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
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
or Ligaments in the body naturall are reputed which are not necessary or usefull but are Impediments to a regular motion of the members and of this kind are the Laws and Constitutions of Churches about which we contend Well but let us see how he clears this he further saith pag. 16. It must be acknowledged in the first place that the Church must as all other Societies be entrusted with at least so much power over her subjects as is necessary for the securing of her own welfare and preservation For to think otherwise is to suppose God to have founded a Church and Intended the well being and continuance of it which are things that every one must grant and yet to suppose he hath denyed her the use of the means without which the well being and continuance cannot be attained which is monstrous and contradictious It is plain that the Author speaks here of a particular Church as may be seen by a review of the proposition where he speaks of a membership with any Church i. e. with any particular Church and now I answer First This Argument proceedeth upon an Hypothesis that is not necessarily true as the Author imagineth viz. that God in causing this or that particular Church to be planted must needs Intend its continuance for many such Churches have been planted but not continued and certainly when it hath so hapned it hath not been besides the intention of God Perhaps you will say that was through their own fault by not making use of that power that God gave them to preserve themselves say you so what then say you to the Church of Christ first planted at Jerusalem we read Acts 8.1.2 that a great persecution arose and they were all scattered and none left at Jerusalem except the Apostles And it is as easie to conceive that the Apostles might have been scattered as the rest I ask now was this Church continued or if it was not was it because they made not use of that power that God intrusted them with for their preservation what would you have had them done what repelled force with force I know you believe no such power was intrusted with them and yet it 's certain that this dispersion was not besides the intention of God therefore it is not necessary as you suppose that God must always intend the preservation of every particular Church he causeth to be planted But in the next place let us grant your supposition that God intends the continuance of every Church he causeth to be planted what then you say then he must needs intrust the said Churches with so much power that is necessary to preserve themselves or else he is wanting to them I deny your consequence because since a Church may be broken and so discontinued as well by Armed Force from Persecutors as by Intestine Broyls arising from Heresies and Schismes God must then necessarily have provided every particular Church with an Army Superior to all the power ef Persecutors or else have ingaged himself to work miracles for their preservation or else according to you he must be thought wanting to his Churches But since God hath neither provided the one nor engaged himself to the other it is certain your Consequence taken universally cannot be true Perhaps you will say if the Consequence be not universally true yet it is as to the particulars of Heresies and Schismes that arise out of the Church For if God had not provided the Church with so much power as is necessary to suppresse those evills he must be wanting in providing means for the Churches preservation I Answer that will be soon seen if we consider all that power that God hath truly given his Churches to keep them from these evils which are so far as I understand the Bible and Ministers and the promise of the Spirit to guide them that sincerely Implore his Aid and Assistance Now its true these means are sufficient and as much in their kind as is necessary yet they are not of themselves sufficient except Ministers and People make a good use of them For in case either the one or the other do sinfully neglect the studying of the Bible and praying earnestly for the guidance of the Spirit it is very possible and easie for either of them to lapse into Heresies and Schismes as many Churches have done and yet when they so do the have not to blame God for not intending their continuance nor for not affording what means are in their kind sufficient for their continuance For the fault is their own in not making a due use and improvement of the means afforded I know the Author is dreaming of other sorts of means Entrusted with the Church for the preventing the destruction thereof by Heresies and Schismes and that is of a power of determining Controversies in points of doctrine and of making Laws and Ordinances for the suppressing Schismes so at least as to oblige the members to acquiesce which are different from studying the Bible praying for the Spirit and to add a Living up to what they know But by his leave I will be bold to tell him that such a power of determining controversies is not a sure means of it self to prevent Heresies for what if the Pastors themselves by a neglect of those means I named should lapse into Heresies it is certain if they came to determine they would Establish Heresies and not root them up Nor is that power of making Laws and Canons to oblige all members to acquiesce in any sure means to prevent or to put an end to Schismes for except the members of the Church are assured that what their Pastors determine in doctrine and what they would be Cannon oblige them to in matters of worship be agreeable to the word of God they may justly make no scruple to dissent in the one and the other True indeed if Governours of Churches could make out such a power they pretend to that they have received it from God and that they are infallibly guided as the Pope and Quakers pretend in all their determinations then somewhat indeed were spoken to the purpose and the People would see some ground to take them for Oracles and to stoop to their determinations but till then it is best for Governours of Churches to leave the People to their Bibles and to presse nothing upon them as necessary but what they find to be Evidently there written and commanded But no more of this as yet for I have herein almost prevented my self in what I have to say as to that which follows He proceeds thus That since the preservation of a Church cannot be secured but by a providing for a due and orderly performance of the worship of God and by maintaining peace and unity among its members it necessarily follows in Generall that whatever power over her subjects is necessary in order to either of these things all that at least must be supposed to be Lodged in the Church that
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
High Priest and that the great body of the Nation should meet by his command at one place as the Jews at the Temple of Jerusalem for publick Worship then I confesse he will have some colour for asserting of National Christian Churches and of a National Membership therein but till then I shall take the boldness to deny that any Christian is capable of any such National Church Membership But if he doth here mean by Church a particular Worshiping Congregation such are the parochial Churches of England and such are the Congregations of Non-conformists then we shall consider what he further saith which is this That no Christians can have just cause of withdrawing Communion from the Church whereof they are Members if we should understand it indifferently of Non-conformists Churches as parochial the meaning would be that no Member that either is joyn'd to the one or the other have just cause to withdraw Communion from either of them but when c. If you say that the parochial Churches are the true regular Churches because established by the Law of the Land and all other are Schismaticall I answer this is sooner said than proved for did the regularity or Schismaticalnesse of a Church depend on such an externall fickle consideration as the Law of the Land then might one and the same Church be Regular or Schismatical as often as the wind of the Legislative power might chance to Change so that an Act of Parliament that makes the Episcopal Churches regular to day the very same Churches by a change of an Act might be made Schismatical to morrow and so if the Legislative Power pleased both Episcopal Independant Presbyterian Anabaptistical Churches may be regular and Schismatical in their turns Lastly when you say no Communion may justly be with drawn from but when it cannot be continued without the Commission of sin here again I desire to know whether by sin you mean such that may be evidenced to be such to the conviction of the imposers or only such that is evidenced to the conviction of the Consciences of those that withdraw you cannot in reareason require the first except you will run y our selves upon these straits either to turn Papists or undertake to convince the Papists that the reason why you came off from them and their Worship was because you could not Communicate with them therein without sin we know you tell them so and give yours reasons why you say so but notwithstanding all you say they are not convinced but yet persist to call you Schismaticks But what then are you moved with their censure no for if your reasons will not convince them yet they satisfie your own Consciences and therein you rest and so you may very reasonably do I desire now but the like equity for the Non-conformists and that is that if they have reasons sufficient to convince their own Consciences that the things imposed are sinful though their reasons convince not their imposers that you would give them that liberty of Acquiescing therein as you take in bearing up your selves against the Censures of the Papists But yet further What though the things Imposed be not clearly evidenced to their own Consciences but onely so far as to leave them under strong suspitions that they are sinfull it is sufficient to justifie their withdrawing for what if the things Imposed on the Non-conformists were such as they might as lawfully do or practise as the Christian Jews might have eaten of the once-forbidden meats yet so long as their doubts remain if they should so practise they would sin as the Jews would have done if they had eaten so long as their scruple remained And so that unquestionable Casuist the Apostle determines in the case Rom. 14 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in it self yet to him who thinks any thing unclean to him it is unclean So again He that doubteth and eateth is Damned And if it were not to light up Candles while the Sun shines I would tell you that a meer suspition of a sin is a sufficient ground for withdrawing Communion in the Judgments of other very great men So says that universally admired man Mr. Hales of Schisme pag. 8. says he In these Schismes which concern Fact nothing can be a just cause of refusing Communion but onely to require the execution of some unlawful or suspected Act. For not only in Reason but in Religion too that maxime admits of no release Cautissimi cujusque preceptum quod dubitas nefeceris To load saith he our publick Formes with private phantasies upon which we differ is the most Soveraign way to perpetuate Schisme unto the Worlds end Prayer Confession Thanksgiving Reading the Scriptures in the plainest and simplest manner were matter enough to furnish out a sufficient Liturgy though nothing either of private opinion or of Church Pomp of Garments or prescribed Gestures of Imagery of Musick or of many other Superfluities which creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency did interpose it self To charge Churches and Liturgies with things unnecessary was the first beginning of all Superstition and when scruple of Conscience began to be made or pretended there Schisme began to break in he goes on If the spiritual Guides of the Church would be a little spareing of incumbering Churches with superfluities c. there would be far lesse Cause of Schisme or Superstition and all the inconveniences were likely to ensue would be but this they should in so doing yeild a little to the imbecillity of their Inferiours a thing which St. Paul would never have refused to do Mean while I pray mark this wheresoever false or suspected opinions are made a piece of Church Liturgie he that separates is not the Schismatick for it is alike unlawfull to make a profession of known or suspected falsehood as to put in practice unlawful or suspected actions And of this mind is Dr. Stilling fleet a Person no whit inferior to the other whose words are these in his Iren. p. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schisme which because I know it may meet with some opposition from those men who will sooner call men Schismaticks than prove them so I shall offer this reason for it to consideration if our separation from the Church of Rome was therefore lawfull because she required unlawfull things as conditions of her Communion then wherever such things are required of any Church Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawfull too and where non-communion is Lawfull there can be no Schisme in it If it be said here that the Popes power was a usurpation which is not in Lawfull Governours of Churches it is soon replyed that the Popes usurpation mainly lies in imposing
things upon mens Consciences as necessary which are doubtfull or unlawfull And wherever the same thing is done there is an Usurpation of the same nature though not in so high a degree and it may be as Lawfull to withdraw Communion from one as well as the other If it be said that men are bound to be ruled by their Governours in determining what things are Lawfull and what not To this it is Answered first No true Protestant can swear blind obedience to Church Governours in all things It is the highest usurpation to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgments That which we plead for against the Papists is that all men have their eyes in their heads as well as the Pope that every one hath a Judicium privatae discretionis which is the rule of practice as to himself and though we freely allow a Ministerial power under Christ in the Governours of the Church yet that extends not to an obligation upon men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience c. A man hath not the power over his own understanding much lesse can others have it Nullus credit aliquid esse verum quia vult credere id esse verum non est in potestate hominis facere aliquid apparere intellectui suo verum quando volucrit Either therefore men are bound to obey Church Governours in all things Absolutely without Restriction or Limitation which if it be not usurpation and dominion over others Faith in them and the worst of implicit Faith in others it is hard to define what either of them is or else if they be bound to obey onely in Lawfull things I then enquire who must be Judge what things are Lawfull and what not if the Governours still then the power will be Absolute again for to be sure whatever they command they will say is lawfull either in its self or as they Command it If every private person must judge what is Lawfull and what not which is Commanded as when all is said every man will be his own Judge in this case in things concerning his own welfare then he is no further bound to obey than he Judges the thing to be Lawfull which is Commanded The plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates of it for as he is bound to lay it down supposing it Erroneous so he is bound not to go against it while it is not laid down These testimonies are so clear and backt with such unanswerable reason that I shall now not scruple to qualifie the proposition under consideration thus that where the commission of sin so saith he I add or the doing any thing that is suspected to be sinfull is required as the condition of Communion there a withdrawing is Lawfull and not at all Schismatical Having thus given an account of these different scenes in which both he and I do understand the several parts of this proposition I shall now come to examine what he hath said for the confirmation thereof There are saith he p. 19. but two cases wherein it can be Lawfull to withdraw Communion from a Church one is when the Church requires of us as a Condition of her Communion an acknowledgment and profession of that to be truth which we know to be an errour the other is when she requires of us the joyning with her in some Practice which we know to be against the Laws of God Though I will not be so confident to say with this Author that only in these two cases it may be Lawfull to withdraw Communion for there may be a third and a fourth which neither he nor I may at present think of Yet so far I agree with him that these two cases mentioned are just causes of withdrawing Communion But whereas he saith that the errour must be known to be such and the practice known to be against the Law of God to that I say that knowledge implyes certainty But I say if the errours and practices be but suspected so as the Conscience doth but doubt it is sufficient as I have proved from the Apostle and the testimonies and reasons of Mr. Hales and Dr. Stillingsleet This being premised I shall now proceed to a Consideration of those grounds which he supposeth Non-conformists plead as sufficient causes of their separation as they are Enumerated and Affirmed by him to be insufficient First he saith Vnscriptural impositions can be no sufficient cause to warrant a Separation from a Church Answer By unscriptural impositions he supposeth as he tells us is meant no more than what is neither commanded nor forbid in Scriptures neither by Particular or General Rules Thus when he hath by a false supposition fashioned and erected a man of Straw he then pushes him quite down with the horns of a Dilemma and Fancyes to himself a great victory for from that supposition he thus argues Those unscriptural impositions which are neither commanded nor forbid by any general or particular rules in Scripture are eitherin themselves Lawfull or unlawfull if unlawfull then they are against some Particular or Generall scriptural rule so cannot fall under the notion of unscriptural Impositions which are supposed to be against neither of these Rules if lawfull then it canot be imagined how their being commanded can make them unlawfull so that in this case there is no sin in yeilding obedience and consequently no just cause of withdrawing our Communion This is the strength of what he hath said to this first case My Answer is this I wonder which of his dissenters gave him ground to suppose that ever any of them took unscriptural Impositions for such things that were neither Commanded nor Forbid by any General or Special Rule in Scripture if thus you care not upon what Sandy premises you build your Conclusion who can help it But I pray be pleased to let me tell you what we our selves mean by unscriptural Impositions They are such things the religious use whereof is imposed upon Christians in the Worship and Service of God under the penalties of depriving Ministers of their office or the exercise thereof and of depriving both them and private Christians of the liberty of enjoying Gospell Ordinances or the Priviledges of a Visible Church state by the censure of excommunication which are things that are not either Commanded or directly Forbidden in Scripture in any expresse terms for we confesse that there is not the word Surplice or sign of the Cross c. so much as named in Scripture and upon this account we allow them the name of unscriptural But we say moreover that the religious use of these things in the Worship of God and much more the impositions of them as necessary Conditions of Communion are against General Rules and Instances in the like kind dis-allowed in Scripture from whence we by deduction gather the unlawfulnesse and sinfulnesse thereof and upon this latter consideration I call them antiscriptural as being
a businesse about a Surplice and the sign of a Crosse in Baptism c. as is made among us nor is it matter of much wonder to me to see some well meaning Men yea and in other things Wise and Learned when they hear of the plausible pretexts for their institution to be perswaded into a conceit of their usefulness and why not when I find Nathan in a like case highly deceived 2 Sam. 7.8 When David acquainted him with his purpose to build a house for God saith Nathan go and do all that is in thy Heart for the Lord is with thee here was a well meant proposal and a very sudden and rash answer as appears by that sudden check that the Lord that very night put to it v. 4. and it came to passe that night that the Word of the Lord came to Nathan the Prophet saying go and tell my Servant David saying Shalt thou build me an House for me to dwell in again v. 7. Speak I a word with any of the Tribes of Israel whom I commanded to feed my People Israel saying why build ye not me an house of Cedar it is evident from hence that though both David and Nathans meaning were good yet the work designed by the one and approved by the other had it been set upon and finished had been evil because there was no word of the Lord to warrant it which is implyed in the answer God makes That we are not singular in giving this Interpretation see Pools Synopsis Critic on the place thus vade fac hoc dicit sensu humano erravit Nathan quia Deum non consuluit mirum est sum ita temerè pronunciare quia Dominus tecum est est Paralogismus a secundum quid and Simpliciter Ver. 4. In illâ nocte Deus non patitur suos diù decipi cùm videat eos Simpliciter errare v. 5. Numquid tu aedificabis qu. cur David retrahitur Judaei in Hag. 1. Arguuntur quod non aedificent Respond quod David non haberet verbum Domini Judaei autem haberent cui praecepi ut pasceret populum voluntas Davidis bona fuit placuit Deo sed in eo erravit quod non haberet verbum Dei a quo expèctare debuit Locum tempus peculiare mandatum The summe of the whole is this Davids will was good but to have done the thing willed had been evil because there was no command from God for doing it the case here is much alike peradventure the will of those that first invented the religious use of these things might be good and yet the use of them might be bad for the very same reason because they want the word of the Lord for their warrant Thus have I given you some further account why at least we suspect the Religious use of these things in Gods Service to be unlawful antecedent to any imposition If you will still call for more of our reasons I tell you they are ready and you should have them but that I fear the swelling of the book beyond the ordinary readers patience and purse but I wonder what you can say that amounts to as good reason for their lawfulness as hath been already given against their lawfulness As for that text so commonly monly urged let all things be done in decency and order it will do you little Service in such like cases as we have instanced in for the Apostle doth there speak of such a decency and order that doth arise from the Nature of things and not of such that have their result onely from the arbitrarious Fancies of Men of the former kind of order and decency the God of Nature is the Author of the other mans imagination for the undecency and disorder there reproved is such as speaking in a strange Tongue to the Church met together for edification which sometimes none understood but him that spake or else paradventure the speaking of more than one at one time which could not but breed confusion or be unprofitable or such as consisted in some Womens forwardnesse to teach and instruct the Church which consisted much of men which was contrary to that order where in God had placed that Sex in Subjection to men and therefore were very unmeet to be imployed as their instructors But what is there in these Ceremonies or in the Nature of them abstracted from mans imagination that hath any thing of this natural order and decency for whether you think it or not yet certainly it 's a very disorderly thing for a Minister to speak a Sermon of Greek or Latine to a Church that onely understand English or for many to be speaking together but lay aside Imagination and I wonder what indecency is in praying without a Surplice or Administring Baptism without the sign of the Crosse So that it 's evident these Ceremonies fell not under that kind of order and decency of which the Apostle speaks and therefore there is no warrant from that text for their Institution or their use In Truth their pretended decency is much like that decency that David imagined which was the reason of his contriving for God a house thus he reasoned shall I dwell in a house of Cedar and is it decent or comely that the Ark of God should dwell within Curtaines one would have thought his reason from decency was good but as you have heard God answered his reason and reproved his humane Judgement therein so that an argument from decency in such matters is very falacious yet again I have seen some men arguing thus if it be not lawful to use things religiously in the service of God without a warrant from the Word why then do we Religiously make use of Churches to meet in Pulpits to Preach in Communion Table to eat the Lords Supper on are not all these things Religiously used in the Worship of God or have we an expresse word for them Or why do we admit of the dividing of the Bible into Chapters and the addition of the Contents and dividing the Chapters into Verses or why do we admit of the turning Davids Psalms into Meeter and singing them in such Tunes that are made for them have we any expresse word for these I answer as to the use of Churches Pulpits Tables I confesse they are used as convenient circumstances of the Worship of God but then I say their conveniency arises from the Nature of the Acts of worship and a natural necessity of such kind of things for the performance of these Acts of worship conveniently and are not the results of mere phantasy and imagination for certainly it's more than a phantasy to say it 's convenient that when the worshippers meet together for worship they should have a capacious house to meet in to shelter them from the injuries of the weather or it 's more than bare fancy to say its convenient that the Preacher should stand above the people both to ease him of the inconveniency of
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