Justification of Separation from the Church of England, Treatise · Section 39 – Section 5
That all not in theyr way are without, and they do apply against vsus 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ephe. 2 12.
And since the way is one as Christ is one, and we assured, that our way is that way of Christ, we doubt not to affirme that all notAnsw. in our way are without in the present respect; provided alwayes that we do iudge that other Churches may be and are in our way, and we in theirs, and both they and we in Christs, though there be betwixt them & vsus sundry differences both in iudgment and practise. And that we doe fitly apply against you the scriptures above named, I do thus manifest.
The Apostle 1 Cor. 5. reproves the Church for tolerating amongst them the incestuous person vncensured, charging them to vse the power of the Lord Iesus given vntounto them, for that purpose, and that as vponupon him for the present, so vponupon other notorious offenders at other times. Now least they should mistake his meaning he shewes how far this his advertisement extends, viz: to such offenders as were in the Church and to all, and onelyonly them. And this limitation of the power of Christ to the proper obiect, he sets downe in this 12. verse, affirmatively, to them that are within, and negatively, to them that are without. From this place then I do thus reason.
They that are within are subiect to the power of excōmunication by the Church gathered together in the name of Christ, they without not.
But you Mr B. and so of the rest, are not subiect to the judgement of the Church thus gathered together, but to the Archbishop of York, Who is not the Church of Workxsop.
Therefore you are not within but without in the Apostles meaning.
The second place we apply against you is, Ephe. 2. 12. whence I reason thus.
They that are aliants and straungers from the common wealth of Israel, are without.
But such are you, and your whole parrish.
Ergo.
The first Proposition is the Apostles words: for to be without Christ (as there he speakes) and to be a stranger from the cōmon wealth of Israel, is all one.
The second Proposition is thus confirmed.
The cōmon wealth of Israel was a religious policy consisting of a peculiar people, of whom every one was by the word of God separated into the covenant of his mercy Deut. 29. 10. 11. 12. 13. Neh. 10. 1. 28. 29.
But to affirme that every person in the Church of England, or in any parish Church is admitted by the Lord into the new covenant or testament, is both against the expresse word of God, Heb. 8. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. and his owne conscience (I am perswaded) that affirmed it.
And thus so long as you keep your standing, you must be content to stand without in the meaning of the Apostle in the places forenamed, neither can you wrythe in your self, or corrupt these places to get in by them, though you give sundry attempts. as
1. These places are ment of such as never made so much as an outward profession of Christ at all:
What better are men for professing God in word when in deedAnsw. they deny him?
They are never a whit the lesse but the more abhominable. Tit. 1. 16. And might not any Papist or other heretik make this exception? For they make a kind of profession of Christ Iesus. And when you Mr B. in your pulpit thunder the iudgments of God out of the Prophets and Apostles against Atheists, Papists, blasphemers, proud and cruell persequuters, might not a man serve you as you do us, and tel you that the most of the threatnings you denounce were directed against the Heathen which did not so much as make an outward profession of Christ.
Lastly the H. Ghost terming Antichristianisme Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, spiritually teacheth vsus to apply against it spiritually what the Prophets have civily spoken against them.Mr B.
2. They cannot prove vsus without by the scripture, expounding this phrase without by the scriptures, laying a side the forgeryes of theyr own braynes.
The cause is playn that whosoever i… not a free deni…en of the cō monAnsw. wealth of Israell, and vnderunder the iudgment of the Church is without, and there must stand by Gods appoyntment. And that this is your estate is as playne. And both these we have proved by the scriptures without forgeryes of our owne brayne; all the brayns you have will fynd no forgeryes in our proofes.
3 God almighty hath witnessed that we are his people.Mr B.
1 By giving vsus his word, Psal. 14. 7. 19. 20. and sacraments.
This scripture proves that God gave his word to Iaakob, & statutesAnsw. to Israel, but prove your selves the Israel of God; shew vsus from the word of God the charter of your corporatiō, & that your Nationall, Provintiall, Diocesan, and Parochial Churches are that new Ierusalem, and your inhabitants the right Citzens of that City enfranchised with her heavenly libertyes, and answer the proofs brought to the contrary, otherwise though you be never so shameles a begger of the question in hand, we may not graunt it you.Mr B.
2 By Gods effectuall working by his word, Ier. 23. 22. therefore heard … the voyce of the sonne of God, Ioh. 5. 25. and the words of eternal life.
God forbid I should deny eyther the truthes of Christ you have aAnsw. mongst you, or any good effect, which God hath wrought by them, but this I deny, that either they are or have been so effectual as to make any one of your parish assemblies the Church of Christ truely gathered & constituted.
And for the place of Ieremy 23. 22. which as here to prove a true church, so every where to prove a true ministery by the effectuall work therof is so frequētly alledged, I desire it may be wel cōsidered & it will appear that the Prophet speaks not at all of the effect of prophecying, but of the drift, & intēt of the Prophets, which (had they taken counsel of the Lord) would not have flattered the people in theyr sinns, by preaching peace peace, as they did, thereby hardening theyr hearts and strengthening theyr hands in their disobedience, and rebellion, but would on the contrary by denouncing against them the iudgements of God, have endeavoured their repentance, as the true Prophets did.
And if we must thus iudge of true, and false prophets by the effects of their ministery certayn it is that neyther Ezechiel no Ieremy himself stood in Gods counsel, but were false Prophets, for neyther of them were effectuall for the peoples conversion, Ier. 20 7. 8. Ezech: 3: 7. 11. And yet a wonder it is to hear what a noyse Mr B. and his people do make with this scripture of Ieremy, as though it did without contradiction iustify both Church and Ministery by some ministeriall effect where it is most playne to all that but read the Chapter with any observatiō, that the Prophet speaks not a word of the effect of their Ministerie, but of the drift of the ministers the false Prophets desperately slattring the people to their destruction.
3 By Gods most straunge and miraculous deliverance of vsus from the Mr B.enemyes of his gospell: a promise of God to his people. Lev. 26. 7. 8. Deut. 28. 7▪
These deliverances do no more iustify your estate before theAnsw. Lord, then the †1 Kin. 20. 13. 14. 15.deliverance of Samaria out of the hands of the Aramites did the ten tribes in their Apostasie.
The Lord doth promise victory, and deliverance vntounto his people in their iust quarrels, and vse of good meanes, but ever with condition of his glory, and their good. And they thus walking, and being thus delivered take experience of the truth of his promises, and have cause of reioycing in the God of their salvation; but besides this there are many other causes of deliverance and victory which with all other things of the same kinde, †come alike toEccles. 9. 2. all men good & bad; and thus to measure the Lords love by morsels bewrayes too carnal a mind in any man: and Mr B. neighbour minister (if he have a fatter benefice then he) may aswel avouch him self a better minister, for the quoted scriptures do as well promise plenty and aboundance as deliverance and victory.
And where in the last place you lay to our charge, that though wee like it well that you should call vsus brethren, yet wee will not so acknowledge you, nor do we hold our selves bound so to admonish you, I do answer, that as we finde at your hands Mr B. little brotherly dealing (traducing vsus in all places as Brownists, Schismatiques, Anabaptists, & persons obstinate in sin) so neyther indeed can we acknowledge any of you for brethren in that visible cōmunion of Saincts which is the Church, notwithstanding the loving and respective remembrance wherein we hauehave very many amongst you severally considered for your personall graces.
Our reasons are these.
1. We cannot admonish any of you according to the rule & order of Christ, Math. 18. to which duety towards every brother in communion we are absolutely bound.
2. We can not acknowledge you for our brethen, but we must also acknowledge your Prelates for our reverend fathers, vnderunder whose blessings we mean not to come.
3. We cannot acknowledge some of you brethren, but we must acknowledg all amōgst you for such: for there is but one brotherhood of all amongst you, as your owne rhyme teacheth (and makest vsus all one brotherhood). Now by the scriptures we have notThe Lords prayer in Rhyme: learnt to enter any such fraternity, where we must acknowledge brother Preist, brother half Priest, brother dumb Preist, brother Atheist, brother Epicure, brother drunkerd, brother blasphemer, brother witch, brother conjurer, & lastly brother recusant Papist, if not living yet dead, for so you must bury him as your deare brother, committing his soul to God, and his body to the earth.
And for these causes among others, we cannot acknowledge you (as we desire) in that speciall fellowship of the gospel, & communion of saynts.
But disclayme you the fatherhood of the Prelates, the brotherhood of the vnhallowed multitude, and fest your selves in the family, and househould of God, and we will acknowledge you in word and deed.
We will not with that vngodly brother grudge your cōming into our fathers house, but will help with our owne hands to kill the fat calf, & wil make all spirituall melody with you in the Lord.
The fifth errour reputed is,
That onelyonly Saincts, that is, a people forsaking all knowne sinne of which Mr B.they may be convinced, doing all the knowne will of God, encreasing and abiding ever therein are the onelyonly matter of the visible Church.
This Position, which you account errour, rightly vnderstood,Answ. and according to his exposition from whom you received it, is an vndoubted truth. For of such onelyonly (externally, and so farre as men can iudge) the true Church is gathered, whether out of Paganism, Iudaism, Antichristianism, or any other Idolatrous, or adulterous estate whatsoever, and of them alone framed, as of the subject matter: which is onelyonly true, whilest it continueth such, & false when it degenerates from this disposition, and so as rotten & putrified stuffe to be cast out of the Church.
We will then come to your allegations to the contrary.
And first you say, this is a proper description of the invisible members Mr B.of Iesus Christ, secluding even hypocrites from being true matter of the visible Church.
All the true and lawfull members of the visible Church, are toAnsw. me members of the invisible Church, to me, Isay, which am bound to iudge them to be in truth, as outwardly they appear: & so I am taught by the Apostle himself who accounts the whole visible Ch: and every member of it †Act. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ephe. 1. 3. 4. 5. Gal. 3. 27. Phil. 1. 4. 5. 6. 7.elect, redeemed, iustifyed sanctifyed, which are conditons competent to the invisible Church.
And for hypocrites, as they may perform all the conditions here required (visible or to vsus) as Mr Smyth hath answered, so do we take knowledge of none such in the Chur: in the particular, til they be knowne in their day by the outbreakings of sinne, and being so discovered, they are no longer to be reteyned in the Church, but to beare their sinne, except they repent, and then who can repute them hypocrites?
You object secondly, that this makes that David, Iehoshaphat, Mr B.and the Church of God in their dayes were no true matter of a Church, for there was marrying many wives, the continuance of the high places, the brasen serpent worshipped, Ioabs murder permitted, the bill of divorsement allowed by Moses: so after Corinth and the Church of Asia being admonished repented not, 2 Cor. 12. 21. Rev. 2. 20. 21.
To let passe here Mr Smythes erroneous and Anabaptistical answer,Answ. wherein he makes the constitution of the Iewish Church the constitution of the old testament, when as the Church of the Iewes was cōstituted in “Gen. 17. Rom. 5. 20 Gal. 3. 17. 19.Abrahā 400 & 30 yeres before the law or old testament was given, which was after added clean for an other end then to constitute a Church: the ordinances and communion he makes merely ceremoniall and carnall, which the scriptures expresly call †1 Cor. 10. 4.spiritual, whereof also prayer & prophe…ying were parts, neyther are our ordinances more spirituall ','Luk. 22. 19.remembrances of Christ come, then were theirs in their true and naturall relation, spirituall *Heb. 10. 1shadowes of Christ to come.
I do answer to the exception, first that you cannot prove the holy men you name to hauehave sinned in all the particulars wherwith you charge them, as Moyses in tolerating the bill of divorcement which you injuriously affirm he allowed, much lesse can you prove they were convinced of sin in suffering these things, and yet suffred them. Nay is it not your owne doctrine, that grace, and continuance in sin without repentance cannot stand together? But what countenance doe the infirmities of these holy men give to the prophane and graceles multitude against whom we deal? and whom alone we cast out of the account of Saincts? with what conscience or colour can any man bring in the infirmities of Moses, David, and Iehoshaphat to plead the Saintship of all that godles crew in the English assemblies?
And for the Churches of Corinth, & Thyatira, eyther they did repent vponupon admonition, though not at the first, or els the Lord in his time discharged them, as he threatned in the same, & the like cases. Rev. 2. 5. 16. 21. 22. & 3. 15. 16.
The third exception is that the scriptures we bring are places speaking Mr B.of invisible members properly, of visible figuratively, as they are iudged to be, on in hope they may be, or sh…wing what men ought to be, but shew not that men are so, or els are not Gods people.
It cannot be manifested that we bring one scripture meant ofAnsw. the invisible Church, to prove the holynes of the visible Church. The vanity of this obiection hath been discovered in the expositiō of that your picked instance, 1 Pet. 2. It is true indeed that the scriptures we cite speak of men as they are iudged to be, and if you would graunt, that onelyonly they are true members of the Church which by the word of God, (which must be the rule of our iudgement) may be iudged saincts, it would end this controversie. And even for them without, though never so prophane, they ought to be holy, and there is hope they may be holy, but Gods people must be such as they ought to be in some measure, & so are all they whome he receives into covenant with him, and if they fall from their righteousnes and will not be reclaymed, they are to be put *1 Cor. 5. 4. 5.out and to be delivered to Satan, whose vassals they are, and not Gods people any longer.Mr B.
In the 4. place you come to speak of this saint-ship in question negatively, and affirmatively. First you deny men to be called saints in scripture, eyther for soundnes of knowledge, for proof of which you alledge the ignorance of Christs disciples and others, Act. 19. 1. 2. or for internal pure affections, for then (say you) Paul had been no saint, Rom. 7.Answ. 18. 21. or for holy practise of their dutie alwayes: for which you quote Est. 7. 12. Which is all one as if you should say, the scriptures do not call men saints because they are saints, but for some other causes knowne to you. For what is it to be a sainct, but to be holy? And what to be holy, but to be of a sound iudgement, pure affections, and vnblameable conversation? And here Mr B. you speak both injuriously, and weakly; injuriously in insinuating against vsus, as if we held no men saynts but such as are free from all humayne fraylties. Weakly, in affirming the disciples of Christ had not sound knowledge, because they were ignorant of many things: that Paul had not pure affections, because he had some flesh yet dwelling in him: and that there cannot be the constant practise of holy duties, notwithstanding such fraylties, as to which all men are subiect. Whereas to all men of vnderstanding, soundnes of judgement is one thing, and infallibility an other: purity in affection one thing, and perfection in purity another: and so an holy conversation one thing, and … a life without all humane fraylty an other thing vnatteynable in this life.
The Apostle Paul †1 Cor. 13 12.knew but in part, how small then is our pittance in knowledge? & yet our affections come short of our knowledge, and our practise of our affections, and desires: and yet we doubt not (by the riches of the grace of God) but we hauehave all atteyned to soundnes of knowledge, purity of affections, and holynes of cō versation, how small and weak soever our measure be.
Thus having considered of the exceptions against such marks of saynt-ship, as we set downe, we will come to view the badges, by which the authour will hauehave saynts descryed, & acknowledged.Mr B.
First (say you) men are called saynts because of their outward calling to Christianity as 1 Cor. 1. 1. which is holy and to an holy end, 1 Thes. 4. 7.
If your meaning be, that men because of their externall callingA…s…. on Gods part, or that the gospel is preached vntounto them, are therefore saynts, whether they beleeve the gospel, or beleeve it not, you mistake too much, for then all the persequuters and blasphemers to whom Paul preached, should be saynts: yea it is an errour to think that Paul stiles any sayntes by calling in that place but such as were truely sanctifyed, so far as he could discerne. For the same persons he terms saynts by calling, he acknowledges in the same as sanctifyed in the Lord Iesu…, which implyes both justification & sanctification.
And where you adde, that the end of the Church is holynes 1 Thes. 4. 2. as the thing you affirme is true, so the truth of it is sufficient to manifest the vnholy constitution of your Church, & your as vnholy defence of it. For if the end of the calling of the Church be sanctity and holines to the glory of God, which is the supream end, Math. 5. 16. then th… constitution and gathering of the Ch: of England, which at the first was (I mean after the Romish Apostasie) and still is of persons for the most part apparantly vnholy, and vnsanctifyed, as it is most praei…diciall to the glory of God, so doth it not onelyonly frustrate but most directly crosse & oppose the end for which the Lord in great mercy, wisdome, and holines, separateth his Church and people vntounto himself from the rest of the prophane world.
And as it is a certaine signe that a Minister is not called into his place, if he be not in some measure qualifyed with such holy gifts, and graces as serve to the ends of the Ministery to which he is called, (which you both affirme, and confirm vndeniably, pag. 132. 133. of this book) so is it also in iust proportion a certayn, and infallible argument, that the nationall Church of England, (and so of the Churchlings vnderunder it) is not called into covenant and communion with God being gathered of such persons (in the body of it) as are onelyonly vtterly vnanswerable but clean contrarily affected to the ends of the true Church which are holynes, and the glory of God.
And where you Mr B. would fasten the name of saynts vponupon people vnworthy of it, by a similitude drawn from a Minister a… ▪ the first rightly called to his office, but after shewing himself vnworthy of it, whom you wil stil have called a minister. I answer, that if he were known to be vnworthy of it at the first or not known to be worthy, he was not rightly called eyther to the office, or by the name: and if he afterwards shew himself vnworthy, he is to be censured accordingly, and so with the office to forfeyt the name: (though he hold both with you) & so it is with men in the generall calling of Christianity: they that are vnworthy of it are never called of God to take it vponupon them, and if they prove vnworthy afterwards, they are to be deprived of Christian society.
2 Because of the profession of faith in Christ who maketh all true beleevers Mr B.holy and sancts.
It is true you say that Christ makes all true beleevers holy and Saints, Answer.but I deny that every profession of faith in Christ argues a true beleever. A false dissembler is he, and no true beleever that in word pretends faith in Christ, and in deed denyes him.
3. In respect of Baptisme, by which externally the partie baptised is to be Mr B.iudged to have put on Christ. Gal. 3. 27. to have remission of his sinnes, Act. 2. 39. to be partaker of Christs death, Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 21. and to have assurance of salvation, 1 Pet. 3. 21.
All persons baptized neyther do in truth, nor are by vsus to beAnswer. judged to hauehave put on Christ, to hauehave remission of sinnes, &c. but onelyonly such as to whom by vertue of the covenant of grace, baptisme apperteyneth. We must not conceive of baptisme as of a charme, or think it effectuall to all it is put vponupon, but must judge it avayleable and of vse, according to the *Gen. 17. 7 & 26. 4. Act. 2. 38. 39. & 3. 25 … Cor. 7. 14.covenant of promise which God hath made to the faithful and their seed, and none otherwise.
And baptisme administred to any others is so farr frō investing them with any saynt-ship in that estate, as it makes guilty both the giver and receiver of sacriledge, and is the taking of Gods name in vayne.
4 In respect of the better part, though the fewer by many, for thus the Mr B.scripture speakes, Deut. 1. 23. 24. 1 Cor. 6. 11. with 5. 1. 2 Cor. 12. 21.
The scriptures never ascribe holines to a people for some fewesAnswer. sake, if the rest be vnholy, and prophane. I read in the scriptures that vncleane persons and things do †Lev. 14. 46. 47 & 15. 4. 11. 12 Hag. 2. 12. 13. 14.pollute, and vnhallow clean persons and things, & that a “1 Cor. 5. 6. 7.little leaven levens the whol lump: but that clean persons or things should hallow persons or things, which are vnclean, or that a little sweet meal should make sweet a sower lump that read I not, but the contrary confirmed by the forenamed scriptures. And for the Ch: of the Iewes & of Corinth in which you instance, as they were holy (omitting other respects) for the holy covenant into which the Lord had assumed the body of them. Rom. 11. 16. so were the desperately wicked amongst them no true members of the body, but as putrifyed and rotten parts to be cut off, and cast out from the rest. And where Paul writes, to the Church at Corinth, stiles them sayntes, and advertises them, to excommunicate the incestuous person, what can be more vnreasonably affirmed then that the incestuous person was one of these Saincts? as though Paul had written to him to cast out himself, which must needs follow by Mr B. assertion and proofes of it.
5. In respect of the visible signes of Gods favour, promise, and presence to Mr B.be with his, &c. as Ierusalem was called the holy city. Mat. 4. 5.Answ.
But we deny your nationall Church to be that *Rom. 21. 2.holy city, the new Ierusalem coming downe from God out of heaven. It is rather Babylon, though much purged and repayred. And Babylon cannot be Ierusalem, nor was ever holy, not withstanding the spoiles of Ierusalem, and of the Temple also be found there: as were in the civil Babylon many Israelites captived, and with them the holy vessels, the holy instrumēts, yea the holy writings of the Prophets, & their persons also, 2 Chron. 10. 18. Psal. 137. 1. 2. D. 9. 1, 2.