Short Reply to the Donatists, Text (2 of 3)
Alſo for ſinging of Pſalmes, I will note here vntounto the reader, your foule prophane ſpeeches: in page 180. thus you write. Heere would not bee forgotten alſo the ſweete Pſalmodicall harmonie of the Vultures, Crowes, Gleads, Owles, Geeſe, of the Leopards, Beares, Wolues, Dogs, Foxes, Swine, Goates, (pardon mee, for thus the holy Ghoſt termeth and likeneth the prophane multitudes aſſembled in the falſe Church) all theſe together with one accord ſimphonie and harmonie, ſing ſome pleaſant Ballad, or elſe vntounto Dauids melodious harpe ſome Pſalme in rime (I ſay not rithme now or meeter) well concinnate to the eare (though neuer a whit to the ſence, purpoſe, or true vſe of the Pſalme) before the ſermon, to ſtir vp the ſpirit of their worthy prieſt or preachers: who being rapt and rauiſhed with this harmony goes to his geere, informe aboue ſaid, where his mouth diſtilles, and his lippes droppe ſuch old parables, ſuch premeditat and well ſtudied and choſen ſentences, as ſhall diſpleaſe no partie, vnles he be of too ſuſpitious a nature.
Your owne words Maſter Barrow, which I hauehave ſet downe, doo ſhew themſelues ſo vngodly and prophane vntounto eueryevery Chriſtian minde, yea vntounto eueryevery one which hath but a ſparke of humane …uility and modeſty left in hun, that I néede not to ſay much: for albeit our Sauiour called the Scribes and Phariſies, which were ſworne enemies vntounto the Goſpell, and ſought by their counterfait holines to ſeduce others, generations of vipers and ſerpents Herod that foxe, and Saint Paule, called the falſe Apoſtles dogs: yet is it no excuſe or colour, for your prophane impiety, againſt all degrees and ſorts, both of men and women, which are no ſuch enemies, but louelove and imbrace the Goſpell, when you giuegive them the names of thoſe vile beaſts and birds: and eſpecially when as this your moſt vile reproach, reacheth not alone vntounto all the aſſemblies in England, but alſo vntounto all the holy Churches which hauehave imbraced & profeſſe the glorious Goſpell. For all the Churches hauehave the Pſalmes in meeter, which they ſing in their publick aſſemblies, and their preſcribed leiturgies, which ye make ſo horrible. Moreouer, y• people in other Churches, you make to be but prophane multitudes, as in the aſſemblies of England, as we ſhall afterward ſee where you charge maſter Caluine at Geneua, that with ignorance and raſhnes, and diſorderly procéedings, hée at the firſt …aſh made no ſcruple to receaue all the whole ſtate, euen all the prophane ignorant people, into the boſome of the church, which you terme a confuſe route, &c. A pernicious example vntounto all Europe: whome then hauehave you called Wolues, Foxes, Dogs, Owles, &c? Your tongs are your own, who is Lord ouer yee? Pſalm. 12. Your ſufferings are for Chriſt, ſo are theirs which lye bound in bedlem. I doo not doubt but that in ſundry places the Pſalmes in M…tremiſſe of the ſtrict ſence, & ſo no doubt do their Pſalmes in any Church, but yet there is nothing in them vnholy, or diſagréeing from the truth. All the knowledge which you hauehave is wholly from the writings, expoſitions, and tranſlations of thoſe whom you cerine Owles, Vultures, Dogs, Foxes, &c. For take away the tranſlations of the Bible, and what could you haueſ…n: And where had you the direction vntounto the ſight of thoſe things which you hold in truth, but from the writings of others: Would you make vsus beléeue that you had found them out of your ſelues? In déede your vnſound and craſed principles, vponupon which you ground are your own, and nothing elſe. And yet as if you had all knowledge in the fountaines of the holy Scriptures, and knew a right ſenſe and ſcope in them, which none beſides your ſelues hauehave attained vntounto, you reprehend the Pſalmes as well concinnate to the eare, but nothing to the ſenſe, and alſo the preachers, as not rightly deu… …ing the word. If you had ſhewed ſome one Pſalme for in example, firſt in laying open the natiue ſenſe (wherein yet for all your great brags, you muſt truſt Tremellius, becauſe ſome one word wrong tranſlated may carry the ſenſe another way) and then how the méeter hath wholly ſwarued from the ſame, it had béen ſomewhat. If you hauehave any true grammer ſenſe of the Pſalmes (for that is it which we eſtéeme as the ground of truth) or of the reſt of the Scriptures, which you hauehave not from ſuch Owles and Foxes, as Maſter Tremellious, Beza, and other tranſlators, we would be glad to know it. But remember what is ſaid of ſome, that they are ſwelling waues of the ſea, foming out their owne ſhame: what greater ſhame and diſcredit can there be then for men to fall into ſuch inſolency and ſwelling, that being groſly ignorant, & hauing no knowledge but through the helpes miniſtred by others, yet take vponupon them as if they wereſent from heauen, as the onelyonly men that hauehave ſée…e the true light? This is no exceſſiue ſpéech, ſéeing y… …er… in many things condemne all Churches and their learnedſt reachers▪ …e… the reader conſidet of the prophanenes and falſehoode of your other ſpéeches, of the preacher going to his géere and not offending any, and ſuch like. I doo not know Maſter Barrow, what your former conuerſation hath bée…: but by your ſpéeches … man would iudge that you had ſpent your time▪ rather in the ſocieties of …arding and dicing, then in the …c…l… of Chriſt, here therefore I conclude that with ignorance, falſehood and prophane impiety, ye accuſe our worſhip to be blaſphemous and Idolatrous. Thus much for the firſt tranſgreſſion, now to the ſecond.
The ſecond is that the prophane vngodly multitudes without exception of any one perſon, are with vsus receiued into, and retained in the boſome and bodie of our Church.
In your preamble Maſter Barrow you doo but babble, and that vponupon your owne ſurmiſes, contrarie to my plaine words, and whether againſt your conſcience looke you; for I doo not allow euill miniſters, nor their admitting of open notorious ſinners vntounto the table of the Lord. And when I ſaid the Church of Englang dooth not allow the ſame, I ſpeake of the eſtabliſhed publick order by the conſent of the whole land, which is both for the godlines of the miniſters, & repelling the notorious offendors from the Sacrament.
Moreouer, we doo not at any hand allow your arguments, which are drawne from the principles of Donatiſine, as namely that wée muſt ſeparate our ſelues where wée ſée any ſwarue from their duety, and offend.
The reaſon which you brought to prooue this ſecond tranſgreſſion (as you ſayd) at once, I reduced into forme of Sylogiſme thus: where all are receiued in by baptiſme, and no power to caſt forth any by excommunication, there all the prophane multitudes are without exception of any one perſon receiued into, & retayned in the boſome and bodie of the Church. But in the Church of England all are receiued in by Baptiſme, and no power to caſt forth any by excommunication. Therefore in the Church of England all the prophane multitudes without the exception of any one perſon, are receiued into and retained in the boſome and bodie of the Church.
Here you complayne and that grieuonſly, that I did frame this argument after mine owne conceipt, as I might beſt deale withall, and then did proceede to confute you. The falſification which you charge me ſo ſore withall is, that I hauehave put in a newe minor propoſition: as namely the whole bodie of the Church of England, for the particular aſſeblies. It is a ſtrāge caſe to ſee the witte of ſome man, what great … …hee can contriue, if men will giuegive credit. He that is … whether it be byſome one aſſemblie which … …ower, or by the whole bodie of a Church in a kingdom, is …e not caſt forth? Did not Eſra with the Princes and Elders of Iſrael, publiſh a Proclamation, that hee that ſhould not come vp to Ieruſalem within three dayes, ſhould bee ſeparated from the congregation of the multitude that came out of captiuitie? Eſra. 10. ver. 8. this was excommunication. Moreouer, where you ſayd, that the Parſon and his pariſh hath not the power to caſt forth any by excommunication. I did not let this paſſe, but tolde you, that it is not meete that the Parſon and his pariſh ſhould hauehave this power to excommunicate, vnleſſe it be ſuch a pariſh as hath the conſiſtory of Paſtors and Elders. I gaue you the example of the Church of Geneua, where eueryevery ſeuerall flock hath a Paſtor: but yet theſe Paſtors and their flocks hauehave not the power to excommunicate. Why doo not you then, (if you will anſwere) prooue by the worde of God, that eueryevery particular flock in a kingdome or region, is of neceſſitie for the being of a Church to hauehave this power whole and ſeuerall by it ſelfe. I take it you ſhall neuer be able to prooue that it ought to be, much leſſe ſhall you be able to prooue them to bee no true Churches, which hauehave not in eueryevery ſeuerall congregation eſtabliſhed the power of excommunication. For touching excommunication, there be Churches which are true Churches of Chriſt, which hauehave it not, nor iudge it needefull. Maſter Beza in his booke againſt Eraſtus pag. 2. ſayth: that he was charged by ſome, to eſteeme them to be no Churches which wanted excommunication, or ſuch a Preſbyterie: which was vniuſtly layd to his charge, as he ſayth, the perpetuall conuiction of him and thoſe Churches; did ſufficiently witnes. You hauehave more worke in hand here Maſter Barrow, then you bee wate of: For if you had proued that the Church of England hath no power to excommunicate, yet there remayneth a further thing which is not ſo eaſie as you take it to bee conuinced, namely that it is no true Church of Chriſt which hath no excommunication. All Churches are againſt you in this poynt, and the light of the truth will be as ſtrong agaynſt you, as it hath beene agaynſt the Annabaptiſts.
Here you make the chalenge anewe, and ſay: If I would vouchſafe to take mine aduerſaries with me into the field, and giuegive them leaue to bring and to vſe their owne weapons. I anſwere, that for all your outcries, yet there hath been no one weapon taken from ye, nor yet cut ſhorter. That ſpeciall weapon which you now hauehave drawen and burniſhed, wherein you repoſe your truſt, is this.
Where all the prophane and vngodly are receiued into, and retayned in the Church as members thereof, there cannot bee ſayd the true eſtabliſhed Church of Chriſt. But in the Church of England all the prophane multitudes & vngodly of the land were receiued into, & are retayned in their Church as members thereof. Therefore the Church of England in this eſtate cannot be ſayd the true eſtabliſhed Church of Chriſt.
You doo here conclude a new queſtion, for there may bee a true Church of Chriſt, and yet not in all things rightly or truly eſtabliſhed. Agayne, there be foure terminie in this your Sylogiſme: becauſe this clauſe (all the prophane & vngodly) is taken more largely in the maior, then it is in the minor, or elſe your maior is falſe alſo, & the ſcriptures which you quote falſely applied. It is certain that God did ſeparate his Church from the Heathen Nations that did not call vponupon his name. Such were not compelled to enter. But if you looke vponupon the Church of Iſrael, the Nation of the Iewes, which had the couenant, when they fell into Idolatry and horrible impietyes, you ſhall ſee that all the godly Kings of Iuda that reformed and reſtored the true worſhip of God, compelled all to the ſame. Doo you reade that the Idolaters or their ſeede, (which ſtill after a ſorte profeſſed the God of Abraham, and had the ſeale of the couenant vponupon them) were caſt foorth? You may ſée in the Prophet Sophonie, that in the dayes of the godly King Ioſias, many of thoſe Idolaters did turne, but feynedly for feare of puniſhment, and ſecretly worſhipped Idoles. The nation of England did profeſſe Ieſus Chriſt, and were all ſealed with the ſeale of the couenant, but yet ouerwhelmed generally in Idolatry and many horrible ſinnes: Our Noble Quéene Elizabeth placed by God vponupon the Regall throne, compelleth them all being her ſubiects, according to their vow in Baptiſme to renounce Idolatry, and to imbrace the holy fayth and Religion of Chriſt, appoynting ſharpe penaltyes for ſuch as ſhall obſtinately perſiſt either in Idolatrie or other horrible ſinnes. Now tell me Maſter Barrow, what doth ſhe herein other then the godly kings of Iuda did? She receiueth not in nor compelleth Turkes, Iewes, or heathen, but onelyonly ſuch as are Chriſtians by profeſſion. And therefore you may ſee that if you will hauehave your maior propoſition agree with the Scriptures, it muſt needes be taken more largely than your minor. And thus you are come forth into the field with your choyce weapon which deceiuethye vtterly. But yet here to make ſome face of true zeale, you reckon vp a number of horrible ſinnes. Indeede God requireth that al his ſeruants ſhould vtterly abhorre and condemne ſuch vices and ſpeak againſt them, but he alloweth not any to take occaſion thereby to condemne his Church. Such vices abound, but yet there are many thouſands which cannot …e charged wt any one foule vice, whoſe conuerſation in the profeſſion of the true fayth, is & hath been with much more ſobrietie and modeſty then yours, (Maſter Barrow) vnleſſe your time paſt hauehave beene better ſpent then the preſent. And when God ſhall open your eyes, & his terror ſhall be vponye, ye ſhall know that I hauehave not by the deuill blaſphemed yee, but ſhewed by Gods worde, that you hauehave with horrible preſumption and intruſion into Gods iudgement ſeate, and with moſt ſauage crueltie ſought to rend vp and to teare the Lordes tender plants.
In the next place commeth the Baptizing the Children of prophane men which profeſſe Chriſt, and remaine in the Church. Here Maſter Barrow you are in a wonderfull diſpleaſure, and can not ſatiſfie your ſelfe with all the varietie of odious tearmes which you doe euen fome out. The hereſie which I hauehave vttered about this matter is ſo foule (as you take it) that after many extreame wordes, you ſay you may by the direct warrant of Gods word hold me and mine ordinary moſt heynous falſefiers, and corrupters of the whole law and worde of God, moſt blaſphemous and peruitions falſe Prophets. A man would thinke at the reading of theſe words, that the whole Church were on fire, eſpecially if I ſhould repeate but the one halfe of your ſpeeches, but that we know Maſter Barrow it is but your faſhion: If it pleaſe God he may giuegive you ſome ſpark of modeſtie. But touching the matter it ſelfe, I did affirme that the children of prophane men which remayn in the Church profeſſing Chriſt, whether they bee cloſe hypoerites or openly wicked in conuerſation, do belong to the couenannt & are to be baptized, ſo that the Church take care for their inſtruction and education in the true fayth. Your cauills here about verball confeſſion (which God alone can iudge) about pariſh aſſemblies (which are members of a Church, though eueryevery one by it ſelfe ſeuerally hath not the full power, and ſo to becalled a Church) about expreſſe contrariety, error and ſacriledge (in my propoſition as you ſay) are not worth the mention. Touching the Scriptures which I alleage to prooue that the intereſt in the couenant doth not depend vponupon the ſyncere fayth or godlines of the next parents, youcrie out of ſo many errors, miſchines, and blaſphemies, that you doubt not (as you ſay) to pronounce and reiect theſe doctrines of this falſe Prophet moſt blaſphemous and deuiliſh.
But now if it be true which I ſay and proue, agaynſt whom hauehave you powred foorth your poyſon? And what bring you to diſproue it; But that then all the world is within the Church holy, all being ſprong within farre leſſe then a thouſand generations of many faithfull, and lineally come from the Patriarch Noah? And that then ought the Iſraelites vnderunder the lawe to hauehave circumciſed all their captiue Cananites and heathen that came into their power. Then ought the Church now to baptize al the ſeed euen of the moſt wicked and vngodly, whether Turkes, Papiſts, Idolaters, &c.
You are out of the way Maſter Barrow, and the faſter you runne, the further: for you ſhould remember that I ſpake of the ſeede of ſuch prophane men as remayne in the Church and profeſſe Chriſt, and are ſealed with the ſeale of the Couenant. Will you make no difference betweene thoſe which were or are without the Church …ncircumciſed, or vnbaptized, not profeſſing the God of Abraham, or the faith of Chriſt, and thoſe which were or be in the Church, circumciſed or baptized, profeſſing the the God of Abraham and the faith of Chriſt? The Cananites and other heathen, if they forſooke falſe Gods, and imbraced the religion of the true God, were circumciſed: & ſo may the Turks and heathen be baptized at this day. But while they are without and blaſpheme and renounce Chriſt, what hath the Church to do with their children, which are not vnderunder her gouernment and power to bring vp? The Church is to take care that al thoſe children may bee inſtructed in the faith, and guided in the way of godlines, which ſhe admitteth vntounto baptiſme. For the places of Scripture, where I ſayd that the couenant with Abraham was made thus, I will bee thy God, and the God of thy ſeede, and that to a thouſand generations, Exod. 20. And that becauſe of this S. Peter calleth all the Iewes in generall, the children of the Prophets and of the couenant. Act. 3. 25. and Paule, Rom. 9. 4 For which reſpect they are called holy, Rom. 11. And the childrē of Idolaters among them are called Gods children, Ezech. 16. The whole nation of the Iewes, a very fewe men excepted, did at ſundrie times very grieuouſly ſinne agaynſt the Lord, and the greater part of thoſe neuer returned by true repentance, but yet remayned in the profeſſion of the God of Abraham, and were circumciſed. If the couenant had been diſanulled to their ſeede, how could Saint Peter ſay, they were the children of the Couenant? Or how could Saint Paule ſay, that theirs was the adoption and the Couenant? If none were outwardly to ſtand vnderunder the Couenant but the elect, how ſhould this hauehave been ſpoken? Or if the Couenant had been diſanulled by their fathers ſinnes? Unto this (Maſter Barrow) you hauehave made none anſwer at all. But you take occaſion at that which I alleage out of Exod. 20. to make ſome colour or ſhewe of matter, and ſay that I wittingly ſuppreſſe the next words of the ſentence, which are theſe; of them that louelove me and keepe my commandements, which ſhew to whom this couenant is made and belongeth, and the condition on our part. And you require that I ſhould …he… one plate through the whole Scripture, where the Lords Couenant is made vntounto vsus without this condition, and then you ſay I may peraduenture cléere my ſelfe, and mine ordinarie for publiſhing this wicked and diuelliſh hereſie, ſo directly contrary to the whole Scriptures in more then a thouſand places. Thus it is your pleaſure (Maſter Barrow) euen in your deepe ignorance, and that in the grounds of Religion, to impugne the ſtablenes of Gods couenant made vntounto his people. It is a thing indeed which any godly mind may with horror tremble at, when with ſuch furie you terme it a diuelliſh hereſie, which is indeed that doctrine of grace deliuered in the Scriptures, whereby the glorie of the Lord is moſt highly magnified. It is certayne that the Couenant or promiſe of God dooth not profite any, vnleſſe they receiue it, as the holy Ghoſt ſpeaketh, mixed with faith. Heb. 4. 2. Then where true faith is, there is ſanctification, there is obedience according to the meaſure of that faith greater or leſſe.
Hereupon it followeth, that as God is become their God, ſo they are become his people, and this is required on our part. But now to inferre vponupon this, that the ſtablenes of Gods couenant dependeth vponupon this condition, if we keepe his commandements, and that a man, yea a whole Church doth forfeit the couenant (as your phraſe is) if they ſhewe rebellion, is moſt wicked. For what is more manifeſt then this, that if it had been ſo, the couenant had been forfeited almoſt vntounto all Iſrael, and that very often, for they oftentimes rebelled agaynſt God moſt grieuouſly, and brake promiſe on their part. The complaints of the Prophets are many: ſundrie Pſalmes doo ſet it forth: the booke of the Iudges declareth how oft they rebelled and fel vntounto foule Idolatrie, and how oft he plagued them, and humbled them by deliuering them into the hands of heathen Kings. You will ſay they rebelled, but repented. And in the dayes of eueryevery godly Iudge, and godly King were the viſible Church. But in the times of their defection when they committed Idolatrie, you ſay they were not the viſible Church. Yea you alleage teſtimonies of Scripture, to prooue that in their defection they were not the Lords people: as Deuteronom. 32. 19. Micha. 2. 7, 8, 9, Amos. 8. 2. Ezech. 16. Alas Maſter Barrow, would any man looke for ſuch matter at their hands that had but euen read ouer the Byble? It is declared by Moſes, that God choſe them to be his people not for their owne righteouſnes, but of free merciemercy, and made his couenant with them. Likewiſe it is moſt certayne that hee continued his faith towards them, not for that they kept couenant with him, (for they often rebelled) but for his own names ſake.
To ſay that they forfeited the Couenant by tranſgreſſing his commandements, and recouered it agayne by repentance, and ſo to be now out now in, is (that I may ſay no worſe) moſt fooliſhly ſpoken. For they did not enter agayne into a couenant which was loſt becauſe they repented, but contrariwiſe they repented becauſe they were in the couenant. That is, becauſe he had ſworne vntounto them to bee their God, hee not onelyonly brought them downe by afflictions, chaſtiſing them as a father, but gaue them the graces of repentance. This is ſhewed Pſalm. 106. where the Prophet hauing ſet foorth their manifold rebellions, and the plagues wherewith he plagued them, he ſayth: When they were brought downe by affliction, he looked to their distreſſe and heard their cry. And remembred for them his couenant: and repented for the multitude of his mercies. The Lord ſayth alſo, He foreknewe them to be an hard people: that their necke was as a barre of yron, and their forehead of braſſe, and that they would deale vnfaithfully. Eſay. 48. verſ. 4. 8. Yet he ſayth, I will be long ſuffering for my names ſake, and for my praiſe, I will refraine mine anger towards thee, that I may not cut thee off. verſ. 9. It were too long to repeate all the Scriptures where the Lord pronounceth that he choſe them for his owne names ſake, that they dealt vnfaithfully, and yet he kept them as his people, and forgaue their iniquities euen for himſelfe. You will ſay, that Gods couenant was to the elect among them, but the reſt were not vnderunder the couenant, nor the viſible Church. This is your grieuous blindnes, that you cannot ſee that many ſtand outwardly vnderunder the couenant, and are the viſible Church, which yet receiue no benefite thereby, being wicked euen voyd of faith. And for this cauſe although the great ſwarme of the Iſraelites were wicked reprobates, and (as the Prophet ſayth) but a remnant ſaued, yet for their outward profeſſion the whole Nation was euer ſayd to ſtand vnderunder the couenant. Otherwiſe how could it be ſayd, That Chriſt came among his owne, and his owne receiued him not? Ioh. 1. How could theſe wicked infidels be called his owne, in any other reſpect, but that they ſtood outwardly vnderunder the couenant, and were the viſible Church? And therefore when the bodie of that people ſhould ſtand no longer vnderunder the couenant, to be the viſible Church, but (as our Sauiour ſayth) the kingdome of God ſhould be taken from them. Math. 21. The Lord (to ſhew that he had ſtill kept his couenant with them, euen vntill that time in which they now breake off themſelues, and that hee had giuen their mother no bill of diuorſe) aſketh, where the bill of diuorſe of their mother is, by which he had put her away? Eſay. 50. verſ. 1. The tenne Tribes which fell from the houſe of Dauid, and worſhipped Idols, were yet in ſome ſort euen the whole bodie of them vnderunder the Couenant, and were ſo farre the viſible Church: for otherwiſe how ſhould the Lord bee called their God? For when Benhadab made warre agaynſt Achab, and tooke the foyle, and his ſeruants counſelled him to enterpriſe the warre agayne, and to fight with them in the valleyes, ſaying: That the God of Iſrael was the God of the mountaines, the Lord tooke it agaynſt himſelfe, and gaue them the ouerthrow the ſecond time. 1. King. 20. Achazias K. of Iſrael being ſicke vponupon a fall he had taken, ſent his meſſengers to enquire of Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Elias the Prophet is ſent to meete them, and to ſay, Is it not becauſe there is no God in Iſrael, that you goe to enquire of Baalzebub, the God of Ekron? 2. King. 1.
Now, for the places which you alleage that they became not his people, you doo but peruert them. For the ſong Deuteron. 32. verſ. 5. If you will vnderſtand it ſo as you here apply it, how ſhould they after bee called his people and his ſeruants in the ſame ſong? verſ. 36. The breuitie and the placing of the words in that ſentence doo make it darke. This is the ſenſe, That the peruerſe generation corrupt themſelues by their owne vice, which is not of his children. For the holines of Gods children is from him; but when they tranſgreſſe and corrupt themſelues, it is from their owne vice. And hee calleth all the whole people his ſonnes and daughters, not in reſpect of ſome former eſtate, (as you vainly imagine; ſeeing that very fewe of them were his ſonnes and daughters indeede in their beſt eſtate) but in reſpect that they ſtood outwardly vnderunder his couenant, and profeſſed his name. And that the Lord ſayth, Yeſterday which was my people, is riſen as an enemie. Mich. 2. verſ. 8. is not to ſhewe that they were now quite remooued and caſt off by the Lord from being vnderunder his couenant, though the multitude were the Church but in name; but their hoſtilitie among themſelues, both in Iuda and Iſrael. The ende which God ſayd was come to his people Amos. 8. is meant of their ſubuerſion and captiuitie. Will you ſay that they were neuer after nor no longer Gods people? If you dare not ſay this, why doo you alleage that place? You would hauehave me ſhewe ſome place in the Scriptures where God maketh his couenaut without this condition, that they ſhall bee his people and obey him.
That is not the queſtion Maſter Barrow, but this, whether, when men breake couenant and promiſe with God by diſobeying him, whoſe couenant yet they chalenge, his couenant be broken and abrogated towards them? And for this I ſhewed you the plaine Scripture, Pſalm. 89. where the Lord ſaith: If they ſhould for ſake his law, he would viſite their offences or defections with the rod▪ but he will not diſanull his merciemercy towards them, nor falſifie his fayth. That he will not prophane his couenaunt, nor alter the thing which is gone out of his lippes. Maſter Barrow, what can be more expreſſe then this, to ſhew the ſtablenes of Gods souenant dependeth not vponupon our obedience, or vponupon that condition which you ſpeake of, and ſay the couenant ſtandeth no longer then they ſtand obedient? Why did you not anſwere this place, but require ſtill to hauehave that ſhewed which is playnly ſhewed you before? Solomon on his part brake couenant with God, will you ſay he did forfeyte the couenant? I conclude therfore with the ſaying of Saynt Paul, where hee ſpeaketh of the Iewes what preferment they had aboue other. What if ſome of them were vnfaythfull, ſhall their vnbeliefe make the fayth of God of none effect? God for bid. Yea let God be true, and eueryevery man a lyer. Rom. 4. Ceaſe therefore Maſter Barrow to hang the ſtablenes of Gods couenant vponupon the obedience of man, and do not ſo peruerſly reaſon againſt the truth in affirming that the couenant of God was diſanulled toward the Iewes, not to ſtand as the viſible Church, before ſuch time as they had reiected Chriſt.
The next thing is that I ſay eyther wee are within the couenant from our Auceſtors, and hauehave the ſeale thereof, euen Baptiſme, or elſe your ſelues are without Baptiſme, and ſo muſt either with the Catabaptiſts rebaptize, or elſe holde the couenant without a ſeale. Neyther of theſe you will doo, and yet ſtand in it that we hauehave no true Church nor true Sacraments. This therefore is your anſwere.
The Iſraelites in their Schiſme, and the Iewes in their Apoſtaſie, ſtill had and vſed Circumciſion. This Circumciſion was no true Sacrament vntounto them, neither ſealed the Lords couenant vntounto them in that eſtate. Yet was this circumciſion true Circumciſion, concerning the outward cutting; and was vponupon their repentance and returne, neither defaced nor reiterate, but they were reſtored to the Temple, and receiued to the paſouer. In like manner in this generall Apoſtaſie and defection from the Goſpell, the Baptiſme continued in theſe Apoſtaticall and falſe Churches, cannot in this eſtate thus adminiſtred, be ſayd a true Sacrament or ſeale of Gods couenant vntounto them. Yet concerning the outward waſhing, it is true Baptiſme, the outward action neede not, and ought not to bee againe repeated, after the abuſe thereof in the falſe Church is purged away by true repentance.
Thus farre be your wordes Maſter Barrow. Alas poore creatures, how much is your ſiely blindnes to bee pitied, that can ſet down things ſo directly contrary at the ſame inſtant, & yet eſpieit not? for you ſay that Circumciſion in their Apoſtaſie was no true Sacrament vntounto them, neither ſealed the Lordes couenant vntounto them in that eſtate. And yet (you ſay) it was true Circumciſion concerning the outward cutting. Likewiſe you ſay that Baptiſme in the poperie cannot bee ſaide a true Sacrament or ſeale of Gods couenant vntounto them. And yet concerning the outward waſhing ye confeſſe it true Baptiſme. Is not this all one, as if a man ſhould ſay, it is the true ſacrament and ſeale of Gods couenant; it is no true Sacrament nor ſeale of Gods couenant? I pray you M. Barrow, is not the outward waſhing the whole Baptiſme, and the whole ſeale of Gods couenant? Was not the outward cutting the whole circumciſion, and the whole ſeale of Gods couenant? And if the outward waſhing be the whole Sacrament, and the whole ſeale of Gods couenant, as indeede with the word it is: (for the inward grace is no part of the Sacrament, but we may ſay that this inward grace is the thing repreſented and ſealed by the Sacrament) Then when you ſay, concerning the outward waſhing it is true Baptiſme: doo you not affirme the whole Sacrament and ſo the whole ſeale of Gods couenant to be true? But you ſay, it is no true ſeale vntounto them in their Apoſtaſie, or it doth not ſeale Gods Couenant vntounto them in that eſtate, but when the abuſe thereof is purged away by true repentance. What abſurde ſpeeches be theſe▪ can a man deuife more groſſe folly? the outward true Sacrament, is the true ſeale of Gods couenant, euen vntounto thoſe which be hypocrites, and vtterly voyde of fayth, which hauehave it. For if we ſhall ſay it is no true Sacrament, or no ſeale of Gods couenant, or that it doth not ſeale Gods couenant, but vntounto thoſe which hauehave the inward grace, the efficacie and fruite thereof: then was it ſometimes no true Sacrament which the Apoſtles themſelues did adminiſter, becauſe there were ſome vntounto whome they did adminiſter both the holy Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, which had not the inward grace. And if the Sacraments be not the true ſeales of Gods Couenant, euen vntounto thoſe which hauehave no fruite thereby; how ſhould the receiuers which are vtterly vnworthie, be guiltie of the body and blood of our Lord? Alſo when a man doth receiue Baptiſme which is alwayes the ſeale of Gods couenant, and is voyde of fayth, and receiueth it at their handes which doo mixe it with ſundry additions and corruptions, and after commeth vntounto true faith, he himſelfe is purged by his fayth, and hath the vſe of that ſeale which hee had before, but without fruite, we cannot ſay as you doo, but with moſt wicked and foule abſurditie, that the Sacrament it ſelfe was a falſe Sacrament, and now through ſayth is purged and became a true Sacrament. That which is the Lordes doth ſtand in it ſelfe pure and vnde…iled, euen when corruptions bee added. The Wheat in it ſelf is as pure lying among the Chaffe, as when it is purged from the Chaffe. The golde and ſiluer in themſelues be as pure when the ruſt is vponupon them, as when it is ſcowred off. If a thing in the mixture of corruptions hauehave not a true being, ye cannot by purging bring it to hauehave a true being. And when you ſay that concerning the outward waſhing it is true Baptiſme miniſtred in popery, which is as much as I hauehave ſhewed, as to ſay it is a true ſacrament concerning the whole (becauſe the outward waſhing is the whole, and therefore all that Iohn the Baptiſt taketh to himſelfe is this, I baptize ye with water). Doo you not acknowledge a miniſtrie in popery? Will you ſay it is concerning the outward waſhing true Baptiſme, by whomeſoeuer it bee done? Nay, you ſay where there is no true miniſtrie there is no true Sacrament. Then where there is no part of a true miniſtrie, there is no part of a true Sacrament.
In your other booke Maſter Barrow, which you tearme a briefe diſcouerie of the falſe Church, from the 102. page, vntounto 121. you make a large diſcourſe about this point, taking vppon you to bee a ſtickeler, betwéene Maſter Doctor Some, and the Scholler of Oxenford, writing againſt him in defence of Maſter Penrie. There you lay about you with your woodknife vponupon both parties. Maſter Doctor Some holding the Baptiſme adminiſtred in the popery to be true Baptiſme, alleaging that Maſter Caluine held ſo, as in déede all the Churches, and all the moſt excellent and worthy lights, which God hath raiſed vp in theſe laſt times doo hold the ſame with ſound reaſons from the Scripture, you ſcoffingly tearme him a great Clarke, and ſay, that in certaine marginal notes added to his booke, this inconuenience was moued vntounto his further conſideration, how hee would auoyde the blowe of flat Schiſme? Alſo you ſay he was friendly aduiſed to ſpare this deepe diuinitie, deriued from Maſter Caluine and others of this time, leaft h…e ſhould open ſuch a gappe to the Papiſtes, as neither the Church of England nor Geneua, nor any other that hold this opinion ſhall euer be able to ſhut, for if it be true Baptiſme deliuered in the Church of Rome, then will it follow that the Popiſh prieſts be true miniſters. And then may the ſeale of the couenant be giuen to open Idolaters, then dooth Gods couenant of peace belong to the babiloniſh harlot, then hath Chriſt many bodies, or elſe cannot three ſo diuers Churches, as the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Church of Geneua, all or any two of them (I will not ſay any one) bee true Churches. Thē he may be an husband where his wiues rule. Infinit other abſurdities would then proue lawful. And let me adde yet this vntounto the reſt: if the Baptiſme of the Church of Rome be a true Sacrament, then hauehave they one true Sacrament, and another falſe. Thus you wound the one party, that is Maſter Doctor Some. Then touching the Scholler of Oxenford, hée is blamed for that he alleageth for his patron Maſter Doctor Fulke, to proue that the Baptiſme adminiſtred in popery, is no true Baptiſme. And he is ſet to counteruaile Maſter Caluin, as his equall in all learning. Grieuous abſurdities you ſhew in déede, which muſt néeds follow from the opinion of the foreſaid Scholler. Touching the compariſon betwéene Maſter Fulke and Maſter Caluine, for my part I am not ſo learned, as that I can bring a full meaſure to meaſure them iuſtly withall. I know not what might ſlip from Doctor Fulke, in any part of his writings, vponupon ſome occaſion which may ſéeme as though he fauored that opiniō: but this I know, that ſundry times crauing his iudgement in that matter, he held it to be true Baptiſme which hath béen adminiſtred in the popery. And what a thing is this Maſter Barrow, that when you hauehave a long time taken on, you yéeld the whole matter vntounto Maſter Doctor Some. For what hath he ſaid more, then that it was and is true Baptiſme touching the outward waſhing? Doth he euer ſay that all which had the true ſ…ale, had alſo the inward grace? And for warding the blow of flat ſchiſme: it is a very weake blow. The Romiſh Antichriſt vſurped an vniuſt power and tyrannie, and brought in many moſt wicked abominations, cannot the Churches caſt him foorth, with his inuentious, but they commit Schiſme? Can any thing be more friuolous? Are all ſeuerall kingdomes tied vntounto Rome, or ſhall we be tied to ioyne where there be ſome remnants of a Church, with Idolatrie? And concerning the reſt, your ſelf do in effect now confeſſe, that ſome part of Chriſts miniſtry remaineth in the popery, when you ſay that their Baptiſme concerning the outward waſhing, is true Baptiſme. And moreouer what ſhould be, we diſpute not, but this proueth that the true ſeale of Gods couenant is giuen to open Idolaters. For the ſeale is the ſame in it ſelfe, but the Idolater hath not the fruite of it, vntill he come to true faith. And ſo your next abſurdities fall off themſelues, ſéeing the hauing of the true ſeale (that is the outward waſhing in Baptiſme) dooth not make the papiſts true Chriſtians, nor proue that Gods couenant of peace and louelove, dooth belong to the Romiſh harlot: ſo many among them as come to true faith, receiue that vſe of the ſeale. All this I ſay dooth follow vponupon your owne confeſſion, who build with the one hand, and breake down with the other. But it paſſeth all the reſt, that then Chriſt muſt néeds hauehave diuers ſeuerall bodies, or elſe he cannot ſtand an head to thrée ſo diuers Churches, as the Church of Rome, the Church of England, and the Church of Geneua. Why Maſter Barrow, you wil not deny but that to the elect in the Church of Rome Chriſt is the head. And this is further to be noted, that when we ſpeak of a viſible Church, we ſpeake not of men alone, but of Gods ordinances. And ſo touching the holy Sacrament of Baptiſme in the Church of Rome, and ſo much of the truth as remaineth, Chriſt is the Author of them, and ſo ſtandeth the head of his own, he is not the head of the Apoſtaſie, or to the wicked inuentions. So then in all Churches Chriſt is the Author and head of that which is his ordinance, and of thoſe which belong vntounto him. What blaſphemies are then hereby allowed? And if the Papiſts hauehave quite ouerthown the one Sacrament, by turning it from a Sacrament, into a Sacrifice propitiatory, what reaſon is it therefore to ſay Baptiſme is ouerthrowne? We muſt yet a little further deale about the Church of Rome, becauſe you make all our people to be but as heathen without the couenant, and not rightly entred to become a viſible Church: but all receiued in at the ſound of her Maieſties trumpet. I ſay our people ſtood vnderunder the couenant before, as a part of the viſible Church; and that our ſoueraigne Quéene did not compell thoſe which before were not vnderunder the couenāt, to become the church, but by her regall power giuen vntounto her of God, baniſhed the vſurped power of Antichriſt, aboliſhed Idolatry, and compelled her people, hauing receaued the ſeale of the couenant and profeſſing Chriſt, to receiue alſo the true doctrine. This was not to begin a Church, but to reforme a Church: hereupon it falleth out in queſtion, whether the Church of Rome were the viſible Church of Chriſt in time of Idolatry. It is vſually ſaid, that the Church is in the papacy, but the papacy is not the Church: I ſaid we may rather ſay (to ſpeake more plainely) the papacy was in the Church, becauſe Antichriſt who brought in all the papacy, erected his throne in the Church. You begin with this Maſter Barrow, and ſay that I hold it not enough to affirme with the learned deuines, that the inuiſible Church of God is in the papacy, as in all other places of the world, becauſe God hath his elect there, and in all other places: but to be ſingular, I hauehave inuerted the propoſition, and ſay that the papacy is in the Church. O Maſter Barrow, it is your bold ignorance as in all other matters? Who be thoſe learned diuines, that when they ſay the Church is in the papacy, but the papacy is not the Church, doo meane no more but that there be Gods Elect, as in other places of the world? If you hauehave any modeſty, bring forth ſome one learned deuine which is of that iudgement. I did like rather to ſay the papacy is in the Church, then to ſay the Church is in the papacie, becauſe I ſée diuers doo miſtake it, as though it were onelyonly meant, that in the papacy there are Gods Elect and no further, that is no outward viſible Church in any reſpect. I doo not differ any iot in the ſpéech from the ſenſe which Maſter Caluine and others doo giuegive: for when I ſay the papacy is in the church, but the papacy is not the church: by the papacy we muſt néeds vnderſtand that vſurped tyranny of the Pope and his Clergy, with all their abominable inuentions. By the Church we may not vnderſtand only Gods Elect, but alſo ſo much of Gods ordinances as remaine, not only in the points of doctrine, and publike profeſſion of the name of Chriſt, but alſo in the holy Baptiſme, the ſeale of the couenant which all hauehave, and may ſo farre be called the viſible Church. That the papacy ſhould inuade the viſible Church, remaine in it, and not vtterly or quite deſtroy it, I did alleage that Saint Paule ſaith, Antichriſt ſhould ſit in Gods Temple.
Now let vsus ſee whether this bée not the meaning of the moſt learned diuines, when they ſay the Church is in the papacy. Maſter Caluine handleth this point in the fourth booke of his Inſtitutions, Chap. 2. ſection 11. 12. Which booke though it be in our language, yet is it little read and ſtudied of our people, as the weakenes and readines of many to be ſeduced by hereticks and Schiſmaticks dooth euidently declare. I will ſet downe his words for ſuch as hauehave not the booke. But yet as of old time (ſaith Maſter Caluine) among the Iewes there remained certaine peculiar prerogatiues of the Church, ſo doo wee not at this day take from the papiſts, thoſe ſteppes of the Church which God would hauehave to remaine among them notwithſtanding the diſſipation. God had once made his couenant with thoſe Iewes, that ſame couenant did continue vpholden by the ſtablenes of it ſelfe, as it were wraſtling againſt their impietie, rather then kept of them. Such therefore is the certainty and conſtancy of Gods goodnes, that there remained the couenant of the Lord, neither could his faith giuen, be made voyde by their vnfaithfulnes, neither could circumciſion be ſo prophaned by their impure hands, but that it was ſtill the true ſigne and Sacrament of his couenant. Whereupon the Lord called the Children which were borne vntounto them, his ſonnes, Ezech. 16. which nothing at all perteined vntounto him, but by a ſpeciall bleſſing. So when he hath left his couenant in France, Italie, Germany, Spayne, England: ſince theſe Prouinces hauehave beene oppreſſed with the tyrannie of Antichriſt, yet that his Couenant might remaine inuiolable, he firſt there preſerued Baptiſme, the teſtimony of his couenant, which being conſecrate with his owne mouth, retaineth her owne force, notwithſtanding the vngodlines of man: then furthermore he hath by his prouidence brought to paſſe, that there ſhould other remnants alſo remaine, leaſt the Church ſhould vtterly periſh. And as oftentimes buildings are ſo pulled downe, that the foundations and ruines remaine, ſo hee hath not ſuffered his Church to be ſubuerted by Antichriſt, euen from the foundation, or to be laide euen with the ground (howſoeuer to puniſh mens ingratitude, which had deſpiſed his word, he hath ſuffered horrible ſhaking and diſsipation to chance) but euen after the laying waſt, hee would hauehave the building remaine, halfe pulled downe. Whereas therefore wee will not ſimplie graunt to the Papiſts the title of the Church, we doo not therefore deny that there bee Churches among them: but onelyonly wee contend about the true and lawful ordering of the Church, which is required both in the Communion of the holy things, which are the ſignes of the profeſsion, & alſo of doctrine moſt chiefelie. Daniel and Paule foretold that Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the Temple of God: among vsus wee account the Biſhop of Rome the Captaine and ſtanderd bearer of that wicked and abominable Kingdome. That his ſeate is placed in the Temple of God, thereby is meant that his Kingdome ſhall be ſuch, as may aboliſh neither the name of Chriſt nor of the Church. Hereby therefore it is manifeſt, that we denie not but that there remaine Churches alſo vnderunder his tyrannie: but yet ſuch as hee hath prophaned with ſacrilegious impietie: ſuch as hee hath afflicted with outragious dominion: ſuch as he hath corrupted and almoſt killed with euill and deadly doctrines, as it were with poyſoned drinkes: in which Chriſt lieth halfe buried, the Goſpel ouerwhelmed, godlines expelled, the worſhip of God almoſt aboliſhed: furthermore in which all things are ſo confuſed and out of order, that there appeareth the face of Babylon, rather then of the holy citie of God. Briefelie, I ſay they be Churches, in as much as the Lord dooth there merueilouſlie preſerue the remnants of his people, howſoeuer miſerably diſperſed and ſcatred: and in as much as there remaine ſome badges or ſeales of the Church, and theſe eſpecially, whoſe efficacy neither the craft of the diuell, nor the wickednes of men can deſtroy: but on the other ſide, becauſe thoſe notes or markes are blotted out, which wee ought chiefely to reſpect in this controuerſie, I ſay that euerie one of their aſſemblies, and the whole bodie wanteth the lawfull forme of a Church,
Thus farre be Maſter Caluines words: tell me now Maſter Barrow, is Maſter Caluine to be accounted among the learned Diuines? Dooth he ſay the Church is in the papacy, that is no more but that the Elect are among them, as in other places of the World? Looke alſo what I hauehave ſaid touching this whole matter which he dooth not here ſay, yea euen from that which is in Ezechiel 16. Where you aſke, who but this peruerſe fellow (ſpeaking of me) could thus ſtumble and cauill at thoſe words, my ſonnes and my daughters, &c? But if it bee not plaine enough which Maſter Caluine ſaith in this which I hauehave recited, to proue that you would beare the ſimple in hand, that the learned Diuines are of another minde, and yet vnderſtand not their minde: I will adde a little more out of the ſame Author. In his Epiſtle 404. thus hee writeth, Quòd eccleſiae reliquias manere in papatu dico, nō restringo ad electos qui illic diſperſi ſunt: ſed ruinas diſſipatae eccleſiae illic extare intelligo. Ac ne mihilongis rationibus disputandum ſit, nos pauli autoritate contentos eſſe decet, qui Antichristum in temple deiſeſſurum pronuntiat, quamquam & hoc rationibus ſatis validis me probaſſe puto, eceleſiam, licet ſemiruptam, imo ſilubet, diruptam, ac deformem, aliquam tamen manere in papatu. In that I ſay the remnants of the Church remaine in the papacy, I doo not reſtraine it to the Elect which are diſperſed there: but I meane that the ruines of a diſperſed Church are extant among them. And that I may not diſpute the matter with reaſons at large, it becommeth vsus to be content and ſatiſfied with the authority of Paule, which pronounceth that Antichriſt ſhall ſit in the Temple of God. Albeit I ſuppoſe I hauehave proued this with reaſons ſtrong enough, that there remaineth neuertheleſſe ſome Church in the papacy, although halfe broken downe, or if you will, broken downe, and deformed. Alſo Maſter Beza, Epiſtle 81. page 356. For the remnants of the Church in the papacy is of the ſame minde, affirming that there remaine not onelyonly Gods Elect, but alſo the Sacrament of Baptiſme, and ſundry poynts of ſound doctrine.
Now let vsus ſee what horrible blaſphemies you ſay will followe of this that I ſay, Antichriſt ſhould ſit in the Church, and yet the ſame remayne ſtill the viſible Church, ſo farre foorth as Maſter Caluines words and Maſter Bezaes doo import. For when you will needes hauehave it that God hath giuen me vp into a reprobate ſenſe, the matter toucheth not me ſo much, as Maſter Caluine and Beza and many other moſt worthie men which ſo expound it. Nay, if God open your eyes you ſhall ſee whether you doo not like Rabſaka reproach the Lord God who hath vttered it by his Apoſtle. The firſt is this: If Antichriſt may be ſayd to ſit, raigne and remayne in the Church of God, then Chriſt is not made heire and Lord of all, and ſet as King vponupon Mount Sion. A worthie collection is it not? becauſe God in righteous iudgement for the puniſhment of thoſe that receiued not the louelove of the trueth, giueth power vntounto: Satan and Antichriſt to ſeduce the multitude in the viſible Church, Chriſt is not heire of all things, nor raigneth as K. vponupon Mount Sion. Wil you ſay, if the diuell hauehave a kingdome in the world, Chriſt is not Lord of the whole world? Mount Sion may be vſed for the viſible Church, but moſt properly for the inuiſible which is the Communion of Saints, of which are none but the elect. Satan and Antichriſt are not able to pluck one of theſe out of his hand, he raigneth ouer them and in them. Moreouer, he raigneth ouer the whole viſible Church and ouer the whole world (for hee is aſcended, and filleth all things) ſo that Satan, Antichriſt and all Tyrants, can proceed no further then his will.
The next is: If Antichriſt ſit in the Church, then Chriſt is either caſt out of his houſe made ſubiect vntounto Antichriſt, or els deuideth with him. Chriſt is not caſt out of his houſe nor made ſubiect, (theſe be moſt friuolous and fantaſticall imaginations) but in his moſt high and ſoueraigne power he vſeth Antichriſt and Satan as the inſtruments of his wrath, not vtterly to raſe and deſtroy his Temple, but miſerably to afflict the choſen, and ſo ſeduce the reprobate, euen all wicked hypocrites which are in the viſible Church. I knowe not what you will vnderſtand by diuiding, but the diuell may in ſome ſenſe be ſayd to diuide with God, in that he receiueth one part vntounto damnation.
The third is: If Antichriſt ſit in the church, then the church of Chriſt may remayne ſubiect vntounto and be gouerned by Antichriſt. Here we muſt diſtinguiſh. Firſt, the viſible Church conſiſeth of men, and of Gods ordinances. The men are of two ſorts, the elect and the reprobate. He exerciſeth a ſauage tyrannie, and oppreſſeth the elect whome yet he cannot bring into his ſubiection, to make them hang their faith upō him, or his lawes. For God did miraculouſly preſerue a remnant in the poperie, which were not vtterly poyſoned. He corrupteth the lawes and ordinances of Chriſt, but yet had not power giuen him to deſtroy all. His full dominion is ouer the reprobate, which receiue his marke and worſhip him.
The fourth is: If Antichriſt ſit in the Church, then the Church is ſubiect vntounto two heads, and Chriſt then is not the onelyonly head. This is fully anſwered in the former: for his tyrannie and vſurpation dooth not make him head, but vntounto thoſe whoſe head Chriſt is not, more then by hypocriticall profeſſion of his name.
The fift is: If Antichriſt in the Church, then Antichriſts miniſters and marked ſeruants may be brought into and ſet ouer the Church of God, & then is not Chriſts miniſtrie which he hath ordeined in his Goſpell and his Church, permanent vntounto the worlds end, but variable at the will of man, and then may the Church of God caſt out Chriſts miniſtrie, and receiue Antichriſts.
This is alſo moſt friuolous: for as Antichriſt did almoſt deſtroy all, but yet not all, in other things, ſo in the miniſtrie: for the miniſtrie of Chriſt was not vtterly deſtroyed. Agayne, the Church if you vnderſtand Gods true people, did not this: but Antichriſt did it.
The ſixt is: That if Antichriſts lawes may be brought and ſet vp, and remayne in the Church, then Chriſt is not the onelyonly Prophet and law giuer, and then may the Church be built vponupon another foundation then vponupon Gods word. Chriſt is the onelyonly true Prophet, whoſe lawes onelyonly are wholeſome. Antichriſt hath vſurped a power to make lawes and to ſet them vp in the Church. The elect, though ſome of them for a time hauehave gone a ſtray and followed Antichriſt, vntill it pleaſed GOD to open their eyes: and many of them holding Chriſt hauehave been infected and ſtayned with ſundrie errors of Antichriſt, yet their ſaluation being onelyonly through faith, it cannot be ſayd that they were built vponupon any other foundation then that which the Prophets and Apoſtles hauehave layd. The reprobate which hauehave worſhipped the beaſt, though in reſpect that hauing been borne vnderunder the Chriſtian profeſſion, and had the true ſeale of the Couenant, and profeſſed the name of Chriſt, they might bee the viſible Church, or of the viſible Church, yet they were not built vponupon Chriſt vntounto ſaluation, but vponupon the lawes of Antichriſt vntounto deſtruction.
The ſeuenth is, That if all Antichriſts abominations, hereſies and Idolatries may bee brought into and remayne in the Church of God, then no blaſphemie, hereſie, Apoſtaſie, or any thing that man can commit or deuiſe, can break the couenant. If the fayth of God might be made of none effect by the vnfaithfulnes of men, it were a wofull caſe. The couenant of God is founded vponupon free grace. The Lord would not (euen becauſe of his Couenant) ſuffer the deuill and Antichriſt vtterly to deface his Temple: but preſerued the holy ſeede, preſerued ſome of his ordinances, yea ſo farre, that in ſome ſorte the Couenant was not diſanulled to the very reprobate, but that outwardly they ſtoode vnderunder it in their Apoſtaſie: and it might bee ſaid of them (though indeede they were no true Children) as Saint Paul ſayth of the rebellious Iewes, theirs is the Couenant and the Adoption.
The eight is, That if thoſe that worſhip the beaſt and his Image may be ſayd to be in the Church, and their ſeede outwardly within the Couenant, then the moſt abominable and execrable in this eſtate may be ſayd members of Chriſt, waſhed and purged with his blood, ſainctified and led by his ſpirite in aſſurance of ſaluation, for none can be ſayd to bee within the Church but the members of the Church. And whoſoeuer we may affirme to be within the Church, thoſe (ſo long as they continue in that eſtate) we are alſo to iudge aſſuredly ſaued, for any thing to vsus reuealed or knowen to the contrary. Theſe …re things eaſily ſpoken by ſuch as are bolde to vtter whatſoeuer they imagine. The Prophets complayned that the great multitude both of Iuda, and the ten Tribes were rebels, and that the Lord had but a remnant among them: ſhew when that multitude of open wicked ones, and their ſeede were caſt out from being the viſible Church, & then ſhew when they were receiued in agayn. For both theſe you muſt do, becauſe the whole nation when Chriſt came were the children of the Couenant, & it is ſayd that Chriſt came among his owne, and his owne receiued him not. You muſt prooue that the Scribes and Phariſies, the high Prieſts and all the Capitall enemies of our Sauiour Chriſt were deemed vndoubtedly ſaued euen when they ſhewed their enmitie againſt him. For they were then in the Church. They could not ſit in Moſes chayre and not be in the Church. The Uineyard was not taken from thoſe wicked huſbandmen which had ſlayn the ſeruants, vntill they had ſlayn the ſonne and heire himſelfe. Theſe things are ſo manifeſt by the Scriptures Maſter Barrow, that if it ſhall not pleaſe God to open your eyes to ſee your palpable groſſe ignorauce, and bolde preſumption, yet others may ſee and tremble leaſt God giuegive them ouer alſo, for the pride of their hearts.
Whereas I ſayd that the Apoſtaſie is in the Church but not the Church: you think it ſtrange repugnancie. Yet indéed there is none, as may appeare by that which I hauehave ſet down before, and ſhould appeare vntounto you, if your minde were not ſo deepely infected with the principles of Donatiſme. You runne ſtill vponupon this Rock, that becauſe none ought to bee in the Church, but ſuch as appeare godly, therefore no open Idolaters can be ſayd to be in the viſible Church, to ſtand outwardly, and their ſeede in any reſpect, vnderunder the couenant. I hauehave plainely prooued the contrary. What ought to be, is one thing: and what hath béen or what is, is another. To your other queſtion I anſwere, that it is no Schiſme to depart from the Church of Rome, although in ſome reſpects they were the viſible Church. This matter Maſter Barrow, hath beene as throughly purſued by the Papiſts as euer you or any Donatiſt ſhall be able, and ſuch anſwere they hauehave receiued from the Churches that hauehave made ſeparation from them, as that they hauehave no cauſe to glory. The ten Tribes remayned ſtill in ſome ſorte the viſible Church, and vnderunder the Couenant, as I hauehave prooued before, but yet they were not ſuch a true Church as men might ioyne withall in their worſhip: and therefore when Ieroboam had ſet vp the golden Calues, the Leuites departed from them and went to Ieruſalem, 2. Chron, 11. 23. 14. Then you come to expound how this may bee taken that Antichriſt ſhal ſit in the Temple of God. And firſt as you take it his ſitting in the Temple of God, may be vnderſtood as in regarde that he tooke his originall before he was reuealed. Let any ſimple man looke vponupon the wordes of Saint Paul, and ſee whether he ſpeake of any ſuch cloſe ſitting. Then that he ſhould ſit where ſometimes the true Churches hauehave beene, which hee ſhould ſo deſtroy and waſte, as there ſhould be no ſhape or ſteps of any of them left vponupon the earth: as it was foretolde, Matth. 24, 29. Reuel. 6. 14. See what two places Maſter Barrow hath found to proue Antichriſt ſhould vtterly deſtroy the viſible Church. Theſe be the wordes: And immediately after the oppreſſion of thoſe dayes the Sunne ſhall be darkned, & the Moone ſhall not giuegive her light, and the ſtarres ſhall fall from heauen, and the powers of heauen ſhall be ſhaken. This is▪ ſpoken of Chriſts comming to iudgment, and is meant indeed of the Sunne, the Moone and ſtars themſelues: and therefore moſt fooliſhly concluded, that Antichriſt ſhall vtterly deſtroy the viſible Church. And for the place in the Reuelation, The heauen departed away as a booke that is roled vp, you may euen as well conclude, that the whole Church in the world vtterly fayled, as to ſay therefore Antichriſt vtterly defaced the viſible Church. And if you will hauehave the matter tried by ſo darke a place, your light had neede to be great. But your pretieſt reaſons of all are yet behinde. Antichriſt ſhall be lifted vp aboue all that is called God, this can not be done by any Miniſter in the Church, ſeeing eueryevery ſoule muſt bee ſubiect. They ſay it will weary an old bodie to followe a Child vp and down all day that can newe goe. I am ſure it will weary any man to follow you Maſter Barrow in all your trifles. God commandeth eueryevery ſoule ſhall ſubmit it ſelfe vntounto the higher powers: doth it here vponupon follow that if a king vſurp that which belongeth to God, they muſt therein …ay him ſo long as he remayneth their king? Alſo when it is ſayd, that he is God, you ſay what blaſphemie will not inſue, if this ſhould be literally taken? It may as well be inforced (ſay you) by this place, that Antichriſt is God, as that the place where he raigneth is the Temple of God. You will not hauehave this place expounded literally, and then what ſhall we make of it, or howe ſhall we finde Antichriſt: May he not be the Turke or ſome other: If the Papiſts could proue y• which you ſpeake, but with ſome little ſhew, how much would they glory? For grant thē a myſticall ſenſe of theſe words, and they will carie it whither they liſt. To exalt himſelfe aboue all that is called God, is literally ſpoken, and literally fulfilled, when the Pope exalteth himſelfe aboue all Kinges and Emperours which are called Gods. So that he ſhall ſit as God in the Temple of God, ſhewing himſelfe that he is God. What blaſphemie is it which will enſue if theſe wordes bee all conſtrued literally after the Grammaticall ſenſe? The wordes doo not import that he ſhall bee God indeede, but that he ſhall take that to himſelfe which belongeth to the moſt high God. The thing which deceiueth you Maſter Barrow, is in the word, ſhewing, for eueryevery thing that a ſhew is made of, is not ſo in truth. There is a true ſhew and there is a falſe ſhew, when one doth arrogate that to himſelfe, and b…aſt of it, which belongeth not vntounto him. As Antichriſt vſurping not onelyonly an earthly dignitie, but euen the high power and authority of God, is therefore ſayd to ſhewe himſelfe to bée God.
And now wheras I ſtand vponupon this, that the Church of England was a true Church of God before popery, and that in popery it ſtood a member or part of the vniuerſall viſible Church (fo farre as the remnants of Chriſts Church remained not vtterly defaced by Antichriſt) & that the caſting out of Antichriſt and his lawes, and vſurped power is not the beginning, but the reſtoring and repayring, or recouering a Church from miſerable deſolation. And as Ioſias and other godly kings of Iuda by terrour of puniſhment draue Idolaters which outwardly ſtood vnderunder the Couenant being cyrcumciſed, from falſe worſhip vntounto the lawes of God: ſo Quéene Elizabeth hath done with her ſubiects being baptized, and thereby bound to renounce falſe worſhip, and to imbrace the holy doctrine of the Couenant.
Here you ſay that to make my concluſion follow, I muſt proue, and make euident demonſtration by Scripture that the Church of England was rightly gathered vntounto, and eſtabliſhed in that holy fayth and order which Chriſt hath left vntounto his Church in vniuerſall and particular, according to the rules and examples in his Teſtament. Next, that they fell not away frō this holy fayth in the time of popery, and that now they continue and faythfully walke in the ſame fayth and order. If I had done this, you ſay I had powerfully conuinced and ſtopped the mouthes of all Schiſmatikes for euer. I ſée you can make your mach wiſely Maſter Barrow. I muſt make euident demonſtration by the Scriptures: of what? of that which was not mentioned by the Scriptures. For there is no particular mention of planting the fayth of Chriſt in England. If wee ſhew it out of auncient records, then doe I not ſa…ilfie your deſire at all. Agayne it muſt be ſhewed by the Scriptures, that the Church of England receiued orderly the fayth and order of Chriſt, not onelyonly in generall, but in eueryevery particular. This is a ſurer knot than the former. And me thinkes you ſhould bee a little more kinde, for the honour of your countrey: not that any honour is to be rendred againſt truth, but whereas you confeſſe that a true Church may erre in diuers things, ſo that it be not conuinced & ſinne obſtinately. If the planters of the fayth and diſcipline of Chriſt in England did erre it ſome things (which yet you know not) how can you tell but that they did it in ſimplicitie? wee ſée that in auncient times, and of late dayes GOD hath had many Children in England which hauehave been begotten and nouriſhed vp in the land, and hauehave acknowledged her their mother. And we are ſure herevpon that God hath put his couenant of mercy in England, and planted a true Church: And therefore if you deale rightly, you muſt proue againſt vsus. I hauehave ſhewed that popery did not vtterly deſtroy the viſible Church. And there be at this day multitudes that ſo walke in the holy fayth, that no man is able to accuſe them. And therefore if either all, or the moſt part of Schiſmatikes were not obſtinate cauillers, their mouthes might be ſtopped for euer. Thus much might fuffice agaynſt that you affirme our people neuer had any entrance to be vnderunder the couenant, and ſo to ſtand the viſible Church, but to be as heapes of prophane heathen: but that your matter reacheth further then againſt the aſſemblies in England, condemning other Churches which profeſſe the holy Goſpel. And leaſt ſome may think that in this poynt I charge ye but by ſome hard collection in ſo horrible preſumption, as to condemne all Chriſtian Churches, I will recite the wordes which you hauehave ſet downe in your other booke, pag. 33. where after long diſcourſe agaynſt the reaſons which Maſter Caluine vſeth both out of the olde and new Teſtament, to proue that neither the worſhip it ſelfe, nor the faythfull are defiled by the company of the open wicked, you ſpeake thus.
This and ſuch like deteſtable ſtuffe, hath Maſter Caluine in his ignorance, partly to confute that damnable ſect of Annabaptiſts, which fantaſtically dreame vntounto thēſelues a Church without ſpot in this life, and for eueryevery tranſgreſſion that ariſeth are ready to leaue & forſake the felowſhip of the Church, without due and orderly reproofe. Partly alſo is this ſtuffe brought to defend his owne raſh and diſorderly proceedings at Geneua, whileſt hee at the firſt daſh made no ſcruple to receiue all the whole ſtate, euen all the prophane ignorant people into the boſome of the Church, to adminiſter the Sacraments vntounto them: which confuſe route could not fit with Chriſts heauenly gouernement, neither could it by any meanes agree vntounto them in this eſtate. But that monſtrous diſorders and haynous enormityes dayly enſued thereof, whereby this their Church became a iuſt reproch vntounto all men, euen to thoſe wicked Heretikes, yea that which is worſe, and more to be lamented, it became a miſerable preſident, and pernitious example euen vntounto all Europe, to fall into the like tranſgreſſion: as the confuſed eſtate of all thoſe regions (where the Goſpell is thus diſorderly taught) declareth.
Let the Reader here conſider (Maſter Barrow) what a worthie Champion you …re become for the Papiſts, for Heretickes and Schiſmaticks, agaynſt all the Churches which profeſſe the Goſpell, and agaynſt all their teachers. What was Maſter Caluine to bee regarded, if he were ſo ignorant, ſo raſh, and ſo diſorderly in his doings? How miſerable was his caſe, that he muſt be ſo pernitious an example to the ruine of many? What is or what hath the Church of Geneua been, and together with the aſſemblies of England, all Churches in Europe, but heapes of prophane multitudes, no better then heathen or dogs, if your words be true? True Chriſt they hauehave none, for they fit not his gouernment, nor his gouernment them (as you ſay). But Maſter Barrow, as the Churches and their miniſters hauehave been able & hauehave iuſtly defended themſelues (though not from all faults, becauſe there is no Church ſo pure) agaynſt the wiſeſt and learnedſt reuiling Rabſakaes, the Hereticks and Schiſinaticks: ſo muſt you thinke that they ſhall be able to withſtand two or thrée which are ſo ignorant in ſome grounds of religion, as that their bookes are a bundle, or rather a dunghill of abſurdities. Whom ſhal you euer perſwade that hath any true light, that your knowledge ſo farre paſſeth the learned of all Churches? Were it not honour enough for ye to triumph ouer the miniſters of the Church of England, whom ſo often in diſdayne you terme learned Prieſts, but ye muſt be generall conquetors, like Alexander the great? Faine you would ſeeme to bee farre from the Annabaptiſts, but how néere you are vntounto them, euen in their tents, all that hauehave ſkill doo ſee. Well then to conclude this poynt, he that will finde a true Church with which he may ioyne himſelfe, he muſt not ſeeke it in the publike aſſemblies either in England, Scotland, Geneua, or any region of Europe, (for by your iudgement they be all prophane heapes) but he muſt ſeeke the fellowſhip, and ioyne with the Donatiſts of England.
Now to the ſecond part of the aſſumption, where you ſay, that the Church of England hath power to caſt foorth none by excommunication. I am of the minde that Chriſt hath giuen ſuch a power to his Church, and alſo doo take it that the Church of England is not boyd thereof. But you condemne all excommunication which is not executed by an Elderſhip, and the people of eueryevery particular aſſemblie. If excommunication be onelyonly to bee ſo executed; then how could Eſra with the Elders and Princes of Iſrael publiſh an excommunication generall againſt eueryevery one that ſhould not within three dayes come vp to Ieruſalem? Eſra. 10. verſ. 8. And where doo you proue that excommunication is to be executed vponupon any, but for contumacie and contempt of the Church? Doo you hold that a man which doth repent him for his adulterie, theſe, hereſie, or ſuch like, and is caſt downe in ſorrowe, is yet to be deliuered vp to Satan? If not, why doo you vpbrayd, that there is none caſt foorth among vsus, but for contumacie?
In the next place you take vponupon you to confute and cut downe foure falſe expoſitions, as you ſay, of Math. 18. verſ. 17. Tell the Church. The firſt ſort take the word Church, for the Pope: the ſecond for the Archbiſhops and Biſhops, which exerciſe this power for the whole Church: the third for the companie of the Elders apart from the people, which they call the Conſiſtorie: the fourth are they which would hauehave the people excommunicate without the Elders.
The two firſt ſorts (that is the Pope and the Biſhops) doo depend (you ſay) vppon one line, and build their preheminence vponupon the promiſe made to the Apoſtle Peter, Math. 16. verſ. 18. 19. where the keyes of the kindome of heauen are giuen him. And vponupon the Apoſtle Paul his example, who deliuered Hymeneus and Alexander vntounto Satan, Timoth. 5. 10. You are ſo learned and ſkilfull (Maſter Barrow) yea ſo truſtie and true, that wee muſt holde them for Oracles that doo proceede out of your mouth, although indeed they be neuer ſo falſe, as ſhall appeare. Touching the place in Mat. 16. for the keyes giuen vntounto Peter, it is agreed vponupon by all parts yt there is a power giuen to be exerciſed in the Church. The diſagréement is chiefly about this, to whom it is giuen. The Pope with his adherents ſayth, it was giuen onelyonly vntounto Peter and his ſucceſſors. He ſayth further, that Peter was Biſhop of Rome, that there is his chaire, and that this power is annexed to that chaire, and ſo the Pope alone is to hauehave it, and from him all other are to participate which ſhall exerciſe any part of it in the Church. The Biſhops of the church of England, and they that maintaine the government by preſbyteries doo both alike condemne that challenge of the Pope, as an vſurpation. Both parts affirming, that although our Sauiour doo ſpeake onelyonly to Peter, ſaying; to thee I giuegive the keyes of the kingdome of heauen: yet he giueth him nothing but that which he gaue vntounto the other Apoſtles. This they prooue by Ioh. 20. where he breathed vponupon them, and ſayd ioyntly to them all; As the father ſent me, ſo I ſend you, and whoſe ſinnes ye ſhall forgiue they are forgiuen, &c. With what face can you ſay then (Maſter Barrow) that the Biſhops and the Pope depend vponupon one line, and build their preheminence vponupon that promiſe made vntounto Peter? You might truelier hauehave ſayd, that the Biſhops and preſbyteries depend vppon one line for their preheminence, not only for that they expound thoſe places, Math. 16. and Ioh. 20. alike, but alſo that the Biſhops challenge none other power then the preſbyteries do. For the controuerſie betweene the Biſhops and the preſbyteries, is whether of them by Gods word, & for the benefit of the Church are to exerciſe that power which Chriſt hath left vntounto her. The one ſide doth affirme that by Gods word the execution of this her power doth belong to the Biſhops, as being moſt properly the Apoſtles ſucceſſors: and therefore do hold that the Church of England hath done right in reſeruing this power vntounto them. The Churches which hold the other gouernment, do affirme, that when our Sauiour ſaith, tell the Church, it is not meant, tell the Biſhop or thoſe which are ioyned with them: but tell the Church, is tell the Conſiſtorie, which conſiſteth of Paſtors, Teachers, and Elders choſen from among the people. This Conſiſtorie (ſay they) is to hauehave and to exerciſe that power and iuriſdiction which the Biſhops do hold. Now (Maſter Barrow) as you ſay, the gouernment thus by the Biſhops is popiſh, ſo you grieuouſly condemne the Conſiſtorie: affirming that it is irregular, that it hath no ground or warrant in Gods word, but vtterly ſubuerteth all order, and openeth a wide gap vntounto all licentiouſnes. &c.