Justification of Separation from the Church of England, Treatise · Section 55
The first is taken from the succession of Iames at Ierusalem, of Mr B.Peter at Antioch, of Peter & Paul at Rome, & of Mark at Alexandria.I.
I answer first, that these were not Bishops set over certayn ChurchesAns. here, and there, (though vponupon occasion they tarryed some good space in some certayne Churches) but generall men, Apostles, and Evangelists, without successours in their Offices: & so the Protestants do generally answer the Papists instancing them, as you do now.
2. I deny the very Apostles vsed any such Lordly and Papall authority, as to exclude eyther the inferiour officers, or people in Church affaires: the contrary is most evident in the choice of officers, Act. 1. 15. 23. 26. and 6. 1. 2. 3. 5. censuring of offenders▪ 1 Cor. 5. and debating of other Church matters. Act. 15. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 22. 23. 30. & 21. 22.
The 2. Argument is taken from 1 Cor. 12. 28. where, say you,II. three degrees are reckoned vp, the first of Apostles, the second of Prophets, the third of Teachers. But since the tvvo former orders, vvhichwhich are Apostles, and Prophets, are ceased as being temporary, how can there be superioritie in the third, which is but one?
Your third and fourth Argument you draw from the superioritie III. IV.ordayned by God in the old testament, amongst ecclesiasticall persons: and the consequence of this Argument you prove two wayes: first bycause this order is not forbidden in the new testament: 2. bycause the ground of superiority is alike in the new testament, as in the old which is to preserve order.
But do you not consider Mr Bernard that *Heb. 8. 13. & 10. 1.the old testament or law is abrogated, and disanulled, as having the shadow of good things to come? and so every order, and ordinance in it, which is not plainly renued by Christ in the new? And where you seem to make the Chief Priests besides the high Preist, a superiour order to the other formally differing, it is more (if I be not deceived) then can be proved by the word of God. I know no diversity of administrations amongst them, but that any of the Priests might in their course, and order offer sacrifice, & performe other the most solemne duties of preisthood.
But where you further adde that onelyonly the high Priest did type out Christ, and not the other Preists so: you are much mistaken. The whole preisthood of Aaron, †Heb. 10. 1. Heb. 7. 11 foreignvnderunder which the law was established, was a type of Christs Preisthood (though the high Preists in a speciall manner) and their sacrifices, of his: and being a part of the law (which was a shadow or first draught, whereof the gospel is the lively portrature) it must needs be ceremoniall, and so a type: & to affirm otherwise is a grosse Iewish errour. Lastly as I graunt one end of the subordination of Ministeries to have been the preserving of order, so I deny that same order is to be preserved in the nevv testament, and in the old. The order of the old testament was the order of a nationall Church, but the order of the new testament is the order of a particular Church, wherein there needs no such subordination of Ministeries as in the other which was nationall, the ey of common sense sees this difference.
The law of nature whether written in the hart of man, or to be seen in the workmanship of the world, from which you draw your fift Argument, doth not prove superioritie amongst officers in aV. particular assembly, but onelyonly that there must be government in all societies, which may well be, though the governours be of one order, and rank.
Lastly they against whom you deale, doe mainteyne (as you say)VI. an inequality in their government, in making the Pastor superiour to the Teacher. &c. and if they do so, why deal you against them? and why do you labour so carefully to prove against them their own practise to be lawful? though if they had not better warrāt then you bring, they were ill bestead. But this is the point, Mr B. (which you never touch) do they which hold two kindes of officers, teaching, and governing Elders, or they which hold three orders, Pastors, Teachers, and governing Elders, eyther of them both hold such a superioritie, as gives the superiour jurisdiction over the inferiour Ministers? do they make a Bishop of Bishops, or a sheepheard over a flock of sheepheards? or do they set vp any such ravenous creature, as devours the liberty, and power both of the people, and other officers, as your Bishops do, even as *Gen. 41. 18. 19. 20.the leane and evill favoured kyne, which Ioseph saw in his dreame, ate vp the fat kyne, and welfavoured: And for the erroneous exposition of Luke, Luk. 22. 25. 26. by D. Downame, and D. Dove, of which you boast, it hath been confuted both before, and since they gave it.
Now howsoever I purpose not the refutation of every particular in Mr B. second volume, which he might have drawen into as few lynes well nigh as he hath done leaves, had he not rather desired to have vttered many words, then many things: yet seing how he labours, even till sweating, to trouble the mindes of his young students, and seely countrymen, especially about the government, & discipline of the Church, not caring how absurd expositions of scriptures he admits of, nor how contrary one vntounto an other, so he may weaken the faith of any that way, I will not therefore altogether hold off myne hand, but will open as I goe, his vnsound dealing in this case, especially about Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. which he will no way have meant of the piscipline or censures of the Church, & the order of proceeding therein, but that Christs meaning there, is to direct the Iewes how to prosecute their suits in matter of injury before the heathenish Magistrates. And this he labours, p. 218. 219. and so on, to prove by many obiections, & answers, yet (as borrowed from other mens books) so put out as other mens sayings, that by this meanes he himself may avoyd some part of that iust hatred, by the better sort of people, which he knowes will ly vponupon this odious and vngodly glosse.
First then Mr Bernard graunts, pag. 212. that Christ hath left a government in his Church, and so consequently an order for the censuring of offenders, and he accounts the contrary opinion but a familisticall conceipt, and yet this truth he cannot let passe without some vntruth at the end of it, and therefore he addes that to this familisticall conceipt, the seely Brownists are drawn by force of their own grounds, which are because they will have all in the Church to be voluntary professours; where voluntarynes is taken away by being vnderunder any government: to be subiect, & ruled is an estate far frō freedome: Christians loose thereby Christian liberty, &c. And say in good sooth Mr B. would you hauehave men vnvoluntary professours against their wills, their profession must eyther be voluntary, with their wills, or vnvoluntary, and against them. “Gen. 9. 27Noah prophesying the calling of the Gentiles of Iaphets line, foretells, that God will allure or perswade them to dwell in Shems tents. And the scriptures do expressely affirme, that the Churches were gathered by *Act. 28. 24. 2 Cor. …. 13.perswasion, & voluntary submission vntounto the gospel. And it is a strange thing, even above wonder, that any man should have preached so many yeares, and written so many books about religion, and yet not know, that the nature of religion is not to be constreyned, but perswaded.
And tell me (Mr B.) did you subscribe the last tyme vntounto your Bishops government sponte & ex animo, according to the Canon, yea, or no? Of if you think that to curious a quaestion, answer me, whether you be vnderunder the Kings goverment voluntarily, or against your will? If against your will, it is a treacherous disposition in you: if voluntarily, or willingly, how seelely then do you (which are thus rife in imputing seelines vntounto others) argue, that voluntarines is taken away by being vnderunder any government? as though all government were tyranny, and all obedience slaverie: but reason, why Mr B. should thus speak, know I none, except it be, bycause in the Church of England the Ecclesiasticall government of & canonicall obedience vntounto the Praelates is such, as he speakes of▪ by which Christians indeed loose Christian liberty: but in the easy yoke of Christ it is not so. And if Christians must be subiect to *Rom. 13. 3. 5. 6.Princes in civil affaires for conscience sake (then which nothing is more voluntary,) how much more is the subiection of the saints vntounto the government of Christ, most free and voluntary, yea by how much more full and entyre Christs government is over the Saincts whether within, or without, by so much more voluntary, and free, is their obedience both wayes. And so passe on to the thing I che…ly intend, and that is to shew, that if there be a government left for the Ch:, and order set for the punishment of offenders by Christ the King thereof, that then this 18. of Mat. is the place, where that order is to be found. Let Mr B: that I may vse his own words, Pag. 224. 225. declare where els is (not a more perfect rule, but) any rule for it left by Christ, or not any supply, but any mention made, els where &c. The reasons now follow in the next place by which Mr B. would prove that Christ Iesus, Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. speakes not of Church admonitions, and censures, but of private injuries, and the civil menaging of them.
His first reason is taken from the cohaerence of these verses with…. that which goes before in the Chapter: where Christ, admonisheth his disciples to take heed both of the offences that should be given, as also of offending others. True Mr B. for the meaning of Christ was not onelyonly to prepare them against the manisold scandals, and stumbling stones of offence (especially in the new kingdom to which he prepared thē) which Satan would cast before them every step they took, eyther to turne them out of the way of life, or to stop them in it: but also to lay strayt charge vponupon them, that they for their parts cast no stumbling blocks before others: admonishing them very severely neyther easily to take nor to give offence. And because through pride in our selves, and contempt of others we are imboldened to give offence, especially to them, in whom we behold any great infirmities, our saviour Christ proceeds to shew what great care the Lord takes for the meanest of his, and what account he makes of them, teaching them all moderation and compassion towards them in their infirmities. But least any should then say, if it be so, the best way is to let men alone in their sinnes, Christ prescribes a remedy for this evill, even that golden mean, v. 15. 16. 17. that we should neyther be bitter or rigorous towards them to cause them to scandalize, nor yet so remisse, as by connivency to flatter them in their sinnes.
For the occasion of the words, & the Argument taken from it,II. bycause the authour puts it downe, not as he proves it to be, but as it is thought, I passe it by as one of the thoughts spoken of by the wise man, in the Prov. and with it the scope, which he tells vsus, is held to be a moderating of the Iewes passion for private iniuries offred, as being both together, & with them the exposition also in the 4. place, as being onelyonly so many beggings of the quaestion in hand. The sum of which exposition is (for to relate all Mr Bernards words were too tedious) that if one Iew offred an other iniury, and would not satisfy him when he required it, eyther privately or with a witnes or two, the party iniured was to complayne to the Iewish Synedrion, and if that would not serve the turne, he might if he would proceed with him, and bring him before the Romayn power, and sue him at Caesars …arr, as if he were a publican, or heathen. The reasons novv to prove this interpretation follovv. And the first is because Christ spake according no the tyme, as Mat. 5. 23. 26. It followes not that because Christ so spake that one tyme, and in that one place, that therefore, he so speaks here. What is lesse forceable? 2. As Christ in that place spake both ecclesiastically and civily, as you expresly affirm, so, if you graunt in proportion, that he speakes here both civily for injuries, and ecclesiastically for sinnes, you speak truth enough at the least to overthrow your self.
Your second and third proofs taken from Peters vnderstanding of Christ, and Christs answer againe in the parable (though it were no straunge thing for Peter to vnderstand that civily, which Christ spake spiritually, nor for Christ to reply according to the present vnderstanding) do not shew that Christs speach is to be restreyned to personall iniuries: the contrary shall appeare by, and by: And the same answer may serve to the 4. and 6. Argument.
The fifth Argument is taken from the propriety of speach in the text: as first because Christ sayth, against thee, which (say you) shewes the offence to be private, &c. I graunt it, and that Christ there fetches his beginning from private, or rather from secret offences, and sinnes, which being knowen vntounto one onelyonly, may by one be remitted. Your second Argument is drawne from this terme brother, which shewes (say you) that Christ meant the Iewes, whom alone both the Iewes and disciples of Christ did account brethren. If Christ meant onelyonly Iewes, what makes it matter, if the Iewes onelyonly were brethren, that is of the Church? but it is not true you say, that onelyonly Iewes were accounted brethren by the disciples of Christ at that time: Christ shewes that they which beleeve, and obey his words, are his, and so his disciples *Math. 12. 49. 50.brethren as did amongst others, †Ioh. 4. 39. 41. 42.many of the Samaritans, which were no Iewes, long before this time. That these words thou hast gayned or wonne thy brother, shew an alienation of mind in the party that doth the iniurie, is idle, as the former. For the alienation of mind will rather be in him that hath received the injurie, which a man may do of ignorance, self love, covetousnes, or other by regards, without any change of his affection towards the person injured: the words in truth shew, that the lost sheep is found, the sinner converted. The next words are, let him be to thee, which, you tell vsus, shewes such a Church as the offender might not regard, and so the plantiffe vnremyed might seek further. If you meane by these words might not regard, that he might lawfully not regard it, you erre; if that he might be so wicked, as not to regard, it is no new thing for wicked persons to disregard the Church of Christ. Your addition of dismissing to further proceeding, is your owne, and so I leave it to you. And the reason why Christ sayth, let him be to thee is, bycause the brother spoken to was the first and principall in the accusation: as vnderunder the law, the accuser of the false Prophet must “Deut. 13. 9.first hauehave his hand vponupon him, whom the rest of the people must follow in putting him to death.
The last words Publican and Heathen do not declare that Christ speakes of the Iewes at that time eyther onelyonly, or civily, but serve for other purposes, as I shall presently manifest, taking Arguments from these words, as from all the rest, to prove, that Christ here speakes of sinne, and of excommunication for sinne.
My first Reason I draw from the cohaerence, wherein I have formerlyI. manifested, Christ speakes not of private injuries onelyonly, but of all such scandalles, as are to be found in that streyt way to heavē: no nor of injuries at all as they hurt the outward man, but as they are sinnes, and hurt, and hinder the soul in the way of godlynes: and so by the consequence of cohaerence, (if Christs words hang one vponupon an other) he speaks v. 15. 16. 17. of sinne and the carying of it.
2. I reason from the terme brother, which, since it apperteynedII. at this tyme frō the disciples, to many, which might not be brought before the Iewish Synedrion, as to the beleeving Romaynes, Samaritans, and the like, cannot be meant as is pretended, but speaks of a religious fellowship to which any brother may be brought, of what country, or condition soever.
As the word ha…artáno, turned offend, is of generall signification byIII. your own graunt, and so cannot be restreyned to that particular kind of offence: so is it most properly vsed for sinne, and that vsually by this Evangelist. Mat. 3. 6. & 9. 2. & 12. 31. and 26. 28. and which is specially to be observed, when Luke would speak of trespasses, or offences as sinnes against God, he vseth this word, but when in the same place he speaks of them, as of injuries against men, he vseth another word. Ch. 11. 4. And see how soundly Mr B. deales, when he should shew that the word turned offend is not meant of sinnes, but of injuries, he brings in foure principall writers varying (as he sayth) about the word: and yet the vnadvised man considers not, that all four of them, as he himself alledges them, vnderstand it of sinne, and not one of them of injuries, & so speak against him.
If Christ here spake of injuries, where he sayth, if he heare thee, thou IIII.hast wonne or gayned thy brother, he would hauehave sayd, thou hast wonne or gayned thy goods, or good name wherein he injuryed thee.
If these words be meant of injuries, and wrongs, then ChristV. commaunds his disciples not to suffer wrongs at their brethrens hands, but to deal with them in the order here prescribed, for Christ expresly commaunds to tell the Church: and so Christs doctrine, and Pauls teaching the *1 Cor. 6. 7.suffring of wrong should contradict the one the other.
By this exposition one Iew might account an other as an heathen,VI. which was vtterly vnlawfull, he might not refuse religious communion with him in the temple, into which no heathen might come; he might not deny him a portion in the land of Canaan the type of the kingdome of heaven: he might not account or call him other then a brother, whatsoever he were, till the time came of the Iewes defraction or breaking off for vnbeleef. Act. 7. 2. & 22. 1. & 33. 1. Rom. 11. 17.
This interpretation confirmes a point of Anabaptistry, namely,VII. that it is not lawfull for brethren so remayning, to sue at Caesars barre, where it is most evident, that brethren alwayes might, and may, yea & (such a case may fall out) ought to sue, without any alienation of affection, or such heathenish thought one of another, as Mr B. would have Christ in this place to commend vntounto them: for even these last words let him be to thee as an heathen and publican are a commaundement, as †Mat. …. 37.let your speach be yea, yea, nay, nay, & hundreds others delivered in the scriptures vnderunder the same form of words. And to conclude, Christ our Saviour in these words describes excommunication by the effects of it, which are, withdrawing from the brother obstinate in sinne, both in religious and civile fellowship and familiaritie, as the Iewes did withdraw both frō the Heathens, and Publicans in both. Ioh. 4. 9. Act. 10. 3. & 31. 28. Luk. 15. 2. & 15. 10. 11. And this very phrase Paul most clearely expounds, when he directs the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 11. not to be commingled with obstinate offenders, nor to eat with them: this ever provided, that no excommunication or other act in religion whatsoever, may dissolve eyther civil, or naturall societie.
The next Reason is drawne from verse 18. where Christ ratifyingVIII. in the hands of his Church this his power, speaks in expresse terms of binding, and loosing, not onelyonly in earth, but in heaven also: which words, me thinks, alone should satisfie the conscience of any godly minded man, (yea and stop the mouth of the most shameles) that Christ speaks of sinne, and sin onelyonly. Yet is Mr B. neyther satisfied, nor silent, but replyes, that binding, and loosing in this place is not properly, or onelyonly to be vnderstood of Christs Ministers: but is allowed to private persons, and for this, pag. 223 he brings sundry reasons▪ Consider, Reader, this severe censurer of Mr Smythes vnstablenes: Mr B. in his former book, pag. 95. will have this power of binding, and loosing spoken of in this place to be in the officers of the Ch…, two or three, and at no hand in private persons: and for this there he brings sundry reasons: in this his next book, this power is …l…t…ed to two or three private persons, and must not be drawne to the Ministerie onelyonly, and for this, he brings as many reasons. Observe further, the very sum of Mr B. answer is, that Christ speaks not here of binding, and loosing in the office of Ministerie. So we affirm, & that by two or three having this power cannot be meant two or three Ministers, considered severally from the body, which alone are not the Church for any publick administration, but the officers of the Church: but by two or three are meant the meanest cōmunion or societie of saints whether with officers, or without officers. And is this a sufficient answering of an adversary to bring sundry reasons to prove the very thing, which he affirmes?
Adde to all these, that where the injuries offred to Christs disciples,IX. and such as would respect his direction, were vsually for the profession of Christ, it had been a most idle course to have complayned eyther to the Iewish Synedrion, or Romish Magistracy, which would have added injurie to injurie.
Lastly, where Christ, v. 23. in his answer to Peters quaestion,X. makes the protasis or first part of his comparison the kingdom of heaven which is the Church he shewes plainely, that all the while he hath spoken of Church affaires, and the carying of them. And thus much to prove that the Lord Iesus the King of his Church hath left in this 18. of Math▪ a rule, & order for the punishment of offenders in it. But this tedious matter is not yet ended. For Mr B. marshals in eight fresh reasons, to force all the reformed Churches in the world with vsus, to give over this hold of Mat. 18. pag. 224. 225. 226. of this his last book: the best is they are of no great strength.
The first is a bare affirmation that the former exposition by me confuted is true.
His second Reason is bycause Christ hath erected no government in his Church; (for why he should adde by publick doctrine I see not, except he would insinuate, that Christ taught this point privately, and in a corner) but for this brings he no one scripture or reason: as if his bare vvord vvere enough to stablish an Idoll King in his Church, vvithout officers, or lavves. Where notvvithstanding in his former book, pag 90. 91. 92. 93. he proves by many scriptures that Christ hath given officers for the government of his Church: which no man denyes, but himself.
In the third place he affirmes, that Christ by the Church meanes not the Iewish Synedrion, wherin I assent vntounto his saying, for reason brings he none.
Touching the nature of the Churches government (which he gropes at in the fourth place) I have spoken els where.
The 5. Reason followeth, which comprehends vnderunder it many petty Reasons, and amongst other the 6, 7, and 8 in order: which save for the shew in the margent of 8. distinct numbred Reasons, might vvel enough hauehave ben spared. The sum is that this 18. of Mat. is no perfect rule of discipline: the reasōs are bycause neyther all sorts of sins are here brought in, nor all the parts of discipline here comprehended. And hovv do these things appear? First bycause a man is here to proceed onelyonly for trespasses, or as it is better turned for offences, against himself, but not for sinne against God, against the Magistrate, or against an other. But here you should have remembred Mr B. that *1 Ioh. …. 4.sin, being the transgression of the law, is onelyonly against God, to speak properly, and therefore David, notwithstanding his defiling of Bath sheba, and murdering of Vrijah confesseth that he had “Ps. 51. 6.sinned against God onelyonly. But as the same transgression is so cōmitted, as man scandalizeth, or takes offence at it▪ so it is a sinne against him: whether the deed done respect God or man, yea man or beast, publick or private person, a mans self, or others in the object: and so he may forgive it after the order prescribed by Christ. And where by way of exception you demaund how one man can remit trespasses done against an other? it is true it cannot be, if by trespasses be meant personall injuries: but considering the same trespasses, as they are sinnes against God, at which a brother takes offence, so the brother offended may forgive them vponupon the offenders repentance.
And asking how men can forgive rebellion against God, you seem to hauehave forgotten yourself: for in the very leaf next before going, you both graunt and prove that not onelyonly Ministers by vertue of their office, but private persons also may bind and loose sinnes. The thing it self you grant, and for the manner of it, it is as they save, by manifesting, and making knowne outwardly salvation, and the forgivenes of sinnes.
To your third objection concerning the keeping secret of publick crymes against the Magistrate vponupon the offenders repentance, you answer yourself, for if they be publick, or of publick nature, they may not be kept secret, neyther are they capable of the order of secret dealing in them.
And here falles into consideration your seventh Reason, which is, that if discipline be grounded vponupon Mat. 18. then the Church must iudge in civil affaires, and enter vponupon the bounds of the Magistrate.
And are you ignorant Mr B. that civil actions, as they draw scā dalous sin, with them, may be censured ecclesiastically, as may also religious actions be punished civily by the Magistrate, which is the preserver of both tables, & so to punish all breaches of both, specially such as draw with them the violation of the positive lawes of kingdomes, or disturbance of common peace? Take your own instance of murder. The Magistrate is to punish it civilly in all his subjects, whether the parties repent or no; the Church is to censure it ecclesiastically in her members, yea though the Magistrate pardon or passe by it, except the parties delinquent repent, for then they are to be forgiven. And what vsurpation is here vponupon the Magistracy? you to suppress Gods ordinance do flatter the Magistrate, and accuse the innocent.
Next you except, that this of Mat. is a rule for sinnes private, and more secret, but not for publick and open sinne. You might as well say that the patterne of prayer prescribed by Christ, Mat. 6. is not perfect, nor a rule for private prayer, or for things concerning our selves onelyonly, bycause it teacheth vsus to say, Our father, & forgive vsus our sinnes. But who knowes not, that generalls include their specialties vnderunder them? The Lord Iesus in teaching his disciples to say, forgive vsus our sinnes ioyntly, teacheth them in the same place to ask forgivenes eyther of their own sinnes, or the sinnes of others severally, as occasion serves: so in teaching here all the degrees of admonition ioyntly, he implyes also the dealing in any one of them severally, if there be occasion. And this exposition of Mr B. can I not fitlyer resemble then to the practise of some silly pursevant, that, being sent to attach some traytour, or other malefactour dwelling in Barwick, and so to bring him to the Court, if he should meet the party by the way, would refuse to medle with him, and would say, that he was sent to Barw: to fetch him, and would eyther bring him from thence, or would let him alone. And it seems, if Mr B. might construe his cōmmission, he would so advise him. But would not common sense teach a man, that the nearer he met with the party he …ought, the more labour were spared, and that he were to apprehend him where he found him? So where Christ sends his disciples to deal with sinne a farre off, as it were, and in the first, & vtmost degree, but if it be come nearer, and be found in the 2. or 3. degree, it is to be taken where it is found. If it be secret, and yet rest betwixt the brother offēding, & offended, it must there be dealt with: if it become nearer the court, and be wrought before two, or three, or more, it must there, and in that order be vndertaken, the first degree is over, and that labour spared: if it be of publick nature, or publikly cōmitted, the two former degrees are past, and the labour in them spared: the sin must be dealt with accordingly. And the Church eyther by information from any brother or brethren, or by immediate notice taken, may convent or call for the offender, that he which sinned publikly, may publiquely be rebuled. And this may serue for answer to the 8. and last exception.
Now for allowing of the plaintiffe to seek further remedy, & of the referring of the party obstinate vntounto him, which is the sum of the sixt Arg: as also of these terms, let him be to thee as an heathen and publican, which is an other exception, together with that consideration, that the party offended is the principall in all the degrees of proceeding, I have formerly spoken in the exposition of the words, to which the reader is to look back for answer, if such idle conjecture give any cause of doubt to any. One onelyonly blow more is to be warded, by which Mr B. would disable this 18. of Math. from being any rule of discipline, and that is, bycause it provides not for suspension, we grant it doth not: and you your self half graunt, that no such thing is to be found in the new testament. And what reason hauehave you, or any other man to put vsus to prove your corruptions and devises, which you know we neyther practise, nor allow of?
These things thus ended, and the received exposition of Math. 18. confirmed, viz: that Christ in it prescribes a rule of discipline in the Church, I come to your reasons Mr B. in your first book by which you would prove that this Church is the chief governours.