The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 2 · Chapter 16
TO CHAP. XVI.
HIs 16th Chapter is taken up in Examining and Anſwering the Expoſition which my Letter gave of that Text formerly alledged, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Of which I ſaid,
1. That the Text onelyonly requireth Coming out from Idolaters in the fellowſhip of their Idolatry: No Marriages were they to make with them: No Feaſts were they to hold with them in the Idolls Temples: No intimate Familiaritie were they to maintaine with them: Nor any Fellowſhip were they to keepe with them in the unfruitfull workes of Darkneſſe.
And this is all which the place requireth. But what maketh all this to proove, that we may not receive ſuch Perſons to Church-fellowſhip as our ſelves confeſſe to be godly, and who doe profeſſedly bewaile and renounce all knowne ſinne, and would renounce more, if they knew more? Although, it may be, they doe not ſee the utmoſt skirts of all that pollution they have ſometimes been defiled with: as the Patriarchs ſaw not the pollution of their Polygamy?
In Anſwer to this, the Examiner telleth us;
1. That if the regenerate and prepenting Engliſh did come thus farre forth, it would availe much to the ſanctifying of the Name of the Lord Jeſus, to the pacifying of his jealouſie, &c.
Reply. But this is no Anſwer at all, unleſſe he did aſſume that our repenting Engliſh did not come thus farre forth. Therefore he giveth for another Anſwer, (that which is indeed but a part of this) That according to the former Diſtinction of Godly Perſons, who poſſibly may live in ungodly practiſes (eſpecially of falſe worſhip:) And then according to Mr. Cottons Interpretation, they come not forth.
Reply. That former Diſtinction hath been conſidered above and weighed; but hath been found impertinent to the caſe in hand. The Examiner neither doth, nor ever will make it good, That the Godly perſons amongſt us doe live in any ungodly practiſes of falſe worſhip. Nor doe they take his Affirmation (without any mention of Scripture-ground) for a ſufficient conviction.
But (ſaith he) if there be any voyce of Chriſt in the mouths of his witneſſes againſt theſe ſinnes, they are not then of ignorance, but negligence, and ſpirituall hardneſſe againſt the wayes of Gods ſeare, Iſai. 63. &c.
Reply. If there be (ſaith he) any voyce of Chriſt in the mouths of his witneſſes againſt theſe ſinnes, &c. If there be: he doth not ſay, there be. And if there were, how doth it appeare, that their voyce is the voyce of Chriſt, or that they be the witneſſes of Chriſt, in whoſe mouths this voyce is? How eaſie had it been for the Examiner, if he himſelfe knew any ſuch voyce of Chriſt in the mouths of any of his witneſſes againſt theſe ſinnes of falſe worſhip which our godly Brethren doe live in, to have alledged the ſame, and the word of Chriſt, which might have been witneſſe to the voyce of thoſe witneſſes? But theſe Ifs and Overtures will neither convince nor edifie others, nor juſtifie himſelfe.
Beſides, what if there be ſome witneſſes have teſtified againſt the falſe worſhip in England, and againſt the hearing of thoſe Miniſters, by reaſon of that falſe worſhip? What if the Godly Perſons (of whom he ſpeaketh) here, are not ſo ignorant, but they know what thoſe witneſſes have ſaid, nor ſo negligent, but they have duly conſidered and pondered the ſame, and weighing it in the Ballance of the Scriptures, have found it too light? Is it ſpirituall hardneſſe, to chooſe, rather to feare God, and his Word, then to feare the falſe Interpretations and Applications of it by the ſpirit of Error? The word of the Lord wee reverence and acknowledge, Come not yee to Gilgall, neither goe yee up to Bethaven: But doe wee come to Gilgall, or goe up to Bethaven, when we heare the word of the Lord from the godly Preachers in the Pariſhes in England? If ſuch alledgements of Scripture may goe for the voyce of Chriſt in the mouths of his witneſſes, we ſhall ſoone forget the Counſell of Solomon; Ceaſe my Sonne to heare the Inſtruction, which cauſeth to erre from the words of knowledge, Pro. 19.27. The Apoſtle John hath long ſince directed us, Hereby know we the ſpirit of Truth, and the ſpirit of Error: He that knoweth God, heareth us, (that is, the Apoſtles, and thoſe that preach their Doctrine;) He that is not of God, heareth us not, 1 Joh. 4.6.
But for another Anſwer, the Examiner proceedeth; Moreover, (ſaith he) the Queſtion is not of the utmoſt skirts of pollution, but the ſubſtance of a true and falſe Bed of worſhip, Cant. 1.16. In reſpect of coming out of the falſe, before the entrance into the true.
Reply. I ſaid indeed, that Godly Perſons repenting of all knowne ſinnes, may be received to Church-fellowſhip, although they doe not ſee the utmoſt skirts of all the pollution they have ſometimes been defiled with.
But, ſaith he, the Queſtion is not of utmoſt skirts, but of the ſubſtance of a true and falſe Bed of worſhip.
What he meaneth by the Bed of worſhip, I know not If he meane the Church, to be the Bed of worſhip; and the Churches of England to be falſe Churches, that Point hath been cleared above: that no voyce of Chriſt hath declared the Churches of England to be falſe Churches.
But yet further, the Examiner anſwereth, That if there were but filthineſſe in the skirts of an Harlot, he beleeveth Mr. Cotton would not receive an Harlot, infamous for corporall whoredome, without ſound repentance, not onelyonly for her actuall whoredomes, but alſo for her whoriſh ſpeeches, geſtures, appearances, provocations. And why ſhould there be a greater ſtrictneſſe for the skirts of common whoredome, then for ſpirituall and ſoule-whoredome, againſt the chaſtitie of Gods worſhip?
Reply. 1. There may be the greater ſtrictneſſe about the skirts of bodily whoredome, not becauſe it is a greater ſinne, but becauſe it is more eaſily diſcernable, and convinceable by ordinary light.
2. Where any ſpeeches, geſtures, appearances, provocations of ſpirituall whoredome ſhall diſcover themſelves, we beleeve there ought to be as great ſtrictneſſe about them, as about the like whoriſh appearances of bodily whoredome. But when will the Examiner diſcover to us, what thoſe ſpirituall whoriſh geſtures or ſpeeches be, wherein we ſhew leſſe ſtrictneſſe, then the chaſtitie of Gods holy worſhip requireth?
Touching the Polygamy of the Fathers, the Examiner anſwereth, three wayes.
1. By obſerving what great ſinnes Godly Perſons may be ſubject to, notwithſtanding Godlineſſe in the Roote.
Wee conſent to that, eſpecially in caſe of ignorance.
2. He demandeth, If any godly Perſons ſhould now beleeve, and maintaine, that he ought to have many wives, and accordingly did ſo Practiſe, whether Mr. Cotton would receive ſuch a godly Perſon to Church-fellowſhip?
Yea whether the Church of the Jewes (if they had ſeene the evill of it) would ever have received ſuch a Proſelyte into fellowſhip with them?
The ſame Anſwers may ſerve to both the Demands.
1. Neither would I receive them, nor doe I thinke the Church of the Jewes would, in caſe the ſinne had appeared ſo plaine and palpable, as by the light of the Goſpel it hath been diſcovered.
2. This is not the caſe in hand, what my ſelfe or a Church ought to doe, about receiving a member living in knowne ſinne: but when he that liveth in no knowne ſinne, (none knowne either to himſelfe, or the Church) whether the Church if they receive him, doth thereby evacuate their Church-eſtate? Or whether the Church, and every member thereof, be ſo farre bound to a diſtinct knowledge of all appearances of ſpirituall whoredome, that if they be ignorant of any one or two of them, they are utterly uncapable of Church-eſtate?
For a third Anſwer to the caſe of Polygamy, the Examiner demandeth what was this perſonall ſinne of Polygamy in the godly Patriarchs? Was it any matter of Gods worſhip, any joyning with a falſe Church, Miniſtery, Worſhip, Government, from whence they were to come, before they could conſtitute his true Church, and enjoy his Worſhip, Miniſtery, Government, &c.
Reply. 1. Polygamy if it had been knowne to be as great a ſinne amongſt the Iſraelites, as it is now knowne to be by the Doctrine of the Lord Jeſus, it is of ſo hainous a nature now, that every godly perſon guilty of it, muſt come out of it, before he could lawfully be received into a pure Church of Chriſt.
2. If a Church were now ignorant of ſuch a knowne caſe, and ſhould in their ignorance admit ſundry members living in that ſinne, into fellowſhip with them, though it would much defile them: yet I doe not conceive it would evacuate their Church-eſtate.
3. The Examiner will never proove, that the eſtate of the Churches in England is falſe, their Miniſtery falſe, nor their worſhip falſe. And as for their Epiſcopall Government, he is not ignorant we have come out of it both in place and heart. Neither will he ever be able to prove, that any of our Churches partake in the communion of any ſuch knowne ſinne, either in Church-eſtate, Worſhip, Miniſtery, Government, as Polygamy is.
But touching that place in 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. urged by the Examiner, that I might give a further Anſwer then before, I adde further in my Letter; That the place was wreſted beſides the Apoſtles ſcope, when Mr. Williams argued from it, That ſuch Perſons are not fit matter for Church-fellowſhip, as are defiled with any remnants of Antichriſtian Pollution: nor ſuch Churches any more to be counted Churches, as doe receive ſuch amongst them: For were there not at that time in the Church of Corinth, ſuch as partaked with Idolaters in their Idolls Temples? And was not this the touching of an uncleane thing? And did this ſinne reject members from Church-fellowſhip before Conviction? Or did it evacuate their Church-eſtate for not caſting out ſuch members?
To this Argument the Examiner giveth (as he calleth it) an Anſwer in foure Paragraphs: whereof the three former hold not forth ſo much as the face, or ſhape, or colour of an Anſwer.
For in the firſt Paragraph, ſaith he, This was indeed an uncleane thing, from which God calleth his People: and Mr. Cotton confeſſeth, that after conviction any member obſtinate in theſe uncleane Touches ought to be rejected.
But what is this to the Argument?
Againe, In the next Paragraph, Ʋpon the ſame ground, (ſaith he) that one obſtinate Perſon ought to be rejected out of Church-eſtate, upon the ſame ground, if a greater company or a Church were obſtinate in ſuch uncleane touches, ought every ſound Chriſtian Church to reject them, and every ſound member to withdraw from them.
But is this any more to the Argument?
In the third Paragraph, Further (ſaith he) it is cleare, that if ſuch uncleane Touches obſtinately maintained, (as Mr. Cotton profeſſeth and practiſeth) be a ground of a rejection of a Perſon in a Church, queſtionleſſe, it is a ground of rejection when ſuch Perſons are to joyne unto the Church. And if obſtinacy in the whole Church after Conviction be a ground for ſuch a Churches rejection, queſtionleſſe, ſuch a Church or number of perſons obſtinate in ſuch evills, cannot congregate, nor become a true conſtituted Church of Chriſt.
But ſtill the Argument is where it was, not onelyonly unſhaken, but untoucht. Neither is the Text in 2 Cor. 16. any whit at all cleared by theſe diſcourſes, to argue them to be no true conſtituted Churches who live in ſuch uncleane touches, without conviction, without obſtinacy. For the Text ſpeaketh nothing of obſtinacy, nor conviction: but onelyonly implieth, that ſuch uncleane Touches were found in the Church of Corinth, and yet that did not evacuate their Church-eſtate.
His laſt Paragraph holdeth forth ſome more ſhape of an Anſwer, but as little ſubſtance.
The greateſt Queſtion here (ſaith he) would be whether the Corinthians in their firſt Conſtitution were ſeparate or no from ſuch Idols Temples? And this Mr. Cotton neither doth nor can deny; A Church eſtate being a ſtate of marriage unto Chriſt Jeſus; and ſo Paul profeſſedly ſaith, He had eſpouſed them as a chaſte Virgin unto Chriſt, 2 Cor. 11.
Reply. 1. To put any ſubſtance into this Anſwer, or any force pertinent to the cauſe in hand, it muſt be no great Queſtion, but cleare out of Queſtion, that theſe Corinthians in their firſt conſtitution were cleane, and abſolutely ſeparate from ſuch Idolls Temples: and that not onelyonly locally, but in their ſoule and iudgement, minde and heart, utterly cut off from ſuch uncleane Touches, ſo that they both undoubtedly ſaw the evill thereof, and from their hearts abhorred it, and forſooke it. For all theſe Acts of coming off in a way of ſeparation from the Churches of England, he requireth from us, as abſolutely neceſſary to enter into a true Churcheſtate. Now if he thinke that Mr. Cotton (to uſe his words) neither doth nor can deny, that in their firſt conſtitution they were thus ſeparate from Idolls Temples.
I muſt profeſſe, though not to him, yet to all that love and ſeek the Truth without prejudice, that I both can and doe deny it, that in their firſt conſtitution, they were locally ſeparate from Idolls Temples, it is likely enough; or elſe I ſuppoſe the Apoſtlewould have admoniſhed them thereof in their firſt Plantation. But that in their minde and judgement, they ſaw the evill thereof, and did in heart and ſoule bewaile it, and confeſſe it before the Apoſtle and their Brethren, and ſo enter into ſolemne Covenant, expreſly againſt it; this is altogether incredible to me: For would not the Apoſtle then (out of his faithfulneſſe) have reproved them as well for their Apoſtacy, as for their Fellowſhip in Idolatry? Would he not as well have rebuked the prevarication of their Covenant, as their pollution of their communion with Pagans?
What though a Church-eſtate be a ſtate of Marriage unto Jeſus Chriſt? May not a married Spouſe of Chriſt be ignorant of ſome part of her marriage-dutie towards him? And what though Paul profeſſe, He had eſpouſed them as a chaſte Virgin to Jeſus Chriſt? May not he call them a chaſte Virgin, who had ſeene and bewailed their former worſhip of Idolls, though they neither bewailed nor ſaw the evill of feaſting with their neighbours in Idolls Temples?
Reply. 2. Though the Examiner make it a great Queſtion whether a Church can be truely conſtituted, that in her firſt conſtitution is not ſeperate from all uncleane Touches, ſo as both to ſee them, and come out of them, howſoever they may fall into ſuch ſinnes afterwards: yet I looke at it as an ungrounded diſtinction, to require more purity to the being of a Church in her firſt conſtitution, then is neceſſary to the being of it, after it is conſtituted. I ſhould thinke the longer a Church hath enjoyed communion with the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the more ſhee ought to grow both in knowledge and purity. Where more hath been given, the more will be required of the Lord. Yea I conceive it more agreeable to the word of Truth, that God will ſooner ſeparate from a Church conſtituted, for their whoriſh pollutions, then deny them Churcheſtate for the like pollutions in their firſt conſtitution. The people of Iſrael were not conſtituted a Nationall Church till the Lord gave them Nationall Ordinances, and Nationall Officers, and entered them together into a Nationall Covenant, Exod. 19.5, 6. Their Church-eſtate before, was rather domeſticall, diſperſed into ſeverall Families. When they were thus conſtituted a Nationall Church, and afterwards fell into an Idolatrous crime, the Lord directed Moſes to breake the Tables of his Covenant between them, and did alſo ſeperate his Tabernacle from them, till upon their repentance he renewed communion with them, Exod. 32.19. with Exod. 33.3. to 7. But yet the like Idolatry (if not worſe) being found in the ſame People, when they dwelt in Aegypt, it did not hinder the Lord from accepting them unto a Nationall Conſtitution of a Church-eſtate.