Answer to the Narration of the Practices of the Churches in New England, Part 13
Anſwer to CHAP. IX.
THe firſt thing meets us is a contradiction, for here he ſaith, in plaine termes,☞ That wee in New-England conceive men may be true Chriſtians, whether they be in Church eſtate or no. But chap. 7. Art. 1. he affirmed abſolutely, that whoſoever is not a ſetled member of a particular Church is accounted by us prophane and wicked.
Anſwer. How is it poſſible, that both theſe parts ſhould be true? can New-England Churches count the ſame men, at the ſame time, to be true Chriſtians, and yet prophane and wicked? See what a ſtory this muſt needes be, that is thus full of contradictions to it ſelfe, and in no ſmall and triviall things, but in the greateſt points of our Church Diſcipline.
He ſaith againe Art. 4. 5. That we ſay, that the Sacraments and ſome other Church Ordinances are to be adminiſtred, and doe belong only to the members of the ſame Church, and not to the members of any other Churches.
Hee ſpeakes flatly contrary to this, cap. 10. Art. 1. in theſe words, Anſw. We grant that ſeverall Churches have a communion amongſt themſelves— in ſome Church-ordinances, as Sacraments: how can both be true? They hold, and they hold not; They do, & they do not: ſpeaking ſtill of the Churches of New England generally without the leaſt reſtraint or diſtinction; yea as if hee had ſtudied to make his contradiction full, he expreſly and in both parts of it mentioneth the Sacraments; that wee deny communion, in ſpeciall, in [Sacraments] and we grant a communion, in ſpeciall, in the [Sacraments:] and againe, this communion (ſaith he) is neither betwixt Miniſters nor members, and this communion is both betwixt Miniſters and members. And both of them within a leafe one of the other, in his booke.
W. R. himſelfe muſt of neceſſity grant one of theſe three things; either, 1 a manifeſt contradiction by himſelfe in a maine point in his ſtory. Or 2. that his Authors or intelligences have written or ſpoken contrary concerning our way. And ſo a man would thinke hee hath little ground (in conſcience) to build his Narration upon their teſtimony. Or thirdly, that hath abuſed them at his pleaſure, and warped their words to what ſenſe he liſt, all which are very ill in a Narrator.
Furthermore, I here confidently avouch, and ſhall make it good; that thoſe printed writers by him cited, are all conſiſtent to themſelves in this point of adminiſtration of Sacraments to members of other Churches, and not one of them croſſing another or himſelf. Therefore I muſt againe (but with griefe of heart to lay ſuch load on a brother) lay this dealing upon him, in the ſight of all that have beene miſled by his Narration.
Nay, I will ſay more; If I can not prove plainly that theſe Authors cited doe not only not juſtifie him, but write point-blanck againſt him, I will beare the blame. vid. Anſ. 9. Poſ. 62. We doe not (ſay they) appropriate the ſeales only to members of our own Church, excluding all other Churches of Chriſt. and Cot. Cat. p. 7. The ſupper (ſaith he) is diſpenced to the faithfull of the ſame body, or recommended to them by a like body, and Anſ. to 9. Poſ. 78. in theſe words. The members of other Churches doe mutually communicate at each others Churches, even as often as Gods providence leades them, and they deſire it.
Laſtly, if all this be not enough to open his abuſing us & the truth; I will go further to ſhew you, that he ſtill cites the very ſame Author to prove both parts of this contradiction; (and this is no new thing, but frequent with him.) For in cap. 9. Art. 1. he cites Anſ. to 9. Poſ. 62. to prove we hold communion with other Churches and their members: and alſo cap. 10. 1. he cites the ſame Author and page for one Churches communion with another in the Sacrament. But herein Art. 5. when hee would prove the contrary. i. e. that we hold no communion with other Church members in the Sacrament: he brings the ſelfe ſame Author and page for that end, i. e. Anſ. to 9. Poſ. pag. 62, &c.
And thus he doth not with that mentioned one Author only, but ſerves the reſt in like manner, as Anſ. to 32. q. Apol. R.M. to E.B. muſt all come in to avouch both parts of his contradiction; the one in chap. 10. 1. for communion; the other in Art. 4. 5. of this 9. chap. againſt Communion. And this he doth not this once onelyonly, but in other places in this booke (as we have ſhewed; and ſhall againe) and yet theſe Authors give him no occaſion thereto, but ſpeake all the ſelfe ſame thing plainely, and conſtantly without any variation.
He ſaith, Art. 7. We hold that a man that is ſui juris, may not lawfully ſtand a member of ſuch a Church in which he cannot enioy all Gods ordinances, or where any corruption is ſuffered, but if he be ioyned to it, he muſt ſeparate from it.
Anſwer. The Narratour knowes in his owne conſcience, that this is not ſpoken (by his cited Author) of our Churches in New-England, but of the Pariſh Churches in Old-England; nor of all the Churches in Old-England, but of ſuch onelyonly, where a man either cannot enjoy ſome ordinances of God; or elſe live there without ſinfull conformity: (for this was written by his Author in the time of the Biſhops reigne.)
2. He alters the Authors words and meaning, and that groſſely, for hee ſaith, we hold a man muſt not continue in ſuch a Church where any corruption is [ſuffered unreformed.] But his Author ſaith, in ſuch pariſh aſſemblies where a man ſhall and muſt (himſelfe) conforme to thoſe corruptions, there his ſtanding is unlawfull. Anſ. to 32. q. 32. So hee leaves out the very nerves and ſtrength of the place which is the ground of our both with drawing. i. e. a neceſſity of ſinning.
You find him againe ſtrongly pleading for impoſed formes of Prayer & Leiturgies. Art. 8. with it's Marg. This is the fourth time he hath harped on this ſtring; 1. he was for Overtures, 2. for a kinde of N. E. Primer in admiſſions of members, 3. for booke prayers, 4. now, (and that more fully then before) for [impoſed] prayers and ſet Leiturgies: whither he will goe next, I know not. If God had not pittifully left him to himſelfe in this Narration, (I am confident) he would not have come thus farre as to have uſed ſuch arguments as theſe, that if we in New-England allow ſet formes of Pſalmes, and of bleſſings of the people, and formes of Church-covenants; and of Catechiſing, &c. Why not as well ſet formes of prayers impoſed? But to this having anſwered before, I leave him to the Father of truth to ſhew him his error.