A Dissuasive from the Errors of the time, Chapter 7

A Dissuasive from the Errors of the time · Chapter 7

p. 154CHAP. VII. It is unjuſt ſcrupuloſity to require ſatisfaction of the true grace of every Church-Member.

The Independents prime principles.HAving ſet down the Proceedings and Tenets of the Browniſts and Independents, ſo farre as my ſlender reading of ſome of their writings and obſervation of their wayes have brought to my memory at this time: Before I leave them, it will not bee unfit to examine the truth of their chiefe principles whereby they have diſturb'd the Church, and will continue ſo to doe untill they p. 155have changed their minde. For ſhortneſſe, I will pitch but upon foure grounds which the Independents have learned in the Browniſts ſchoole: The firſt, concerning the members of a Congregation; The next three concerning their power. We will firſt conſider whither the members of every particular Church bee obliged at their firſt admiſſion to ſhew to the whole Congregation convincing ſigns of their Regeneration and true grace. Secondly, whether the people of a Congregation have a power of voycing in every Eccleſiaſtick affaire. Thirdly, whether the power of the Congregation be abſolute and Independent? Fourthly, whither every man who hath a gift though not an office, hath power to preach and propheſie publickly.

The firſt queſtion is of the greareſt importance:Their Tenet about the qualification of members, is the great cauſe of their ſeparating from all the Reformed Churches though they doe deſſemble it. The Independents would gladly diſſemble their minde therein; to this day they have declined all ſolemn debate upon it, they ſpeak as if they were either fully or very neere accorded with us, profeſſing their utter diſlike of the Browniſts unreaſonableneſſe herein; but I profeſſe this hath alwayes ſeemed to me their capitall and fundamentall difference, the only cauſe of their ſeparation from us, and wherein if wee could either agree or accommodate, there would be a faire poſſibility of accord in all things elſe, at leaſt ſo farre as to be united in one and the ſame Church; but this difference is the great partition wall, which ſo long as it ſtands, will force them to continue their intolerable practice of ſeparating from all the Reformed Churches in the world, and that for fewer and more unjuſt cauſes then any who ever did carry the name of a Separatiſt, to this day did pretend. This ſeemes to bee the reaſon why both Apollonius and Spanheim very excellent Divines, have begun their diſpute with this queſtion.

For the ſtating of the controverſie, conſider how it ſtands betwixt us and the Independents at this time; the Browniſts for their ſeparation were wont to alledge the impurity of our worſhip, the corruption of our Government, the open prophaneſſe of the moſt in our Congregations. By the mercy of God, the firſt is fully Reformed, at leaſt ſo farre according to the minde of our brethren, that they have entred no diſſenting vote to any one paſſage of the Directory for worſhip: The Government alſo is ſo farre cleared in the Aſſemblie, that they have entered their p. 156diſſent from no part of it, except that alone which concerns the Iuriſdiction of Presbyteries and Synods; and their diſſent herein, might and ſtill may well be ſo carried as not to occaſion any breach.

In this they goe beyond the Browniſts.But the third is the great cauſe of diviſion, wherein they much out-runne the Browniſts; for they did never offer to ſeparate upon this ground alone; and the matter whereupon here they ſtumbled, was only open profaneneſſe and that incorrigible, either through want of power or want of care to remedy it. If the profaneneſſe was not open and viſible, or if the Church had her full power to execute diſcipline, and according to her power made conſcience really to cenſure ſcandalls: Theſe things as I conceive, would have abundantly ſatisfied the Browniſts, and cured their ſeparation.

The true ſtate of the queſtion is whether it be neceſſary to ſeparate from a Church, wherein wee get no ſatisfaction of the true grace of every Member at their firſt admiſſion.But the Independents now doe draw them up much higher then they were wont to ſtand; They teach them to ſtumble not only at open profaneneſſe, but at the want of true grace; yea, at the want of convincing ſignes of Regeneration: They teach them to require not only a power and care in the Church to cenſure ſuch profaneneſſe, but alſo a power in every member of the Church to keep out all others with whom they are not ſatisfied in the truth of their grace; So the queſtion is not as uſually it is made, of the quality of the members of the Church, but of the neceſſity to ſeparate from that Church wherein we are not ſatisfied by convincing ſigns of the true faith and grace of every member at their firſt admiſſion. Wee grant it is earneſtly to be wiſhed, and all lawfull meanes would diligently bee uſed both by Paſtors and people, to have all the members of a Church moſt holy and gratious, and what ever lawfull overture our Brethren can invent for this end, we with all our heart will embrace it, or elſe be content to beare much blame; We grant alſo, that it is the duty of Church-Governours to keep off every ſcandalous perſon from profaning to their own damnation the holy things of the Lord; and that it is the duty of theſe Governours not only to ſuſpend from the holy Table all ſcandalous perſons but farther to caſt all ſuch out of the Church without reſpect of perſons in the caſe of obſtinacy, when by no meanes they can bee brought to ſatisfactory repentance; we grant alſo, that Church-Governours deficient in theſe duties, ought themſelves to be diſciplined by the rod of Church-Cenſures; theſe things were never controverted. But the queſtion p. 157is, whether becauſe of the admiſſion of ſome to Church-memberſhip who have not given ſatisfaction to every member of the Church in the point of their reall Regeneration, a Church may lawfully be ſeparated from, as vitiouſly conſtitute, for that eſſentiall defect in its very matter?

Our Brethrens conſtant and reſolute practice albeit gilded over with many faire words, maketh this to be the cleare ſtate of the queſtion, againſt which I reaſon thus:

Firſt,For the Negative, we reaſon firſt from the practice of Moſes & the Prophets, who did never offer to ſeparate for any ſuch reaſon. What to Moſes and the Prophets was not a ſufficient cauſe of ſeparation from the Churches of their time, is not a ſufficent cauſe for us to ſeparate from the Churches in our times. But, want of ſatisfaction by convincing ſignes of the true grace of many members of the Church, was not a ſufficient cauſe for Moſes and the Prophets to ſeparate in their times. Ergo: The minor is cleare and uncontroverted; for Moſes and the Prophets were ſo farre from ſeparating from the Churches of their dayes for want of aſſurance of the true grace of every perſon in theſe Churches that they remained ſtill to their dying day in the boſome of theſe Churches, comumnicating with them in the Word, Prayer, Sacraments and Sacrifices, though they were aſſured of the evident wickedneſſe of the moſt of their fellow-members. Moſes knew the Body of Iſrael to bee a crooked and perverſe generation: Iſaiah tells the Iewes that they were another Sodom; Ieremy ſheweth that Iſrael in his dayes was uncircumciſed in heart, no better then Moab, Ammon, or Edom; Micah, that the godly in his time were very rare as the ſummer fruits, as the grapes after the Vintage; of this truth all the Prophets are full; yet for all this, none of the Prophets did ever think of a ſeparation.

All the difficulty then is in the major, which thus we prove:The cauſes of a juſt ſeparation were ſmaller under the Law, nor under the Goſpel. The Church in the dayes of Moſes and the Prophets, was one and the ſame with the Church of our dayes: The Houſe of God, the body of Chriſt, the Elect and redeemed people, the holy Nation, the peculiar treaſure and ſpouſe of the Lamb: The difference of the true Church in any age is at moſt but in accidentall circumſtances, and not in any eſſentials: ſo what ever morall evill doth defile the Church now, and is a juſt cauſe of ejection or ſeparation, that muſt be ſo at all times, eſpecially, under the old Teſtament, where all the Ceremoniall differences that are alledged betwixt the p. 158Church then and now, make for the ſtrengthning of the Argument; for then the cauſes of ſeparation were ſtricter and ſmaller; a little Ceremoniall pollution would then have kept out of the ſanctuary; much more a morall uncleanneſſe would have made the ſacrifice abominable. If therefore at that time the matter in hand was no cauſe of ſeparating from the Church, much leſſe can it be ſo now, when God hath given a greater liberty to the Church in her majority, and when Chriſtians are not ſo eaſily infected by their neighbours ſinnes as of old in the dayes of the Churches infancy they were; Idolatry, falſe doctrine, open profaneneſſe, were then moſt abominable, and more terribly puniſhed then now, by the totall deſtruction of whole Cities and Countries wherein they were entertained; alſo the duty of mutuall inſpection and admonition, the contempt whereof is made the grand cauſe of ſeparation, was moſt clearly enjoyned in the Old Teſtament.

The weakneſſe of their Reply.What here is replyed, that all ſeparation from the Iewiſh Church was ſimply impoſſible, becauſe then there was no other Church in the whole earth to goe to: We anſwer, that the Replyers themſelves will ſay that a ſeparation muſt be where there is juſt cauſe, and where a perſon cannot abide without pollution and ſin, although there be no other Church for him to go to; for they make it better for men to live alone ſeparate from all, then to abide in any Church where they cannot live without the participation of their neighbours ſinnes. We anſwer further, That it was eaſie for the godly under the Law to have joyned together in the ſervice of God, and to have excluded the wicked thence; and whereas it is ſaid that this could not bee done, becauſe the Cenſure of Excommunication was not then in being; We anſwer, the Goſpel makes it cleare; That caſting out of the Synagogue which was reall Excommunication,Our ſecond reaſon, is from the example of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, who did not ſeparate for any ſuch cauſes. was frequent in the Old Teſtament; as alſo the keeping off from the ſervice with a great deale of circumſpection all who were unfit by any legall pollution, much more by any known morall uncleanneſſe; Kings themſelves when polluted, were removed from the Altar and put out of the Sanctuary.

Again, I reaſon thus; That which moved not Chriſt and his Apoſtles to ſeparate from the Church of their time, is no cauſe to us of ſeparation; but, want of ſatisfaction by convincing ſignes of the p. 159true grace of every member of the Church, was to them no cauſe of ſeparation from the Churches of their times, Ergo.

The major is cleare, except we deſire a better pattern for our practices then Chriſt and his Apoſtles; what ever carrieth us beyond their line, muſt be high preſumption and deep hypocriſie.

The minor is cleare, by many Scriptures; the Scribes and Phariſees were a generation of vipers; Ieruſalem worſe then Sodom and Gomorrah; Coraſin and Bethſaida was worſe then Tyrus and Sidon, and to be caſt lower in Hell then theſe: yet the Lord did not give over to preach, to pray, to go to the Temple with them. Iudas when a declared Traytor, did not ſcarre him, nor any of his company from the Sacrament. After he went from the Table, when his wickedneſſe was revealed that a Devill was in him; yet none of the Apoſtles offered to caſt themſelves out of the body becauſe this wicked member was not cut off. Many members of the Apoſtolick Churches were ſo farre from convincing ſignes of true grace, that the works of the fleſh were moſt evident in their life. In the Corinthians, fundamentall errours, open Idolaty, grievous ſcandall, bitter contentions, profanation of the Lords Table. In the Galatians, ſuch errours as deſtroyed grace, and made Chriſt of none effect. In the Church of Epheſus, of Laodicea, and the other golden Candleſticks, divers members were ſo evidently faulty, that the Candleſtick is threatned to be removed; yet from none of theſe Churches did any of the Apoſtles ever ſeparate, nor gave they the leaſt warrant to any of their Diſciples to make a ſeparation from any of them.

A third Argument. The want of that which never was to bee found in any Church, is no juſt cauſe of ſeparation:The third reaſon; it is impoſſible to find true grace in every member of any viſible Church that ever was or ſhall be in the world. But ſatisfaction by convincing Arguments of the true grace of every member, was never to be found in any Church.

The major is unqueſtionable for what is not, cannot have any operation; non entis nulla ſunt accidentia.

The minor is demonſtrable; from the nature of a viſible Church, it is ſuch a body whoſe members are never all gracious, if we believe Scripture; It is not like the Church inviſible, the Church of the Elect. It is an heterogeneous body, the parts of it are very diſſimilar, ſome chaffe, ſome corne, ſome wheat, ſome tares; a net of fiſhes good and bad; a houſe wherein are veſſels of honour p. 160and diſhonour, a fold of ſheep and goats, a tree of green and withered branches, a table of gueſts, ſome with, ſome without a wedding garment; in a word, every viſible Church is a ſociety wherein many are called, few choſen; except therefore we will alter the nature of all viſible Churches whereof Scripture ſpeaks, we muſt grant that in every Church there are ſome members which have no true grace; and if ſo, how can they give convincing and ſatisfactory ſignes of that which is not to be found. Hypocrites may make a ſhew without, of that which is not within; but ſhall we lay an obligation upon every hypocriticall member of a Church to be ſo eminently skilfull in the art of counterfeiting as to produce in the midſt of his graceleſneſſe, ſo cleare, ſo evident and ſatisfactory ſignes of his true grace, as may convince the hearts of every one of the Church that the thing is within the mans breaſt which certainly is not there?

The fourth, this ſatisfaction in the true grace of all to be admitted, is builded on foure errours, firſt that the power of Eccleſiaſtick Iuriſdiction is in the hand of every one of the people.The fourth Argument, The want of that which cannot reaſonably be ſuppoſed of every member of a Congregation, is no juſt cauſe of ſeparation from any Church; but ſatisfaction &c. Ergo.

The major is cleare; for if the want of ſuch ſatisfaction be a juſt cauſe of ſeparation from the Church; Then the preſence of ſuch a ſatisfaction is very requiſite to be in every member, as a neceſſary meane to keep it in union with that Church.

The minor, that ſuch a ſatisfaction may not juſtly be ſuppoſed in every member of a Congregation; for this would import theſe foure things, all which are unreaſonable. Firſt, that every member of a Congregation is to have power to try all its fellow-members, to let them in or hold them out, according as in this triall he is ſatisfied: This is a large limb of the Browniſtick Anarchy, putting the key of Authority and Iuriſdiction into the hand of every Church-member; if all the Independents will defend this, let them ſpeak it out plainly.

Secondly, that one man may attaine to the certain knowledge of the true grace in the heart of another.Secondly, it requires a great deale of more ability in every member of every Church, then can be found in any mortall man: for not to ſpeak of the impoſſibility of a grounded and certaine perſwaſion of true grace in the heart of an Hypocrite, who hath no grace at all: how is it poſſible to attaine unto any grounded certainty of true grace in the heart of any other man? for the hid man of the heart, and the new name, are not certainly known to p. 161any but to ſuch as have them. The grounds of a mans own certain perſwaſion, the act of his faith either direct or reflex, the witneſſe of his conſcience, or the ſeale of the ſpirit, cannot go without his own breaſt: all the demonſtrations which can be made to another, are ſo oft found falſe, that in underſtanding men they can breed at moſt but a fallible opinion or a charitable hope, which is farre from any certainty either of ſenſe or ſcience, much more of faith or immediate revelation.

Thirdly, it layeth a burthen unſupportable to the ſtrongeſt,Thirdly, that it is a duty of every member of a Church to ſeek and finde ſatisfaction in the true grace of all his fellow-members. upon the conſcience of every weak one; they muſt ever be in perplexity and doubt what to do, whether to ſtay in the Church, or under the pain of ſin to ſeparate from it till they have accurately examined, and after all needfull triall attained to a full ſatisfaction and aſſurance of minde of the regeneration of every member, were they never ſo many of that Church whereunto he belongeth: The burden of ſuch a task might break the back of the ſtrongeſt Paſtor, much more of a ſilly Lamb.

Fourthly,Fourthly, that all the Reformed Churches muſt once bee diſſolved and unchurched, that they may bee reformed according to the new mould of the Independents. this preſuppoſeth that all Congregations muſt of new be gathered, and all their members admitted of new, which none may grant who minds not for the Independents pleaſure at once to diſſolve all the Reformed Churches, and to avow that every perſon though born in the true Church, within the Covenant of grace ſealed in Baptiſm with the ſeale of God, religiouſly educated in the feare and knowledge of God, is notwithſtanding without the Church, and no member of the body of Chriſt, till he be admitted to the Lords Supper. Ordinarily in all Chiſtendom perſons are actuall members of the Church wherein they were borne of faithfull parents, baptiſed and Chriſtianly educated, before they be admitted to the holy Table. The caſe and queſtion of admitting members by a Congregation after all are convinced of the true grace of him who craveth memberſhip among them, is but a new, raſh, unjuſt caſe of the Independents, which will inferre the gathering of new Churches, the diſſolution of all our old ones, and lay a high royall ſtreet for Anabaptiſm, excluding all our baptiſed children from Church-memberſhip till they give perſonall ſatisfaction of their true grace, and enter into a formall expreſſe Covenant.The fifth argument. Their Tenet is followed with divers abſurdities.

I adde but one other reaſon; No reall abſurdity doth follow upon any divine truth▪ but divers reall abſurdities follow neceſſarily upon p. 162the ground of Separation in hand. Ergo, the ground of Separation in hand is no divine truth, but an evill errour.

The major no man controverts; for every true conſequent is a ſtream that flowes out of the antecedent as its fountaine; as the fountain is bitter or ſweet, ſo are the ſtreams; from a true antecedent a falſe conſequent by no force can be extorted; if the conſequent be rotten, it is a ſure ſign the antecedent is not ſound.

As firſt, it is neceſſary to ſeparate from all Churches that are this day in the world, except it be from theſe of the Independents.The abſurd conſequents I name for the proofe of the minor, are, Firſt, That then it ſhall be neceſſary to ſeparate from all the Churches that are this day in the world, except alone from theſe of the Independent way; for no other Church doth ſo much as intend or aſſay to give aſſurance to every one of their members of the true grace of all the reſt; but on the contrary they teach ſuch an endeavour to be both impoſſible and unreaſonable. The abſurdity of the conſequent is ſo cleare, that I purſue it no farther then to this Dilemma; If it be neceſſary to ſeparate from all the Churches of the world but the Independents; Then, all other Churches but theirs are falſe, or elſe it is lawfull to ſeparate from Churches that are true; but, neither of theſe will ſound well in a Proteſtant eare.

Secondly, it was neceſſary to ſeparate from all Churches that ever have been.The ſecond abſurd conſequent, That then it was neceſſary to ſeparate from all other Churches that have been in any former time; for not one of them ever, no not the greateſt Schiſmaticks, the Novatians, the Donatiſts themſelves did ever minde that every one of their members ſhould ſo narrowly examine all their fellows, as to come to a certain perſwaſion of their reall regeneration.

Thirdly, there can be no reſt for any till they turne ſeekers, and leave all ſocieties that are called Churches.The third conſequent, That then to the worlds end no Church anywhere can have any ſolid foundation; for this principle is a mountain of quick-ſilver that reſts not till all the Churches builded upon it be quite overthrown. The conviction of every members conſcience of the true faith and grace of all their fellow-members, is ſo ſandy a foundation, that nothing builded upon it can ſtand. What elſe hath broken in halfes, and quarters, and demi-quarters theſe ſeparate Societies? What made them of Amſterdam firſt break off from England, then from Holland, and all the Reformed, then among themſelves once and the ſecond time? What made Smith at Leyden, after he had fallen off from England, next to leave the Browniſts, and after the Anabaptiſts, till at laſt he broke off from all Chriſtians to the Arrian hereſie? What elſe p. 163doth drive many of Old and of New-England, when they have run about the whole circle of the Sects, at laſt to break out into the neweſt way of the Seekers, and once for all to leap out of all Churches, betaking themſelves to their devotions apart: here indeed it is, and no where elſe, where they come to a poſſibility of ſatisfaction of the inward eſtate of theſe in their way, that is of themſelves alone. This is the reward of preſumptuous errour; it cannot reſt when it hath led the ſeduced ſoule about the whole round of the fancies of the time, till at laſt it throw it out of all that is called or ſo much as pretended to be a Church.

The reaſons alledged for the oppoſite Tenet,Cottons reaſons to the contrary are anſwered. may be ſeen in the Browniſts Apology, alſo in Robinſons Iuſtification, in Cans neceſſity of Separation, in Barrows Diſcovery; but for ſhortneſſe we will only conſider what is brought by Mr Cotton in his Way of the Churches; for there, the beſt of the Browniſts arguments are brought in the greateſt luſtre and ſtrength which Mr Cotton thought meet to put upon them. Alſo what there is brought by Mr Cotton, is acknowledged by our Brethren as their judgement, without the haeſitation of any marginall aſterisk, which when they diſſent or doubt, they profeſſe to affix to ſome other paſſages of that book.

The beſt form I can ſet on his firſt argument, is this;His firſt reaſon put in form. If every member of each Church is not only in profeſſion, but in ſincerity and truth to be a Saint and faithfull; then, the Officers and body of each Church muſt take triall, and be ſatisfied of the true faith and ſanctification of every perſon before they receive him into the Church; but, every member of each Church is not only in profeſſion, but in ſincerity and truth to be a Saint and faithfull; Ergo, the Officers and body of each Church muſt take triall, and be ſatisfied of the true faith and ſanctification of every perſon before they receive him into the Church. All the proofe is beſtowed upon the minor from theſe Scriptures which make all the members of the Church to bee Saints by calling, and faithfull Brethren: the Church it ſelfe to be the body of Chriſt, the Temple of the holy Ghoſt, the ſpouſe of Chriſt, the ſons and daughters and children of God.

We anſwer that no part of this argument is ſound. The major,All the parts of it are vitious▪ the concluſion proves not the queſtion. minor, and concluſion are vitious. Firſt, the concluſion commeth not neare the queſtion; for were it granted, it concludes no more p. 164but a duty of the Church-officers and members to try and be ſatiſfied about the ſtate of theſe who are to bee received into the Church, but it hath no word of an other duty which is the point in queſtion: It ſpeaks nothing of a neceſſity to ſeparate from a Church upon the neglect of the former duty; this alone is the ſtate of the preſent controverſie, which neither is expreſſed nor by any conſequence doth follow from any thing that is expreſſed in this concluſion: for ſuppoſe it were a duty laid by God upon every Church-Officer and member, to enquire accurately after the Faith and Sanctification of all to be received among them, and to expect ſatisfaction in their tryall; yet I hope that every neglect of duty in the Church-Officers, much leſſe in every Church-member, and leaſt of all the want of ſucceſſe of a duty truly performed, will not be found a juſt and neceſſary cauſe for every one to ſeparate from a Church; if all this be not experſly concluded, this arrow miſſeth the marke.

It ſtands upon a chief ground of Anabaptiſm, and preſuppoſes the nullity of all the Reformed Churches.Secondly, That which is expreſſed in the concluſion, pitcheth only upon one particular caſe, which the Reformed Churches neither do nor may acknowledge; for it ſpeaks only of admiſſion of members upon their confeſſion of ſins. This fits well the practice of the Browniſts, who ſuppoſe a neceſſity to diſſolve the Reformed Churches that now are as vitiouſly conſtituted from their firſt beginning. They may ſeeme to have reaſon in their gathering of new Churches, to put their members to tryall before admiſſion; but the Reformed Churches who take themſelves to be ſo farre true, that they need no diſſolution or new erection, are not concerned in this caſe of admiſſion; for their members were borne in the Church, and had the Covenant ſealed to them in Baptiſme; what tryall they take of their children when they admit them to the Lords Table, is no wayes for their admiſſion to be members; for this practice is a maine pillar of Anabaptiſme; and our brethrens engagement therein, is the ground of all their ſympathy and ſymboliſing with that Sect: So then the concluſion commeth ſhort of the queſtion, and toucheth not the Reformed Churches, but is builded on the pillars of rigid Separation and Anabaptiſme, taking that for granted which no Reformed Church may admit, but upon hard termes; no milder then the nullity and diſſolution of all their Churches: that out of the rubbiſh, a new building p. 165may bee erected after the Separatiſts patterne.

The major alſo is vitious;The major is many wayes vitious. for ſuppoſe the antecedent of it were true, yet there is no force therein to inferre the conſequent; be it ſo, that every Church-member ought to be ſo holy as you will; yet, can this inferre the peoples power to try that holineſſe which is the one halfe of the conſequent? Such a power in the people would make every one of them a Church-Governour, which none of the Reformed Churches, nor the halfe of the Separatiſts themſelves will admit; and they who doe plead for it, ſet it upon other pillars but no man I know deduceth it from any thing in the antecedent now in hand.

For the reſt of the conſequent, the Officers ſatisfaction in the true and ſincere grace of the members at their firſt admiſſion, if it have any truth, yet it commeth too ſhort of reaſon, and runnes alſo farre beyond the moſt rigid Separatiſts. If a tryall muſt be made of Church-members, why at their firſt admiſſion alone and never after? Is it not an ordinary caſe in all Churches, and as much among the Browniſts and Independents as any other, that many who at firſt have been taken for truly regenerate, have thereafter fallen to ſuch errours in judgement and ſuch practices in life, as have given juſt ground to conclude the irregeneration of ſome, and to doubt the regeneration of others? Now, if the uncertainty of regeneration, be a juſt cauſe to hold a man out of all Churches, is it not as juſt a cauſe to caſt a man out of a Church, when by doctrine or life, this uncertainty appears, which at firſt was covered? yet none of our Brethren affirm that the uncertainty of regeneration, nor the certainty of irregeneration is a juſt ground to caſt any man out of the Church who once is come in. The conſequent alſo runs wide of the rigid Separatiſts; for the holineſſe they require, is expreſly externall, which may ſtand with the internall wickedneſſe of hypocrites; but the conſequent ſpeaks of inward ſincerity contradiſtinguiſhed from all outward profeſſions.

The Minor is the part of the Argument which they labour to fortifie, knowing the greateſt weight to lie upon it:But the minor is the moſt faulty part of the Argument. We do deny it as a very dangerous errour; every member of a viſible Church is not in truth and ſincerity a Believer and Saint: This is againſt Scripture and all experience in every viſible Church; all who are called are not choſen: In the field of God there are tares among p. 166the wheat, in his fold goats amongſt the ſheep, in his net bad fiſhes among the good, in his houſe veſſels for diſhonour, not for honour only. In the beſt Churches of the Scripture, we have too many bad members, Iudas, Ananias and Saphira, Simon Magus, Hymeneus and Philetus, Demas and the like; They dare not deny but ſome graceleſſe hypocrites are in their beſt Congregations; and if they ſhould deny it, the frequent out-breaking of their enormities to the eyes of the world would extort their confeſſion.

The proofes of the minor are anſwered.The proofes they bring, come not up to the Queſtion; that in the firſt of the Corinthians, firſt and ſecond, ſanctified in Chriſt, and called to bee Saints; if yee underſtand it of an outward calling alone,The firſt. it is not pertinent; if of an inward efficacious call, it is true not of every member, but of ſome onelyonly, and is attributed to the whole Church of Corinth indefinitely, becauſe of theſe ſome, who truly were elected, juſtified, and ſanctified; but that this was not true of all and every one of that Church, is cleare by the Apoſtles complaint of many among them; of ſome for Inceſt, of others for injurious defrauding of their neighbours, of ſome for carnall Schiſmes, of others for prophane drunkenneſſe at the Lords Table it ſelfe, of others for fundamentall errours.

The ſecond.The firſt of the Gal. 2.v. hath nothing ſounding toward the preſent queſtion; but the fourth verſe is brought by the Browniſts to ſomething neare it; that Chriſt had dyed for the Galatians ſinnes and ſeparated them from this preſent evill world; if this import any true grace, yet it may not bee applyed to every member of that Church; for in the words following, the Apoſtle beareth witneſſe that ſundry of them were removed to another Goſpel; that they were fooliſh and bewitched to rebell againſt the truth.

The third and maine proof of the minor.The relation of the Church to the perſons of the Trinity, that it is the body and Spouſe of Chriſt, the Temple of the holy Ghoſt, the ſonnes and daughters of the Father, muſt be underſtood as many ſuch priviledges, of the univerſall and inviſible Church; or when any of them are to be applyed to a particular viſible Church, they muſt be underſtood of that Church not according to every one, but only the living and gracious members thereof. That ſuch priviledges of the Catholicke inviſible Church when they are applyed to a particular viſible Congregation, are to be underſtood according to this diſtinction of members, Robinſon p. 167him ſelfe while yet in his rigid ſeparation, grants it expreſly.

The places thus expounded, prove not the point; for grant to every Congregation ſo high priviledges as you will, yet if they muſt be verified of that Congregation only according to ſome members, and not according to all; if they be to be underſtood only of the Elect in that Congregation who have the ſanctifying Spirit of Chriſt, not of many others who are dead in nature, and yet are ſuch members who have right from God according to our Brethrens own Tenet, to perform Church acts, ſuch as are the preaching of the Goſpel, the celebration of the Sacraments, the admiſſion of members, the execution of cenſures, with ſuch authority from Chriſt, as makes all theſe acts truly valid for the comfort and ſalvation of the Elect; they prove not the true grace of every perſon whom we muſt acknowledge to be a true member of a Church.

If you will extend theſe places to every ſingular member of particular viſible Churches,This driveth to univerſall grace and Apoſtacy of the Saints. as indeed the Argument if it have any ſtrength, doth import, the abſurdity will be great; for ſo it will carry to the Pelagianiſme of Arminius in the extent of the true grace of God beyond the Elect, to all the members of a viſible Church; alſo to the totall and finall Apoſtacy of many who are the Temples of the holy Ghoſt, the members of Chriſt, the faithfull and ſanctified children of God: For the Argument maketh every member of any viſible Church to be ſuch, & daily experience proves that many members of every viſible Church are caſtawayes.

Yea,Yea, to Socinianiſme and further. the Argument drives further then any of the Arminians will follow; for however, they extend the true and ſaving grace of God beyond the Elect members of a Church, yet none of them ever ſaid that this ſanctifying and ſaving grace muſt be in every perſon before they can bee admitted members of any Church; For this is that groſſe errour which the Independents have learned not ſo much from Arminius as Socinus, to put all men unconverted without the Church, that in this condition they may be converted by the preaching of private men, and if by Paſtors, yet by their Preaching, not as Paſtors, but as private men dealing with theſe who are none of their Flock, but without the Church.

Neither doe the Socinians, ſo farre as I know, extend their Tenet thus farre, as to require all before they be members of the Church, to be truly regenerate, as if the only inſtrument of regeneration p. 168and converſion, were the preaching of private men without the Church: and the preaching of Paſtors within the Church, did ſerve only for the continuing of the ſence of juſtification and the encreaſe of ſanctification, as being performed of purpoſe only unto theſe perſons who at their firſt entrance into the Church while yet they were without and but comming in, have demonſtrate the certainty of their enjoying theſe graces.

His ſecond Argument.The ſecond Argument. God receives none to be members of the viſible Church, but thoſe who ſhall be ſaved: but the Stewards of Gods houſe may receive none but whom God doth receive: Ergo, the Stewards of Gods houſe may receive none to bee members of a viſible Church but thoſe who ſhall be ſaved.

The Concluſion is faulty.Anſwer. The Concluſion is ſubject to the moſt of the faults obſerved upon the concluſion of the former Argument, which I doe not repeat; only conſider that this concluſion beareth expreſly that none may be members of a viſible Church but theſe who ſhall be ſaved, and ſo who are truly Elect. We would not be deceived with their diſtinctions of inward and outward holineſſe, of ſeeming and reall grace, of charitable and veritable diſcerning; for this and the other Argument inferres flatly that no other muſt be received as members in a viſible Church but ſuch as firſt are tryed and found to bee really holy, and who ſhall be ſaved.

We Anſwer therefore to the Minor, That it is evidently falſe for the Reaſons which we brought upon the Minor of the former Argument.The minor is falſe. The place of the Acts brought for the proofe of it is detorted;Its proofe is unſufficient. ſuch as were to be ſaved were added to the Church; is this indefinite propoſition to be underſtood univerſally, that all who were to be ſaved were added to the Church? the former Argument maketh this no neceſſary truth; for if men muſt be juſtified, ſanctified, and put in the way of ſalvation before they be added to the Church, then though they were never added to the Church, they may well bee ſaved.

They would doe well here to remember their own ordinary practice, contrary to that which here they profeſſe to be the way of God. Why doe they not adde to their Church all that are to be ſaved? why exclude they many whom they grant to be truly gracious and Elect, upon this ground alone that they cannot approve of their Independency or Covenant?

p. 169Or ſuppoſe the propoſition to be univerſall; yet, muſt it be reciprocall and convertible? Be it ſo, that all who were to be ſaved, were added to the Church: yet, muſt all who are added to the Church be ſaved? This is an evident untruth. Will they that all the members of their Church muſt be ſaved? or doe they think that all the perſons of their Churches who ſhall not be ſaved, were never true members of their viſible Church? Iudas was made a member of the Apoſtolick ſociety by Chriſt, and many men were brought into the viſible Church by the Prophets and Apoſtles, who ſhall not be ſaved. Shall damnation and want of true grace caſt them all out of the true Church, and take from them their power and right, to do the actions of a Church-member?

The third Argument. If it be put in any forme,His third Argument. will readily fall under the exceptions of the firſt; but ſince the Author puts no forme upon it, I ſhall only conſider its matter. It conſiſts of the miſapplication of three Scriptures, firſt of Peters Confeſſion,P…eters Confeſſion much miſ-applyed. Mat…h. 8. they alledge that ſuch a profeſſion of Faith as the Father reveales to particular perſons, is the ground of a viſible Church, and ſo who ever is a member of that Church, muſt both profeſſe Faith, and have the Spirit to indite that profeſſion.

Anſwer, This is a ſtrange Argument. For firſt, we may not admit that the Church founded upon the Rock is every particular viſible Church: The priviledges of the Catholike and viſible Church, which the Ieſuites by all their wreſtlings have never been able to extort from us for their Idoll of Rome, ſhall we throw them away upon every Independent Congregation? how unſtable Rocks theſe Congregations are, and how eaſily by ſmall tentations ſhaken in pieces, themſelves may remember.

Secondly, the Rock whereupon the Church is builded, is Chriſt, whom Peter did confeſſe; we may not make any mans profeſſion, were it never ſo cleere and never ſo zealous, the foundation of the Church in ſuch a faſhion, that the ignorance or hypocriſie of any man may remove the foundation of any Church.

Thirdly, ſhall no man be a member of a Church, till the holy Ghoſt dictate unto him ſuch a confeſſion of Faith as he did unto Peter? if none but the Elect and thoſe who are filled with the holy Ghoſt, may be members of Churches, the Anabaptiſts have won the field. However, what here is alledged, is not true of Peter p. 170himſelfe who long before that confeſſion was a member of the Church.

The gueſt without the wedding-garment more miſ-appl…ed.The ſecond place miſ-applied, is the reproofe of the gueſt for his comming to the Lords Feaſt without the wedding-garment; whereupon is inferrd the duty of the Church to hold out all who want the wedding-garment of true grace. Anſw. This concluſion is not only beſide, but againſt the Text, verſ. 9.10. the ſervants are commanded to invite as many as they could finde both good and bad; they had no commiſſion to hold out any for want of the wedding-garment, for that garment was within upon the ſoule unperceptible by any but his eye who ſearches the heart and the reynes. The Apoſtles in their ſearch went not beyond a blameleſſe profeſſion; and experience may teach our Brethren, that themſelves are able to reach no farther, finding after all their triall ſo many in their pureſt Congregations whom time declares to want that garment.

The parable of the Tares is thrown againſt its principall ſcope.The third place miſ-applyed, is the parable of the Tares, as if the Tares came into the Church by the ſleepineſſe of the ſervants. Anſw. This alſo is a bold addition to Scripture: it is not ſaid, while the ſervants ſleeped, but while men ſleeped, noting no negligence in men who did ſleep when it was ſeaſonable and neceſſary for them to ſleep; but only the ſecret and dark time of the night, or the ſecret, dark, and imperceptible way of Satan his working in hypocrites, and corrupting the Church. However, this part of the parable is no wayes argumentative; for Chriſt in his full application toucheth not at all upon this circumſtance; but the maine ſcope of the parable declareth to us the nature of the viſible Church upon earth, contrary to the argument in hand, That Chriſt doth not intend to have upon earth any Church wherein the Tares ſhall not be mixed with the wheat; for if he did not finde in his wiſedome the expediency of this adminiſtration,His fourth argument, that all who cannot demonſtrate the truth of their regeneration, deny the power of godlineſſe, is not true. hee could in his power eaſily alter or prevent it.

Their fourth argument is drawn from the ſecond to Timothy, 3.5. who have a form of Godlineſſe, but deny the power of it, from ſuch we muſt turne away. Ergo, who are not found to have poſitive and ſatisfactory ſignes of regeneration, ought not to be admitted members of any Church. Anſw. The conſequent is naught; for the ſtrength of it will lie in this propoſition, Every p. 171profeſſor who bringeth not demonſtrative ſignes of his regeneration and true grace, is a man who hath the forme of godlineſſe and denyeth the power thereof. How falſe this is, both the Text and our Brethrens practice will evidence. The Text puts it out of doubt, that the men whom the Apoſtle calls the denyers of the power of godlineſſe, are perſons openly ſcandalous and flagitious, as the verſes both before and after doe demonſtrate; even ſuch whom the Apoſtle deſcribes, Tit. 1. abominable, diſobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Now it is cleare that many profeſſors who are not able to bring out any convincing ſignes of their regeneration, are notwithſtanding free from all ſcandall; and however many hypocrites can goe beyond them in making faire and ſatisfactory ſhewes to men: yet ſundry of them may be the elect children of God, and really moſt gracious in his eyes, how unable or unwilling ſoever they be to make this much appeare to the world.

Secondly, the men whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, are to be caſt out of the Church after their admiſſion; but our Brethren will not caſt out all of whoſe regeneration they are not convinced, after once they are admitted; for if ſo, Excommunication in every Church would become too frequent.

Their fifth argument is this; No hypocrite,His fifth, that no hypocrite is to be admitted a member of a Church, is a very raſh argument. none who at laſt will leave their firſt Love, are to be admitted in the Church; for all ſuch will ruine the Church, and procure the removing of the Candleſtick: but all that cannot prove their regeneration convincingly, are ſuch. Anſw. This is a bold and raſh argument, laying a neceſſity to exclude all hypocrites from the Church, and all ſuch as may fall away from any degree of their firſt love. We anſwer then that the minor is very falſe; for many gracious perſons farre from hypocriſie, and free from all decay of their firſt love, may be unable to ſatisfie themſelves or others in the certaine truth of their regeneration. But the major is more falſe, againſt the practiſe of Chriſt and the Apoſtles, who did alwayes receive divers hypocrites; and our Brethren dare not deny that they do ſo alſo; for their Churches conſiſt not all of reall Saints. However the very Text alledged proveth our Tenet; for Epheſus to Chriſt, there is a moſt true Church, notwithſtanding their fall from their firſt Love, and his threatning of them with the removall of their Candleſtick if they did not repent.

p. 172His ſixth, from the roughneſſe of the ſtones of Solomons Temple, is a wanton reaſonUnto this fifth they ſubjoyne as appendices, two other arguments taken from the ancient types under the Law. The firſt, The ſtones in Solomons Temple were not laid rough in the building; Ergo ▪ men irregenerate muſt not bee admitted members of a Chriſtian Church. Anſw. This is a wanton argument; though the Temple might be a type of every Congregation: and the ſtones of Temple, of the members of a particular viſible Church; yet that the roughneſſe of the ſtones ſhould be a type of irregeneration, and above all, that the place of hewing theſe ſtones ſhould be a type, and that argumentative, to inferre that the place of our vocation, regeneration, juſtification and ſanctification muſt be without the Church; and that it is neceſſary we be like a ſtone perfectly hewen before wee be laid in the Church building: this is a kinde of Ratiocination which ſolid divinity will not admit.

His ſeventh, from the porters excluſion of uncleane perſons from the Temple, has no ſtrength.The other typicall argument is this; The porters excluded uncleane perſons from the Temple; therefore, the Officers ought to keep the irregenerate from the Church. Anſw. There is no argumenting from ſymbolick types, except where the ſpirit of God in Scripture applies a type to ſuch a ſignification and uſe.

Where did our Brethren learne to make the porters of the Temple types of the Church-officers. Their people will not bee content to be cheated of the Keyes by ſuch ſymbolizing. If they will make the Temple a type, not only of Chriſts body and the Church univerſall, but of every Congregation; yet by what Scripture will they make legall uncleanneſſe typifie the eſtate of irregeneration? And above all, how will they make the excluſion from the Temple for legall uncleaneſſe, a type of rejection from Church-memberſhip for irregeneration?

Nothing more common then legall cleaneſſe in a perſon irregenerate, and legall uncleaneſſe in a perſon regenerate. Legall uncleaneſſe did never hinder any from Church-memberſhip under the old Teſtament, albeit for a time it might impede their fellowſhip in ſome ſervices; but irregeneration did never hinder communion in any ſervice. It is a queſtion whether very ſcandalous ſins did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices; but out of all doubt irregeneration alone was never a bar to keep any from the moſt holy and moſt ſolemn ſervices, whether of the Tabernacle or Temple.

p. 173There are two other arguments couched in the concluſion of the debate. Firſt,His eight, that Iohn the Bapt…ſt excluded the Phariſees and people from his Baptiſm, is expreſly againſt the Text. from the 3 of Matth. Iohn the Baptiſt excluded the Scribes and Phariſees and the profane people from his Baptiſm; Ergo, the officers and body of the people ſhould not admit irregenerate people to be members of the Church. Anſ. The conſequence is not good from Iohn the Baptiſt to all the officers and body of the people, nor from Baptiſm or any Sacrament to Church-memberſhip, nor from the Scribes, Phariſees and profane people, to every irregenerate perſon: what looſneſſe is in ſuch reaſoning? But the worſt is that the antecedent is clearly againſt the places of Scripture alledged. Iohn the Baptiſt did not exclude either the Scribes or the Phariſees or the common people from his baptiſm, but received all that came, both the Scribes and Phariſees, and Ieruſalem, and all Iudea, and all the region about Iordan, requiring no other condition for their admiſſion to his Sacrament then the confeſſion of ſinne and promiſing of new obedience, acts very feaſable to irregenerate people.

His laſt argument is from Acts 8.His ninth, that Philip required the Eunuchs confeſſion before baptiſme, infers not the concluſion. Philip admitted none to his baptiſm but upon profeſſion of Faith. Ergo none ſhould be admitted members of a Church without an evidence of their regeneration. For ſhortneſſe I mark but one fault in the conſequence, yet a very groſſe one, That profeſſion of faith is made a certain argument of true grace and ſanctification. Will any of our Brethren be content to admit their members upon ſo ſlender tearms as Philip or any of the Apoſtles did require of their new converts? Will the profeſſion that Ieſus is the Chriſt, or ſuch a confeſſion of faith as Simon Magus and all the people of Samaria men and women, after a little labour of Philip among them, could make, be an evident and convincing ſigne of regeneration?

Thus we have conſidered all Mr Cottons arguments:All his nine or twelve reaſons p…t in one will be too weak to beare up the weight of his moſt heavy concluſion. let any man according to his conſcience, pronounce what ſtrength he findes in any of them; whether or not in them all together there be ſuch firmneſſe as to ſuſtaine the unſpeakable weight that is in the concluſion builded upon them; I mean a neceſſity of ſeparation from all the Reformed Churches except theſe of the Indepent way: I may adde, from them alſo and all elſe that ever have been in the world from the beginning to this houre; for in none of them theſe hard conditions of ſatisfactory evidences of regeneration before perſons can be admitted members, were ever ſo much as required; p. 174and among the Independents where theſe conditions have been required, they were never found, nor poſſibly can be found as they doe require them.