Parallels Censures, Letter 1 · Section 8
The eighth Section.
In the next place followeth your ſecond poſition which is this in your copie.
In holding that one ſinne of one man publiquely & obſtinately ſtood in & not reformed by a true conſtituted Church doth ſo pollute it that none may communicate with it in the holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawful conviction: you ſay is error: I ſay it is the moſt comfortable & holy truth wee hold in our walking one with another in communion of Gods ordinances.
This truth ariſeth from the former ground, that al the members of the Church have powre to the cenſures of admonition & excommunication, to bind & loſe: For (obſerve I pray you) that every brother is bound to admonish his brother for a fault he obſerveth in him if he reforme not he muſt take one or two witneſſes & admonish him: if he reforme not yet, he muſt bring the matter before the Church, ſuppoſe the Church conſiſt of 12. perſons as at Epheſus, Act. 19.7. The matter being before the Church the eleven deale with the twelvth, diſcover his ſin, & convince it to his conſcience, he refuſeth to …eer them but deſpiſeth the admonitions: I ſay if they retaine him ſtil in communion they conſent to his ſinne: For as the civill Magiſtrate in pardoning willfull murther conſenteth to it, bicauſe the murtherer should die: Even ſo the Church ſuffering the vnrepentaunt perſone among them, conſent to his ſinne, and are polluted with it, and conſent to all the profanation and violation of the Holy things committed by that vnrepentāt perſon: For God hath commaunded the church to watch over their brethren, & if they do not they hate their brother in ſuffering ſinne to reſt vppon him: God hath commaunded that no vncleane perſon should medle with the Holy things, if they doe they profane & polute the Holy things offering violence to the Lords ordinances.
But it may be you wil ſay that by this meanes we aſſume to our ſelves a kind of perfection & puritie in that we wil have no ſinners among vsus: I anſwer that you muſt diſtinguish betwixt our perſons & our communion: we confeſſe our perſons ſeverally every one of vsus to be ſubject to ſinne, & that we doe ſinne dayly: & bicauſe of our ſinning nature the Lord hath appointed the ordinances of the viſible Church as helps & meanes to ſubdue this ſinning nature of ours, eſpecially theſe ordinances of admonition & excommunication which are to be vſed & adminiſtred vppon al & by al as occaſion is offered: Now this is the perfection & puritie of our communion that we ſuffer no vnrepented ſinne, no vnrepentant ſinner among vsus, but either we caſt out the ſinne by repentance or the ſinner vnrepentant by excommunication: that our cōmunion may be pure & holy, & the church without ſpot or wrinckle: & that we may be a new lump dayly vnleavened, the leaven being purged out of vsus continually: oh Mr. Ber. if you knew but the comfort & powre of the L. ordinances of admonition & excommunication: as we do (bleſſed be our good God) in ſome meaſure, & that growth & reformation which is in ſome of vsus thereby, you would be ſo wonderfully ravished with the powre of Gods ordinances, that you would acknowledg the Church to be terrible as an armie with banners, & yet amyable & lovely comely & beauteful: in ſo much as Chriſt himſelf ſaith that the love of the church is faire that she woundeth his hart with one of her eyes, in regard of the beautyful & holy communion which is dayly maintayned in her by vertue of the cenſures: but your confuſed aſſemblies & al the members of them not only omit, but reject, yea oppoſe al theſe holy ordinances which Chriſt hath given to his Church, & therby you proclaime to all the world that you are of Belial, that is without the yoke of Chriſts ordinances, & you caſt away from you theſe cordes & bandes wherwith wee are bound one to another, & knit faſter & faſter vntounto Chriſt our head: & therfor you living thus without the yoke, out of the Lords Holy order, having broken theſe bandes & caſt the cordes frō you, mingling your ſelves vntounto, & joyning with al manner of profane perſons that violate al Gods ordinances, how can we have any fellowship, communion, agreement, concord or part with you? Anſwer to this now Maiſter Bernard, and ſeduce your hearers no longer with vanityes.
Paralleles, Cenſures, Obſervations, aperteyning to the eighth Section.
Mr. Ber. in his book intituled the Sep. Schiſme pa. 103. hath theſe wordes, viz: that ou… ſeaventh error should be to hold: That the ſinne of one man publiquely & 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 Church rightly conſtituted) til the party be excommunicated.
In this eighth Section the poſition is thus vttered by you, & by mee juſtified, viz: That one ſinne of one man publiquely and obſtinately ſtood in and not reformed by a true conſtituted Church doth ſo pollute it, that none may communicate with it in the Holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawfull conviction.
Afterward expounding this truth I ſay, that if the Church hold this obſtinate, impenitent, convicted perſon in communion they conſent to his ſinne, as the civil magiſtrate ſuffering wilful murther conſenteth vntounto it.
Mr. Ainſ. confutat. of Mr. Bern. pag. 178.179. doth firſt renounce this truth, & denyeth it to be either their judgment or practiſe referring vsus to the confeſſion of their faith, Art. 26. wher their judgmēt is, that none is to Seperate for offences, but by due order to ſeek redreſſe: & yet afterward affirmeth, that if the Church will not rebuke nor caſt out a man obſtinate and impenitent in wickednes, but plead for him againſt ſuch as call vppon them for judgment then are all ſuch abettors of the wicked ſinner them…elves, and that in a high degree: & now not that one mans ſinne, but the ſinne of them al polluteth them.
Wel Mr. Ainſ. you & I wil not differ about this point, for wither it be his ſinne conſented vntounto by them, or their ſin which is a conſent & approbation to his ſinne, or both, I regard not: The truth is the truth, that that one ſinne polluteth them al by contagion, as the leaven leaveneth the whole lump: & although Mr. Bern. hath not ſo plainly & directely propounded it as he might, yet let it not be denyed for it is the truth he doth chardg vsus withal, giving a true expoſition: & I tell you true Mr. Ainſ. you deny the truth, if you deny the poſition: but indeed your denyall, & your affirmation contradict.
Heer Mr. Bern. for your ſake I wil performe two things: Firſt I wil confirme this truth which we defend againſt you that joyne with open knowne ſinners in the communion of your falſe Church: Secondly, I wil refel your cavils againſt this truth of God, wherin wee walk.
For the firſt point I wish you to remember what hath been proved vntounto you in the former Section, viz, That Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to the body of the Church: which if it be true as it is proved to be the vndoubted truth of God, then this ſecond poſition followeth neceſſarily therevppon & therefore is to be embraced for the truth of God in like manner: For every conſequent neceſſarily deduced from the Scripture is as wel & as truly the word of truth as that which is in plaine termes expreſſed & noted downe in nomber of wordes. For even as the branches of the tree doe as truly proceed from the root as the great graines or body of the tree, & are al of one kind & nature doth root, body, graynes, & braunches: So a neceſſary conſequent growing by true diſcourſe out of the Scripture is aswel & as truly the word of truth as the poſition, or doctryne, or ſentence is whence it was raiſed, wherfor I frame an argument from the former ground aftēr this manner.
If they that have Chriſts miniſterial powre to reforme obſtinate convicted ſinners, or to excommunicate thē: do neither reforme them nor caſt them out frō among them, but ſuffer them ſtil in communion conſenting therby to their ſinn: then the perſons ſo ſuffering & conſenting to ſinne are polluted by contagion of the ſin, & impenitent wicked ſinner.
But it may fal out that a Church true in the conſtitution having Chriſts miniſterial powre yet afterward declining may neither reforme an obſtinate convicted, ſinner, nor caſt him out of their communion, but may ſuffer him ſtil in communion therby conſenting to his ſinne.
Ergo: a Church truly conſtituted, having Chriſts Miniſteriall powre of reformation or excommunication, ſuffering and conſenting to ſinne & ſinners convinced are polluted by infection of that ſinne, and of that impenitent obſtinate convicted ſinner.
And ſo by neceſſary conſequent I conclude after this manner.
If a Church truly conſtituted be all of them polluted by conſent as is already declared, then they do violate and profane all the Holy things of God wherin they pertake: For to the vncleane nothing is cleane, as the Apoſtle teſtifieth. Tit. 1.15. & the Prophet, Eſa. 1.12.
But a Church truly conſtituted may grow to polution by conſenting to obſtinate ſinne & ſinners as is already declared.
Therfor a Church truly conſtituted may grow to the violation & manifeſt profanation of al the Holy things of God.
From this evident truth I proceed & reaſon after this manner.
To that Church, company, or communion of men we may not joyne in Spirituall communion that violateth or profaneth the holy things of God.
But a Church truly conſtituted may grow to the violation & manifeſt profanation of al the Holy things of God.
Ergo, to a Church truly conſtituted growne to polute & violate the holy things of God, we are not to joyne in communion.
Thus you ſe Mr. Ber. the evidence of this truth manifeſted vntounto your conſcience, if the Lord vouchſafe you mercy to ſee the truth.
Like arguments may be drawne from many places of Scripture: as from Mat. 13.33. compared with 1. Cor. 5.6. an argument may be framed thus.
As the whole lump & the feaſt of the paſſeover was leavened with a litle leavē: ſo one open knowne ſinne polluteth the viſible Church, & the holy things therof: for you muſt vnderſtand that the Apoſtle doth not cal vnknowne ſinne leaven: but by leaven he vnderſtandeth ſinne openly knowne, convinced, & vnrepented: els ther could be no communion for men on earth.
But the Apoſtle & our Saviour ſaith out of the law that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump & feaſt of the paſſeover.
Therfor, one ſinne convinced & vnrepented polluteth the viſible church, & the holy things therof: & therevnto may no man joyne.
Againe, from perſons ceremonialy poluted, & ſo defiling the Sanctuary of the Lord, as appeareth Nomb. 19.13.20. Hag. 2.14, I reaſon thus.
As perſons ceremonialy poluted vnclenſed entering into the Sanctuary of the Lord, or medling with the holy flesh or pottage, did polute the Sanctuary, & the holy flesh, pottage & the reſt: So the viſible Church of the new Teſtament morally poluted & impenitent in ſin medling with the holy things of God polute & defile the ſame.
But the L. avoucheth by the mouth of his holy Prophets, that perſons ceremonialy vncleane vnclenſed, entering vntounto the Sanctuary, or medling with holy flesh or pottage, polute & defile them.
Therfor the viſible Church of the new teſtament morally poluted & impenitent in ſin dealing with the holy things do profane them: & therfor no man with good conſcience can joyne with that profanation.
Finally: as in the old teſtament the King & Magiſtrates ſuffering ſin vnpunished were poluted therwith by conſent: So in the new teſtament the viſible church (who are Kings Spiritualy, & have committed vntounto them the judgments of the L. the miniſterial powre of Chriſt) ſuffering ſinne vnreformed among them, are polluted thereby.
But in the Old Teſtament the Kings and Magiſtrates (by your owne confeſſion Mr. Bernard pag. 94.) were poluted with ſinne vnreformed in the common wealth.
Therfor in the New Teſtament the viſible Church (who are Kings Spiritualy, having committed vntounto them the judgments of the L. the miniſterial powre of Chriſt) ſuffering ſinne vnreformed among them are poluted therby: & ſo no communiō to be had with them, leaſt partaking with them in ſinne by conſent, we receave of their plagues.
Now you ſe evidently proved by teſtimonies of Scriptures, & by direct conſequents from the ſame, that it is vnlawful for any man to joyne to a Church that was truly conſtituted, now growne to profane & violate the holy things of God by conſenting to ſin & wicked, obſtinate, convinced, impenitent ſinners: & that therfor much more is it vnlawful to joyne to your falſe churches which never were truly conſtituted ſince the defectiō of Antichriſt, but remaine in the gulfe of Antichriſtianiſme vntounto this day: the firſt point therfor being manifeſt, the ſecond foloweth to be enterpriſed which is to anſwer the objections & cavils which you make againſt this comfortable truth of the L. I cal it a comfortable truth bicauſe herin conſiſteth the true comfort of churches & Chriſtians publiquely & privately: that they neither live in nor conſent to any known ſin in themſelves or other For otherwiſe ſeing ſinnes & corruptions break out dayly in the beſt Churches & Chriſtians, herin is our comfor that we give no allowance to them no not ſo much as by our preſence in that communion wher open known ſinne is ſuffered, as it is moſt plentifully and abundantly in your falſe Churches and in other Churches that are of a true conſtitution.
In your objections againſt this truth the firſt thing that I reprove is that you do falſely interpret conſent to ſin: for a man may conſent to ſin, though he in judgment, affection, contenāce & action do declare his diſlike of it as for exāple: Ely did al this to his ſonnes that poluted the L. Sacrifices, & cōmitted adultery with the weomen that came to ſacrifice, 1. Sā. 2.22.23. for he should have proceded to the vtmoſt that the word of God had required at his hāds, viz: to have put his ſōnes to death, which bicauſe he did not he was poluted with their ſinnes by conſēt, & therfor the fearful judgmēt of God befel him which whſooever heard both their eares tingled, 1. Sa. 3.11. ſo except a mā do by al mē anes ſave himſelf from the froward generation, by Seperating himſelf as the Apoſtle practiſed & counſelleth, Act. 2.4. & 19.9. & 2. cor. 6.17. he cannot be fre fro the contagion of their ſin … the profanation of al the Holy things of God: For theſe places doe evidently declare th… Paul & the Apoſtles not only commaund to ſeperate from the Gentils, but frō the Iewes who were the true Church of God now growing obſtinate in ſinne, & ſo practiſed themſelves commaunding the Diſciples & training them vp by his example ſo to do: & ſo teaching vsus to follow his example herein.
In the next place you proceed to declare by divers reaſons (ſuch as they are) that to joyne to the holy things when obſtinate impenitent ſinners partake in them is no ſinne: your firſt reaſon is: For that in the old Teſtament ther was no Sacrifice appointed for this: Ergo it is no ſinne: I deny the antecedent: & I declare the contrary by the examples of the tribe of Bemjamin conſenting to the ſinne of adultery committed vppon the Levites concubine, Iudg. 19. & 20. of the tribes of Iſrael, fearing leſt wrath should fal vppon them for ſuffering their brethren to make another altar, & to forſake the true worship of God as they ſuſpected, Iosh. 22. & of Achans ſin which brought wrath vppon the whole congregation. VVherefore in the law the Lord did appoint a Sacrifice for the whole congregation aswell as for any particular perſon. Levitt, 4.13.
A Second reaſon of yours is: For that in the Old Teſtament the Godly are never reproved for being preſent at the miniſtration of holy things though wicked men were preſent: but the Prophets reprove the Preiſts only for not Seperating the cleane from the vncleane. wherto I anſwer that their communion was typical, & therfor perſons typically cleane though wicked in their lives might come to Sacrifice, & yet not pollute others as I have already ſufficiently declared in the former Section: beſides whereas the Prophets reprove the Preiſts, & the Saints in the new Teſtament ſucceed the carnal Preiſts as Spiritual Preiſts, therby it followeth that the Saints in the new Teſtament are polluted by not diſtinguishing & ſeperating the cleane from the vncleane: ſee theſe places of Scripture, Ezech. 22.26. compared with Revel. 1.6. & 11.1. Iude vſus. 23.2. Cor. 6.17.
But ſtil ſome may object, that in the old Teſtament they did pray, & preach, & praiſe God, & yet notwithſtāding the faithful herein were not defiled if the wicked did joyne with them in communion thereof: & therfor now vnderunder the new Teſtament, though mē do joyne in communion with open known ſinne, & ſuffer known ſinne yet may be ſaynts, & vnpolluted in communion: & this is the very pith & warrow of your ſecond abjection Mr. Bern. wherto I make anſwer many waies.
Firſt▪ I deny him to be a Saynt or that he ought to be eſteemed a Saynt of vsus, that is impen…tent in any knowne ſinne: Knowne I ſay to him: For I may know it to be a ſinne, & yet bicauſe he knoweth it not ſo to be, he cannot be accounted impenitent though he live in it: ſith ignorance is a ſinne whereof a man repenteth generaly, & ſo in his generall repentance of ſinnes done of ignorance that particular ſinne is included.
Secondly, I am to judg of another according to that which I know & according to the rule of the word therin: wherfor if i know any of my brethren to live in any ſinne knowne to me: I muſt admonish him & prove it to him to be ſinne, & require his repentance: if he repent not to take withneſſes & thē to admonish him before withneſſes, & ſo to convince it againe to his conſcience, if he repent not, then to tel it to the Church, wher alſo he is to be admoni…hed & convinced openly: if then he repent not, to mee he is a Heathen & Publicane, & no Saynt: what he is in the L. account, & to himſelf in ſecreat I know not, nor regard, for it aperteyneth not to me.
Laſtly, for the conſequence of the argument, viz: That ſeing in the Old Teſtament the faithful were not defiled joyning in prayer, preaching & praiſing God with open known ſinners, therefore wee in the New Teſtament ſo doing are not defiled, I deny vtterly: yea and I deny the Antecedent in ſome ſence alſo: It shall not be vnprofitable therefore fully to diſcuſſce both the Antecedent, and the conſequence of this Objection.
The Antecedent is thus to be expounded & conceaved of, namely.
That the L. required one thing outwardly in the communion of the Church, another thing inwardly in the hart for acceptation before God.
If any circumcized Iſraelite or proſelyte clenſed according to the purification of the Sanctuarie did joyne in prayer, preaching & praiſing God, no man could juſtly refuſe his outward communion in theſe actions ſeing he was outwardly cleane according to the diſpenſation of thoſe tymes: For vsus in the new Teſtament ther are required other viſible actions for our outward clenſing, which were not then required of the carnall Iſraelites for their outward clenſing: if they did declare their inward repentance by Sacrifices for their ſinnes general & Speciall, by clenſing themſelves with thoſe rites & ceremonies which were appointed by the Lord for thoſe infant tymes of the Church, they were to be judged holy by al men, & ſo communion might be had with them without ſinne: but if they were not clenſed according to the purification of the Sanctuary, they were not viſibly cleane, & therfor communion could not be had with them without ſinne, & ſo Hezechiahs prayer importeth, 2. Chron. 30.18-…. & the Prophets declare plainly, Nōb. 19.31.20. Hag. 2.14. yet heer alſo cautions muſt be remembred, viz: That this ceremoniall vncleanenes muſt be made known vntounto others, for otherwiſe how could it polute others if it were vnknowne to them: Furthermore it cannot be denyed, but that the Sonnes of Belial very vild wicked men did deale with the holy things in the old Teſtament, but yet I ſay it cannot be proved but they were viſiblie cleane according to the diſpenſation of thoſe tymes: the Lord did not then require men to proceede with their brethren in the thre degrees of admonition, & ſo to bring them to the acknowledgment of their ſinne & repentance. That is the Lords diſpenſation for the new Teſtament: But the L. order for thoſe tymes was 1. reproof for ſinne, Levit. 19.17. 2. The partie reproved was to offer a Sacrifice which if he did he was clenſed from hys ſinne viſiblie, Levit. 4.23. 3. If he wilfully refuſed to harken he was to be promoted to the Magiſtrate, & put to death for his preſumption, Levit. 15.30.31. Deut. 17.12. This was the L. aeconomie for thoſe tymes when this order was violated, then al communion was defiled, whiles it was obſerved all was wel in the viſible communion: Let any man declare the contrary if he be able: breefly therfor to make a ful anſwer to the objection: if the faithful did keep communion with perſons viſiblie vncleane, (according to the vncleanenes of the old Teſtament,) knowne vntounto them, I ſay they were polluted with their vncleanenes by conſenting therto, & to the violation of the Lords order appointed for thoſe tymes: if men were the children of Belial, & yet were clenſed according to the diſpenſation of the Old Teſtament, their viſible clenſing did intitle them to the ordinances of the old Teſtament before men, though before God their conſciences were impure: wherfor both the Antecedent & conſequent of the argument are weake and vnſound: & ſo this truth of God remayneth firme, that impenitency in ſinne defileth the communion of the viſible Church, as in the old Teſtament,
Your third reaſon is for that the Prophets did not Seperate who did know the meaning of the L. for this thing, nor taught not the people ſo to do: I answer as in the new Teſtament ſo in the old ther ought not to be Seperation til the vtmoſt meanes be ſought for redreſſe of things: The vtmoſt meanes for reforming abuſes in the Old Teſtament was the Magiſtrates authority, in whoſe hands the powre of reforming was: Hence it is that the Prophets alwayes reproove the Kings for the wickednes of the Land: but the Lord did never teach (bicauſe he thought it not meet, ther being but one true Church) that when the King neglected his duty the people should forſake the Holy things of God & Seperate, but ſtil they ought to depend vppon the Lord for redreſſe of things: but now in the New Teſtament the Lords adminiſtration in this particular is otherwiſe, 1. Viſible Churches may be infinite, & ſo ther is a poſſibility of enjoying the Lords ordi…ances though a man forſake the communion of one Church, 2. the fulnes of tyme being come, & the nonage of the Church being paſt, the Lord hath now revealed his whole wil & pleaſure, & hath ſet vsus at liberty, whereas in the old Teſtament they were in bondage vnderunder worldly ordinances, 3. The Saints now in the new Teſtament are answerable to the Kings in the old Teſtament having powre Eccleſiaſtical in their hands (but not civil) to reforme the abuſes that ariſe in the viſible Church, 4. Therfor we are in the new Tament to vſe al meanes appointed by the Lord for reformation before wee Seperate, al the meanes I ſay whatſoever: If then ther be no reformation what then? I answer Seperation is then lawful: why? The reaſons are theſe 1. The viſible Church cealeth to be a time Church being obſtinate in ſinne, & from a falſe Church Seperation is lawful, 2. the Lord hath commaunded to come out …om among perſons obſtinate in ſinne, & ſo the Apoſtles practiſed. 2. Cor. 6.17. Act. 19.9. & 2.40. 3. bicauſe the Lord hath ſaid that if we pertake with them in their ſinnes, we shal receave of their plagues, 4. bicauſe if but two or thre faithful ones being Seperated joyne together, they are a true Church vntounto Chriſt where the Lords preſence & acceptance is: But in the Old Teſtament they were neceſſarily tyed, to the Kingdome, Preiſthood, & Temple for the worship & obedience of God, but now in the New Teſtament al things are free, & the bondage is gone: Mr. Bern. I would have you note this wel & lay it vp in your hart for your inſtruction & reformation, for in this particular I know you al that feare God in the land are ſcandalized from the truth, not vnderſtanding the difference between the New Teſtament & the ordinances thereof, & the Old Teſtament with the ordinances thereof: Summarily therefor to deliver the truth: The Church, Miniſtery, VVorship, & Government of the Old Teſtament were ſo conſtituted by the Lord as that no Seperation could be made from them ſeing they were al by Succeſſion & the people therfor were neceſſarily bound over vntounto them, otherwiſe they could not find the Lord & his truth which was only at Ieruſalem: in the New Teſtament, the Church, Miniſtery, VVorship & Government are ſo conſtituted by the Lord, as that in them ther is no Succeſſion nor alligation of tyme, place, perſon, &c. But when the Church is become falſe by impenitency, the faithful may Seperate & cary the truth with them if but two or three.
Mr. Bern. the L, open your eyes, & the eyes of al his people in England to ſee this bleſſed truth of the Lord: & then the cauſe of Separation wilbe evident vntounto your conſciences in the meane tyme you cannot but be ignorant.
A ſouth reaſon whereby you would prove that to joyne to the Holy things in the communion of obſtinate impenitent perſons is no ſinne, is, for that the Scripture teacheth the contrary (as you ſay) two wayes, 1. by acquitying the Godly from the transgreſſion of others, 2. by declaring it to be a ſinne to leave the Holy things of God, for the wickedneſſe of others: & this you ſay cutteth deepely.
I anſwer you Mr. Ber. that we do not feele this cut at al, for the iron is blunt, & you had need put to more ſtrength, & your reaſon hath in it no cutting quality at all: For I doe acknowledg that the Godly, if they conſent not to, nor approve not the ſinne of others, are by the Lords ſentence acquit from the transgreſſion. but I would learne of you, if the Holy Ghoſt in the Scripture doth not account the principal & the acceſſary in the lame condition though not in the ſame degree of ſinne: what ſay you to the ſinne of Achan? the ſinne of the men of Gibean concerning the Levites concubine? The feare of the Iſraelites in reſpect of the Altar built in the border of the Land of Canaan by Iorden? Theſe places are evident, that conſent to ſinne polluteth the perſon conſenting: & the places by you quoted do not prove any thing contrary to this aſſertion of ours: but rather they prove this vndoubted truth of the Lords: the place Ezech. 33.9. proveth that as the watchman that diſchargeth his duty is acquit, ſo if he diſcharg not his duty he shalbe acceſſary to the ſinne, & partaker of the punishment as may be ſeen, vsus. 6. the place Ezech. 18.14.17.20. doth declare two things, that if the child follow not the ſinne of the parents he shalbe guiltleſſe: if he partake in ther ſinnes he shalbe partaker of the. punishment the place Ezech. 14.18.20 sheweth that Noah, Daniel, & Iob shal deliver their owne ſoules by their righteouſnes: but al thoſe that are polluted with other mens ſinnes shal partake of their plagues, Revel. 18.4. So that you ſee theſe places of the old teſtament quoted by you do not only not help you, but vtterly overthrow your conceipt.
The places of the new Teſtament alledged by you alſo make as litle for you. Tit. 1.15. teacheth that al thing are pure to the pure, yet the intent of the place is not to shew that ſinne is pure to any man: & although I may lawfully vſe the Holy things of God being my ſelf cleane: yet being partaker of another mans ſinne by conſent, I polute al the holy things to my ſelf, & have no title to vſe them, & ſo the Apoſtle ſaith preſently to the impure is nothing pure: the place Revel. 3.4. teacheth that ſo many of the Church at Sardi as defiled not their garments by conſenting to the polution of the reſt of that Church, but that ſtood out againſt their corruptions to the vtmoſt, shalbe innocent: & the other place, Revel. 2 22-24. sheweth the ſame thing: but for theſe two places I ſay: you muſt prove Mr. Ber. that your aſſemblies are true churches as theſe were: againe, you muſt prove alſo that theſe perſons neglected their duty of admonishing & ſtanding forth againſt the Church: & that the church was convinced by them & yet did joyne with them in communion of Holy things: For otherwiſe we ſay we are not to Seperate till wee have done our vtmoſt endevour: neither are we poluted til then: your laſt place is Gal. 5.10. wher the Apoſtle teacheth that he that troubleth the Galatians shal beare his condemnation whoſoever he be: & yet the Apoſtle telleth them vsus. 9. that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump: that is to ſay: if you conſent to this falſe doctrine of joyning circumciſion to Chriſt the perſon that perſwadeth you shal beare his burthen whoſoever he be, yet you alſo shalbe punished receaving the falſe doctrine, but I hope otherwiſe of you: this is the meaning of the Apoſtle.
Secondly, you ſay the Scripture teacheth it to be a ſinne for to leave the holy things of God, for the wickednes of other, & for this purpoſes you alledg, 1. Sam. 2.24.17. wher (you ſay) the wordes are plaine, & cannot be avoyded by another expoſition of the word gnabarwell: although the word doth as properly ſignifie to paſſe vppon or to paſſe by as to treſpaſſe, & that it is ſo expounded by Pagnin: yet I will not plead it at this tyme ſith it needeth not: Therfor take the place according to your conſtruction that the Sonnes of Ely by their ſinnes cauſed the people to ſinne by abhorring the L. offering through occaſion of ther wickednes: I anſwer thus: in the old Teſtament no man was to forſake the Sacrifices for other mēs ſinnes if they were ceremonialy cleane: & therfor that the people did abhorre theſe ordinances of God vppon the wickednes of Elyes Sonnes was ther transgreſſion: the L. taught no ſuch thing in the old Teſtament & in the typical communion therof: but now in the new Teſtament we having the truth that was then ſignified by the old Teſtament & the ordinances therof, it followeth neceſſarily thus: that as in the old Teſtament & the communion therof which were typical, perſons typicaly cleane might not have communion typical, with perſons typically vncleane, without polution ceremonial: So in the new Teſtament & the cōmunion therof which is the truth, perſons moraly cleane may not have Spiritual communiō with perſons moraly vncleane without polution moral which is ſinne: & ſo you are anſwered according to your expoſition of the place: yet I deny it to be neceſſary to expound the place ſo as you doe.
Your fifth reaſon proving it lawful for the Saints to hold communion in the holy things though perſons obſtinate in ſinne be preſent is: For that in the word we have liberty given to come to partake in the holy things if wee look to our ſelves to reforme our owne wayes, mat. 5.23.24. 1. Cor. 11.28. & the Corinths did partake in the holy things with them that were once & twiſe admonished, 2. Cor. 12.21. go: ſo may we do.
I anſwer. The place of Chriſt Mat. 5.23.24. teacheth that a mā muſt firſt reconcile him ſelf to his brother before he offer his gift: truth: but it muſt be for al the ſinnes he committeth againſt his brother: now to hate his brother by ſuffering ſinne to reſt vppon him & not to admonish & bring him to repentance, is a greevous ſinne of one man againſt his brother, & ſo it is a very greevous hatred for a man to ſuffer the whole Church vnreformed from ſinne, & therfor by this place or Chriſt you gaine nothing, but rather leeſe the cauſe which is hereby confirmed, viz: that til a man doe his duty to the vtmoſt to his brethren, he cannot offer his gift: now his vtmoſt duty is, either to bring him to repentance, or to leave him impenitent, & al them that juſtifie his ſinne in their impenitēcy & ſo in the violation of the holy things: For they being al poluted with his ſinne have deprived themſelves of title & powre to the holy things, & ſo vſing them doe violate them, & al that partake with them therin partake with ſinne, & shall receave of their judgments.
The place 1. Cor. 11.28. is alſo againſt you: For the Apoſtle willeth the Corinths to examine themſelves how they have performed their duty to God, & their brethren, in the firſt & ſecond table: & finding themſelves to be cleere then to eate & drinck: otherwiſe finding our ſelves to faile in that commaundement, Mat. 14.15-17. wee are poluted by contagion & cannot eate & drinck without hurt & judgment, bicauſe we have not judged our ſelves aright.
But your laſt place Mr. Ber. is ſomthing to the purpoſe: viz. 2. Cor. 12.21. & 13.1.2. compared together, for I wil help to vrge your argument, & then give you an anſwer.
Your argument may thus be framed.
If the Corinths might without ſinne have communion with the Church, of the Corinths after they were once & twiſe admonished, & did not repent: then may we have communion, with perſons obſtinate & impenitent, in the holy things without ſinne in vsus.
But the Corinths had communion with the Church of Corinth poluted with ſin after once & twiſe admonition, without ſinne.
Ergo: we may have communion, with perſons obſtinate in ſinne, in the holy things without ſinne in vsus.
This is the force of your reaſon: wherto I anſwer, that you muſt prove your minor: For it is weake: & the places of Scripture do not confirme it: For you muſt know that the latter Epiſtle to the Corinths was the ſecond admonition as may be ſeen, 2. Cor. 13.2 & before the deſpiſing of the ſecond admonition they could not be judged obſtinate & impenitent in ſinne: now for the ful & ſufficient confirmation of your minor you should prove vntounto vsus two things: Firſt, that the Corinths did deſpiſe Pauls ſecond admonition in this his ſecond Epiſtle: Secondly that if they did deſpiſe this his ſecond admonition, the faithful among the Corinths did keep communion without ſinne with that poluted & obſtinately impenirent company: now bicauſe I know this is to hard a task for you, I will therefore conclude that this argument of yours is inſufficient to prove your purpoſe.
Your laſt & leaſt reaſō wherby you endevour to prove it lawful to vſe the holy things though obſtinate impenitent ſinners be preſent in communion, is, that Gods commaundement muſt be obeyed abſolutely, & another mans ſinne cannot diſſolve the bond of allegiance betwixt God & man, which our poſition ſeemeth (as you pretend) to diſſolve: ſeing we ſay that a man muſt not keep communion in the holy things if wicked men be preſent in communion with vsus:
To this argument I anſwer thus: viz: that God indeed commaundeth vsus to pray, heare the word, & communicate in the Sacraments, but he alſo preſcribeth both the perſons wherwith, & the manner how we muſt performe theſe actions: prayer, hearing the word & partaking in the Sacraments are actions of communion, & ther is in the preformance of them a manner of doing (modus agendi) to be obſerved: wee muſt therfor reſpect two things in performing theſe actions of Religion: Firſt that our communion be ſuch as it ought to be, for I may not keep communion with Iewes, Turks, Pagans, Papiſts, but with Chriſtians, viz: true Chriſtians ſuch as the new Teſtament deſcribeth ought to be members of the viſible Church which is the myſtical body of Chriſt: Secondly, that the actions of our communion be performed after that holy manner & order as the new Teſtament of Chriſt teacheth: as that prayer be conceaved not read out of a ſervice book, that prophecy come out of the hart, & not be read out of a book as Homilies be: that baptiſme be adminiſtred ſimply as Chriſt teacheth without Godfathers, the croſſe, queſtions to infants: & that the L. Supper be vſed ſitting not kneeling. finaly, that al the parts of worship be clenſed according to the primitive inſtitution, & not vſed with thoſe polutions which the man of ſinne hath caſt vppon them: breefly, we muſt worship God with the meanes he hath apointed as the 2. cōmaundemēt teacheth, & after the māner he hath taught as the third commaundement informeth, otherwiſe ther is idolatry committed in violating the ſecond commaundement worshipping God by other meanes then he hath ordemed: & profanation of the name of God in violating the third commaundement when his ordinances are not ſo vſed as he hath preſcribed: So that to ſpeak directly to your objection, the bond of alleageance betwixt God & vsus is preſerved & kept inviolable by our poſition: for we teach that men muſt pray, heare the word, & receave the Sacraments, but in a true viſible communion of Sains as the Lord hath appointed, not with al manner of perſons, as theeves, mu…derers, witches, conjurers, Papiſts, Atheiſts, Dronkards, perjured, perſons, &c. as in your Church: nor after your manner which is deviſed by man as Ieroboam deviſed in Iſrael: but as the Lord hath in the new Teſtament taught vntounto vsus.
And heer Mr. Bern. you take vppon you to reduce the places of Scripture which wee alledg for Seperation from your aſſemblies to certaine topical or categorical heads, & ſo give them anſwer according to your fashion: as thus: the places that forwarne Gods people to Seperate vnderunder the law are thus to be taken:
1. From idols of falſe Gods: as Iſrael from heathenish Gods.
2. From Idols of the true God as Indah from Iſraels calves.
4. From perſons ceremonially polluted.
The places vrging Seperation vnderunder the Goſpel are thus to be taken
1. From lewes not receaving Chriſt, but rayling againſt him.
2. From Gentils without Chriſt.
3. From Antichriſt vnderunder the shew of Chriſt perſecuting Chriſtians.
4. From familiar companying with excommunicates or wicked men.
But (ſay you) what are al theſe places to vsus who are not vnderunder any of theſe heads of reference? I answer you Mr. Ber. that your Church is reſpectively vnderunder al theſe topical places which you mention excepting the firſt, For 1. you make Idols of the true God, in ſetting vp your own inventions, & making Chriſt a King, Preiſt, & Prophet, as you jmagine 2. you ought much more to Seperate from perſons morally vncleane, if the lewes ought to Seperate from perſons ceremonialy vncleane, 3. if the Apoſtles commaund Seperation from the Iewes members of that true Church of the old Teſtament, refuſing Chriſt & rayling againſt him: Then much more ought we to Seperate from you the members of falſe Churches, refuſing & perſecuting Chriſt in his members & new. Teſtament vntounto death: as they have felt, 4. if Antichriſtims & Gentils be in degree equall (as they are in the Holy Ghoſts account as I have forme…ly proved) thē from you who are Antichriſtiās & viſible members of falſe Churches ought Seperation to be made, 5. although you are not excommunicate from the true Church whereof you never were, yet you entertaine excommunicates from true Churches, & you are cages of every vncleane & hateful bird: & if I muſt avoyd private familiar communion with excommunicate & wicked perſons then much more muſt I shun Spirituall holy communion with them: except any man wilbe ſo ridiculous as to ſay that the Ho…y & Spiritual communion afordeth more liberty to ſinne & ſinners then private civil communion in meate & drinck: &c. & ſo by your own: confeſſion al the places of Scripture alledged againſt you by vsus, may by juſt & due proportion be applyed vppon you, being as you ſtand in your conſtitution & worship, falſe Churches, & falſe worshippers, & perſecuters of Chriſt his truth & faithful witneſſes.
To end al: you ſay that it cannot be proved that it is ſinn to heare the word preached & to receave the Sacraments of one that hath converted him, & is called of the church, wel Mr. Bern. I vnderſtand your drift, & I wil give you an anſwer: I ſay in your aſſemblies men do not convert to the true viſiole faith of Chriſt taught in his word, viz: in the new Teſtament: nor you ever converted man therto, but pervert men from it, as this book of yours & al your railings againſt our teſtimony do plainly evince: what you do inviſibly the Lord knoweth, & every mans owne conſcience can ſpeak that feeleth: but what ſay you of the Popish preachers do you think they convert none inviſiblie? & what doe you gaine by this fancy? neither they nor you convert to the faith or new Teſtament of Chriſt, but they pervert mē from you, & you pervert men from the Seperation: & both hinder & draw from the truth: what you do inviſiblie I ſeek not nor ought not to reſpect for viſible walking: yet know that we hold that ther are 7000. that are of the Lords Election in your falſe Churches: So are ther in Rome it ſelf. Revel. 18.4. whence did al the worthy witneſſes of Chriſt ariſe, as the waldenſes, Hus, Prage, Luther, the Martyrs in Q. Maries dayes in Englād, & at other tymes in other places? did they not come out of the bottomleſſe pit of Antichriſtianiſme being converted there? yet I hope you wil not ſay that they might ſtil joyne to that miniſtery: & yet the miniſters then had the calling of that church, ſuch as it was: if therfor the argumēt be not good for them no more is it for you: for you wilbe proved to be Antichriſtiā Miniſters as truly in quality, though not aſmuch in quantity as they are: & this shal ſuffice for anſwer to this point.