A Stay Against Straying, Part 2 · Section 2
SECT. 2.
THE Objections undertaken to be anſwered by the Treatiſer, are (as he layes them downe) of two ſorts: Some of them are framed upon ſuppoſition, that the Ministers in that Church are in themſelves Lawfull and of God; But yet not to be heard by reaſon of the abuſes & evils to be found in their administrations. Others with-draw herein (and thoſe the more) upon the contrarie ſuppoſition: to wit, that the very order and conſtitution of that Church and Miniſtery is papall and unlawfull.
Anſvv. For the firſt I have nothing to ſay to it. It beeing a point beſide our preſent diſpute. Againe, for my part, I am of his minde in the thing: that is, to uſe his owne expreſſion:
Suppoſing a Church, and the Miniſterie, thereof eſſentially lawfull, it cannot but be lawfull for the members of other Churches in generall union, and aſſociation, with it to communicate therewith, in things lawfull, and lawfully done: ſeeing the end of union is communion. God hath in vaine united perſons, and ſtates together. But he, who would have us receave the weake in faith, whom God hath receaved, would not have us refuſe the fallowſhip of Churches in that which is good, for any weaknes in them, of one ſort or other. And this we have ſo plainly and plentifully commended unto us, both by the Prophets, yea by Chriſt himſelfe in the Iewiſh Church; and Apostles, and Apostolicall men in the first Christian Churches; In which many errours and evils of all kindes were more then manifeſt: and the ſame ofttimes both ſo farre ſpread, and deeply rooted, as the reforming of them was rather to be wiſhed then hoped for: as that no place is left for doubting in that caſe by any, who deſire to follow their holy steps in faith towards God, and charitie towards men, and effectuall deſire of their owne edification.
What he here writes is ſurely true; for the Scriptures approve not of rending away from true Churches for any corruption: I uſe the word any, becauſe ſo long as we acknowledge the Church to be true (whatſoever her ſinnes are) a ſeparation from all communion with it, is utterly unlawfull.
Our godly Prediceſſours had in them the zeale of God, and love of his truth;*Two things I would know of theſe mē 1. Whether they thinke not that the primitive Chriſtians were as zealous and ſincere as themſelves. 2. Whether they thinke not, that the Churches from vvhome they ſeparate, have as fevv, if not fevver corruptions, then ſuch Churches had, in vvhichwhich the Apoſtles and other godly people dayly communicated. But how ſhewed they it? Not by forſaking their Brethren for offences, but in witneſſing againſt them, and ſeeking their reformation. But now (ah that I could not ſay it) ſome men know not how their zeale like Iehues may be ſeene of men, unleſſe they make publick Schiſmes in Churches; and this many times, not for any ſinne, that they can juſtly prove the Church to be in, but upon diſcontentment, and becauſe they cannot have their way and will.
But of this no more now: For I purpoſe (if God ſpare my life) to ſet forth a Treatiſe touching this very point.
The Treatiſer in pag. 23,Treat. would have us conſider distinctly of Religious actions, according to the ſeverall Rankes in which they may rightly & orderly be ſett. And how we ſhould conceive of them, a little after, he tels us thus: Some ſuch actions are Religious only, as they are performed by Religious perſons. And of this ſort is Hearing (and ſo Reading) of Gods Word. The Scriptures teach, and all confeſſe, that Hearing of the Word of God goes before Faith, for Faith comes by Hearing, as by an outward meanes. Hearing then beeing before Faith, and Faith before all other acts of Religion inward or outward; it muſt needs follow, that Hearing is not ſimply, or of it ſelfe a worke of Religion, and ſo not of Religious Communion.
Anſw. That the Reader may the better perceive, how greatly the Treat: was deceived in this matter of Hearing: as to thinke it not to be of Religious Communion: … 1 Cor. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 6. 14.I will ſpeake here a little touching the nature of Communion.Philip. 2 1. 1 Ich. 1, 3.
For the word: the Greeke koinoneo, ſignifies to have a part, or ſhare, in, or with perſons and things, anſwerable to it, is the Hebrew Chabar, and imports a conſociation, copulation, or meeting together.
Againe, Communion is three-fould; The firſt between God and Man; The ſecond between Man and Man; The third between Man and actions; For the two later, the ſame is either civill, or ſpirituall. I call that a civill Communion, when the matter or ground of it is not in, & of it ſelfe divine and ſpirituall, but earthly and temporall: For ſpirituall Communion, this is practiſed two wayes: 1. With perſons and things: 2. With things, and not perſons. Where there is a foregoing joyning of people together in a ſpirituall outward ſocietie, or body Pelitick, there is a Religious Communion with perſons and things. But where this is not, there is a Communion with things, as the State it ſelfe, and the adminiſtrations done by the power thereof. Howbeit, as I have ſaid elſe-where, they have no Church communion, that is, to ſpeake properly, they have no Communion with the perſons, who are not in Church-eſtate or union with them.
And that this is ſo, the Scriptures*1 Cor. 10, 18. not only ſhew: but alſo the deniall of it, leads unto groſſe abſurditie: For if a man communicate not, in, and with the Worſhip he doth, then it muſt follow, that he neither helpes himſelfe in performing true Worſhipp unto God, nor hurts himſelfe to doe the contrary; And ſo by this ground, it is all one whether I doe the one or other. But of this we ſhall have occaſion to ſpeake more hereafter; Now to his diſtinctions.
1. It cannot be proved, that Hearing and ſo Reading of Gods Word, are actions Religious only, as they are performed by Religious perſons.
This is not ſo: for it is not the perſon that makes the action Religious; The reaſon is, if the action in it ſelfe be Religious, it muſt then be reputed a Religious action, be the dore Religious or not.
That no man may miſtake me, let it here be obſerved, that actions are Religious, either in reſpect of the matter alone, or the matter and manner too. I confeſſe, it by a Religious action, we underſtand the later, that is, a thing well done for matter and manner, in this ſence, none but Religious perſons can performe Religious actions.
But if by a Religious action, we meane the thing it ſelfe, and as (eo nomine) it is to be diſtinguiſhed, from what is, civill, naturall, worldly; then I ſay againe, it is a Religious action (and of this ſort is Hearing and ſo Reading of Gods Word) howbeit performed by irreligious people.
2. Whereas he ſaith, that Faith goes before all other asts of Religion inward or outward.
This alſo is untrue: For men wanting faith (witneſſe Kaan, Ahab, Saul, Iudas) may yet performe acts of Religion. The Scriptures here cited‡1 Timo. 1, 5. are (extra organum) not to the point; For they doe not ſay,Rom. 10, 10. that Faith goes before all acts of Religion; But thus, without faith, we cannot pleaſe God by them. So then, note the difference between the Scriptures, and what he inferreth from them.Gal. 2, 20.
Without faith all acts of Religion are without acceptation with God; So theſe Scriptures; Ergo (ſaith he) faith goes before all acts of Religion.
To his miſ-applying here, J may well apply that in the Poet: Ego de alijs loquor,Lucan: tu respondere decepis.
3. Here is made true the ſaying in the Poet.aFallacia alia aliam tradit. One falſehood or ſuttlety bringeth in another. Teren. in Andr.His needs muſt follow, followes not, but it is an unſound inference from a falſe principle. Hearing the Word of God, is more (though he deny it) then a naturall action. viz. Religious and Spirituall; He reaſoneth a ſpecie ad genus negative: becauſe Hearing in ſome caſes is ſo, therefore it is ſo in all.
If it be his meaning, that Hearing is a naturall action, as it reſpects the Organ or meanes, in, and by which a man receives the knowledge of what he heares. Then it is true, according to that rule in Philoſophie bRelata eſse ſimul naturâ., Relations in nature are alike. But this is nothing to the purpoſe.Ariſt. in Categ. Relat.
He that eates and drinkes bread and wine at the Lords Table; or ſpeakes to God in prayer; performes naturall actions, I meane as the members of the bodie are here uſed: But if wee conſider either the Sacrament or Prayer in the ſubject or object thereof, ſo they are not naturall actions, but religious, and the like is Hearing of the Word of God.
For his two reaſons, they are of no weight; For 1. though the light of nature teacheth a man to liſten to another, yet this proves not, that it teacheth him to Heare in the way and manner here pleaded for.
2. Were it granted it did: yet might the action be Religious; For the light of nature cRom. 1. 20, 21. Epictetus a Stoick writeth thus: It is before all things to be learned that there is but one God; that he ruleth all things; that he provideth for all; that whatſoever vve doe, ſpeake, or thinke, nothing can be hid from him; that vve ſhould vvorſhip him as our Creator and Father, and the only authour of our felicity. Epictus apud Arrian., leadeth us to ſundry divine duties, howbeit inſufficient to guide us in the right manner of dooing them.
3. I grant, a meere naturall man ought neceſsarily to heare Gods Word; Notwithſtanding it will not follow, when he heares in a Church-way, that he performes no Religious action. This is as if one ſhould ſay, becauſe a rebel is no good ſubject, he cannot doe any civil ſervice to his Prince; I ſpeake not of the ayme of his heart, but only of a formall dooing.
That which the Treatiſer unjuſtly layes as a fault on Mr. Iohnſon in pag. 23. is moſt true of himſelfe in pag. 26, 27. to witt, a want of distinction betweene things. It is ſo as hee ſaith, Preaching by ſome, and Hearing by others, may be performed without any Religious Communion paſſing betweene the perſons preaching or hearing.
This I ſay is right, but that which afterwards he makes one with it, is different and otherwiſe; namely, that a man may heare a Miniſter teach officially, and yet not have communion with the ſtate of the Teacher.
I may apply here againſt him, that in the civill Law, teſtes dome ſtici houſehould witneſſes are of no validitie. This is but his owne ſaying, ſaid over many times, and indeed argueth more witt then truth, and ſopheſtry then ſincerity.
Scholers are taught out of the Topicks, that it is ill arguing a conſequenti, when in two poſitions things utterly unlike, ſhalbe compared together, and the one by no meanes can inferre the other.
I have proved before, that howſoever a man ſtand not in ſpirituall and politicall church communion with a Church and miniſtery thereof, yet he is there a participant or communicant in, and with the ordinances, as with the doctrines taught, ſo with the ſtate of the Teacher.
For the better clearing of this; Let vsus in few words conſider, a Church ſtate, Miniſtery, and adminiſtrations, make vp (as I may ſo ſay) the body of divine worſhip. Now it is a knowne Maxime quidquid est pars partis, est etiam pars t…tius. The hand is a part of the body, the finger a part of the hand, he therefore that holds either my hand or finger toucheth my body. So in iuſt proportion, hee that toucheth any part or member of the ſpiritual & politicall body, hee toucheth the body or ſtate, bee the ſame true or falſe: if true, his communion is lawfull: if falſe, he toucheth an uncheane thing, and …o… ſinneth againſt that precept in 1. Cor. 6. 17.
To end this Section howſoever hearing of the word of God, lies in common for all, for the good of all. Yet hath God appointed away and order vntounto all, how to heare it. Food and rayment lies in common to all, for the good of all: What of this, ſhall wee hence conclude it is noe matter by what meanes or courſe men have it; indeed ſo he reaſoneth or elſe (Oleum et operam perdidit) he ſpeaketh neither for himſelfe nor againſt vsus. Mr. BainesfDioceſen. triall. p. 7. writes well, no people can worſhip God in repairing to any Church, or ministery without warrant of his word. Let the reader note it.