committeth against his brother now to hate his brother by suffering sinne to rest vppon him not to admonish bring him to repentance is a greevous sinne of one man against his brother so it is a very greevous hatred for a man to suffer the whole Church vnreformed from sinne therfor by this place or Christ you gaine nothing but rather leese the cause which is hereby confirmed viz that til a man doe his duty to the vtmost to his brethren he cannot offer his gift now his vtmost duty is either to bring him to repentance or to leave him impenitent al them that justifie his sinne in their impeniteÌ„cy so in the violation of the holy things For they being al poluted with his sinne have deprived themselves of title powre to the holy things so vsing them doe violate them al that partake with them therin partake with sinne shall receave of their judgments The place 1. Cor. 11.28 is also against you For the Apostle willeth the Corinths to examine themselves how they have performed their duty to God their brethren in the first second table finding themselves to be cleere then to eate drinck otherwise finding our selves to faile in that commaundement Mat. 14 15-17 wee are poluted by contagion cannot eate drinck without hurt judgment bicause we have not judged our selves aright But your last place Mr. Ber. is somthing to the purpose viz. 2. Cor. 12.21 13.1.2 compared together for I wil help to vrge your argument then give you an answer Your argument may thus be framed If the Corinths might without sinne have communion with the Church of the Corinths after they were once twise admonished did not repent then may we have communion with persons obstinate impenitent in the holy things without sinne in vs. But the Corinths had communion with the Church of Corinth poluted with sin after once twise admonition without sinne Ergo we may have communion with persons obstinate in sinne in the holy things without sinne in vs. This is the force of your reason wherto I answer that you must prove your minor For it is weake the places of Scripture do not confirme it For you must know that the latter Epistle to the Corinths was the second admonition as may be seen 2. Cor. 13.2 before the despising of the second admonition they could not be judged obstinate impenitent in sinne now for the ful sufficient confirmation of your minor you should prove vnto vs two things First that the Corinths did despise Pauls second admonition in this his second Epistle Secondly that if they did despise this his second admonition the faithful among the Corinths did keep communion without sinne with that poluted obstinately impenirent company now bicause I know this is to hard a task for you I will therefore conclude that this argument of yours is insufficient to prove your purpose Your last least reasoÌ„ wherby you endevour to prove it lawful to vse the holy things though obstinate impenitent sinners be present in communion is that Gods commaundement must be obeyed absolutely another mans sinne cannot dissolve the bond of allegiance betwixt God man which our position seemeth as you pretend to dissolve seing we say that a man must not keep communion in the holy things if wicked men be present in communion with vs To this argument I answer thus viz that God indeed commaundeth vs to pray heare the word communicate in the Sacraments but he also prescribeth both the persons wherwith the manner how we must performe these actions prayer hearing the word partaking in the Sacraments are actions of communion ther is in the preformance of them a manner of doing modus agendi to be observed wee must therfor respect two things in performing these actions of Religion First that our communion be such as it ought to be for I may not keep communion with Iewes Turks Pagans Papists but with Christians viz true Christians such as the new Testament describeth ought to be members of the visible Church which is the mystical body of Christ Secondly that the actions of our communion be performed after that holy manner order as the new Testament of Christ teacheth as that prayer be conceaved not read out of a service book that prophecy come out of the hart not be read out of a book as Homilies be that baptisme be administred simply as Christ teacheth without Godfathers the crosse questions to infants that the L. Supper be vsed sitting not kneeling finaly that al the parts of worship be clensed according to the primitive institution not vsed with those polutions which the man of sinne hath cast vppon them breefly we must worship God with the meanes he hath apointed as the 2. coÌ„maundemeÌ„t teacheth after the maÌ„ner he hath taught as the third commaundement informeth otherwise ther is idolatry committed in violating the second commaundement worshipping God by other meanes then he hath ordemed profanation of the name of God in violating the third commaundement when his ordinances are not so vsed as he hath prescribed So that to speak directly to your objection the bond of alleageance betwixt God vs is preserved kept inviolable by our position for we teach that men must pray heare the word receave the Sacraments but in a true visible communion of Sains as the Lord hath appointed not with al manner of persons as theeves muâ—derers witches conjurers Papists Atheists Dronkards perjured persons c. as in your Church nor after your manner which is devised by man as Ieroboam devised in Israel but as the Lord hath in the new Testament taught vnto vs. And heer Mr. Bern. you take vppon you to reduce the places of Scripture which wee alledg for Seperation from your assemblies to certaine topical or categorical heads so give them answer according to your fashion as thus the places that forwarne Gods people to Seperate vnder the law are thus to be taken 1. From idols of false Gods as Israel from heathenish Gods 2. From Idols of the true God as Indah from Israels calves 4. From persons ceremonially polluted The places vrging Seperation vnder the Gospel are thus to be taken 1. From lewes not receaving Christ but rayling against him 2. From Gentils without Christ 3. From Antichrist vnder the shew of Christ persecuting Christians 4. From familiar companying with excommunicates or wicked men But say you what are al these places to vs who are not vnder any of these heads of reference I answer you Mr. Ber. that your Church is respectively vnder al these topical places which you mention excepting the first For 1. you make Idols of the true God in setting vp your own inventions making Christ a King Preist Prophet as you jmagine 2. you ought much more to Seperate from persons morally vncleane if the lewes ought to
Finaly you prove that figuratively the part may cary the name of the whole who denyeth it that therfor the Elders are called the Church I deny that For it foloweth not yet I yeeld you thus much which you shal gaine nothing by that two or three Elders may be termed a church being severaly by theÌ„selves but jointly with the body they are not so so a Christian family or rather the Christians in a family may be truly termed a church severaly yet jointly with the body they are not so For know you Mr. Ber. that the parts of the Church are similares Homogoncae as every part of water is water so every part of a Church if they be a coÌ„munion is a Church being severed necessarily from the whole you say also that a company without officers no where is called a Church Christian families only excepted in al the new Testament except Act. 14 23. by anticipation First you must prove vnto me Mr. Ber. that this place Act. 14.23 is by anticipation For doth it follow bicause heaven earth are so called by anticipation Gen. 1.1 therfor a company wanting officers are called a Church by anticipation besides you speake falsely saying that in al the new testament a company without officers is not caled a church what say you to Act. 19.41 any company of people is called a Câ—â—rch in that place and whereas you confesse that a Christian family is called a Church by the warrant of the new Testament you yeeld the cause For if two or thre faithful persons of a family are a Church then two or thre faithful persons of divers families are a Church or els shew you a found reason to the contrary hence I reason thus They which the Scripture cal a Church are a Church The Scripture calleth two or thre beleevers in a family a Church Therfor two or thre beleevers in a family are a Church Againe If two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church then two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church by proportion But two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church by your confession testimony of the Scripture Therfor two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church But know Mr. Ber. that we strive not about the word but about the matter bee they Ecclesia Synagoge Disciples brethren Saints we regard not the word we say that two or thre Disciples Saints brethren are Sinagoge Ecclesia a congregation with whome Christ is present who have Christs powre vnto whome every member of the body must be promoted for sinne this you neither have disproved nor ever shal be able heer endeth your digression now you come vnto your sixth reason Your 6. reason against popularity is a repetition of things already answered in the fifth reason that Tell the Church is Tel the Governors Therfor I referre the reader thither Your 7. reason against popularity is that it is against the coÌ„maundement of Christ For Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2 the sheep must obey the shepheard the flock must depend vppon the Pastor he is not to obey them or depend vppon them I answer To the place Heb. 13.17 I say the Apostle doth not intend to teach that the whole body of the Church must yeeld to the voice of the Elders in every thing that they list nor that the Eldership hath in their hands the powre of Christ to rule contrary to their liking For the Lord submitteth both Pastors Flock vnto his owne lawes wil but the intent of the Apostle is to show that al the particular members in al their affaires must submitt themselves to the instruction direction guidance of the Elders For although Christ hath placed the Elders as stewards over the Servants yet he hath not appointed them as Lords over his spowse wife your argument therfor is a fallacian a conjunctione divisione thus Al the particular members must obey the Elders in their lawful instructions their wholsome admonitions severally Ergo the whole body must jointly obey the voice of the Elders Againe the whole Flock consisteth of two parts Officers and the Saints The Saints must obey the Officers that is one part of the Church must be directed by another as the foote by the eye yet the whole body jointly is above any one member or members apart Further al the Saints shal yeeld obedience to Elders in things coÌ„maunded by God the Elders shal al of them obey the voice of the church in things coÌ„maunded by God but the question is how far the sheep must obey the Elders who are shepheards how far the Elders which are the L. Servants must obey the wife spowse of Christ which is the Church For know you Mr. Ber. these things may well stand together that the whole Church may obey the Elders in some things the Elders must obey the body of the Church in other things The other place 1. Pet. 5.2 to en humin may aswel be translated with al your best ability as that dependeth vppon you but I say further that the Flock must depend vppon the shepheards as they are sheep as they al jointly are the wife of the lamb the best members must submit to her voice being the voice of her husband Lord. You eight reason against popularity is this that it is against common sence that the parents should submit to the Children the workman to the work the Seedsman to the corne I answer neither is it reason that the whole body should yeeld to the hand or the Servant to the Mr. Or the wife to the mayd But you know the Church is a body the Elders hands other parts the church is the Mrs. the Elders are Servants but comparisons are not to be vrged further then their intention lest we break them in peeces spoyle the proportion somtyme in some cases the pareÌ„ts may lawfully submit to children the workemen to the work the husbandmeÌ„ to the corne For you know that relations chandg arguments Your ninth last reason against popularity is that it is against the dignity office of true Ministers who represent Christs person having their powre from him which none but such as represent Christ can give or take away But the body of the Church doth not represent Christs person nor ever did depose or make Ministers and bicause the body of the Church are not Ministers therfor they cannot make Ministers such like rotten stuffe I answer That the Ministers do represent Christs person I deny not but avouch that the Church doth much more represent Christs person who is the Spowse wife of Christ that the Ministers have their powre from Christ I deny not but al their powre commeth from Christ through the body of the Church as I have sufficiently proved already That the Church hath made Ministers I have shewed Act. 1. they chose an Apostle when as yet they
wilful persisting in Schisme joyned with contempt scorne of others I answer doe not you wilfully persist in your Schisme from Rome contemning scorning of them you will say they are in error wee say you are in error that the difference betwixt you vs is more then betwixt you them For your constitution ministery Government is one with theirs but wee are opposite vnto you in all these If it be no finne in you thus to deale with Rome it is no sinne in vs thus to deale with you but I deny vtterly that wee Schisme from you For ther can bee no Schisme from a false Church ministery worship Government except it be Schisme to depart out of Babylon Againe we do neither contemne nor scorne any man only we single the truth leave their corruptions errors refuse to build our Faith vppon men or Churches or false expositions of Scriptures we desire no man to come to vs further then wee have the truth which whither we have or not I referre it must doe to the conscience of every one that loveth the truth who shal live by his owne Fayth and dye for his owne sinnes 5. Synne you cast vppon vs is Rayling Scoffing and blaspheming this you exemplify in two particulars 1. Mr. Barrowes sharp speeches in the discovery 2. our approbation of it in him I answer First that Mr. Barrowes Scripture phrases whatsoever I doe approve justify them fitly to be applyed to your false Church Ministery worship Government til you have forsaken al that falsehood they doe deservedly lye vppon you Secondly The phrases which Mr. Barrow alledgeth borroweth els where I dare not either alow them or reprove them bicause I know not what particular motion of the Spirit guided him so to write but the things signified by those phrases declaring the Idolatry of your Church Ministery VVorship and Government I approve Thirdly that Mr. Barrow eironically vpbraydeth the preaching and VVorship of the assemblies following therein Elias his example I dare not censure that as an vngodly act of his though I doubt not but you doe performeÌ„ these Religious exercises in the honesty of your ignorance as I my self somtyme did Fourthly that he specially inveigheth against the Reformists he doth it not for that they are the worst men but for that by their doings the Lords truth is most hindered they being like the Pharisees aptest to deceave Finally I wil not vndertake the defence of Mr. Barrowes tartnes neither dare I absolutely condemne it seing the Prophet Esay is as sharpe against the true Church as ever was Mr. Barrow against your false Church whereas you alledg my writing vppon the Lords prayer before I saw the Seperation as a confutation or contradiction to Mr. Barrow I say you may aswel alledg against St. Paul his Pharisaical practises persecutions blasphemies befor he came to the truth as evidence to confute Christian Religion which afterward he embraced 6. Synne you lay vppon vs is our opinions the matter of our Schisme Brownisme as you call it which I have already cleered to be the vndoubted truth of God wherto I require youâ— answer or els I affirme before the Lord that you are not able that being convinced your mouth stopped either you must yeeld to the truth or els woe be vnto you from the Lord. And so lend my answer leaving your advertisements counsels of peace vntoucht as matters nothing perteyning to the cause of the Seperation they being like Apollos Oracles apt to bee expounded eyther way or like Delphos sword fit to be vsed for any purpose for they may fit eyther Papist Protestant Reformist or the Seperation An advertisement to the Reader It may happily be thought that this treatise by reason of the tartnes of some speeches phrases censures passed vppon Mr. Be. the ministers Church of England may passe the bounds of Christian wisdom charity especially considering that we of the Seperation cannot be ignorant what great offence ther is taken at Mr. Barrowes bitternes in his discovery that we know how greatly the forward preachers professors of the land desire to be mildly gently handled to have a charitable censure paste of them in respects of their Religious dispositions to the truth wel For Mr. Be. let him know for his part that he is fallen into a deep pit of Apostacy from his formerly seeming sincerity if men may be judged by that which is visible I see no reason why the forward preachers professors of the Lands should not esteem of him as they do of Mr. Merbury sith Mr. Be. is now fallen to his gracious Lords as wel as the other only Mr. Ber. case is somthing better in this respect that he wanteth some of Achitophels pollicy Rabsakeh his rayling of Tertullus Rhetotick to oppose the truth in respect whereof ther is hope that Mr. Be. sinning through infirmity simplicity weaknes of judgment violence of affection may by some sharpe effectual ingredients having vomited vp al his choler purged out al his evil humors be reduced eyther to as good or to a better constitution then wherin he formerly was â—o this purpose is al the sharpe phisick administred vppon him in this prescript so the Author doth intreath Mr. Ber. in his best love to interpret it to remember what Nathan said vnto David thou art that man what David answered Nathan I have sinned what comfort Nathan presently annexed The Lord hath put away thy sinne This condition we vnfeynedly wish to Mr. Be. our old kind frend for the forward preachers professors of the Land they must vnderstand that our censure must be is only according to that which is visible in their communion now in that respect seing the Church Ministery VVorship and Government of the English Ecclesiastical assemblies is judged proved false Antichristian how is it possible that wee should speake otherwise of them as they are ministers and members of that Antichristian body then as of false ministers false Christians what would they have vs speak as the false Prophets did Peace Peace where ther is no peace would they have vs proclayme The Temple of the Lord The Temple of the Lord to the Synagogues of Antichrist this were to deceave them to daube the wal with vntempered mortar but if the forward preachers professors of the Land do imagine that we condemne them as persons voyd of grace as excluded from salvation by Christ or the like censures we give them to vnderstand that the Scripture teacheth vs no such thing but rather forbiddeth such censures for we are not to judg before the tyme therfor concerning this particular we absolutely leave them to the Lord not doubting but he hath his thousands among them desiring them to remember that it is one thing to apply the Scripture to lay the salve to the