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
body of Christ and Antichrist the members of the one body and of the other be made one Brasse Iron Silver Gold cannot possibly be mingled with clay or earth No more can the members of the true Church and the members of the false Church but in al the parts of Spirituall communion as prayer prophecy praysing God the Sacraments the persons that partake in them are commingled make one body 1. Cor. 5.9.11.2 Thes 3.14 1. Cor. 10.15.17 2. Cor. 6 14-18 Therfor whosoever shal mingle with false ministers or members of false Churches therin offer as shameful indignity to Christ as it is to take the members of Christ make them the members of an harlot 1. Cor. 6.15 And heer Mr. Bern. pag. 153-156 indevoureth to prove it 1. Lawfull to heare their Ministers 2. to be vnlawfull to heare vs 3. to be lawfull to pray with them that are Faithful among them For the first you say who ever heard that to heare the word should be a sinne yes I have heard it in these places of Scripture Deut. 13.3 Math. 7.15 1. Timoth. 6 3-5 2 3.5-6 againe you say you have converted by the word go you may bee heard I deny that ever you converted men visibly to the Faith of the New Testament I regard not what you doe invisibly for I cannot see it nor know it what say you to them that convert in popery shal they be heard or doe you think they convert none invisibly Visibly I am assured they convert not the like I say of you Further you plead that the Scripture commaundeth to heare the word pronounceth them blessed that heare it and maketh it a marke of Gods Child so to doe I grant it if it be preached in the Lords true ordinance els men are forbidden to heare it pronounced accursed that heare it and are marked for the Servants of Antichrist for so doeing Revellat 14 9-11 Moreover you say Christ forbiddeth not to heare the Scribes and Pharisees true for they were members of the true Church of the Old Testament and their communion Typical was not polluted by Typicall vncleannes for ought that is mentioned to my knowledg but you say Paull rejoyced that Christ was preached though of contention with a purpose to encrease his afflictions Well Paull rejoyced not that false Ministers in false Churches preached Christ or that Christians heard them so doe neyther doth Paull speak of visible sinnes but of invisible affections which he by the Spiritt discerned to bee in the Teachers even as Peter discerned Ananias and Sapphyras dissembling And what is this to your purpose who are both false Ministers in false Churches Antichristian convinced Heretiques except you can and doe make answer which when you have done then c. For the Second you say wee are not to bee heard bicause as Brownists wee speake our owne fantasies visions of our owne harts and are obstinate Wel Mr. Bern. I say no more for this point but this that every Godly mynded man give sentence whither you or wee have the truth the tyme wil come when secret things will come to light your selves doe approve al that wee professe in substance except the Seperation the Lord judg betwixt you vs you say againe that wee convert none but are our selves converted by you I say al that come from you to vs are by vs converted to the truth from your errors false wayes you doe not convert one man visibly to the faith Besides I demaund when you Seperated from Rome who converted you from Rome Finally wee condemne no man among you only wee declare what you are visibly in the account of the Scriptures by reason of your false Church standing they that see the truth to be the truth yeeld not to it woe be vnto them take heed you be not of them who have seen it to be the truth have confessed it so to be yet write your bookes against it if it be so woe be vnto you from the Lord I say from the Lord except you repent you shal grow worse and worse as for them that sinne through ignorance their is a Sacrifice for their sinnes Lett willfull scorners looke to them selves For the third you say that if wee hold you the children of God wee may pray with you For so Christ hath taught vs to say our Father Well I deny not but those among you that apertayne to the Lords Election have God for their Father but I say they are in visible vnknowne to vs certainly particularly therefore wee cannot have visible communion with them For whatsoever is not of faith is sinne I may have visible communion with one that is a reprobate in the Lords account as Peter had with Iudas I may not have visible communion with one that is Elect in the Lords invisible Electiō bicause he is not visibly faithful to me as namely with thousands of you in the assemblies bicause I cannot possibly know them certainly particularly The twelfth Section The next particular of yours is the thirteenth in nomber viz. 13. That a company truly fearing God if any open wicked joyne with them are not capable to choose them a minister over them which is a truth though you hold it error I manifest it in this manner First you cannot approve to vs certainly that you truly feare God Secondly you cannot convince that they who suffer wicked men in communiō with them truly doe feare God bicause they live in confusion with the wicked from whome they ought to be Seperated that therfor in that confusion estate they have no title to choose them a minister Thirdly let it be graunted for disputation sake that some fearing God doe consent with open wicked in chosing a minister I say that Minister so chosen by the good bad is no true Minister For that mixt people are not the true Church Seing the holy Ghost testifyeth 2. Cor. 6.17 that God wil receave only those that are seperated to be his people that seing those supposed faithful have the Spirit of God the open wicked have the Spirit of Satan they cannot possible combine together except you wil say that the holy Spiritt and sathan can combine seing then those contrary persons cannot conjoyne how can they in common choose them a minister or if they doe how is he a true Minister seing they that choose him are not a true Church I pray you Mr. Ber. in your answer dissolve vs this knot if you can that we way receave instruction Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the twelfth Section Mr. Ber. Sep. Schisme pag. 151. Saith that this is one of our errors to hold That our congregations as they stand are all every of them vncapable before God to chuse thē Ministers though they desire the meanes of Salvation In the beginning of this Section I say that a company truly fearing God if any open wicked joyne with
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
beast that is are by the Authority of the Romane Empyre established Revel 16.15 out of the mouth of the false Prophet that is are by Authority of the Pope of Rome established out of the mouth of the Dragon that is are by the Authority of Sathan himself established For ther is not a minister in England Elected by that faithful people wher he administreth but is chosen by a profane mixt people if he be chosen law doth not allow such election he is approved ordeyned by Antichrist himself comming but of the mouth of the false Prophets the Prelates of the Land 2. Againe from that ministerie which is not of the Apostolique institution but of mans invention must all the good Christians make Seperation Deut. 13.3 Math. 7.15 â— Timoth. 3.5 Revel 14.9.2 Corinth 11 13-15 Rever 2.2 The Ministerie of England is not of the Apostolique institution but of mans invention Therefore all good Christians must make Seperation from the Ministerie of England The Major is proved thus as in the old Testament Moses commaundeth not to harkeÌ„ to false Prophets Ezechiah endevoreth to draw the people from Ieroboams Preist So in the new Testament Christ willeth to take heed of false Prophets Paull willeth to turne away from such a woe is threatned by Iohn to al that receave the beasts mark from his Ministers Thirdly you worship is not of the Apostolique primitive institution but is invented by man so is Antichristian as may be proved thus Act. 2.4.11.42 10.46 19.6 Rom. 8.26 1. Cor. 12.7 14.15.26 1. The true worship of the Apostolique institution proceeded meerly from the Spirit having no outward help of devised formes of prayers exhortations psalmes Ceremonies The worship of the English assemblies proceedeth out of the Servicebook in devised formes of prayers exhortations psalmes other Ceremonies Therfor the wors his of the English assemblies is not the true worship of the Apostolâ—que institution but is invented by man The major is manifest by the places alledged For vppon the day of Pentecost the Apostles had the holy Ghost given them in the shape of fiery cloven tonges thervppon they spake as the holy Ghost gave them vtterance manifesting the Spirit to the hearets so was it with the Gentils afterward when the holy Ghost came vppon them since that tyme all the churches of the Apostolique institutioÌ„ worshipped afther the same manner for al Churches worshipped after one manner 1. Cor. 16.1 14.36.37 11.2 16. wher note that if devised formes of prayers psalmes exhortations were Gods ordinaÌ„ces the Apostles would have delivered them to the Churches they should have receaved vppon the day of Pentecost fiery bookes as wel as fiery tongs The minor is evident needeth no proof Ergo. 2. Againe From that worship which is invented by man not of the Apostolique institution mustal the good Christians Seperate Col. 2 20-23 Mat. 15.9 Levit. 10.1.2 compared with Act. 2.3 The worship of the English assemblies is invented by man not of the Apostolique institution Therfor from the worship of the English assemblies ought al good Christians to Seperate The major is proved thus For seing the worship of the asseÌ„blies is wil worship vaine-worship devised by man not kindled with the true living fire which came downe from heaven vppon the primitive Church but with such a straunge fire as Nadab and Abihu offered withal therfor it is idolatry so to be Seperated from 4. Fourthly the Government of the assemblies is Antichristian by the confessioÌ„ of theÌ„selves therin can no good Christian joyne except it be lawful for a good Christian which is or ought to be a subject of Christs Kingdom which is visible Church to submit to the vtter enemie of Chr. to his authority which what is it els but to bee a traytor against the L. Iesus yet for further proof I reason thus from these places Act. 14.23 20.28 Phillip 1.1 1. Pet. 5 1.-4 1. The Government of the primitive Apostolique institution was by a Colledge of pastors or presbytery The Government of the English assemblies is by an Antichristian prelate his Officers Therfor the Government of the English assemblies is not the primitive Apostolique Government The major is evident thus For the Apostles instituted Elders by the election of the Saints to oversee the Church feed the Flock of one particular visible Church only as is manifest among the Epheâ—ians Philippians Hebrues al Churches The minor is evident For the Prelates ther officers are not those Christian Bishops of the Apostolique institution elected by placed over one particular Church of the Saynt but are a devised â—yrannical Lordâ—hip â—uling hundreths of parishes by ther owne devised Canons Ergo. 2. Againe From the Government which is devised by man in the Church so is Antichristian which is not of the Apostolique institution must al good Christians Seperate Luk. 19.27 1. Cor. 7.23 Revel 14.9 The Government of the English assemblies is not of the Apostolique institution but is devised by man Antichristian Therfor from the Government of the English assemblies must al good Christians Seperate The major is manifest by the places alledged for seing Christ Iesus only must reigne in the harts of the faythful by his ownâ— officers lawes therfor good Christians must only submit to his officers if they submit to any new officers devised by man Christ saith he wil have theÌ„ slayne they are the Servants of men obeying the Antichristian beast have a woe threatned against them Thus brethren have I written vnto you according to your request Mr. K. his direction proofes of those two points which you expect that in 4. mayne transgressions in the English assemblies viz in the constitution ministerie worship Government of them I pray you brethren keep the copie I send you safe let Mr. K. have a transcript of it if it please him to answer I will be ready to explane matters more fully if ther be any ambiguity to confirme matters doubtful that especialy for your establishment in the truth which now blessed be the Lord is so evident that al the men vppon earth with ther learning can never be able to obscure it Brethren I beseech you grow in grace in the knowledg of our Lord Iesus Christ to whome bee praise in his Church throughout all generations Amen Your Brother in the Fayth Iohn Smyth The Printer to the Reader Though in this treatise ther be divers Lettes either wanting or superfluous or displaced or changed by reason whereof some words are corrupted yet bicause English men can easily help that fault I thought it needlesse to put them in these Errata Only these foure great oversights I desire may be corrected pag. 41. Lin. 1. for Church by the Presbytery read Church to the Presbytery pag 75. Lin. 44. after the last words read So in the New Testament pag. 128. Lin. 32. For Religion is c. read Religion is heresy if this argument be false then is yours false pag. 128. Lin. 34. For is so read become The lesser faults I desire the Reader to pardon
binding losing is also given vnto two or thre faithful ones wheresoever joyned together in the world The consequent of this argument only is doubtfull which may thus most manifestly be confirmed expoundeÌ„d when Christ is given then with Christ al things els are given Rom. 8.32 Christ I say with al his apurtenances when Christ the King is given to the faithful then Christs Kingdom is given vnto them then have they Christs powre to administer that Kingdom according to his direction when Christ the Preist is given to the faithful then Christs Sacrifice is given vnto them powre to administer al the efficacy of his Preisthood vnto the Saynts according to his direction when Christ the Prophett is given to the faythful then Christs Prophesy or the Holy doctryne of Salvation is giveÌ„ to the Church with powre for the dispensing therof according to his owne ordinance bâ— reason wherof the Saynts are said to have an anoynting or Chrisma from him that is Holy 1. Ioh. 2.20 therfor are called Christians Act. 11.26 being anoynted to be Kings 〈◊〉 Preâ—sts vnto God Revel 1.6 Prophets Act. 2.17.18 Seing then that by Christ the 〈◊〉 Prest Prophet who is given to the Saints the Saynts are made Kings Preists Pâ—â—phets therfor as Kings they have a ministerial powre given them of binding losing 〈◊〉 so â—orth of the rest The eight Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 compared with 1. Cor. 5.4.5 Mat. 6.12 Luk. 17.3 â—â—â—n these places of Scripture I collect this argument If one brother hath powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent privately to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent privately then a communion of faithful men have powre to retaine the sinnes of an impenitent member publiquely to remit the sinnes of one that is penitent publiquely But one brother hath powre given him by Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother privately impenitent and to remitt the sinnes of a brother privately penitent Ergo a communion of faithfull people have powre to retayne the sinnes of a member publiquely impenitent to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely penitent To the same sense the argument may be framed after this manner If witnesses admonishing a brother have powre given them by Christ to retaine the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse then a communioÌ„ of faithful men have powre to retain the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance But witnesses admonishing a brother have powre from Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse Ergo a communion of faithful men have powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance The premisses of both those arguments are evident out of Mathew Luke the conclusion is the Apostles direction to the Corinths The ninth Argument from Eph 5.30.32 1.22.23 Revel 21.2 22.17 From these Scriptures compared together I draw this argument The wife hath powre immediately from her husband the body hath powre immediately from the head The visible Church or a communion of faithful people are Christs spowse the wise of the lamb Christ mystical body Ergo the visible Church or a communion of faithful ones have Christs ministeriall powre immediately from him Againe As the body hath life sense motion powre from the head the hands feet have powre from the body So the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church as the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church But it is true in nature that the body hath life sence motion powre froÌ„ the head al the members have powre from the body Ergo the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church viz the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church By al which arguments put together it appeareth most evidently that Christs ministeriall powre of binding losing is given to the body of eyery true visible Church and that all the Officers of the Church have their powre and authority to administer derived vnto them from Christ through the body of the Church where they administer And thus have I proved evidently as I take it both that Christs ministerial powre commeth not by successive ordination by the hands of the ministery that it is immediately given to the body of the Church And heer for your further informacion Mr. Bern. I wish you to take notice that succession is a typical ordinance of the Old Testament therfor abolished by Christs comming For the Apostle wisheth vs to take heed of Iewish Fables Genealogies 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.14 bicause these genealogies were of necessity for the carnal ordinances of the old Testament but the Spiritual genealogie succession is for the new testament In the old Testament they had carnal parents a carnal seed carnal children carnal csrcumcision carnal commaundemeÌ„ts a carnal temple a carnal cittie a carnal preisthood a carnal Kingdom in the new Testament we have spiritual parents a spiritual seed which is the word spiritual children viz the faithful circumcision made without hands spiritual commaundements a spiritual temple an heavenly cittie spiritual Preists Kings a spiritual kingdom preisthood Therfor succession in the old Testament was carnal by genealogie if you therfor wil set vp a carnal succession in the new Testament by ordination for the ministery you must do it also 1. For the Church so fetch it from Rome 2. For the baptisme so fetch it from Rome 3. For the L. Supper so fetch it from Rome 4. For the Faith so fetch it from Rome 5. For excommunication so fetch it from Rome so forth of the rest this is to tie all Churches to the vnity succession of the chayre of Rome as in the old Testament al were tyed to the vnity succession of the temple at Ierusalem Herin therfor you see how you vanish away in your jmaginations by setting vp succession approving your self before you be aware a Iew a Papist an Antichristian this shal suffice for the matter of ordination or succession wherby it apeareth to be a Iewish Popish Antichristian devise In the next place let vs heer your nine reasons Mr Bernard which you bring to confute this our faith and most evident truth of God wher first in generall note that wee doe not deny but that the powre of the Church is for order sake committed into some particular persons hands who in the Churches name for the Churches good in the Churches presence are to handle al Church matters therfor whereas your 9-reasons are brought against popularity as you cal it you are to remeÌ„ber that Christs church in several respects is a Monarchie
of God polute defile the same But the L. avoucheth by the mouth of his holy Prophets that persons ceremonialy vncleane vnclensed entering vnto the Sanctuary or medling with holy flesh or pottage polute defile them Therfor the visible Church of the new testament morally poluted impenitent in sin dealing with the holy things do profane them therfor no man with good conscience can joyne with that profanation Finally as in the old testament the King Magistrates suffering sin vnpunished were poluted therwith by consent So in the new testament the visible church who are Kings Spiritualy have committed vnto them the judgments of the L. the ministerial powre of Christ suffering sinne vnreformed among them are polluted thereby But in the Old Testament the Kings and Magistrates by your owne confession Mr. Bernard pag. 94. were poluted with sinne vnreformed in the common wealth Therfor in the New Testament the visible Church who are Kings Spiritualy having committed vnto them the judgments of the L. the ministerial powre of Christ suffering sinne vnreformed among them are poluted therby so no communioÌ„ to be had with them least partaking with them in sinne by consent we receave of their plagues Now you se evidently proved by testimonies of Scriptures by direct consequents from the same that it is vnlawful for any man to joyne to a Church that was truly constituted now growne to profane violate the holy things of God by consenting to sin wicked obstinate convinced impenitent sinners that therfor much more is it vnlawful to joyne to your false churches which never were truly constituted since the defectioÌ„ of Antichrist but remaine in the gulfe of Antichristianisme vnto this day the first point therfor being manifest the second foloweth to be enterprised which is to answer the objections cavils which you make against this comfortable truth of the L. I cal it a comfortable truth bicause herin consisteth the true comfort of churches Christians publiquely privately that they neither live in nor consent to any known sin in themselves or other For otherwise seing sinnes corruptions break out dayly in the best Churches Christians herin is our comfor that we give no allowance to them no not so much as by our presence in that communion wher open known sinne is suffered as it is most plentifully and abundantly in your false Churches and in other Churches that are of a true constitution In your objections against this truth the first thing that I reprove is that you do falsely interpret consent to sin for a man may consent to sin though he in judgment affection contenaÌ„ce action do declare his dislike of it as for exaÌ„ple Ely did al this to his sonnes that poluted the L. Sacrifices coÌ„mitted adultery with the weomen that came to sacrifice 1. SaÌ„ 2.22.23 for he should have proceded to the vtmost that the word of God had required at his haÌ„ds viz to have put his soÌ„nes to death which bicause he did not he was poluted with their sinnes by conseÌ„t therfor the fearful judgmeÌ„t of God befel him which whsooever heard both their eares tingled 1. Sa. 3.11 so except a maÌ„ do by al meÌ„ anes save himself from the froward generation by Seperating himself as the Apostle practised counselleth Act. 2.4 19.9 2. cor 6.17 he cannot be fre fro the contagion of their sin 〈◊〉 the profanation of al the Holy things of God For these places doe evidently declare thâ—â— Paul the Apostles not only commaund to seperate from the Gentils but froÌ„ the Iewes who were the true Church of God now growing obstinate in sinne so practised themselves commaunding the Disciples training them vp by his example so to do so teaching vs to follow his example herein In the next place you proceed to declare by divers reasons such as they are that to joyne to the holy things when obstinate impenitent sinners partake in them is no sinne your first reason is For that in the old Testament ther was no Sacrifice appointed for this Ergo it is no sinne I deny the antecedent I declare the contrary by the examples of the tribe of Bemjamin consenting to the sinne of adultery committed vppon the Levites concubine Iudg. 19. 20. of the tribes of Israel fearing lest wrath should fal vppon them for suffering their brethren to make another altar to forsake the true worship of God as they suspected Iosh. 22. of Achans sin which brought wrath vppon the whole congregation VVherefore in the law the Lord did appoint a Sacrifice for the whole congregation aswell as for any particular person Levitt 4.13 A Second reason of yours is For that in the Old Testament the Godly are never reproved for being present at the ministration of holy things though wicked men were present but the Prophets reprove the Preists only for not Seperating the cleane from the vncleane wherto I answer that their communion was typical therfor persons typically cleane though wicked in their lives might come to Sacrifice yet not pollute others as I have already sufficiently declared in the former Section besides whereas the Prophets reprove the Preists the Saints in the new Testament succeed the carnal Preists as Spiritual Preists therby it followeth that the Saints in the new Testament are polluted by not distinguishing seperating the cleane from the vncleane see these places of Scripture Ezech. 22.26 compared with Revel 1.6 11.1 Iude vs 23.2 Cor. 6.17 But stil some may object that in the old Testament they did pray preach praise God yet notwithstaÌ„ding the faithful herein were not defiled if the wicked did joyne with them in communion thereof therfor now vnder the new Testament though meÌ„ do joyne in communion with open known sinne suffer known sinne yet may be saynts vnpolluted in communion this is the very pith warrow of your second abjection Mr. Bern. wherto I make answer many waies First I deny him to be a Saynt or that he ought to be esteemed a Saynt of vs that is impenâ—tent in any knowne sinne Knowne I say to him For I may know it to be a sinne yet bicause he knoweth it not so to be he cannot be accounted impenitent though he live in it sith ignorance is a sinne whereof a man repenteth generaly so in his generall repentance of sinnes done of ignorance that particular sinne is included Secondly I am to judg of another according to that which I know according to the rule of the word therin wherfor if i know any of my brethren to live in any sinne knowne to me I must admonish him prove it to him to be sinne require his repentance if he repent not to take withnesses theÌ„ to admonish him before withnesses so to convince it againe to his conscience if he repent not then to tel it to the Church wher
may not the Prelates reason against the Puritane thus or the papists against the Protestants wherfor although I wil not scoffe at this argument yet I pity your simplicity in it but I alter your argument and frame another after this manner against you Antiquity is the truth The Seperation is true antiquity go the truth the reason of this Argument is for that we approve the Doctryne and practise of seperation from the beginning out of the writings of the Holy Apostles and on the contrary I reason thus against your Protestancy Novelty is not the truth The ministery worship government of the protestant churches of England are Novelty go Not the truth that al these things are novelty I prove bicause they are not of the primitive Apostolique institution as I have sufficiently proved in the former Treatise Thus much for your first Likelyhood The second Likelyhood against the Sep. is thus framed They that in some things agree with auncient Heretiques Schismatiques are Heretiques Schismatiques their opinions heresy Schisme The Sep in some things agre with auncient Heretiques Schismatiques Ergo they are Heretiq Schismatiq their opinions heresy Schisme I answer by this arg I can prove you Mr. Bern. to bee an Heretique and Schismatique except you will renounce the Deity and Trinity the fall of Adam redemption by Christ c. For I can prove that Heretiques yea most vild Heretiques have held these opinions with you if my argument be not good against you neither is yours good against vs besides you should counting vs to agree with auncient Heretiques Schismatiques have proved two things 1. that they were indeed in truth Heretiques and Schismatiques for holding the points that wee hold 2. you should have set downe the particulars wherin we agree with them but you have done neither of them therefore fayle in your proof and so let this Likelyhood also passe as a matter not worth taking vp The third Likelyhood against the Sep. is framed thus That is not the truth the Teachers professors wherof somtyme do give straung expositions therby do wrest the Scriptures The Teachers professors of the Seperation doe straungely expound wrest the Scriptures somtyme Ergo the Seperation is not the truth I answer First do you expound no Scripture straungely to the Papists do not they instantly defend against you al that you shamefully wrest those two places of Scripture Mat. 16.18 vppon this rock wil I wil build my church 1. Cor. 11.24 this is my body yea a hundreth more besides if therfor the argument be good for you against vs it is good for the Papists against you but the argument is naught For may not a company of men have the truth somtyme through ignorance misinterpret so pervert the Scripture it may be so vndoubtedly except you wil say that men professing the truth have in them as the Pope saith he hath in Scrinio pectoris the infaâ—ibility of expounding Scriptures as the Apostles Prophets had in writing Scripture except you wil say that men have the perfect ful knowledg of the Scripture but secondly what are the Scriptures wee do straungely expound wrest I require you Mr. Bern before the Lord to produce the places of Scripture that I do wrest pervert eyther I wil acknowledg my sinne or els justifie them to be truly expounded in the meane tyme the reader may se that this is but simple stuffe the Papists can take it vp every whit agaâ—nst you The 4. Likelyhood against the Sep. is framed thus They that are not approved by the Reformed Churches have not the truth The Sep. is not approved by the Reformed Churches Ergo The Seperation is not the truth I answer That seing the Seperation have published the confession of their Faith wher in they have by name desired the approbation of the vniversities of the Reformed Churches either by writing or silence the said Christian vniversities have not disalowed that their confession though long since published their silence is therfor in al equity to be accounted their consent Mr. Iunius his silence what is it els to be esteemed but consent but suppose that al the men vppon earth should disalow the Seperation if the Reformed Churches of Corinth Rome Thessalonica Galatia the scaven Churches of Assa the Mother Church of Ierusalem planted by Christ Iohn Baptist the Apostles all of them being of one the same primitive Apostolique constitutioÌ„ if I say the Seperation have the allowance approbation of these Apostolique Churches it shal be sufficient for them therein they shal rest contented by my consent In the meane season you for get that your Church is vtterly disalowed by the reformed Churches in regard of your prelacy which is one of the cheef abhominations among you in many other particular which I shal not need to relate but remember for a conclusion for this point The stone which the builders refused is become the cheef corner stone I appeale vnto your consciences if you do not think the Churches of the Seperation better then your owne then tel me how you can stay in a worse knowing a better The 5. Likelyhood against Sep may be framed thus Whatsoever Mr. Whittakers Mr. Perkins Mr. Bredwel Mr. Willat Mr. Allison Mr. Cartwright Mr. Iames Mr. Rogers Mr. H. Smyth saith of the Seperation is true These forsaid learned men say the Sep. is not the truth Ergo The Seperation is not the truth I make another argument like vnto this which shal be your answer VVhatsoever Herod Pontius Palate Annas Cayphas the learned Scribes Pharisees Tertullus the Oratour and all the Lerned men of the Church of the Iewes say is true that is true These persons al of them with one consent say that Christian Religion is Heresy and schisme as you may see in the History of the Gospel acts Ergo Christan Religion is Heresy schisme If this argument be faulty then is yours faulty much more but I wil reason thus for the Seperation against you whatsoever Christ the Apostles the Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 the Primitive Apostolique Churches collected of the Iewes Gentils do allow or disalow is to be allowed or disallowed The seperation is allowed the Church ministery worship GovernmeÌ„t of the English assemblies is disallowed by these forsaid persons Ergo The sep is to be allowed you are to be disalowed The minor of this argument is proved in this book which I present to every honest hart of the Land to be measured by the golden reed But mee thinks Mr. Bern. should blush at his Logick The 6. Likelyhood against Seperation may be framed thus They have not the truth that are judged of the Lord. The seperation is judged of the Lord. Ergo The Seperation hath not the truth againe They have the truth that are prospered by God in their course The English