Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

reverend author, he wrangles about terms and expressions, adding to, and altering those by me used in this business, at his pleasure, to make a talk to no purpose. The sum of what he pretends to oppose is, that this universal church, or the universality of professors, considered as such, neither formally as members of the church catholic, mystically elect, nor as any members of any particular church, have not as such, any church form of the institution of Christ, by virtue whereof they should make up one instituted church, for the end and purpose of the celebration of the ordinances of the gospel therein. If he suppose he can prove the contrary, let him cease from cavilling at words, and by expressions, which is a facile task for any man to engage in, and no way useful, but to make controversies endless, and answer my reasons against it, which here he passeth over, and produce his testimonies and arguments for that purpose. This trivial ventilation of particular passages cut off from their influence into the whole, is not worth a nut-shell, but is a business fit for them who have nothing else to employ themselves about.

Coming to consider the union that I assign to this church, after whose breach an inquiry is to be made, which is the main, and only thing of his concernment, as to the aim he hath proposed to himself, hé passeth it over very slightly, taking no notice at all of my whole discourse, from p. 116. to p. 133. [pp. 169-178.] of my treatise, wherein I disprove the pretensions of other things to be the union, or bond of union to this church; he fixes a very little while on what I assign to be that union. This, I say, 'is profession of the faith of the gospel, and subjection to Jesus Christ according to it:' to which he adds, that they are bound to more than this, viz. 'to the exercise of the same specifical ordinances, as also to love one another, to subjection to the same discipline, and where it is possible, to the exercise of the same numerical worship.' All this was expressly affirmed by me before; it is all virtually contained in their profession, so far as the things mentioned are revealed in the gospel: only as to the celebrating of the same numerical ordinances, I cannot grant that they are obliged hereunto as formally considered members of that church, nor shall, until our reverend author shall think meet to prove, that particular congregations are

not the institutions of Jesus Christ. But hereupon he affirms, that that is a strange assertion used by me, p. 117. namely, 'That if there be not an institution of joining in the same numerical ordinances, the union of this church is not really a church union.' This is no more but what was declared before, nor more than what I urged the testimony of a learned Presbyterian for: no more but this, that the universality of Christians throughout the world, are not under such an institution as that, to assemble together for the celebration of the same numerical ordinances; the pretence of any such institution being supplied by Christ's acknowleged institution of particular churches for that purpose.

What I have offered in my treatise, as evidence that Protestants are not guilty of the breach of this union, and that where any are, their crime is not schism but apostacy, either as to profession or conversation, I leave to the judgment of all candid, sober, and ingenuous readers; for such as love strife, and debates, and disputes, whereof the world is full, I would crave of them, that if they must choose me for their adversary, they would allow me to answer in person, 'viva voce,' to prevent this tedious trouble of writing, which for the most part is fruitless and needless. Some exceptions our author lies in, against the properties of the profession by me required, as necessary to the preservation of this union as to the first, of professing all necessary saving truths of the gospel, he excepts that the apostles were ignorant of many necessary truths of the gospel for a season, and some had never heard of the Holy Ghost, Acts xxix. and yet they kept the union of the catholic church. And yet our author, before he closeth this chapter, will charge the breach of this union on some, whose errors cannot well be apprehended to lie in the denial of any necessary truth of the gospel, that is indispensably necessary to salvation. As to his instance of the apostles, he knows it is one thing not to know clearly and distinctly for some season, some truths 'in hypothesi,' and another to deny them being sufficiently and clearly revealed in thesi;' and for those in the Acts, it is probable they were ignorant of the dispensations of the Holy Ghost, with his marvellous effects under the gospel, rather than of the person of the Holy Ghost: for even, in respect of the former, it is absolutely said that the Holy Ghost was

not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.' I shall not pursue his other exceptions, being sorry that his judgment leads him to make them; that which alone bears any aspect to the business in hand, he insists on, p. 99. in these words: 'I have intimated and partly proved, that there may be a breach of union, with respect to the catholic church, upon other considerations' (namely, besides the renunciation of the profession of the gospel), 'as first, There is a bond that obliges every member of this church to join together in exercising the same ordinances of worship: when then any man shall refuse to join with others, or refuse others to join. with him, here is a branch of love and union among the members of the catholic church, and in the particular churches as parts of the catholic.'

The reader must pardon me for producing and insisting on these things, seeing I do it with this profession, that I can fix on nothing else so much to the purpose in hand; and yet how little these are so, cannot but be evident upon a slight view to the meanest capacities. For, 1. he tells us there may be a breach of union, with respect to the catholic church, on other considerations; not that there may be a breach of the union of the catholic church. 2. That there is a bond binding men to the exercise of ordinances; so there is, binding man to all holiness; and yet he denies the vilest profane persons to break that bond or this union. 3. That there may be a breach of union among the members of the church; but who knows it not, that knows all members of particular churches, are also members of this church general. Our inquiry is after the union of the catholic church visible, what it is, how broken, and what the crime or evil is whereby it is broken, what obligations lie on the members of that church, as they stand under any other formal considerations; what is the evil they are any of them guilty of, in not answering these obligations, we were not at all inquiring, nor doth it in this place concern us so to do. And in what he afterward tells us, of some proceedings contrary to the practice of the universal church, he intends, I suppose, all the churches in the world, wherein the members of the universal church have walked or do so; for the universal church, as such, hath no practice as to celebration of ordinances; and if he suppose it hath, let him tell us what it is,

and when that practice was. His appeal to the primitive believers, and their small number will not avail him: for although they should be granted to be the then catholic visible church (against which he knows what exceptions may be laid from the believers amongst the Jews, such as Cornelius, to whom Christ had not as yet been preached, as the Messiah come, and exhibited), yet as such, they joined not in the celebration of ordinances, but (as yet they were) as a particular congregation; yea, though all the apostles were amongst them, the foundation of all the churches that afterward were called.

[ocr errors]

He concludes this chapter with an exception to my assertion, that if the catholic church be a political body it must have a visible political head, which nothing but the pope claims to be.' Of this he says, 1. There is no necessity; for,' saith he, 'he confesses the commonwealth of the Jews was a political body, and God, who, is invisible, was their political head. 2. Jesus Christ is a visible head, yea, sometimes more, 'visus,' seen of men whilst on earth, though now for a time in majesty (as some great princes do), he hath withdrawn himself from the sight of men on earth, yet is he seen of angels and saints in heaven.' Ans. 1. I confess God was the King and Ruler of the Jews, but yet that they might be a visible political body, the invisible God appointed to them, under him, a visible head; as the pope blasphemously pretends to be appointed under Jesus Christ. 2. Jesus Christ is in his human nature still visible; as to his person, wherein he is the head of his church, he ever was, and is still invisible. His present absence, is not upon the account of majesty, seeing in his majesty he is still present with us; and as to his bodily absence he gives other accounts, than that here insinuated. Now it sufficeth not to constitute a visible political body, that the head of it, in any respect may be seen, unless as that their head he is seen. Christ is visible, as this church is visible; he in his laws, in his word, that in its profession, in its obedience. But I marvel that our reverend author, thus concluding for Christ to be the political head of this church, as a church, should at the same time contend for such subjects of this head as he doth, p. 96. namely, persons 'contradicting their profession of the knowledge of God, by a course of wicked

ness, manifesting principles of profaneness, wherewith the belief of the truth they profess hath an absolute inconsistency;' as I expressly describe the persons, whose membership in this church, and relation thereby to Christ their head, he pleads for. Are indeed these persons any better than Mahometans, as to church privileges? they are indeed, in some places, as to providential advantages of hearing the word preached; but woe unto them on that account; it shall be more tolerable for Mahometans in that day of Christ, than for them: shall their baptism avail them? though it were valid in its admistration, that is, was celebrated in obedience to the command of Christ, is it not null to them? is not their circumcision uncircumcision? shall such persons give their children any right to church privileges? let them, if you please, be so subject to Christ, as rebels and traitors are subject to their earthly princes: they ought, indeed, to be so, but are they so? do they own their authority? are they obedient to them? do they enjoy any privilege of laws? or doth the apostle any where call such persons as live in a course of wickedness, manifesting principles utterly inconsistent with the profession of the gospel, brethren? God forbid we should once imagine these things so to be! And so much for that chapter,

CHAP. VIII.

Of Independentism and Donatism.

THE title of our author's book is, Independency a great Schism of this chapter, that it may be the better known what kind of schism it is, Independentism is Donatism. Men may give what title they please to their books and chapters, though perhaps few books make good their titles. I am sure this doth not as yet, nisi accusasse sufficiat.' Attempts of proof we have not as yet met withal: what this chapter will furnish us withal, we shall now consider. He indeed that shall weigh the title, Independentism is Donatism, and then casting his eye upon the first lines of the chapter itself, find that the reverend author says, he cannot

« VorigeDoorgaan »