Parallels Censures, Letter 1 · Section 6
The fixth Section.
Your …leventh poſition followeth to be conſidered of which is this.
That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4. properties are the matter o…ly of a viſible Church: This you hould error: I hold it the moſt certayne truth of Gods word as theſe Scriptures doe evidently prove: Rom. 6.4.5.8.11-22. 1. Pet. 3.11. 2. Pet. 3.18. 1. Iohn. 2.19. Apocal. 3.5. compared with Roman. 1.7. Eph. 1.1.4, Revel. 11.2. & 22.14.15. & 18.2. compared with Deut. 14.2.3.11.2. Cor. 6.16. compared with 1. King. 5.12.
The 4. properties wherby I deſcribe ſaynts are theſe though you mention them not i… this your note: 1. To forſake all knowne ſinne, 2. to doe all the will of God knowne. 3. to grow in grace. 4. to continue to the end: For the further cleering of this point conſider that al the members of the true viſible Church of the Apoſtolique inſtitution are perſons who are to be accounted, holy faithful & elect: now if they be elect, I hope they wil continue faithful to the end: but you wil happily object that many fal away by Apoſtacy: true & then they are fit to be entertayned in your churches as ſome of ours have been: of them I ſay as the Apoſtle Iohn ſaith, if they had been of vsus they would have continued with vsus: Therfor they were none of vsus: For although they were in the outward communion, yet they were not of the true viſible Church, but were only Hipocrites, & as ſuperfluous excreſcences in the body no natural true parts of the body: For as in the matural body an eie of glaſſe is not indeed a true part of the body, though it occupie the place or a natural part: So an Hypocrite or one that continueth not to the end poſſeſſeth only a rome in the viſible Church, & is not indeed a true member. You wil demaund then why we receave Hypocrites among vsus: wherto I anſwer we cannot diſcerne an hypocrite, & therfor we are to judg of men according to that we ſee meaſuring them by the word of God: That which is concealed from vsus wee are not to prie into: VVherfor our judgment muſt alter & chang as occaſions varie: & ſo the Scripture ſpeaketh of a righteous man forſaking his righteouſnes, Ezech. 18.24. VVhereas in truth the gifts & calling of God are without repentance, Rom. 11.29. Breely therfor to deliver vntounto you the truth I hold concerning this point:
1. The viſible Church conſiſteth of an outward & inward communion.
2. The inward communion is knowne only to God: So are the members therof.
3. The outward viſible communion is … & diſcerned by men: So are the members thereof.
4. VVee a… to judg men for the preſent to be both of the inward & outward communion if they manifeſt to vsus an ourward … faith.
… … afterward men Apoſtate finaly then wee chandg our mynd & ſay they were …ever of vsus for had they been of vsus they would have continued with vsus.
Now Mr. Bern. I pray you anſwer vsus this which wee thus juſtifie out of the word if you can: if you cannot yeeld to the truth & embrace the faith, & wee shal rejoyce … you & with you.
Paralleles, Cenſures, Obſervations, aperteyning to the ſixth Section.
Mr. Bern. in his book intit…led the Seperatiſts Schiſme, pa. 83. hath theſe wordes, viz: Their fifth error is, that only Saynts: that is a people forſaking al knowne ſin, of which they may be convinced, doing al the knowne wil of God: increaſing & abiding ever therin, are the only matter of a viſible Church.
In this Section Mr. Bern. ſaith thus, It is an error to teach: That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4▪ properties, are the only matter of a viſible Church.
Mr. Ainſwortht confutation of Mr. Bern. pag. 174. Saith that he denyeth this poſition & diſclaymeth the errors which Mr. Bern. gathereth from them referring him to them that hold it: then Mr. Ainſworth sheweth what he holdeth; that Saynts by calling are the only matter of a true viſible Church: yet that many be called, & few choſen.
Let the reader conſider the expoſition that I have given to this poſition in this ſection of my lettre & then let him give his verdict: the expoſition is ſummarily thus much: viz that ſeing the viſible Church conſiſteth of an ontward & inward communion, they that are only of the outward viſible communion as hypocrites, are no true members of the viſible Church, but only in reputation & account before men.
Now I demaund of Maiſter Bernard againe with what face or good conſcience he durſt thus …ſe the VVorld, to publish this poſition barely without my expo…ion, or not to anſwer that which I brought for the confirmation thereof, but na…dly to ſet it downe & then only to object againſt it: Herein you bewray to mee a mynd willing to hyde the truth, & to deceave the VVorld, & to draw the Lords truth into deteſtation: which whither it be not the quality of a falſe Prophett…, I leave to the judgment of the Godly mynded: And whither hereby you doe not verefie Chriſts ſpeech, that you come to rob, kill, & to deſtroy, & that therfor you are a theef & a robber, Ioh. 10.1.10.
But bicauſe you are ſo importunate with your objections & reaſons, let vsus heer what they are,
Firſt, you ſay my deſcription of Saynts, is a proper deſcription of the inviſible members of Chriſt Ieſus, & that it excludeth Hypocrites from being true matter of the viſible Church: I anſwer two things: namely, 1. that an Hypocrite may performe al theſe 4. properties mentioned in the deſcription of Saynts for he may, 1, Forſake all knowne ſinne, 2. doe al the knowne wil of God, 3. grow in knowledg & grace. 4. continue to the end: & yet be an Hypocrite to the Lord in ſec…eat…: doe you think Mr. Bernard that all that die thus qualified in the eſtimation of men are indeed ſaved with the L? I confeſſe to mee they are vndoubtedly ſaved, but are they ſo to the Lord? make a direct anſwer to this particular, & you shal be compelled to ſee & confeſſe your … V… 2. I anſwer more properly thus: when I define Saynts I muſt define them not as they are in shew for the preſent, but as they are indeed & truth: Now truth is ſo eyther before men or before God: before men that is true ſomtyme which is falſe before God: & before God that is true ſomtyme which is falſe before men: That is true before men which is proved by two or three witneſſes. Mat. 18.16. He therfor is a Saynt before men in truth, that continueth to the end in faith repentance & the fruites thereof: He is a Saynt before men in …hew & appearance for the preſent, that for the preſent bringeth forth fruites worthy amendement of life. For a righteous man may forſake his righteouſnes: Ezech. 18.14. I am not therefore to define a Saynt as he is in shew for the preſent, but as he is indeed for ever in the judgment of men: neither do I define a Saynt as he is in the Lords knowledg which is not revealed to men, but as he is revealed to be judged by the word of God: I wil declare this by inſtances for your further information & ſatisfactiō: Stephen: Damas: Tertullus: Stephen continued to the end: Demas embraced the world & fel back from the truth: Tertullus never came to the truth for ought that is revealed: I ſay, Stephen was a true member of the viſible Church who continued to the end: Demas was no Saynt nor no true member of the viſible Church indeed, but only in shew: Tertullus was no Saynt nor true member of the viſible church ſo much as in shew or appearance what Tertullus was in ſecreat to the Lord I diſpute not, nor regard not▪ what Demas was, what Stephen was in the Lords counſel it doth not aperteyne vntounto vsus: we muſt judg according to that we ſee & know: I ſay ſtill with the Apoſtle continuance is a true propertie of a Saynt & member of the viſible Church indeed & truth, & of the ful & compleat communion thereof, 1. Ioh. 2.19.
Your ſecond Objection & reaſon is that by this my definition of Saynts, or the matter of the viſible Church ſo determined, I exclude the members of the viſible Church of the old Teſtament, as Hezechiah, David, Ichoſaphat, Moſes, &c. VVho committed & ſuffered knowne ſinne: yea & the Corinthians, 2. Cor. 12.21. Alſo the Churches of Aſia. Revel. 2, 20.21. VVho did not amend, & yet were Saynts & true matter of the viſible Church.
I anſwer: Firſt to that of the old Teſtament objected by you, I ſay your bewray therein great ignorance of the true nature & conſtitution of the Church of the Old Teſtament, as alſo of the miniſtery, worship, & government thereof, which were al typical & ceremonial: Know you therfor Mr. Bern that ther is as much difference betwixt the Old Teſt…ment with the ordinances thereof, & the new Teſtament with the ordinances therof, as ther is betwixt the ſigne & the thing ſignified: betwixt the ceremony & the ſubſt…nc…: the type & the t…uth: the shadow & the body: L…eral & Spiritual: the lettre & the Spirit. For in theſe & the like Phraſes doth it pleaſe the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures t… diſcover vntounto vsus the differences of theſe two Teſtaments, & the ordinances thereoff: you cannot plead, bicauſe in the Old Teſtament there were Sacrificing Preiſts, therfor t…e… m…ſt b… ſuch in the New Teſtament, neyther can you plead, for that they had one high P…e…t in the Old Teſtament, therfor ther muſt be one Pope or Patriarch over the …hu…ch …n the N…w Teſtament: To reaſon thus were to bring in Iudaiſme; & to diſanull the blood of Chriſt: Therfor if you wil reaſon aright as you ought to doe, you muſt …rame your reaſon from the Type to the Truth after this manner. This was a Type figure …hadow, ceremony, ſigne, literal ordinance in the old Teſtament, therefor we muſt not have that type; figure, shadow, ceremony, ſigne, literal ordinance in the new Teſtament, but we muſt have the thing typed, figured, shadowed out, ſignified thereby: as for example: In the old Teſtament they had a viſible Tabernacle, Temple, Cittie, wee muſt have a viſible Church, which is indeed the true Tabernacle, Heb. 8.2, & 3.2-6 The true Temple, 2 Corinth. 6.15. the Holy Cittie, Revel. 21.2.3. In the Old Teſtament the materiall Temple was made of material ſtones: in the New Teſtament the viſible Church is made of living & Spiritual ſtones, 1. Pet. 2.5. in the old Teſtament the people that offered ſacrifice were a holy people literally, Deut. 14.2.3. in the new Teſtament the people that worship God muſt be holy indeed & ſpiritualy, 1. Pet. 2.5.9. the ſame may be ſaid or the ſacrifices, ſacrificers or Preiſts & of al other ordinances of the old teſtamēt: hence it foloweth by a neceſſary conſequence that the conſtitution of the church of the old teſtament was a ceremonial conſtitution: the worship of the old teſtament a ceremonial worship: the miniſtery a typical miniſtery: the government a typical government: the people a typical people: the land or country a ceremonial country. & ſo forth of the reſt by proportion This being propounded & confirmed thus as the vndoubted truth of God diſcovereth the vanity of your reaſon: I ſay vntounto you that David, Iehoſaphat, & the reſt of the Godly in the old teſtament though they did ſuffer known ſin in the land, yet were the true matter of the typical Church being typicaly or ceremonialy cleane: For to the conſtitution of the typical Church ther was not required true holynes, but ceremonial cleanenes: & although it was ſignified vntounto them of the old teſtament, & neceſſarily required of them for their aceptation befor God that they should be truly, holy, & ſanctified: (for never was any accepted before God without true inward holines) yet it was not neceſſarily required of them to the conſtitution of their Church, for to make them true matter or members of that typical Church, or to fit them to that typical cōmunion which was the proper cōmunion of that typical Church, & of that typical ſervice. Hence it is that as in the old teſtament a Saint was a typical Saint, ſo an hipocrite was a typicall hipocrite: & a wicked man was a typical wicked man, & therfor excommunication was typical: Nomb. 5.2-4. & 12.14. Hence alſo it foloweth that lawfully they might have typical communion in typical worship that were typicaly cleane or ſaynts typicaly though they were wicked indeed: For their real wickednes did not polute their ceremonial or typical Church, worship, & communion, although it did polute their owne conſciences & workes Their ceremonial vncleanes did polute their ceremonial communion: Their moral vncleanes did not ſo: If their communion had been moral & Spiritual, then their moral vncleanes had defiled their cōmuniō: but their cōmunion being only ceremonial & typical, their polution was only of that kind: therfor you shal never find that in the old teſtament the L. chardgeth thē for cōmunion in their typical ſervice with wicked men, howſoever the wicked men thēſelves are sharpely reproved for their wickednes. Beſides the nature of their worship being wel weighed doth inſtruct vsus thus much: For their worship was reconciliation & repentance to acceptation: but our worship is of another nature, viz: Sacrifices of praiſe & thankſgiving after repentance, reconciliation, & acceptation. For they did worship to repentance, we do worship from repentance: therfor they might & did worship therby to reconcile thēſelves to God: we being reconciled to God & accepted in Chriſt do proceed to offer vntounto the L. the calves of our lips, the beſt grace we have: with vsus men firſt declare their repentance, & then we receave them into our communion to worship with vsus: with them firſt men were receaved into typicall communion, & then they were trayned vp to repentance & faith in Chriſt by the typical ſacrifices of that typical communion: Their worship began outwardly in the lettre, & proceded inwardly to the Spirit, ſo did their cōſtitution, miniſtery & al: our worship beginneth inwardly in the Spirit, & proceedeth outwardly to the lettre: Therfor our conſtitution, miniſtery, worship, & government, is contrary to theirs: & therfor Mr. Bern. if you had knowne or obſerved this, you would not have objected theſe things of the old Teſtament for the joyning with & ſuffering of open knowne ſinne in the new Teſtament, & the communion thereof: For how can theſe things agree, except you wil make the New Teſtament, the Old Teſtament: & abolish Chriſt, & ſet vp Iudaiſme againe.
But I would fayne know how you can prove that theſe holy mē did ſuffer opē known ſinne, or ſuffering it were not defiled therby? defiled I ſay not in their communion which was typical, but in their conſent which was Spiritual. But this point I muſt thus leave wayting for your anſwer: For I avouch that either the ſinnes which they ſuffered were not knowne: or if they were knowne they were defiled by them: & ſo not repenting of them, al their worship was defiled to themſelves, but yet being ceremonially cleane their communion in ceremonial worship was not vncleane vntounto others. & if you doe object vntounto me that their Spiritual communion was polluted vntounto others: I anſwer that their moral or Spiritual communion was inviſible, & ſo could not pollute others: & ther viſible communion was typical & ceremonial, & that only polluted others: For ſuch as was ther communion, ſuch was ther pollution: Ther communion viſible being typical did only polute typicaly our communion viſible being moral or Spiritual doth pollute vsus moraly & Spiritually. Now I doe confeſſe vntounto you, that by ther typical Church, miniſtery, worship, & government, Spiritual things were ſignified both for them & for vsus: For them the morality or Spiritual ſignification was double, viz: 1. that the Lord required that they should be that indeed which was typed vntounto them, els they could not be accepted. 2. That in them they ought to ſee as in a glaſſe the glorious condition of the Church, miniſterie, worship, & government of the new Teſtament, which were shadowed out by thoſe ceremonies: For vsus the moral or Spiritual ſignification is, that except we be correſpondent, in our conſtitution, miniſterie, worship, & Government, to thoſe types of the old Teſtament, our conſtitution, miniſterie, worship & government, is either jewish, or paganish, & therfor Antichriſtian: Herevppon thus may I reaſon againſt you moſt ſoundly & therin you Mr. Bern. shal have your mouth ſo ſtopped as that you shal never be able to reply, or once to mutter againſt the truth any more except you have a cauterized conſcience, viz.
If in the Old Teſtament ther viſible typical communion was typically polluted by typical & ceremonial vncleannes vncleanſed: Then in the New Teſtament our Spiritual viſible communion is really poluted by moral vncleanenes vncleanſed, that is, ſinne vnrepented of.
But in the old Teſtament, ther viſible typical cōmunion was typicaly poluted by the typical & ceremonial vncleanes vncleanſed.
Therfor in the new teſtament our viſible Spiritual cōmunion is realy poluted by moral vncleanes vncleanſed, that is ſinne vnrepented of.
The major cannot be denyed for it is a juſt analogie & proportion from the type to the truth, from the shadow to the ſubſtance.
The minor is evidently confirmed by theſe places of Scripture, compared together. Nomb. 19.13.20. Hag. 2.14. Act. 21.28.29.
Againe: If in the old Teſtament the perſons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes, we excluded from the tabernacle or the hoſt of Iſrael: then in the new Teſtament perſons morally vncleane by impenitency, during the tyme of ther impenitency, muſt be excluded from the communion and fellowſhip of the true viſible Church.
But in the old Teſtament perſons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes were excluded from the tabernacle or hoſt of Iſrael, as may be ſeen: Nomb. 5.2-4 & 12.14.15. 2. Chron. 26.21.
Terfor in the New Teſtament perſons morally vncleane by impenitency, during the tyme of ther impenitency, muſt be excluded from the communion of the true viſible Church.
But I shal have better occaſion hereafter, namely in the 8. Section, to manifeſt this particular, whither I referre the reader.
Breeflie I anſwer concerning David his ſuffering of loabs murther: The Kings of Iudah ſuffering the braſen Serpent to be worshipped, & the high places: Moſes giving the bill of divoice: that eyther they knew them not to be ſinne, or if they knew thē that they were polluted therwith by conſent: but yet ther typical communion was not defiled ther by if they were ceremonialy cleane: they therfor being typicaly Saynts were true matter of the typical Church, & for the Church of Corinth, & the Churches of Aſia, I anſwere that they were not impenitent in ſinne, & ſo were Saynts: For know you that not ſinne but impenitency in ſinne maketh mē a falſe matter of a church: making ſaynts no ſaynts Now how can you prove that either the Corinthians or the Churches of Aſia were impenitent after once & twiſe admonition? I think it paſſeth your skil to prove that, & therfor I think this ſecond objection of yours to be idle & of no value.
Your third objection & reaſon is that the places of Scripture which we bring declare what men ought to be not what men are: & you ſay we cannot conclude from the places of Scripture we bring, that bicauſe men are commaunded ſo to be, therfor if they be not ſo they are none of Gods people.
To this objection & reaſon I anſwer: that hereby you confeſſe, that the L. requireth that al the members of the viſible Church should be Saynts: whence I alſo conclude that ſeing they ought ſo to be, therfor if they be not ſo they are otherwiſe then they ought to be, & ſo by conſequent, if the Church be framed of thoſe that are not Saynts, it is framed of another matter then the Scripture appointeth: & I would know if that be not a falſe matter. Moreover I avouch flatly contradictory vntounto you that if men be not as God commaundeth, they are none of his people: but you are to know that true repentance is the true tryal of a Saynt, or of one of Gods people: & impenitency is an evident declaration that the partie therwith affected is none of Gods people: Therfor you muſt obſerve the difference betwixt the commaundements Legal, & Evangelical: The commaundements legal require abſolute obedience in the higheſt degres therof: The goſpell requireth true & vnfeyned repentance in the beſt degre we can aford: I would not have you think that wee imagine men should beframed in obedience abſolutely according to the exactnes of the low, For wee are not vnderunder the law: no: wee only hold that men muſt in vnfeyned deſire & endevour yeld obedience to the law, & repent of al that wherin they are defective: & this is the obedience of the goſpel which is acceptable, for wee are vnderunder grace: wherfor Mr. Bern. if you doe conceave that we intend the moſt perfect obedience of the law as a proper adjunct or formall difference of a Saynt, you are very groſſe in your apprehenſion: if you conceave that we entend that men should be abſolutely according to the goſpel in faith & repentance, or els to be none of Gods people, then your conceipt is true & fit, but your objection is frivolous & ridiculous: For then men either are ſo or none of Gods people, & this doth our places of Scripture which we quote, prove, for any thing you yet have manifeſted to the contrary: when wee ſee you manifeſt otherwiſe, you shal receave anſwer, in the meane tyme you have diſcovered your ſelf to be but a wrangler.
Your fourth objection & reaſon is, for that Saints in Scripture are not ſo called, 1. eyther for ſoundnes of knowledg, 2. or internal pure affection, 3. or holy practiſe of their duty alwayes: But, 1. For their outward calling to Chriſtianity, 2. For their profeſſion of faith, 3. in…eſpect of their baptiſme, 4. in regard of the better part, 5. or in reſpect of the viſible ſignes of Gods favour, 6. & Gods good pleaſure.
I anſwer you thus: you deny three things & affirme ſix: I doe poremptorily deny your three negatives: & I conſtantly affirme; that ſound knowledg, pure affections, & continual obedience are moſt pregnant and couvertible properties off true Sanctification.
Soundnes of knowledg is a proper note of life Eternall. Iohn. 17.3. Heb. 8.11. & ſo a true note of Sanctification. Tit. 1.16. & that which you bring of Chriſts Diſciples, being ignorant of many things (which we acknowledg) is nothing for your purpoſe: For you ſpeak not of perfect knowledg, but of ſound knowledg, & that Epithete doth not argue the quantity or perfect meaſure, but the quality or true condition of knowledg which I do avouch by the former groundes to be a true convertible ſigne of ſanctification, & ſo of a Saynt.
Pure affection alſo is another true token of Sanctification. Matt. 5.8. 1. Tim. 1.5, Tit. 1.15. which pure hart or affection is not a hart voyde of ſinn, but of hipocriſy, & for that you object of Paul, Rom. 7.18.21. it is nothing to overthrow his pure affection: For though he had ſinne, yet he know nothing by himſelf, whereof he had not repented.
Continuall practiſe of Holy dutyes, alſo is a true ſigne of a Saynt, or a Sanctified perſon, Pſal. 119.101.102.106.112. And although Eccleſiaſtes ſaith that ther is no man without ſinne, vet that hindreth not, but that ſome may continualy practiſe their dutyes, ſith this is the ſumme of al, that by repentāce & faith which are the continual practiſe of the Saynts, a man doth alwayes performe his duty: & the ſpeech of Ecleſtaſtes is the ſentence of the law, not of the goſpel.
But heerin is your monſtrous fraud and abhominable diſſembling manifeſted, that vnderunder theſe doubtful termes of ſound knowledg pure affection & practiſe of duty allwayes, you would bleare mens eyes that they should not ſee the truth: VVhat doe you think that any of vsus would be ſo abſurd as to ſay that perfect knowledg, love, & obedience, without any imperfection or fault are the ſignes of Sanctification? And yet wee ſay, that ſound knowledg, a pure hart, and continual practiſe of Holy dutyes are the moſt infallible tokens of true Saynts, and men truly Sanctified: But you are wholly transformed as I perceave into vayne jangling.
In the next place I doe acknowledg that your fix affirmatives are ſomthing to the purpoſe: But nevertheleſſe you have mingled much chaffe with the wheate: wherfore breefly in all that which you write page 85. 86. 87. 88, Concerning this matter I doe obſerve theſe particulars: Namely, 1. That although an outward calling, profeſſion, and baptiſme to the faith be part of the ſignes of Saynts: Namely, viſible markes outwardly: yet they muſt be thus qualified, els they are nothing but pictures, or images, reſembling & shadowing Sanctification ſuperficialy: For they muſt be true & inward alſo: True calling, profeſſion & baptiſme: & inward calling, profeſſion, & baptiſme, are the infallible tokens of Sanctification and Saynts: The inward muſt be diſcerned by the outward, the truth muſt be judged by the word: He that is ſo called, ſo profeſſeth, is ſo baptiſed as the word teacheth: that is to ſay: He that is called and Seperated from the VVorld, Antichriſtianiſme, & all falſe wayes knowne vntounto him: he that profeſſeth that true faith, taught in the New Teſtament of Chriſt, which is but one: he that is baptiſed into that true faith, after that true manner Chriſt hath preſcribed, I muſt needs ſay that he is truly called, truly profeſſeth, is truly baptized, and ſo he by reaſon of his outward true calling, true profeſſion of the true faith, and true baptiſme is diſcerned & judged to be inwardly called, inwardly to have faith, to be inwardly baptized, & that truly. A company of men thus called, profeſſing, & baptized, are Saynts: But if half ot but ſome of them only be thus, & the reſt impenitent & obſtinate in ſinne, it cannot poſſibly be that they should joyntly together be a true Church: being light & darkenes, righteouſnes & impenitency, Chriſt and Belial: or being joyned together, thoſe former called, profeſſing, & baptized, doe forſake their righteouſnes, & partake with the wicked in their ſinnes, and ſo shal receave of their plagues: How then can that mixt company be called Saynts, yea they are aſ acceſſary to fearful ſinne before the Lord, & before men judging according to the rules of Gods word, which is the touchſtone of al truth: & according wherevnto all our judgments muſt be ſquared, as by a canon & rule of direction.
2. The better part, viſible ſignes of Gods favour and preſence, Gods good pleaſure & acceptation, are excellent reſpects in the Church: But they are not demonſtrative proper adjuncts of ſaynts ſufficiēt to cauſe a mixt company to be al ſaynts in definition: But you ſpeak of a mixt company one way, & wee vnderſtand a mixt company another way: You define a mixt company to be of men that are truly Sanctified and men openly wicked & profane: I for my part doe abhorre to call ſuch a Company Saynts: Nay I should rather and that truly call ſuch a mixt Company a falſe Church, and all of them viſiblie Antichriſtians: Neyther doe I any whitt quayle that you ſay all divines ſay-ſo: I know ther is o…, namely Iohn the divine, & the reſt of the Apoſtles that teach the contrary & if the divinity of your divines be contrary to the divinity of the Apoſtles & Iohn that worthy divine I reject it, I abhorre it, I wish it caſt to the bottomleſſe pit, from whence it came: For know you Mr. Bern. that the worſer part ſomtyme giveth denomination to the thing If a peck of wheate be intermingled with an hundreth quartar of chaffe, it is not a heape of wheate, but of chaffe: if a pint of wine be mingled with a gallon of lees, it is the lees of wine not wine: you know in Logick concluſio ſequitur deteriorem partem. Now a company of wicked men having ſome few Saynts known only to the Lord among thē (for being mingled with the wicked in Spiritual communion, they cannot be judged Saynts by the rule of Gods word to man particularly & certaynly) as your aſſemblies of England are, cannot be al caled Saynts in any colour of truth: For then al the men of England are Saynts, ſeing they al are joyned together into one Eccleſiaſtical body, which I ſuppoſe you cannot nor dare not ſay the Scripture ever intended ſo to give them denomination: but you muſt vnderſtand that we acknowledg the viſible Church a mixt company in the Lords account & eſtimation, & in our general comprehenſion: For ſo wee learne that the viſible Church conſiſteth of wheate & tares, Mat. 13. The Lord he knoweth that the Church hath Hypocrites in it, & we are informed ſo by the ſcriptures: ther were but twelve Apoſtles, & one of them was a Devil: but eight perſons in the Arck, & curſed Cham was one: but foure perſons in the beginning & Runagate Kain was one: but ſtil we deny that open wicked impenitent perſons can be called Saynts, bicauſe of the communion & preſence of ſome elect ones who are only known vntounto the Lord, being of one eccleſiaſtical body with the wicked.
Neither can a wicked company be called Holy or Saints truly in reſpect of the viſible ſignes of Gods favour or preſence, For then the Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, Familiſts, Arrians, & among them & Exod. 3.5. the ground was caled Holy: & Mat. 4.5. Ieruſalem is caled the Holy cittie, typicaly not truly, as I have expounded vntounto you before in reſpect whereof alſo the Lord is ſaid to ſee no iniquity in Iacob, nor tranſgreſſion in Iſrael, Nomb. 23.21-ſeing that people at that preſent was typically Holy & ſo typically without imputation of iniquity in reſpect of their typical communion.
And for the Parable, Mat. 13. of the wheate & tares I doe conſtantly avouch that though you & al divines with you doe expound it of open wicked impenitent perſons, & Saints, ſuppoſed in communion together, yet the parable is wreſted from the true purpoſe of Chriſt, who doth not intend to teach that, for then he should teach contrary to himſelf, who by the parable of the Leaven declareth that one wicked perſone defileth the whole lump, Mat. 13.33 compared with 1. Cor. 5.6 Exod. 12.18,
And whe…eas in the concluſion of this point, pag. 88. you would prove that, bicauſe the auncient Church of the Seperation have (as you ſay) wicked men among them: therfor the parable Mat. 13. is truly expounded in that ſenſe of a mixture of good & bad: I ſay for that point as the parents of the blind man ſaid, they are auncient enough, lett them anſwer for themſelves.
And thus have I ended this parallele with you Mr. Bern. & concerning Mr. Ainſworth who renounceth this Holy truth of the Lords, which I have thus clered, I ſay hereby he renounceth the ſaith in this particular, & renounceth the Apoſtles teſtimony, who ſaith, they went out from vsus, they were not of vsus, for had they been of vsus, they would have continued with vsus, 1. Ioh. 2.19.