Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, Part · Response · Part 7
The ſeauenth Errour of the Browniſts.
THat the ſinne of one man publikely and obſtinately ſtood in, being not reformed nor the offender caſt out; doth ſo pollute the whole Congregation, that none may communicate with the ſame, in any of the holy things of God, (though it be a true Church rightly conſtituted) till the partie be Excommunicated.
I hauehave giuen many Reaſons againſt this, in my former Booke, Page 102. 109. and much here alſo before, hauehave I ſpoken touching pollution vponupon the fift Errour, which may ſerue to the further ouerthrow of this.
Reply to Mr. Ainſworths Anſwere to this ſeauenth Errour.
MAſter Ainſworth diſclaimes this, as none of theirs either in practiſe or iudgement; therefore Mr. Smith in his Browniſme here did wrong them, in defending it, as an opinion of that way, and not I, in laying it to the Browniſts, whom here I knew did defend it: that the Browniſts on this ſide, and yond ſide the ſea differed, I knew not; but now I well ſee, how little they be themſelues, in their ſeuerall companies. But let vsus ſee what he ſaith:
Reaſon. 1 Firſt, he profeſſeth, that none is to ſeparate for faults and corruptions, but by due order to ſeeke redreſſe thereof: his reaſon is, becauſe faults and corruptions will fall out, and ariſe in the Church, ſo long as it conſiſts of mortall men. And ſithen he deliuers ſuch a truth, which I gladly imbrace, IWe may not ſeparate wholy from true Churches for Corruptions. will to his reaſon as the firſt, adde moe for confirmation; as a maine truth againſt themſelues: viz. that we may not ſeparate for Corruptions.
Reaſon. 2 Secondly, becauſe the contrarie is the condemned ſchiſme of the Cathariſts, Donatiſts, Anabaptiſts. Beza on Cant. 1. 6. Cal. Inſtit. 4. 1. 13. 16.
Reaſon. 3 Thirdly, becauſe corruptions are made matter of reproofe, but nocauſe of ſeparation from the church, but only of priuate vnneceſſarie familiartie with particular offenders. In what caſes a totall ſeparation may be, ſee my other Booke, page 108.
Reaſon. 4 Fourthly, becauſe the godly is rather to mourne, then ſeparate, Ezech. 9. 4. Mat. 5. 4 Pſal. 119. 136. 139. 158.
Reaſon. 5 Fiftly, becauſe if wee ſhould ſeparate vponupon eueryevery corruption, we ſhould neuer ioyne to any Church, or not continue in it; no nor in our ſelues, but liue alone, or goe out of the world.
Reaſon. 6 Sixtly, becauſe by ſeparation, there ſhould be no practiſe of patient forbearing and teaching the vntoward, to ſee whether at any time God will giuegive them repentance. 2. Tim. 2. 25. Cal. Instit. 4. 1. 16 19.
Obiection. 1. Obiect. It is lawfull to ſeparate from a Church for ill gouernment.
Anſwere. Anſw. No; the Gouernment was ill in the time of the Iudges, when eueryevery man did what he liſted, when there wasIudge. 18. no King in Iſrael, and much abhomination then committed. So in our Sauiours time, Heretikes and Sectaries had Rule and Gouernment, falſe high Prieſts, Symoniacal, and temporarie, contrary to the Lords Inſtitution. Corruption in gouernment alſo in the dayes of Cyprian, Auguſtine, Ambroſe. In the dayes of the Apoſtles Diotriphes vſed tyrannicall pride, vſurped authoritie, and yet neither Prophets, nor Chriſt, nor Apoſtles, nor the Ancient Fathers did teach or practiſe any ſuch ſeparation, as is made in theſe dayes.
Obiection. 2. Obiect. But we may ſeparate becauſe of a mixt Company, openly wicked, liuing with the godly.
Anſwere. Anſw. No; firſt, becauſe the Holy Ghoſt ſaw this in the old Teſtament: Ezech. 22. 26. Mal. 1. 7. 8. and reproued ſome for it, but neuer taught Separation vponupon it: ſecondly, the Apoſtle ſaw in Corinth, and the Angel in the Churches of Aſia, a mixt companie, and neuer either commanded the godly to ſeparate therefore, nor left any practiſe for example to vsus: thirdly becauſe it makes not a true church, either falſe or no church: fourthly, becauſe the godly are of more force to ſanctifie one another, then ſome wicked to pollute all in there ſtanding conſidered ſimply in it ſelf: fiftly, becauſe ſuch as mourne, as priuately auoid familiaritie with wicked, labour in their place to reforme them, ſo continuing are not, nor cannot be polluted by others.
Obiection. 3. Obiect. But we may ſeparate, for mens vnworthie comming to the Sacrament.
Anſwere. Anſw. No; firſt, becauſe ſome vncleanſed came with the godly in Hezechias dayes vnworthily (2. Chro. 30. 28.) to the Paſſeouer; yet the Lord healed the reſt at the prayers of the godly; ſo let men pray now: ſecondly, becauſe this was among the Corinthians, yet the Apoſtle preſcribes not ſeparation for a remedie; but exhorts eueryevery man to examine himſelfe. 1. Cor. 11: thirdly, Iudas was at the Paſſeouer, and ſome thinke, at the Lords Supper; and Chriſt knew him to be a diuell, and yet permitted him without pollution to himſelfe, or the reſt: yea, though openly he told them, that one ſhould betray him; and ſaw that the diuell then had put it into Iudas heart: fourthly, becauſe this is onelyonly a blemiſh in the Church, greatly to be bewayled and a defect of Diſcipline, but no ouerthrow of any of the true eſſence or any Doctrine, which is the life of the Church.
Obiection. 4. Obiect. But we may ſeparate, when men are let alone, and ſinne not puniſhed.
Anſwere. Anſw. No; firſt, impunitie makes not a nullitie: ſeſondly, it is onelyonly (as is before ſaid) a defect in Diſcipline, which is a hurt to the well being of the Church; but is no cauſe of Separation: thirdly, becauſe ſinne was vnpuniſhed, among the Iewes, Iude 21. 25. Among the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 5. and yet no ſeparation for it: fourthly, becauſe puniſhing of ſin is not eueryevery mans office, but theirs to whom it appertaineth: is their neglect, the ſin of priuate perſons? fiftly, becauſe wee are rather to vſe meanes to ſuch as are in authoritie to get ſinne puniſhed, rather then to flie and runne away: by the one may we doe good, by the other do miſchiefe: ſixtly, becauſe by our godly conuerſation, in being among them, we may win them.
Obiection. 5. Obiect. But we may ſeparate, from ſuch as caſt off the externall gouernment of Chriſt.
Anſwere. Anſw. No; Firſt, becauſe ſome part of gouernment, beſides the word is not of the eſſence of the Church: ſecondly, becauſe many may be ignorant of that gouernment, and ſo reiect it; is ſuch ignorance a iuſt cauſe of ſeparation? thirdly, becauſe it is a great controuerſie which is Chriſts external gouernment, & therefore in ſuch a caſe, a Church may not be forſaken: fourthly, becauſe the Iewiſh Church caſt off Gods gouernment, & yet no ſeparation taught, but the people exhorted to amendement. 1. Sam. 8. 7. 8. Iere. 3. 13. 20. fiftly, may children leaue their fathers houſe becauſe their mother his wife is rebellious, and will not be gouerned by him?
Obiection. 6. Obiect. But we muſt ſeparate from that Church, where be falſe Miniſters.
Anſwere. Anſw. If all be ſo, we may; but if ſome onelyonly be ſo, then may we not, but we muſt follow the godly Sunamite, leaue Baals prieſts, Ieroboams Calues, and Idoll ſhepheards; and get vsus to Eliſha the Prophet. Firſt, becauſe there was falſe Prophets in Iſrael; ſecondly, Hereticall Saducees, hypocriticall Phariſes, falſe teachers and euill liuers, and yet our Sauiour commanded no ſeparation from the Church, but permitted to heare them with warines: thirdly, A falſe Prophetiſſe in Thiatira tollerated, and yet no ſeparation taught, but an admonition to the godly to hold what they had: Re. 2. 24. 25. fourthly, It is to be noted whether the Church approue them or no; and alſo it is to be certainly knowne who are falſe Miniſters: the ſpirit of the Prophets are ſubiect to the Prophets; it is not in the skill of ordinanarie perſons to iudge and giuegive ſentence: eueryevery one hath authoritie to try the ſpirits, but it is meant of ſuch as can try and ſo iudge, and yet not vponupon their owne head, but by holy conference with the Church, and Miniſters of God, to proceed to a definitiue ſentence within themſelues, as out of Gods word, by Gods ſpirit, and the voyce of Gods Church in ſuch a caſe.
Obiection. 7. Obiect. But ſurely we may ſeparate from that Church wherein the worſhip is corrupted.
Anſwere. Anſ. Not ſo: firſt, becauſe vnderunder the law there was corruption in worſhip reproued, Eſay. 29. 13. but no commandement therefore to leaue the Church, neyther did any leaue it: ſecondly, the like in Chriſts time: Mat. 15. 9. Thirdly, ſo in the Apoſtles dayes among the Galathians, & elſe where; yet no ſeparation from the Church for it: Fourthly in S. Augustines time complaint was made of humane Ceremonies burthenſome, yet no ſeparation: fiftly, becauſe the godly men did oppoſe them, and ſuffered patiently for omiſſion of theſe when authoritie did preſſe them; but fled not away for feare of trouble: peaceable withſtanding corruptions, is a meanes to reforme, and not a Schiſmaticall rending of mens ſelues from the whole church, pretending a Separation, to lead away ſimple people captiues, and to auoid therby affliction for righteouſnes ſake. And therfore as Mr. Ainſworth ſaith, wee may not ſeparate for corruptions, but muſt labour in our place to ſeeke a redreſſe of them; except the Church become no Church, full of eyther Heatheniſh, or Iſraelitiſh Idolatry, as in Ieroboams time, when the Lord hath remoued his Candleſticke. But if this before ſet downe, be their iudgement indeed, then let Mr. Ainſworth tell me firſt why doe they not ſtay with vsus, and ſeeke redreſſe, if any thing be amiſſe among vsus; by due order, wayting the Lords leaſure in raiſing vp his owne meanes to reforme diſorders, which is the authoritie of the Magiſtrate: for this ſee the iudgement of that wiſe, holy, learned and moderate, yet truely zealous ſpirited man Zanchie, vponupon Eſay 2. in his Booke De Eccleſia, page 225. Secondly, I demand, why then doe they flye the Communion of the Dutch Churches, and the Marchants Church in Amſterdam, excommunicating ſuch as occaſionally ioyne vntounto them? if the differences betweene them be conſidered, which are very ſmall, and whether they be corruptions or no is very diſputable: it may be concluded, that the Poſition here ſet downe by Mr. Ainſworth, eyther is not their iudgement, or elſe they practiſe contrary to their iudgement: ſo like Scribes and Phariſes, that is, Separatiſts Hypocrites, they teach and ſay, but doe not; and are guiltie of that which they would blame in vsus: And if this Poſition be true, then be they Schiſmatickes; for to breake peace with the Churches, where we may and ought to hold communion, is Schiſme: See Zanch. ibidem, Page. 119. 120. &c.
Reply. Secondly, hee tels vsus, what they hold, in briefe it is thusThe Separatiſts iudgement touching pollution. much: that if one conuict of Adulterie, Blaſphemie, &c. be by the whole Church let alone; not rebuked, but pleaded for againſt ſuch as call for iudgement, all ſuch are ſinners themſelues, and ſuch an Aſſembly is not Gods Church; neyther can it be ſaid, that any holy thing is lawfully adminiſtred in ſuch a ſocietie, for the ſinne of them all pollutes them. Mr. Smith anſweres him Page 71. and ſaith; this affirmation, and his deniall of the Poſition are contradictorie, ſo there is a lye in the one. And my anſwere hereto is, that hee hath affirmed more then hee hath proued, or can be able to proue, if ſuch a Church were as hee ſuppoſeth: but hee is herein his meere imagination; for what Church of Chriſt is ſo giuen ouer, that all euer did, or doe plead for Adulterers, Blaſphemers, and ſuch like? And I aske him what be thoſe that do call vponupon the Church for iudgement, are they members? then all the Church doth not defend the wicked man: his abſurd ſuppoſition hath in it alſo a contradiction; for hee ſuppoſeth the whole Church to plead for the wicked man, and yet ſuppoſeth alſo then there to be ſome pleading againſt the wicked man: hee cannot tell what he ſaith. I intreat him, the next time to teach his Schollers better, to ſpeake more wiſely, and if hee can, let him ſhew firſt, an inſtance of any ſuch church of God as he ſuppoſeth: for grant falſe conceits and idle ſuppoſitions, a man then may conclude any thing. His inſtance of the Tribe of Beniamin ſuccouringIudges. 20. Gibeah is very vnapt, were they the Church of God, or but ſome members of the Church? He ſuppoſeth a whole Church againſt ſome; and here he exemplyfieth it by ſome, againſt the whole. Secondly, that ſuch an Aſſembly, where one is ſo tollerated, is not the Church of God. Thirdly, that the holy things are there vnlawfully adminiſtred, ſo as the godly there who call for iuſtice muſt needes ſeparate as hee by this doctrine intendeth, then hath hee ſpoken to the purpoſe, and ſomewhat for his cauſe. In the meane ſpace he tels vsus, that except the whole Church doe agree together Obſerue this ſpeech.to maintaine open iniquitie, and doe deſpiſe the word of the Lord calling them to repentance, hee holds it not lawfull to ſeparate from them in any wiſe, in any thing, till all holy and ordinarie meanes be vſed for their reclaiming. Page 181. And in Page 179. hee ſaith, it is a ſinne to make a ſeparation from a Church for matters controuertible and doubtfull. And yetFor what & about what doe the Separatiſts moſt contend. for ſuch matters doe they make ſeparation: for what and about what doe they chiefely contend? is it not for and about matters of outward gouernement; not about the ſubſtance of things neither, but about circumſtances, more about the manner, then the matter, which maketh the controuerſie endleſſe. I deny not but the thing commaunded muſt be done, & alſo muſt be well done, & prudence is required to obſerue circumſtances, that good things be thereby done ſeaſonably and well, for the time, place and perſon: but this is ill, for circumſtances not obſerued exactly, to deny the truth of ſubſtances, to hold them falſe, and to iudge things done ſubſtantially, as not done; for that they be not perfectly circumſtantiall, eſpecially where both the matter and manner of ſuch things be very controuertible, as about the circumſtances of externall gouernment and diſcipline of the Church: which herein I will make manifeſt to the vnderſtanding of eueryevery Chriſtian Reader, and eſpecially I intend it for this end; to ſtay the mindes of many: firſt, of youngA Caueat to young Diuines. Students in diuinitie, who in a godly zeale deſiring the glory of God in the amendment of all mens manners, are ſodainly ouer the eares, at the very firſt on-ſet, in the controuerſie of diſcipline, before they hauehave learned in any ſmall meaſure to ſpeake rightly of the common principles of Chriſtianitie. Secondly, to ſtay the mindes of Country people in manyTo Country people. places, who ſpeake ſo certainely, ſo peremptorie of this point, as if they were the profound Doctours of Ancient times, wiſer then many of their deliberate and learned teachers. Both theſe meane well, their affections are for good and againſt euill; but herein is it amiſſe, that they doe preſume to be too ſoone ripe, aduenturing boldly to runne ere they can creepe, much leſſe goe: and all this ariſeth vponupon their erroneous conceit, that theſe points of diſcipline and Church-gouernment, are ſuppoſed by them to be ſo eaſily diſcerneable, ſo apparant by ſcripture, as that ſeely men may iudge rightly wherein the truth thereof doth ſtand.
Therefore to let them ſee how farre otherwiſe it is, I willIt is not an eaſie thing for eueryevery one to iudge rightly of Church-gouernment and diſcipline. lay open the intricateneſſe hereof, by the inconſtant mindes of learned men, their varietie of opinions, ſome holding this, ſome that; euen plaine contradictories in ſomethings. What herein is the truth, and who do hold it, is not for me to determine: I leaue eueryevery man to iudge freely, and the Lord guide him to the beſt.
Firſt, ſome hold no gouernment at all, which is but a Familiſticall conceit, yet hauehave they their reaſons, making a diſtinction of a double perſon in one man, a Citizen and a Chriſtian; theſe deny Eccleſiaſticall gouernment, and the Anabaptiſts Ciuill gouernment, to which they may eaſily draw ſome ſeely Browniſts, as daily they doe, and that from the force of their owne grounds: the Separatiſts hold all to be voluntary profeſſours; now voluntarineſſe is taken away by being vnderunder any gouernment: to be ſubiect and ruled is an eſtate farre from freedome; Chriſtians looſe thereby Chriſtian libertie. Chriſtians Saints neede no conſtraining power, they be led by the ſpirit; but what proceed I to ſpeak further of the fanaticall frenſie of theſe two generations of men: their reaſons hauehave beene confuted long ſince.
Secondly, it is held that there muſt be an externall gouernmentThere muſt be a Gouernment in the Church. and that rightly, for the well ordering of externall meanes of mens ſaluation among the profeſſours of Chriſts name, the reaſons for it are: firſt, becauſe Chriſt gaue Gouernours to his Church. 1. Cor. 12. 28. Secondly, the Apoſtle exhorted ſome to rule diligently. Rom. 12. 8. Thirdly, hee mentioneth ſuch as were ouer the Churches in the Lord. 1. Theſ. 5. 12. Fourthly, hee allowes to ſuch double honour, that is, reuerence and maintenance, euen for their well gouerning. 1. Tim. 5. 17. Fiftly, for that in the Scripture is a Commandement for the preaching of the word, for the adminiſtration of Sacraments, and other holy exerciſes, and all theſe to be done decently and in order: 1. Cor. 14. 40. now of neceſſitie there is required a rule and a gouernment both to ſee things and perſons orderly diſpoſed and ſo alſo kept. Sixtly, the vntoward nature of man, which reſiſts order, and deſires to wander looſely and at libertie, requires gouernment: without which experience tels vsus, that the Church cannot remaine in ſafetie, but Sathan would intrude his inſtruments vponupon the Church, and poyſon it with falſe doctrine, rend it by Schiſme, and pollute it wholy with prophaneneſſe of mens liues. Seauenthly, the Church of Chriſt is called a kingdome: Mat. 13. 41. 2. Theſ. 2. 12. now in a kingdome is gouernment. Eightly, if no ſocietie of men can be without gouernment, neyther in kingdome, Citie, nor Towne, then cannot the Church be without it, ſo long as it conſiſts of mortall men, though neuer ſo deuout, yet alwayes herein an imperfect ſtate, and needs gouernment. Ninthly, till Chriſts time from the worlds beginning, before and in the time of the Law, was there gouernment in the Church of God: and therefore are we not to thinke, that our Sauiour when he came, would make all that profeſſed him Libertines, and free from all outward gouernment. Tenthly, wee read how the Apoſtle was, euen in his time, conſtrained to vſe his power giuen him of Chriſt to rule, 1. Cor. 5. and did puniſh ſome. 1. Tim. 1. 20. Eleauenthly, the iudgement of reformed Churches manifeſt by practiſe, all of them yeelding to gouernment. That there is gouernment is certaine, and this is alſo as certaine,How Eccleſiaſticall Gouernors ought to behaue themſelues. that Gouernours ought to rule well: 1. Tim. 5. 17. with diligence: Rom. 12. 8. and without pride and tiranny: 1. Pet 5. 3. Mat. 20. 25. Luke. 22. 25. 26. But in this firme and moſt certaine truth is very great vncertaintie: for though it be generally held, that there is an Eccleſiaſticall gouernment, and that there is a delegate power of Ieſus Chriſt for well ordering and ruling his people, called the Church, yet herein is great controuerſie, and very hote contentions ariſe on one ſide and on an other, as men are perſwaded of a truth.
Some hold not onelyonly a gouernment, but alſo that in Chriſts Some hold a perpetuall gouernment.teſtament is appointed a perpetuall and an vnchangeable forme of gouernment in particular, to which all particular Churches are bound to receiue, and to ſubiect themſelues vntounto, as an eſſentiall part of the Goſpell vponupon paine of damnation: of this opinion beſides the Separatiſts hauehave beene others.
Others hold that Chriſt in the new Teſtament appointed no Others, that it is not certaine.certaine kinde, or perpetuall forme of gouernment, but that the ſame is alterable vponupon iuſt occaſions; as may ſerue beſt to the Churches welfare: ſo as in ſome place may be the Preſbiterian power; in others Epiſcopall authoritie, both indifferently lawfull; as may beſt fit the people and ſtate in eueryevery ſuch place: of this opinion are not a few, and they hauehave their reaſons: thus doe men vary about the very nature of gouernment itſelfe: ſo alſo is there much differing about the perſons in whom that power of ruling is, next and immediately from and vnderunder Chriſt.
Some hold it to be in the Pope with his Conſiſtory of Cardinals: Papiſts.but this is held the deuiſe of man, and condemned of all reformed Churches, which hauehave forſaken the Romiſh Synagogue, to be abhorred as vſurped authoritie, and Antichriſtian tyranny.
Some hold it to be in the body of the Congregation, as mayAnabaptiſts. be ſeene here before: others flatly deny it, as a confuſed popular gouernment; all in gouernment, and ſo none gouerned. How can this confuſed Chaos execute their gouernment, and vponupon whom muſt they execute it? themſelues vponupon themſelues; or if they put it off to ſome, then belike a power is giuen to ſuch as cannot performe it themſelues, but euer by others; they hauehave it, and others muſt execute it; Authoritie they hauehave without euer abilitie to do the duties thereto belonging, but by Subſtitutes. If the Aſſembly doe any thing, that muſt be in Chriſts name; for that they hauehave their authoritie from Chriſt; but Miniſters muſt by this opinion, doe all in the Churches name, preach, adminiſter the Sacraments in the Churches name. But how this ſquareth with holy writ, let all iudge.
Some hold Chriſts miniſteriall power to be in the Preſbiterie, Reformiſts.with the Churches conſent: but here alſo is great varietie touching the Preſbiterie: Some holding that it ought to be in eueryevery Congregation: others, in ſome ſpeciall place, and the ſame to be ouer diuers congregations. Some hold that this Preſbiterie doth by diuine authoritie conſiſt of Cleargie and Laitie: others denie vtterly lay Elders, and that all Elders in the new Teſtament are, as wee vnderſtand the word Church-men, Biſhops, Paſtours and Teachers. Some hold theſe Church Elders all equall: others directly oppoſe it, and doe defend SuperioritieProteſtants. of Miniſters in ſome men called Biſhops, whoſe reaſons briefely are; firſt, for that they doe thinke them to hauehaveReaſons for authoritie of Superioritie. See Biſhop Bilſons Perpetuall Gouernment. Doctor Fields 5. booke. cap. 27 page 134. And cap. 28. and 29. and 30. beene in and from the Apoſtles dayes, confirmed by Euſebius, who deriueth the ſucceſſion of Biſhops in the foure principall Churches of the world: viz. in Ieruſalem, Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria: from Iames at Ieruſalem; from Peter at Antioch; from Peter and Paul at Rome; and from Marke at Alexandria; and the ſame continued from time to time: for further knowledge hereof, let any, that will, read Biſhop Bilſons booke of perpetuall Gouernment, Page 260. and Doctor Field. Secondly, becauſe the Scripture mentioneth a Superioritie, ſome Apoſtles, ſome Prophets, ſome Teachers; and they be reckoned in order, by firſt, ſecond, and third, 1. Cor. 12. 28. as degrees one ouer another. Thirdly, becauſe God himſelfe in the old Teſtament ordained a Superioritie among Eccleſiaſticall perſons: there were the high Prieſt, and chiefe Prieſts, and ſo forth; and this order is not forbidden in the new teſtament. Touching that place of Luke 22. 25. 26. ſee Doctor Downham and Doctor Doue of Church Gouernment, by whom that text is expounded at large: If they erre, let it be ſhewed. Fourthly, becauſe the ground for Superioritie is alike in the new Teſtament, as in the old; to preſerue order, as 1. Cor. 14. the Apoſtle commands to maintaine peace, and to preuent Schiſme, which began in the Apoſtles dayes. For theſe cauſes was the ſuperioritie among the Church-men with the Iewes, and not for to be types, though the high Prieſt did type out Chriſt, yet did not the other Prieſts ſo, in that one was ſet ouer another for good gouernment ſake. Fiftly, becauſe God hath by inſtinct of nature in all ſocieties, moued people to approue of a Superioritie: yea, in his workes there is ſet a ſupereminencie of one creature aboue another: thus in the workmanſhip of the World, God approues it; in natures inclination he confirmes it; in the Iewiſh policie he commanded it: what makes it odious in the Chriſtian Church, ſithen it is experienced, that men now are as proud, as affectionate to ſingularitie, as opinionate to priuate courſes, as vnwilling to be in ſubiection, all which require a curbing power, as euer heretofore at any time? Sixty, becauſe ſuch as would hauehave an equalitie, do maintaine an inequalitie in their gouernment, and are thereto conſtrained to keepe order, and to preuent confuſion: they make the Paſtor ſuperior to the Teacher, when others hold them both one; and they hauehave a Super-intendent ouer many Churches. Thus wee ſee the great difference among the beſt learned of all ſorts, about the perſons that ſhould gouerne.
There is alſo differing opinions concerning the puniſhmentDifferences about the puniſhment of offenders. of offenders; Some hold that no externall power of reforming ſinners belongeth to the office of Miniſters, but onelyonly as by the word they can worke through the ſpirit, vponupon mens conſciences, by publike admonition and reprehenſion; rebuking ſuch openly as ſinne openly: affirming that other puniſhments whatſoeuer appertaine to the Magiſtrate, when God beſtowes them vponupon the Church: Others thinke that Miniſters may ſuſpend, and ſuperiour Eccleſiaſticall Gouernours withall excommunicate. And againe, there are which vtterly deny any ſuſpenſion from the communion; affirming that there is neyther precept nor practiſe in all the new Teſtament, nor any place whereupon it may neceſſarily be gathered; but onelyonly an excommunication from all the holy things of God. Others peremptorily deny excommunication, and doe account it but the Popes painted power, an inuention of man, without eyther Commandement or example in the new Teſtament: that it is firſt found among the Scribes and Prariſes, Chriſts enemies; that Heretickes and Schiſmatikes who deſpiſe the authoritie of Princes, make it their arme and power to coniure their Spirits in Communion with them: they ſay, the word is not in all the new Teſtament, as preſcribed eyther by Chriſt or his Apoſtles, neyther the thing intended by it, the deliuering of a man vp to Sathan being an other thing, an1 Cor. 5. extrarodinarie Apoſtolicall power: about this matter Beza and Eraſtus are long and tedious.
To conclude the 18. of Mat. verſe 15. 20. and Leu. Mat. 18. diuerſly expounded.19. 17. are by ſome held to be the order to be obſerued in proceeding with an offender before ſentence be giuen; but in this is as great varietie as in any of the reſt: for others auouch confidently that the places do nothing at all concerne Diſcipline, and Beza is taxed of great ouer-ſight, for grounding his Diſcipline vponupon Mat. 18. which belongeth nothing to it. Read the booke intituled, Theſes de ritè gubernanda Eccleſia, the Authour without name, and yet an ouer-ſea Presbiterian, who proueth that diſcipline Eccleſiaſticall hath there no foundation, but it is meant, ſaith he, of priuate and perſonall iniuries, which he proueth from the coherence of the whole Chapter one part of it with another, from the phraſes and manner of ſpeaking, from the abſurdities which would ariſe otherwiſe from it, from Peters queſtion, and the laſt words of Chriſts anſwere.
Now becauſe this place is ſo much in eueryevery ſeely mans mouth, ſo much exalted by the Separatiſts, by the Anabaptiſts, ſo troubleſome to the mindes of many, and ſo much deſired to be put in practiſe by ſome who yet here ſee it neglected, and being perſwaded that here the ſame cannot be put in practiſe, and yet ought to be obſerued as the true rule of Church Diſcipline, ordained by Chriſt, by which ſome runne from vsus, others remaining yet diſlike vsus, as careleſſe of Chriſts gouernment: I will ſhew the iudgement of Diuines, who endeuour by reaſons to declare how theſe men are vtterly miſtaken, and are cleane from the true meaning of this place; as they doe thinke. Heare therefore what is, and may be ſaid, touchign this 18. of Mat. verſe 15. 16. 17.
Firſt, the Coherence with that before in the ChapterCoherence. is thus; Chriſt our Sauiour tels of ſcandals and of offences that ſhall be giuen, and admoniſheth his diſciples of them, and teacheth to auoid them, verſe 5. 6. 7. &c: Then comes hee to iniuries offered, and ſhewes how men muſt carry themſelues towards ſuch as doe offer them wrong, in verſe 15. 16. 17. &c. That this is the order, the Text may ſhew, and the matter fitly doth agree together; for hee firſt admoniſheth his to take heed of offending others; and then declareth how they are to cary themſelues towards ſuch as doe treſpaſſe againſt them.
Secondly, the occaſion of theſe words was (as is thought)Occaſion. the ſtate of thoſe dayes in our Sauiours time, wherein the Iewes were in ſubiection to the Romanes, hauing their authoritie of Elders greatly diminiſhed by the Romanes, who were Heathen, to whom ſome Iewes became ſeruants: theſe were Publicanes; of which was Zacheus, yea, and Matthew, one that ſat at the receipt of cuſtome; for which they were to the Iewes very hatefull, but therein ſeruants to the Romanes, and ſo freed from the power & authoritie of the Iewes, with whom (as with the very Heathen & Gentiles among them) what Iew ſoeuer would hauehave to doe for any wrong which they offered, that Iew muſt call theſe publicanes before Romane authoritie, and conuent them there, and not bring them into any Iewiſh Court; from which they were exempt by their ſeruice to the Romane ſtate: which libertie was alſo graunted to any other priuiledged Iew, which would make an appeale to the Romane Gouernour, as did Saint Paul: to whom the Iewes might hauehave recourſe if they would to recouer their rights, or redreſſe wrongs offered them.
Thirdly, the ſcope of our Sauiour, is held in this caſe hereThe ſcope. to be a moderating of the Iewes paſſions, ariſing one againſt another for wrongs receiued, that ſo they might not runne into extremities, as mans nature is both haſtie and deſirous of the vtmoſt reuenge at the firſt; he aduiſeth them therefore not to deale at the firſt one with an other, as they muſt doe with Publicanes and Heathen, men hatefull to them, and exempted from all that power, which yet remained among themſelues; and againſt whom they held it lawfull to vſe all extremities to the vtmoſt: but to proceed louingly; firſt, after the rules of Charitie, which preſcribeth, firſt, all gentle meanes, and when theſe will not any way preuaile, then to vſe extremitie.
Fourthly, the meaning then of the words is; if thy brotherThe meaning of the words. Here be three degrees of proceeding, and a threefold help in reclaiming the treſpaſſer. 1. The rule of charitie. 2. Moſes order of policie, as much as then remained thereof. 3. And laſtly, the Romane Soueraigntie. a Iew doe iniurie againſt thee that art a Iew, goe thou to him, and tell him of it betweene your ſelues alone; and if he acknowledge the wrong, and doth giuegive thee ſatisfaction, thou art to ceaſe further to call him into queſtion, as being reconciled, and hee wonne vntounto thee by this thy louing carryage: but if hee doe deſpiſe thee (as but one to one) yet vſe not extremitie; but againe goe to him, and take with thee one or two, before whom thou mayeſt manifeſt the wrong receiued, that they may beare witneſſe of it, as alſo of thy charitable proceeding, and may be a meane to the ſame partie for thee, to conſider of his euils, to make thee recompence for the ſame: but if hee regard not their counſell neither; then complaine to the authoritie of the Iewiſh Synedrion, and let them perſwade him to deale well with thee, to ſatisfie in what hee hath done the iniury in. But if he become ſo graceleſſe and ſo wickedly obſtinate that he deſpiſe it, and ſo no ſuch meanes as theſe will doe him good; then vſe (if thou wilt) the vtmoſt remedie, deale with him, as if hee were not a faithfull Iew; that is, bring him before the Romane power, and ſue him at Caeſars barre, as if he were a Publicane or Heathen. So then the place is vnderſtood of priuate and perſonall ſuites and quarrels betweene man and man Iew and Iew, as the ſtate ſtood then, of which our Sauiour did ſpeake.
Fiftly, this to be the ſenſe, reaſons are alledged: firſt, the Reaſons to proue the interpretation.cuſtome of our Sauiour in ſpeaking, whoſe manner was to ſpeake according to the time, & to teach the Iewes then duties of louelove one towards another, as he before did, Mat. 5. 23. 26. In which place he ſpeaketh Eccleſiaſtically and alſo ciuilly to the Iewes capacitie, as they might reape benefit, and gaine good by his doctrine, euen ſo in this place. Secondly, the Apoſtle Peters ſo vnderſtanding our Sauiour, as appeareth by the words of his queſtion, made vponupon our Sauiours ſpeech, verſe 21. Thirdly, our Sauiours anſwere agine vntounto Peter, in a Parable, in which he ſpeakes of ſuch cauſes as fall out betweene man and man, priuate matters and perſonall, in which one man hath right to retaine or remit the offence done againſt himſelfe. Fourthly, our Sauiours concluſion with a generall ſentence, concluding the whole matter. verſe 35. Fiftly, the words & proprietie of ſpeech in the Text proue as much; for againſt thee, ſhewes the offence to be priuate, and perſonall, and ſuch as one partie offended might remit: againe, the word Brother, ſhewes how our Sauiour meant the Iewes then, for no Iew, nor as yet any Diſciple of Chriſt did account any other for brother but a Iew. Further more the ſpeech, thou haſt gained or won thy brother ſhewes a priuate alienation of mind in the party, that doth the iniurie: which by the gentle dealing of the partie offended, is as it were, recouered againe vntounto him: beſides our Sauiour ſending of the offender backe againe to the plaintiffes cenſure, after hee hath complained to the Church in theſe words, Let him be to thee; by whichBeza Annot. by this reaſon vnderſtands the very word Church, to be meant of the Iewes. is euident ſuch a Church to be meant, as the offender might not regard, and the Plaintiffe not get remedie by, but is diſmiſſed to further proceeding: ſo the matter is ſtill perſonall. Laſtly, the words Publican and Heathen, words of reproach then among the Iewes, (who onelyonly of all Nations did then diſdaine the Gentiles) doe declare Chriſts meaning to be of the Iewes at that time.
Sixtly, the place of Saint Luke, Chap. 17. 3. doth help alſo this Expoſition; which place is the very ſame with this of Matthew, but that it is more briefly ſet downe, then it is here.
Obiection: 1. Obiect. The word, foreign, is of a generall ſignification, and is not to reſtrained to be a particular kind of offence, as to perſonall wrongs and iniures.
Anſwere. Anſw. The word I grant is generall, which maketh therefore great varying about it, ſome tranſlating it ſinne, ſome treſpaſſe, ſome offend or ſcandalize: So as men cannot tell what is hereby truely meant; Snecanus ſaith, it hath aDe diſ. pa. 461. proper ſignification to ſinne; Beza ſaith, not all ſinnes areB. de preſb. p. 46. meant, but ſuch as are called ſtumbling blocks to mens conſciences; Snecanus ſaith, but all ſinnes are here vnderſtood,Snec. pa. 460. as well againſt God, as iniuries againſt man; Beza, Chriſtpa. 458. B. pa. 57. ſpeakes not here of iniuries committed: Gelaſius contra Alex. Chriſt ſpeakes here of common faults, and not ofInſt it. l. 4. ca. 12. ſect. 4. moſt hainous: Cal. Chriſt ſpeakes here of all ſorts of ſins, euen the greateſt that may be. And thus doe they contrary one an other, and therefore the Objection being of vncertainties, is not of force to hinder what is ſaid: ſithen though the word be generall, yet the Text it ſelfe reſtaineth it to a particular, euen to perſonall wrongs: for it is ſaid, not ſimply if he treſpaſſe; as vnderſtanding it generally of any ſinne to God or to men, but thus; if hee treſpaſſe againſt thee, conuince thou him alone, as a matter betweene two; thee and him. And the Apoſtle Peter vſeth theſe words, verſe 21. ſinne againſt me, and I forgiue him; as vnderſtanding Chriſts words of perſonall matters, where one man had authoritie to forgiue, as an offence done againſt his owne perſon. And whatſoeuer Beza in his Controuerſie with Eraſtus, ſaith, yet his noted inſtruction out of this place is this; We muſt labour for Concord, not to reuenge iniuries: by which it ſeemes in the general he deliuereth the truth, and hee vnderſtands iniuries offered, and that our Sauiour doth ayme at concord, and ſuppreſſion of mans deſire of reuenge herein.
Obiection. 2. Obiect. But the word Church cannot be taken for the Iewiſh Synedrion, or the Aſſembly of authoritie among the Iewes, which was then as well ciuill as Eccleſiaſticall.
Anſwere. Anſ. Firſt, the word Church in the holy Scripture, is not alway ſo ſtrictly taken, as men doe now vſe it, but is vſed for the aſſembly of good or bad, Chriſtians or Infidels, met together to conſult and determine of cauſes, whether Ciuil or Eccleſiaſticall, Pſal. 26. 5. Where the Septuagint, doe tranſlate the word Aſſembly, by the word (foreign) Church: So in the Prou. 5. 4. In the new Teſtament the word is taken largely, Act. 19. 32. 39. 40. in which three verſes the word tranſlated Aſſembly, is the ſame which is here (foreign) tranſlated Church. Secondly, Beza himſelfe byBez. An. the word Church, vnderſtandeth it as ſpoken here of the Iewes; that is, the Elders aſſembled, who exerciſed iudgement in thoſe dayes: which Aſſembly of Iudges as here they be called the Church, ſo in the old Teſtament, were they called the Congregation, which is all one. Num. 35. 12. 24. 25. Ioſh. 20. 6. 9. The Expoſition therefore ſtands warrantable by the word, and this objection is alſo of no moment againſt it.
Obiection. The 3. Obiection ariſeth out of the ver. 18. where mention is made of binding and loſing; as if Chriſt had before eſtabliſhed a rule of Gouernment to his Church, & herein declared the authoritie and power thereof, beſtowed firſt vponupon the Apoſtles, and then vponupon the Miniſters or Elders their Succeſſours.
Anſwere. Anſ. Firſt, the face of this Objection is from miſtaking the application of the words, binding and loſing, as properly and only to be vnderſtood of Chriſts Miniſters in this place, when yet we doe ſee in the former words, a binding and loſing to be allowed to priuate perſons: for what is, thou haſt wonne him, verſe 15. but a loſing, if the offender heare him? and what is, be he vntounto thee as a Heathen and a Publican verſ. 17. if hee will not heare, but a binding? and yet theſe allowed to one man or two, though priuate perſons, if the ſenſe were as the obiectour would hauehave it, and not to Miniſters onelyonly. Againe here is no mention made of any Miniſters; neither doth Chriſt in this Chapter ſpeake of any particular office of publike perſons, but of ſuch things as concerned the people of God, euen the Iewes then, as Chriſtians now: why then ſhould the ſenſe of all the reſt be made anſwerable to this, and not this verſe interpreted ſo as it may agree with the reſt? for although theſe words may carry ſuch a ſhew, as to draw this verſe to the Miniſterie onelyonly, by the foreſaid miſtaking, yet if it be obſerued: firſt, that the words are generall: ſecondly, that therefore the expoſition of a generall may be brought to a neceſſarie coherence of diuerſe particulars: thirdly, that our Sauiour in ſome ſort expounds this difficultie in verſes 19. 20. ſpeaking of the agreeing of two or three; by which it may ſeem, he hath reference to verſe 15. and 16. thereby to confirme the peace made betweene the two parties, eyther alone, or with their witneſſes, declaring how acceptable it is to God, leaſt it ſhould be deſpiſed: there is no cauſe why this 18. verſe ſhould make a iarre in the apt expoſition of all the former and latter verſes, agreeing very fitly together. To conclude, it cannot be denyed, but that to binde and loſe, belong vntounto the Miniſterie, which power our Sauiour gaue his Apoſtles afterward: Iohn. 20. 23. which they did, and Miniſters now doe performe by vertue of their office ſtanding in Chriſts roome and ſtead, and ſo doe they binde and loſe otherwiſe then doe common Chriſtians, yet it therefore followes not, that theſe Chriſtians doe not or may not binde or loſe at all. Miniſters doe pray, teach and endeuor to bring men to Chriſt, and this is his office, and as publike perſons; yet others may teach alſo: ſo are Parents commanded,Deut. and eueryevery Chriſtian man is bound to edifie his brother, 1. Theſ. 5. 11.but not by authoritie of ſpeciall office, or as publike perſons, ſuch as Miniſters be. And therefore we ſee this Obiection alſo doth nothing hinder the expoſition.
Sixtly, therefore hence may be concluded, that this place is not, nor cannot be a rule for diſcipline, though it be choſen as the foundation whereupon the gouernment of Chriſt ſhould be builded; to which purpoſe are theſe reaſons.
Reaſon. 1 Firſt, the former expoſition, which being true, this place doth not eſtabliſh diſcipline.Reaſons why the 18. of Mat. is no rule of Church-gouernment abſolutely.
Reaſon. 2 Secondly, becauſe Chriſt Ieſus neuer did intermeddle in any outward gouernment, no not ſo much as to controle the abuſe which then was publike through the high Prieſts Simonie; much leſſe did hee erect a new gouernment by publike doctrine.
Reaſon. 3 Thirdly, becauſe it is confeſſed, that by the word Church is meant the Iewes Sinedrion, & therfore if Chriſts gouernment be here eſtabliſhed, it ſhould be anſwerable to the Iewiſh Sinedrion; but the Apoſtles in no place euer ſet it vp, or any like it, neyther giueth the leaſt taſte thereof in any of their writings; and ſaith a learned man, I reſt ſecure that no ancient father euer made the gouernment of Chriſt anſwerable therunto. That no ſuch thing was in the Apoſtles dayes theſe reaſons ſhew: the Apoſtles preſcribe no order, nor giuegive inſtruction to them: in Churches out of order there is no reproofe of their negligence, nor in any other Church any commendation of their diligence, no mention by Luke in the Acts of any ſuch proceeding to be in vſe; which with all or ſome of theſe things, ſhould ſome where hauehave beene mentioned, if any ſuch thing had beene.
Reaſon. 4 Fourthly, if here gouernment be eſtabliſhed, it is eyther … …. 18.Popular, E iſcopall, or Preſbiterian: but ſaith Beza not Popular, and auoucheth that ſuch as doe take here the word Church for the aſſembly of the whole multitude, doe erre very groſely: and ſay others, not Epiſcopall authoritie: and ſay wee, not the Preſbiterian power mixt, as wee ſay of Lay men and Church men; and therefore if all theſe ſay true, there is here conſtituted no gouernment at all.
Reaſon. 5 Fiftly, if here be a rule of diſcipline from Chriſt, then is it eyther perfect or imperfect; if they ſay imperfect, let them declare where elſe is a more perfect rule for it, or any ſupply made elſe where to perfect it in all the new Teſtament. If they ſay it is perfect, then is all ſorts of ſinne here brought in, ſubiect to the Churches cenſure, wherein the Church may intermeddle; then alſo here is comprehended all the parts which they doe make of diſcipline. But firſt, here a man is not to proceed againſt his Brother for any ſinne; as not for ſinne againſt God, for ſinne againſt the Magiſtrate, for ſinne againſt another: but for treſpaſſes againſt himſelfe, as the words be, treſpaſſe againſt thee, which in the LordsMat 6. Prayer, and in this Chapter wee be taught to forgiue: butMat. 18. by what warrant can a man remit treſpaſſes done againſt another? how can hee pardon rebellion againſt God? or publike crimes againſt the Magiſtrate? if a man commit murther, by the order here, the partie which firſt ſeeth him, muſt tell him of it; and if the Offender ſhew penitencie, the other is to reſt ſilent, contrary to reaſon and religion elſewhere; and therefore as before is ſaid, here onelyonly is vnderſtood perſonall iniuries to a mans ſelfe, and no diſcipline ordained to vrge priuate perſons to proceed thus for ſinnes againſt God, againſt Magiſtrates and other men. Againe, this is a rule for ſinnes priuate and more ſecret, but not for publike and open ſinne. Secondly, it is no perfect rule for the parts of diſcipline, not for ſuſpention, if any ſuch thing be, it is here wholy forgotten, as elſe where; as ſome ſay in all the new Teſtament. And how is excommunication here ordained? Firſt, it is not ſaid here as in 1. Cor. 5. either let him be deliuered to Sathan, or put out him from among you: but let him be as a Heathen and Publicane; by which our Sauiour doth permit the partie oppreſſed to ſeeke further remedie, as is aforeſaid. Secondly, the Church here, whoſe office it is to cenſure and excommunicate, if any ſuch thing here were intended, doth not proceed againſt the perſon obſtinate, as the Church ought, but referres him ouer againe to the plaintiffe, the priuate partie offended, which in the order of diſcipline is not ſo. Thirdly, our Sauiour in all the degrees of proceeding, doth make the firſt partie offended the principall; hee muſt admoniſh, hee muſt take witneſſes, he muſt tell the Church, and to him muſt the man he as a Heathen and Publicane. In all which is plainly a proceeding in a perſonall action betweene partie and partie. Fourthly, our Sauiour ſaith not, when he ſpeakes of the Church, that the Church ſhould excommunicate the offender, and hold him as a Heathen and Publican: which in all likelihood and proper ſpeaking, hee would hauehave done, had he herein intended to aduance the Churches authoritie in diſciplinarie cauſes: but let it be noted, that here our Sauiour makes not the Church Oyer and determiner, no nor to doe more then the very witneſſes, neyther doth it proceed further then they, but onelyonly the partie offended is allowed to goe on. Therefore may it be concluded, that our Sauiour herein did not intend to aduance the Churches authoritie and gouernment thereof, but a priuate and perſonall cauſe as is declared, and therefore here is no precept or rule of diſcipline.
Reaſon. 6 Sixtly, if with all be added, that Chriſt herein decreed no publike puniſhment, for hee allowes the Plaintiffe to tell the Church, the delinquent deſpiſing the Church, ſhee is not taught here to excommunicate him, but onelyonly to ſend him backe to the Complainant: but thus it is not in Church diſcipline.
Reaſon. 7 Seauenthly, if diſcipline were here grounded; then the Church muſt iudge in eueryevery cauſe between partie & partie, and ſo intermeddle in ciuill affaires, and enter vponupon the bounds of Magiſtracie: which how well the ſame may be defended, is not yet manifeſted: albeit ſome hauehave brought it into act vponupon their vnderſtanding ſo this place, allowing themſelues vnderunder the name of ſinne, of offending a brother: to bring any matter, that may fall out betweene man and man before the Church; euen to a Taylors making of a Dublet and a paire of Hoſe.
Reaſon. 8 Eightly, if here be the rule of gouernment, then cannot the Church of it ſelf call by Summons any offender before it: but muſt ſtay till any offended will come & informe the Church of the perſon offending, for here is it only expreſly ſet downe. Now the Diſciplinarian courſe altereth from this place, and therefore they erre from their ground in this point, without warrant from hence.
And thus it appeareth how litle this place (as Diuines doe expound it, doth ſerue for Diſcipline in chriſtian Churches. If any doe aske, why I alledge not the Authors of eueryeveryWhy teſtimonies of men are not alledged. Reaſon; my anſwere is, for that I ſee reaſons to receiue prejudice by the perſons: a weake reaſon is by the countenance of a man of fame made ſtronger then it is; and a ſollide reaſon of one of no great note, is condemned through the meane eſtimation of the perſon: wee doe conclude by reaſon, and liue by the faith of the word of God, which two are ſufficient to guide eueryevery reaſonable Chriſtian man, though the parties alledging the ſame be not nominated.
And thus hauehave I euidently layd open, what varietie of iudgement there is in this matter of Gouernment, as aWhat manner of gouernment is to be wiſhed. point vndeterminable by meane wits: for my part, I wiſh gouernment to be ſuch, as may agree with the generall Apoſtolicall rules of guiding particular actions, moſt for the furtherance of the Goſpel, the peoples ſaluation, the maintenance of ſound Doctrine, the reformation of the ill diſpoſed: that moſt may ſerue for the ouerthrow of Antichriſts Kingdome and power, and for the preſeruation of vnitie in the whole Church, and in the particular members of the ſame, not neglecting for worldly policie the holy Scriptures, or lightly eſteeming of the Apoſtles practiſes, or approued antiquitie, an vniuerſall conſent of the Churches of God; which hee grant vsus for his glory and praiſe for euer. And thus much may ſerue for Reply, to Mr. Ainſworths anſwere to this ſeauenth Errour: for touching that he ſaith, Where all ſinne, they be all ſubiect to puniſhment: it is not denyed; and is idle, and nothing to the matter in queſtion: which is: Whether the ſinne of one notorious man, defileth the whole Congregation, though many therein lament it, and are vexed in their ſoules, for that ſuch a one is not puniſhed by lawfull authoritie? He maketh one to ſinne, and all other to ſinne with him, and ſo to deſerue the ſame iudgement, which is a matter not called into queſtion. But ere I end with him in this, let it be well obſerued, what a people hee onelyonly allowes men to ſeparate from: firſt, an Aſſembly, What people only Mr. Ainſworth alloweth men to ſeparate from.not Gods Church; ſecondly, which with an high hand ſinneth and blaſphemeth the Lord; thirdly, whoſe ſacrifice is abhominable; fourthly, that wherein it cannot be ſaid, that any holy thing is lawfully adminiſtred; fiftly, wherein all doe agree to maintaine open iniquitie; ſixtly, which doth diſpiſe the word of God calling them to repentance: If they doe not thus (ſaith he) wee hold it not lawfull to ſeparate from them, nor in any wiſe at any time, till all holy and orderly meanes be vſed to reclaime them. Whence therefore it may neceſſarily be gathered that Mr. Ainſworth either doth cenſure vsus to be ſuch a people (and if ſo, what more accurſed diudgement can be giuen againſt vsus?) or els their ſeparation, by his owne mouth condemning it, is vnlawfull.
Mr. Smiths Anſwere to this ſeauenth Errour, and a Reply thereunto.
Maſter Smith would prooue the poſition true, by onePage. 71. maine Reaſon, that Chriſts Miniſteriall power is giuen to the Church: whence he concludeth a pollution in eueryevery member, that liueth where any open knowne ſinne is ſuffered, as a conſenter thereunto; if the partie offending be not reformed, & ſeparation made for the ſame, after due admonition. Hauing thus laied his ground, he gathereth concluſions. But I hauehave already ſhewed els where before, that the Miniſteriall power is not giuen to the Church; and the chiefe proofe for that is, Mat. 18. which how Diuines expound it, is alſo ſhewed: therefore his immediate ground for defence of this Errour being very falſe, and the ground of that ground very vncertaine, his Concluſions are vaine, and nothing worth.
For the place to the Corinths. 1. Ep. chap. 5. verſe. 6.1. Cor. 5. 6. Anſwered. where a prouerbiall ſpeech of the Apoſtle is vrged: I anſwere, that the words be a ſimilie, and muſt be inlarged no farther then the nature of the thing is: it is true that ſinne is as Leauen, and the people in one Aſſembly is as a lumpe, in which a wicked man is as Leauen; but we muſt know the Leauen leaueneth not the whole lumpe wherin it is put but as it is mingled with the whole lumpe, and as eueryevery part of that ſame taketh the Leauen, els it is not leauened: So is it with the Church, ſuch as allow and any way communicate with the wicked man in his ſin, they are leauened; but ſuch as Cloe, reprouing the offender, and complaining thereof, ſeeking as they may in their place Reformation, they are not leauened, becauſe they doe not take Leauen. Beware of the Leauen of the Phariſes (ſaith our Sauiour) he willeth not his diſciples to leaue the Aſſemblies: but to take heed they take no Leauen of them: ſhewing thereby, that a godly and carefull Chriſtian may be where Leauen is, and yet not be leauened with them. Againe the Apoſtle doth not ſay that the Corinthians are leauened, but rather the contrary in the ſame place, Yee are vnleauened: Verſe 7.which the Apoſtle would neuer hauehave ſaid, if the inceſtuous man had leauened them Further more the Apoſtle no where doth teach men to draw this Doctrine of polution, and ſo ſeparation from it, though he had cauſe often ſpeaking of ſins and corruptions to vrge it, had he euer intended it, as this man doth vrge it. He cyteth ſome placesNum. 19. 13. 20. in the old Teſtament, precepts ceremoniall, which hee applyeth to the new (as he pleaſeth) to which I hauehave madeHag. 2. 14. anſwere before, and now I ſay onelyonly this; let him proue by Gods ſpirit, that is, by the words of the holy Ghoſt in the new Teſtament, any ſuch intendement of Doctrine ſhadowed out therein vntounto vsus, as he frameth to himſelfe, and then he thereby neither ſhall be deceiued, nor deceiue others. If any ſuch thing had beene meant thereby, the Apoſtle who had iuſt occaſion to ſpeake of it, in 1. Cor. 5. 6. where hee ſpeakes of Leauen, would not hauehave forgotten ſuch places to hauehave vrged them here; or in the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, or ſome where that the Church of Chriſt might not hauehave erred from the true vſe thereof, nor hauehave loſt the great benefit which might hauehave come to it thereby. His laſt reaſon is, becauſe Kings and Prieſts neglecting their dutie were polluted with the ſinnes of ſuch as they ſhould hauehave puniſhed: and therefore ſaith hee, ſo is the whole Church now. The force of this reaſon is, becauſe he maketh the people, euen all common Chriſtians, now Kings and Prieſts, euen in externall gouernment, as the Kings and Prieſts ruled in the old Teſtament. But how hereby he ouerthrowes the Kings Supremacie; how falſely he interprets the names of Kings and Prieſts giuen to Chriſtians now, I leaue for all to iudge. This Error of Popular power is his ground-worke alſo for his anſweres to my reaſons, againſt this ſeauenth Errour, on which ſtringe hee often harpeth in ſeeking to confute my arguments.
In my former Booke, Page 103. I ſhew firſt what is notWhat it is, not to conſent to ſinne. a conſenting to ſinne, and ſo on the contrary what it is to conſent: firſt not in iudgement to approue of it, after the meaſure of his vnderſtanding: ſecondly, not in affection to like of the ſame: thirdly, not to be ſilent at it, but in place fitly to reproue it: fourthly, in countenance to manifeſt diſlike thereof: fiftly in life to be contrary, and to practiſe vertue: ſixtly, not to be careleſſe of it, but to ſeeke the reformation thereof in his place, as farre as hee is able; this I ſay, is not to conſent to ſinne in others, though the party offending remaine in the congregation, and though ſuch a partie not conſenting, come to the holy things of God, when the other commeth alſo.
Mr. Smith to this anſwers, that I do falſly interpret conſent,Page 73. Mr. Smiths Anſwere. for ſaith he, a man may doe all this, and yet conſent: and he would proue it by Ely, 1. Sam. 2. 12. 23. who did all this (as he imagineth) and yet for that hee did not to the vtmoſt which the word required at his hands, to wit, to put his ſonnes to death, hee did conſent to them, and ſo forth: In like manner (ſaith hee) except men make a ſeparation, they doe not to the vtmoſt of the word, and ſo doe conſent.
Reply. Mr. Smith thinkes I come ſhort in ſetting out conſent, Page. 73.and I thinke that he farre ouer-reacheth: for though Ely did not all he ought, yet can it not be ſaid, that he conſented vntounto them This ſhould he hauehave proued, but he leaues it becauſe he cannot proue that conſent is when men ſhew diſlike of ſin, as I hauehave ſaid, and yet doe faile in ſome degree. Ely was not guiltie of ſinne, for conſent to their ſinne, but for neglect of part of his dutie. Againe, his example is not fit; Ely was a publike perſon, and a Iudge, but our ſpeech was of priuate men: Ely went not ſo farre as hee might and ought, but priuate perſons can goe no further to reforme then in the degrees mentioned. Touching ſeparation for perſonall faults I hauehave ſhewed it not to be lawfull, but Schiſmaticall. His alledged Scriptures to prooue ſeparation, the firſt, Act. 2. 4. is altogether idle, the ſecondAct. 2. 4. and 19. 9. Act. 19. 9. vnderſtood of ſeparation from blaſphemers of Chriſt, and a people which thereby became no Church, and therefore is nothing to proue a priuate man to ſeparate from a true Church, for the perſonall ſin of an other: the laſt place, 2. Cor. 6. 17. is at large anſwered before.2. Cor. 6. 17.
In the ſecond place, after I hauehave ſhewed what is not to conſent to ſin, I proue in the 104. of my former Booke byGodly are not polluted by ſome wicked comming to the Sacrament. many reaſons, that ſuch as doe not conſent as is before declared, are not polluted by the ſinne of an other obstinately impenitent therein, though the godly come to the holy things of God, and that wicked partie come alſo to the ſame.
Reaſon. 1 Firſt, I ſay, there was no ſacrifice for ſuch a pollution vnderunder the law, and yet for all other; and therefore this was not vnderunder the law accounted pollution, to wit, for a godly perſon to come to the holy things of God, when a wicked man came among them. Saul did come to worſhip God; ſo did Ioab no doubt, alſo the ſoones …ly, with whom were ſome fearing God; yet doe we neuer read, that it was accounted a ſinne to the godly, neither did they euer offer ſacrifice to make an attonement vntounto God for it, as a pollution, that we read of.
But he ſaith there was a ſacrifice appointed, & he bringsPage. 74. Obiection. the example of Beniamits conſenting to ſin, Iud. 19. and 20 the Iſraelites fearing for the Altar made, Ioſh. 22. and Achans ſinnes, for which wrath came on Iſrael. Ioſh. 7.
Anſwere. But what of all theſe, Reader? is here any mention of any ſacrifice for godly men comming to Gods worſhip, becauſe wicked men came too? Hee loſt his wits as he did here the queſtion when he alledged theſe. But hee ſaith, there was a ſacrifice for the ſinne of the whole Congregation. Leu. 4. 13. Ergo, a ſacrifice for the godly being in Gods ſeruice with ſome wicked. How the place proueth this and his reaſonleſſe reaſoning maketh good his purpoſe I ſee not.
Reaſon. 2 Secondly, I ſay, that godly people in the old Teſtament are neuer any where reproued for being at the adminiſtration of holy things, though wicked men were there. It is not mentioned by any Prophet to be a ſinne; there is no precept forbidding it; there is no example of puniſhment vponupon any for ſo doing: it is not therefore a ſinne. Indeed the Prieſts were reproued for not ſeparating the cleane from the vncleane,Ezech. 22. 26. becauſe it was their office ſo to doe.
Mr. Smith to this anſweres thus: firſt, that their communionPage. 74. Obiection. then was typical, and their perſons typically cleane, though wicked in their liues, and ſo could not pollute one another: ſecondly, hee ſaith, that the carnall Prieſts in the old Teſtament, were type of the Saints in the new Teſtament, who ſucceeded as ſpirituall Prieſts, and therefore are polluted by not diſtinguiſhing and ſeparating the cleane from the vncleane now.
Anſwere. But this typicall conceit, is but a tipp of his fantaſticalneſſe: hee doth not denie my reaſon giuen, onelyonly he would take it away by this his dreame. My reaſon being moſt ſtrong againſt him, and without contradiction in all the old Teſtament, he nor any of the Separation being able to ouerthrow it, this deuiſe is coyned from his forge, vncouth and vnheard of heretofore, and now barely auouched without proofe: when hee doth proue his typicall toying by any Apoſtolicall expoſition out of the new Teſtament, hee ſhall receiue anſwere anſwerable thereunto. Hee would make the people of God in the old Law a carnall generation, to be meerely in ſhadowes, as if the Law morall were not in their couenant, that wicked men then could not pollute, for onelyonly ſacrifycing ſome beaſt, and yet nothing now, no profeſſe of faith in Chriſt, no asking pardon for ſinne, as men doe, that ſay the Lords prayer, and in the Aſſembly, eueryevery Lords day, confeſſe their ſinnes, and craue pardon, can preuent pollution, but eyther muſt there be a caſting out of the wicked, or a making of a wicked Separation. He alſo would here make Saints by calling, and prieſts in Chriſt ſpiritually, to be one with the Prieſts in office in the old Teſtament: and citeth for it Reu 1. 6. and 11. 1.Reu 1. 6. & 11. 1 Iude ver. 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. Iude verſe 23. 2. Cor. 6. 17. The firſt ſhewes wee are called in Chriſt, Kings and Prieſts: Ergo, ſo outwardly in the church by office? Proue this Conſequence. How doth it follow to reaſon from carnall, as hee cals it, to ſpirituall; from an outward office, to inward grace? hee is void of wit and grace, who reaſoneth thus to deceiue the ſimple. The ſecond place, by which at his breaking out here he deceiued ſo many, is expounded and fully anſwered by Mr. Ainſworth inA booke intituled, A defence of the holy ſcripture, &c. pag. 11 12. 13. 14. 15. his Anſwere to Mr. Smiths Booke of Differences, in which Anſwere Mr. Ainſworth doth note in Mr. Smith, Dotage, blindeneſſe of heart in iudgeing ſpirituall things; blaſphemie in wretchedly expounding this place; that hee was induced to this impietie by being deceiued by Sathan; and that hee interpreteth Scripture after his owne fantaſie: all which hee by reaſon manifeſts vntounto him, in confuting his falſe expoſition, and giuing a more likely ſenſe of it himſelfe, to which I incline, and ſo I commend it to him, as my Anſwere hereto at this time. The third Scripture is to no purpoſe: the laſt, which hee brings in ſo often, hauehave I anſwered before. Hee makes an obiection himſelfe, and anſweres it himſelfe, ſo as it is out of his owne braine; the ſumme whereof is, what before Page 30. hee deliuered, touching typicall cleanſing, though the party were morally vncleane: to which Mr. Ainſworth in the foreſaid booke, Page 119. anſweres, and ſaith, that herein Mr. Smith is not onelyonly a typicall but a reall Seducer and deceiuer of mindes indeed: and giueth both reaſons to manifeſt Mr. Smiths abſurdities, and alſo alledgeth many Scriptures to confute his folly herein.
Reaſon. 3 Thirdly, I ſay, that the Prophets neyther taught this doctrine, neither made ſeparation from holy things, for the wickedneſſe of other men, which they would hauehave done had it beene ſinne: for they mentioned many euils, rebuked both Prieſts and people; commanded alſo Separation where the Lord commanded; but ſuch a corruption as is here ſuppoſed they neyther mentioned by word, nor ſhewed by practiſe. Therefore vnderunder the Law, there was no ſuch thing.
To this Mr. Smith anſweres principally to two things: firſt,Page 76. Obiection. that the people then made no Separation, becauſe the vtmoſt meanes to reforme abuſes was in the Magiſtrate, and ſo ought to depend vponupon the Lord for redreſſe of things, to wit, by the Magiſtrate.
Anſwere. Marke Reader, how he paſſeth by one thing; that I ſay, the Prophets taught no ſuch thing; ſo he leaueth the doctrine, the rule of practiſe, and bables of Practiſe, before he proue the former: and yet what he ſaith is very much for vsus, who hauehave chriſtian Magiſtrates, whoſe authoritie cannot be now leſſe vnderunder Chriſt, then vnderunder the Law; which if he deny, then muſt hee recall his oath, which he hath ſworne for the maintenance of Princely ſupremacy vnderunder the Goſpell. A lawleſſe man, in a lawleſſe place may not ſay any thing againſt God and againſt his Soueraigne.
Obiection: Secondly, ſaith hee, in the old Teſtament the people were neceſſarilie tyed to the Kingdome, Prieſt-hood, and Temple, for the worſhip and obedience of God.
Anſwere. If this be true, then was it no ſinne that good men and openly wicked were mixed; for God doth not tye men neceſſarily to ſinne: and being no ſinne then, it is no ſinne now: all ſinne now is morall, and the ſumme of it is comprehended in the Law morall; if then it could not thence be gathered, neyther can it now there-from be collected. So as his reaſons are good for vsus not to make ſuch a Separation, and againſt himſelfe.
Reaſon. 4 Fourthly, I ſay, that the holy Scripture plainely teacheth the contrary: and that many wayes.
Firſt, by acquiting him that is godly from the tranſgreſſion of other men, though they be mixed together in the partaking of Gods ordinances, as theſe Scriptures proue. Ezech. 11. 20. 21. and 33. 9. and 18. 14. 17. 20. and 14. 18. 20. Tit. 1. 15. Reu. 3. 4. and 2. 24. 22. 23. Gal. 5. 10. Let the places beWhat may be collected from theſe ſcriptures. read, and the vnderſtanding Reader may ſee, firſt, a difference betweene the godly and wicked: ſecondly, one mans tranſgreſſion is not laid to the charge of another: thirdly, that God approues of the godly, though intermixed with the wicked: fourthly, that godly men may keepe themſelues vndefiled, though many wicked be in the ſame Church and Aſſembly with them. And in all theſe places where theſe truths are warranted; the holy Ghoſt takes no occaſion to ſpeake of pollution by the ſinne of another, and yet if he had intended any ſuch doctrine, in theſe places he had moſt fit occaſion for the ſame.
Mr. Smiths idle anſwere is thus much in effect, that the Page. 77. Obiection.places doe not acquite men, who are eyther principals or acceſſaries to other mens ſinnes.
Anſwere. This I deny not, neyther is it my intendment in the allegation: for he that is eyther a Leader or an abettour of others in ſinne, is a ſinner himſelfe, not becauſe the other ſinneth, but for that the perſon himſelfe counſelleth to wickedneſſe, or maintaineth it. But if a man doe auoid ſinne in the degrees elſewhere mentioned, hee is not polluted. And againe he paſſeth by my drift to proue that by theſe places thoſe that feare God may pertake of holy things, though the wicked come thereunto, and not be polluted: hee omitteth this, and tels vsus of men partaking together in ſinne, which is not in queſtion.
Secondly, by declaring it to be a ſinne, for the godly to leaue the worſhip of God, for the wickedneſſe of other men comming thereunto. 1. Sam. 2. 24. 17. Where the place is plainely contradictorie to his aſſertion, and the tranſlation is good, as learned and iudicious Diuines doe hold, and hauehave ſo written vntounto him in priuate, anſwering him fully, what he could object againſt this place, by a Reioynder of theirs vntounto his Reply, to which (euer ſince he fled from vsus) he hath beene ſilent; and albeit the pride of his heart, will not let him acknowledge his falſe gloſſe; yet hee lets his hold goe, and runneth to his former, vaine, and carnall conceite of the onelyonly Ceremoniall cleanneſſe in the old Law, ſufficient, asPage. 78. he thinkes, to keep them from all morall pollution of any ſonne of Belial: of which enough is ſpoken before, vntounto ſo an abſurd and vnproued Aſſertion.
Thirdly, (which is in my other Booke my firſt reaſon,) the Holy Scripture admitteth men, and granteth them libertie to come to the holy things of God, though wicked men openly ſinning be there, ſo be it that a man walke well himſelfe, as it becommeth him towards God, and without doing wrong to his neighbour, Mat. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. whereMatt. 5. 23. 24. 1. Cor. 11. 23. the Apoſtle ſpeaking of abuſes among the Corinthians preſcribes a remedie, eueryevery man to examine himſelfe, and ſo to eate: hee commands not to examine an other; nor to marke how others hauehave liued, but how they hauehave behaued themſelues; hee tels not that any comming vnprepared polluteth the Congregation, but the offender eateth damnation to himſelfe: hee ſpeakes nothing of pollution, nothing of ſeparation, which had beene very neceſſarie vponupon this occaſion to hauehave taught, if Gods ſpirit had euer inſtructed them therein: eſpecially if wee conſider how after once or twiſe admonition, they did not amend. 2. Cor. 12. 21.
Mr. Smith anſwers that of Mat. 5. 23. 24. by giuing thePage. 78. Obiection. Expoſition of it; that a man not rebuking his brother, doth hate him.
Anſwere. But who ſeeth not his abuſing of the word, and therein Gods ſpirit, by peruerting his meaning: for the word Reconcile, and to win his brother againe, importeth iuſt cauſe of diſpleaſure in the partie to be reconciled, taken from the partie going to ſacrifice, which cannot be for not reprouing him; for who is ſo offended becauſe another man rebukes him not, as for it, he will be out with him? and for which the partie omitting of his duetie, is not to proceed on to worſhip God? It is meant of perſonall wrongs and iniuries, and not of omitting the dutie of admonition: none but a man compounded of ſantaſies, and audaciouſly bold in his conceits, would euer vnderſtand the place ſo, contrary to the iudgement of all men, the proprietie of ſpeech, and common reaſon it ſelfe. Our Sauiour ſpeakes before of ill tearmes, and railing, and then doth conclude this rule thereupon: neither are the wordes thus, if thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remembreſt that thou Mat. 5. 23. 24.haſt ſome what againſt thy brother; to wit, a dutie of admonition to be performed, for his offending thee: but the words are, that thy brother hath ought againſt thee: ſo is it not an ill in him not reproued by thee, but an ill in thee, for which thou oughteſt to giuegive to him ſatisfaction. The place, Leui. Leuit. 19. 17. Expounded.19. 17. alledged to ſhew, that ſuch as doe not rebuke another for any ſinne they ſee him commit, doth therefore hate him, is (as I take it) miſalledged: for it is vnderſtood of hatred ariſing in mans heart for wrongs receiued by another. A man iniured, naturally hateth the offending partie,Example in Abſalom. 2 Sam. 13. 22. and rather willeth to goe on with hatred in his heart, then to come vntounto the offender louingly to tell him in plaine tearmes of it, to cauſe him to ſurceaſe to ſinne. Now the Lord here meeteth with this cankered corruption of the heart, & willeth euen the partie receiuing wrong, rather to goe and deale plainely with his aduerſarie to winne him, then to let him reſt in his wrong doing, and himſelfe ſtill to carry hatred againſt him alſo for the ſame. The place is meant therefore of perſonall wrongs, as the very next verſe 18. doth declare, where he ſpeakes of auenging, and of mindefulneſſe of wrong, which indeed are the fruit of the hatred of the heart, and a continuance of the ſame; and the words in the middle of the verſe, is not to ſhew that omiſſion of our dutie to rebuke, is hatred of our brother, but that plainely to rebuke him, is a meanes to winne him, and ſo to remoue hatred out of our owne hearts.
His anſwere to 1. Cor. 11. 28. is, that it is meant of ſuchPage 78. 1. Cor. 11. 28. Obiection. an examination, as hath regard of the rule in Mat. 18. 15. 17. wherein if we faile, we are polluted, and ſo cannot eate and drincke without hurt and iudgement.
Anſwere. How he includeth this within the charge of examination, ſithen the Apoſtle doth not remember it, I ſee not: and how little the 18. of Matthew is to this matter in queſtion, I hauehave ſhewed what Diuines doe thinke.
To the 2. Cor. 12. 21. hee anſweres, that I muſt prouePage 78. 79. 2. Cor. 12. 21. Obiect. to make this good, that the Corinthians were impenitent in ſinne; firſt, that they deſpiſed Pauls ſecond admonition: and ſecondly, that then the faithfull did keepe communion without ſinne.
Anſwere. My proofe is good enough, that they not amending, at the Apoſtles firſt rebuking, were for that time impenitent, and yet the godly keeping with them communion did not ſinne; neither had ſinned, though ſome had not obeyed at the Apoſtles ſecond admonition: for that (as I hauehave proued) this doctrine of pollution is not warranted by Gods word, though impenitent men remaine in the Aſſembly of the Saints. And to ſtand vponupon their not regarding the ſecond Admonition of the Apoſtle, it is needleſſe: firſt, ſithen it is likely they were rebuked of ſome of the houſe of Cloe, by whom the Apoſtle was made acquainted with the diſorders in the Church: Secondly, becauſe the euils were open, & not ſecret or priuate, which muſt not be therefore proceeded in after Mat. 18. Thirdly, becauſe one Admonition of an Apoſtle, was more then two of priuate men; yea, not onelyonly equall, but greater then the admonition of the whole Church, ſo as to deſpiſe but once his Admonition was as much as if they had beene admoniſhed in the third degree, according to the rule in Matthew, as hee would here ignorantly hauehave it. Thus that which hee held to be too hard a taske for me, I hauehave eaſily gone thorow, and how ſufficiently to ſatisfie an indifferent Reader, I leaue others to iudge.
Reaſon. 5 Laſtly, I ſay, that this his doctrine of pollution by commixion with the wicked, diſſolues the bonds of allegeance betweene God and his people. As if becauſe another doth ſinne, I may not doe my dutie to God: Hee will come to the Sacrament, therefore may not I? he offendeth God, therefore may not I ſerue him? What Diuinitie is this? what King may hauehave ſubiects, what Maſter his ſeruants by this doctrine full of folly and confuſion?
Mr. Smiths anſwere is, that communion muſt be kept,Page. 79. Obiection. but not with Iewes, Turkes, Pagans, Papiſts, and that communion muſt be performed after a holy manner.
Anſwere. All this I acknowledge, what is this to the Argument? hee doth not apt it to the matter, when he doth his anſwere ſhall be thereafter. He tels vsus that the bond of allegeance is preſerued by their doctrine, to wit, by their poſition, that is, this ſeauenth Errour before mentioned; becauſe he ſaith they may not keepe among impenitent ſinners, and that their communion muſt be kept after a holy manner. The firſt of theſe vnderſtood according to his inſtances deliuered, is not to the queſtion, and vnderſtanding it of wicked in a true Church, is the matter in queſtion, and ſo he would proue the ſame by the ſame. For the latter, it needeth alſo proofe; that communion with God and godly men is not kept holy betweene them, becauſe ſome ill diſpoſed come in, and pertake of that communion viſibly. As if the gueſts at the feaſt had not beene acceptable to the Maſter of the the feaſt, or they could not be decent and comely before the feaſt maker, becauſe one was among them, who had not on his wedding garment: the reſt were nothing leſſe acceptable, and he onelyonly puniſhed; ſo is it with the godly and wicked in the Church comming together to the Lords Table.
In the third and laſt place, in my former booke, Page, 108 by certaine principall heads, to which all the cauſes of true ſeparation may be reduced, I doe ſhew how men may ſee the dec…i… of the Separatiſts in vrging ſcriptures for ſeparation from vsus impertinently. Places vnderunder the Law are referred to theſeTo what heads the places for ſeparation may be reduced. heads. 1. Idols of falſe Gods: as Iſrael from heatheniſh Gods. 2. From Idols of the true God: as Iudah from Iſraels calues. 3. From ceremoniall pollution. Places vnderunder the Goſpell are to be referred to theſe topick places. 1. From Iewes not receiuing Chriſt, but rayling on his very perſon. 2. From Gentiles without Chriſt. 3. From Antichriſt and his aſſemblies, where he is acknowledged head, and whence all receiue their power, as the now Church of Rome, and all in ſubiection to it. 4. From priuate familiarity with open offenders and excommunicate perſons, in a true chriſtian Church, vnneceſſarily; when neither Religion commaunds, Charitie bindeth, nor our ſpeciall calling warranteth vsus ſo to doe. If all the Scriptures may be reduced onelyonly to theſe heads, and ſo intended, and not otherwiſe, then all places are peruerted which be alledged, firſt, to ſeparate from true Churches for perſonall corruptions, or for When places alledged for ſeparation are peruerted.ſome defects, or for ſome ſuperfluous things: ſecondly, to ſeparate our ſelues from the holy word and Sacraments, becauſe ſome impenitent liue vnreformed in the ſame: thirdly, for the ſeparatiſts to abuſe any of the places, ſpeaking of ſeparation to maintaine their Schiſme, and to apply them againſt vsus, except they can proue vsus to be ſome ſuch as the Scriptures intend, and that we be ſome of theſe.
Indeed Mr. Smith ſaith, for what will he not ſay? that we Page 80.are Idolaters, and that we make Idols of the true God, &c. But ſithen he but ſaith it, and what he ſaith is as very falſe, as fooliſh, and as abſurd, as farre from truth, I end this here with him, as vnworthie anſwere, as the Reader may iudge.