A Theological Dialogue Containing the DEFENCE and JUSTIFICATION OF Dr. John Owen FROM THE FORTY TWO ERRORS Charged upon him by Mr. Richard Baxter In a certain MANUSCRIPT ABOUT Communion in Lyturgical Worship Hebr. 11.5 By Faith Abel obtained a witness that he was righteous God testifying of his gifts and by it being dead yet speaketh 1 Cor. 4.3 4. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of mans judgment He that judgeth me is the Lord. LONDON Printed for the Author 1684. A THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE CONTAINING Dr. Iohn Owen's DEFENCE AND JUSTIFICATION AGAINST Mr. Richard Baxter's CHARGE c. J. O. SIR you say That there is a certain Manuscript come to your hand which is famed to be Dr Owen's but received by you from a private hand which you publish taking it for granted so to be add his Name to it and expose it to Publick View and charge the said Dr. Owen with forty two Errors therein contained It is not yet proved by you to be his and therefore whether its reasonable for you to charge him with forty two Errors if you had found them in the said Manuscript let the World judge But whether the charge of such Errors on the said Manuscript be just give us leave to Examine by our Ensuing Conference And seeing by a continued Prosopopeia you direct your Discourse Charges Reproofs and Admonitions to me as if I were personally present or at least living in the Body who you know departed this Life some months since Take it not amiss if I treat you in the like nature and think it as feasible for a dead man to speak in the Ears of the Living as for the Living to speak in the Ears of the Dead I suppose if that Manuscript were mine some or other of the Congregation to which I was Pastor might come to me with this Case of Conscience Sir Is it lawful for us who are Members of a Congregation of Faithful People according to Article 19. of the Church of England for to joyn now as things are in their present Circumstances in the Publick Worship by the Liturgy And that it was Answered Manuscript It is not lawful for us to go to and joyn in Publick Worship by the Common Prayer because that Worship in it self according to the Rule of the Gospel is unlawful Now I pray Sir what Resolution would you give of this Case R. B. I say It is not only lawful but a Duty for those that cannot have better Publick Church-Worship without more hurt than benefit and are near a competent Parish Minister to go to and joyn in Publick Worship performed according to the Liturgy and in Sacramental Communion and for those that can have better to joyn sometimes with such Parish-Churches when their forbearance scandalously seemeth to signifie that they take such Communion for unlawful and so would tempt others to the same Accusation and Uncharitable Separation J. O. Sir Your Resolution seems to me very long and upon so many Suppositions that its very ambiguous and doth very scarcely if at all reach the Enquiry here made For 1. We ask for our selves who are Actual Members of a Voluntary Church whether we may joyn in such Communion spoken of when we are as we apprehend of a Society and have a Publick Worship more agreeable to the mind of Christ and our own Edification and do you judge whether that be better or no for us 2. What you mean by a competent Ministry we know not one man judges a man a Competent yea able and profitable Minister which another doth not who must be a binding Judge to me in this case Must I walk by my own Judgment for Edification or by another Mans 3. Doth nearness to a Competent Minister make it my duty to joyn in all the Publick Worship of that Church of which he is Minister You say If I cann't have better But if I have and can by going further what then And for those that can have better to joyn sometimes in such Parish-Churches but then not alwayes and to leave their aforesaid Communion as unlawful whereas our said Parish-Churches require us so to do prosecuting us by Laws wherever they find us assembled You say it must be when our forbearance scandalously seemeth to signifie that we take such Communion for unlawful Who shall be judge of this Doth my Actual Non-communion with any Church scandalously reflect upon its Constitution if I walk in Communion with a Church which I judge to be a Church of Christ Must I go by the conduct of every peevish man or Church that will say so If a Church of Baptists in the same Parish with me will say so must I therefore joyn with them upon their unalterable terms which I am not satisfyed in Again what if I do take such Communion for unlawful upon grounds satisfactory to my self am I bound to-slight those grounds because somebody saith my forbearance hath a Scandalous Signification Likewise if my Separation be in duty to wards God and my own Soul it 's not uncharitable to any Man neither do I tempt any man by walking therein to uncharitableness or any Accusation thereof Manuscript Something must be premised to the Confirmation of this Position J. O. These are the things that we premise and therefore should be agreed upon on both sides pro concessis before we go to prove the Position laid down by the following Twelve Arguments Manusc 1. The whole System of Liturgical Worship with all its inseparable Dependencies are intended for as such it is Established by Law and not in any part of it only as such it is required that we receive it and attend unto it It is not in our power it is not left to our judgment or liberty to close with or make use of any part of it as we shall think fit There are in the Mass-Book many Prayers directed to God only by Jesus Christ yet it is not lawful for us thereon to go to Mass under a pretence only of joyning in such lawful Prayers As we must not offer their Drink-Offerings of Blood so we must not take up their Names in our Lips Psal 16 4. have no Communion with them R. B. To the first I answer 1. If he will include all that is in the Liturgy the Nonconformists confess that there is something in it which they differ from as unjustifiable and so there is in all mens Worship of God J. O. We say The whole System our meaning is plain the totum as it stands constituted in all its integral parts When I speak of John or Thomas c. I speak not of a Finger or a Leg if I do I say the Finger or Leg of such an one So we speak not of those things that you will call faulty and unjustifyable as it may be a Surplice or Cross c. but of the whole Liturgy-Worship as Establish'd R. B. He intimateth that it is not in cur power to
the preceptive or penal part though it justifies me before the Law R. B. What if the Creed or Lords Prayer were too rigorously imposed J. O. If the thing be my duty in obedience to a just and Supream Law I am not to neglect it because an Inferiour Governour too rigorously imposeth it 1. Such a rigorous imposition hurts me not in that which I take to be duty to do whether that Imposition be or no. 2. Christ never annexeth too severe Penalties to any of his Laws 3. If man undertake to annex too rigorous Punishments or unsuitable ones it hinders not me in my Duty to Christ As if a Magistrate make Whipping or Hanging the Penalty of not receiving the Sacrament in such a time If I upon Examination of my self and the Rule apprehend it my duty in Obedience to Christ I will do it but not in respect to Mans Laws But if the Subordinate Law-maker alter the Nature and Circumstances of the Supream the Law is another thing and my Obedience justifies the power of the Law-maker and the goodness of the Law in the Mandatory part Again good things by a lawful Authority may be too rigorously imposed and the Law may be unjust in the Penalty though the Mandatory part be good which injustice is the sin of the Law-givers loss and wrong of the Transgressor because he suffers beyond the Merit of his Transgression but this hinders not me from my Duty neither doth this rigorous Imposition hurt me so long as I stand in obligation and practice of my duty by another Righteous Law which requires the same thing If Christ commands me to say the Lords Prayer and annexeth no corporal punishment I will do it If Mans Law saith I shall be hang'd if I do not do it I do the Action by vertue of Christ's Law But let such Law makers look to it that annex Corporal Penalties to Laws of his Institution the Cries of them upon which they are Executed will be loud in Christs Ear. Manuscript This Corjunction by C mmunion by the Worship of the Liturgy is a Symbol Pledge and Token of â—n Ecclesâ—astical Incorporation with the Church of England in its present Constitution it is so in the Law of the Land it is so in the Canons of the Church it is so in the common understanding of all men and by these Rules must our Vnderstanding and Practice be judged and not be any Reserves of our own which neither God nor good men will allow of Wherefâ—re R. B. To the third Premise I answer The Church of England is an Ambiguous word 1. As it signifies a part of the Universal Church agreeing in Faith one God and all Essentials J. O. So any Church may be as well as it any particular Congregation this is no distinguishing Character but is ambiguous too R. B. 2. As it is a Christian Kingdom under one King J. O. A Church in a sence is a Christian Kingdom i. e. a Royal Nation under Christ their King But there 's no such Gospel Church in your sence for there was neither Christian Kingdom nor King in the Apostles days R. B. As it is a Confedracy of many Churches to keep concord in lawful Circumstantials as well as Integrals J. O. This will not tell us yet what the Church of England is 1. A confederacy of Churches is by No-body call'd a Church in your sence of a Church the Scripture no where calls a confedracy of Churches a Church nor doth any that call the Church of England â— Church owning it so to be in its professed Constitution mean thereby a confederation of Churches 2. National Churches may be a confederation of Churches and such confederation in lawful circumstantials as well as integrals will make a Church I know not why we may not have a Catholick Visible Church Organized if this be a due acceptation of a Church R. B. If any Church go beyond these bounds and upon good pretences shall agree upon any Error or Evil it is a mistake to hold that all that incorporate with them in the three aforesaid lawful respects do therefore confederate with them in their Error This is your Fourth Error J. O. That 's â—our Error 1. In Arithmetick it s but the third by your own mark 2. In Logick for what â—ounds have you set These three things are but general Descriptions of a Church at most Here 's no definition in any or all of them of any particular Church and that is setting of â—ounds when I difference and describe a Species or Individual under its next Genus by its particular form or proper adjunct we spâ—ak of a particular Church so bounded The Church of England is so according to its present constitution by Establishing Laws in its actual form of Officers Members particular Worship and power as an Organized individual Church National Church is not the next Genus of the Church of England but remote National Church is the next Genus Now I say upon whatever pretences a particular Church calls and professeth it self a Church as the conditions of their Communion if you joyn with them upon those conditions pretended and professed that is a Token of your Ecclesiastical Incorporation in the said Church in its present constitution the Church and all others looks upon you as an Actual Member let the conditions be Error or no Error The Question is not so much now whether the terms be Error or not but whether your joyning upon the terms required is not your Ecclesiastical Incorporation with them And then if the terms be erroneous and sinful whether you do not joyn in the Error and professedly allow it by your practice R. B. I will give you a general instance and a particular one 1. You cann't name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles dayes till now that had no Error J. O. You might as well have said any one Church for we speak of a particular Church not of combined Churches but suppose as you say If that Combination be an Error or an Error be the condition of the Combination then my coming upon that condition is an Error and an Incorporation into that combination so as to make me Confederate in that Error R. B. The Independents gathered a Synâ—d at the Savoy and there among their Doctrinals or Articles of Faith laid down two points Expresly contrary to Scripture 1. That it is not Faith but Christs Righteousness that we are justified by whereas it is both and the Scripture often saith the contrary J. O. It is a strange thing that any man should take upon him such Magisterial Dictatorship in matters of Religion to insinuate Error into Mens Minds and unjust accusations of others For 1. When the Scripture speaks of Justification by Faith doth any sound Divines or Christians understand it of the Act of believing but that the object of Faith that Justifies is the Righteousness of Faith our own Righteousness or Christs Righteousness but this dispute is not
Homo and therefore receives that true denomination is Incorporated into the Genus Animal Or take the Church as an Integrum that which is incorporated into an integâ—al part is incorporated into the Integrum communion with the Integrum is per partes and such incorporation into any of the Parts is an evidencing Pledge which is a Symbol of Communion with the whole as by a Turf you take possession of an Estate in Land and by the delivery of a Key and entring the House you take possession i. e. These are Symbols or Pledges of your being instated in the whole R. B. For first the Rulers openly declare that they take multitudes to be none of their Church who joyn in the Liturgy J. O. That 's false Where do any Rulers by any Law declare so And if any say so it 's only concerning such as yield not to their required terms of Communion in joyning with the Worship of the Liturgy as the Establishing Law requires and will you joyn Communion with a Church whose Officers plainly declare that you are none of their Church whilst you Communicate Surely you either strangely impose upon them to communicate being a declared Non-Member or they are pitiful Church-Rulers that look no stricter to their Communicants but whose will may break in upon them So that here 's a Church in Communion with those that are declaredly none of its Communion and Members and Non-Members in Communion and Non-Communion with a Church and no Church This is a very pretty Riddle R. B. And it is Subscribing Declaring and Swearing Obedience which is the Symbol J. O. Of what Of Lay-Communion You should speak out your Sentences and not squeez off a piece Are any of those required of Lay-Communicants Nay are they not of another Nature qualifications of actual Communicants for Office-Power I wonder that grave men and Divines will dare to Equivocate so Is not Baptism according to the Liturgy a Symbol of Incorporation into the Church of England Confirmation another Receiving the Lords Supper another Symbol ordinary Attendence on the Service c. R. B. Yea they Excommunicate many that come to the Liturgy-Service J. O. For what For Bastardy Whoring Swearing Drunkenness these should for all their coming to the Liturgy be Excommunicated But why do they Excommunicate them Is it not because they look upon them as incorporated Members before Excommunication It were Nonsence for a Church to Excommunicate a declared Non-Member And are not Excommunicate Persons kept from coming to the Communion by the Liturgy So that it 's apparent Communion in the Liturgy is the Symbol yea door of in-let to and out-let from incorporation with the Church R. B. And many come to it who openly disown the Diocesan present Constitution so did the old Nonconformists and many Forreigners French and Dutch J. O. Your Self for Example the chief Head of that Trimming Sect whose practice condemns their declared Opinion and that your Rulers know or else would not connive at such a scandalous sort of communicants that deny the professed standing and form of a Diocesan Church whilst they have communion wiâ—h it and say they communicate with it quâ—tenus a Presbyteriâ—n Association of Churches Those old Nonconformists that did so are no Presidents to us If they halâ—ed and were lame must we be so Such Communicants are not acceptable to any Church and I know what Church would never admit them were it not to punish and expose them and their Profession as ridiculous and inconsistent with it self And as for French and Dutch what are they to us or any other any more than they follow Christ And if the Church do not do their duty towards disorderly communicants let them look to it it 's none of our fault R. B. If one may joyn in Communion of Worship with a Presbyterian Independant or Anabaptist Church without owning the Errors of their Constitution then so we may with a Parish Church But c. J. O. And a Diocesan too you should say for in joyning with one you joyn with the other as such And I will tell you if they make their Errors the condition of your communion you cannot joyn in communion c. without owning their Errors Suppose a Presbyterian Church makes worshiping according o the Directory the condition of their Communion and I look upon this as their Error or that it is a false Rule of Worship do not I in joyning in Communion by the Directory own their Error So Baptists making Re-baptizing the condition of communion with them and I look upon it as a sin do not I own their Error by joyning wiâ—h them on this condition and so grosly condemn my self and commit a known sin yea 't is no better than a presumptuous Sin R. B. You mi take when you say it is by the Law of the Land J. O. I admirâ— you can say it when I know you cann't but be better acquâ—inted with the Laws then so You should have instanced in some part or clause that had excepted some Communicants from being reckoned of that Church They would thank you for it that they might not be liable to Excommunication All that are liable to a Church-Excommunication when they have offended are declared Members of the Church But all Communicants â—nd Native Inhabitants are so therefore the Law hath excepted none R. B. You mistake again when you say it is so by the Canons J. O. Is it possible you can charge such things for mistakes doth not the 22â—h Canon require every Parishioner that is a Lay Person to communicate thrice every year Is not that for a Symbol of their Incorporation with the Church of England which is affirmed to be a true Apostolick Church Can. 3. Can. 14 89. and how comes it to pass that the Churcâ— hath power of Excommunicating any person but by vertue of Incorporation which she hath by the same Law He that is not in the Church how comes he to be cast out And how was it that he is esteemed one Is it not by vertue of the Church Canon or Rubrick Is he not by communion in the Sacrament of Baptism made a Member Is not that communion of the Liturgy So for Confirmation or other Liturgical Worship that are made necessâ—ry conditions of communion are they not Symbols of their Ecclesiastical Incorpor tion the neglect whereof is punished with Excommunication And likewise those that do not submit to the things therein commanded not to be admitted to the Communion of the Sacramâ—nts and therefore to be reckoned as no Members Can 27. Scâ—ismâ—ticks not to be admitted to the Communion No Mininister when he celebrateth the Communion shall wittingly administer to â—y â—â—t to such as kneel under pâ—in of Suspension nor under the liâ—e pâ—in to 〈◊〉 that refuse to be present at Publick Prayer accordinâ— to the Oâ—ders of the Church of England R. B. I formerly instanced in one of the sharpest Nonconformists oâ—â— Mr. Humpney Feu of Coventry who would say aloud
Worship rejecteth and excludeth the matter of Prayer J. O. That which prescribes the matter of Prayer excludes all other matter besides what is prescribed and therefore is inconsistent with the conduct of the Spirit in taking the work of the Spirit out of its hands It rejecteth and excludeth our dependance on the promises of the aid and assistance of the Spirit in Prayer because it prescribes and limits the matter manner and gives all the abilities preâ—ended to there is nothing for the Spirit to do therefore here 's nothing untrue Where there is nothing left for the Spirit to do the work of the Spirit as to Gifts is excluded Manuscript Arg. 10. That which overthrows and dissolves our Church-Covenant as unto the principal end of it is to us unlawful this end is the professed joynt subjection of our Souls and Consciences unto the Authority of Christ in the observation of whatever he commands and nothing else in the Worship of God But by this practice this end of the Church Covenant is destroyed and thereby the Church-Covenant it self is broken for we do observe that which Christ hath not commanded And while some stand unto the terms of the Covenant which others relinquish it will fill the Church with Confusions and Disorders R. B. To the 10th I answer What your Church-Covenant is I know not but if it profess Subjection to nothing in Worship but what Christ commandeth it is your Church-Error and Error 41. J.O. I may spare the pains to vindicate our selves from this charge of Error every Christian can do it But Sir are you serious here and speak as you mean Or are you Ludicrous only and would shew a feat of Sophistry If it be the former we must profess our Resolution to maintain that for Truth and Religion which you call Error and that we profess subjection only to the Commands of Christ in matters of Religion and if you know any Religion or part of it to be exercised in Obedience to those Commands that are not Christs keep that to your own practice if you like it we need it not What you say as to Psalms Translations Time Place Utensils we say we do nothing in them but in Obedience to the Commands of Christ so far as they have place in Worship neither shall you nor any man prescribe to us If your meaning be to be taken in the latter sence I say 't is Ludere cum sacris as hath been too often in this Undertaking of yours Heathens had a serious Reverence to their supposed Sacred Things as appears by the Poet Procul O Procul este profani Manuscript Arg. 11. That which contains a vertual renunciation of our Church-State and of the lawfulness of our Ministry and Ordinances therein is not to be admitted or allowed But this also is done in the practices enquired into For it is a professed Conjunction with them in Church-Communion and Worship by whom our Church-State and Ordinances are condemned as null and this judgment they make of what we do affirming that we are gross dissemblers if after such a conjunction with them we return any more unto our own Assemblies in this condemnation we do outwardly and visibly joyn R. B. It 's an Error to hold That if any unjustly condemn other Churches it is a Renunciation of that condemned Church-State to have Communion with them that condemn Error 42. J. O. You cann't be ignorant but know that you speak now fallaciously again To have communion with another man in other things that he condemns me not for is no Renunciation of that for which he doth condemn me E. gr A false Worshipper condenms me for worshipping the true God or the true God in a right manner I may maintain a Society withâ—h this man as to buying and selling and not condemn my Religion but if I enter into a Religious Society with him in false Worship I then renounce what he unjustly condemns me for So your charge is fallacious and false Manuscript Arg. 12. That which deprives us of the Principal Plea for the justification of our Separation from the Church of England in its present State ought not justly to be received or admitted But this is certainly done by a Supposition of the lawfulness of this Worship and a practice suitable thereto as is known to all who are exercised in this cause Many other heads of Argument might be added to the same purpose if there were cccasion J. O. Is there any Error here R. B. I mark none but I answer your Argument thus That which discovers the unâ—ouâ—dâ—eâ—s of any ones Plea for Separâ—tion is to be received J.O. That is not true universally for the Commission of many Acts of Sin is a discovery to a man himself and good men of the unsoundness of any Plea that hath been made for 〈◊〉 R. B There are several cases in which separation from the Church of England is sinful 1. If any separate as Papists do and because they are against sound Doctrine or any good that is in the Church J. O This you charge them with Papists will say your Doctrine is sound and that which you have justified more then any profest Protestant Divine since the Reformation as that of Justification by Works Merits Images a power in man to invent to impose Subordinate Worship They say they separate because of the Errors of your Church-Constitution R. B. If any renounce Communion with Parish-Churches under the name of the Church of England J. O. Communion with the Church of England and Parish-Churches is the same thing as communion with Homo is communion wiâ—h Animal But we know where you would be R.B. If any renounce communion with the Church of England as it's a Christian Kingdom J. O. See now the quatenus still you will not have communion with the Church but with a Kingdom R. B. If any renounce communion with the Church of England as it s called one from an Association of concord of its Pastors or Church Governours J. O. i. e. Quatenus a Presbyterian Church R. B. If any renounce communion with faulty Bishops or worship simpliciter and not secundum quid J. O. Now here is a Communicant secundum quid I would appeal to the Church of England whether Mr. Baxter be an acceptable Communicant 1. He communicates with a Parish-Church but renounceth the organized Church of England 2. He hath communion in the Liturgy but renounceth the Authority of Diocesan Bishops and their Office as established by the same 3. He hath communion with the Church of England but not as such but quatenus a Christian Kingdom 4. He hath communion with Parishes but not as part of Diocesan Churches but quatenus Presbyterian Associations 5. He hath no simple absolute communion at all out is a meer secundum quid Communicant Are not these now pretty clear and plain things to resolve a doubting Conscience in the great point of Gospel-Communion R. B. Now I 'll tell you the Reason of