himself confesseth: “after instruction and conviction,” saith he,
“Moses’s law was deadly, and would separate from Christ;” therefore,
there was a time when they were not deadly, and did not separate from
Christ, to wit, until Moses was honourably fallen asleep, and lamented
for—as I conceive—in the type and figure thirty days, Deut. xxxiv. [8.]
Therefore, at one season, not for Timothy’s weak conscience, but for the
Jews’ sake, Paul circumcised Timothy: at another time, when the Jews had
sufficient instruction, and obstinately would be circumcised, and that
necessarily to salvation, Paul seasonably cries out, that if they were
circumcised Christ should profit them nothing, Gal. v. [2.] Hence, the
Christians at Ephesus conversed with the Jewish synagogue until the Jews
contradicted and blasphemed, and then were speedily separated by Paul,
Acts xix. [9.] But to apply, Paul observed a vow, and the ceremonies of
it, circumcised Timothy, &c.; may therefore a messenger of Christ now,
as Paul, go to mass, pray to saints, perform penance, keep Christmas and
other popish feasts and fasts? &c.
[Sidenote: A member of a true church falling into any idolatrous
practice, not presently to be excommunicated.]
Again, is there such a time allowed to any man, uniting or adding himself
to the true church now, to observe the unholy holy days of feasting and
fasting invented by anti-christ? Yea, and, as Paul did circumcision, to
practise the popish sacraments? I doubt not; but if any member of a true
church or assembly of worshippers, shall fall to any paganish or popish
practice, he must be instructed and convinced before excommunication: but
the question is, whether still observing and so practising, a person may
be received to the true Christian church, as the Jews were, although they
yet practised Moses’s ceremonies?
These things duly pondered, in the fear and presence of God, it will
appear how vain the allegation is, from that tender and honourable
respect to God’s ordinances now vanishing from the Jews, and their weak
consciences about the same, to prove the same tenderness to Satan’s
inventions, and [to] the consciences of men in the renouncing of
paganical, Turkish, anti-christian, yea, and I add Judaical worships now,
when once the time of their full vanishing was come.
[Sidenote: Not one degree of sight of, or sorrow for anti-christian
abominations; yet a necessity of cutting off from the false before union
to the true church, ministry, worship, &c.]
To conclude, although I prescribe not such a measure of sight of, or
sorrow for anti-christian abominations—I speak in respect of degrees,
which it pleaseth the Father of lights to dispense variously, to one
more, to another less—yet, I believe it absolutely necessary to see and
bewail so much as may amount to cut off the soul from the false church,
whether national, parishional, or any other falsely constituted church,
ministry, worship, and government of it.[253]
CHAP. XV.
_Mr. Cotton._ “Ans. 3. To places of scripture which you object, Isa. lii.
11; 2 Cor. vi. 17; Rev. xviii. 4, we answer, two of them make nothing
to your purpose: for that of Isaiah and the other of the Revelation,
speak of local separation, which yourself know we have made, and yet
you say, you do not apprehend that to be sufficient. As for that place
of the Corinthians, it only 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 idol’s temple: no intimate
familiarity were they to maintain with them, nor any fellowship were they
to keep with them in the unfruitful works of darkness; and this is all
which that place requireth. But what makes all this to prove, that we
may not receive such persons to church fellowship as yourself confess to
be godly, and who do professedly renounce and bewail all known sin, and
would renounce more if they knew more, although it may be they do 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. But
that you may plainly see this place is wrested beside the apostle’s scope
when you argue from it, that such persons are not fit matter for church
fellowship as are defiled with any remnants of anti-christian pollution,
nor such churches any more to be accounted churches as do receive such
amongst them: consider, I pray you, were there not at that time in the
church of Corinth such as partook with the idolaters in the idol’s
temple? And was not this the touching of an unclean thing? And did this
sin reject these members from church fellowship before conviction? Or did
it evacuate their church estate for not casting out such members?”
_Answ._ The scriptures, or writings of truth, are those heavenly
righteous scales wherein all our controversies must be tried, and that
blessed star that leads all those souls to Jesus that seek him. But,
saith Mr. Cotton, two of those scriptures alleged by me, Isa. lii. 11,
Rev. xviii. 4, which I brought to prove a necessity of leaving the false
before a joining to the true church, they speak of local separation,
which, saith he, yourself know we have made.[254]
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton cannot make both comings forth of Babel, both in
the type and antitype, to be local.]
For that local and typical separation from Babylon, Isa. lii. [11,] I
could not well have believed that Mr. Cotton or any would make that
coming forth of Babel in the antitype, Rev. xviii. 4, to be local and
material also. What civil state, nation, or country in the world, in the
antitype, must now be called Babel? Certainly, if any, then Babel itself
properly so called; but there we find, as before, a true church of Jesus
Christ, 1 Pet. v. [13.]
[Sidenote: If a local Babel, then also now a local Judea and temple, &c.,
come out of Babel, not material, but mystical.]
Secondly, if Babel be local now whence God’s people are called, then
must there be a local Judea, a land of Canaan also, into which they are
called; and where shall both that Babel and Canaan be found in all the
comings forth that have been made from the church of Rome in these last
times? But Mr. Cotton having made a local departure from Old England in
Europe to New England in America, can he satisfy his own soul, or the
souls of other men, that he hath obeyed that voice, “Come out of Babel,
my people, partake not of her sins,” &c? Doth he count the very land of
England literally Babel, and so consequently Egypt and Sodom, Rev. xi. 8,
and the land of New England Judea, Canaan? &c.
[Sidenote: The Lord Jesus hath broken down the difference of places and
persons. Two chiefest causes of God’s indignation against England. These
two particulars I should be humbly ready to make proof of.]
The Lord Jesus, John iv., clearly breaks down all difference of places,
and, Acts x., all difference of persons; and for myself, I acknowledge
the land of England, the civil laws, government, and people of England,
not to be inferior to any under heaven. Only two things I shall humbly
suggest unto my dear countrymen, whether more high and honourable at the
helm of government, or more inferior, who labour and sail in this famous
ship of England’s commonwealth, as the greatest causes, fountains, and
top roots of all the indignation of the Most High against the state and
country; first, that the whole nation and generations of men have been
forced, though unregenerate and unrepentant, to pretend and assume the
name of Christ Jesus, which only belongs, according to the institution
of the Lord Jesus, to truly regenerate and repenting souls. Secondly,
that all others dissenting from them, whether Jews or Gentiles, their
countrymen especially, for strangers have a liberty, have not been
permitted civil cohabitation in this world with them, but have been
distressed and persecuted by them.[255]
[Sidenote: The soul’s captivity to false worship is not local, but a
guilt, and not only so, but a habit or disposition of spiritual sleep,
whoredom, drunkenness, &c.]
But to return; the sum of my controversy with Mr. Cotton is, whether or
no that false worshipping of the true God be not only a spiritual guilt
liable to God’s sentence and plagues, but also an habit, frequently
compared in the prophets, and Rev. xvii., to a spirit and disposition of
spiritual drunkenness and whoredom, a soul-sleep and a soul-sickness:
so that as by the change of a chair, chamber, or bed, a sick or sleepy
man, whore or drunkard, are not changed, but they remain the same still,
until that disposition of sickness, sleepiness, drunkenness, whoredom be
put off, and a new habit of spiritual health, watchfulness, sobriety,
chastity be put on.
CHAP. XVI.
Now concerning that scripture, 2 Cor. vi., Mr. Cotton here confesseth it
holdeth forth five things that the repenting Corinthians were called out
in, from the unrepenting:
First, in the fellowship of their idolatry.
2. From making marriages with them.
3. From feasting in their idols’ temples.
4. From intimate familiarity with them.
5. From all fellowship in the unfruitful works of darkness.
[Sidenote: The benefits of the repenting English, their coming forth from
the impenitent English in those former five particulars mentioned by Mr.
Cotton.]
_Answ._ If regenerate and truly repenting English thus come forth from
the unregenerate and unrepenting, how would the name of the Lord Jesus be
sanctified, the jealousy of the Lord pacified, their own souls cleansed,
judgments prevented, yea, and one good means practised toward the
convincing and saving of the souls of such from whom in these particulars
they depart, and dare not have fellowship with: especially when in all
civil things they walk unblameably, in quiet and helpful cohabitation,
righteous and faithful dealing, and cheerful submission to civil laws,
orders, levies, customs, &c.
Yea; but Mr. Cotton demands, what makes all this to prove that godly
persons, who professedly renounce all known sin, may not be received
to church fellowship, although they see not the utmost skirts of their
pollution, as the patriarchs saw not the pollution of their polygamy?
[Sidenote: The sins of God’s people are sometimes reputed to be of
ignorance, when they are of negligence, and yet ignorance excuseth not
wholly.]
_Answ._ I repeat the former distinction of godly persons, who possibly
may live in ungodly practices, especially of false worship, and then,
according to Mr. Cotton’s own interpretation of this place to the
Corinthians, they came not forth. And I add, if there be any voice of
Christ in the mouths of his witnesses against these sins, they are not
then of ignorance, but of negligence, and spiritual hardness, against the
ways of God’s fear, against Isa. lxiii. [17,] &c.
[Sidenote: A case put to Mr. Cotton. No cause of more shame for whoredom
against an husband’s bed, than against the bed of God’s worship. The case
of polygamy, or many wives of the fathers.]
Moreover, our question is not of the utmost skirts of pollution, but the
substance of a true or false bed of worship, Cant. i. 16, in respect of
coming out of the false, before the entrance into the true. And yet I
believe that Mr. Cotton being to receive a person to church fellowship,
who formerly hath been infamous for corporal whoredom, he would not give
his consent to receive such an one without sound repentance for the
filthiness of her skirts, Lam. i. [9,] not only in actual whoredoms, but
also in whorish speeches, gestures, appearances, provocation. And why
should there be a greater strictness for the skirts of common whoredom
than of spiritual and soul whoredom, against the chastity of God’s
worship? And therefore to that instance of the fathers’ polygamy, I
answer: first, by observing what great sins godly persons may possibly
live and long continue in, notwithstanding godliness in the root.
Secondly, I ask if any person, of whose godliness Mr. Cotton hath had
long persuasion, should believe and maintain, as questionless the
fathers’ had grounds satisfying their consciences for what they did,
that he ought to have many wives, and accordingly so practised:—I say,
I ask, whether Mr. Cotton would receive such a godly person to church
fellowship? yea, I ask, whether the church of the Jews, had they seen
this evil, would have received such a proselyte from the Gentiles? and
when it was seen, whether any persons so practising would have been
suffered amongst them? But, lastly, what was this personal sin of these
godly persons? Was it any matter of God’s worship, any joining with
a false church, ministry, worship, government, from whence they were
to come, before they could constitute his true church, and enjoy his
worship, ministry, government? &c.
Mr. Cotton concludeth this passage thus: “The church of Corinth had such
as partook with idolaters in their idols’ temple, and was not this,”
saith he, “touching of an unclean thing, and did this reject these
members from church fellowship before conviction? and did it evacuate
their church estate for not casting out such members?”
_Answ._ This was an unclean thing indeed, from which God calls his people
in this place, with glorious promises of receiving them: and Mr. Cotton
confesseth that after conviction any member, obstinate in these unclean
touches, ought to be rejected; for, said he, did this sin reject these
members from church fellowship before conviction?
[Sidenote: It lesseneth not a rebellion that it is in a multitude: hence
a city in Israel idolatrous was to be destroyed.]
And upon the same ground, that one obstinate person ought to be rejected
out of church estate, upon the same ground, if a greater company or
church were obstinate in such unclean touches, and so consequently in a
rebellion against Christ, ought every sound Christian church to reject
them, and every sound member to withdraw from them.
[Sidenote: Obstinacy that casteth out, will keep out from communion with
the Lord Jesus in his church.]
And hence further it is clear, that if such unclean touches obstinately
maintained, as Mr. Cotton confesseth and practiseth, be a ground of
rejection of a person in the church, questionless it is a ground of
rejection when such persons are to join unto the church. And if obstinacy
in the whole church after conviction be a ground for such a church’s
rejection, questionless such a church or number of persons obstinate in
such evils cannot congregate, nor become a true constituted church of
Jesus Christ.
[Sidenote: The church of Corinth, and every true church, separate from
idols as a chaste virgin to Christ.]
The greatest question here would be, whether the Corinthians in their
first constitution were separate or no from such idol temples? and this
Mr. Cotton neither doth nor can deny, a church estate being a state
of marriage unto Jesus Christ; and so Paul professedly saith, he had
espoused them as a chaste virgin to Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. xi. [2.]
CHAP. XVII.
Mr. Cotton proceeds to answer some other allegations which I produced
from the confession of sin made by John’s disciples, and the proselyte
Gentiles before they were admitted into church fellowship, Matt. iii. 6;
Acts xix. 18, unto which he returneth a threefold answer: “The first is
grounded upon his apparent mistake of my words in a grant of mine, viz.,
such a confession and renunciation is not absolutely necessary, if the
substance of true repentance be discerned. Whence,” saith he, “according
to your own confession, such persons as have the substance of true
repentance may be a true church.”
[Sidenote: The substance of true general repentance in all God’s
children, though living in many gross abominations of false worship,
ministry, &c. Not the same measure and degrees of repentance in all.]
I answer, it is clear in the progress of the whole controversy, that I
ever intend by the substance of true repentance, not that general grace
of repentance which all God’s people have, as Luther, a monk, and going
to, yea, publishing the German mass, and those famous bishops burnt for
Christ in Queen Mary’s days; but that substance of repentance for those
false ways of worship, church, ministry, &c., in which God’s people
have lived, although the confessing and renouncing of them be not so
particularly expressed, and with such godly sorrow and indignation as
some express, and may well become: And indeed the whole scope of that
caution was for Christian moderation and gentleness toward the several
sorts of God’s people, professing particular repentance for their
spiritual captivity and bondage; during which captivity also, I readily
acknowledge the substance of repentance, and of all the graces of Christ
in general.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]
In his second answer, Mr. Cotton saith, I “grant with the one hand, and
take away with the other; for he denies it necessary to the admission
of members, that every one should be convinced of the sinfulness of
every sipping of the whore’s cup, ‘for,’ saith he, ‘every sipping of a
drunkard’s cup is not sinful.’”
[Sidenote: Some have drunk deep of the whore’s cup, and some but sipped
yet intoxicated.]
_Answer._ First he doth not rightly allege my words; for a little before
he confesseth my words to be, that anti-christian drunkenness and
whoredom is to be confessed of all such as have drunk of the whore’s cup,
or but sipped of it. In which words I plainly distinguished between such
as have drunk deeper of her cup, as papists, popish priests, &c., and
such, as in comparison have but sipped, as God’s own people; who yet by
such sipping have been so intoxicated, as to practice spiritual whoredom
against Christ, in submitting to false churches, ministry, worship, &c.
Secondly, whereas he saith every sipping of a drunkard’s cup is not
sinful:—
I answer: neither the least sipping, nor constant drinking out of the
cup which a drunkard useth to drink in, is sinful; but every drunken
sip, which is our question, is questionless sinful, and so consequently
to be avoided by the sober, whether the cup of corporal or spiritual
drunkenness.
CHAP. XVIII.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]
_Mr. Cotton._ “Yea; but,” saith he, “the three thousand Jews were
admitted when they repented of their murdering of Christ, although they
never saw all the superstitious leavenings wherewith the Pharisees had
bewitched them: and so no doubt may godly persons now, although they be
not yet convinced of every passage of anti-christian superstition, &c.;
and that upon this ground, that spiritual whoredom and drunkenness is not
so soon discerned as corporal.”
[_Answer._] I answer, it is not indeed so easily discerned, and yet
not the less sinful, but infinitely transcendent, as much as spiritual
sobriety exceeds corporal, and the bed of the most high God, exceeds the
beds of men, who are but dust and ashes.
[Sidenote: The first Christians the best pattern for all Christians now.
The power of true repentance for killing of Christ.]
Secondly, I answer, the converted Jews, although they saw not all the
leavenings of the Pharisees, yet they mourned for killing of Christ, and
embraced him in his worship, ministry, government, and were added to his
church: and oh! that the least beams of light and sparkles of heat were
in mine own, and others’ souls, which were kindled by the Holy Spirit of
God in those famous converts at the preaching of Peter, Acts ii. The true
Christ now in his worship, ministry, &c. being discerned, and repentance
for persecuting and killing of him being expressed, there necessarily
follows a withdrawing from the church, ministry, and worship of the false
Christ, and submission unto the true: and this is the sum and substance
of our controversy.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]
Concerning the confession of sins unto John, he grants the disciples of
John confessed their sins, the publicans theirs, the soldiers theirs, the
people theirs; but, saith he, “it appears not that they confessed their
pharisaical pollution.”
And concerning the confession Acts xix. 18, [19,] he saith, it is not
expressed “that they confessed all their deeds.”
_Answer._ If both these confessed their notorious sins, as Mr. Cotton
expresseth, why not as well their notorious sins against God, their
idolatries, superstitious worships, &c? Surely throughout the whole
scripture, the matters of God and his worship are first and most
tenderly handled; his people are ever described by the title of his
worshippers, and his enemies by the title of worshippers of false gods,
and worshipping the true after a false manner; and to prove this were to
bring forth a candle to the bright shining of the sun at noon day.
CHAP. XIX.
_Mr. Cotton._ His third answer is; “But to satisfy you more fully,
and the Lord make you willing in true meekness of spirit to receive
satisfaction, the body of the members do in general profess, that the
reason of their coming over to us was that they might be freed from the
bondage of human inventions and ordinances, as their souls groaned
under, for which also they profess their hearty sorrow, so far as
through ignorance or infirmity they have been defiled. Beside, in our
daily meetings, and specially in the times of our solemn humiliations,
we generally all of us bewail all our former pollutions wherewith
we have defiled ourselves and the holy things of God, in our former
administrations and communions; but we rather choose to do it than
talk of it. And we can but wonder how you can so boldly and resolutely
renounce all the churches of God, for neglect of that which you know not
whether they have neglected or no, and before you have admonished us of
our sinfulness in such neglect, if it be found amongst us.”
[Sidenote: How can a soul truly oppose anti-christ, that endures not to
have his name questioned.]
_Answer._ I answer, with humble desires to the Father of lights for
the true meekness and wisdom of his Spirit, here is mention of human
inventions and ordinances, and defiling themselves and holy things of God
in former administrations and communions, and yet no mention what such
inventions and ordinances, what such administrations and communions were.
“We rather choose to do it,” saith he, “than to talk of it;” which makes
me call to mind an expression of an eminent and worthy person amongst
them in a solemn conference, viz., What need we speak of anti-christ, can
we not enjoy our liberties without inveighing against anti-christ? &c.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton witnessing against a national church, and yet
holding fellowship with it.]
The truth is, I acknowledge their witness against ceremonies and bishops;
but that yet they see not the evil of a national church, notwithstanding
they constitute only particular and independent [congregations,] let
their constant practice speak, in still joining with such churches and
ministers in the ordinances of the word and prayer, and their persecuting
of myself for my humble, and faithful, and constant admonishing of them,
of such unclean walking between a particular church, which they only
profess to be Christ’s, and a national [one], which Mr. Cotton professeth
to separate from.[256]
[Sidenote: Impossible for the answerer to be ignorant of their church
estate, as Mr. Cotton pretendeth.]
But how could I possibly be ignorant, as he seemeth to charge me, of
their state, when being from first to last in fellowship with them,
an officer amongst them, had private and public agitations concerning
their state and condition with all or most of their ministers, and at
last suffered for such admonitions to them, the misery of a winter’s
banishment amongst the barbarians? and yet, saith he, “You know not what
we have done, neither have you admonished us of our sinfulness.”
CHAP. XX.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton.]
A third scripture which I produced was Haggai ii. 13, 14, 15, desiring
that the place might be thoroughly weighed, and that the Lord might
please to hold the scales himself, the prophet there telling the church
of the Jews, that if a person unclean by a dead body touch holy things,
those holy things become unclean unto them: and so, saith he, in this
nation, and so is every work of their hands and that which they offer
is unclean; whence I inferred, that even church covenants made, and
ordinances practised, by persons polluted through spiritual deadness, and
filthiness of communion, such covenants and ordinances become unclean
unto them, and are profaned by them.
_Mr. Cotton._ Mr. Cotton answers, “your purpose was to prove that
churches cannot be constituted by such persons as are unclean by
anti-christian pollutions; or if they be so constituted they are not to
be communicated with, but separated from. But the prophet acknowledgeth
the whole church of the Jews to be unclean, and yet neither denies them
to be a church truly constituted, nor stirs up himself or others to
separate from them.”
[Sidenote: The church of the Jews a national church truly constituted,
therefore not to be separated from.]