The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 2 · Chapter 13
TO CHAP. XIII.
HIs 13th Chapter is taken up in Examining and Anſwering a ſecond Anſwer, which I gave to his Objection propounded above in Chap. 10. The Anſwer was this, as he ſetteth it downe.
Secondly, we deny that it is neceſſary to Church-fellowſhip, (that is ſo neceſſary, that without it a Church cannot be) That the members admitted thereunto, ſhould all of them ſee, and expreſly bewaile all the pollutions which they have been defiled with in their former Church-fellowſhip, Miniſtery worſhip, Government, &c. If they ſee and bewaile ſo much of their former pollutions, as did enthrall them to Antichriſt, ſo, as to ſeparate them from Chriſt: and withall be ready in preparation of heart, as they ſhall ſee more light, ſo to hate more and more every falſe way. This we conceive to be as much, as is neceſſarily required to ſeparate them from Antichriſt unto fellowſhip with Chriſt, and his Churches, &c.
For Anſwer hereunto, the Examiner deſireth three things to be obſerved:
1. Mr. Cottons own Confeſſion of that two-fold Church-eſtate, worſhip, &c. The former falſe: or elſe why to be ſo bewailed and forſaken? The ſecond true, to be embraced and ſubmitted to.
Reply. This obſervation is more then is intended, or can juſtly be gathered from my words: For even a true Eſtate of a Church, Worſhip, Miniſtery, &c. may be bewailed, though not in regard of the falſhood of the eſtate, yet in regard of the pollutions that cleaved to it, which were as ſo many falſe wayes in the Adminiſtration of it.
2. The ſecond thing, which he would have to be obſerved, is my own confeſſion of that which a little before I would make ſo odious in him to hold, to wit, That Gods People may be ſo farre enthralled to Antichriſt, as to ſeparate them from Chriſt. For theſe were my words; If they ſee and bewaile ſo much of their former pollutions, as did enthrall them to Antichriſt, ſo as to ſeparate them from Chriſt.
Reply. 1. His expreſſions of himſelfe in that Point were ſo incommodious, as that a plaine Reader, (ſuch as my ſelfe, unwonted to heare ſuch language, in his ſence) could not eaſily conceive, that he ſpeaking of godly perſons, no leſſe unfit for Church-fellowſhip, then Trees and Quarries unfit for a Building.
I ſay, I could not eaſily conceive, that by Trees and Quarries ſhould be meant any other perſons then unregenerate: and it ſeemed to me, to imply a contradiction, to call them ungodly, who were unregenerate.
Reply. 2. The Examiner wrongeth himſelfe and me, to ſay, That I would have made it odious in him, to ſay that godly perſons cannot be ſo enthralled to Antichriſt, as to-ſeparate them from Chriſt. The odiouſneſſe he ſpeaketh of is a contradiction: And it was himſelfe, not I, that forged that contradiction, as hath been ſhewed above.
Reply. 3. My words out of which he gathereth this obſervation, are miſreported: and the contradiction ariſeth from his miſreport, not from my words. For Gods People, and godly perſons are not all one. Any Church-members may be called Gods People, as being in externall Covenant with him, (Pſal. 81.11.) and yet they are not alwayes godly perſons. Gods People may be ſo enthralled to Antichriſt, as to ſeparate them utterly from Chriſt, both as Head of the viſible, and inviſible Church alſo. But godly perſons cannot be ſo enthralled to Antichriſt, as to ſeparate them from Chriſt, as the Head of the inviſible Church: though, as I ſaid before, they may be ſeparated from him, as the Head of the viſible Church.
3. The third thing which the Examinen would have to be obſerved in my words, is, How eaſily a ſoule may wander in his generalls: for thus I write, though they ſee not all the pollutions, wherewith they have been defiled in their former Church-fellowſhip: Againe, if they did ſee ſo much as did enthrall them to Antichriſt, and ſeparate them from Chriſt. And yet (ſaith he) he expreſſeth nothing of that, all the pollutions, nor what ſo much is, as will ſeparate them from Chriſt.
Reply. 1. Though theſe words might ſeeme generall to a ſtranger, who knew nothing of the occaſion of them: yet to the Examiner himſelfe, (to whom in private I writ them) it was eaſie and obvious to poynt with the finger, at the particular I intended in theſe. He knoweth the Queſtion was; Whether the hearing of the Miniſters of the Pariſhes in England, was ſuch an Antichriſtian pollution, as either to cut off ſuch perſons from Church-fellowſhip, or the Churches themſelves from Chriſt. Our Anſwer was; 1. That it was no Antichriſtian pollution at all: 2. If it were, it was more then either our members, or our Churches yet ſaw, or were convinced of: and then generall confeſſions, and generall repentance would ſerve for unknowne knowne ſinnes. To the ſame purpoſe, is this generall Anſwer framed here: which himſelfe well knoweth upon what particular occaſion it grew, and to what particular caſe it had reference.
Reply. 2. Beſides, why ſhould we count the Anſwer as wandring in Generalities, when it was fitted to his generall Objection? His Objection was Chapt. 10. That a neceſſitie lay upon, godly men, before they can be fit matter for Church fellowſhip, to ſee, bewaile, repent, come out of the falſe Churches, Worſhip, Miniſtery, Government.
Now here are onelyonly generall words: no particular mention of the falſhoods that lye in the Churches, Worſhip, Miniſtery, Government. Why ſhould he blame wandring in Generalitie in the Anſwer, when his own Objection wandereth in the like Generalities.
Reply. 3. If he pleaſe to look back to the Reply given in his 12. Chapter, he may finde me plaine and punctuall in Inſtancing in particulars. But thus having paſſed over his Obſervations upon my former Anſwer, he now cometh to returne Anſwer to me, by demanding a Queſtion or two, to wit, 1. Whether if a godly perſon remaine a member of a ſalſely conſtituted Church, and ſo conſequently (in that reſpect) of a falſe Chriſt, whether in viſible worſhip he be not ſeparate from the true Chriſt?
Anſw. That I may not delude neither him, nor my ſelfe, by anſwering to obſcure and ambiguous termes, I would know (by ſome that underſtand his ſpeech) what he meaneth by a falſely conſtituted Church: or elſe give me leave to explaine the termes my ſelfe. There be but two things intrinſecally neceſſary to the conſtitution of any thing, & ſo of a Church, to wit, a fit matter, and a fit forme. The matter of a Church are viſible Saints, Pro…eſſors of the faith of Chriſt. The forme, is an holy Covenant, or Agreement, (either explicite or implicite) to joyne together in one Congregation, to worſhip the Lord, and to edifie one another in the Adminiſtration of his holy Ordinances. Now if in ſtead of viſible Saints profeſſing the Name of Chriſt, there be a company of prophane perſons, Idolaters, Hereticks, that ſhall covenant, or agree together to joyne in a Congregation to worſhip Idolls, and to build up one another in Hereſie, and Apoſtaſie; This is Eccleſia Malignantium, a falſe conſtituted Church: And conſequently, the Head of this Church is a falſe Chriſt, and every member of this Church, who joyneth with them in this way, is in viſible worſhip, ſeparate from the true Chriſt.
In this ſence, I would anſwer to the Examiners firſt Queſtion, Affirmatively.
His ſecond Queſtion then is, Whether it be not abſolutely neceſſary to a godly perſons uniting with the true Church, (that is, with Chriſt in true Chriſtian worſhip) that he ſee and bewaile, and abſolutely come out from that former falſe Church, or Chriſt, and his Miniſtery, Worſhip, &c. before he can be united to the true Iſrael?
Anſw. I would readily anſwer this Queſtion, Affirmatively alſo, unleſſe there be a fallacy in the latter abſolutely. For his Queſtion is, Whether it be not abſolutely neceſſary unto uniting with a true Church, to ſee, and bewaile, and come out abſolutely from the falſe Church, or Chriſt, or Miniſtery, or Worſhip, &c. This latter abſolutely, if it imply no more then coming out altogether from all that ſeparateth from true Chriſt, I grant it abſolutely: but if he meane coming out from every thing of theirs, ſay from every good gift, yea from every error amongſt them, which doth not ſeparate from Chriſt, and then I deny that it is abſolutely neceſſary, either to ſee or bewaile all, or in that ſence abſolutely to come out of all.
His ſimilitudes brought to the contrary, may perſwade a ſelfe-pleaſing fancy, but will not convince nor ſatisſie any ſolid Judgement. Might not the Iſraelites that came out of Aegypt, borrow Jewells of ſilver and gold from the Aegyptians, yea and carry up alſo a mixed multitude of People, and yet build a Tabernacle to the Lord in the Wilderneſſe? Exod. 12.35. to 38. Might not the Jewes come out of Babel, and accept from all the People, where they had ſojourned, veſſells of ſilver, and gold, with goods and beaſts, and other precious things, and yet build a Temple at Hieruſalem? Ezra 1.4, 5, 6. May not a ſoule be married to Chriſt, and yet his former husband (his corrupt nature) not be ſo abſolutely dead, as the husband of a wife muſt be, before ſhee can be lawfully married to another?
The Graft cut off from one tree, may be engrafted to another: and yet carry forth his old leaves with him. The kingdome of Chriſt that is cut off from the Romane Monarchy, may yet for a time have ſome entercourſe with the Romane Monarchy.
The Corinthians, though united with Chriſt, and waſhed from their former Idolatry, as well as from other ſinnes: yet ſtill were defiled with communion in Idols Temples, and with Fornication.
The Theſſalonians turned from their former Idolls, to ſerve the living and true God: yet they had ſome amongſt them, that walked inordinately after their entrance into Church-eſtate, as well as before, 2 Theſ. 3.6. Beſides, for a further anſwer to his ſimilitudes, the Examiner may remember, that though Iſrael came out of Egypt locally, before they could ſacrifice to God in the Wildernes, yet in their hearts and ſoules they were ſtill for Aegypt, Exod. 14.11, 12. Yea and for Aegyptian Idolls, Act. 7.39. Ezek. 20.7, 8. which is more then we doe allow to our ſelves.