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
place Onely let the indifferent reader iudge whither Mr B. in blazing abroad the personal infirmityes of his adversaries without any occasion neyther sparing the living nor the dead have not come to the very highest pitch of the most natural rayling that may be A practise which all sober mynded men do abhor from The next that comes in Mr B. way are the two brethren Mr Francis Mr George Iohnson whose contentions he exaggeâ—ateth what he can to make both their persons and cause odious True it is that George Iohnson together with his father taking his part were excommunicated by the Church for contention arising â—t the first vpon no great occasion wherevpon many bitter and â—eprochful termes were vttered both in word and writing George â—ecoÌ„ming as Mr B. chargeth him a disgracefull libeller It is to vs iust cause of humiliation all the dayes of our lives â—hat we have given and do give by our differences such advantages â—o them which seek occasion agaynst vs to blaspheme the truth â—hough this may be a iust iudgment of God vpon others which â—â—ek offences that seeking they may find them to the hardening of â—heyr hearts in evill But let men turne theyr eyes which way soever â—hey will and they shall see the same scandalls Look to the first â—nd best Churches planted by the Apostles themselves and beâ—old dissentions scandall strise byting one of another About two hundred yeares after Christ what a styrr was there about moone-shyne in water as we speak betwixt the East and West Churches when Victor Bishop of Rome excoÌ„municated the Churches in Asia for not keeping the Iewish feast of Easter at the same time with the Church of Rome And to come nearer our own tymes how bitter was Luther agaynst Swinglius Calvin in the matter of the Sacrament how implacable is the hatred at this day of them whom they call Lutherans against the followers of the other partyes Take yet one instance more and in it a view of the very height of humayne fraylty this way The exiled Church at Frankford in Queen Maryes dayes bred and nourished within it self such contentious as that one accused another to the Magistrate of treason wherevpon Mr Knox was compelled to fly for feare of trouble I could also alledge to the present purpose the state of the reformed Churches amongst which we live whose violent oppositions fiery coÌ„tentioÌ„s do far exceed all ours but I take no delight in writing these things neyther do I think the needles dissentions which have bene amongst vs the lesse evill because they are so common to vs with others but these things I have layd downe to make it appeare that Mr B. here vseth none other weapon agaynst vs then Iewes and Pagans might have done against Christians and Papists against such as held the truth against them yea and then Atheists and men of no religion might take vp against all the professions and religions in the world And to go no further the irrecoÌ„ciliable emnity betwixt the Prelates reformists about cap surplice crosse and the like which the patrons of them acknowledg trifles might well have stopped Mr B. mouth from vpbrayding any with fyery contentions vpon small occasions And touching the heavy sentence of excommunication by which the father and brother were dilivered vp to the Divill as Mr B. speaketh I desyre the reader to consider that if excommunication be as indeed it is so heavy a sentence and that by it the party sentenced be delivered over to the Divill the Church of England is in heavy case which playes with excommunications as children do with rattles And to allude to the word Mr B. vseth in what a divelish case are eyther the Prelates and convocation house which have ipso facto excoÌ„municated all that speak or deale against theyr State Ceremonyes servise book since the curse causâ—es falls vpon the head of him from whom it comes or the reformists wherof M. B. would be one by fits such as seek for and interprise reformation And for the particular in hand howsoever it may seeme an odious thing vnto the naturall man which savors not the things of God nor the vnpartiall ordinances of the Lord Iesus and would be a matter of wonder that a man should censure or consent to the censuring of his father or brother in the Church of England where a good word of a freind or a small bribe may stay the excommunication of the grossest offender yet if there be iust cause though with extraordinarie sorrow for the occasion Christ in his ordinance must be preferred before father and brother yea mother sister also Yea it shal be the seal of his ministerie upon that sonne which in the observance of the word of the Lord and in the keeping of his covenant sayth vnto his father mother brother yea own children I know you not The next Mr. B. obiecteth is Mr Burnet who died of the plague in prison whether he was committed by the Archprelate And so did Mr Holland and Mr Parker in the same City at the same tyme as I remember and so did Iunius and Trelâ—atius the two divinity professors at Leyden at an other tyme vpon the same infection And was the plague Gods fearfull correcting rod vpon these men because their religion was false or rather would any man knowing the scriptures and the Lords dispensations towards his Church argue as this man doth * If iudgment thus begin at Gods house what shall the end of them be which obey not the gospell of God But if Mr B. will bring against vs all the persons which the Bishops have killed in their prisons by this and the like meanes as David did Vrijah by the sword of the Amonites he may overthwelm vs with witnesses but his argument shal be much what of the same nature with that of the Caian haeretiques which affirme that Cain was a good man and conceaved by a superiour power vnto Abel because he prevayled against him and slew him Lastly for Mr Smyth as his instability wantonnes of wit is his syn our crosse so let M. B. all others take heed that it be not their hardning in evill Mr B. in proceeding to point out the hand of God writing heavy things against vs chargeth us by Mr Whytes testimony with such notable crimes and detestable vncleannesses as from which they in the Church of England eyther truely fearing God or but making an apparent shâ—w thereof are so praeserved by God as they cannot be taynted with such evils as some of vs oft times fall into As the witnes well â—its the cause and person alledging him who according to the Proverb may ask his fellow c. so have his slaunders been answered as Mr Bernard knowes whereof it seems the party himself is ashamed and so might Mr B. have been had he not been shameles in accusing the brethren Now for the things objected it
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