from censuring their brethren as being to stand or fall to a higher Master he censureth them as guilty of Schism obstinately maintained pag. 7. And instead of perswading them to forbear doing those things which some think they may lawfully do as the making use of prescribed Prayers and Ceremonies least a stumbling block should be cast before their weak brethren he falls pag. 5. into Encomiums of the excellency of the present Church Government the easiness of the Terms of Communion the Lawfulness of the use of the publick Service and Antiquity of the Ceremonies and then doth conclude that Sober men should be ashamed to call the penalties which the Laws inflict on those that separate from the Church in these things Persecutions The plain English of all this is that the great Apostle and this Person are of two minds concerning these things which make for Peace the Apostle is for not judging the Lords Servants and he is for judging them The Apostle is still for holding Communion notwithstanding those differences remain but he is for forcing them to say and do as the Church doth or else for punishing them with fines imprisonments as the Laws require But certainly as he herein leaves the Apostle so the Apostle leaves him and in this deserted Condition as we find him I hope it will be no presumption to call his reasonings about this matter to an account The strength of what he hath said to justifie his charge of Schisme against this people he hath comprised in five Propositions which we shall examine in order His first Proposition begins pag 10. which is this That every Christian upon the very account of being so is a member of the Church of Christ and is bound to joyn in external Communion with it where it can be had I answer this Proposition is very obscurely laid down nor is it releived by any light afforded in the after explication and certainly if it be to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words and phrases therein contained as it ought to be I shall not scruple to call the Truth thereof into Question For. First If we consider a Christian upon the very account of his being so which is the Subject of the Proposition who can think but thereby as you phrase it you intend to affirm nothing of him as such but what doth necessarily and essentially belong to him without which he could be no Christian and consequently if he be a Christian he must necessarily be a Member of Christs Church in the sence of Church in the Proposition which is such as therewith an external Communion may be held If this be your meaning as I suppose it is because in your explication of this Proposition you seem to hold that Christ died primarily for his Church and but in a secondary sence for individual Believers so that it seems to follow that none can be true Christians or in a salvable state but as they are considered incorporated into and so made one of this Church so that Church-Member-ship is esâ—ential to them If this I say be your meaning then give me leave to take the boldness to deny the Proposition for I cannot understand that a Christian as such includes any essential relation to a Church in your sence That I may clear up this matter a little give me leave to tell you that this term Christian may fall under divers considerations as first by a Christian we may understand a man whose Nature is changed by the Preaching of the Gospel so as thereby he is of an ignorant Infidel and wicked man made an intelligent Believer and a good man certainly in this sence it is easie to understand a Christian without any such correlate as a Church so that in this sence a Christian as such is no more related to a Church than a man considered as a man speaks any Relation to a Kingdom or Common-wealth and therefore your Proposition in this scence cannot be true But because this change of Nature can't be wrought in any man but by the Power of God co-working with the Gospel and since this exertion of Power is called Regeneration upon this account a Christian is to be considered as a relative viz. as a Son of God the correlate is God his Father and the Foundation of this Relation is Regeneration But here a Christian is not considered as any ways related to a Church but only as realted to God and who is not able to understand a Christian as well as Adam to be a Son of God without any Relation to any Society of men whatever But since it is certain that God hath exerted this Regenerating Power to more than one and that he hath many Sons and Daughters hence it is that every Son of God stands in an other Relation and that is to all the rest that are in the same manner born of God which in conjunction make up Gods family or Church But them I say that the Church here is to be taken for the invisible Church for the Father or Head of this Family is the invisible God and the Children are Members who considered as to their Regeneration that is the Foundation of the Relation are also invisible and therefore neither in this sence can the Proposition be true for every Christian upon the account of his internal Membership is not therefore a Member of a visible Church for there may be 7000 such invisible Members in Israel when there was no appearance of a visible Church as to them where any external Communion was held and yet this is that the Proposition drives at that every Christian as such is a Member of such a Church with which external Communion may be held which is in this sence apparently false Yet again all these internal Members of God's Family may be considered as outwardly professing their Faith and associateing together as they can for the Worship of God among whom creep in many Hypocrites by professing the same Faith and joyning in the same Worship with them which together make up the Catholick Visible Church in this sence I grant that every professing Christian may be reckoned as a Member of the Catholick visible Church But yet I deny that this relation is essential and necessary to him upon the very account of his being a Christian for he might be a Believer and a Son of God and internally related to all invisible Members without this Catholick visible Membership nor doth he indeed deny it for in case says he that no such visible Church can be found or in case they be scattered by extream Persecution or in case of an unjust excommunication Christians may be Christians without being members of Christs visible Church which indeed are concessions that overturn the Truth of his Proposition for if a man may be a Christian without being a Member of Christs visible Church then it can not be true that every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a
Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
so 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
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
withdraw Communion from them But if it shall so fall out that the Governours of a Church and a great body of the People be so erroneous and this sufficiently known and though reproved yet they abidè obstinate maintainers thereof I say in this Case it is sufficient ground for sound Members to withdraw and save themselves from so dangerous a Society and why because I may not lawfully joyn with such a Church where possibly I may every time I joyn the Lord Christ and the Holy Ghost Blaspheme whose Deity is denied by these Sects nor may I joyn lest I indanger my Faith for evill words do not only Corrupt good manners but have a direct tendency to corrupt a sound Faith and certainly the safety of a Soul is of greater worth than the preservation of a Corrupt Peace or Unity of a Corrupt Church And what I have said upon a supposition of such grosse errours in the Rulers and many of the people of a Church the same may be said of either Idolaters or grosly profane practices for if Ministers or many of the Members should degenerate to a Popish Idolatry or should prove Common Drunkards or Whore-mongers or Opposers c. and being admonished thereof should deride the admonition as Precise and fanatical or if the Members only were Commonly so and the Rulers wittingly Connive thereat and seek not their Cure by Reproofs and Censures as Christ hath commanded in such cases I say again it is a sufficient ground for the sound Members to withdraw especially if a more pure Church may be had yea though neither these errours or practices are imposed and that first lest under the pretence of Peace they should be guilty of the greatest uncharitablenesse and that is the hardning and incouraging them in their abominable Impieties Again because the sound ought by the law of God and Nature to provide for their own safety Certainly if there be a Contagion in evill words to corrupt good manners there is much more in wicked Practices and therefore they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such and certainly in so doing there is nothing done contrary to the Fundamental reason of Christs Instituting discipline in his Church which as I conceive was for the Cure of the unsound and for the preservation of the sound from the infection of the unsound Now if no care be taken for the cure of the same but that infectious Crew is kept in the Church to the palpable endangering of the sound it is apparent that the Foundations of discipline are rooted up and in effect there is no discipline at all and that therefore every good Christian may seek his safety as he can since he cannot obtain it in a Church by the means of the Gospel Discipline which through the Corruption of the Rulers and the swaying part of the Corrupt Members is made void But no more of this till by and by when I shall have a fresh occasion to speak further to this point At present let us again return to inquire into a full sence of his Proposition if by any means we can find it out You say in generall terms without any Limitation that errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice when found in a Church but not imposed is no just ground of separation I Answer Methinks by this generall way of Expressing your self that you are not afraid of your Readers understanding this Proposition without any Limitation I pray tell me what if Socinian or Popish Errours and Corrupt practices were got into the Rulers of a Church and a great body of the People and that they should only tollerate them but not impose them on any what hinders if what you here say be true but that every sound Christian may yea and ought to Communicate with such a Church especially if Providence had cast him into such a place where no other could be had so that one of a Protestant Faith might lawfully joyn with a Popish Church not only in hearing their Friars Preach but likewise in receiving the Mass of them provided they would 〈…〉 him to profess their Errors or to Practise the Superâ—… 〈◊〉 Idolatry in the Mass but permit him to receive it in both 〈◊〉 in his own sence though he knows the Priest delivers 〈…〉 the rest of the Communicants receive it in the Popish sence I would not be so unmerciful to charge you as holding this but this I say that so much seems to follow Clearly from this your Position if taken without any Limitation and I can discern none in this Paragraph If you say that there is enough said by you pag. 22. concerning the Popish Church to clear you in this particular I Answer It is true you say there that the great and general Corruption of the Church of Rome both in Doctrine and Practice doth endanger the Salvation of such as Communicate with her and that therefore a totall separation from her and an erection of new Churches may be Lawfull I say notwithstanding all this yet I doubt whether you there mean that her Errors and Corruptions in themselves or of their own nature do so far endanger mens Salvation that though they were not imposed yet we were bound to a totall separation or do you mean they therefore so endanger our Salvation because imposed as to warrant such a separation If your Proposition there may be understood in the sormer sence then what you say here taken universally must needs be false for if the very being of some sorts of Errors and Corruptions in a Church though not imposed are so dangerous as to warrant a separation how can it then be universally true as you seem here to assert that Errours in Doctrine and Corruptions in Practice so long as they are only suffered but not imposed cannot be a sufficient Cause of separation but if you are there to be understood in the latter sence that is to say that the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome only as imposed are so dangerous to mens salvation as to warrant a separation then that which I even now suggested is true that Christians may Lawfully here be Baptized go to Mass with the Church of Rome Provided they were not forced to make a Profession of believing their Errors or had leave to receive those Sacraments with all the Superstitions thereto belonging in their own sence though it was well known that they administred them in an other I will not at present as aforesaid charge this opinion upon the Author though it seems to be a consequence rightly inferred from this and other principles of his in this discourse because he saith pag. 31. A man may believe a proposition and not believe all that follows from it So that at no hand are we to charge such Consequences upon him unless he doth explicitly own them but whether you will explicitly own them or no I am not certain Yet this I know that I have heard a Minister of the Church
belonging are but for the sakes and subordinated to the welfare of particular Christians and therefore it is necessary that Christ should first intend the welfare or Salvation of particulars before the meer associating them into Church or Churches under government which is but a means to that great end of saving particulars For certainly that which is more excellent in the Nature of things is primarily designed by every rational Agent before that which is lesse excellent so certainly is the restauration of particular Persons in giving them renewed Natures Remission of sins and a Title to Salvation before that meer order that ought to be amongst them for their security and comfort which is acquired by associations or Church Government If it yet be not clear give me leave to illustrate this matter yet further by this similitude Let us consider Christ as the general of an Army who is by the Apostle called the Captain of our Salvation and the Church under him as an Army under several Officers for their better Order and Government and all particular Christians as so many particular Souldiers Now let us consider the several ends which a general hath in gathering his Souldiers into an Army and which end is more principally intended and which end lesse principally or subordinately intended His first end is to subdue his Enemies to the Praise of his Justice and Valour the next end intended is the preservation of his Souldiers without which the more principal end cannot be obtained and that which is an end subordinate to both these is the keeping his Souldiers in Union and Order under their several Officers for without this Union and Order the particular Souldiers cannot so well be preserved so that here it is evident that the uniting of his Men and keeping them under Discipline is subordinately intended for the preservation of particulars In like manner God in Christ designing to save sinners First he intends the Praise of his Glorious Grace Secondly he intends the Salvation of particular sinners by Regenerating and pardoning of them And lastly he intends the Collection of them into a body or bodies under Discipline for their better safety and security this last is not principally or lesse principally but that which is subordinately intended to both the other The conclusion that ariseth hence is this that this Author is much mistaken when he saith that Christ did primarily intend the Salvation of his Church and secondarily the Salvation of particular Christians cujus contrarium verum est as I have shewed We shall now further consider what he hath said for the confirmation of this his nation concerning Christs primary intention to save his Church c. This saith he is no more than what is the sence and Language of the Holy Scriptures wherein whatever Christ is said to have done and suffered for mankind he is said to have done for them not as scattered individuals but as incorporated into a Church Thus Christ sav'd the Church Eph. 5.25 Act. 20.25 Eph. 5.23 and gave himself for it Christ Redeemed the Church with his own precious Blood Christ is the Saviour of his Body The plain consequence from hence is saith he that every person so far as he is a Christian so far he is a Member of the Church and by virtue of that Relation to the Church it is that he hath any Relation to Christ or any Title to the Priviledges of the Gospel I answer it is a wonder to me to see the Authour otherwise a Person of good abilities so strangely misled into the confidence of a conclusion that is raised upon such palpable mistaken principals He says that what ever Christ hath done and suffered for mankind he hath done it for them not as scattered individuals but as incorporated into a Church I perceive by this that the Authour is not for Universal Redemption as some of his brethren are for I cannot see how Christ dying for all is consistent with Christ's dying for men considered as incorporated into his Church for it is certain that the greatest number of individuals that hath been or are in the World were or are not like to be so incorporated Yet further certainly the Author doth run himself and his Reader into much confusion for want of a Regular stating of the several Aspects which Christs sufferings have to mankind as they fall under divers considerations As first if mankind be considered as lapsed into a state of sin and death so they are said to be Enemies to God and Righteousness Dead in Trespasses and sins without God without hope I hope the Author doth not take men so considered as in any Church state and yet it is certain that according to Scriptures Christs suffering was with Relation to men as such Rom. 5.8 God commendeth his Love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us So Col. 1.21 And you that were sometime alienated and Enemies in your mind by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the Body of his Flesh through Death In these Texts it 's evident that Christ's death respected men as incoporated in the corrupt Masse of mankind and not as incorporated into a Church Secondly Christs sufferings respects men considered as such that de futuro were to partake of the benefits of Christ's Death which benefits are either of an absolute or of a Relative and Politick Consideration Those that are absolute are such as the changing of mens Natures Remission of Sins Faith in Christ Repentance from dead Work these are all given and bestowed on en with respect to what Christ did and suffered for them Here men are to be considered absolutely as individual Christians and not as any members of a Society or a Church for I can as any man else may easily consider a man as a Believer as a Penitent as in favour with God without considering him under any Politick Relations as we may conceive of men as wise just and innocent without conceiving them as Citizens or Subjects There are other benefits that are likewise the purchase of Christs death and they are of a relative and Politick consideration and here it is that the Communion of the Saints or church Fellow-ship hath its place which Communion is either internal and this is a priviledge peculiar only to that Church of Christ which every Member is considered as really and sincerely united to Christ by a true Faith and to each other in a love unfeigned or external which properly belongs to Christians co-united together in an external profession of Faith in associating for publick worship and submitting to Christs Discipline Now of all these benefits some are more principall some less some are of absolute necessity to Salvation others not Those that are of a more principal consideration and of absolute necessity to Salvation are such that belong to Christians as individuals such as Faith and Repentance Remission of sins and such like which they have by virtue of Union
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
is to say in those that have the Government of it I answer If you mean hereby that Jesus Christ hath by directions and precepts provided what is necessary for the due and orderly performance of Gods worship and likewise for the preserving his Churches in peace and Unity and that he hath in a special manner intrusted those directions and precepts with the Pastors of Churches to teach and command the Churches to worship God according to these directions and to keep unity among themselves and likewise to reprove and censure the obstinate according to the said directions and precepts so I yield the whole of what is said But if you mean thereby that Christ hath intrusted the Governours of Churches with an Arbitrary power to institute such things for a pretended due and orderly worship which neither were in use with Christ and his Apostles or those first Churches or that are no ways necessary in themselves but are at least seemingly contrary to the Genius of a Gospell-worship which is Eminently spirituall and to presse these under the penalties of Excommunication as if the Churches could not duely and orderly worship God and be kept in unity without them In this sence I deny that any such power is to be supposed to be Lodged in the Governours of the Church for it is a power altogether uselesse and impertinent and in the consequence destructive For Christ and his Apostles and those first Churches worshipped God and kept unity in a more excellent manner than we do and yet without the use of these humanely invented things that you Impose He goes on From hence saith he it is plain that the Church hath a power to restrain the exercise of her Subjects Liberty as to oblige them to all such Laws Rules Orders Ceremonies as she shall Establish for the ends aforesaid I answer When you have either better proved the necessity or real usefullness of the laws rules ceremonies to the ends aforesaid or that Christ hath given any such power to the said Governours which hitherto you have but meerly beg'd then I will yeild to what you say as true But otherwise it is but a poor naked Lanck Assertion that stands by it self unproved and so I leave it But as to what he adds And if it be Questioned whether her Appointments do indeed conduce to that end of that she her self is to be Judge her members being no farther concerned therein than onely before they obey her Impositions to see that they be not repugnant to the known Laws of God I Answer First let it be considered that he grants a Judgment of discretion to the people antecedent to and a ground of their Obedience to such Laws upon this I say it will follow that if the members upon searching the Scriptures and praying to God for his Spirit to direct them are left after such a search under strong perswasions that the very making such Laws and appointing such Ceremonies and binding them on the disciples necks under the penalties of Excommunication is a meer usurpation and that those Ceremonies themselves are of such a low carnall beggerly consideration extreamly ill suited to the manly State of the Church and the Spirituality of a Gospel worship I say if upon these and other considerations they continue strongly perswaded that both the one and the other are thus repugnant to the Will and Law of Christ it will be the members duty in such a case to disobey It will not here be sufficient for you to say but they are mistaken there is no such real repugnancy as they Imagine For since you leave them to be Judges whether there is or is not it is but equall that those you leave to be Judges that they should be left to act according to their judgements in such a case as this is which you yield to fall under their cognisance And the truth is if you will not yield such a Liberty of judgment as this is you must bid them put out their eyes and follow their Leaders in a blind Obedience and in case their Leaders be blind also you would there in direct them to an excellent expedient how they may come all to fall into the Ditch He Infers again Hence it will follow that the Church must be furnished with a power to end and determine controversies of Religion that arise among its membmers that is to say to give an Authoritative decision of them as that all parties are bound to acquiesce in it else she could not preserve her self in peace and unity What you say here may be differently understood according to the nature of the points about which the controversie is if the matters of difference or controversie be such as may be held by both sides without any considerable damage to either of their Solutions then I grant that if Church Governours determine as the Apostle you confesse pag. 1. doth that those differing parties should remember each other as brethren and Communicate with each other as such forbearing to censure each other as being the Lords servants to whom they must stand or fall that the members ought to acquiesce in this their determination But in case that Church Governours shall side with one party and with them shall contrary to the said rule and practice of the Apostle endeavour to force by their determination the other party to do and say as they do or else to excommunicate them I say in this case these Governours usurp an Authority to themselves above and beyond what the Apostle had or thought fit to exercise And Likewise that it is not the Duty of the party so Imposed upon to submit contrary to what they conceive to be the Will of God in that case For he that doth or saith any thing against his doubting Conscience is in the same Condition of Damnation as he that doubteth and eateth which the Apostle Instanceth in If the points of Controversie be about such matters where those that hold on one side do Espouse such doctrines or ways of worship that are of very dangerous Consequence to the Salvation to their Souls such are they that are espoused by Arians Socinians Papists I say In these instances if Church Governours determine on the right side according to the plain Revelations of Gods word in Scriptures the Members are bound to acquiesce therein but not meerely because of their determination but because their determinations are sounded on the Revelations of God but in case the said Governours should contrary to the said Revelations determine on the wrong side that is to say for the Socinians Arrians Papists I say then the Members were not obliged to acquiesce in these determinations notwithstanding all the pretences of Unity and Peace that may be obtained thereby The Author being sensible that what he last said if taken in the utmost extent of its signification would be dangerous begins to limit his sence thereof and indeed it is but high time he should Here saith he it may