Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
so to do why else do you call this a clearing of that now it is evident you take Church in the Proposition for the Catholick visible Church existing in the World with whom you say an external Communion is to be sought as hath been before shew'd But how absurd is what you say if you take Church in this sence For First you hereby say that Christ did primarily design to save this present existing Catholick Church what can be more absurd did not Christ think you as primarily design all those parts of his Church that in their past Generations did once exist here on Earth and doth not he alike design to save that part that is yet to be born Again you herein say that Christ primarily designed to save the Catholick visible Church which is evidently false for Christ never designed to save his visible Catholick Church much lesse considered as visible and therefore cannot be said Primarily to design Their Salvation for Christs design was to save only a part of his visible Church and that part not considered as visible but as invisibly united to himself by a livving Faith Yet again if the quite contrary be true viz. That Christ first designed the Salvation of particular Christians and but in a secondary sence the Church that is made up of them then what you say must needs be false viz. that Christ designed Salvation to the Church primarily and to particular Members secondarily as in Union with the Church The former of which I affect for these reasons First Because all individual sincere Christians have all qualifications that are absolutely necessary to Salvation antecedently to a visible Church state as actual Faith and Repentance if they be adult or the promise of the Covenant upon their Parents Faith if they be Infants which are Foundations of and give Title to a visible Church State Therefore our Saviour primarily designed to save them as such and as for his designing such to be admitted into a visible Church State by Baptism it was but to Seal that Salvation to them and to promote and carry on that Salvation that was antecedently secured to them by the Covenant upon their Repentance and Faith in the Lord Jesus the very Truth is Christ did not intend at all to save men as visible Church Members but only as true Believers for the fundamental saving Doctrine of the Gospel doth not run thus he that is a Member of the visible Church shall be saved but he that Believeth shall be saved and he that Believeth not shall be damned If it be objected But doth not the Apostle Peter Preach not only Repentance but likewise Baptism as necessary to Remission of sins and consequently to Salvation when he says Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of sins And is not Baptisme an Ordinance of admission into a visible Church State Acts 2.30 I answ they are both indeed commanded but not as equally necessary for Repentance gives the fundamental title to remission Baptisme doth only give the Seal the former is so necessary that without it no remission can be obtained the other is but for the more comfortable assurance of that priviledge to the penitent but not absolutely necessary as the other and this our Saviour most clearly intimates when he saith Mark 16.16 He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that Believeth not shall be damned Men shall be damned meerly upon the account of their unbelief and not meerly for want of Baptism provided they have Faith And yet Baptism hath its great use as I have acknowledged but as I said not absolutely necessary for if men only Believe and never have an opportunity of being Baptized and so of being admitted into a visible Church state thereby then Salvation is not at all hazarded My next reason is this It cannot be true that Christ only designed to save particular Christians as Members of the visible Church because it were impossible then that any Christians that were not visible Church Members should be saved for if it must fare with particular Christians with respect to this body Politick as he is pleased to call it the Church as it doth with the Members of the natural Body where it is confest that God by his Providence only intends to give life to each Member and likewise the continuance of Life as united together in one body it will certainly follows that if any Member of the Church be separated from the Church it must necessarily perish as if a hand or a foot were separated from the natural body it doth certainly perish But by his leave this is very false as to particular Christians with respect to the Church for first all Christians do not spring out of the Church as the Members of the natural body do out of that body for when Infidels belive they spring out of the World or Masse of mankind and not out of the Church and by believing are first united to Christ and then as Saul converted they essay to joyn themselves to the Church so that first they are internal members of a Church or are fit matter to be made members of and afterwards making a profession of Faith are made formal Members of a visible Church which is solemnized by Baptisme Secondly and if it so happen that by unjust excommunication any true Christian be cut off from the visible Church yet it keeps its Life as no Member in a natural body can do The conclusion is this that if Christians are in a salvable state before Union to a visible Church and if they may be in a salvable state when wrongfully cut off by Excommunication then it cannot be true that Christ did but in a secondary way intend the Salvation of particular Christians viz. as united to a Church My third and last reason is this I say Christ did not primarily design to save his Church and but secondarily particular Members as he asserts which I thus prove That respect which individual men have to civil Society as Kingdomes or Republicks that respect have particular Christians to the visible Church of Christ according to his own notion of a Church which he considers as a body Politick Now I say God in making the World did not primarily design Kingdomes and Commonwealths but he primarily designed the giving of particular men their existences and secondarily Kingdoms and Republicks for their better accommodation Men were not made for Kingdoms but Kingdoms for Men. Therefore so did Christ he first designed the putting of particular men into a State of Salvation by giving to them Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins and then designed as a consequent thereof to collect them into a Society or Societies under Governours of his appointment to be ruled by Laws of his own Ordination for the building them up in their Faith and comforts to his Glory so that this Society or Societies of Church or Churches with the Laws and Ordinances thereto
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