Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, Brownist position 9
The Brow. But oh how farre are you from this? which wincke with your eyes, ſtoppe your eares, and harden your hearts, which can not endure ſo much as to heare of your fearefull eſtate, which you ſee not, no nor ſuffer your ſores which you ſee to bee touched, but ſeeke rather to cloake and hyde them both from God and man, yea, to mitigate, tollerate, and iuſtifye them. Seeke you not heere to mitigate that heauie apparant Antichriſtian yoake your Churches ſtand vnderunder (whereof heeretofore you hauehave complayned in Parliaments) tearming it ſome yoake, beeing now peraduenture through long cuſtome growne lighter vntounto you and more eaſye, then Chriſts yoake, at the leaſt, then Chriſts croſſe, &c.
To this fourth accuſation, my anſwere was very ſhort:G. G. for I did only propound this queſtion, whether it be no longer the Spouſe of Chriſt which is oppreſſed, and doth groane vnderunder ſome yoake of Antichriſtian gouernment? and ſhewed my iudgement, that it is the lot of the Church to be oppreſſed with outward bondage, alleaging for proofe ſome what out of the Song of Solomon. At this ye are ſtriken with ſuch wonderment, that as men caried almoſt beſide your ſelues, you begin with a vehement exclamation: and thrée things there are in my ſpéech which hauehave caſt ye into this agonie: the firſt, that (as you ſay) our Churches ſtand vnderunder an apparant heauie yoke of Antichriſt, and I ſpeake of the true Church oppreſſed with ſome yoke of Antichriſtian gouernment: the ſecond, that I ſay it is the lot of the Church to be oppreſſed with outward bondage. This ye tearme a blaſphemous error, becauſe as ye ſay, bondage is the badge of Antichriſt, the marke of the Beaſt, whereby his ſouldiers are diſcerned frō the ſouldiers of Chriſt, &c. The third, that I falſifie & peruert the places of Scripture which I alleadge to prooue that Gods Church may be oppreſſed with ſome outward bondage: where you will redéeme the places from ſuch violence and corruption, and giuegive ſuch a glimſe, that ſimple men of vnderſtanding ſhall diſcouer and ſearch out the falſe dealing of ſuch watchmen, and the greateſt clarke of vsus all ſhal be taught héereafter how to abuſe the ſcripture for a cloake to couer our ſinnes. O what valiant fellowes you be, who ſhall be able to ſtand in your hands? the greateſt clarks in this land are but babes to ſuch mighty gyants: how ſhall I do then? I muſt now defend my ſelf in theſe particulars aboue named. I will let the queſtion about the heauy apparant yoake of Antichriſt alone, vntounto the laſt place, vnderunder which ye falſely charge our Church to ſtand, and deale with that firſt which I ſet downe. Where the firſt queſtion is, whether the true ſpouſe of Chriſt may be vnderunder ſome yoake of Antichriſtian gouernment. The ſecond, whether it be her lot to be oppreſſed with outward bondage. The third, whether thoſe places by me alleadged be rightly applyed to proue the ſame. I will not deale ſeuerally in theſe, but in all together, becauſe they be all but one in effect. Now to ſpeake preciſely and ſtrictly, the yoke of Antichriſt is only ſpirituall & inward, where the faith & conſcience are burthened, and be in ſubiection, to receiue his lawes and worſhip. This can not be borne, without falling from the fréedome we hauehave in Chriſt. But in a longer ſenſe, we call it Antichriſtian, whē the paſtors of the Church, or any of them, do vſurp more then they ought, in external gouernment, or tyrannouſly abuſe the power committed into their hands. This is that which I called ſome Antichriſtian yoke. Now the very point of the queſtion is, whether the true ſpouſe of Chriſt hath euer béen oppreſſed in this by any of her gouernours, as her lot in ſome outward bondage? I hold that ſhe hath, and for proofe, I alleaged thoſe ſayings out of the Song, againſt which you take exception, as places wreſted, which ſhall be conſidered, after other teſtimonies ſhewed. Then I demaund of ye firſt, whether it was not the ſpouſe of Chriſt, whom the Lord calleth Iſraell, his ſhéepe and his flocke? The paſtors of Iſraell did not only ſcatter theſe, but ruled ouer them, and exerciſed dominion by violence & tyranny, Ezech. 34. v. 4. What ſay ye to this, the Prophets propheſie lies, the Prieſts exerciſe dominiō by their hand, & my people louelove to hauehave it ſo, Ier. 5. v. 31. Was there no true Church vnderunder this ruling of ye prieſts? Paſhur a chief prieſt in the temple, ſtroke Ieremy the Prophet, & put him in the ſtockes, Ierem. 20. ver. 1. will yée affirme that there was no true Church then? Come to the time in which our Sauiour liued vponupon the earth: for as yet the kingdome of God was not taken away from them, which is threatned, Matth. 22: but the high Préeſt, with the other Préeſts, with the Phariſies and Elders of the people, had the Eccleſiaſticall power, which they tyrannouſly abuſed, and by it oppreſſed the faithfull, as appeareth in diuerſe places of the Goſpell, and namely in Iohn. 7. ver. 13. and Iohn. 9. ver. 22. Diotrephes ambitiouſly abuſed the power of gouernment, when he withſtood S. Iohn, as he teſtifieth in his third Epiſtle written vntounto Gaius. I wrote (ſaith he) vntounto the Church, but Diotrephes, who loueth to hauehave preheminence among them, receiueth vsus not. Therefore if I come, I will declare his deeds, railing at vsus with malitions words: and not content therewith, neither he himſelfe receiueth not the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, & caſteth them out of the church. ver. 9. 10. Dooth S. Iohn tell the Chriſtians, that this tyrannous oppreſſion by Diotrephes, did make them to be no longer Chriſtes Church, which remained vnderunder him? Did he will them to ſeperate themſelues, and not to obey him any longer in any thing? Our Sauiour ſaith, the time will come, that they ſhall excommunicate yée. Iohn. 16. ver. 2. Antichriſt himſelfe ſitting in the Temple of God, ſeduced the reprobate, but could not deſtroy the Church, which yet he did gréeuouſly oppreſſe, and kéepe in ſome bondage. Whereby it appeareth, that Solomon ſpeaketh of that which ſhould fall out often, and be euen as it were the lot of the Church, to be iniuried, oppreſſed, and kept in ſome outward bondage, euen by thoſe, at whoſe hands ſhe ſhould finde moſt comfort, holding the places of Paſtors and Gouernours: as we hauehave ſéene in the Church of Iſraell before our Sauiour came, at the time he liued, and alſo in the Church vnderunder the Goſpell.
You bring in diuerſe ſcriptures, which prooue, as you imagine, that an outward oppreſſion of the Church in externall gouernment, dooth make an vtter deuorſe betwixt her and Chriſt: but he that conſidereth thoſe things which I hauehave before noted, and the ſundry oppreſſions of the Church, by her Paſtors, ſhall eaſily perceiue that Anabaptiſticall fréedome which yée glory of. For howſoeuer the Church with her Children are frée with God, and receiue no yoake vponupon their faith and conſcience: yet in outward things they may be oppreſſed. You could abide well enough that phraſe of ſpéech oppreſſed, but to ſay, the Church of Chriſt may be in anye bondage, yée terme a blaſphemous error. Becauſe bondage yée ſay, is the badge of Antichriſt, the marke of the Beaſt, &c. Take héede of the ſaying that is written, 2. Pet. 2. ver. 19. That the ſeducers promiſe libertie, and are themſelues the bend ſeruants of corruption. For you imagine and glorye of ſuch a full and perfect libertie, as that yée account it a blaſphemous error, to ſay the Church may be oppreſſed with outward bondage. It is ſtrange that there ſhould be ſuch a bolde ſpirite in rotten fleſh, as flatly to contrary the ſpirit of God. For the Lord ſayd to Abraham: Thy ſeede ſhall bee in bondage, and they ſhall oppreſſe them. But the nation whom they ſhall ſerue, will I Iudge, Geneſ. 15. He ſaith, he brought them out of the houſe of bondage, or of bond men, Exodus 20. Will ye affirme that the Church was not oppreſſed with outward bondage in Egypt? will ye deny that they were led captiue, and held in outward bondage in Babilon? cannot this word bondage, which the holy Ghoſt vſeth, be allowed of yée? muſt bondage of neceſſity be the badge and marke of Antichriſt? when the Lord threatneth by his Prophets, that his people ſhould go into captiuity, and that there ſhould be a yoake of bondage layd vponupon them, dooth he giuegive them ouer to weare the badge of Antichriſt? or ſo to be ſeruants vntounto men, that they could not alſo be his ſeruants? Indéed the Anabaptiſts do holde, that wee cannot be ſeruants vntounto men in any outward bondage, & yet be the ſeruants of Chriſt, grounding their hereſie vpō the places which you alledge. If all maner of bondage be the marke of the beaſt, and the badge of Antichriſt, and a looſing of Chriſtian liberty, as you and the Anabaptiſts would hauehave it: then how could S. Paul ſay, Art thou a bond man, care not: thou art the Lords free man, 1. Cor. 7? Let no man ſuppoſe that I charge ye ouer hardly, with this groſſe point of Anabaptiſtrie, becauſe our queſtion is about Church gouernment, and I ſpeake of ciuill bondage: for ye ſpeake generally of outward bondage, and denie that it can be the lot of the Church, or of any member therof. The worde bondage, though it▪ be outward, cannot in anye ſenſe be allowed by you, to agrée with your fréedom. Now for the places in the ſong, My mothers ſonnes were angrye with me, they ſet me to keepe the Vines, mine owne Vine I hauehave not kept. In this place the Church willeth: firſt yt they ſhould not looke ſcornefully vponupon her, becauſe ſhe is ſomwhat blacke. Then ſhe ſheweth, that it is not her natiue colour, but ſhe is ſunne burnt: the ſunne (ſaith ſhe) hath looked vponupon me. There followeth the occaſion, that her mothers ſonnes were angrye with her, ſet her to kéepe the Vines. Who theſe be whome ſhe calleth her mothers ſonnes, is the greateſt difficultie to finde. Tremellius (whoſe interpretation in that point ye follow) doth expound it of originall ſinne, & the luſts which ſhe hath frō the wombe: other take it, & more fitly, of falſe brethrē, which boaſt thēſelues to be true worſhipers, & children of the church, which ſhe calleth her mothers ſonnes, becauſe they deſcended frō the ancient mother church, & were the degenerate children of holy forefathers, for I take it ſomwhat hard to cal ſins or concupiſcences her mothers ſons. But take it whether way ye wil, either of original ſin & concupiſcences, or of degenerate children, among whom there were many, euen of the Paſtors & gouernors, yet ye cannot auoid, but yt there is a violence, an oppreſſion▪ & ſome bondage: for ſhe ſaith, they ſet her to kéep the vineyards. Howſoeuer you would ſlily inſinuate, that it were but negligence, & that when ſhe repenteth, ſhe is ſo cléered, that ſhe is in no bondage vntounto ſinne at all. But when ye hauehave cauilled what ye can, it ſtandeth cléere by the ſcriptures, yt the Church in her perfecteſt repentance, euen with all her children, is held in ſome ſpirituall bondage vntounto ſin, but yet ſhe is not obſtinat I grant, for ſhe hateth the euil ſhe doth, & laboureth againſt it. I doe not gather from this, that the Church either did or may, kéepe Antichriſts Vine, as you demaund, what a bolde falſifiyng of the place this is? But I ſaye: what a bolde impudencie is this in you, ſo to falſifie my wordes? For I alledge it, to prooue, that the Church is ſubiect to bee oppreſſed page missingbable ſo much of Antichriſt and his yoake. Then let hym prooue that eueryevery error, abuſe, and great fault in diſcipline, doth ouerturne it, and make it become Antichriſtian, yea, Antichriſts yoake, ſo farre as to make it no Church which is ſubiect to ſuch oppreſſion. It is moſt cléere that a Church may erre in ſundrie poynts of Doctrine, and not be Antichriſtian, but the true Spouſe of Chriſt. And an error in Doctrine, if it be foule, doth approch néerer towards the ouerthrowe of faith, then an error or an abuſe in externall gouernment.
Moreouer, if the execution of diſcipline by Byſhops be the yoake of Antichriſt, and if all the Churches which doo ſtande vnderunder the ſame, doo worſhip the Beaſt and be no Chriſtians, it muſt néedes followe, that ſuch as did euer execute this power, were Antichriſts, and no children of God at that time, or before they repented. But this is falſe euen by your owne confeſſion, which acknowledge, that thoſe woorthie ſeruants of God which ſometime executed that power, and after ſuffered death for the Goſpell in the dayes of Quéene Mary, were bleſſed Martyrs. I conclude therefore, that the Browniſts can not but with hereſies, and moſt heinous iniurie, and inordinate dealing, condemne a Church as quite diuorced and ſeparated from Chriſt, for ſuch imperfections and corruptions in Gods worſhip, as be not fundamentall, nor deſtroy the ſubſtance: for that wicked men come with the godly to the publike exerciſes of religion: for ſome wants in calling, and ordeyning Miniſters, and in Eccleſiaſticall diſcipline.