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
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
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
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
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
us lies which the Fundamental Laws of Society and the expresse precepts of Christianity require of every Member Answ I would now fain know of him what are those Fundamental Laws of Society as suppose of Kingdomes or Corporations that oblige its Subjects or Citizens to seek the Unity and Peace of those Societies or Citizens to seek the Unity the known Laws of the said Kingdoms and the orders of Corporations regulated by the Charters granted by their Princes but if any inferiour Officers of Kingdoms or Corporations shall impose Laws upon the Subjects or Citizens that are not agreeable to but rather seem contrary to the Laws of the Kingdom and the Power granted in those Charters if such Subjects or Citizens oppose and refuse subjection and will not communicate in those things who dare say that such do not seek the Peace of Kingdoms and Corporations as much as in them lies or as much as is fit And let him likewise tell us what are those expresse precepts of Christianity that oblige its Members any further to seek the Unity of the Church than to believe do and observe those things which Christ the Head of his Church hath commanded Christians then seek the Unity of the Body so far as in them lies when they seek it according to a Gospel rule for it doth not lye in their Power to seek it any other ways But saith he to separate from Congregations with whom we may lawfully Communicate is not to seek the Vnity of the Body so far as in us lies Answ This is not universally true for what if one shifteth his Habitation to another Parish for the benefit of the Labours of a more pious Minister here is a separation from an established Assembly and yet no breach upon the Unity of the Body But suppose one still abides in the Parish and yet constantly Hears and Communicates with a Church of an other Parish as I suppose some of your own do how can you say such so long as they continue Communion with your National Church seek not the Union of the Body as sar as is fit or needful If you say but neither of these are the cases of those you speak of because they hold Communion with you to be sinful Very true and you deny not that in case they could not Communicate with you without sin but that they may lawfully separate without being guilty of any breach of union If you had here proved they might hold Communion with you without sin or what they extreamly suspect to be sinful you had said something but since you have reserved your pretended proof thereof to the fourth Proposition I shall therefore referre my answer thereto His third Proposition That the being a Member of any Church doth oblige a man to submit to all the Laws and Constitutions of that Church I Answer if by Laws and Constitutions he understands such that Christ either by himself or his Apostles hath ordained such as to meet together to Pray Praise Preach Hear Baptize or Eat the Lords Supper or to Admonish Comfort Reprove or cast out the Obstinate so I grant the Truth of the Proposition But if by Laws and Constitutions he means such that are meerly of mens devising and imposing under the penalty of Excommunication without any command from Christ for so doing of which kind are the Observations of Days Abstaining from Meats Crossing in Baptism Kneeling at the Supper Reading Prayers and that in a Surplice without the use and observation whereof it shall not be lawful for men to Preach the Gospel or partake of the Sacrament but for refusal shall be cast out and not esteemed worthy of the name of Christians In this sence I say the proposition is very false And whereas he saith that this Proposition is in the general so unquestionable that no sober man will deny it I on the contrary say that in the general without a sound limitation it is so mischievous that no sober man but may be ashamed to assert it For who will deny but that our Saviour with his Apostles were of the Church of the Jews and who dares say that either Christ or they thought themselves obliged to observe the humane Laws and Traditions of that Church either in washing before Meat or in not Healing on the Sabbath-day which Traditions they made no scruple to transgresse and to justifie such Transgression to the shame and confusion of their Imposers Again who knows not that the Rulers of the Jewish Church had agreed and so made it a Constitution of that Church that if any confessed Christ he should be cast out of the Synagogue and what Christian hath the Forehead to say that all the Members of that Church were obliged thereby not to confesse Christ or to bear any part in casting out such as did confesse him from their Synagogues He adds this is the Basis upon which all Societies are founded and by which they do subsist He means that the Truth of that Proposition is at the bottom of all Societies whether Civil or Ecclesiastical but I pray how is it the Basis of Kingdoms which are civil Societies Thus far I grant that all the just Laws Enacted by the supream Power in such Kingdoms do oblige all the Subjects Answerably all the Laws and Constitutions in the Church that are Enacted by Jesus Christ its supream King and Governour do bind all the Members But in civil Societies if the Inferiour Magistrates as suppose the Heads of Corporations shall Enact Laws and make Constitutions and bind them on the Subjects so as in case of refusal to submit they shall be deprived of the right and priviledges of Subjects and that without any Authority from the supreme Power for so doing I say in this case that this Proposition is so far from being the Basis of these Societies without which they cannot subsist that I say it 's the Basis of all Confusion to such Societies answerably if any Officers of Churches shall presume without warrant from Christ to make Laws and bind them on the Disciples necks upon the penalties of depriving them of the rights and priviledges of Christians as they do by excommunication I say this is a meer usurpation of the Regall power of Christ and tends directly to run Churches into confusion and all manner of disorders as the sad Effects thereof do cleerly demonstrate And whereas he saith To suppose a Society and yet to suppose the members of it not under an obligation to obey its Laws and Government is to make Ropes of sand and to suppose a body without sinews and ligaments to hold the parts together I Answer That t is confessed that the just Laws of the supream Authority of any Society are Sinews and Ligaments of that society But if the Laws be either unjust or imposed by any Authority inferiour to the Supream such Laws are not the natural sinews in any Government but are certain Monstrosities in the body politick as such kind of Sinews
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
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
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