for the punishment of offenders in it But this tedious matter is not yet ended For Mr B. marshals in eight fresh reasons to force all the reformed Churches in the world with vs to give over this hold of Mat. 18. pag. 224. 225. 226. of this his last book the best is they are of no great strength The first is a bare affirmation that the former exposition by me confuted is true His second Reason is bycause Christ hath erected no government in his Church for why he should adde by publick doctrine I see not except he would insinuate that Christ taught this point privately and in a corner but for this brings he no one scripture or reason as if his bare vvord vvere enough to stablish an Idoll King in his Church vvithout officers or lavves Where notvvithstanding in his former book pag 90. 91. 92. 93. he proves by many scriptures that Christ hath given officers for the government of his Church which no man denyes but himself In the third place he affirmes that Christ by the Church meanes not the Iewish Synedrion wherin I assent vnto his saying for reason brings he none Touching the nature of the Churches government which he gropes at in the fourth place I have spoken els where The 5. Reason followeth which comprehends vnder it many petty Reasons and amongst other the 6 7 and 8 in order which save for the shew in the margent of 8. distinct numbred Reasons might vvel enough haue ben spared The sum is that this 18. of Mat. is no perfect rule of discipline the reasoÌ„s are bycause neyther all sorts of sins are here brought in nor all the parts of discipline here comprehended And hovv do these things appear First bycause a man is here to proceed onely for trespasses or as it is better turned for offences against himself but not for sinne against God against the Magistrate or against an other But here you should have remembred Mr B. that sin being the transgression of the law is onely against God to speak properly and therefore David notwithstanding his defiling of Bath sheba and murdering of Vrijah confesseth that he had sinned against God onely But as the same transgression is so coÌ„mitted as man scandalizeth or takes offence at it so it is a sinne against him whether the deed done respect God or man yea man or beast publick or private person a mans self or others in the object and so he may forgive it after the order prescribed by Christ. And where by way of exception you demaund how one man can remit trespasses done against an other it is true it cannot be if by trespasses be meant personall injuries but considering the same trespasses as they are sinnes against God at which a brother takes offence so the brother offended may forgive them vpon the offenders repentance And asking how men can forgive rebellion against God you seem to haue forgotten yourself for in the very leaf next before going you both graunt and prove that not onely Ministers by vertue of their office but private persons also may bind and loose sinnes The thing it self you grant and for the manner of it it is as they save by manifesting and making knowne outwardly salvation and the forgivenes of sinnes To your third objection concerning the keeping secret of publick crymes against the Magistrate vpon the offenders repentance you answer yourself for if they be publick or of publick nature they may not be kept secret neyther are they capable of the order of secret dealing in them And here falles into consideration your seventh Reason which is that if discipline be grounded vpon Mat. 18. then the Church must iudge in civil affaires and enter vpon the bounds of the Magistrate And are you ignorant Mr B. that civil actions as they draw scaÌ„dalous sin with them may be censured ecclesiastically as may also religious actions be punished civily by the Magistrate which is the preserver of both tables so to punish all breaches of both specially such as draw with them the violation of the positive lawes of kingdomes or disturbance of common peace Take your own instance of murder The Magistrate is to punish it civilly in all his subjects whether the parties repent or no the Church is to censure it ecclesiastically in her members yea though the Magistrate pardon or passe by it except the parties delinquent repent for then they are to be forgiven And what vsurpation is here vpon the Magistracy you to suppress Gods ordinance do flatter the Magistrate and accuse the innocent Next you except that this of Mat. is a rule for sinnes private and more secret but not for publick and open sinne You might as well say that the patterne of prayer prescribed by Christ Mat. 6. is not perfect nor a rule for private prayer or for things concerning our selves onely bycause it teacheth vs to say Our father forgive vs our sinnes But who knowes not that generalls include their specialties vnder them The Lord Iesus in teaching his disciples to say forgive vs our sinnes ioyntly teacheth them in the same place to ask forgivenes eyther of their own sinnes or the sinnes of others severally as occasion serves so in teaching here all the degrees of admonition ioyntly he implyes also the dealing in any one of them severally if there be occasion And this exposition of Mr B. can I not fitlyer resemble then to the practise of some silly pursevant that being sent to attach some traytour or other malefactour dwelling in Barwick and so to bring him to the Court if he should meet the party by the way would refuse to medle with him and would say that he was sent to Barw to fetch him and would eyther bring him from thence or would let him alone And it seems if Mr B. might construe his coÌ„mmission he would so advise him But would not common sense teach a man that the nearer he met with the party he â—ought the more labour were spared and that he were to apprehend him where he found him So where Christ sends his disciples to deal with sinne a farre off as it were and in the first vtmost degree but if it be come nearer and be found in the 2. or 3. degree it is to be taken where it is found If it be secret and yet rest betwixt the brother offeÌ„ding offended it must there be dealt with if it become nearer the court and be wrought before two or three or more it must there and in that order be vndertaken the first degree is over and that labour spared if it be of publick nature or publikly coÌ„mitted the two former degrees are past and the labour in them spared the sin must be dealt with accordingly And the Church eyther by information from any brother or brethren or by immediate notice taken may convent or call for the offender that he which sinned publikly may publiquely be rebuled And this may serue for answer to the
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
delinquent is freed froÌ„ the dint of the spirituall sword the ceÌ„sure of the Church which others do and so he should without that priveledge vndergoe as well as they Where me thinks it were more meet as that he which can read and so hath or may have greater knowledge should be the more severely punished civily so that the officers in the Church should vndergoe if it were to be found an heavier ceÌ„sure for their sinne as being both more scandalous and lesse excusable And so the Lord by Moses expresly manifests his will to be in enioyning the Preist a greater sacrifice a bullock for his sin where a goat which was lesse might serve in the like case for the suâ— of one of the people And this may well serve for a seventh reason to prove that the officers are by the law of God lyable to as deep censures for sin as the people and so the Pastour as any one of the brethren Yet for the further more full opening of the iniquity of those proud and popish exemptions and exaltations of Church officers whereof from these scriptures alledged by Mr B. and the like they boast so much and by which they affright and abuse the simple people in all places I will breifly as I can lay down certayn such different respects and relations vnder which the officers of the Church do come as being rightly vnderstood iustly applyed will give good light to the discovering of this mystery First then the officers of the Church are to be considered in respect of the thing which they minister and that is the word and revealed will of God in which regard they are infinitely above superiour vnto all men and angels and in the very stead of Christ and of God himself And in for and according to this message or ambassage of God and of Christ they are absolutely and simply to be obeyed as is the meanest officer about the King carrying with him his warrant and authority by the greatest Pere in the kingdome In the 2. place they must be considered of vs in respect of their office by vertue whereof they do administer And in this regard they are inferiour vnto the Church as being by it called to a place of ministery to serve the Church and not of Lordship to reign over it The 3. consideration they vndergoe is in regard of their persons and as they are brethren saynts christians for they cease not to be Christians bycause they are Ministers but must manifest their generall calling in their speciall partakers of the same coÌ„mon graces and subiect to the same common infirmities with the rest and in this respect they are equall with the brethren standing in need of the same meanes both for their edification and reformation and so particularly of the censures for their humiliation if they be so farre left of God as they may be and oft times are as they will not otherwise be reclaymed And I had as leiv you should tell me that bycause the Deacons are to distribute the Churches almes therfore the Church is not to releiv them though they be in daunger to starve bodily as that bycause the Elders are to minister the Churches judgmeÌ„ts none must iudge them though they be thorough impenitency in daunger to perish spiritually Now for the particulars which Mr B. obiecteth it is true the people are sheep but not the Ministers but the Lords sheep Ezech. 34. 6. 8 31. neyther are these sheep for the Ministers as the naturall sheep for their sheepheards but for the Lord and the sheepheards for them The people are indeed an house but not the officers house but the Lords house for him to dwell in Ephe. 2. 20. 21. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Secondly the people are sheep yet not vnreasonable beasts but men Ezech. 34. 31. so to be looked to by the sheepheards as they are also to look to themselves Act. 20. 28. Luk. 17. 3. They are so a house as they consist not of dead but of living stones 1 Pet. 2. 5. so built vp by the Officers as they are also to build vp themselves Iud. 20. And which is especially to be minded for the purpose in hand the officers are so sheepheards as they are also themselves sheep if they be not goates Math. 25. 37. Luk. 12. 32. Rom. 8. 36. They are so fathers as they are also brethren Mat. 23. 8. Act. 1. 16. 2 Cor. 8. â—â— yea as they are sonnes also in a sence as the Levite was in sundry respects both Michaes father and his sonne Iudg. 17. 1. 11. They are so workmen or builders as they are also part of the house Ephe. 2. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 20. so seeds-men as themselves are also seed and a part of the harvest Math. 13. 38. These distinctions rightly observed will both teach the officers how to govern and the people how to obey and both officers people how to preserve themselves and one another vnder the power of Christ given to his Church And where you demaund in this place by way of digression how a few of vs become a Church we answer in a word by coÌ„ming out of Babylon thorough the mercies of God and building our selves into a new and holy temple vnto the Lord. But where you affirm the Ministery that is the office of Ministery or the word so ministred to be the Lords onely ordinary meanes to plant Churches or to vrge men to ioyn vnto them you streyten the Lords hand and wrong his people When the woman of Samarta spake to her neighbours of Christ and called them vnto him they both beleeved and came but had you been amongst them it seemes you would have done neyther the one nor the other except a Minister had called you I confesse indeed the Churches in England were very manneâ—ly this way would not so much as forsake the Pope of Rome till their masse-priests went before them who being continued in their office did by the attractive power of King Edwards proclamation at the first and Queen Elizabeths afterward and by their statute lawes gather heir Parish Churches vnto them vnder their service book as 〈…〉 doth her chicken to be brooded vnder her wing But the â—â—formed Churches were otherwise gathered then by Popish preists continued over them the people first separating themselves from idolatry and foâ—oâ—â—ing together in the fellowship of the gospell were afterwards when they had sit men to call them into the office of Ministery and so they practised as appears in the Epistle of Melanctbon to the Teachers in Bohemia in D. Tileâ—us his answer to the Earle of Lavall and in Peter Martyr vpon the 4. of Iudges It is true indeed that the Lord Iesus sent forth his Apostles into the world for the first planting of Churches though even in their times Ch were planted men turned to the Lord by the preaching of private brethreÌ„ Act. 8. 1. 4. 11. 19. 20. 21. therefore
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
become one body with them he the head and they the members as it is betwixt him and his Church 1 Cor. 10. 17. 12. 12. 27. Lastly no Woman having a former housband alive may take a second or be lawfully maryed vnto him but wicked prophane persons have a former husband yet living even the law or sin taking occasion by the law to work in them all manner of lust ruling over them as the husband over the wife to which also they are bound as the wife vnto the housband Rom. 7. 1. 2. 3. 5. 8. therefore cannot be maryed vnto Christ nor become his wife The 2. similitude followeth A man professing obedience to a king as his alone sovereign and obeying his lawes in the general though he transgresse in some things openly greatly is that Kings true subiect notwithstanding You deal vnfaithfully put the case wrong The question is of a man professing himself in word the Kings loyall subiect his alone but in deed truth the sworn slave of his professed enemy an apparant rebell against the Kings majesty And whether such a one be a true subiect vnto the King or no for such and no better are wicked profane men whatsoever in word they professe even slaves and vassals of the Divel and rank rebels against the L. Iesus Right now you would have Rome a true Church now you will have Iesuites the Kings true subjects for such they professe themselves as boldly as falsly And yet no Romish Preist or Iesuit is more treacherous to the Kings person state then is a prophane vngoldly man professing Christianity to the crown dignity of Christ Iesus The 3. resemblance is of a man professing one onely trade though bunglingly or carelesly whom none will call a false trades-man but eyther no good trades-man or vnprofitable yet truely that trades-man by his profession Here as before you mis-put the case you should instance in a man professing a trade or faculty but practising the contrary in his generall course For example a man professeth himself in word a surgeon or physition but is observed and found in deed and practise to poyson men and cut their throtes and this to be his resolved course Now so charitable is Mr B. as he will have this man still called and that truely a Physition or surgeon though not good nor profitable But the truth is he is a false and treacherous homicyde and murtherer and so to be abhorred of all but of none eyther to be called or accounted a true physition or surgeon eyther good or evil Such a one and no better is he to his own soul that vnder the profession of Christianity in word practiseth wickednes and impiety and hath his conversation in them The authour having thus ended his defence for the bad and naughty matter of his Church so granted by him in effect comes to speak of false matter but so breifly and darkly withall as it appears plainly he is loth to meddle with it least in the handling his bad matter should prove false matter as it comes to passe with counterfeyt coyn That he sayth then is that false matter is contrary to this true matter that is to the true matter of which he hath spoken Wherevpon it followeth that since the true matter he hath spoken of is wicked and vngodly men though professing Christ and that holy and godly men are contrary to men wicked vngodly that therefore godly and holy men are contrary to the true matter of his Church and so by his reckoning false matter To conclude this point What is false but that which hath an appearance of truth but not the truth it self whereof it makes shew in which respect the scriptures also speak of false Christs false Prophets false Apostles false brethren false witnesses false ballances and the like pretending themselves to be that which they are not and to have that truth in them which they have not of all which there is none more truely false nor more fitly so called then that man is and is called truely a false christian or false matter of the Church which 〈◊〉 in word he looks to be saved by Iesus Christ and yet continues in a lewd and wicked conversation having a shew of godlines but denying the power thereof and professing the knowledg of God but by works denying him Wherevpon I do also conclude that the body of the Church of England being gathered generally and for the most part of such members visibly cannot be the true visible body of Christ except a true living body can be compact of false and dead members That which comes next into consideration in Mâ— B order is the visible form of the Church as he calls it which he makes truely the vniting of vs vnto God one to another visibly in his 2. book the covenant by which Godsets vp a people to be his people and they him mutually to be their God This description he illustrateth by a similitude borrowed from a materiall building whose form ariseth from the coupling together of the stones vpon the foundatioÌ„ which he also further manifesteth by comparing it with the form of the invisible Church by which the faithfull are vnited to God through Christ invisibly and one vnto another Of the termes of which comparison and their proportion wee shall speak by and by I do onely in the mean while intreat the reader to observ with me these two things The former that Mr B having in the beginning of his book censured vs very severely and that with D. Allisons concurring testimony for misapplying 1 Pet. 2. 5. to the visible Church which sayd they was meant of the invisible Church here notwithstanding he interprets it of the visible Church even as we do The latter that speaking of the invisible Church and the form of it he brings in sundry scriptures as so to be expounded which are apparantly intended of the visible Church amongst the rest these three Ephe. 2. 22. and 4. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. the last of which he himself also within a few pages following expounds as meant of the visible Church and the properties thereof Now for the comparison betwixt the form of the invisible and visible Church wherein if Mr B. observed due proportion and made the form of the visible Church the same visibly externally in respect of men which he doth the form of the invisible Church invisibly internally and in respect of God and so layd down things in simple and playn terms the truth in the point would easily appeare much needles labour be spared on both sides The form of the invisible Church he noteth first and on Gods part to be raysed by the spirit by which invisible hand God taketh men immediately by the hart and sayth he wil be thâ—â—â— God 2. and on mans part by â—aith by which invisible hand the beleevers
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