallible Rule and that without such a Rule there can be no Faith I am sure he does notoriously contradict himself by supposing that we believe all Articles of Christian Faith to be Truths though we have no such Rule This is a very hopeful Paper and like to make wise Converts which ends in making us Infidels and begins to prove it by an Argument that manifestly supposes us to be Believers which also pretends that we have no infallible Rule and therefore can be sure of no Point of Faith but yet manifestly supposes us to be assured of some without it which shews the Paper to be a trifling Paper and worth no more Consideration But because the Disputer is said to boast so much of the Argument contained in it I will go on with every Clause of it to convince him if he does not already know it that there is not a Line in it but is either false or nothing to the purpose Pap. Truths are impossible to be False Ans By Truths the Disputer means the Truth of Things or of Propositions and therefore this is a vain and fulsome saying which does not advance his Reasoning one jot farther than it was before For this is no more than to say That which is true is true and it cannot possibly be but Truths must be Truths I think he applies himself to us as if we wanted not only Christian Faith but common Sense Pap. Therefore Articles of Christian Faith are impossible to be false Ans There is no doubt of this supposing that they are Truths So that the Argument he begins with being put into the right order and into other Words is this It is impossible but Truths must be Truths but Articles of Christian Faith are Truths Therefore it is impossible but they must be Truths The ancient Fathers had made wise work with Christianity if they
many Ages afterwards till at length falling again into great Corruption of Doctrine and Manners she with all the other Six Churches of Asia written to by our Lord fell to be no Church at all and the Temples wherein the Name of Christ was called upon are now become Turkish Mosques and so the burden of Pergamos was fulfilled And now having given you this Account of the State of the Church of Pergamos as it was represented by our Lord himself I am much mistaken if from this Authority we may not be able to justify the Reformation of the Church of England against the most specious and popular Exceptions which they of Rome make against our Reformation And this I shall endeavour to do under these three Heads First That in this Church whilst it was in Communion with and Subjection to the Church of Rome there were notorious Abuses and Errors both in Doctrine and Worship added to the Profession of the Common Faith Secondly That upon this Supposition we might and ought to reform our selves as we have done Thirdly That the main Objections which they of the Roman Church do bring and whereby they seek to stagger those of our Communion and to fright them into their own may by this instance of the Message of Christ to the Church of Pergamos be demonstrated to be vain and fallacious and therefore by no means fit to remove us from our stedfastness First That in this Church as in all others that were in Communion with the Church of Rome there were notorious Abuses and Errors introduced into the Faith and Worship of Christians And First As in the Church of Pergamos so in these Churches there were Doctrines and Practices leading to Idolatry I wish that were all but it is not all for Idolatry it self if it be possible for us to know what it is was practised and that Practice not only connived at but encouraged and commanded and of this sort were the Practices of Adoring the Host Praying to Saints to dead Men and Women and Worshipping of Images contrary to the whole Tenor of the Scripture providing that we should worship the Lord our God and that him only we should serve And it is very observable that when we urge them with these things they defend themselves from Idolatry by the use of such distinctions as 't is impossible for the common People to save themselves by if indeed these distinctions would do the business As for Doctrines tending to licentiousness of Life and Manners what can be more evidently such than the easy terms upon which they promised forgiveness of Sins and security from Hell Confession to a Priest with Attrition being reckoned sufficient to receive a Pretorial Absolution which shall be valid in Heaven As also the Invention of Purgatory and the Power of the Church to shorten the Pains of it by Indulgences by applying the Treasure of the Churches Merits by Masses and Prayers with a great many Abuses of this nature And besides all these what shall we say to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation their Half-communion their Latin Service their Sacrifice of the Mass for which there is no President or Rule in the Scriptures or in Antiquity but plain and full consent there is both of the one and of the other against them But now to all this they make one general Reply and tell us That the Church meaning the Roman Church hath not erred in these Points because she cannot err at all for she is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and the Standard of Catholick Unity and Faith she is that One Catholick Church which cannot fail to which Christ has promised his perpetual Presence and Assistance that the gates of hell shall never prevail against her and of which St. Paul said that she is the pillar and ground of the truth In a word that whatsoever is by her defined is infallibly true and therefore that these Doctrines and Practices are neither damnable Errors and Sins nor Errors and Sins at all Now if indeed such Promises were made to that Church we should be brought into a very great strait and not very well know whether we should believe the Scripture speaking against the Doctrines and Practices imposed by that Church or the Scripture speaking to us to believe and do as that Church requires But first of all we say That whatsoever Promises were made to the Catholick Church they do not belong only to the Church of Rome which is but a part of it and that these Promises That the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church and that Christ would be with his Church to the end of the world amounted to no more than this That she should be preserved from so much Error as would utterly destroy the Being of a Church not from all Error whatsoever but that no Promise in particular was made to the Church of Rome so much as to secure her from Fundamental Errors utterly destructive of the Being of a Church especially since St. Paul writing to the Church of Rome plainly supposes that it was possible for them to be quite cut off from the Body of Christ Rom. 11.21 22. where speaking of the Rejection of the Jews he hath these words For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Which had been vain words if it had been impossible by virtue of any Privilege conferred upon the See of Peter for the Church of Rome not to continue in God's goodness or it be an infallible Truth that she shall not be cut off We do what we can to find the Infallibility of the Roman Church in the Scriptures but if we cannot find it there is much more reason to conclude that she hath erred because some of her Doctrines and Practices do seem to us apparently to contradict the Scripture than to believe she is infallible because she says so of her self But to this they say That we mis-interpret those Scriptures which seem to condemn what they profess and practise and in short that we cannot arrive to certainty of the true sense of Scripture without the Testimony of an Infallible Interpreter which the Church is Well for the present I will suppose this but then this will be the consequence of the Supposition That 't is impossible for that Church ever to convince me or any reasonable man of her own Infallibility by the Scriptures For when she tells me that Christ hath said Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and that the church is the pillar and ground of truth and Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the world she supposes that the Promise of Infallibility to her self is so plainly made that
the Persons the Time and the manner and the Degrees by which such Corruptions got into the Church yet it is very unreasonable to expect that every Christian should be able to answer these Questions punctually because it requires more labour and reading than generally they have either leisure or ability to go through with but withal it is very needless because there is a shorter and a surer way to determine this matter and that by comparing those Doctrines and Practises with the Scriptures For the Scriptures have a more certain Tradition than any of those Histories that give an account of the Revolutions of Church-Affairs since the beginning and now what matter is it if I am assured that such and such Corruptions were brought into the Church some time or other after the Apostles because they are contrary to what the Apostles taught and left in their Writings though I cannot tell just the Year when or the Person by whom they first crept into the Church I would very fain know of any Man that when our Saviour set himself to overthrow that wicked Tradition which we were speaking of before whether he could not if he had pleased have given an exact account of the Persons that began it in the Jewish Church and of the time when it began and of every circumstance that attended its entrance into the World and its growth and increase afterwards But did he go this way to work It is certain that the Pharisees pretended the Traditions which they taught the People were delivered from God to Moses and that through several Ages they were conveyed down to them successively by word of Mouth And I grant that if our Lord had with many words shewn them that there were such and such Men who first brought them in this had been a confutation of their pretence but for all that he was pleased to use a better and a shorter argument against them and told them what the Commandment was in the Law which their pretended Tradition made void and this was instead of a thousand Arguments that their Doctrine never came from Moses but was invented some time afterwards And I beseech you let none of us be ashamed to use that kind of argument which our Saviour thought fit to confute those People withal and which we have reason to think he used that he might shew us the best way to secure our selves from being imposed upon by unwritten Traditions and by a pretence of having received such Doctrines from the Apostles as they never delivered When therefore we are asked If Transubstantiation be an Error and not an Article of Faith when did it come in If Service in an unknown Tongue be an Innovation when did it come in If the Sacrifice of the Mass be a Corruption when did it come in Let us account it sufficient to answer for so our Saviour thought it in the like case That Transubstantiation makes void those places of Scripture which expresly affirm that by eating of Bread we shew forth the Death of Christ and are made partakers of his Body That Service in an unknown tongue makes void the Fourteenth Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians And that the Sacrifice of the Mass makes void the Seventh and the Tenth Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews which expresly tell us that Christ can be offered no more and that there remains no more Sacrifice for sins and therefore we are very well assured that they did come in some time or other since the Apostles but whether they came in sooner or later is nothing to the purpose for certainly nothing ought ever to have come in that makes void any part of the Word of God but if any such thing hath got in there is all the reason in the World that it should be thrown out again They may well be ashamed that cannot bear this sort of arguing but most certainly we have no reason to be ashamed to use it since our Blessed Saviour hath used it before us for when he set himself to overthrow the credit of these Doctrines for which they pretended a constant Tradition in the Church he thought it sufficient for his purpose to shew that they voided the Commandments of God and made his word of none effect 2. If there be one Traditionary Doctrine that notoriously contradicts the written Word of God 't is enough to overthrow the whole Credit of that Tradition which pretends to bring down unwritten Doctrines that are necessary to be received For thus we find that our Saviour by the single instance of that Tradition which voided the Fifth Commandment overthrew the Objection of the Pharisees against his Disciples Why do thy Disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders i. e. their unwritten Traditions Which was as much as to say That they ought all of them to be Religiously observed because they had all the same Authority Our Saviour therefore produces an instance of their Traditions that takes away all Authority inasmuch as it was a plain contradiction to the Law of God if therefore amongst their unwritten Doctrines and Rules there were any that had some kind of goodness and usefulness they were to be regarded upon their own account and not upon the Authority of Tradition But when he had utterly overthrown all that pretended Authority by an undeniable Argument he then speaks to the case which themselves had propounded and lays down the truth concerning it They had a vast number of Superstitions for which they pretended Tradition and they tax our Saviour's Disciples for not observing one of them Now he with admirable Wisdom first breaks the Authority of their Tradition shewing that one of them was plainly against the Law of God and then he shews how Superstitious and foolish they were in the case which themselves chose to speak to In this also our Lord hath set us an example that if we are press'd by a pretence to Tradition in favour of unwritten Doctrines and Articles we should in the first place shew that one or more of these is contrary to the Word of God and therefore that there is no reason to pretend Tradition for any of them since they are all said to have come down together Which being done in the first place it will be then seasonable to shew what is to be thought of the rest if they are judged of by the general Rules of Reason and Scripture 3. The Universal consent of some one or two Ages that such and such Doctrines were delivered by word of mouth many Ages before is no Argument that they were so delivered The Pharisees did pretend that their Doctrines and Interpretations of the Law had been conveyed down from Moses by Oral Tradition to that Age in which they lived and there were several of these Traditions universally believed in that Age to have been so conveyed and the Practice of the People was universally governed by them For instance that of Religious Washing before meat and the washing
one Body was perverted into an occasion of dividing them from one another Upon which observation St. Paul inserted this memorable saying There must be also Heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest There must be Heresies i. e. Parties that will contend for false Doctrines and unlawful Practices that will either take away from the Faith or add to the Faith that will either dispense with the Commandments of God or teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men There must be Heresies among you that is this must happen in the Church it self Men should arise from among themselves speaking perverse things And thus also St. Peter foretold There shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies 2 Pet. 2.1 But it was impossible they should do it privily or slily if they were not of the Church and had not thereby an opportunity under a pretence of Piety and care of Christian Truth to slip their Innovations into the Church by degrees Whereas it is added That they which are approved may be made manifest the meaning is that honest Men may more and more appear to be what they are So that in the words of the Text there are these Two things observable I. The unavoidableness of Heresies in the Church There must be Heresies among you II. The reason why God is pleased to permit Heresies That they who are approved may be made manifest 1. The unavoidableness of Heresies in the Church There must be Heresies among you By which we are not to understand an absolute necessity that Heresies should arise For this is inconsistent with that liberty of Human Nature which Religion and God's dealing with Mankind in giving us Laws and making us to expect a Day of Judgment do necessarily suppose But the meaning is this That all things considered it was in it self highly probable that Heresies would be brought into the Church and that God certainly foresaw that they would come in Men being left to that liberty which is capable of being abused and under that Grace that may be resisted All therefore that is needful to be considered under this head will be this What are the grounds of that probability of the coming in of Heresies which the Text supposes of Heresies I say which God saw would certainly come to pass if he interposed not his irresistible power to prevent it Now it was not to be expected but that Heresies would be if we consider on the one side the revelation of Christian Truth and on the other the Temper and Circumstances of Mankind 1. As to the Revelation of Christian Truth we are to consider the tendency and design of the Doctrine it self and the evidence we have that God hath Revealed it 1. The spirit and design of the Doctrine of Christianity which is plainly to rectify the ill Manners and the corrupt Affections of Mankind to restrain them from Liberties which most Men desire how unreasonable and hurtful soever they are and to tie them up to Rules that are not grateful to flesh and blood Moreover the Doctrine of Christianity truly represented is equally for the interest of all Mankind and is by no means framed to serve the designs of Ambition and to advance one part of the Church to the prejudice and slavery of all the rest Lastly It teaches a Worship of great simplicity that has but very few Mysteries and nothing of that Pomp and Ceremony which is so pleasing to the Senses and the Fancies of Men and will not suffer them to place the weight of Religion in any outward Shows and Performances but in loving the Lord our God with all our heart and our neighbours as our selves And to such a course of life and temper of mind it obligeth us by all that it teaches concerning God and Christ and a Life to come our Creed serving no other turn but to make it necessary for us to live a sober righteous and godly life But then 2. The evidence we have for the truth of this Doctrine and that God hath revealed it is not so irresistible as to over-rule all contradiction and perverseness though it be sufficient to satisfy a wise and honest Man nor is the manner wherein these things are testified and declared to us so enlightning as to make it absolutely impossible for a Man to mistake about them or for those that wilfully pervert them to delude others with putting false colours upon them although it is so plain that we must be extraordinarily to blame if we run into any Error against sound Faith or good Life One would think the Doctrine of the Resurrection had been plainly enough delivered first by our Saviour then by his Apostles and that the Institution of the Lord's Supper and the Order which the Apostles observed in the Administration of it was also plain enough and yet in this very Church of Corinth there were divers foully mistaken as to the one and still wanted instruction as to the other One would think that those words This is my body were sufficiently plain and that there were not the least need for our Lord to have added presently after that saying But take notice that I mean This is my body by deputation or representation or in a figurative sense any more than to have so explained himself when he said I am the door I am the vine c. But yet because he did not think fit to leave an express caution against the literal sense of these words we know it has been insisted upon against plain evidence of Scripture Sense and Reason Again let a Man consider the Institution of the Holy Communion and have no prejudice upon his mind and he will never desire that it should have been more plainly expressed that the Cup be administred to all than it is especially since it is said of the Cup Drink ye All of this and they All drank of it But yet because these words were not added or the like And let no man ever presume to administer the Bread without administring the Cup to the same Person the Cup hath been taken away from the People for the greater reverence of Administration When St. Paul said that he that understands not the Language in which Prayer or giving of Thanks is made is not edified it could hardly have been thought necessary to have added this Let therefore all Forms of Publick Prayer and Administration of Sacraments in all Ages of the Church be made in the Tongue that the People understand And yet for want of some such conclusion Publick Prayers have been made in a Language that the People understand not and the Practice maintained as confidently as if the Fourth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were it self in a Language that we could not understand There is no question but God could have added such explications and cautions in the Scripture as would have made it a great deal more difficult and troublesome to bring
down in the New Testament or what those things are that belong in common to all Christians as their Duty or their Priviledge and in respect of their joynt-performance of the former of which and their enjoyment of the latter they may be said to be One. 1. Therefore all Christians do unite in their Profession to submit to one Head who is our Lord Jesus Christ which is so necessary a Duty incumbent on all that he who makes not this Profession is in no respect within the Unity of the Church this being the Ground of all other Reasons of Unity whatsoever and therefore the Apostle makes this to be one principal Foundation of the Unity of the Church that it professes subjection to one Lord Eph. 4.5 And in the third Verse of this Chapter he lays down this mark of distinction between the impulse of the Spirit of God and the impulse of an evil Spirit That whosoever is led by the former doth say that Jesus is the Lord. They are also One in professing the common Faith that was at first delivered to the Saints which began to be preached when the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles and hath ever since been contained in the Holy Scriptures and summarily expressed in the ancient Creeds And therefore to one Lord the Apostle doth in the forementioned place add one Faith Thus we find in Rom. 6.17 That one Form of Doctrine was delivered to Christians and that they are to stand fast in one Spirit and with one mind striving together for the Faith of the Gospel Phil. 1.27 Thus St. Paul charged Timothy That if any man taught otherwise and consented not to wholsome words the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness he should from such withdraw himself 1 Tim. 6.3 Not looking upon them any longer as Christians or as such conversing with them which together with many other like Passages manifestly shews that he who in any point departed from the common Faith of Christians that was received from the Apostles was broken off from the Unity of the Church which is One by a common profession of certain Points of grand importance taught at first by the Holy Spirit For which reason St. Cyprian doubted not to say He cannot seem a Christian who doth not persist in the Vnity of Christ's Gospel and Faith 3. There is an Unity of Sacraments in the Christian Church One Baptism by which we are all admitted into the same state of Duties and Priviledges undertaking the Conditions of the New Covenant and gaining a Right to the Promises thereof and therefore the Apostle adds also one Baptism And here in the Text he expresly affirms that by one Spirit we are baptized into one Body into one Body of People professing one common Faith and claiming the Priviledges belonging to such a Profession The like Unity is inferred from the other Sacrament since we are all made to drink into one Spirit And in the 10th Chapter of this Epipistle v. 16 17. he saith The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread 4. There is also an Unity of Obedience to the same Laws and Institutions For to all Christians it equally belongeth to govern themselves effectually by the will of their Lord Jesus Christ to observe his Ordinances and Commands by the doing of which they declare themselves to be of his Flock in that they hear his Voice and of his Kingdom in that they live by his Laws and that as there is one and the same Obligation so there is one and the same Correspondent Practice one and the same Spirit of Obedience that runs through all 5. There is also an Unity of Affection or mutual Charity prescribed to the Church Thus saith our Saviour By this shall all Men know that ye are my disciples if ye love one another Thus saith the Apostle in this Chapter The Members should have the same care one for another and whether one Member suffer all the Members suffer with it or one Member be honoured all the Members rejoyce with it which kind of Unity appeared most visibly after the Church was begun on the day of Pentecost for it is observed presently that the multitude of them that believed were of one Heart and of one Soul Acts 4.32 6. There is also an Unity of Communion in the Service and Worship of God in joyning together in the same Acts of Piety and Devotion according to the Rules of the Gospel in Prayers and in Sacraments and in glorifying God with one mouth moreover in the common defence of the same Truth and in the joint opposition of every dangerous Error in propagating and promoting the same Faith of the Gospel and striving together for the Interest of it 7. There is also an Unity of Discipline or Government which is to be maintained by every Member's keeping in his Place and order in the Church the People of Christ receiving the Mysteries of Christianity from their Pastors and these confederating one with another for the maintenance of common Christianity without invading each others Liberty and Jurisdiction and accomodating as near as may be all Rites of Discipline and Worship to one another and assisting each other by Advice and Correspondence and giving no occasion to breach of Charity and Christian Communion by abusing a lawful or by claiming an undue Authority Other more particular Instances might be mentioned but I shall content my self with these believing that upon these Grounds of Unity which I have noted it will not be difficult to satisfie those Scruples which have been thrown into some Mens Minds concerning the necessity of being of that one Church which is the Body of Christ and they are chiefly two 1. That there must be one Church which is the only Church of Christ exclusively to all the rest that are not in Communion with her 2. That where there is most Unity there of necessity must be the true Church 1. That there is one-Society or Communion which is the Body of Christ exclusively to all other Communions whatsoever For thus they argue The Apostle here and the New Testament elsewhere affirms That the Disciples of Christ are one Body If therefore there be as there are several Bodies of Christians in this divided State of Christendom that are not united in Communion in Worship in Government no nor in Doctrine neither these cannot all be the Body of Christ which is but one and therefore there must be but one of them which is that Body of Christ or the true Church And from hence they proceed farther since we grant that they are a Church we do in effect grant that we are not so much as a part of the true Church our selves because we are not in Communion
with them and we and they are not Members of one another as all the Members of the Church are Which kind of reasoning how likely soever it may be to confound and amuse a Man is by no means fit to unsettle a prudent nor so much as an honest Person if he will give himself leave to consider The plain Answer to these Harangues is this That Christians are not united into one Body or Church in all respects but in some they are There is the Unity of one Lord and one Faith and one Baptism which makes them one Body But then alas they are not always one Body in respect of Unity and Affection and good will towards one another nor in respect of Unity of Communion in the Service of God or of Discipline and Government as they ought to be But now the profession of the same Faith which was once delivered to the Saints and Admission into the state of Christian Duties and Privileges by Baptism is that which makes a Christian and which unites all Christian Societies into one Body They indeed who are defective in this are no Christians and they who come thus far are so because we are all baptized into one Body But then we grant there ought to be a farther Unity and in particular an Unity of Communion for the uniting of the Members of this Body more strictly to one another But tho' there be not Unity of Communion they do not therefore cease to be Members of one Body but all that can be truly said is that some of the Members are contentious and either give just cause of Offence or take Offence when none is given which is indeed contrary to the Duty of the Members of the Church but not utterly inconsistent with their being Members of it And for this we have the Authority of St. Paul in the two Verses next but one to the Text If the foot shall say Because I am not the hand I am not of the body is it therefore not of the body That is if the Members of the Body of Christ do contrary to their Duty in some respect it doth not follow presently that they are no longer parts of the Church and if one Church will have no Communion with another but upon most unjust and unreasonable Terms it is very certain that Unity of Communion is not likely to last between them But so long as there is an Unity of Faith i. e. a consent in professing the necessary Articles of Christianity they are yet one Body tho' one part of it doth not perform the Duty incumbent on it as it is a part of the Church but will perhaps be the whole or nothing and is not content to profess the first Faith but moreover adds new Doctrines thereto contrary to the Scriptures and would impose them upon the rest of the Christian World We may therefore in respect of Faith and Baptism grant That Church which would be all in all to be within the Unity of the Catholick Church tho' we are not in Communion with it but then in respect of Unity of affection and Charity and Unity of Communion in the Service of God and in opposing all dangerous Errors and Unity of Government in these respects I say she is not within the Unity of the Body in as much as she doth contrary to her Duty in all these respects So that tho' the Church be one in respect of Baptism and the principal Articles of Christianity yet because it is not one in other respects I am by no means startled at that charge You and we are two Churches because we are of opposite Communion and therefore if you grant us to be a true Church you must conclude your self not to be so For I have this to answer That Faith which you profess with us that Baptism which you administer and receive with us is that which makes you to be of the Church and thus far you are one with us 'T is true indeed there ought to be Unity in maintaining Communion in all Christian Offices and to that end no false Doctrines are to be added to the profession of the Faith nor any unlawful Practices to be brought into God's Worship but this is that which we cannot help though you can and by such things as these you have departed from the Unity that ought to be in the Church but we have not To make which Answer more plain let it be remembred That one instance of that Unity which ought to be in the Church is keeping all the Commandments of God Now all unholy Persons professing Christianity do depart from this Unity yet inasmuch as they are baptized and profess the Creed we own that they are visible parts of the Church But now because they are so if they should charge all those that take not the same Liberties they do with being out of the Church because the Church is one Body and they are ganted to be of it I think nothing could be more ridiculous and it is little better that they say who under the Protection of this Principle That the Church is but One would exclude all from being Parts of the Church who do not run into the same Enormities about Doctrine Worship and Government with themselves In a word the Church is one in respect of the common Faith which is professed every where amongst Christians and it ought to be one but it is not in respect of purity of Profession and of Worship and Government But it doth not from hence follow that they who are in the right must go over to those that are in the wrong in order to being a part of the Church for that they are already but they that are in the wrong should learn to do their Duty better that they may become a purer part of the Church which yet they are not 2. We are born in hand also That where there is most Unity there must of necessity be the True Church and this because there is but One Body Concerning which I say That if by Unity be meant Agreement in all Points of any great consequence they that advance this Principle have advanced it against themselves for it must be a very uncomfortable one to those that in many matters differ notoriously amongst themselves But. 1. The Principle it self is false for there may be Unity in Error as well as in Truth and there hath been so The false Prophets in Elias's time were at Unity so were the Scribes and Pharisees that consented to our Saviour's Death no not is Satan divided against himself It is not meerly Unity that is a Mark of a true Church unless it be Unity in the true Faith nor is Unity the Mark of a pure Church unless it be upon Terms of Obedience to God of Charity to one another of keeping the Faith unmixed with Errors and Innovations and the Worship of God free from material Defects and forbidden Practices Unity in Error and Sin is to be broken