A Treatise of the Church, Book 2 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Of the matter and forme of the viſible Church.
AS theſe men doe greatly erre in their deſcription of the viſible Church, ſo doe they likewiſe in other points touching the ſame, and namely about the matter and forme thereof.Iuſtification 88. & 82. The conſtitution of the Church, (ſaith M. Robinſon) is the orderly collection and coniunction of the Saints into and in the couenant of the new Teſtament: wherein the Saints are the matter, the couenant the forme, from which two concurring the Church ariſeth, and is by them conſtituted. And in another place deliuering the very ſame with this, hee addeth: And this is that which giues true being of a Church, and nothing elſe. Becauſe of this let vsus ſo much the more carefully ſeeke out the true matter a…d forme of the viſible Church: and remember that if the Separiſts miſtake the matter and forme of the viſible Church, as the trueth is they doe, they cannot iudge aright of the Church, and therefore their iudgement and account of our Church is to be deſpiſed.
We hold (as hath already beene ſaide) men, not Angels, or any other creatures, but a company of men to be the matter of the viſible Church; and the profeſsion of true Religion to be the forme. So that whereſoeuer there is a company of men ioyning together in the profeſsion of true Religion, the ſame is, and may truely be called a viſible Church.
The Seperators teach otherwiſe, and firſt that Saints are the matter of the viſible Church: forgetting that a company of Saints are a Church by the Teſtimony of the holy Ghoſt as before hath beene ſhewed in the third Chapter of the firſt booke: and therefore ſuch a ſocietie containeth in it as well the forme as the matter, without both which nothing can be.
But we muſt know that howſoeuer the Separiſts, euen all of them agree in this, That Saints are the matter of the viſible Church; yet notwithſtanding they diſagree (at leaſt in appearance) about the matter: becauſe they differ about theſe Saints, who,Inſtif. 105. principles and Inferen…es 10. M. Smith in his Anſwere to M. Be…n rd 27 28. Separatiſts, Schiſme. 83. Counterp. 174. and what they be. Saints (ſay ſome of them) are a people forſaking all knowne ſinne, doing all the knowne will of God, growing in grace, and continuing to the ende: and theſe (ſay M. Smith, and M. Robinſon) are the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church.
This being conuinced by ſome of our ſide, M. Ainſworth anſwereth thus: This poſition (meaning the aforeſaide deſcription of Saints, and that ſuch are the matter of the viſi. church) I deny, and alſo diſclaime the errors which be gathered from it: and therefore will ſpend no time in anſwering it: but referre M. Bernard to them that hauehave ſo ſpoken or written, if any be. This we hold (and let vsus ſee what M. Bernard can ſay againſt it) That Saints by calling are the onelyonly matter of a true viſible church. For confutation of this, that M. Ainſworth and the more auncient of this ſchiſme doe maintaine, that little which hath beene ſaide may ſuffice: and the rather becauſe but a litle before, M. Ainſworth accordeth with vsus, and is as contrary to himſelfe herein as we be.Counterp. 170. To the conſtitution of a Church (ſaith he) there belong 1. A people, as the matter whereof, and 2. A calling, gathering, and vniting together, as the forme whereof the Church conſiſteth. Where obſerue how he contradicteth himſelfe. 1. Hee expreſſely affirmeth, that a people, (which is the ſame that wee teach, a company of men) are the matter of the viſible Church, and heere that Saints by calling are the onelyonly matter. In the one place he makes calling a part of the forme, in the other part of the matter.
But I maruell greatly M. Ainſworth that you ſcornfully reiect this deſcription of Saints, ſeeing it ſuteth ſo well with all the writings, and namely that whole booke of yours, called,Communion of Saints. 66. The Communion of Saints. In it you writ thus. All men and women called to the faith of God, are Saints by calling; being ſanctified by Chriſt Ieſus, and one with another are holy brethren. Saints by calling by your owne expoſition are thoſe, who, 1. by Faith are vnited to Chriſt, and 2. by louelove one to another, and 3. are ſanctified by Chriſt Ieſus, that is by his Spirit dwelling in them. He is very ignorant who thinketh that theſe hauehave not forſaken all knowne ſinne, and doe all the knowne will of God, that is, deſire and endeauor it: and he hath cleane forgotten that of the Apoſtle, If Chriſt be in you the body is dead becauſe of ſinne, and the Spirit is life for righteouſnes ſake, which euidently prooueth the ſame.Rom. 8.10. Moreouer you tell vsus in the ſame booke,communion of Saints in the end of the booke. That in the Saints ſinne dieth, and righteouſneſſe renueth daily, both inwardly and outwardly: yea that in the Hypocrites which be in the Church, righteouſneſſe increaſeth outwardly. If theſe poſitions of yours bee true, not vnfitly nor vntruly do they teach, that ſaints are men for ſaking all knowne ſinne, doing all the known will of God: and increaſing in grace, Conſidering they meane externally, and ſo farre as men can iudge.
You all teach that a true viſible Church conſiſteth onelyonly of Saints; and by Saints you meane ſuch as hauehave at the leaſt external righteouſneſſe, and liue vnblameablie in an holy conuerſation before men. And becauſe all in our Church bee not ſuch Saints, but many ſcandalous in their liues, you condemne vsus for a falſe Churſe: This you cannot denie to bee true. Is it not hereby manifeſt, that all of you in effect, though not in the ſame wordes doe likewiſe teach: That Saints are men ſeperated from all knowne ſinne, doing all the will of God knowne? doeth not that externall righteouſneſſe and outward ſanctimony which you require in all Saints, and memb…rs of the viſible Church, imp…y as much as theſe men heere ſpeake? can any be vnblamable (which you require in all Saints,) who forſaketh not before men all knowne ſinne, and doeth not all the knowne will of God? Why then doe you diſclaime this diſcription of Saints? You render this reaſon: becauſe from this diſcription diuers errors doe ariſe, and therefore it muſt needes bee erronious, and fa fe. All this I confeſſe to be true. Can you diſcerne this poſition or diſcription being taught by another to be erronious, and that from it ſun…ry errors doe growe, whereupon you diſclaime it and them: and hauehave you not an eye to ſee, and an heart to abhorre and diſclaime the ſame doctrine when it is taught by your ſelfe?
But though M. Ainſworth diſclaime this abbortiue, yet M. Robinſon being more naturall doeth take to it.Iuſtif. 105. This poſition (quoth he) which you M. Bernard account error, rightly vnderſtood, and according to his expoſition from whom you receiued it, (meaning M. Smith) is an vndoubted trueth. For of ſuch onelyonly (externally, and ſo farre as men can iudge) the true Church is gathered▪ and of them alone framed, as of the ſubiect matter. Seeing therefore you doe fully agree about the matter of the viſible church, and that your ſelues and others miſtake it, in thinking that you doe heere abouts differ: knowe that that which followeth againſt your ſuppoſed matter of the viſible Church, is meant and ſpoken againſt you all, and that iuſtly: becauſe it maketh as well againſt all of the ſeperation, as any.
Firſt, then I demaund of you, who teach that Saints are a people forſaking all knowne ſinne, doing all the knowne will of God, increaſing in grace, &c. And that ſuch are the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church: whether a company of people thus qual…fied, and graced of God, be a Church: or to be held to be without, and a Synagogue of Satan. Surely you will bluſh and be aſhamed to anſwere negatiuely. And if you anſwere, that ſuch a ſocietie is a Church, then hauehave we a Church conſiſting onelyonly of matter, without the forme for ſuch a people as theſe (ſay you) are the matter of a true viſible Church, wherevnto the forme remaineth to bee added, which what it is you tell vsus after. Now you know it is vtterly vnpoſsible that a Church (or any thing elſe) ſhould be without the forme: ſeeing the forme giues being to a thing, but ſet downe after another manner.
Secondly, it cannot bee denied but ſuch Saints as theſe, are Conuerts; yea ſo farre as man can iudge truely conuerted to the Lord. If the Church conſiſt of ſuch perſons onelyonly, it followeth neceſſarily therevpon that men are conuerted, not in the Church by the Miniſterie of the Paſtors and Teachers thereof, but without, I know not by whom, nor by what meanes: which is as falſe, as your ſeperation is ſinfull, and therefore is this your doctrine falſe from whence this is inferred.
Indeed I know that this inference is with you orthodoxall: For in your Apologie among the Poſitions you were bold to tender to his Maieſtie this is one: That diſcreet, faithfull,Apology 45. and able men though not yet in office of Miniſterie, may bee appointed to preach the Goſpell and whole truth of God: that men being firſt brought to knowledge and conuerted to the Lord, may then be ioyned in holy communion with Chriſt our head, and one with an other. And for confirmation therof you produce ſeuenteene teſtimonies of holy writ, and ſeuen reaſons. But to let your abuſe of Scripture, and of that reaſon which God hath giuen you goe: I tell you this doctrine and poſition of yours is againſt Scripture, and therefore as impoſsible to be proued either by Scripture or Reaſon. By the fourth of the Epheſians it is plaine that Chriſt aſcending on high gaue Paſtors and Teachers to the Church; as well for the gathering together of the Saints, that is, for the calling of men to the faith, or conuerting them to God, whereby men before profane and wicked, are made Saints or holy ones: as for the edifying and building vp of theſe Saints in the faith, and other graces of the Spirit, after they be called. You teach now the direct contrary: that Chriſt hath not giuen his Miniſters, Paſtors and Teachers to the former of theſe ends aforeſaid, which is alſo the principall, but hath (ſay you) appointed, that men not in the Miniſtery, but priuate, (no Church officers) ſhould conuert men to the Lord: and the Miniſters of Chriſt are onelyonly to edifie and build them vp in grace. So that priuate men they lay the foundation, Miniſters doe but onelyonly erect and build further vponupon that which they hauehave laid. Theſe diſcreete priuate men they alone are fathers, begetting men to the faith, and as for the Miniſters they are but nurſes, to giuegive ſucke, nouriſh and bring vp men in it. Thus you doe not onelyonly croſſe this Scripture, and ordinance of Chriſt, who hath perpetually appointed Paſtors and Teachers in the Church to the aboue-named ends: but doe alſo hereby prefer priuate mens teachings aboue Miniſters. For is it not a matter of great power and excellencie to conuert men vntounto God, then to confirme them that be conuerted? and to beget men to the faith, then to nouriſh them that are begotten? Conſider what I ſay, and the Lord open your eyes that you may ſee your errour. But leauing this, hearken what further reaſons we hauehave againſt your deſcription of Saints, and matter of the viſible Church.
Thirdly, I hauehave in the former Chapter ſhewed that many hauehave been members of the viſible Church that hauehave wanted, externall holineſſe, yea being outwardly and openly prophane: this to a wiſe man may ſuffice for the confutation of this deſcription, yea of all that you teach concerning both the matter and forme of the viſible Church. Cain, Iſmael, Eſau, Saul, Doeg, Ioab, Abſalom, Iudas, the Scribes and Phariſes were all of the viſible Church, and yet not thus qualified. Nay as contrary to theſe Saints, as darkneſſe to light, and as farre from this ſanctimonie, as heauen is from earth. Such Saints then as you ſpeake of are not the matter of the viſible Church: For then the aforeſaid perſons were not of the viſible Church, (ſeeing they were not ſuch matter) which I truſt you will not affirme. And if ſuch vvicked and abominable men as theſe, openly and apparantly wicked, were matter of the viſible Church, and vvere Saints, to wit, by calling, or by profeſsion, which kinde of Saint-ſhip ſufficeth to make men members of the viſible Church, how do you truely affirme, That all Saints are men ſeperated from all knowne ſinne, doing all the knowne will of God, growing in grace, and continuing to the end: and that ſuch are the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church? And with what truth doe you teach, that all the members of the viſible Church hauehave been, are, and of neceſsitie muſt be outwardly holy, hauing an externall righteouſneſſe, for which cauſe they bee called Saints: ſo as if men bee not thus qualified, they are not true matter, neither of, nor in the Church. But proceede wee now from the Church of the Iewes vnderunder the Law, to the Churches of the Gentiles vnderunder the Goſpel, and ſpecially to the primatiue and pureſt Churches that hauehave been: which you thinke are ſo cleere for you, and againſt vsus, as nothing can bee more cleere and euident.
In the Church of Corinth there were many very corrupt men, ſome in iudgement, others in manners and conuerſation, or in both. To omit diuers of their errours, ſome helda1. Cor. 6.12.13. fornication to be lawfull, or a thing indifferent, as to eate or to drinke: others that which was farre worſe, and more dangerous, thatb1. Cor. 12.20 there was no reſurrection, which cauſed the Apoſtle by many reaſons to proue it. In the ſame Church there was greatc2. Cor. 12.20 & 1. Cor. 1.11. & 3.3. ſtrife, enuying, wrath, contentions, back bitings, whiſperings, ſwellings, diſcord, and as about other things, ſo namely their Miniſters, ſome depending of one, ſome of other, ſome deſpiſing all, did call themſelues the Diſciples of Chriſt, and would heare none. In it there were diuers whom Paul not onelyonly callethd1. Cor. 3.3. carnall, but by ſome vvorkes of the fleſh vvherevnto they were giuen, proueth to be carnall, and to walke as men, that is to liue as thoſe who be more naturall men, not hauing the ſpirit. In the ſame Church there were not onelyonly thate1. Cor. 6.1.6.8. went to Law together, a brother (I ſay) with a brother, and that vnderunder vniuſt and infidell Iudges, but that did wrong and harme, euen to their brethren. In it there were which liuedf2. Cor. 12.21. in vncleannes and fornication & wantonnes: yea there could not but be many ſornicators, conſidering they held fornication to be no ſinne: from whence it is that Paul vſethg1. Cor. 6.13. ſundry forcible reaſons to dehort them from this ſin, and thoſe words chap. 5.9. I wrote vntounto you in an Epiſtle that yee ſhould not company together with fornicators: and leaſt they ſhould miſtake him, he telleth thē that he meaneth not this of them that were without the church the Infidels, but of the fornicators that were in the church, that profeſſed the Chriſ. Relig: Nay, ther was h1. Cor. 5.1.ſuch fornication among thē as was not once named or heard of among the Gentiles, that one ſhould hauehave his fathers wiſe. And that which is more, the delinquent for ſo haynous a ſin was not at all cenſured: yea they were not ſo much as ſorry at ſo great a ſcandall in the Church, but this notwithſtanding & whatſoeuer things beſides were amiſſe in their Church, they were puffed vp, and reioyed as though all were well, and nothing amiſſe. There were in this Church that went to the Lords table,i1. Cor. 11.17.18.21.29.30. not to their profit, but to their hurt, eating and drinking vnworthily, not diſcerning the Lords body, and ſo did eate and drinke their owne iudgement: by reaſon of the diſcentions among them, they would not tarie one for another, and ſome being drunke went to the Lords Supper. In it there were alſo that calledk1. Cor. 9.1.2.3. the Apoſtle his office into queſtion, deſpiſed and diſgraced both him and his preaching, ſaying, That howſoeuer l2. Cor. 10.1.10. & 11.6.he being abſent was very bold in his letters, yet when hee was preſent, and among them, he was baſe; his bodily preſence weake, and his ſpeech of no value, nay, ruder in ſpeaking. And thus they preferred their vaine-glorious and eloquent teachers, and their Miniſters whom2. Cor. 2.1.4. came vntounto them with axcellency of words and in the intiſing ſpeech of mans wiſedome, more like orators, then Preachers of the Goſpell, aboue the holy Apoſtle and his heauenly miniſterie. Moreouer in this Church there were that accuſed S. Paul of pillage, and to be a craftie and ſubtile man; that howſoeuer he did not openly take wages and charge them, yet ſor as muchn2. Cor. 12.16.17. he was craftie, he tooke ſome ſecretly and by guilc. Did I pil you ſaith the Apo: by any of them whom I ſent vntounto you? as I am accuſed to hauehave done? Thus there were in the Church of Corinth who did not onelyonly deny S. Paul to bee an Apoſtle, debaſe his preaching, but that did beſides touching his …fe and conuerſation ſlaunder him, and take away his good name as much as in them lay.
In the churches of Galatia, there were diuers falſe Apoſtles, who taught the right…ouſneſſe of workes that man is …ot iuſtified by faith onelyonly in Chriſt, but by obſeruing and keep ng the Law of God giuen by Moſes; not the Law morrall onelyonly, but the ceremoniall alſo: whereupon they vrged circumciſion, as ne…eſſary for Chriſtians vntounto ſaluation. This was very dangerous doctrine and pernitious, ouerturning (as I may ſay) the foundation, which made the Apoſtle to write thus;Gal. 5.2. If yee bee circumciſed, (as the falſe teachers which be among you would hauehave you) Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing, 3. For I teſtifie againe to eueryevery man which is circūciſed, that he is boūd to keepe the whole law, 4. Yee are aboliſhed from Chriſt: whoſoeuer are iuſtified by the law, yee are fallen from grace. And becauſe S. Paul had formerly in the planting of theſe Churches taught Iuſtification by Faith onelyonly in Chriſt without the workes of the Lawe, as alſo that the ceremoniall Lawe giuen by Moſes, was by Chriſt aboliſhed, which doctrine being true, theirs muſt needes be falſe: therefore they ſaid that Paul was no Apoſtle, but ſpake of himſelfe and preached mans doctrine, not Gods: but as for them, they came not of themſelues but were ſent oſ the chiefe Apoſtles. This doctrine ſo dangerous, theſe ſeducers did no more readily teach, then the Galatians receiue and beleeue, as appeareth by theſe ſpeeches of the Apoſtle:Gal. 1.6. I maruell that yee are ſo ſoone remooued away vntounto another Goſpell, from him that had called you in the grace of Chriſt. And againe. O fooliſh Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you ſhould not obey the trueth?
Ye now which teach glorious things of all the members of the viſible Church, anſwere mee. Were all in the Churches of Galatia and Corinth ſuch Saints as you ſpeake of? Were they that denied the reſurrection; that were giuen to ſtrife, enuying, wrath, contentions, backbitings, whiſperings, ſwellings and diſcord; that liued in vncleanneſſe, fornication, and wantonneſſe; that denied Paul to be an Apoſtle, diſgraced and deſpiſed both him and his preachings traduced and ſlaundered him: Were theſe (I ſay) ſeperated from all knowne ſinne, and did all the knowne will of God ſo farre as men can iudge? Did theſe growe in grace, and therein continue to the ende: or (as M. Ainſworth ſaith) Did righteouſneſſe encreaſe outwardly in theſe? Of the moſt of which the Apoſtle ſaith thus:Gal. 3.3. & 4.92 Are yee ſo fooliſh that after yee hauehave begun in the Spirit, ye would be made perfect in the fleſh' Alſo how turne ye againe vntounto impotent and beggerly rudiments, whereunto as from the beginning you will be in bondage againe? Or had theſe that externall righteouſneſſe, and outward ſanctimonie or holineſſe, which you ſay all in the viſible Church hauehave? M. Robinſon in a large Treatiſe of his lately ſet foorth,Iuſtif. 107. hath theſe words: It is all one M. Bernard as if you ſhould ſay, the Scriptures doe not call men Saints, becauſe they are Saints, but for ſome other cauſes knowne to you. For what is it to be a Saint, but to be holy? And what to be holy, but to be of a ſound iudgement, pure affections, and vnblameable conuerſation? That which this man heere ſaith, they all doe hold, and this is one ſpeciall ſtone whereat they often ſtumble. I demaund therefore of them all, whether all the Corinthians and Galatians I ſpeake of were ſuch Saints and holy ones as they teach all in the viſible Church are: and namely whether they were of a ſound iudgement, pure affections, and vnblameable conuerſation? If they anſwere affirmatiuely that they were; all men will cry, fye vponupon it: and then the inceſtuous perſon in the church of Corinth, & the falſe teachers among the Galatians were ſuch, to wit, men of a ſound iudgement, pure affections, & vnblamable conuerſation. If they anſwer negatiuely, then (foraſmuch as theſe were in the Church) ſome are in the Church, who are not Saints and ſo to be called, which is againſt their owne doctrine; or then ſome are in the church who are not ſuch Saints, as theſe men ſay all in the viſible church are and muſt be.
And here we are to remember theſe things. 1. That many of the perſons we ſpeake of were openly wicked. That theſe were godly men, and Saints indeede, hauing their hearts purified by Faith, no man (ſure) will affirme. If they were not godly, then which muſt needes be true of ſome of them, I meane the falſe teachers among the Galatians, becauſe againſt them Paul wiſheth or prayeth thus:Epheſ. 5.12. Would to God they were euen cut of, which doe diſquiet you: which hee would neuer hauehave done had they beene godly. And if they were wicked then openly wicked, and knowne to be ſo, becauſe their ſins were open and knowne to men. 2. Wee muſt remember, that theſe Churches when S. Paul writ vntounto them were true viſible Churches: which muſt needes bee, becauſe by the holy Ghoſt they are ſo called and intituled: and this the Separiſtes doe readily acknowledge, yea that they were of the pureſt Churches that hauehave beene. 3. That all the members of a true viſible Church are Saints by nomination; ſo called in Scripture: and conſequently all theſe aforeſaide in the Churches of Corinth & Galatia. This alſo the Separiſtes will freely confeſſe. 4. We muſt know that all which be once admitted into the church, do remaine members of the ſame Church (be they neuer ſo wicked) vntill either they themſelues depart from it, or elſe by excommunication be caſt out: and that cōſequently all the ſcandalous perſons aforeſaid were in and of the Church, y…a the inceſtuous man till hee was excommunicated. This they of the Seperation will likewiſe acknowledge to be true.
Now from the premiſes theſe two concluſions doe neceſſarily follow. 1. That a ſocietie of men wherein be ſundry wicked, yea openly wicked, may notwithſtanding be a true church. 2. That the open wicked and ſcandalous perſons in the church are Saints by nomination: and the Scripture doe ſometimes call men Saints, not becauſe they are holy, but for ſome other cauſes or reſpects, whereof hath beene ſpoken in the former Chapter.
The Browniſts teach concluſions directly contrary to theſe, which is the cauſe of their erring ſo groſſely in the doctrine of the viſible Church, and the principall cauſe of their condemning our Church to be a falſe Church, and conſequently of ſeperating from vsus. But whether they or wee doe herein agree with the Scriptures, let the Chriſtian Reader iudge.
Some other arguments did I long ſince ſet down againſt your aforeſaide deſcription, and this That ſuch Saints as thoſe you dedeſcribe, be the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church: which M. Bernard hauing thought of alſo, and publiſhed, and M. Robinſon lately anſwered: I thought it ther fore beſt rather to ſpend ſome lines about a reply to M. Robinſon, then inlarging and preſſing thoſe arguments. It is true that both M. Ainſworth, and M. Smith hauehave likewiſe anſwered that Booke of M. Bernards, wherein the reaſons I meane are contained,The title of this booke is, Separatiſts, Schiſme. but we muſt know that there is nothing worth the anſwering in M. Smith, which M. Robinſon hath not, and as for M. Ainſworth, hee declaimes both the poſition, & the errors that be gathered from it, as before we hauehave heard, ſo that if M. Robinſon be anſwered, the reader may reſt therewith ſatisfied.
Againſt this doctrine then of yours wee ſay further: That this is rather a deſcription of the inviſible Church militant, and members thereof, then of the viſible Church. Hereunto M. Robinſon anſwereth thus.
Iuſtif. 105.All the true and lawfull members of the viſible Church, are to me members of the inviſible church, to me I ſay, which am bound to iudge them to be in trueth as outwardly they appeare: and ſo I am taught by the Apoſtle himſelfe, who accounts the whole viſible Church and eueryevery member of it Elect, redeemed, iuſtified, ſanctified, which are conditions competent to the inuiſible Church. Act. 20.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. Epheſ. 1.3.4.5. Gal 3.27. Phil. 1.4.5.6 7. And this is your entire anſwere to this obiection.
Reply. I confeſſe that if the viſible Church were (in your ſence) a people ſeperated from all knowne ſinne doing all the knowne will of God &c. As you teach: or a company hauing externall righteouſneſſe, and increaſing therein, as M. Ainſworth and all Separiſts doe hold, then were all the members of the viſible church, to vsus members of the inuiſible Church: becauſe outwardly they did appeare ſo to be, and we muſt (as you ſay well) iudge of men, as outwardly they appeare. But we muſt knowe that for as much as the viſible Church through the corruption of man, not by Gods appointment, hath in it as well bad men, as good; wicked as godly, and that in appearance and outward ſhewe, as well as in deede and trueth: that therefore euen by your owne reaſon we cannot deeme all of the viſible Church to be Elect, and of the inuiſible Church. They that were of Abrahams familie, which then was the Church, could not well iudge mocking Iſmael; nor they of Iſaaks familie, prophane Eſau to be Elect, and of the inuiſible Church. The ſame may be ſaide of Saule, Ioab, Abſalom, the Scribes and Phariſees whom to hauehave iudged to be of the inuiſible Church, had beene no better then to account them good, which were euill. Is this to iudge the tree by the fruits, whereunto the Scripture doth direct vsus?
But this the Apoſtle hath taught you. Nothing leſſe. For the Apoſtle in the titles and ſpeeches you mention and quoate, and ſuch like hath reſpect and reference to the Church, or faithfull inde de, (not in pro…eſſion onelyonly,) for whoſe ſake he did write his Epiſtles, nay the whole Scripture was inſpired. To them he meant all the ſpeeches he vſeth of this kinde, and of them onelyonly he would hauehave them to be vnderſtood, of whom onelyonly they are true, for they alone are Elect, redeemed, iuſtified, and ſanctified. And farre was it from Saint Paules meaning, to hauehave theſe ſpeeches & the like to be vnderſtood of the whole viſi: Church, and of eueryevery member of the ſame: amongſt whom hee knewe very well, that there were many reprobates, many which were not redeemed, not iuſtified, nor ſanctified. And this in the Chapter going before hauehave I ſhewed more at large. Beſides, the Apoſtle did not vndoubtedly account the falſe teachers in the churches of Galatia, (whom we cannot deny to be members of the ſaide Churches) members of the inuiſible Church: for then he would neuer hauehave prayed againſt them as he did:Epheſ. 5.12. Would to God they were cut off which trouble you. You learne not this then from the example of the Apoſtle, as you affirme. Thus wee ſee the inſufficiencie of your anſwere: the obiection therefore remaineth go…d againſt you, being yet vnanſwered.
Againe we obiect, That this deſcription of yours ſecludes hypocrites from being true matter of the viſible Church: and ſo there ſhould bee no hypocrites in the viſible Church, which is repugnant to the Scriptures.
Hereunto M. Robinſon anſwereth thus. And for hypocrites, Iuſtif. 106.as they may performe all the conditions here required (viſible or to vsus) as M. Smith hath anſwered: ſo doe we take knowledge of none ſuch in the Church, in the particular, till they be knowne in their day by the out-breakings of ſinne, and being ſo diſcouered, they are no longer to bee retained in the Church, but to beare their ſinne, except they repent, and then who can repute them hypocrites? And this is your full anſwere.
Reply. If here you will hauehave a full propoſition without your parentheſis, to wit, this: Hypocrites may performe all the conditions here required, then is it ſo palpably falſe as it needs no confutation. But if you vvill hauehave it part thereof, then is your parentheſis idle, and ſuperfluous: vvhichwhich is a fault alſo, though a leſſe then the former. You adde, that you take knowledge of no hypocrites in the viſible Church in the particular, vntill they bee knowne in their day by the out-breakings of ſinne. I reply: If your Churches bee ſuch holy and bleſſed ſocie…ies, as by your doctrine you beare the world in hand they be; all of them ſeparate from all knowne ſinne, doing all the knowne will of God, increaſing in grace, and abiding euer therein: it is no maruell though you know no hypocrites in none of your Churches: but if we may giuegive credit either to mens reports or vvritings concerning your Churches, then wee are ſure there be ſome in your Churches vvhichwhich may as eaſily be knowne to be hypocrites, as Chaulke from Cheeſe. But leauing your iudgement concerning hypocrites, and your Churches; we muſt know, that other men in other Churches, hauehave taken knowledge of hypocrites in the particular, or at leaſt might lawfully ſo hauehave done: as the Apoſtles, Zacharias, Ioſeph, with other faithfull then liuing, who did (no doubt) know the Scribes and Phariſees to be hypocrites, and ſo accounted them. And here vve may remember, that which hath been taught before: That there be in the Church two ſorts of hypocrites. Firſt, cloſe hypocrites, which being goates and children of darknes, doe yet goe in ſheepes clothing, and are like to the children of light, hauing an externall righteouſneſſe. Such vvere Iudas and Demas. Secondly,1. Tim. 5.24. open or manifeſt hypocrites, ſuch as Iſmael, Eſau, Abſalon, with others. The firſt kinde of hypocrites cannot bee knowne in particular, vntill the Lord be pleaſed to vncaſe them: but the other are at all times as eaſie to be diſcerned in the particular, by them vvho can diſcerne of ſpirits, and betweene things and perſons that differ, as it is to know tares from wheate, and goates from ſheepe.
And vvhere you ſay that hypocrites being diſcouered, they are no longer to be reteined in the Church, except they repent, and then who can repute them hypocrites. I confeſſe all this to be very true. But what if through the corruption that is in men; their negligence, partialitie, or remiſſenes, ſuch hypocrites bee not excommunicated, but remaine ſtill in the Church: Is therefore the ſaid ſocietie becauſe of this impunitie become no church, or a falſe church? Anſwere vsus I pray you: for this queſtion commeth to the quick: If you anſwere affirmatiuely, that ſuch a ſocietie notwithſtanding the vvicked that be in it is a true Church: you doe at one puſh put downe a great deale of that rotten building you hauehave been a long time ſetting vp. If negatiuely, then I will not feare to affirme, that neither the Church of Corinth, nor ſundry of the Churches of Galatia were true Churches, when the Apoſtle writ vntounto them, which vvere blaſphemie to affirme.
M. Bernard obiecteth further, that this makes Dauid, Iehoſhaphat, and the Church of God in their dayes to be no true matter of a viſible Church: for there was marrying many wiues, the continuance of the high places, the brazen ſerpent worſhipped, Ioabs murder permitted, the bill of diuorcement allowed by Moſes.
Herevnto this anſwere is giuen.Iuſtif. 106. I doe anſwere to this exception, firſt, that you cannot proue the holy men you name to hauehave ſinned in all the particulars wherewith you charge them: much leſſe that they were conuinced of ſinne in ſuffering theſe things, and yet ſuffered them.
I reply. Be it they ſinned not in all the aforeſaid particulars, yet did they in ſome of them: and what ſay you to them? Dauid both ſinned in ſuffering Ioabs murder, and was in his conſcience alſo conuinced thereof: from whence it came that in his laſt will (as I may ſay) he chargeth Salomon his ſonne concerning Ioab, that as he had ſhed bloud, ſo he ſhould cauſe his to be ſhed,1. Kin. 2.5.6. and not ſuffer his hoare head to goe downe to the graue in peace. But ſuppoſe that in this deferring of Ioabs puniſhment Dauid did not ſinne, (which no man of good vnderſtanding will affirme:) yet without controuerſie he did, and moſt grieuouſly in the matter of Vriah, and lay a great while therein, during which time his conſcience did now and then checke him for the ſame: for in this time Dauid was not a man dead in treſpaſſes and ſinnes, or like them whoſe conſciences are ſeared with an hote iron. Now M. Robinſon anſwere me. Was Dauid in and during this time in the Church, or without? You cannot but acknowledge that hee remained at this time in the Church, and was a member thereof. But Dauid now was not ſeperated from all knowne ſinne, did not practiſe all the knowne will of God, increaſe in grace, and therein continue, foras much as at this time he liued in knowne ſinnes, and decreaſed in grace: Dauid therefore was matter of the viſible Church, and yet not ſuch a Saint as you deſcribe: and conſequently your doctrine is falſe that ſuch Saints as you here deſcribe are the on…ly matter of the viſible Church.
M. Robinſon inlargeth his anſwere thus. But what countenance doe the infirmities of theſe holy men giuegive to the prophane and graceleſſe multitude againſt whom we deale? and whom alone we caſt out of the account of Saints? with what conſcience or coulour can any man bring in the infirmities of Moſes, Dauid, and Iehoſhaphat to plead the Saint-ſhip of all the godleſſe crue in the Engliſh aſſemblies?
Reply. Theſe examples were not inſtanced to countenance the profane among vsus: but to diſproue your deſcription of Saints, and that ſuch Saints are not the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church: and therevnto they ſerue very well, which is all that was by M: Barnard intended. For thus in effect he reaſoneth: Dauid and Iehoſhaphat vvere matter of the viſible Church: for they were true members of a true viſ. Church: But they vvere not ſuch Saints as you define Saints to bee: Therefore ſuch Saints as you define, are not the onelyonly matter of the viſible Church. But to draw little neerer vntounto you: euen in Dauids time,Pſal. 12.1. much more in worſer times, there was no leſſe profane and graceleſſe a multitude in the Church of Iudah, then is in the Church of England at this day: Wherevpon Dauid complaineth thus. Helpe Lord, for there is not a godly man left: the faithfull are failed from among the children of men: they ſpeake deceitfully eueryevery one with his neighbour, flattering with their lips, and ſpeake with a double heart. Which though it doe not countenance the vngodly among vsus, yet it manifeſtly diſproueth your definition of Saints, and ſuppoſed matter of the viſible Church: and proueth demonſtratiuely that a people may bee a true Church, notwithſtanding there be in it wicked men, nay a multitude of profane and graceleſſe men: as Iudah vvas in the dayes of Dauid, Vzziah, Iotham, Hezekiah, and other Kings of Iudah: Iſai. 1.10.For marke vvhat Iſaiah ſaith concerning the people of the Iewes, in the raigne of the Kings leſt mentioned: Heare O Princes of Sodome; hearken O people of Gomorrah. A prophane therefore and graceleſſe multitude, and if you will a godleſſe crue for the moſt part were the Iewes in thoſe dayes, and yet a true Church. What letteth it then, why wee may not likewiſe be a true Church, notwithſtanding there are many wicked and very vngodly among vsus.
Our laſt exception is, That the Scriptures which for the conforming of this your falſe doctrine you bring, are places ſpeaking of the inuiſible Church properly, or of the viſ. figuratiuely.Iuſtification 107.
To this you anſwere thus. It cannot bee manifeſted that wee bring one Scripture meant of the inuiſible Church, to proue the holineſſe of the viſible Church. The vanitie of this obiection hath beene diſcouered in the expoſition of that your picked inſtance, 1. Pet. 2.9.
Reply. To proue the holineſſe of the viſible Church, you quoteaDeſcription of the viſible Church 2. the 17. Chapter of Iohn, and oftentimes ſundry verſes therein,bApology 44. verſe 14.20. and your ſelfe a little after this vaunt of yourscIuſtif. 115. verſe 16. Now what in all Scriptures is to be vnderſtood of the inuiſible Church militant, (that is the Elect on earth, and hereafter to be on earth. If not this 17. of Iohn, which you frequently apply to the viſible Church. This Chapter containeth in it onelyonly a prayer, which Ieſus made for himſelfe, and men, a little before his paſsion, from whence it followeth, that he ſpeaketh of them for whom he prayed: but he prayed onelyonly (beſides for himſelfe) for the Elect, as hee himſelfe ſaith expreſſely ver. 9. of this Chapter: I pray not for the world, meaning thereby the Reprobates of the world, therefore hee ſpeaketh here onelyonly of the Elect. Here is one Scripture, nay diuers ſeuerall teſtimonies of Scripture, which being meant of the inuiſible Church, you apply to the viſible. Nay your ſelues teaching that the inuiſible Church containeth in it all the Elect of God that hauehave been, are, or ſhall be, doe for proofe therof producedDeſcription of the viſible Church. 1. Iohn 17.19.20.
To proue the holineſſe of the viſible Church, youeIbid. alledge Ioh. 6.36. All that the Father giueth me ſhall come vntounto me; and him that commeth to me, I caſt not away. If this bee not meant, and properly and onelyonly to be vnderſtood of the Elect: I know not what is. Thoſe here ſpoken of are ſaid to be giuen to Chriſt, of his Father. Secondly, to come vntounto him, that is, to beleeue in him, as ver. 35. declareth. Thirdly, none of theſe Chriſt caſteth away, that is, reprobateth and condemneth. But theſe things are true onelyonly of the Elect: Of them therefore alone Chriſt here ſpeaketh: and therefore not of the viſible Church as you tel vsus: wherin be many that the father hath not giuen to Chriſt, and which beleeue not in him, and which he will caſt away, as a man doth droſſe or reprobate ſiluer.
Againe, to the ſame end youfApology 44. Iuſtificat. 115. quote Act. 2.47. where Luke ſpeaketh firſt of them that had ſingleneſſe of heart, which grace is peculiar to the Elect: Secondly, of ſuch as ſhould bee ſaued, and that I truſt your ſelfe will confeſſe, the elect onelyonly ſhall be.
Moreouer you produce to the end aforeſaidgA true deſcription 1. Rom. 8.34. where the Apoſtle ſpeaking expreſſely and by name of the elect in the verſe precedent. Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods choſen? It is God that Iuſtifieth. Hee addeth verſ. 34 Who ſhall condemne? meaning any of the ſaid choſen, whom God iuſtifieth. And this hee further confirmeth in the words next following, to wit, that none of this ſocietie ſhall be damned, foraſmuch as Chriſt died for them, roſe againe, and maketh interceſsion. This alſo all the verſes following to the end of the ſaid Chapter doe confirme. Who ſhall ſeperate vsus from the louelove of Chriſt? It is hereby euident, and by verſe 39. that Paul ſpeaketh of thoſe whom God loueth in Chriſt: But in Chriſt Ieſus God loueth the elect onelyonly: therefore of the elect alone hee here ſpeaketh.
All the places of holy Scripture which you alleadge concerninghDeſcript. 2. Apology 44. the body of Chriſt, are ſo many abuſes of Scripture in this kinde, as Epheſ. 1.23. and 4.11.16. 1. Cor. 22.27. as I hauehave elſe where made manifeſt in this Treatiſe.
Nay your ſelfe M. Robinſon hauehave your part herein, if you be not the chiefe in this treſpaſſe. To proue the holineſſe of this viſible Church, youiAnſwere to a Cenſorious Epiſtle 33. produce 1. Pet. 2.5. which in the end of the Chapter precedent I hauehave ſhewed is true onelyonly, and to be vnderſtood of the militant Church, or whole company of the faithfull, members of the inuiſible Church: Furthermore but foure leaues after this you vaunt. That not one Scripture forſooth is brought by you to proue the holineſſe of the viſible Church, which is meant of the inuiſible: You teachkIuſtification 115. that all of the viſible Church were purchaſed with the bloud of God; were all partakers of the grace of God, hauing effectuall faith, diligent louelove, and patient hope in the Lord Ieſus, growing in grace eueryevery one of them. And for proofe of theſe poſitions and a few ſuch like you quote Act. 20.28. Phil. 1.3.4.6.7.8. 1. Theſſ. 1.2.3. & 2. Epiſt. 1.3. Now all theſe Scriptures, with many more, muſt bee vnderſtood of the Militant Church, or if we vnderſtand them of the viſible Church, they muſt bee taken figuratiuely, the whole Church being ſet for a part thereof, by a Synecdoche, which in effect is the ſame.
Againe in the ſame place to proue the holines of the viſ. church, Iuſtif. 115.you tell vsus (m) that the viſible Church bee ſuch and none other, as are not of the world, but choſen out of it, and hated of it, as do receiue the word, and cōmunicate al of thē in all things gladly, as eueryevery one hath neede and that in gladneſſe and ſinglenes of heart, and hauehave receiued teſtimony by the holy Ghoſt himſelfe that they were ſuch as ſhould be ſaued. And for confirmation therof you quote. Ioh. 15.18.19. & 17-16. Act. 2.41.42 46.47. I would as ſoone beleeue you, if you ſhould teach: that all in the viſible church ſhall be ſaued. For I pray you, are not they ſure to be ſaued, of whome the holy Ghoſt teſtifieth, that they ſhall be ſaued? But this teſtimony of the holy Ghoſt (ſay you) all and eueryevery one of the viſible Church hauehave. Therefore all and eueryevery one of the viſible Church ſhall bee ſaued, and none therein bee damned. Thus many teſtimonies in holy Scripture, which are onelyonly ſpoken, are meant, and true of the inuiſible Church, you vnderſtand of the viſible Church, and apply to that ſocietie: and yet ſpare not to ſay, that you bring not one Scripture, meant of the inviſible Church, and apply it to the viſible. Let the Reader now iudge, whether herein you ſpeake truely, or the contrary imputation of ours be iuſt.
As touching. 1. Pet. 2.9. M. Robinſon hath foure arguments to prooue that it is meant and to be vnderſtood of the viſible Church, and therefore not of the inuiſible, his firſt argument is this.
If Peter wrote to the viſible Church of the Iewes,Iuſtif. 44. and not to the inuiſible among them, then in Cap. 2.9. Hee ſpeaketh of the viſible Church, and not of the inuiſible.
But Peter wrote to the viſible Church of the Iewes, and nor to the inuiſible among them.
Therfore in Chap. 2.9. he ſpeaketh to the viſible Church of the Iewes, and not of the inuiſible.
The propoſition or conſequence of this argument which we deny as being palpablie falſe, he indeuoureth not to proue at all: to wit, that to whomſoeuer Peter writ of them all that which he writ muſt be meant and vnderſtood: which no man of vnderſtanding will graunt.
The aſſumption he ſtrengthens with ſundry reaſons; as firſt, Peter wrote to that Church and ſocietie whereof hee was the Apoſtle: But he was the Apoſtle of the viſible Church of the Iewes: Ergo, Peter wrote to the viſible Church of the Iewes, and conſequently not to the inuiſible. 2. Peter wrote to that Church and ſocietie which he knewe. But hee did knowe the viſible Church, and not the inuiſible, which is knowne onelyonly to God, Ergo, he wrote to the viſible Church, and not to the inuiſible. Theſe proofes he inſerts in his firſt reaſon: but not content therwith, he confirmes his aſſumption with two more arguments laide downe in his third and fourth reaſons.
To that Church Peter writ wherein were Elders and a flocke depending vponupon them.
But the viſible Church had Elders and a flocke depending vponupon them, and not the inuiſible.
Therefore to the viſ, Church Peter write, & not to the inuiſ.
Againe to that Church which had the word of God preached amongſt them the Apoſtles did write.
But the word was preached to the viſible Church:
Therefore to it he writ.
The ſumme of theſe three arguments, 1.3. & 4. is this, Peter writ to the viſible Church, Ergo: 1. Pet. 2.9. cannot be meant of the inuiſible Church; but of the viſible. By this argument I can prooue, that the Epiſtles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon excepted: in all the Epiſtles of Paul, Peter, and Iames, there is nothing meant of the inuiſible Church: Becauſe the ſaide Epiſtles were written as you ſay to the viſible Church. Alſo that nothing in the Epiſtles to Timothy, and Titus, are ſpoken either, of the inuiſible or viſible church, But of Miniſters. The foundation whereof is, that to whomſoeuer an Apoſtle writ an Epiſtle, of them all in that Epiſtle is ſpoken, and to be vnderſtood.
Secondly, I deny your aſſumption, and affirme that Peter writ to the Church; whereby I meane the ſame which we call the inuiſible Church, and euen ſo did the reſt of the Apoſtles, thoſe Epiſtles excepted which were written to ſome ſpeciall perſon. For the miniſtery is giuen to the Church, or Saints and Body of Chriſt. Epheſ. 4.11.12. Which Body the inuiſible Church is, and not the viſible: And heere I reaſon thus, as I hauehave once before. To what Church or ſocietie the miniſtery and Miniſters were giuen of Chriſt, to the ſame the Canonicall Epiſtles were written: But to the Church militant the miniſtery and Miniſters were giuen: therfore to it the Epiſtles were written. The propoſition is manifeſt, the aſſumption Epheſ. 4.11.12. doeth clearely prooue. We may remember alſo, heere how Peter in his firſt Epiſtle, writeth expreſſely and by name, to the Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father vntounto ſanctification of the Spirit: and in the ſecond thus: Peter to you which hauehave obtained like precious Faith with vsus: which Faith onelyonly the elect hauehave, and therfore is the ſame in effect with the former, Peter to the Elect, &c.
In anſwering our aforeſaide and laſt obiection,Iuſtif. 107. M. Robinſon addeth this: If you would graunt, that onelyonly they are true members of the Church, which by the word of God (which muſt be the rule of our iudgement) may be iudged Saints, it would end this controuerſie. But all that profeſſe Religion may by the word of God bee iudged Saints, as before I hauehave ſhewed: Otherwiſe Saul, Doeg, Ioab, Abſalom, the Scribes and Phariſees, Iudas, Demas, with infinite ſuch were not true members of the viſible Church: which with any truth you cannot affirme. See that you be now M. Robinſon as good as your word: let this controuerſie concerning the matter of the viſible church bee ended. And thus much concerning the matter of the viſ. Church: Let vsus now heare what is the forme thereof.
The forme ſay we, is the profeſſion of true religion. The Separiſts teach otherwiſe, ſome that this is the forme, ſome that.
M. Ainſworth writeth thus:Counterp. 107. Ibid. 174. To the conſtitution of a Church there belongs, firſt a people, as the matter whereof, and 2. a calling, gathering and vniting together, as the forme whereof the Church conſiſteth. We muſt remember here, that a little after theſe words he teacheth, that Saints by calling are the matter of the viſible Church. If this be true, then calling is compriſed vnderunder the matter, and therefore not vnderunder the forme; ſo that gathering and vniting together muſt make the forme, or elſe we hauehave here none. That gathering now and vniting together are not the forme I doe thus prooue.
If a people be the matter, and gathering and vniting together the forme of the true viſible Church, then eueryevery people gathered and vnited together is a true visible Church.
But the latter is falſe.
Therefore the firſt.
The propoſition is grounded vponupon this certaine and vndoubted trueth, that where matter & forme of a true viſ. church is, there is a true church.
The aſſumption, to wit, that eueryevery people gathered and vnited together, is not a true viſ. Church, is likewiſe true: otherwiſe the congregations of Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, &c. bee true Churches: for they consiſt of people, gathered and vnited together. But leauing this man, let vsus heare what M. Smith ſayeth.
Principles and Inferences. 11.The true forme (ſaith he) of a true viſible Church is partly inward, partly outward. The inward part of the forme conſiſteth in three things. 1. the Spirit, 2. Faith, 3. LoueLove. The Spirit is the ſoule animating the whole body, Faith vniteth the members of the body to the head Chriſt Ieſus, LoueLove vniteth the members of the body each to other. The outward part thereof is, a vowe, promiſe, oath, or couenant betwixt God and the Saints. EueryEvery peece and parcell hereof he ſeemeth to himſelfe and to his Diſciples to proue ſubſtantially, he alleadgeth no leſſe then twelue teſtimonies of Scripture for the proofe of one point.
Reply. The forme, (ſaith he) is partly inward and partly outward. Then the matter of the viſible Church muſt bee ſo too: except he will hauehave a forme without matter, which I know you will not ſay. Tell vsus therefore, what is the inward matter of the viſible Church, and what is the outward: for aſſuredly wee know not. But let this goe. The inward forme is the Spirit, Faith, LoueLove. One would thinke that this was rather the forme of the Church militant: conſidering theſe three, Spirit, Faith, LoueLove, are onelyonly to be found in the elect, and cannot fall into any reprobate, whereof the viſible Church conſiſteth for a great part. And firſt as touching the Spirit, it is proper to the choſen, as is manifeſt by Romans 8.14.17. Gal. 4.6.Tit. 1.1. And for this cauſe Faith is called the Faith of Gods elect, becauſe I ſay it is proper to the elect of God: which is further confirmed by that in the Acts, Acts 13.48. 1. Ioh. 3.14.as many as was ordained to eternall life beleeued. And concerning LoueLove Iohn telleth vsus, that thereby wee may know and bee aſſured, that wee are tranſlated from death to life.
The ſpirit, ſaith hee, is the ſoule animating the whole body. By whole body he vnderſtands the whole viſible Church: and his meaning is, that as the body of man and all the members and parts thereof are animated, that is, are quickened and receiue naturall or corporall life from the ſoule: ſo the whole viſible Church, and all the members thereof hauehave ſpirituall life from the Spirit of God. From whence this neceſſarily followeth, that eueryevery one of the viſible Church hath the Spirit of God,Rom. 8.10.11. quickening him to righteouſneſſe and holineſſe of life here: and to immortalitie and eternall life in the world to come. For both theſe effects the ſpirit worketh in whomſoeuer it is, and is there fore-called the ſpirit of life. The which if it bee true,Rom. 8.2. I meane, that eueryevery member of the viſible Church hath the Spirit of God, as all of you doe (in effect) teach, and namely as oft as you doe tell vsus that a true viſible Church is the bodie of Chriſt: then in the viſible Church there are none dead in treſpaſſes and ſinnes; no dead, but all liuing ſtones: foraſmuch as the whole body, and conſequently eueryevery member thereof, is animated and quickned by the Spirit, from whence floweth ſpirituall life and motion. Then in the viſible church there be no hypocrites, nor carnall or naturall men, no wicked perſon, neither openly nor ſecretly wicked: for as much as eueryevery member of the viſible church hath the ſpirit,Apology 44. Counterp. 127. euen the ſpirit of life, or quickening ſpirit: vvhichwhich in whomſoeuer it is mortifyeth ſinne in them, crucifieth their fleſh and naturall corruption freeing them from the power and dominion thereof: and quickneth or inableth them to leade an holy and ſpirituall life. Laſtly then in the viſ. church there bee no Reprobates, none that ſhall bee damned: for as much as eueryevery one in the viſible church hath the Spirit of God, and ſo the ſpirit of life, wherewith whoſoeuer is indued hath not onelyonly ſpirituall, but eternall life begun in him, and therefore ſhall neuer die. And here we may remember that the ſpirit of God is beſtowed onelyonly vponupon Gods children, Rom. 8.14.17.all which be heares of ſaluation. Alſo that the Spirit is called the ſeale and earneſt of our inheritance: Gal. 4.6.vvhereby wee learne, That whoſoeuer hath the ſpirit, he hath the earneſt and ſeale of God of his heauenly inheritance, and ſo is ſure to be ſaued. But the vvhole body of the viſ. Church ſay you hath this ſpirit animating it. Therefore conclude I all and eueryevery one of the viſ. Church are ſure to be ſaued, and ſo there be in it no Reprobates, nor ſuch as ſhall be damned. This concluſion followeth alſo neceſſarily from that you doe adde: Faith vniteth the members of the body to the head Chriſt. By body here you meane the whole viſible Church: and ſo teach firſt, that all the members of the viſ. Church bee vnited to Chriſt, as to their head. Secondly, that eueryevery one of the viſ. Church hath that faith, which maketh this vnion, or vniteth him to Chriſt his head. Doth it not now from hence follow, that all of the viſ. Church be heyres of ſaluation, and that none of them ſhall paſſe into condemnation?Joh. 10.26. & 27. For who can plucke from Chriſt, that is vnited vntounto him, and is as it vvere part of him? Or can any member of his die, ſeeing to eueryevery one of them hee communicateth life, both ſpirituall and eternall? Can any alſo indued with this effectuall faith be condemned? Hee that beleeueth hath euerlaſting life, Ioh. 3.16.17.36. & 5 24. Rom. 8.1.is ſaued already, and hath paſſed from death to life: to him there is no condemnation, That vvhichwhich hee ſaith here of the ſpirit animating the whole body, (euen as the ſoule doth the whole body of man) if he had ſpoken & meant it of the Church, without adding or vnderſtanding viſible, the one of the which you alwaies doe: and by body vnderſtood the miſticall body of Chriſt, and by a member an elect veſſell, conuerted and brought to the faith, then had hee ſpoken truely: but vnderſtanding by body, the viſible Church, and by a member, one particular perſon of that ſocietie hee teacheth that which is very falſe.
There ſhift and euaſion I know will be this, that they do not meane that all the viſ. Church hauehave indeede the Spirit, Faith and LoueLove, but only externally, & ſo far as men can iudge. This is abſurd. For in this they ſecretly imply, that there are ſome in the viſ. Church which hauehave not the ſpirit, nor faith, nor louelove: and in this poſitiue Diuinitie of yours directly teach the contrarie. For the ſpirit (ſay you) animateth the whole body. If the whole body then all the members thereof, and conſequently, there is no member that is deſtitute of the ſpirit. This therefore you may not alleadge for your ſelfe, except you vvill contradict your ſelfe.
After theſe men comes M. Robinſon, and hee fully agreeing with M. Smith concerning the matter of the viſ. Church, doth yet differ from them both about the forme: and tels vsus, that the couenant is the forme. Saints (ſaith hee) is the matter, Iuſtiff. 88. & 82.and the Couenant the forme, from which two concurring the Church ariſeth. Hereby he and M. Smith (who makes it the outward part of the forme) meane a ſolemne vow, oath, promiſe, or Couenant made to God of thoſe that be of yeeres of diſcretion, to renounce Idolatry, and to cleaue to God, and to eueryevery part of his truth.
For the diſcouerie and conuincing of this your errour, wee muſt remember that the oath and couenant which King Aſa and his ſubiects made to ſeeke the Lord God of their Fathers, (from whence theſe men fetch this doctrine) was in the 15. yeere of Aſa, as is ſaid 2. Chron, 15.10. and that he reformed the Church, and reſtored the true Religion and worſhip of God, in the beginning and entrance into his kingdome, as appeareth by 2. Chro. 14. and 1. Kings 15.14. This couenant therefore cannot poſsibly be the forme of the Church, ſeeing Iudah was a true church in Aſia his dayes before they made this couenant, and a thing can not bee or hauehave exiſtance without the forme. And here we may remember that this vow and promiſe (in effect) we make, and paſſe into this couenant in baptiſme, when and whereby we are recciued and incorporated into the church. Goe not therefore about to deceiue men in pe…ſwading them that we hauehave entred into no couenant with God to be his people, and to obey his commandements: And are therefore falſe churches.
And here not vnfitly might I produce foure arguments ofIuſtif. 3.27. M. Robinſons taken from the in-being of the vv…cked in our Church, vvhereby he vvill proue our congregatio…s to be and re…aine vnformed, and conſequent y to be no true Churches. Firſt (ſaith he) becauſe godly and wicked men are contrari…s, as being gui… and led by contrarie cauſes, the one ſort by the ſpirit, and the other by the fleſh, which are contrarie one vntounto other. Now two contraries are not capable of one and the ſame forme.
By this reaſon of yours (if it were ought) there is no viſ. Church formed, and conſequently none at all: for you will not d…ny that in the viſ. Church there be godly, and by your owne confeſsion Pag. 106. there be hypocrites, all which are wicked: now theſe be contraries, as being guided and led by contrary cauſes, the one ſort by the ſpirit, and the other by the fleſh, which are contrarie one vntounto another, and two contraries are not capable of one and the ſame forme. The reſt of your arguments being no leſſe friuolous then this, I for breuitie omit. And let this ſuffice concerning the matter and forme of the viſible Church.