men It is an outward pledge or symbole of the coÌ„munion which the faithful haue with Christ for of that the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. directly and so by coÌ„sequence one with another bycause it vnites Christ the head with his own members one of them with another doth it therefore vnite Christ or his true members with the true apparant visible lims of the Divil which all vngodly men and women are This is the force of Mr Br. arguments Bycause the L. supper is of this or that vse unto them to whoÌ„ by the word of God it apperteyns therefore it hath or must be judged to haue the same vse amongst them which are apparant vsurpers of it and to whom by the word of God it apperteyns not There is nothing more coÌ„mon in both his books then this kind of deceiptfull arguing Here is yet an Arg of coÌ„parisoÌ„ to be taken knowledg coÌ„sidred of the rather because the author both wills the reader to note it in the margent and repeats it himself over over in the text The Argument is that aâ— continual siâ—nes corruptions of the hartâ— of the elect do not make theÌ„ false Christians before God or no true invisible meÌ„bers of Christ so neyther do outward offences or corruptions mâ—k open professors of the saith false Christians before men or no true visible members of Christ. True no more due proportion observed namely thaâ— those outward offences do not reign in the mortall bodyes of men â—â— the inward corruptions do not reign in the hearts of the elect But let the reader here remember the subiect of the quaestion which is men of lewd conversation and deserving to be excommunicated and then the noting of Mr B. Arg wil be like Davidâ— noting the Amalâ—kites tydings of the death of Sâ—ul and Ionathan to the destruction of him that brought them For by the same rule of proportion I argue thus As they in whose hearts sinns and corruptions reign inwardly are no true Christians before God nor actuall members of Christ invisibly so they in whose lives and conversations sinnes and corruptions reign outwardly are no true Christians before men nor members of Christ visibly And here comes to my mind an other argument much what like this in Mr B. 2. book where he will have a mixt company of godly and wicked persons to be called holy or a company of saynts as well as a person holy in whom there is a mixture of the spirit and flesh But the difference is playn In this mixt body of godly wicked sin reigns in some of the members but in no part of body or faculty of soul of a person in whom the spirit is though never so much flesh be mingled with it doth sinne reign He might as well say the whole Church so mixt shal be saved for the whol man shal be saved by faith in Christ notwithstanding all mixture in him Now the conclusion Mr B. makes that their congregations professe Christ as is before sayd that God hath given them his holy word and sacraments moved the harts of all of them outwardly to receive both the one and the other is vnproved and vntrue For first there is no one congregation in the Land whose particular members made that holy profession in any measure by according to which the Apostles did constitute and vnite visible congregations Secondly I deny that the Lord hath given his sacraments to any congregation in the Land there are very many in the best ordered parishes which take them without the Lords gift as being wicked vsurpers of them vnto which by the revealed will of God they have no right But here I must needs discover Mr Bernards haunt and the turning by which in his second book he vsually declines both Mr Ainsworths Mr Smyths Arguments of this nature and that is by telling them that all are not wicked amongst them that some or many haue the true knowledge of Gods word and that the fear of God possesseth the hearts of many as in this place that God hath moved the hearts of many of the people effectually and the like and that therefore we do them wrong in condemning all for some and in denying the good their right for others default To this I answer first that those that can be truely judged to fear God are thin strewed in the best places and not many in comparison of the rest as is pretended but a very small handfull and besides it is but casuall and accidentall to the congregation and nothing to the constitution of it that there is one man truely fearing God in it The parish must be a true vivisible constituted Church as well one as another and so receive the sacraments together whether the Lord have had any such work as is here spoken of in the hearts of any or no. And 2. it must be considered I pray the teader well to observe it that the quaestion here betwixt Mr B. and me and so ordinarily betwixt him and them is about the congregation which consists of all the members ioyntly and not about some particulars coÌ„sidered severally from the rest of whom the congregation consists not I am verily perswaded there are in many congregations many that truely feare God and the Lord encrease their number and graces and if they were separated from the rest into visible communion I should not doubt to account them such coÌ„gregations as vnto which God had given his sacraments but take them as they are even one with the rest in one ioynt communion as members of one body making all together one Church congregation so joyned at the first and so still remayning I deny that this Church or congregation is the Lords people in covenaunt with him or that he hath given vnto it his sacraments yea or that those which truely fear God are accepted of him in their persons have in that communion the right and lawfull vse of them in many particulars They cannot take them for pawnes and pledges of Gods love and the forgivenes of sinns to that congregatioÌ„ wherewith they ioyn in the vse of them nor as testimonies of true spirituall love amongst the persons communicating in them nor as notes badges of dâ—stinction of that assembly from all profane vnhallowed assemblies in the world And yet are all these common ends and vses of the sacrament as it is a communion or coÌ„mon vnion of the members with the head and one with another mutually Since therefore your congregations or parish assemblies are alwayes have been so constituted as that neyther the greatest part of them being prophane have any interest in the sacraments or can have any right vse of them in their persons nor yet the rest in their communion it must needs follow except the Lord have given his sacraments to them which can haue no right vse of them and to whom they apperteyn not that the Lord
The Prophet Ieremy speâ—king in the name of the Lord of the calling of the Gentiles into the new covenaunt or testament as the authour to the Hebrewes expoundeth him testifieth that with whom soever the Lord would make that testament or covenant he would put his law in their mind and write them in their heart and so be their God and make them his people and that they should all know him from the least to the greatest and that he would be mercifull vnto their sâ—â—nes and remember their iniquities no more But your nationall Ch never came within the coÌ„passe of this promise that all in it should know the Lord haue their sinnes forgiven them and his lawes written in their heart Therefore your nationall Church is not within the Lords covenaunt nor ever 〈…〉 nor his people having him for their God Your exceptious in your 2. book to this Argument are insufficient The first is that by this exposition hypocritâ—s should not be under the covenaunt bycause the law of God is not written in their harts But my answer is that hypocrites in respect of God and his secret invisible and approving will and calling are not of the Church nor under the covenaunt but in respect of men of the revealed will of God according to which meÌ„ must judge all that are outwardly holy have their sinns forgiven and the law of God written in their harts And to your 2. exception namely that the place is not vnderstood barely of a member of the visible Church but so of it as withall he be an elect saynt I do answer it is true you say â—oÌ„sidering what bare members of the visible Church you make of what members your Church is most what made even such as ar both bare and empty of all grace and appearance of grace But let them be such in any measure as of whom the Lord in his word gives approbation and whom he entitles to the visible ordinances in his Church and then they are not barely visible members as you speak but elect saynts also in the respects formerly mentioned It is evident that both Ieremy and the Apostle to the Hebrewes speak of the new testament or covenant of grace whereof Christ is the mediatour in his own blood opposed to the old testament and covenaunt of works established by Moses in the blood of bulles and goates and of the persons with whom the Lord makes this covenant and which haue legacies in this will and testament of Christ which he hath also confirmed by his death which do all know God and have his law written in their harts and their sinns pardoned And there is nothing more derogatory to the grace of God and blood of Christ then that any within the compasse of this covenant of grace or having a portion in this testament established in Christs blood should not haue his iniquities forgiven and his heart sanctifyed by the spirit truely or in appearance as he is truely or apparantly partaker of the former graces And here also appears the vanity of your third exception so oft repeated by you to wit that you are not all without the law of God written in your harts and without the forgivenes of sinnes but that some of you have obteyned this grace As though the quaestion were of some few in your Church not of the whole Church If you minded what you had in hand you should see that to prove your Church within the covenaunt of the new testament you were bound to manifest not that some few but that all the members of it were at the least in the constitution partakers of those promises wherein it is established the reason is bycause not some few severally but all the members joyntly considered do make the Church Iohn in the Revelation describing the Locusts sayth of them that they had faces like the faces of men hayre like the hayre of women Doth it therefore follow they were men or womeÌ„ bycause they had eyes mouthes noses some other meÌ„bers that men women haue So neyther is a profane people a true Christian Church or body of Christ for some few Christianlike persoÌ„s vâ—tequally yoked with them since the Church or body as I haue formerly sayd consisteth not of some few but of all the members coupled and combyned together in one communion And thus much to prove that lewd vngodly persons so continuing are uncapable of the new covenant or testament consumed by the death of Christ and that they haue no fellowship or vnion with God in Christ in whom alone he establisheth his covenant and if any man will affirm the contrary not I but Iohn by the word of God reproveth him expressely for a lyar And in deed what more impudeÌ„t untruth can there be affirmed then that an apparant visible lim of Satan should be an apparant or visible member of Christ or that gracelesse persons should be within the covenant of grace and salvation as is that covenâ—â—t into which the Lord gathereth and in which he uniteth his Ch vnto himself For conclusion of this point let the reader observe that as the Church is essentially constituted by this vnion of the meÌ„bers with God and one with another so consider it as an ecclesiasticall policy instituted by Christ the King thereof and then that form or ordâ—r of government which he hath set and which the Apostolik Churches vsed and enjoyed is the form of it as it is in all other poâ—iciâ—s corporations and coÌ„mon wealthes in the world Which form of government the Church of England is so far from enjoying aâ— it hates worse then Papists all that in any measure desire it Now as from the matter form of the Church concurring do arise the properties so would Mr B. in the next place iustify against us that the congregations amongst them have the true visible properties of the Church which he makes three in number the first their continuance in heâ—â—â—ng of the dâ—â—h me of Christ reâ—râ—ved and vsing of the sacraments and prayer 2. the holding out of this truth and the sacraments as banners displayed against the enemy 3. a care for the welfare of all and every one for the whole and each for other though in his 2. book as if it â—ad not been he 1. the hâ—ldinâ— out of the profession of the person covenaÌ„ted with Christ Iesus 2. the holding the words of the covenantâ— the written wâ—â—â— of God 3. the m 〈…〉 ng of the publication of this covenant by the 〈◊〉 and 〈…〉 the assemblies are become the properties of the Church as if the Church were as chaungeable in her properties as 〈◊〉 in his And here I must needs take knowledge of Mr B. distinction in his 2. book betwixt the properties and priviledges of the Church and the rather bycause he layes it down with great ostentation for our learning as he sayth His distinction is that properties arise from within the Church
an other woman the wife of an other man or not contracted to that man is not his wife nor can be so reputed though she be never so obedient buxome vnto him so the Church of England til it be separated free froÌ„ the world prince of the world that reiâ—â—eâ—h in it so froÌ„ Antichrist his Eldest sonne in his hyeâ—archy priesthood other ordinances be taken into covenant with the Lord caÌ„not possibly be the true Ch of God or wife of Christ no not though the good things in it were many more then they are Which we do not alledg as is craftily insinuated against vs to iustify any mans continuance in a Church full of wickednes but to prove that the constitution of the Church that is the collection and combination of Saynts as matter in and into covenant with God as the form is that which gives true being vnto a Church and nothing els how vily soever men iudge or speak of it And for corruptions in the Apostolical Churches it is true the Apostles mentioned them but allwayes with vtter dislike severe reproof and streight charge of reforming them Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 6. 7. 11 13. 1 Thes. 5. 14. 2 Thes. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 6. 5. Rev. 2. 14 16. 20. But how do these things concern you Though Paul and all the Apostles of Christ with him yea though Christ himself from heaven should admonish any of your Churches to put away from among themselves any person though never so haeretical or flagitious you could not do it neither could you reform any abhomination otherwhere though the same be as conspicuous as the leprosy of Vzziah which brake forth in his forehead And this want of the power of the Lord Iesus for reformation which an other man would think were an intollerable slavery Mr B. pag 68. turnes to good advantage and thinks himself his Church halfe excused of all the evils which are amongst them because they want power to vse the remedy thus pleading for a priveledg the mark of the beast froÌ„ which the servants of God ought to abhor herin being passing witty above other men in making an advantage of that evill which the most have enough to do to excuse And for true Churches not vsing aright the power they have for reformation they are like true bodyes which through some obstructions or stoppings for a time cannot voyd things noxious hurtful till there be a remedy but the Church without this power is as a monstrous body wanting the faculties instruments of evacuation and expulsion of excrements or other noy some things and therefore is never appointed of God to live but devoted to death and destruction Of the reformed Churches our cariage towards them I have spoken els where and for your Turkish Argument in the margent wherein you incense the Magistrate against vs as otherwise incorrigible it well becomes the rest of your book joyning violence to slaunder But are you your self wholly conformable Mr B If not why do you incense the magistrate against vs being your selfe obnoxious to his displeasure Or do you not hope to escape persecution your self by persecuting vs This is too ordinary a practise amongst you But the Lord seeth your haulting and rewardeth you in your bosomes as you have served vs. And when you and others more forward then you do consider feel in what hatred you are with the King and state me thinks your harts should smite you as the harts of Iosephs brethren did them in their trouble for their barbarous crueltie towards him Gen. 42. Our sixt sin by retayl Mr B. makes our rayling and scoffing and in particular H. Barrowes blasphemyes c. whose repentance he would have vs publish to the world If I should answerably require of you the publication of the repentance of your Clergy not onely for the cruel speakings but even for the wicked deeds which vngodlily they have committed against Christ in his servants and ordinances it were an hard tax put vpon you Yea to spare you for other men do you but publish your owne repentance for the same â—innes wherein you are deeply set and without doubt your godly example shall provoke many to the like And for Mr Barrow as I say with Mr Ainsworth that I wil not iustify all the words of an other man noâ— yet myne owne so say I also with Mr Smyth that because I know not by what particular motion of the spirit he was guided to write in those phrâ—ses I dare not censure him as you do especially considering with what fyery zeale the Lord hath furnished such his servants at all tymes as he hath stirred vp for speciall reformation Let the example of Luther alone suffice whom into what termes his zeale carryed his writings testify And yet both in him and in Mr Barrow there might be with true spirituall zeal â—leshly indignation mingled And though this in generall might be sufficient yet for the stopping of your mouth Mr B. and for the satisfying of others I will discend a little to the very particulars which you have câ—lled out against Mr Barrow as most odious First then you fault him that he calles your Bishops Antichristian prowd Prelates and the tayl of the beast c. And what are they but Antichristian if their office be against Christ and his ordinances in the visible Church And what els do all the reformed Churches abroad and reformists at home iudge speak write of them And what thought you Mr B. otherwise of them when even since you dealt against this cause of separatioÌ„ you affirmed before many witnesses that there was not a place in the new testameÌ„t against Antichrist but you could apply it against theÌ„ And because you are come to this height of boldnes depth of dissembling I will here insert breiâ—ly certayne reasons which I receaved from your self in wryting to prove the Bishops Antichristian and that word for word as I have reserved them by me to this day 1. The fruits of the Hierarchy are contrary to Christ. 2. It forbids many good meanes of religion as prophesying c. 3. It keeps in and nourisheth offenders against paynfull labourers 4. It excommunicates the godly yea for a word and that ipsâ— facto 5. It is lordly and tyrâ—â—mous contrary to 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. 3. Luk. â—2 25. 6. It rules by Popish lawes and by the power of man which arâ— carnall weapons 7. It remits the offenders for mâ—ny though â—e repent not 8. It establisheth an vniversall Bishop as well as a Diosesan or Provinciall Bishop And as I remember at the same tyme you brought forth D. Downame in his first book proving the Pope Antichrist ch 4. affirming that the Hierarch in the Romish Church was Antichristian whereof I am sure the the Bishops office is a part These reasons I thought good to set downe not because they are all or some of them of the best
great mercy wisdome and holines separateth his Church and people vnto himself from the rest of the prophane world And as it is a certaine signe that a Minister is not called into his place if he be not in some measure qualifyed with such holy gifts and graces as serve to the ends of the Ministery to which he is called which you both affirme and confirm vndeniably pag. 132. 133. of this book so is it also in iust proportion a certayn and infallible argument that the nationall Church of England and so of the Churchlings vnder it is not called into covenant and communion with God being gathered of such persons in the body of it as are onely vtterly vnanswerable but clean contrarily affected to the ends of the true Church which are holynes and the glory of God And where you Mr B. would fasten the name of saynts vpon people vnworthy of it by a similitude drawn from a Minister a◠the first rightly called to his office but after shewing himself vnworthy of it whom you wil stil have called a minister I answer that if he were known to be vnworthy of it at the first or not known to be worthy he was not rightly called eyther to the office or by the name and if he afterwards shew himself vnworthy he is to be censured accordingly and so with the office to forfeyt the name though he hold both with you so it is with men in the generall calling of Christianity they that are vnworthy of it are never called of God to take it vpon them and if they prove vnworthy afterwards they are to be deprived of Christian society 2 Because of the profession of faith in Christ who maketh all true beleevers holy and sancts It is true you say that Christ makes all true beleevers holy and Saints but I deny that every profession of faith in Christ argues a true beleever A false dissembler is he and no true beleever that in word pretends faith in Christ and in deed denyes him 3. In respect of Baptisme by which externally the partie baptised is to be iudged to have put on Christ. Gal. 3. 27. to have remission of his sinnes Act. 2. 39. to be partaker of Christs death Rom. 6. 3. 4. Col. 2. 21. and to have assurance of salvation 1 Pet. 3. 21. All persons baptized neyther do in truth nor are by vs to be judged to haue put on Christ to haue remission of sinnes c. but onely such as to whom by vertue of the covenant of grace baptisme apperteyneth We must not conceive of baptisme as of a charme or think it effectuall to all it is put vpon but must judge it avayleable and of vse according to the covenant of promise which God hath made to the faithful and their seed and none otherwise And baptisme administred to any others is so farr frō investing them with any saynt-ship in that estate as it makes guilty both the giver and receiver of sacriledge and is the taking of Gods name in vayne 4 In respect of the better part though the fewer by many for thus the scripture speakes Deut. 1. 23. 24. 1 Cor. 6. 11. with 5. 1. 2 Cor. 12. 21. The scriptures never ascribe holines to a people for some fewes sake if the rest be vnholy and prophane I read in the scriptures that vncleane persons and things do pollute and vnhallow clean persons and things that a little leaven levens the whol lump but that clean persons or things should hallow persons or things which are vnclean or that a little sweet meal should make sweet a sower lump that read I not but the contrary confirmed by the forenamed scriptures And for the Ch of the Iewes of Corinth in which you instance as they were holy omitting other respects for the holy covenant into which the Lord had assumed the body of them Rom. 11. 16. so were the desperately wicked amongst them no true members of the body but as putrifyed and rotten parts to be cut off and cast out from the rest And where Paul writes to the Church at Corinth stiles them sayntes and advertises them to excommunicate the incestuous person what can be more vnreasonably affirmed then that the incestuous person was one of these Saincts as though Paul had written to him to cast out himself which must needs follow by Mr B. assertion and proofes of it 5. In respect of the visible signes of Gods favour promise and presence to be with his c. as Ierusalem was called the holy city Mat. 4. 5. But we deny your nationall Church to be that holy city the new Ierusalem coming downe from God out of heaven It is rather Babylon though much purged and repayred And Babylon cannot be Ierusalem nor was ever holy not withstanding the spoiles of Ierusalem and of the Temple also be found there as were in the civil Babylon many Israelites captived and with them the holy vessels the holy instrumēts yea the holy writings of the Prophets their persons also 2 Chron. 10. 18. Psal. 137. 1. 2. D. 9. 1 2. 6. In respect of Gods good pleasure who lookes not vpon his Church as the particular members thereof are but as he accepteth of them therefore it is sayd He saw none iniquity in Iaakob nor transgression in Israel Num. 23. 21. and yet Israel was then an vnbeleeving and stifnecked people Here you say and vnsay with one breath You graunt Israel to haue been an holy people and without iniquity as Balaam spake in the Lords acceptance according to his good pleasure and yet to have been at the same time an unbeleeving and stifnecked people which affirmation as it conteynes in it an apparant contradiction so doth it lay vpon God an vnsufferable imputation as though he took pleasure in the wicked or did accept of them It cannot be denyed but the people ever and anon rose vp in rebellion against the Lord and for instance in the Chapter next but one before going through impatiency of their ordinary food they murmured against God and against Moses Numb 21. 4. 5. But did things so continue No verily for the Lord sent fyery serpents amongst them and destroyed many of them and by his correction brought the rest to repentance ◠vers 6. 7. And now as at other times when they provoked him smit them with grievous plagues punishments and so causing them to passe vnder the rod and picking out the cheif rebels and fifting out the sinners to destruction and brought them againe into the covenant And thus much of your respects of Sainct-ship whereof some are not true in themselves others impertinent to your estate and the most flatly condemning it And though you Mr B. say it never so oft and all the divines in the world with you as here you speak that the visible Church is a mixt company as your very owne book of Articles affirms the contrary
old leven to iudge and to put out from among themselves that wicked fornicatour v. 5. 6. 7. 12. 13. of which more hereafter And so I come to the 4. Reason against Popularity as you term â—t but in truth against Christian liberty which is grounded vpoÌ„ Ephe. 4. 11. 12. Your words are these It is most apparant that Christ ascending vp gave gifts for preaching administration of sacraments and government vnto some sorts of men who 〈…〉 e set out there and plainly distinguished from the other saynts the body of the Church Against this hitherto I take no great exceptioÌ„ though the Apostles meaning may be better layd down thus that Christ Iesus the King and Lord of his Church hath set in it certaine sorts and orders of officers rightly fitted and furnished with graces for the reparation of the saynts and aedification of his body to the worlds end This we affirme as lowd as you and with more comfort And therfore after I have observed in a few wordes how little this scripture serves for your present purpose I will in as few more make it appeare how directly it serves against you in many other mayn matters and that you in bringing it have onely lighted a candle whereby to discover your own nakednes This then is that which you would conclude that bycause Christ hath given power and charge to the sorts of ministers here set downe for the reparation of the saynts and aedification of the body that therefore no brethren out of office may medle with the reparation and aedification of the Saynts or Church I do acknowledge that onely Apostles Prophets c. by office and as works of their Ministery are to look to the reparation and aedification of the body but that the brethren out of office are discharged of those duâ—ties I deny any more then the rest of the servants were of watching though out of office bycause the Porter alone was by office to watch Mark 13. 34 37. Yea look what is layd vpon the officers in this place after a more speciall manner by vertue of their office that also is layd vpon the rest of the brethren els where in the same words to be performed in their places as a duty of love for which they have not onely liberty but charge from the Lord. The officers are here charged with the reparation or knitting together of the saynts the same duty in the same words is imposed vpon every brother spirituall and I hope you the Ministers will not be the onely spirituall men in the Church Secondly the officers are here given to aedifie the body the same duety in the same termes is layd vpon every one of the brethren in their places 1 Thes. 5. 11. and vnto these few might be added an hundred places of the same nature Why then should the Ministers of the Lord or any other for their sake envy vnto the Lords people eyther their graces or liberty or thus arrogate all vnto theÌ„selves as though all knowledge were treasured vp in their breasts all power given into their handes as though no drop of grace for aedificatioÌ„ or comfort of the Church could fall from els where then from their lips Moses in the place of numbers before named wisht that all the Lords people were Prophets and that the Lord would put his spirit vpon them and Paul gives liberty to the whol Church and to all in it women excepted ver 34. to prophesie one by one for the instruction edification and comfort of all but with Mr B and his Church I perceive neyther Moses prayer nor Pauls graunt nor Gods spirit must be avayleable or find acceptance for aedification by any save the Ministers The subjects of Kings vse to complayn much of Monopolyes but the subjects of the Lord Iesus have greater cause of complaint that he himself his power presence and graces wherewith he honoureth all his saynts are thus monopolized and ingrossed The similitude which here you borrow froÌ„ the body of man wherein you say the special members have their speciall vertues in themselves given of God and not bestowed vpon them by the body as the eyes to see the tongue to speak c. for the confirmation of the power of the Lord Iesus or liberty to teach admonish and censure in the hands of the officers alone is faulty in both parts of it and conteynes in it sundry errours both theologicall and phylosophicall And first I do here most justly except against your shuffling together and confounding of the personall gifts graces and vertues of the Ministers and their ministeriall power or office The first in deed they have from Christ and not from or by the Church at all as their knowledge zeale vtterance wisdome holynes and the like with which the Church findes them furnished so appoints them vnder Christ to vse these gifts in office of Ministery whereof out of office they have erst given knowledge this power or appointment which they have from or by the Church thus to vsâ— these gifts is another thing then their personall gifts and qualifications themselves which you Mr B. do very fraudulently confound Secondly it is ignorantly affirmed that God enduâ—s certayn members of the body with speciall vertues and properties as thâ—â—y with seing and the like that they have thes properties not from the body but from God For first the very vertue or faculty of seing is not in the ey but in the soul which vseth the ey onely for the instrument of seing so other parts in their kind Oculus non videâ— sed anima per oculiâ—â— And that not immediately neyther but with the help of the spirits naturall vitall and animall diffused throughout the body which the soul vseth most immediately as the instruments of all life sense motion And so it comes to passe not onely in death where the soul and body are separated but in sundry diseases also of the body that the ey fayleth in seeing and so other members in their service Thirdly as the Elders of the Church I confesse may be compared to eyes in the body and the Deacons to hands in a respect so I deny the similitude to hold absolutely Similitudes as they say do not run vpon four feet to streyn them above that which is intended by the holy Ghost in vsing them is a course full both of vanity and errour The Deacons are the handes of the Church for the distribution of her bodily things to them that need yet I trow you would not have the Church suffer the poore to starve where the Deacons are wanting to minister or fayling in their ministration so are the Elders the eyes mouth of the Church for her government and ministration of spirituall things yet must not the Church perish spiritually for their want or negligence no the Lord is more mercifull to his people then so and doth nor ty them so short in
Prophet must first haue his hand vpon him whom the rest of the people must follow in putting him to death The last words Publican and Heathen do not declare that Christ speakes of the Iewes at that time eyther onely or civily but serve for other purposes as I shall presently manifest taking Arguments from these words as from all the rest to prove that Christ here speakes of sinne and of excommunication for sinne My first Reason I draw from the cohaerence wherein I have formerly manifested Christ speakes not of private injuries onely but of all such scandalles as are to be found in that streyt way to heaveÌ„ no nor of injuries at all as they hurt the outward man but as they are sinnes and hurt and hinder the soul in the way of godlynes and so by the consequence of cohaerence if Christs words hang one vpon an other he speaks v. 15. 16. 17. of sinne and the carying of it 2. I reason from the terme brother which since it apperteyned at this tyme froÌ„ the disciples to many which might not be brought before the Iewish Synedrion as to the beleeving Romaynes Samaritans and the like cannot be meant as is pretended but speaks of a religious fellowship to which any brother may be brought of what country or condition soever As the word haâ—artáno turned offend is of generall signification by your own graunt and so cannot be restreyned to that particular kind of offence so is it most properly vsed for sinne and that vsually by this Evangelist Mat. 3. 6. 9. 2. 12. 31. and 26. 28. and which is specially to be observed when Luke would speak of trespasses or offences as sinnes against God he vseth this word but when in the same place he speaks of them as of injuries against men he vseth another word Ch. 11. 4. And see how soundly Mr B. deales when he should shew that the word turned offend is not meant of sinnes but of injuries he brings in foure principall writers varying as he sayth about the word and yet the vnadvised man considers not that all four of them as he himself alledges them vnderstand it of sinne and not one of them of injuries so speak against him If Christ here spake of injuries where he sayth if he heare thee thou hast wonne or gayned thy brother he would haue sayd thou hast wonne or gayned thy goods or good name wherein he injuryed thee If these words be meant of injuries and wrongs then Christ commaunds his disciples not to suffer wrongs at their brethrens hands but to deal with them in the order here prescribed for Christ expresly commaunds to tell the Church and so Christs doctrine and Pauls teaching the suffring of wrong should contradict the one the other By this exposition one Iew might account an other as an heathen which was vtterly vnlawfull he might not refuse religious communion with him in the temple into which no heathen might come he might not deny him a portion in the land of Canaan the type of the kingdome of heaven he might not account or call him other then a brother whatsoever he were till the time came of the Iewes defraction or breaking off for vnbeleef Act. 7. 2. 22. 1. 33. 1. Rom. 11. 17. This interpretation confirmes a point of Anabaptistry namely that it is not lawfull for brethren so remayning to sue at Caesars barre where it is most evident that brethren alwayes might and may yea such a case may fall out ought to sue without any alienation of affection or such heathenish thought one of another as Mr B. would have Christ in this place to commend vnto them for even these last words let him be to thee as an heathen and publican are a commaundement as let your speach be yea yea nay nay hundreds others delivered in the scriptures vnder the same form of words And to conclude Christ our Saviour in these words describes excommunication by the effects of it which are withdrawing from the brother obstinate in sinne both in religious and civile fellowship and familiaritie as the Iewes did withdraw both froÌ„ the Heathens and Publicans in both Ioh. 4. 9. Act. 10. 3. 31. 28. Luk. 15. 2. 15. 10. 11. And this very phrase Paul most clearely expounds when he directs the Church 1 Cor. 5. 11. not to be commingled with obstinate offenders nor to eat with them this ever provided that no excommunication or other act in religion whatsoever may dissolve eyther civil or naturall societie The next Reason is drawne from verse 18. where Christ ratifying in the hands of his Church this his power speaks in expresse terms of binding and loosing not onely in earth but in heaven also which words me thinks alone should satisfie the conscience of any godly minded man yea and stop the mouth of the most shameles that Christ speaks of sinne and sin onely Yet is Mr B. neyther satisfied nor silent but replyes that binding and loosing in this place is not properly or onely to be vnderstood of Christs Ministers but is allowed to private persons and for this pag. 223 he brings sundry reasons Consider Reader this severe censurer of Mr Smythes vnstablenes Mr B. in his former book pag. 95. will have this power of binding and loosing spoken of in this place to be in the officers of the Châ— two or three and at no hand in private persons and for this there he brings sundry reasons in this his next book this power is â—lâ—tâ—ed to two or three private persons and must not be drawne to the Ministerie onely and for this he brings as many reasons Observe further the very sum of Mr B. answer is that Christ speaks not here of binding and loosing in the office of Ministerie So we affirm that by two or three having this power cannot be meant two or three Ministers considered severally from the body which alone are not the Church for any publick administration but the officers of the Church but by two or three are meant the meanest coÌ„munion or societie of saints whether with officers or without officers And is this a sufficient answering of an adversary to bring sundry reasons to prove the very thing which he affirmes Adde to all these that where the injuries offred to Christs disciples and such as would respect his direction were vsually for the profession of Christ it had been a most idle course to have complayned eyther to the Iewish Synedrion or Romish Magistracy which would have added injurie to injurie Lastly where Christ v. 23. in his answer to Peters quaestion makes the protasis or first part of his comparison the kingdom of heaven which is the Church he shewes plainely that all the while he hath spoken of Church affaires and the carying of them And thus much to prove that the Lord Iesus the King of his Church hath left in this 18. of Math a rule order
8. and last exception Now for allowing of the plaintiffe to seek further remedy of the referring of the party obstinate vnto him which is the sum of the sixt Arg as also of these terms let him be to thee as an heathen and publican which is an other exception together with that consideration that the party offended is the principall in all the degrees of proceeding I have formerly spoken in the exposition of the words to which the reader is to look back for answer if such idle conjecture give any cause of doubt to any One onely blow more is to be warded by which Mr B. would disable this 18. of Math. from being any rule of discipline and that is bycause it provides not for suspension we grant it doth not and you your self half graunt that no such thing is to be found in the new testament And what reason haue you or any other man to put vs to prove your corruptions and devises which you know we neyther practise nor allow of These things thus ended and the received exposition of Math. 18. confirmed viz that Christ in it prescribes a rule of discipline in the Church I come to your reasons Mr B. in your first book by which you would prove that this Church is the chief governours The first whereof is that Christ could not be understood eyther then or now except he spake as the practise was then or took some order afterward and so you go about to prove vnto vs that the chief governours onely had authoritie to excommunicate both in the synagogues and in the Church of Corinth To this I answer sundry things First it followes not that Christ was not then or cannot now be vnderstood except he spake with some such reference as you note The words are so plaine the order so equall the state of the Church vnder the new testament which is not as before nationall but a particular assembly so capable of such an ordinance as that laying aside prejudice and politick respects there can be nothing more playnely spoken or more easily vnderstood 2. It doth no way prejudice the exposition we give though the disciples for the present vnderstood it not they vnderstood litle no not touching the death and resurrection of Christ or nature of his kingdome when they were at the first taught them till eyther by their own experience or by the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost or some other meanes the thinges formerly taught them were brought to their remembrance Mat. 16. 21. 22. 20. 20. 21. Mark 16. 14. Luk. 24. 20. 21. 22 25. 26. -44. And it is expressely affirmed Act. 1. 3. that the Lord Iesus did the 40. dayes before his ascension instruct them in such things as concerned the kingdome of God which is the Church The next thing to be considered is your proofs from scripture that the power of excommunication was in the chief governours But the places proove no such thing Ioh. 9. 22. and 12. 42. 16. ◠do onely prove an agreement amongst the Iewes that such as confessed Christ should be dissynagogued but that this authority was onely in the hands of the chief governours cannot be thence collected I know there was at Ierusalem a representative Church for the whole nation of which we shall speak hereafter but that there was such a Church representative in every synagogue furnished with such power can never be concluded frō these scriptures They rather in deed prove the contrarie It is sayd Ioh. 9. 22. that the Iewes had ordeyned that such as confessed Christ should be dissynagogued which words do rather interest the people in the busines then otherwise If you think that because there is mention made of the Pharisees the officers onely are meant you are deceived For Pharisaism amongst the Iewes was not an office but a sect There were no other lawfull officers ecclesiasticall amongst them but the Levites whom the Lord took from among the children of Israel in stead of the first borne for his service but many of the Pharisees were of other tribes Phil. 3. 5. Besides I see no sufficient reason to perswade me that this casting out of the synagogue was any ecclesiasticall censure but rather a violent rejection or extrusion out of the place as nothing was more cōmon then such tumultuous outrages in those dayes And the very same word that Iohn vseth ch 9. ver 35. Luke vseth ch 4. 28. 29. for the violent extrusion of Christ himself by the Iewes vpon the like occasion both out of the synagogue and citie The same also doth Iohn himself vse ch 2. 15. speaking of Christs casting the mony chaungers out of the temple And yet neyther the NAZARITES excommunicate CHRIST nor CHRIST the mony-chaungers But if there were amongst the Iewes at that tyme any such distinct ordinance of excommunication ecclesiasticall it was a Iewish devise I am perswaded and without ground of the scriptures and that for these causes First every blasphemer or worshipper of vnknowen Gods was by the law of Moses to dy the death without redemption that so evill might be put from Israell Exod. 22. 20. Lev. 24. 16. Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9 12. 13. 14. 15. And so the Iewes reputing this blind man such a one were to put him to death but being deprived of this power by the Romayns through the just judgement of God for their sinnes they devised this other course of dissynagogueing or excommunicating offendours by them so deemed Secondly the severall synagogues were not distinct Churches but members of that one nationall Church which was both representatively and originally at Ierusalem neyther could any of them excommunicate out of the temple which was a higher communion then theirs and so it is very probable that Christ found this blind man afterwards in the temple Ioh. 9. 38. compared with 10. 22. into which had he been ecclesiastically excommunicated he might not haue entred neyther hangs it together that any rejected in the communion of the synagogue might be received in the communion of the temple 3. The Lord did chuse the whole nation of the Iewes to be his peculiar people and took all and every one of them into covenant with himself gave them the Land of Canaan for an inheritance as a type of the kingdome of heaven erected a policy over them civil ecclesiasticall in the judiciall ceremonial law called the old testamēt making the same persons all of them though in divers respects the Church the cōmon wealth whervpō the Church is also called the common wealth of Israel Exod. 19. 5. 6. Lev. 20. 24. 26. Deut. 4. 6. 7. 29. 2. 10. 11. 12. Ios. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rom. 9. 4 Ephe. 2. 12. Hence it followeth that except a man might enjoy one type of the kingdom of heavē as was the Land of Canaā not an other as was the temple or tabernacle Heb. 9. 24. except he might be
vnder one part of the old testament or covenant of God namely the judicial law for the common wealth and not vnder an other part of it the ceremoniall law for the Church it cannot be that any such ordinance as excommunication could be vsed lawfully in the Iewish Church Yet do I not deny but that the lepers other persons legally vnclean were for a time debarred froÌ„ the coÌ„munioÌ„ of the Church and from all the sacrifices and services thereof but this inhibition say I was no way in the nature of an excommunication For first it was for ceremoniall vncleannes issues leprosy and the like which were not sinnes but punishments of sinnes at the most 2. It did not onely exclude men from the communion of the Church but of the common wealth also and the affaires thereof 3. It did not agree in the end with excommunication The end of excommunication is the repentance of the party excoÌ„municated 1 Cor. 5. 5. but the person legally vncleane whether he repented or no was to bear his shame till the date of his time were out yea to his dying day if his disease continued so long Lev. 12. 13. 14. Num. 5. 2. 3. 4. 12. 10. 14. 2 Chron. 26. 19. 20. 21. A type I confesse it was of excommunication as legall pollution was of morall sin whence I also conclude that the type and thing typed outwardly could not both stand together But here it vvilbe demaunded of me did not the Lord require in the Iewish Church true morall and spirituall holynes also God forbid I should run vpon that desperate rock of Anabaptistry The Lord was holy then as now and so would have his people be then holy as now Yea so jealous was the Lord over his people that he took order then as well as now that no sin should be suffered vnreformed no obstinate sinner vncut off Some sinnes were of that nature as he that committed them was by the law to dy the death without pardon or partialitie so to be cut off from the Lords people Lev. 20. And when other sinnes not of that nature were committed whether of ignorance or otherwise the party offending was to be told and admonished of his offence and so to manifest his repentance by the confefsâ—on of his sinne and professioÌ„ of his faith in the mediatour by offering his appointed sacrifice and so his sinne was forgiven him Lev. 4. 13. 14. 15. 20. 21 23 26. 27. 28. 35. 5. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. 19. 17. Num. 5. 6. 7. But now if there were with the least sinne joyned obstinacy or presumption the party so sinning was to be cut off from his people Num. 15. 30. 31. 32. 34. 36. Deut. 17. 12. and for this cause the Iewes were so oft admonished to destroy the workers of wickednes that there should be no wickednes amongst them that they should take away evil from Israel and from forth of the middest of them And vpon this ground doth David as the cheif Magistrate whom this busines cheifly concerned vow his service vnto God in this kind and that he would even betimes destroy all the wicked of the land that he might cut off the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord though he afterwards fayled in the execution of this dutie And to the very same end did Asa the King with all the people enter a covenant of oath to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their hart and with all their soule and that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slaine whether be were small or great man or woman To end this point vpon which I have insisted something the longer for sundry purposes in their place to be manifested as the Lord vsually conveyed spirituall both blessings and curses vnto the Iewes vnder those which were bodily so here was the spirituall judgement of excommunication comprehended vnder this bodily judgement of death by which the party delinquent was wholy cut off visibly from the Lords covenant and people That which you adde of Cloes coÌ„plaint made to the cheif governour the Apostle is true but misapplyed You make an erroneous collection from it out of your owne lamentable experience Bycause your Church of Worxsop can reforme no abuse within it self but must complain to your Lords grace of York or his substitute therfore you imagine the Church of Corinth to have been in the same boÌ„dage wherein you are and Cloe to have complayned to Pauls court But it is playn Mr B. to them that do not shut their eyes and harden their hearts against the truth that the Church of Corinth was planted in the liberty of the gospell and had this power of Christ to reform abuses and to excommunicate offenders without sending to Paul from one part of the world to an other and that the Corinthians Ch. 5. are reproved for fayling in this duty And had Mr B. but taken this course in his writing that two of his leaves had hung together he might have spared this objection considering what he writ pag. 92. that the same persons have the power to preach administer the sacraments and excommunicate for that he meanes by government Now he cannot be ignorant that both the power and practise of preaching administring the sacraments were in the Church of Corinth in Pauls absence 1 Cor. 11. 20. 14. 1. c. And so by your own graunt the Church of Corinth had power to excommunicate though Paul were absent Wherevpon I also infer it was their sinne not to vse it Now for the practise of Cloes family wee know Paul was an Apostle and generall Officer and so intitled to the affaires in all the Churches in the world wherevpon Cloe complayned vnto him of such abuses in the Church as were both of publick nature and which the Church vvould not reform otherwise it had been both slaunder and solly to have complayned And what corne doth this winde shake Do wee make it vnlawfull for any member to informe the officers of publique enormities in the Church that they according to their places might see reformation of them Yea if the Pastor or other principall Officer of the Church were absent necessarily we doubt not but it were the duety of any brother or brethren in the like case to entreat their help for the direction reproofe and reformation of the Church for any publick enormities there done or suffered who might also judge and condemne the same themselves and for their parts exhorting and directing the whole Church in their publique meeting to do the like as Paul did Your three next Arguments to prove that tell the Church is tell the Officers are idle descants vpon the formes and phrases of speach scraped together to fill your book with First you affirm that Christ having spoken in the third person tell the Church when he comes to ratify the authoritie to be committed to his Apostles turnes his
till the coming of Christ Gen. 47. 10. 17. 7. Exod. 19. 43. 44. 45. It was simply necessary the Messiah should be borne in the true Church wherein he might have communion and fulfil the law Math. 5. 17. Luk. 2. 21. 22. 23. 29. The Lord did ever affoard the Iewes even in their deepest apostasie some or other visible signes of his presence and those even extraordinary when ordinary fayled thereby declaring himself stil to remember his promise made to their forefathers ever and anon by some godly King Prophet or Priest or if these vvould not serve by some severe correction destroying from amongst them the cheifest rebels brought them to repentance caused them to passe a nevv into his covenaunt as hath formerly been declared But vvith vs it is othervvise No Church novv can expect or doth enjoy such extraordinary priviledges But if it depart from the Lord by any transgression and therein remayn irrepentant after due conviction and vvill not be reclaymed it man fests vnto vs that God also hath left it and that as the Church by her sin hath separated from and broken covenant vvith God so God by leaving her in hardnes of hart vvith but repentance hath on his part broken and dissolved the covenant also The Lord Iesus threatens the †Churches for leaving their first love and for their lukewarmnes that he will come against them speedily remove there candlestick that is dischurch them except they repent spue them as loathsome out of his mouth There is the same reason in due proportion of one member sinning of a fevv of many and of a vvhole Church novv if a brother sin and vvill not be reclaymed by the ordinary means appointed by Christ for that purpose he is to be accounted no longer a brother but an heathen publican Math. 18. 17. so is it with two or three brethren with a few with many or with the whole Church though there be a different order of dealing for the multitude of sinners doth no way lessen or extenuate the sin eyther in the eyes of God or men Now for your arguments In handling whereof I will also take in such of your score of Reasons against pollutioÌ„ as are worthy coÌ„sideration First you say vnder the law there was a sacrifice for all manner of pollutions but none for this and therefore it is no sin It is not so for 1. if a man polluted his hands with innocent blood by murder or his body with adultery or wrought any other wickednes punishable by death there was that I find no particular sacrifice for it 2. The people of Israel were guilty of the pollution of the Lords house by bringing or suffring to come into his sanctuary stâ—â—ungers eyther uncircumcised in flesh or in heart and so there was an â—ffring to be made once a year for the purging of the holy place and Tabernacle for the cleansing of the Altar to be an attonement for the Preists and for all the people of the congregation 3. The pollution I speak of comming onely by neglect of some duty for the reformation of a brother cannot be denyed to be sin and with other pollution medle I not The godly people were never reproved for being at the ministration of holy things though wicked men were there We graunt it in the true Church but deny a company of impenitent sinners to remayn the true Church being to the iudgement of men vnrecoverable Yea if but one haue committed the evill notoriously scandalous and the rest so tollerate him that litle leven levens the whole lump and with leven must not the Passeover be eaten in any case And here Mr Bernard your cavelling Reply vpon Mr Ainsworth speaking of the whole Church all the assembly is answered The Corinthians might as well haue eluded and put of Pauls argument and reproof as you Mr Ainsworths for Paul speakes of the whole lump as Mr Ainsworth doth of the whole Church And surely if two or three officers be the whole Church that hath the power of Christ to judge consure offenders as you say the whole lump might soon be levened and the whole Church plead for open iniquity The Prophets did not separate themselves though they cryed out against wickednes Isa. 1. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. c. Both the Prophets Preists and people that were godly did separate froÌ„ Apostate Israel in Ierboams tyme which we take to be your estate in a great measure coÌ„sidering your worship holy dayes Preisthood government But for Ierusalem the Church there the case is otherwise Touching which I desire these two Rules may be born in minde First that ther was that one onely visible Church vpon the face of the earth tyed to one temple altar sacrifice Preisthood in one place that no man could absolutely separate from that Church but he must separate from the visible presence and from all the solemn publique worship of God Secondly that the Iewish Church had not that distinct ecclesiasticall ordinance of excommunication which we now have but that the obstinate or presumptuous offender was by bodily death to be cut of from the Lords people the same persons namely the whole nation being both Church and common wealth according to that special dispensation of those times Wherevpon it followeth first that since absolute separation from the Iewish Church was unlawfull communion with it was lawfull and 2. that since the Church had not the power to cast out an offender it was no pollution vnto them to suffer him amongst them so they discharged such other duetyes as were inioyned them by the Lord. But it is now otherwise the times are altered and the dispensations of them Every place where a companie of faithful people are gathered into Christs name is mount Syon hath the promise of Gods presence and separation from one Church remayning vncurable may be made into another And as separation may be from a Church so may excommunication be of person obstinately wicked And these two Rules rightly applyed wil as I am perswaded satisfie the scriptures and reasons brought by Mr. B. here and both by him and others els where from the old testament and the vnpolluted coÌ„munion of the servants of God in the Iewish Church The other scriptures I will breifly passe over Tit. 1. 15. shewes that all the creatures of God are pure to the pure I graunt it and his ordinances also But ever provided in their lawfull and right vse which in a prophane and vnsanctified communion they are not By your exposition Mr Bernard a godly man might eat the Lords supper with haeretiques excoÌ„municates yea Turks or Pagans if they would and yet all should be pure to him Of the 2. and 3. chap. in the Revelation I have spoken formerly and there proved that the Churches were polluted by the tolleration of wicked persons amongst
which those holy things are to be vsed Psal. 147 19. Rom. 3. 2. 9. 4. and that we are as well to look in what fellowship and communion we receive the holy things of God as what the things are we do receive And as in the naturall body there must first be a naturall vnion of the parts with the head and one with an other before there can be any action of naturall communion eyther between the head and the members or one member and an other so in this spirituall body the Church the members must first be vnited with Christ the head and become one with him before they can any way partake in his benefits oâ— haue communion with him eyther in the merits or vertue of his death and obedience Ioh. 15. 2. 4. 5. Rom. 8. 1. as also one with an other as members of the same body vnder him the head before they can communicate in their works or operations Communion in works and actions doth necessarily presuppose vnion of persons And if it be true which Mr B. labours so much to justify both in his former and latter writing that a man is onely to look to his own person that it be holy and to the thing in hand that it be commaunded of God and that it matters not to how vnholy a society this holy person adjoynes himself in the communion of this holy thing then may â—e lawfully repute and acknowledge an assembly of atheists haeretiques and idolaters though as the assembly gathered Mark 5. 9. usurping the holy things of God for the temple of the living God and for his sonnes and daughterâ— among whom he doth dwell and walk there There may he call upon God as their common father and say with faith as Christ hath taught his discipls our father there may he have coÌ„munion in the body and blood of Christ as with the members of Christ. But the Lord Iesus in teaching his Church with one hart and voice to say our father hath established an other brotherhood in giving his body and blood to be eaten and drunken of all in communion hath knit in one an other society The Apostle writing vnto the Church of Corinth compares the whole Church to a mans body and the persons in the one to the members of the other viz to the head foot â—y ear hand and other parts and endeavouring purposely to draw them to the right vse of those spirituall gifts wherewith they abounded without contempt or envie he shewes that all have need and vse each of others the head of the foot the hand of the ey and so mutually one of an other and that without the help ech of other neyther could consist Now since every part stands need of other even the head the cheifest of the feet the meanest doth it not concern the head to consider what a foot it hath the ey to see what an hand it hath and so every member to forecast that it be coupled with such other members in this body mysticall as may not fayl it in the time of need Wo be to him that is alone sayth the wise man for if he fall there is not a second to lift him vp but if two be together the one will lift vp his fellow if he fall And how behoofull both for the comfort and safety of the severall members and whole body it is that joyntly and severally all and every part be so fitted and furnished as they may faithfully discharge their duties and affoard their service vpon occasion and as need stands and how great not onely the discomfort but the daunger is when there is a fayling this way both the word of God and coÌ„mon reason and every mans own experience will teach him Wherevpon I conclude that it concernes every man as first and most to look to his own person and to consider how things stand betwixt God and himself so in the next place to take heed he joyn himself in such a communion as wherein he may with comfort call vpon God as a coÌ„mon father and partake in his ordinances by a coÌ„mon right to him the rest that being so joyned he fayl not the body or any member of it as there is need of his help service otherwise Mr B. reasons will not bear him out no not though for scores he put hundreds which being compared with the scriptures and grounds from them formerly layd down will appear to be the very froath of his own lipps neyther solid nor savoury Next Mr B. reduceth to certayn heads such places of scripture as forewarn Gods people to separate themselves and that first vnder the law as 1. from Idols of false Gods as Israel from Aegyptian Babylonish or heathenish Gods and Idolaters dwelling about them 2. From Idols of the true God as Iudah from Israell in Ieroboams time and after 3. From persons ceremonially polluted In the time of the gospell 1. From Iewes not receiving Christ but rayling against him 2. From Gentiles without Christ. 3. From Antichrist vnder the shew of Christ persecuting Christians 4. From familiarity private with men excommunicate or of lewd life c. which places you say no way concern you at all and so you give a very ample testimony of your selves if we durst beleeve your words against our own knowledge Your first head I let passe and in answer vnto your second affirm thus much that in your constitution you are partly as the Aegyptians in respect of your bondage partly as the Babylonians in respect of your confusion and partly as Ieroboams Church in respect of your Apostacy in your devised preisthood sacrifices and holy dayes the Lord having appointed no such Ministery as your preisthood no such sacrifice as your service book no such holy dayes as your single and double feasts which you have forged of your own harts Touching separation from persons ceremonially polluted it must be coÌ„sidered that ceremonies have their signification and shadowes their substance The ceremony then was that whosoever touched a dead person or a person or thing unclean was vnclean whom or whatsoever the vnclean persoÌ„touched that person or thing was vnclean so that a persoÌ„ vnclean did not onely pollute the thing he touched to himself as Mr B. vvould haue it but to others also whosoever touched the thing that he touched was polluted by it What is then the substance of these ceremonies Who is now a leper but he which hath the leprosy of sinne arysing in his forehead Who hath an issue of blood vpon him but he in whose soul and body the issue of sinne runneth vnstopped Who is the dead person now that may not be touched without pollution but he that is dead in trespasses and in sinnes And who toucheth such an vnclean person if he that becomes and remaynes one body with him by spirituall communion and a member of him touch him not RoÌ„ 12. 4. 5.