Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

fancy or mine either, and our judgment can neither add nor pare as to his law in that point. It is his law that determines this matter to us, and requires of us accordingly, as we shall be answerable to him in that day, when what you here alledge will not stand for an excufe to us, in not looking upon his vifible members, the leaft of them, as fuch, and in neglecting the duties of love to them, as to himself. It will be then but a mean fhift to say, "When faw we thee," &c. On Eph. iii. 10. you give me the fame things over again; only you fay, the body, y 7. and Col i. 24. is your visible catholic body, because Paul was a minifter of it, as I fay he was a minifter of the invisible head of the mystical body; and because he suffered for it, as I fay he "endured all things for "the elects fakes," 2 Tim. ii. 10.; but perhaps you will alledge, they were invifible fufferings that he endured for the elect's fakes, because they are invisible. But the body, Eph. iii. 7. is the fame of which the Apostle had been speaking, Eph. i. 10. 22. 23. and ii. 15. 16. and the body, chap. iv. 11. 12. is no other. So likewife the body whereof Paul calls himself a minifter, and for which he fuffered, Col. i. 24. 25. is that fame of which he had been fpeaking, y 18. 19. 20. And if you thus regard the context, you will fee that Paul was a minifter of the myftical body; and fo you may add these texts to the text I gave you before, Eph. ii. 20. Rev. xxi.

14.

When you come to 1 Cor. x. 32. you turn the proof upon me, to whom you was proving your catholic visible church from this text, and fay, because it is not proven to be the myftical church that is meant, therefore you take it for the body catholic visible. But you cannot make your catholic body vifible to me in this text, till you prove, that it can neither be meant of the body myftical, nor of a particular church, nor of both: and this is what you have not yet done. You fay the precepts here are negative and indefinite; and from this you infer, that they bind femper et ad fem per, and must at the fame time refpect all places and perfons. Well, what then? You fay further, " In thefe travelling"times, fome might give offence in one place, and fome in "another, and one in many places." And what is the confequence of that? You fay, "The whole body was li "able to offence, though it was not by one man ; " and fa the object is fet down indefinitely, thereby to comprehend the whole. Thus you think you have manifefted, that it is not the mystical body that is meant. But this whole myfti

cal

cal body is liable to offence, either by one man, or many men for as when one apparent member of it is offended, the body is offended, fo likewife when many; and the whole may be offended, even as the invisible head: and whether one man give it offence thus, or as many men, in as many places of the earth as the visible members of it are to be found, ftill the whole is offended, as I told you. For what I faid of one is applicable to as many vifible members of that true church as are any where offended, and as many as in all places and all times offend them.

When a man, or as many men as you please, offend a vifible church, wherein that mystical body is fhewed forth, they remarkably offend the myftical body, even as love to that body is moft remarkably manifefted in the deeds of love towards the representation of it in fuch a church. Thus the Corinthians, in offending the church of God in Corinth, whereof they were members, were capable of offending the whole myftical church; and what is faid of it is applicable to any other church of the fame kind, where Chriftians happen to be, as I told you. And I am ftill perfuaded, that what is faid to the church in Corinth is applicable to every fuch church to the end of the world. The Apoftle speaks of their judging, and of his judging them that were within, in oppofition to these without: and as the church in Corinth judged only its own members, so the Apostle is fpeaking of his judging a member of that church as if he had been prefent. And it does not appear that the apostles exercised church-difcipline but upon church-members, nor that they exercised it any where else but in a church where they hap pened to be, and acted as elders, 3 John 10. And if they had to do with many churches, it was because they were unto them in place of the New Teftament, that every church has now complete. And if in this fenfe you fay the churches are one, because they have one New Testament, as the vi fible rule of their government, I never reclaimed against this.

But ftill I am to feek as to the visible catholic body intended in this text. You fay it is only the visible church that is capable of offence, and to receive fatisfaction. But was not the vifible church in Corinth, and is not any other fuch church, capable of offence, and of receiving fatisfaction? And is not the catholic body myftical every way as capable of offence and fatisfaction in its visible members, through whom it is injured in offence and perfecution, as you can imagine your visible body to be! You will perhaps tell me, they all

receive

receive fatisfaction in their reprefentatives, a general or ca tholic council. Yes, when that affembles and agrees about being offended and fatisfied. But the head of the body my. ftical, and that body is fatisfied when a finner repents and obferves the law of Chrift, the rule of repentance. Yea, there is joy in that part of the church that is leaft visible to us "over one finner that repenteth," or over a returning back. slider; and that is now by far the greatest and most considerable part of this church. And you will find the Lord, in fpeaking of offences among the visible members of this church or kingdom of heaven, fome way referring to this, and to the concern that "the innumerable company of angels" that belongs to this heavenly fociety have in this matter, Matth. xviii. 10. He fpeaks of the kingdom of heaven, into which none can enter except they be converted, and become as "little children." He fpeaks of our "receiving or offend"ing any one of thefe little ones," (who you fay cannot be feen, and fo not received or offended, and defpifed by us), and therein receiving or offending him and their father, and "the innumerable company of angels." He calls others befides these whom he would have us to account converted, " and the children of this kingdom, and of his father, the "world." When he fpeaks of a visible church, he speaks of it as consisting of these, and thefe only, whom he would have us to account fuch children; and therefore our brethren, and when they discover themselves not to be fuch, in trefpaffing and not hearing the vifible church, whereof they are members, he bids us look upon them as the Jews did on Heathen men and publicans, and fo not "children of the "kingdom of heaven;" and he declares, that what they "bind on earth, fhall be bound in heaven, and what they "loofe on earth fhall be loofed in heaven." And after all this, will you yet fay, that it is only the vifible church that is capable of offence, and to receive fatisfaction? And this for the fake of an imagination about a catholic visible church, which I dare fay has ferved as much to the offending of the kingdom of heaven, and the injuring of its little ones, and to the ruin of the visible churches of them, as any thought that ever came in the mind of man?

On Heb. ii. 12. you complain of want of clofenefs in my arguing, and fo put the proof again upon me. But why should I be complained of for want of proof on this head? You affirmed your visible body catholic is in this text, and you did not more. Do you imagine, that every thing that you

fay

Is it

fay and I deny is truth, unless I prove the contrary? enough for you to affirm, and muft I prove? I referred to John xvii. 26. because the text speaks of the declaration of the Father's name to Chrift's brethren, and not to the world; but you will not explain scripture by fcripture, which I took to be the closest way of doing; and you fpeak of the decla ration of his name by Chrift to his brethren, and explain it fo as to be as much the privilege of all the world as of his brethren, to whom he fhews the Father," and manifelts "himself fo as he does not to the world." For here again you tell of the declaration of God's name to all the world by the apoftles; from which, after your custom, you infer, it could not be a congregation; for ftill you make the world and your visible church the fame. And it feems you imagine, that as many as the apoftles preached to were Chrift's bre thren. You fay, "That Pfal. xxii. contains a prophecy of "the visibility of the catholic church under the New Testa

ment, and fo do other Old-Teftament fcriptures." And I am also of the mind that the true catholic and mystical body of Chrift is declared in the New Teftament to be visible, in every way wherein the Old-Teftament prophecies foretold it fhould be fo. I have told you once and again, how far I think the New Teftament fays it is visible. And till you

thew me fome other church in the New Teftament beside the myftical body, and a congregation of its vifible members, (except the great whore, and the harlots that are come of her, and alfo "commit fornication with the kings of the "earth," also foretold in the Old Testament), I must look upon your understanding the prophecies, to fignify a catholic vifible church of divine inftitution, as a private interpretation; and apply the prophecies only as the author of them directs me in the New Teftament, where he explains them.

On 1 Tim. iii. 15. which is your last text, you tell me, I take it for granted, that the church is the little habitation of God at Ephefus. But you fay, 1. The church here must be visible; and was not that little habitation of God, the church in Ephefus, vifible? 2. You fay it must be an organised church, because of the directions about bishops and deacons. But was not the visible church in Ephefus an organifed church with bishops and deacons ? 3. You fay, " It was not the "church of Ephefus, feeing the epiftle was written to Timo"thy an evangelift, who had not a fixed refidence in any particular church," &c. But was not the epifle directed to Timothy then abiding at Ephefus, by the apoftle's intreaty

66

and

[ocr errors]

And are not these the very

and direction, chap. 1. ✯ 3. words of the Apostle to him, in chap. 3. y 14. after he had been giving him directions about bishops and deacons, and in the text, "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come. "unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayft "know how thou oughteft to behave thyself in the house of "God, which is the church of the living God?" What ea fy work would I have, if you would once learn to confider the context, and what light it affords to the understanding of the text! 4. As to what you say in the next place, as I fee no argument brought against any thing I have alledged, in the place of your book to which you refer; fo the argument has not appeared to me that manifefts any church to be meant in this text but the mystical body represented in a particular church. 5. In the laft place, you go about to vindicate yourself from fomething very like a contradiction, and appeal to the candid reader. Will the candid or uncandid' reader have the brow to deny, that Paul called elders of the church in Ephesus, "To take heed to all the flock, over the which "the Holy Ghoft made them overfeers, to feed the church "of God which he purchased with his own blood?" Or can any reader deny that you faid, in anfwer to an argument of mine, This is not the visible, but the invisible church, which can only be faid to be purchafed with the blood of God, and that you insisted on this at fome length?

And now, when your whole arguings for your visible church depend upon this propofition, That officers cannot feed the invifible church, let the candid reader, or any other reader, tell me, what is the fenfe of your evafion as expreffed in these words: "I held the church, in which the elders were "fet, to be visible, though every thing there be not spoken "of it as vifible." Will he tell me you mean thefe elders were set in the visible church in Ephefus, to feed the invisible catholic church? Or will he perceive that you mean that thefe vifible officers were to feed fome members of the invifible church, and, in feeding them, feed that church? Or will he perceive eafily, that you mean the invisible church was reprefented or fhewed forth in the vifible church in Ephefus? I dare fay he will not, in a confiftency with what you have been saying in the proof of your visible catholic church, if he be at all a reader. Then let him tell me, if he easily perceive it, or even reach it by the utmoft ftretch of the most Tublimely-metaphyfical thought, what you mean by the visible church, wherein thefe elders were fet as invifible? or what you mean by the church of Ephefus as vifible, and as invi VOL. I.

Y y

fible?

« EdellinenJatka »