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
with Christ without any respect to any Politick Union with one another as for those benefits which are of a Politick or relative consideration they are lesse principal and not of that necessity to Salvation such are the Love of all Saints and their mutual Prayers for each other Such are worshiping together and the benefits of Christs Discipline now though these are excellent in their kinds yet much inferiour to those of Faith and Repentance and Remission of sins as being not so absolutely necessary to Salvation as these are Now I would fain know of the Author whether it be more true to say that Christ by his death did primarily intend to save men as Believers as Penitent as Renewed and pardoned which belongs to Christians considered as individuals which is what I affirm or to say he primarily intended to save men as hearing praying praising and receiving the Lords Supper together and likewise by being under Discipline which are the priviledges that belong to Christians as falling under a Politick consideration which is what he seems to affirm If the former be true then the latter which he hath asserted is false for both of them cannot be primarily intended Now I conceive the former true because it is every where affirmed in Scripture that he that believes he that repents he that is regenerate he that is pardoned shall be saved But it is no where promised that those that pray and praise c. with the Church that they shall be saved except it be with respect unto Faith and Repentance which as I have said belong to Christians as individuals and not as Members of a Church But he saith that herein he speaks but the sence and Language of the Holy Scriptures and here he quoteth three texts as Eph. 5.25 Acts 20.28 Eph. 5.23 well what doth he gather thence Hence saith he it is plain that Christ died primarily for his Church and for individuals not as scattered but as incorporated into his Church But by your favour here is more in your conclusion than is in those premised Texts indeed I read there that Christ gave himself for his Church and that he redeemed his Church with his blood and that he is the Saviour of his body which is his Church But I find not a word there of dying primarily for his Church and but secondarily for individuals as incorporated into his Church If any shall say all this is implyed if not exprest I say who ever so thinks is obliged to shew how and which way it comes to be implied but to save them the Labour I am bold to affirm the contrary that there is no such thing implyed my reason is this because Church in each of those places is taken for a collection of particular Christians considered primarily as true believers as true penitents and but secondarily as in Union one with another and as in Fellowship in Church Ordinances My reasons are first because there is nothing in the words or context that can force a contrary interpretation Secondly because the nature of the thing spoken of in these verses will bear no interpretation but such as I give Because the intents of Christs dying must be measured according to the Nature of things so that what is more excellent must be intended before that which is lesse excellent now mens being particularly united to Christ by Faith their having their Natures changed and their sins pardoned are more excellent than their Union and Communion with each other in external Ordinances that are but inferior Ministeries subservient to their Faith and their renewed Natures and the edification of them therein therefore Christ must intend his death primarily for his Church as Believers now as I have formerly said Believers as such are not Members of a Church for Faith speaks a relation to Christ but no relation immediately to any other Christian or Christians whatever Again under what qualification and for what reason Christ is said primarily to be Saviour of the Church his body under that qualification and for that reason Christ is said primarily to dye and shed his blood for his Body But Christ doth not save his Church under the qualification or for that reason primarily because they are united in external Acts of Worship and Discipline and upon that account it is they are of your visible Politick body or Church but because its particular Members are Believers and penitent but Christians quatenus Believers or penitent are not consider as Members of a Church for indeed Faith and Repentance speak no relation immediately to any but God and Christ that of Church Membership comes in as a consequent thereof to which priviledge Faith gives the Title Therefore Christ did not dye to save his Church quatenus a Society united for worship c. but quatenus its Members are true Believers and no further and for this cause I assert that the primary end of Christs death was to save individual Believers and but secondarily to save his Church so far as it consisted of such and no further Yet again if Christ intended primarily to save men because they were Members of a Church Then certainly the first thing that the Gospel should presse upon sinners is that they should first unite themselves to the Church which to say it doth is both false and absurd its false for the first cry of the Gospel is to men considered in a state of sin and Death and it is that they would repent of their sins and believe in the Lord Jesus upon the doing of which it promiseth remission and a Title to Salvation and till this be done there is no mention of any command obliging them to become a Member of a Church and reality or profession men are no more capable of being Members of a Church than a Hog or Horse are capable of being Citizens of London He that considers what hath been said may soon see what little help those Scriptures he mentions afford his notion and upon what slender grounds he builds that confident conclusion of his viz. That by virtue of that relation to the Church it is that a Christian hath any relation to Christ He addes Agreeable to this notion it is saith he very plain that Baptism which is by all acknowledged to be the Ceremony of initiating us into Christianity is in Scripture declared to be the Rite whereby we are entred and admitted into the Church this St. Paul expresly tells us That we are all Baptized into one Body again that Christ hath sanctified i. e. hath separated his Church by the washing of Water and the Word I wonder that the Author should say that these Scriptures are agreeable to his notion that Christ intends the Salvation of no particular Christians but considered as members of a Church I answer they are ever just so much agreeable to his notion as the texts before-named He says all acknowledge that Baptisme is a ceremony initiating us into christianity I wonder who acknowledges
so in your sence I am sure not all or but very few for Christianity objectively is the doctrine of Christ subjectively the same Doctrine as believed by us with a resolution to obey it but assuredly the Doctrine of Christ is first preached and heard and believed and a resolution taken up to obey it and all this is antecedent in the adult to baptisme or ought to be so As for Baptisme it is but a professing sign of my being a Christian or a seal of the promises that God hath made to me as such and is not a Ceremony that makes me a Christian or gives me my Christianity Abraham was a Believer and a Friend of God and justified by his faith antecedent to circumcision and so are the seed of Abraham they are believers friends of God justified by their Faith in Christ antecedent to Baptisme But it is added doth not Paul say we are all by one Spirit baptized into one body True he doth so But I deny your consequence thence deduced that therefore Christ died primarily for his Church and but secondarily for the individual members thereof or that we have primarily a relation to the Church and but secondarily to Christ i.e. by virtue of the former relation There is not one word or syllable in the text tending that way For First what is there in these words we are baptized into one body to signifie a priority of our relation to the Church any more than in those Rom. 6.3 where it is said we are baptized into Christ to signifie a priority of our relation to Christ and by him to his Church reconcile these if you can to the sence of your consequence and give us some evident reason why we must needs understand that thereby is meant we are baptized into the Church primarily and into Christ secondarily But I shall be bold to tell you such an interpretation is evidently absurd as is manifest in several instances in other kind of relations Whoever said that King Charles the 2d was only related to Charles the First as he is related to his brother James Duke of York and the rest of the Royal Family certainly as he is the Elder Brother his relation to his Father was first both in nature and time to any relation he stood in to his younger brethren Or whoever said that the individuals of a Kingdome cannot be considered in relation to their King and Soveraign antecedently to their being considered as fellow subjects when certainly the relation of fellow subjects doth arise upon the supposed relation of those individuall subjects to their soveraign for the formal reason why you and I are fellow subjects is because we are individually related to the same King and therefore relation to him is antecedent to our relation to one another as subjects The sence of this text now urged so far as I understand is only this that all that are baptized upon a just title are supposed to partake of the sanctifying operation of the Spirit of which the washing of the water of baptisme is a sign by which they are declared to be animated by one and the self-same Spirit as all the living members of Christ are and consequently that they are one with them and that therefore they ought all of them to be both internally and externally as usefull and helpfull to each other as possibly they can But how you can draw such a conclusion hence that therefore these individuals are no ways related to Christ but as they are thus united to one another I cannot understand for the reasons before given The other text is Eph. 5.22 where it is said that Christ hath sanctified or separated his Church by the washing of water and the word Very well what of this we grant you that every Church member if adult is converted by the word and afterward if it may be ought to be baptized upon this account it is said that the Church is separated by water and the word because all its individual members are or ought to be so converted and baptized Therefore saith he every individual Christian is saved as incorporated into the Church I deny the consequence for conversion by the word is antecedent to Baptisme or to a Visible Church State and of it self gives a title to Salvation though never any such visible Church state by baptisme follows But if Baptisme follows I say again Christians are not saved primarily as baptized and as externally Church members but primarily as true believers and internally united to Christ And certainly a believer as such speaks no necessary relation to any Church or visible society whatever and therefore it could not possibly be the Apostles intendment in that place or the other to signifie that Christians had no relation to Christ or saving interest in him but what they derived from a participation of Baptisme and a conjunction with a visible Church Having thus finished his proof that all Christians are members of the catholick visible Church he proceeds to the proof of the second part of the proposition which is that therefore every Christian is bound to joyn in external communion with the said Church This he thinks is clear upon two reasons First because without such a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be obtained which ends are the solemn worship of God the publick profession of our religion and the mutual edification one of another Secondly Because without such a conjunction in external communion with the Catholick visible Church we cannot be made partakers of the benefits and priviledges that Christ hath made over to the members of his Church such are the pardon of sin and the grace of the holy Spirit and so he concludes we have no promises of spiritual Graces but of those means so that in order to the partaking of them there is an absolute necessity laid upon us of joyning and communicating with the Church Thus far he I answer first whereas he says that he hath made it evident that every Christian upon the account of his very being so a member of the catholick visible Church that I have already denied and upon what grounds and reasons I have denied it is before shewn as for his consequence that therefore every Christian is bound upon the very account of his being so to joyn with the Church catholick visible in external communion That I have also denyed and the reasons why I have shewed as First there is no such external communion to be had with that vast body as the catholick Church is besides if there were it might be unlawfull because if communion could not be had but upon sinfull conditions or without a manifest hazard of my salvation or in case one were wrongfully excommunicated there is in these cases no obligation on a Christian as such to any such external communion but a Christian may be still a Christian without it But let us see how he proves his consequence His first reason is because without such
a conjunction the ends of Church society cannot be had which are solemn worship and mutual Edification Ans What not without a conjunction with the catholick visible Church certainly meetings for solemn worship and mutuall Edification are not terms wherein Christians hold communion with the catholick visible Church for they are proper only to particular worshiping congregations I wonder in what Assemblies do the Christians in England and the Christians in Prestor Johns country meet for solemn worship and mutual Edification I know he thinks the matter if salved by telling us that Christians meeting in any congregation in England for worship and mutual Edification do thereby hold externall communion in those things with the whole Church throughout the world But I conceive this will not serve his turn without the could equally imagine how a man by holding communion with the City of London might be said thereby to hold a civil external communion with all mankind which I think is so wild a conceit as no man yet ever asserted for he must remember he is speaking of such an external communion that is proper to a politick visible Body to the constituting of which kind of communion it is not enough to have the same laws the same customes no nor the same kind of solemn meetings for worship to speak all visible Christians to be of the same external politick communion for suppose in France they had the same laws and customs the same kind of officers as Constables Justices Parliament and a King as we have in England and all under the Government of the very same invisible God it doth not follow so long as there is no dependance of these Kingdomes each on the other that therefore the people of England are of the same external politick communion with those in France Yea further though these two Kingdoms may mutually in times of peace advise with each other for their mutual profits and in case of differences betwixt them they may forbid trading or converse with each other which is a kind of civil excommunication yet for all this they may not be said to be of the same external civil politick communion and why because their respective Magistrates are independent and have no jurisdiction over each other Upon the very same ground I deny any such thing as an external Politick Communion betwixt the Members of the Catholick Church for though they have all the same Laws the same Sacraments the same kind of solemn meetings for Worship and all under the same kind of visible Governours and all this under the same invisible Head the Lord Jesus though so far as they can and the distances of places will admit they may advise with each other for their mutual good and in case that any prove Hereticks they may so far as may be disown or refuse Communion as in the instances before said yet all this no more proves them to be of the same external Politick communion than the like agreements might speak the Kingdom of France and that of England of the same politick civil communion and why but because Christ hath left no visible politick Head to have jurisdiction over the rest If you say this notion speaks a good word for the Headship of the Pope I Answer no such matter for there is no need of such a Head nor of any such external Politick Communion in the Church no more than in the World God hath well enough Governed the World without any such Universal civil Monarch and doth as well govern the Church without any such Universal visible Head And now let us see what of force then is in his second reason which is this such a conjunction in external Communion with he Catholick visible Church is necessary else we cannot possibly partake of the priviledges that Christ hath made over to this his Church as the Remission of Sins and the Graces of the Holy Spirit I Answer He says that Christ hath made over the priviledges of pardon of sin and the Graces of his Spirit to the Church primarily and that before any particular person can partake of pardon of Sin and the Graces of the Spirit he must joyn with the Church in external Communion But how absurd is all this by Church he here means the Catholick visible Church but I wonder how it can be truly said that pardon of sin or the Graces of the Spirit can be said to be made over to the visible Church as priviledges when as it is very certain that Christ never made over such priviledges to the Church as visible But I perceive he understands it ministerially that is to say that a man is pardoned or partake of the Graces of the Spirit but by the Ministry of the Church well let this be granted what will thence follow I am sure that will not follow which you say doth follow that therefore we must first be made Members of the Church before we can be pardoned or sanctifyed by the Spirit for suppose the Church meets for solemn worship and the minister is Preaching and there comes in one or more Infidels for curiosity to see and hear I hope you will not say that these Infidels because they are in the same place with the Church that therefore they are joyned as Members with the Church suppose now these Infidels are by the Sermon convinced and perfectly converted to a true Faith in Jesus Christ I now demand These men that thus are converted do they believe without or with the Grace of the Spirit again so soon as they have believed are they pardoned or are they not I say they could not have believed without the Grace of the Spirit and that so soon as they truly believed they were pardoned and you dare not I think say the contrary Now I pray you is not this Grace of the Spirit and pardoning of sin Communicated before these men were joyned to the Church as visible Members How then can you say that men are obliged to joyn with the Church as Members else they have neither Grace nor pardon the very Truth is the primary reason of Christs institution of visible Church Membership was not for the giving of the first Grace of the Spirit or giving pardon but it was appointed as a means of conveying further degrees of Grace and clearer assurance of pardon visible Church Membership doth suppose the Grace of conversion in the adult and pardon but doth not give or Communicate it I had now done with his first Proposition but that for two inferences he draws from a consideration of the whole as first saith he therefore their position is untrue who maintain that our obligation to Church Communion ariseth from a voluntary admission of our selves into some particular congregation But I say notwithstanding all he hath said that position may be true for he hath been all this while speaking of the Universal visible Church But they that hold that position maintain it only with respect to a particular Church
be taken notice that this Power of ending Controversies which we ascribe to the Church doth not imply any Authority over our Judgements or that in virtue thereof she can oblige us to give an inward assent to her determinations any further than she gives us evidence for the Truth of them which is that extravagant Power the Church of Rome doth challenge to her self So far we are agreed he adds but our practices that she can oblige us to submit so far to her definitions as not to act any thing contrary to them this is absolutely necessary to prevent the over running of Heresies and the embroyling the Church in infinite quarrels and Controversies to the destruction of the publick Peace I answer first by concession I grant according to this here is good Provision made for the Purity and Peace of the Church so long as the Governours determine on the right side But in case they determine on the wrong it is then so bad an expedient to prevent Heresies that I do not know a more effectuall tool for the overspreading the Church with them than this is for in case they determine for Socinians Arrians Popery you say that the Members are obliged as to their practice though not as to their Judgements to Acquiesce in the said determinations I confesse herein you have shewed a great care of preserving a Peace but what a Peace is it not a Peace of the Church of Christ but the Peace of a confederacy or conspiracy against the true Church of Christ But if this were true then in the times of the predominancy of Arianisme when some hundreds of Arian Bishops met in Councel and determined wickedly against the Deity of Christ in that point to himself and never to have declared against that abomination for fear of disturbing the Peace of the Church and as for Wickliffe Husse Hierome of Prague and afterwards Luther they were all Peace breakers in declaring against the abominable opinions and Antichristian Faith of the Church of Rome they ought all of them to have kept their Judgements to themselves and so to have acquiesced in the determinations of that wicked Church Or when Jeroboam Apostatized and set up two Calves at Dan and Bethel and commanded the people there to Worship they ought onely to have kept their judgements to themselves but other wise to have conformed in outward practice to the instituted Worship which to say is contrary to the Judgement of God in that case who commended his 7000 in Israel that bowed not the knee to Baal the commendation was that they neither conformed in Judgement nor practice If it be said that the Authour only meant that such determinations only obliged the practice Negatively that is to say that the Members are thereby bound not to practise any thing contrary to them Very good let that be his meaning now I would fain know what are those acts wherein Members may be said to practise contrary to such determinations what if they withdraw and refuse Communion with such a Church that holds to such determinations is this to be reputed a practising any thing to the contrary if it be then so did those 7000 Israelites and yet are commended for so doing if so to withdraw may not be thought to be an acting contrary inasmuch as the Peace may be kept notwithstanding such a withdrawing then do you ill according to your own principles to compell under penalties all dissenters to conform to you since the Peace may be preserved notwithstanding their Non-conformity and withdrawing But yet again may a publick declaration by word of Mouth or writing be judged an acting contrary to such determinations I doubt not but you think it so to be Then I demand when the People of Israel met together at the tryal by Sacrifice whether God or Baal was the true God says Elisha to them why halt you betwixt Jehova and Baal if God be God follow him if Baal follow him Here the people were left to their choice to conclude upon the Worshipping of which God they were convinced to be the true God by that tryal In conclusion the People being throughly convinced by a miracle that Jehova and not Baal was the true God They publickly by word of mouth declared Jehovah he is God Jehovah he is God I ask was this declaration an acting contrary to the established Worship of the Land if it was then according to you it was unlawful and contrary to the Peace of that corrupt Church for they ought to have stood mute and kept their Judgements to themselves for fear of disturbing the Peace of Baals Worshipers Perhaps you will say this was an extraordinary case for a miracle was here wrought by a great Prophet which gave a virtual warrant to the People for such a declaration though contrary to the Peace of the Church I answer the immediate reason of this acclamation was the conviction of their judgements that Jehovah was the onely true God the remote cause was the miracle wrought by the Prophet which was the cause of the conviction so that the immediate warrant for that acclamation was their conviction the remote warrant for it was the miracle now I ask you if there be the same degree or a sufficient degree of conviction in any other people that this or that decision of Governours of Churches be clearly against the mind of God though the reason of the conviction be not a miracle wrought in their presence but a consideration of what is evidently declared in the Bible that in its time had the confirmation of many miracles wrought by a greater than Elisha even by the Son of God whether this conviction so wrought gives not as good and ample Authority to either Ministers or People to declare by Word of Mouth or Writing against such decisions of Church Governours which have determined evidently against plain Revelations as this People of Israel had for this their publick declaration which if granted then I say there is no such obligation that lies upon Church Members to acquiesce in the unrighteous decisions of Church Governours so as not to act or practise contrary there to which you have affirmed and I have denyed and let the Reader judge which hath the better reason of his side for what either of us say and thus have I answered to the third Proposition His Fourth Proposition That we can have no just cause of withdrawing our Communion from the Church whereof we are Members but when we cannot Communicate with it without the Commission of sin In this Proposition he speaks of Christians as supposed to be in actual Fellowship with some visible Church by Church he understands either some particular Worshiping Congregation or a National Church as for this latter notion of a Church when he hath shewed us that it was or is the will of Christ that all the Christians in every Nation should after the manner of the Jews be united under the same visible Head of
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
the Doctrines of the Church of England as that they dare deride some sober Christians under the notion of being acquainted with the Person of Christ or that dare Teach there is no difference betwixt Grace and Morality or that there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a sinner or that the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the Conversion of men than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity in Scriptures and inabled such to confirm the Truth of it with Miracles so that men are left in the working out of their Salvation to their Bibles and the use of their natural Faculties exclusive of any other operation of the Spirit either to their illumination or sanctification I say if the People withdraw from such Teachers or Congregations where such Doctrines are owned for securing their Faith or Salvation there so doing is justifiable because the law-of self preservation is to be regarded before any positive law of visible Church Union and I hope there is no true Son of the Church that hath any zeal for the purity of their Church Doctrine will be my adversary herein and thus much shall suffice to be said concerning your Doctrines and of the lawfulness of separating from some of the particular Congregations in case the Teachers do grossely pervert Some of the weighty Doctrines of your own Church We shall in the next place consider what you have here offered as to corrupt practices which you say is no just ground if only tollerated but not imposed of withdrawing especially if they be no worse than are found in the Church of England I Answer first if all the corrupt practices in your Church were only tollerated but not imposed you would have much more reason of your side against us than you have because several things which you enjoyn to be practised we in our Consciences believe to be unlawful and we cannot must not have Communion with you except we comply therein so that should it be yielded that unimposed corruption in a Church is no just ground of separation yet is it of no force against us because some of these we conceive to be corruptions are imposed But to come close to the case as it stands related to this Proposition suppose no imposition of any of those things that are in controversie between us which is the supposition in the Proposition what will follow but first that all the Ministers of Christ in England would be capable of places for they are Impositions that are the principal reasons why they are kept out Secondly it would follow that those that are for the use of the Liturgy and Ceremonies and a promiscuous Communion withall that had but the name of Christians in the Sacraments might therein act according as they saw fit and as for other Ministers they might freely exercise their Ministry without Liturgy or Ceremonies and might exercise Discipline toward their rerespective Members according to Christ's direction in the case The question now arising can be only this whether it would be lawful for a Member of that Congregation where the Liturgy and Ceremonies are in use and Discipline neglected that conceived these things to be corruptions to separate and joyn with another free from these conceived corruptions I say he might first because were ther is no imposition ther can be no law of Superiors binding him to a Communion with such a conceived corrupt Church so that your great reason ordinarily produced in this case would be of no force here Secondly because that it is much safer for his soul to be joyned to a pure Church than a corrupt and self preservation is founded on a law Superior to that of visible Church-Union to this or that particular Church David might eat of the Shew-Bread to save his life which had not been lawful if positive laws were not to give place to natural Thus have I examined the third position both generally and as it particularly respecteth our present differences and shewn both its unsoundness in the former and impertinency as to the latter I have onely one word to say to the Reason given upon which the supposed Truth thereof is founded and so shall dismisse it The reason why he says that Errors in a Church as to matter of Doctrine and corruptions as to matter of practice if but suffered and not imposed is on just ground for separation because these things are not sins in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church therein I Answer if he mean that other mens Errors or Corruptions are not properly or formally mine by being in their Company and joyned with them in things lawful I grant it But yet it follows not that therefore I may joyn with them if I can otherways help it a man may buy and sell and eat and drink with Fornicators or other unclean and Debauched Creatures if he cannot trade and get provision for his body but in their Company But certainly if a Trade might be as well managed with sober men and that Meat may be had in better Company it would be sinful then to Trade and Eat with such and why because the law of self preservation warranteth me in the former but not in the latter I may not neglect the preservation of my life by eating nor geting a lively hood by trading which is ordinarily necessary to the preservation of my life present being A meer occasion of hardning others in sin or scandalizing weak Brethren but when no such necessity doth lye on me then the preventing of a scandal or giving occasion to the hardning others in the their sin and the safety of my self from their contagion are reasons of force to bind me from such Societies In like manner if the Word of God could be no where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be Lawfull yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without sin But if other Churches may be had which are regular according to Gods law and only irregular according to mans then it is a Duty to withdraw to prevent scandals and hardning a Church in its Corruptions together with the preservation of themselves from the danger of being infected with those Corruption which are reasons of another nature than that only one which you give for though as I said by joying with such I make not their sins formally mine yet I sin therein upon other accounts now named which may justifie my withdrawing I come now to his fourth which is this That the enjoying of a more profitable Ministry or living under a more pure Discipline in an other Church is no just Cause of forsaking the Communion of that whereof we are members Because we are not to commit the least Crime for the attaining of the greatest good in the World now it is a Crime to for sake
Corrupt Discipline in your Church gives ground of separation from you His Fifth and Last Proposition That though we have a just Cause to refuse Communion with the Church whereof we are members in some instances yet we are not therefore to proceed to so total a separation from it as to Erect a New Church in Contra-distinction to it or to joyn with those that do The Reason he gives is because we are bound to obey as far as we can but at no hand to disturb the Peace To the Reason I Briefly answer that these Ministers and People obey as far as they can when they by obeying neither commit sin or what they suspect to be sin or when they neglect not some known duty Daniel might not obey when he was forbid praying for some days to the true God But for the Ministers of Christ not to go on in their Ministeriall work and for the People not to enjoy all ordinances is to neglect known duties in some things only and not in these they suspect and therefore such a separation is Lawfull notwithstanding his Reason and now I answer to the Proposition I may very well doubt whether this proposition be universally true when this very Author himself grants it is not For if a Church be so greatly and generally Corrupt in Doctrine and Practice as the Church of Rome so that the Salvation of those that Communicate with her be indanger'd it is then not only lawfull to separate but to Erect a new Church this he confesseth in a very few lines following Thus he hath provided wisely good shelter for himself his from the first charge of his proposition with respect to the Church of Rome whilest he hath left the poor Non-conformists to shift as they can with respect to their own Church but by his leave I shall make bold with his own evasion for a covert to them also from this storm for what though the Corruptions and Doctrines and Practices be not so great and so generall in an other Church as theirs in the Church of Rome yet if they be but so many and so great as to endanger their Salvation it is sufficient to warrant such a separation And now if you will give me leave I will tell you how these People concieve their Salvation is indangered through your corruptions If they should not separate as they do I say then These outed Ministers do not wonder if they conceive it is by reason of the corruptions that many hundreds of them have been cast out and silenced as much as in them lies and why because they will not swear and forswear assent and consent to all that they would have them by reason whereof they are reduced to these straits either to swear and do as you would have them and that against their Consciences or else to wrap their Tallants through slavish fear like slothful Servants in a Napkin and forsake the work of the Ministry which their Lord has intrusted them with if they do the former they like wicked Hypocrites will go against their own Consciences and so will indanger their Salvation or else like false and treacherous Stewards must desert their masters work and so incurre the doom of such Stewards so that let them look on the right hand or on the left they see nothing but damnation what then is left for them to do but to go on in their work as now they do for their own safety that is to Preach Teach Father and Rule his People which you are pleased to call the erecting of new Churches which as I said is no more than to do the duty of Christs Ministers and therefore cannot justly be charged on them as their sin You call these erected Churches new and what if they be new in respect to the time of their rise that is not their fault but if you consider them with respect to their rule either of their Worship or Government so they may be more Antient than your own for such Societies of Christians that meet with Christs Ministers to worship God according to the way of the Gospel Churches without imposed Forms of Prayer or without the use of any superstitiously imposed vestments or when they meet to Administer Sacraments without any impertinent superstitious use of the sign of the Crosse or to Eat the Supper in a Feastival posture as Christ and his Apostles did or such Churches that are governed by Christs Officers and such Presbyters unquestionably are not by lay Chancellors unheard of in the first Churches where nothing is imposed on the Members but what Christ by command hath made necessary and nothing censured as scandalous and threatned with Excommunion but that that is an evident transgressors of Gods laws as Drunkenness Whoredome Swearing are in a manner connived at or if at any time censured in some poor People the censure is upon very slight grounds taken off upon a very slight and formal Repentance or the payment of a few groats But where the transgression of a Ceremonious law or a Tradition of the Elders is dealt with as a sin unpardonable fines imprisonments silencing banishments Excommunications are punishments all thought little enough for so great a scandal Let now any man well consider both these sorts of Churches both as to their way of Worship Administration of Sacraments or way of Government and then tell me whether of them are more conformable to the Antient Apostolical pattern and so which of them deserve the name of old and which of new Churches But notwithstanding all this peradventure you will say that we have broke the Unity of the National Church which we ought to have preserved I Answer we have but broke it by accident and you perceive but by accident for no man can be said to sin or to be a Peace-breaker when he is but doing his duty and I conceive it hath been proved that we do no more Elijah was charged with being the troubler of Israel and the Apostles with turning the world upside down and yet they were faultless But you rather are breakers of it per so for do but you impose no more up-us than Christ our Lord hath done either by Himself or his Apostles as necessary conditions of Communion and be but you willing to receive these as Ministers and Members which Christ receives and owns and I dare say we shall soon enjoy a blessed Peace and that upon Righteous Foundations which Christ would certainly bless and cause to last but if you will drive us to such straits as that either we must wound our Consciences by a sinful compliance with you at least with such a compliance that we suspect sinful or else live in the neglect of our known duties and without the enjoyment of some Ordinances I beseech you blame us not for what we do for you your selves have made it necessary this I think is a sufficient answer to your fifth and last proposition which being all you have said that directly concerns us I shall take the boldness to conclude with your own words I am verily perswaded that I have said nothing in this my reply but what is very agreeable to Scripture and reason and the sence of the best and Antientest i. e. Apostolical Christians and Churches FINIS
SEPARATION YET NO Schisme OR NON-CONFORMISTS NO SCHISMATICKS BEING A full and Sober VINDICATION of the NON-CONFORMISTS from the Charge and Imputation of SCHISME IN Answer to a Sermon lately Preached before the Lord Mayor By J. S. Isaiah 66.5 Hear the Word of the Lord ye that tremble at his Word your Brethren that hated you that cast you out for my Names sake said Let the Lord be glorified but he shall appear to your joy and they shall be ashamed London Printed in the year 1675. To the Reader Reader IF thou wouldst have a reason of publishing these sheets the Author will tell thee That it is now about four years since the People he pleads for among whom he believes there are thousands in the Land that are Worshippers of God in Spirit and Truth according to the Gospel have through the good Providence of their great Shepherd the Lord Jesus Christ and through the granted license of an indulgent Prince enjoyed a sweet and blessed Calm But observing lately the Clouds again to gather and to have begun to discharge themselves upon many of this People about England and withal lately meeting with a Sermon wherein this People are not sparingly charged with Schism and the penalties where with the laws threaten them are pleaded for as very innocent harmless things that Sober men as he says may be ashamed to call persecutions I could not but thence conclude that the Authors drift was to stir up and encourage the chief Magistrates of the City for to them the Sermon was preached to a rigorous Execution of those gentle punishments which are but such little things as banishing or imprisoning or spoyling them of their Goods and so undoing them and their Families which are very trifles in his account Now what can probably be the consequents hereof except the Magistrates as David prove wiser than their Teachers but that this people must needs be smitten impoverished scattered and as to their outward concernments ruined But if this shall come to passe and who knows what their God may permit for a time for their tryal what will they have left to support and comfort them under such pressures except the innocency of their Consciences and the Righteousness of the cause for which they suffer And this I say whether their cause be good or bad doth not as to the determination depend upon the meer dictates of any Mortals and I am very verily perswaded it is not prsedtsdih be bad by all this Author hath said although he ha oved to cour and reasoned against it as if in his conceit he had spoke nothing but demonstrations which I should now have immediately begun to reply to but that I thought it most expedient first to give the Reader a view of the case and cause of the Non-conformists for which they are charged of Schism and are thought to have deserved all those severities which the law threatens The Non-Conformists case is this There are some hundreds of true Ministers of Jesus Christ commissioned by him to Preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments for so all true Ministers are those according to their commission do Preach and there are many thousands likewise of visible professors of Christianity do willingly hear and joyn with these Ministers in the Worship of God and in a participation of Sacraments as the Gospel requires These meet in dictinct Congregations separate from the legally established Congregations in the Land with whom they Will not because they Cannot hold Communion Because they thus separate and refuse Communion they are charged with Schisme The reason why they thus separate and refuse Communion is because they cannot have it with them I say they Cannot have it because they cannot or ought not to sin or to speak modestly because they cannot do such things which they extreamly suspect to be sinful and if they do but strongly suspect them it is enough for no man can be bound to act against a doubting Conscience and herein I have the suffrage of the Apostle which every good Christian ought much to preferre before any other who may presume to Philosophize to the contrary who says Rom. 14. he that doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of Faith for whatsoeover is not of Faith is sin If it be demanded what those things are which this people suspect as sinful It may be answered they are too well known as that any among us should stand in need of an information but briefly those that are Ministers either they suspect the sinfulness of admitting a re-ordination or of abjuring or of assenting and consenting to the use of all and every part of the Liturgy and therein of every Ceremony Now this I say though the Friends of these impositions shall with the highest confidence affirm the lawfulness of them all yea and endeavour with a thousand arguments to prove them such yet if those Ministers herein concerned upon a serious weighing of these arguments find them too light and after much prayer to God for a resolution yet find themselves to doubt in this case they ought not upon the Apostles rule now named to yeild to any such impositions against their doubting Consciences If it be here replyed why do they not then degrade themselves or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded of their Ministry and in the condition of private Christians Communicate with this Church for so they may do and free themselves from these impositions It will be answered that this is an imposition they suspect as sinful as the rest for so long as they are perswaded that their mission is originally from Christ they cannot believe that it is either in their own Power or in the Power of any other Inferiour to Christ to give them a discharge from executing this their Office except it be for Heresie or obstinate scandal against some known laws of Christ and then indeed Christ hath left an order not only for excluding them from their Office but also from the Church but neither of these latter are in the least pretended and therefore it is they cannot without suspicion of sin either degrad themselves or quietly suffer themselves to be degraded And still I adde if any reasons be urged for the lawfulness of this degradation but such that are short of their conviction so that still they doubt it will continue yet their duty to serve the Church as Ministers and not to list themselves among private Christians as is advised If it be asked but may not supream Magistrates if they cannot divest Ministers of their Office may not they within their Dominion suspend some of them from the exercise thereof when they conceive it is for the Peace of the rest It will be answered that that Lord of Lords who giveth the Office and the Commission and hath by divers Providences designed the men thereto hath certainly with the Office designed them to the exercise thereof for else verily the Office is in vain and hath
therein placed not only the Office but the exercise thereof above the restraint of any Powers whatever that hold of and under him on Earth so long as the exercise thereof continue to be regulated by the laws of Christ But if any men on Earth shall appoint new Laws different from those of Christs and impose them on Ministers as conditions to be obeyed without which they will restrain them the exercise of their Ministry as being disturbers of the Peace in such a case it is evident that such Ministers may continue to Preach according to the Laws of Christ but are restrained only by the Laws of men whil'st then their Consciences lye under a superior obligation to Preach than that by which they are restrained from Preaching it is casie to conceive what they will or ought to do i. e. whether they will or ought to Obey God or man If it be said such Ministers are mistaken about the nature of such imposed Laws as if they were different from or contrary to the Laws of Christ when they are no other but what Christ hath intrusted them with a Power of appointing for the Peace of his Church It will be still answered that this People are perswaded of the contrary and that Christ hath not intrusted any men with such a Power but do believe that they are things rather destructive of the true Peace of the Church And this I say whil'st they are so perswaded though they should be mistaken they ought not to go against their Consciences for as the Apostle saith he that doubteth and eateth is damned So that from the whole it is evident the reason why these Ministers cannot conform and why they yet continue to Preach is because they cannot do the one nor forbear the other without sin which is a just ground of their separation and of persevering in the exercise of their Ministry and therefore separation in this case as to them is no Schism Some will be ready to say but what is all this to the common People they are Schismaticks without doubt for they have no such impositions upon them It may be answered that if the Ministers now named are yet true ministers of Jesus Christ and that the exercise of their ministry hath not been according to any Law of Christ restrained it will follow it can be no sin in the Disciples of Christ to own them whom their Lord owneth or to hear them whom their Lord hath commissioned to that end and by no Law of his are restrained from acting according to that Commission Again in as much as Christ is supposed to continue his Commission to these ministers to Preach it necessarily follows that Christ hath a People to whom he sends them for it 's absurd to conceive that Christ should send his ministers to preach to no body if then they may preach it cannot be unlawful for the people to hear them no nor to partake of any ordinance from them which as ministers they may administer Yet again multitudes of the people did own them as Christs ministers and did joyn with them in all Ordinances as such and this for several years together and certainly during those times they could not be esteemed Schismaticks for so doing since there were no other ministers ordinarily to be found If then they were no Schismaticks how come they to be so since if it be said the Law of the Land makes them such it may be answered that since Schisme of which we speak is a sin peculiar and proper to a Church it is a wonder how a Law of a Land that is perfectly extraneous to a Church can make that at one time a Schisme which at another time cannot be said to be such Nor do I think that those that now think themselves the Church and that all that separate from them are Schismaticks in case they had a Law of the Land to establish Presbytery or Independency or Anabaptistry would conceive of themselves as Schismaticks if they continued in that way they are in and refused to hold Communion with that the Law established and in Truth I cannot possibly conceive how that may be said justly to day that it is no Schisme and yet to morrow it may be justly called so meerly because of an intervening humane Law Lastly as for the people it may be further answered that though they be not under the same impositions as their ministers are yet they are not altogether free from impositions which they extreamly suspect as sinful as that they cannot enjoy Baptism for their Children without the Crosse nor receive the Lords Supper without kneeling to name no more If you say these are not sinful it is answered suppose they be not yet in case they suspect them vehemently as such and all your arguments cannot resolve their doubts it is evident they would go against and wound their Consciences in case they should submit to the one or the other If therefore these people shall for these reasons joyn with those ministers in all Ordinances I see no ground to charge this people with Schisme no more than their ministers Thus having with as much brevity as I could stated the case and cause of this people we shall now come to take an account of Mr. J. S. his Sermon before the Mayor which contains an impeachment of Schism and a pretended proof thereof against this people They are now upon their tryal and say not guilty and offer themselvs to be tryed by the Laws of Jesus Christ which are the only Laws of his Church The Sermon of Mr. J. S. Examined THE design of that Sermon one would be apt to think was to promote Peace among the Protestant professors in England whose differences are Universally acknowledged to be about matters of no fundamental concernment as to the Doctrine of Christianity His text Rom. 14.19 was well suited to that purpose Let us follow after the things which make for Peace And doubtlesse if he had prosecuted this his design by the same means and methods as the Apostle there doth viz. not so much by setting himself to resolve their controversies or to determine which side held the truest opinion as to silence their disputes and to allay their bitternesses to each other by shewing that they had nothing to do to judge or censure their brethren because they were Gods Servants and to him only they stood or fell and rather for Peace sake to forbear doing that which they might lawfully do than by any undue use of their liberty to cast a stumbling block before the weak uninstructed dissenters This he confesseth pag. 1.2 was the way the Apostle took and certainly if he had followed so great an example he had like a man of Wisdom as well as of Peace prosecuted an excellent end by most excellent means but instead thereof he takes a quite contrary method for instead of perswading Christians to lay aside their Controversies he himself raiseth them instead of disswading them
from censuring their brethren as being to stand or fall to a higher Master he censureth them as guilty of Schism obstinately maintained pag. 7. And instead of perswading them to forbear doing those things which some think they may lawfully do as the making use of prescribed Prayers and Ceremonies least a stumbling block should be cast before their weak brethren he falls pag. 5. into Encomiums of the excellency of the present Church Government the easiness of the Terms of Communion the Lawfulness of the use of the publick Service and Antiquity of the Ceremonies and then doth conclude that Sober men should be ashamed to call the penalties which the Laws inflict on those that separate from the Church in these things Persecutions The plain English of all this is that the great Apostle and this Person are of two minds concerning these things which make for Peace the Apostle is for not judging the Lords Servants and he is for judging them The Apostle is still for holding Communion notwithstanding those differences remain but he is for forcing them to say and do as the Church doth or else for punishing them with fines imprisonments as the Laws require But certainly as he herein leaves the Apostle so the Apostle leaves him and in this deserted Condition as we find him I hope it will be no presumption to call his reasonings about this matter to an account The strength of what he hath said to justifie his charge of Schisme against this people he hath comprised in five Propositions which we shall examine in order His first Proposition begins pag 10. which is this That every Christian upon the very account of being so is a member of the Church of Christ and is bound to joyn in external Communion with it where it can be had I answer this Proposition is very obscurely laid down nor is it releived by any light afforded in the after explication and certainly if it be to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and phrases therein contained as it ought to be I shall not scruple to call the Truth thereof into Question For. First If we consider a Christian upon the very account of his being so which is the Subject of the Proposition who can think but thereby as you phrase it you intend to affirm nothing of him as such but what doth necessarily and essentially belong to him without which he could be no Christian and consequently if he be a Christian he must necessarily be a Member of Christs Church in the sence of Church in the Proposition which is such as therewith an external Communion may be held If this be your meaning as I suppose it is because in your explication of this Proposition you seem to hold that Christ died primarily for his Church and but in a secondary sence for individual Believers so that it seems to follow that none can be true Christians or in a salvable state but as they are considered incorporated into and so made one of this Church so that Church-Member-ship is esâ—ential to them If this I say be your meaning then give me leave to take the boldness to deny the Proposition for I cannot understand that a Christian as such includes any essential relation to a Church in your sence That I may clear up this matter a little give me leave to tell you that this term Christian may fall under divers considerations as first by a Christian we may understand a man whose Nature is changed by the Preaching of the Gospel so as thereby he is of an ignorant Infidel and wicked man made an intelligent Believer and a good man certainly in this sence it is easie to understand a Christian without any such correlate as a Church so that in this sence a Christian as such is no more related to a Church than a man considered as a man speaks any Relation to a Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore your Proposition in this scence cannot be true But because this change of Nature can't be wrought in any man but by the Power of God co-working with the Gospel and since this exertion of Power is called Regeneration upon this account a Christian is to be considered as a relative viz. as a Son of God the correlate is God his Father and the Foundation of this Relation is Regeneration But here a Christian is not considered as any ways related to a Church but only as realted to God and who is not able to understand a Christian as well as Adam to be a Son of God without any Relation to any Society of men whatever But since it is certain that God hath exerted this Regenerating Power to more than one and that he hath many Sons and Daughters hence it is that every Son of God stands in an other Relation and that is to all the rest that are in the same manner born of God which in conjunction make up Gods family or Church But them I say that the Church here is to be taken for the invisible Church for the Father or Head of this Family is the invisible God and the Children are Members who considered as to their Regeneration that is the Foundation of the Relation are also invisible and therefore neither in this sence can the Proposition be true for every Christian upon the account of his internal Membership is not therefore a Member of a visible Church for there may be 7000 such invisible Members in Israel when there was no appearance of a visible Church as to them where any external Communion was held and yet this is that the Proposition drives at that every Christian as such is a Member of such a Church with which external Communion may be held which is in this sence apparently false Yet again all these internal Members of God's Family may be considered as outwardly professing their Faith and associateing together as they can for the Worship of God among whom creep in many Hypocrites by professing the same Faith and joyning in the same Worship with them which together make up the Catholick Visible Church in this sence I grant that every professing Christian may be reckoned as a Member of the Catholick visible Church But yet I deny that this relation is essential and necessary to him upon the very account of his being a Christian for he might be a Believer and a Son of God and internally related to all invisible Members without this Catholick visible Membership nor doth he indeed deny it for in case says he that no such visible Church can be found or in case they be scattered by extream Persecution or in case of an unjust excommunication Christians may be Christians without being members of Christs visible Church which indeed are concessions that overturn the Truth of his Proposition for if a man may be a Christian without being a Member of Christs visible Church then it can not be true that every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a
Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
and I hope there is no contradiction for one that believes and is Baptized to be nessarily a Member of the Universal Church and yet to be voluntarily a Member either of particular Worshiping Congregation either in England or Holland His second deduction is as wild for saith he hence we may see how extravagantly they discourse that talk of Chrstianity at large without relation to a Church or Communion with a Society This I say is strangely inferred as if we could not discourse of men as men without relation to Cities or Kingdoms and certainly we may with a very good reason sometimes discourse of Christians as Christians without relation to any Church whether particular or Universal and this without any extravagancy His second Proposition That every one is bound to joyn in Communion with the established national Church to which he belongs supposing there be nothing in the Terms of its Communion that renders it unlawful for him so to do This he saith is plain because external Communion cannot be had with the Catholick Church but by externally Communionicating with some part of it To this I have already answered that there is no such thing as an external Politick Communion to be had with the Catholick Church neither immediately which himself confesseth no nor mediately by Communicating with some part of it as I conceive I have made evident in my answer to the former Proposition But in case any such Communion could be had immediately or mediately yet I would have it remembred that this sort of Communion is not to be sought by every Christian upon the very account of his being so but upon the account of his being a visible professing Christian And how let us come to some Issue we will grant you that every Christian considered as visible ought to endeavour to joyn with some part of the Catholick visible Church for publick Worship and the edification of himself and others but why this particular Church must be national I do not understand I am sure there is no need it should be national for I do as truly declare my self to be a visible Member of the Catholick visible Church by joyning in external Communion with one single visisible Congregation as if I was united a Member to a National Church But in very Truth I do much doubt whether any such thing is to be had as an external Communion with a National Church any more than with the Catholick visible Church for you place the Acts of external Communion to consist in meeting together in solemn worship and in mutual Edification Now I would fain know where any Nation of Christians do meet together for solemn Worship true if you could find any Nation of Christians that did often meet at one place to Worship God and to rejoyce before the Lord together as the Tribes of Israel used to do when they came up to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts of the Lord I should not stick to call such a National Church united external Communion but to speak of a joyning with a National Church of Christians in external Communion where Millions of the Members of the supposed National Church never perhaps came nigh one the other for scores of Miles especially so as to Hear or Pray or receive the Supper together or to Edifie each other is to talk without any solid ground If you say but if we joyn with any one Worshipping Congregation in external Communion we do thereby joyn with the whole Nation of Christians in external Communion If you say so I think you say more than you can prove for I do not understand that because I Worship God with a Congregation in London that therefore I Worship God with a Congregation at York True by my Worshipping at London I do declare my self to be of the same Faith with those that Worship at York and I am therefore bound to account of them as my brethren and so to love and Pray for them as such by which means an internal Communion is maintained as among Members that are supposed and hoped to be united to Christ but yet I am to seek how this external Communion can be had when perhaps we shall never see each other as long as we live If you say that all the Christians in a Nation may hold an external Communion in being all under one Discipline the management whereof being deposited in the hands of one visible Head as was the High Priest to the Church of the Jews This indeed were something if it could be proved that Jesus Christ did ever appoint such an Officer for the Government of all his Disciples in each Nation but if it be made to appear that all Ministers or Pastors of particular Worshiping Congregations have equal Power to Govern their respective Churches and that they have no Power of jurisdiction one over another and that there is no instituted Officers appointed by Christ Superior to them with any Power of jurisdiction over them Then I say there can be no such external Communion of all Christians in a Nation under the jurisdiction of any such High Priest and that therefore there is no such thing as a National Church of Christians wherewith an external communion can be held You know well who they are that are for an equality of Pastoral Power Many more things may be said of this matter but I shall at present wave them and proceed to consider what he further saith He hath already said that every Christian ought to joyn in external Communion with a National Church that thereby he might hold Communion with the Catholick But presently he starts an Objection But it may be said that there may be several distinct Churches in the place where we live there may be the fixed regular Assemblies of the National Church and there may be separate Congregations both which are or pretend to be parts of the Catholick Church so that it may be all one as to our Communicating with that which of these we joyn with supposing we joyn but with one of them and consequently there is no necessity from that principle that we should hold Communion with the Assemblies of the National Church So far he Answ Very good now let us see how he answers it which part of the Argument in the Objection doth he deny doth he deny such separate Congregations to be parts of the Catholick Church or doth he deny that in joyning with any part of the Catholick Church we thereby joyn with the whole he denies neither Then I say he grants the whole for these two being granted the conclusion follows that they who joyn with those separate Congregations do thereby preserve the Catholick Union and therefore there is no need of joyning with a National Church to attain the end proposed What saith he now He seems not to deny this but tells us that notwithstanding if we separate or refuse Communion with them that we do not preserve the Vnity of the Body so far as in
High Priest and that the great body of the Nation should meet by his command at one place as the Jews at the Temple of Jerusalem for publick Worship then I confesse he will have some colour for asserting of National Christian Churches and of a National Membership therein but till then I shall take the boldness to deny that any Christian is capable of any such National Church Membership But if he doth here mean by Church a particular Worshiping Congregation such are the parochial Churches of England and such are the Congregations of Non-conformists then we shall consider what he further saith which is this That no Christians can have just cause of withdrawing Communion from the Church whereof they are Members if we should understand it indifferently of Non-conformists Churches as parochial the meaning would be that no Member that either is joyn'd to the one or the other have just cause to withdraw Communion from either of them but when c. If you say that the parochial Churches are the true regular Churches because established by the Law of the Land and all other are Schismaticall I answer this is sooner said than proved for did the regularity or Schismaticalnesse of a Church depend on such an externall fickle consideration as the Law of the Land then might one and the same Church be Regular or Schismatical as often as the wind of the Legislative power might chance to Change so that an Act of Parliament that makes the Episcopal Churches regular to day the very same Churches by a change of an Act might be made Schismatical to morrow and so if the Legislative Power pleased both Episcopal Independant Presbyterian Anabaptistical Churches may be regular and Schismatical in their turns Lastly when you say no Communion may justly be with drawn from but when it cannot be continued without the Commission of sin here again I desire to know whether by sin you mean such that may be evidenced to be such to the conviction of the imposers or only such that is evidenced to the conviction of the Consciences of those that withdraw you cannot in reareason require the first except you will run y our selves upon these straits either to turn Papists or undertake to convince the Papists that the reason why you came off from them and their Worship was because you could not Communicate with them therein without sin we know you tell them so and give yours reasons why you say so but notwithstanding all you say they are not convinced but yet persist to call you Schismaticks But what then are you moved with their censure no for if your reasons will not convince them yet they satisfie your own Consciences and therein you rest and so you may very reasonably do I desire now but the like equity for the Non-conformists and that is that if they have reasons sufficient to convince their own Consciences that the things imposed are sinful though their reasons convince not their imposers that you would give them that liberty of Acquiescing therein as you take in bearing up your selves against the Censures of the Papists But yet further What though the things Imposed be not clearly evidenced to their own Consciences but onely so far as to leave them under strong suspitions that they are sinfull it is sufficient to justifie their withdrawing for what if the things Imposed on the Non-conformists were such as they might as lawfully do or practise as the Christian Jews might have eaten of the once-forbidden meats yet so long as their doubts remain if they should so practise they would sin as the Jews would have done if they had eaten so long as their scruple remained And so that unquestionable Casuist the Apostle determines in the case Rom. 14 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in it self yet to him who thinks any thing unclean to him it is unclean So again He that doubteth and eateth is Damned And if it were not to light up Candles while the Sun shines I would tell you that a meer suspition of a sin is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion in the Judgments of other very great men So says that universally admired man Mr. Hales of Schisme pag. 8. says he In these Schismes which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but onely to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. For not only in Reason but in Religion too that maxime admits of no release Cautissimi cujusque preceptum quod dubitas nefeceris To load saith he our publick Formes with private phantasies upon which we differ is the most Soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading the Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick or of many other Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended there Schisme began to break in he goes on If the spiritual Guides of the Church would be a little spareing of incumbering Churches with superfluities c. there would be far lesse Cause of Schisme or Superstition and all the inconveniences were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yeild a little to the imbecillity of their Inferiours a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do Mean while I pray mark this wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a piece of Church Liturgie he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawfull to make a profession of known or suspected falsehood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions And of this mind is Dr. Stilling fleet a Person no whit inferior to the other whose words are these in his Iren. p. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schisme which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks than prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration if our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her Communion then wherever such things are required of any Church Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is Lawfull there can be no Schisme in it If it be said here that the Popes power was a usurpation which is not in Lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed that the Popes usurpation mainly lies in imposing
things upon mens Consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull And wherever the same thing is done there is an Usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as Lawfull to withdraw Communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are Lawfull and what not To this it is Answered first No true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgments That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have their eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a Judicium privatae discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a Ministerial power under Christ in the Governours of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience c. A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lesse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando volucrit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church Governours in all things Absolutely without Restriction or Limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others Faith in them and the worst of implicit Faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey onely in Lawfull things I then enquire who must be Judge what things are Lawfull and what not if the Governours still then the power will be Absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in its self or as they Command it If every private person must judge what is Lawfull and what not which is Commanded as when all is said every man will be his own Judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey than he Judges the thing to be Lawfull which is Commanded The plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it Erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down These testimonies are so clear and backt with such unanswerable reason that I shall now not scruple to qualifie the proposition under consideration thus that where the commission of sin so saith he I add or the doing any thing that is suspected to be sinfull is required as the condition of Communion there a withdrawing is Lawfull and not at all Schismatical Having thus given an account of these different scenes in which both he and I do understand the several parts of this proposition I shall now come to examine what he hath said for the confirmation thereof There are saith he p. 19. but two cases wherein it can be Lawfull to withdraw Communion from a Church one is when the Church requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an acknowledgment and profession of that to be truth which we know to be an errour the other is when she requires of us the joyning with her in some Practice which we know to be against the Laws of God Though I will not be so confident to say with this Author that only in these two cases it may be Lawfull to withdraw Communion for there may be a third and a fourth which neither he nor I may at present think of Yet so far I agree with him that these two cases mentioned are just causes of withdrawing Communion But whereas he saith that the errour must be known to be such and the practice known to be against the Law of God to that I say that knowledge implyes certainty But I say if the errours and practices be but suspected so as the Conscience doth but doubt it is sufficient as I have proved from the Apostle and the testimonies and reasons of Mr. Hales and Dr. Stillingsleet This being premised I shall now proceed to a Consideration of those grounds which he supposeth Non-conformists plead as sufficient causes of their separation as they are Enumerated and Affirmed by him to be insufficient First he saith Vnscriptural impositions can be no sufficient cause to warrant a Separation from a Church Answer By unscriptural impositions he supposeth as he tells us is meant no more than what is neither commanded nor forbid in Scriptures neither by Particular or General Rules Thus when he hath by a false supposition fashioned and erected a man of Straw he then pushes him quite down with the horns of a Dilemma and Fancyes to himself a great victory for from that supposition he thus argues Those unscriptural impositions which are neither commanded nor forbid by any general or particular rules in Scripture are eitherin themselves Lawfull or unlawfull if unlawfull then they are against some Particular or Generall scriptural rule so cannot fall under the notion of unscriptural Impositions which are supposed to be against neither of these Rules if lawfull then it canot be imagined how their being commanded can make them unlawfull so that in this case there is no sin in yeilding obedience and consequently no just cause of withdrawing our Communion This is the strength of what he hath said to this first case My Answer is this I wonder which of his dissenters gave him ground to suppose that ever any of them took unscriptural Impositions for such things that were neither Commanded nor Forbid by any General or Special Rule in Scripture if thus you care not upon what Sandy premises you build your Conclusion who can help it But I pray be pleased to let me tell you what we our selves mean by unscriptural Impositions They are such things the religious use whereof is imposed upon Christians in the Worship and Service of God under the penalties of depriving Ministers of their office or the exercise thereof and of depriving both them and private Christians of the liberty of enjoying Gospell Ordinances or the Priviledges of a Visible Church state by the censure of excommunication which are things that are not either Commanded or directly Forbidden in Scripture in any expresse terms for we confesse that there is not the word Surplice or sign of the Cross c. so much as named in Scripture and upon this account we allow them the name of unscriptural But we say moreover that the religious use of these things in the Worship of God and much more the impositions of them as necessary Conditions of Communion are against General Rules and Instances in the like kind dis-allowed in Scripture from whence we by deduction gather the unlawfulnesse and sinfulnesse thereof and upon this latter consideration I call them antiscriptural as being
religious Customes and Usages contrary to these General rules c. Thus having given you our true sence and meaning of unscriptural Ceremonies now I answer to your dilemma Either you say these things thus imposed are in themselves lawfull or unlawfull I answer Your argument as you form it is trivial and not to the purpose for it speaks not to the Question under Consideration for the Question is not about the nature of the things imposed taken Absolutely but about the Religious use of those things in the worship and service of God Thus then your argument ought to proceed Either the religious use of these things imposed in the Worship and Service of God is lawfull or unlawfull I answer Now directly the Religious use of them is unlawfull and this antecedently to the imposing of them and therefore the imposing of them cannot make them lawfull Here had been a fit place for you to have shewn your strength if you had any in Convincing us that the Religious use of these things in Gods Worship is Lawfull antecedently to the Imposition But we have not a word hereof and therefore since I find no more opposition therein I might justly dismiss this first thing without any further Reply Yet if any shall ask for what reason is it that we say that such a use of them is unlawfull I answer our reasons are ready and they are such that do at least Convince our Consciences so far as to doubt and really suspect their use to be unlawful Which is sufficient to make their imposition a warrantable ground of withdrawing though the Evidence thereof be not so great as to Convince our Gainsayers no nor possibly to demonstrate fully the unlawfulness thereof to our own Consciences as hath been already proved If I be yet urged to shew our reasons of this our perswasion or supposition Methinks it were reason enough if I onely told such that these things imposed are only the productions of a humane spirit and are beholding for their Continuance in being to the Traditions of men and so hold in no respect of Christ the head which is sufficient not only in my opinion but in the judgment of the Apostle Paul to give members of Churches Caution against the reception of them Col. 2.8 Beware lest any man make a prey of you through Philosophy and vain deceit after the Traditions of men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ Whoever pleaseth to see an excellent paraphrase upon this verse let him read it in Mr. John Dale in his exposition on this Epistle which hath the Imprimatur Tho. Tomkins Ex Aed Lambeth and therefore I hope the testimony of this excellent person may obtain some repute his words are these The Scriptures calls those doctrines Traditions of men which have men only for their Authors which come from men and not form God these with the errours of Philosophy of which the Apostle speaks immediately before may bear the same name since they both flow'd from the spirit of men and had no other source but this imagination A little after he saith Whence it doth appear that no productions of an humane spirit are receivable in Evangelicall Religion neither those that are supposed by some pretended reasons nor those that are sounded upon Use and Antiquity they are all of them nothing but solly and vanity in the sight of God with what Colour soever they be painted over And though men boast of their utility they are extreamly hurtfull as pestering Consciences and busying them about things which God hath not ordained and turning them aside from his pure service to matters of nought Accordingly you see that our Lord Jesus Christ rejects and roughly thrusts away all the Traditions of the Pharisees how much esteemed soever they were for their Antiquity and pretended Use reproaching them that by holding fast those Traditions of Men they did let loose the Commandements of God Applying to them those words of the Lord in Isaiah In vain do they Honour me teaching for doctrines the Traditions of men As indeed it 's an unsufferable presumption that men should attempt to prescribe the form of Gods service especially after the declaration which himself hath vouchsafed to make of his holy will nor is there one among men that would indure his servant should treat him in that manner and instead of obeying his Orders and causing others to dispatch them fall a Philosophising in his house and giving his Family a new Rule to observe as if he were wiser than his Master I know well the Authors of these Traditions and those that follow them are not without fine reasons to palliate their temerity but it is Evident that they do the very same for Substance Neither is it to be doubted but a Servant that should be culpable of such a vanity would alledge likewise his motive and designes to any that would give them audience But Common sense dictateth to the meanest capacities that such undertaking Spirits merit not so much as to be heard especially where God is concerned in Comparison of whom they with all their sufficiency are but poor worms of the Earth Hold we firm therefore this Foundation of the Apostle that the Traditions of men ought to have no place in Religion it concerns me not to inform my self of their age whether they be the Traditions of Men Antient or Modern it sufficeth that I know they are Traditions of men having the Apostles advertisement we should not be moved with any reason or splendor or antiquity they may come cloathed with if you would have me receive them shew me that they are prescriptions of Gods institutions of his Christ Doctrines of his Scriptures without this However specious you make them appear to me I shall never believe it it is but to make a prey of me and your diligence shall have no effect but the making me suspect them so much the more Thus far you have had the Judgement of as great Divines as the Church in this last age hath produced and who ever thinks there is not reason enough in this discourse to give Foundation sufficient to tender Consciences at least to suspect if not to be confident of the unlawfulness of the Religious use of these things in the service of God I know not what such will yeild to be sufficient nor would I wish such any greater punishment for their being otherwise minded than that they were obliged to give a more rational account of this verse of the Apostle and likewise to enervate the force of this Authors reason here produced In confesse such is the vanity of mans mind that whilst he either not at all or very negligently hath regard to that Jealousie that God hath over his Worship as is frequently taken notice of in Scriptures is apt to think of these fictitious Ceremonies of Worship as very indifferent and harmless matters for who could of a sudden think there is any good ground of making such
Authority that enjoynes them before we withdraw our obedience to it otherwise we do not proceed upon safe grounds but now we are absolutely certain that God hath commanded us to obey them that have the rule over us but we are not certain that the Actions we here speak of are any where forbid by him for if they were they would be no longer doubtful or suspected they would be certain sins so that if we will follow the surer side as all Christians in these cases are bound to do we must continue our obedience to the Church notwithstanding we suspect or doubt of the lawfulness of her commands Thus far he I answer this Argument notwithstanding the prittiness of its contrivance is certainly falatious for ex vero nihil sequi potest nisi verum for the rule there laid down of always obeying the Church Rulers where the Conscience is in doubt is in many instances a ready way to involve many a weak Conscience in damnable guilt For suppose there had been many a doubtful Conscience among the Israelites in Ahabs time as it seems there were who halted betwixt the VVorship of Jehovah and Baal suppose yet a little further that the Consciences thus doubting were rather inclined to believe Jehovah the true God and Baal but an Idol but yet were not absolutely certain what say you now what Councel would you have given such an one if he had askt your advice do but look how ill-favouredly such an answer as this would seem true might you say according to your rule I do believe that Jehovah is the only true God and Baal but a Devil and that your worshiping a Devil is a damnable sin but as for you you are not so certain hereof as I am yet your Conscience is inclined to believe as I do my advice therefore is this that since your Rulers have commanded you to worship that Devil I Counsel you so to do till your Conscience be better resolved and why because you are certain God hath commanded you to obey your rulers but you are not yet so certain that Baal is a Devil I dare say you abhor such a resolution of the case and yet I see not but you must be forced to give no better if you follow the rule laid down in this argument I might instance in other like cases as if a Jew in the dayes of Messiahs being in the Flesh had been inclined to believe in him as the Messiah but yet was not so absolutely certain thereof as he was of this command thou shalt obey the Rulers of thy people according to you he must go against the inclination of his doubting Conscience in disowning and rejecting Christ that he might yeild obedience to his Rulers who command him so to do in like manner if a poor man were inclined to believe the Masse Idolatry he must go on in that sin against his doubting Conscience till he comes to be as certain it is Idolatry as he is that God hath commanded us to obey our Rulers From what hath been said it is evident there is a fallacy in your Argument and now to shew you where it lies give me leave to tell you it lies in your arguing from particulars to an Universal vel a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter That because I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my rulers in some things therfore I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in every thing yea in such things which I suspect to be sin Do but you make this Evident that in that very Command which I suspect to be sinfull that I may be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey and then I will give up the Cause But this you can never do for upon those very arguments upon which I suspect the sinfulnesse of the Command upon the same Arguments I suspect whether God hath given them Authority to Command or whether God would have me to obey for I can never be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in such instances where I suspect my Rulers Command me to sin So that whereas your Argument supposeth that a Doubting conscience may be more certain that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers than he is of the thing he doubts and so he is therefore to take the surer side and so to obey his Rulers against his Conscience I have made the contrary appear by shewing that a man can never be sure that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers in such cases where he suspects they Command him to sin So that in obeying them he doth not take the surer side Thus is the strength of this Argument and so the strength of his second Charged upon the Nonconformists broken wherein he hath been endeavouring to prove they have no just Cause of Separation though it be upon the account of avoiding what they suspect to be sinfull which is made the Condition of Communion Thirdly saith he Neither can it be true that Errours in a Church as to matter of Doctrines or Corruptions as to matter of Practice so long as these Errours and Corruptions are only suffered but not imposed can be a sufficient Cause of Separation The reason is because the things are not sin in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church in them I Answer First I would fain know what kind of Errours of Doctrines or Corruptions of Practice you do here mean for they are of divers sorts and kinds and accordingly what you here say may be either True or False If by Errours of Doctrine you mean such that are consistent with the holding of Christ the head or such that touch not upon the Fundamentals of the Christian Doctrine some such were those in the Apostles days that related to the Abstaining from meats and observation of days in such cases doubtlesse Christians ought without imposing to bear with one another and to continue Communion with each other notwithstanding such differences which was the Apostles counsel in that case in this sence what you say is true Or if by Corruptions in Practice you should mean such infirmities that all Members of Churches are subject to more or lesse for who can say that he is without sin in this sence you are right or if you mean by errours and Corruptions such that are of a more Grosse and Hainous nature which are not publickly known or of which the Members cannot have sufficient proof for the conviction of themselves that those that are accused are really guilty so also I grant what is here said for till it be evident by some overt Act that Judas hath a Devill and is a Traytor he ought to be look'd on as an Apostle and might be heard In like manner if the Governours of the Church were with many of the Members Arrians or Socinians in their judgments but not known evidently to be such it may be the Duty of sound Christians not to
of England not scruple to professe that he would for Peace sake use all the Popish Ceremonies of Cream and Spittle in Baptisme as well as the sign of the Cross provided his Rulers did impose them but so as that he was left to his liberty is not to use them to the Popish Superstitious ends But why such an one may not upon the same pretence of peace practice most if not all of the Ceremonies and Gestures pertaining to the Mass granting him the liberty of a mentall abstraction of them from their Superstitious and Idolatrous ones I cannot yet understand and what wonder is it if there be of such perswasions among you when it is evident that there are not a few of your Church whose Ambition it seems to be to run as nigh to the Romish Rights as they may be suffered not only in adoring by bowing of the knee in the act of receiving of the Supper but in erecting the Communion Table in the form of an Altar and not only in bowing towards it but being ready to kiss the very steps that lead up to it But if this were your mind I can prove the contrary But I know he will say all this is nothing to our present case for there are no such errours or idolatrous Practices in the Church of England and therefore cannot be pleaded as a cause of our separation I Answer It is very difficult to know what the Church of England is and how they shall we be able to understand what are the Truths or Errours she maintaineth or what are her Practices If you should take it to consist of all the Christians in England whether Ministers or People so the Church of England would Comprehend all Non-conformists Churches as well as others If you take it for such Christians only who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold with the 39. Articles here the Non-conformists come in for a share also who are of your Faith therein excepting those which respect Discipline Ceremonies But if you will take in and own such Christians in England to be only of your Church that agree with you in Ceremonies and a certain form of Service and Discipline which Christ never Commanded and without which many of Christs Churches have and do subsist and flourish to say no more I wonder then by what Gospell Rule you presume to constitute a Church only of such as exclusive of all others however sound in Faith and unblameable in life Or shall we take your Church only to consist of its officers how shall we then Judge of your Faith and Doctrinals when so many of your Ministers are so contrary one to another Some are for the doctrine of Predestination and others against it some are for Justification by Imputed righteousness others not some for a difference betwixt Grace and Morality others oppose it Some for the divine right of Episcopacy others that the Magistrate may appoint what form of government he pleases in a word some write or approve of such a book that others of you think as I have heard fit to be burnt Which of these shall we understand to be your Church If those only that meet by authority in your Consistory to advise of what is fit for the rest to believe and Practise What then becomes of the Church when that Consistory is dissolved and sent home But what if a Consistory concludes of the 39. Articles and the Preachers when all is done preach the quite contrary in several weighty points As it is conceived many of yours do and these are not only tollerated but encouraged by preferments consequently owned by your selves but you have a salve for all this for you tell us let some and why not many or most preach Doctrines contrary thereto yet your Church is very sound in Doctrine so long as the XXXIX Articles remain to be her Doctrine But I wonder how these Articles may be called your Doctrines if but for fear your Ministers or People shall believe them according to the true intent and meaning of the Compilers But in the mean time what a sad Condition must the poor People be in when such corrupt Teachers shall be imposed on them if they are bound for fear of Schisme to sit under their corrupt Doctrines to the endangering of their Faith and consequently of their Salvation yea though they be errours contrary to the Doctrine of your own Church If you say the people have liberty in this case of complaining I Answer but to what purpose when such errours are publickly profest in Printed Books and no course taken for the correcting or ejecting of the Authors which shall hold their places with encouragements If you say they may then withdraw and joyn with other Pastors provided they be of the same Church of England I Answer then what is become of your propositions that errors only tollerated are no just ground for separation If you say they may be just ground of separation from a particular Congregation but not from a National Church I Answer but what if the whole National Church should beguilty of the same or like errours what is it a just ground Then to withdraw if you say no I demand for what reason I can not think of any except these two that to separate from a Particular so we joyn with another of the same National Church doth not run us upon the same danger as if we separated from the whole for the latter leaves us destitute of all publick advantages to our selves which the other doth not Beside the publick honouring of God in his Worship which is every Christians Duty would be neglected My further reply is this that if the honouring of God in publick and my Souls safety are the only reasons that are to sway in this matter then in the pertaking with Churches though Non-conformists where both these may be obtained the separation will be lawful and consequently it will be lawful to separate from a Church upon the only cause of its having corrupt Doctrines in it tollerated though not imposed If you say there is a law of the Land that makes it unlawful to joyn with a Church separate from the National I answer then the question will be only this whether the Law of a Land or the security of my Faith and consequently my Salvation ought more to be regarded which I think is very easy to determine From what hath been said it is evident that some sort of errors in a Church though but tollerated may be a just ground of withdrawing though I do not charge the Church of England with any such errors nor had I ground provided her Ministers did honestly believe those Articles that they have professed to believe which as is conceived several of them do not So that what as to this point I have said is pleadable only by such private Christians whose lot it is to fall under the Teaching of such Conformists who are such Non-conformists to