powre to collect distribute the Churches Treasury to minister for the body meÌ„bers of the Church in other general services helpful to the body outward part this is evident enough if you wil not be blind wilfully For as in matter of mariage this is the very forme of mariage I take the formy wife I take the for my husband So in the matter of office this is the very forme therof we take the for our Pastor I take you for my flock so forth of the rest now ordination is nothing but the publishing of the officers election with prayer made for him admonition given to him to be faithful The Church doth the former which is al in all even the very forme the latter is but the lesser an accident without which the officer may be a true officer declare the contrarie to this if you can if not yeeld to the truth Ob. But you wil say the word mentioneth an Eldership which must ordeine Paul commandeth Titus to ordeyne Elders Tit. 1.5 1. Tim. 4.14 Ans. 1. The place of Timothie compared with 2. Timoth 1.6 yeeldeth this sence that Timothie by â—he exercise of prophecy wherein he was trayned by the imposition of the Apostles handes whereby the extraordinary gifts of tongs prophecy were then vsually conferred had an excellent grace so the word is in the originall conferred vppon him But let it be granted that Timothie had a ministerie conferred vnto him surely it must needes be the office of an Evangelist what is that to an ordinary Elders office Paull only the Apostles could create Evangelists Further let it be yeelded you that Timothie was made a Bishop of Ephesus by the Eldership of Ephesus the Eldership in that action did nothing but that which the Church appointed them to for the effecting wherof they had powre authority from the Church who is the Fountaine of al the powre that any officer hath Ans. 2. To the place of Titus I thus answer that Titus ther is not commaunded to ordeyne ministers but to constitute Elders For the word is not to ordeyne or to lay on hands but to constitute if you vnderstand the Greek tongue you wil acknowledg that I say to be true now to constitute an Elder signifieth Election approbation ordinatioÌ„ not ordination only as the objection importeth but you know or els you are a sworne slave to the Prelates that the Church hath powre to Elect approve her Elders yet Titus is heer commaunded to doe it whence wee must needes conclude that Titus only should teach direct the Churches in constituting of her Elders according to the Apostolique institution which what it was Titus being an Evangelist wel acquainted with the Apostles course could wel tel this must needes be the sence of this place except you have any thing to say against it which we pray you let vs heer if ther be any thing you seeme in this point to distingnish the calling of Elders as if ther were two manners or formes of calling Elders ordinary extraordinary I know no such thing therfore I leave that till I see it expounded Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the thirteenth Section Al this thirteenth Section hath for the subject matter of it the ordination or making of ministers the question of it is this viz whither a company of faithful people gathered into the name of Christ by the voluntary covenant of the new Testament have not powre of themselves to create their owne Pastors Deacons Although that which hath been spoken concerning the seaventh Section may fully sufficiently satisfie al this doubt yet I thought meet to add certaine argumeÌ„ts of plaine evidence for the further declaration hereof that al scruples shifts may be taken away The first Argument They which have powre to enter into to assume the New Testament have also powre to assume al the ordinances of the new Testament so by necessary consequent the ministery Two or three faithful people have powre to enter into to assume the new Testament of Christ Ergo two or thre faithful people have powre to assume al the ordinances of the new Testament therfor the ministery The Minor only is doubtful which may thus be confirmed Gal. 3 14-16 wher the Apostle saith plainly that the promises were made to Abraham his seed viz to the Faithful vs. 16. that the blessing of Abraham came vppon the beleeving gentils vs. 14. that these promises blessing is the covenant or new Testament vs. 15. wherevppon it followeth that seing the Faithful have the blessing the promises the new Testament therfor they have the powre of enjoying the ministery For the ministery is one part or ordinance of the new Testament The second Argument They that have Christ with Christ all things els they that have al things aperteyning to life Godlines they that have the promise of this life of the life to come have the powre to assume the ministery for that is a part of Godlines But the Faithful be they but two or thre have with Christ al things els Rom. 8.32 have the promise of life Godlines 2. Pet. 1.3 have the promise of this life of the life to come 1. Timoth. 4.8 Ergo The Faythfull though but two or three have powre to assume the Ministery The third Argument They who have powre to examine elect their Officers have also powre to pray for them to commaund them to minister which is ordination But the Scripture teacheth plainly that the Faithfull have powre to Elect and choose their owne Officers as Deacons Act. 6. one to bee an Apostle Act. 1.26 Elders Act. 14. also to approve them Act. 6.3 1. Timoth. 3.10 and you confesse no lesse your self Ergo the Scripture teacheth plainly you by consequent grant indeed though you deny in wordes that the Faithful have powre to pray for ther officers Elect to commaund them to administer that is ordination The Fourth Argument They that have powre to make a Church have powre to make a minister or ministers For they that can doe the greater can do the lesse Two or thre Faithful people have powre to make a Church Ergo two or thre Faithful people have powre to make ministers The reason of this argument is for that the Church is the body of Christ the Spowse of Christ the ministery is but one part of the body one Servant of the Spowse one of the ornaments of the Church The Minor is plaine For two or three Faithful people have Christ Iesus have the promises have the holy things of David which are Faithful have the blessing of Abraham being Abrahams seed furthermore the Apostle Heb. 8 10-12 expounding what the new Testament is teacheth that they that have the Lawes of the Lord put in their mindes written in their harts are the people of God have God
the Church hath powre which powre commeth after into act execution when her officers are chosen viz The powre of baptizing administring the Lords Supper yet it may also be questioned whither the Church may not as well administer the Seales of the covenant before they have Officers as Pray Prophesy Elect Officers and the rest seing that to put the Seales to the covenant is not a greater work then publishing the covenant or Election of officers or excommunication The third of your 9. reasons against popularity is that it is against Christs commission granted to the Apostles their Successors as Timothie Titus the cheef ministers of the Gospel that therfor the place 1. Cor. 5.4 must be expounded of the Elders as you say the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 2.6 Wel Mr. Bern. this is old rusty rotten popish stuffe even as auncient as the Church of Antichrist some of it viz that of succession which hath already receaved answer the contrary been proved at large in this Section whither I referre you But heer are certaine vntruths avouched by you which must be answered viz one is that Christs commission was granted only to the Apostles their Successors I have proved already in the former reasons that the commission was given to the body of the Church expounding those foure places which you quote viz Mat. 28.19 16.19 Iohn 20 21-23 Marc. 13.34 which also is further cleeâ—ed for that the twelve were not yet Apostles but only nominated to the office for they were indued with powre froÌ„ on high vppon the day of Pentecost Luk. 24.49 compared with Act. 2.4 Eph 4.8.11 as also for that Cleopas Mary Magdalene others besides the eleven were present when the commission was given vnto the Disciples finally bicause the Apostles were the Church representative yea every one of them having in them powre to performe al the offices of al officers members of the Church the Church only is the true Successor of the Apostles no one man oâ— Minister whatsoever seing no one person hath powre to performe al offices of all officers and members which notwithstanding the whole Church joyntly hath A second vntruth is this that you say the Apostles committed that commission given them by Christ not to the body of the Church but to Timothie Titus ther successors as appeareth 1. Tim. 6.13.14 as you say wherto I answer that the Apostles leave the powre which they receaved from Christ joyntly with the rest of the Disciples in the hands of the Church not of Timothie Titus only that chardg which Paul giveth to Timothie respecteth the whole Epistle and all the contents thereof which aperteyne to all sorts of persons in the Church aswell as to Timothie as may be seen in the whole second Chapter how prove you that Timothy an Evangelist Succeeded Paull an Apostle Or that the Elders of Ephesus succeded Timothie an Evangelist A third vntruth is this that you say the place 1. Cor. 5.4.13 must be vnderstood of Elders as you say may appeare 1. Cor. 2.6 wherto I answer that this is a prety trick but it wil not serve your turne to turne away the truth evidence to this place For first the Epistle is written to the whole body of the Church al the circumstances of the Chap. 5. teach that the whole body was leavened that their rejoycing was not good that they ought not to be mingled with the brethren that were fornicators that they ought not to eate the L. Supper with such persons that they have powre to judg them that are within that they must cast out from among them that incestuous person whereas you would needes by one phrase viz the rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 expound this general as spoken of many Elders not many brethren I say herein you coyne a false exposition For doth it follow that bicause the rebuke was delivered by many either brethren or Elders who are to leade in al publique actions therfor the Apostle enjoyneth the Elders only to excommunicate or bicause some only pronounce the rebuke the sentence of excommunication therfor they only have powre to decree it I desire you would make these consequents hang or depend necessarily vppon ther antecedents or els you doe but wrest the Scriptures to your destruction besides that place 2. Cor. 2.6 doth not teach who either decreed or pronounced his excommunication but only who rebuked him for his sinne which were many Elders if you will For I take it the place is manifest that he was not excommunicate bicause he repented vppon the reproof which the Apostle saith is sufficient And sometyme in the Scripture many signifieth all all signifieth many as these places declare Matt. 3.5 Roman 5.18.19 Therefore this quirck off yours is but a meer Sophisticall cavill to put of the truth The fourth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the place of Ephes 4.11.12 is against it for ther the Apostle declareth say you that gifts for the ministerie are given to the Ministers for the Church not to the Church for the Ministers and that therefore the powre of Christ is not given to the body of the Church but only to the Elders this you shew by a similie from the parts of the body which do not receave their qualityes facultyes or gifts from the body but from God To this reason I answer that you declare your self to be either blind or willfully to shut your eyes against the truth evidence of this place For it is as cleer as the shining of the Sunne in the Firmament of heaven against your exposition objection For I pray you in good sooth doth this argument follow viz Christ giveth gifts vnto meÌ„ not by the mediation of the body of the Church therfor Christ giveth his ministerial powre to the officers not to the body yet this is the force of your argument which may for more evidence be framed thus If Christ give gifts to the officers of the Church not by the Church but immediately by from himself Then Christ giveth powre of binding losing to the officers of the Church not by the meanes of the church but by such meanes as God hath appointed that is as I gesse by Succession But you say the Antecedent is true by the place of the Eph 4. And I say the consequent or conclusion followeth not vppon the antecedent but it is meerly asyllogiston But I will declare the inconsequence more fully The Lord he giveth gifts to men either ordinarily or extraordinarily Extraordinarily he gave gifts to men in the primitive Churches Ordinarily he giveth gifts to men by study paynes by nature so he gave the gifts of Tongs and Prophesy extraordinarily to the primittive Churches be giveth the same gifts now ordinarily by meanes of Study and the help of naturall witt How will it follow that bicause the Lord gave gifts therefore he gave
vnderstanding but therein the L. hath shewed mercy vnto me which mercy I desire also for you but what is this to excuse your slaundering rayling scoffing inconstancy Apostacy conformity subscription blasphemy the rest which you have plentifully discovered to al the world Shew me how when after the acknowledgment of the truth I fell back as you have done many tymes that I ever yeelded to the Prelates conformity or Subscription after I once withstood it amōg the rest of your follyes ther is one vntruth that I did kneele downe praise God for Satisfaction after doubting Not so I remayned doubting alwayes till I saw the truth after I once doubted but during the tyme of my doubting which was 9. Months at the least I did many actions arguing doubting but that I ever sel back from any truth I saw I praise God I can with a good conscience deny it you are never able to prove that against me but the L. wil cut out the tong that speaketh lyes The second Section These oppositions of yours you have written in a lettre which came of late to my sight which are thus in your lettre Touching your oppinions in these things shall I never be perswaded that you doe well in 1 In Seperating from all the Reformed Churches 2. In holding that one sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in not reformed by a true constituded Church doth so pollute it that none may commicate with it in the holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawful conviction 3. In maintayning that it s not lawful to heare any ministers amongst vs whatsoever thy be nor to joyne in prayer with such as feare God among vs. 4. In holding that Princes have no more to doe in Ecclesiastical causes thē one of you in a particular congregation 5. That the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principal members therof 6. That the word truly preached Sacraments rightly administred are no infallible tokens of a true Church 7. That a minister may be made without Elders ordinarily I meane for extraordinary courses are not now to be vsed for ought I see 8. That such as are not in your way are to be accounted without after the Apostles meaning 1. Cor. 5.12 9. That those which are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Christs Kingdom 10. That an erroneous constitution of a Church is a real Idol 11. That only Saints as Mr. Smith defineth them by 4 proporties are the matter only of a visible Church 12. That every of our assemblies are false Churches al our ministers false ministers our worship a false worship 13. That a company truly fearing God if any open wicked joyne with them are not capable to chose them a minister over them 14. That baptisme is not administred among vs simply into the faith of Christ but into the faith of the Bbs. or Church of England 15. That ministers ought only to live of voluntary contribution not of stipends or any set mayntenance 16. That our Churches ought to be rased downe not to be imployed to the worship of God Al which I do verely beleeve to be crrors I see not which way men can joyne to you to swallow vp al these as truths into which you doe runne in avoyding our corruptions that with such deep condemnation of vs as is greatly in your behalf to be lamented but I am tedious c. _____ R. B. This is your writing word for word wherein you have taxed mee by name in one particular indeed in most of them it shal be my part therfor to cleer these matters for your information that if it be the wil of God you may see the truth walk in it which I vnfeynedly desire of the Lord or els that you may no longer seduce others from the truth your corrupt walking being once discovered vnto the simple my intent therfor is not to take these points in that order which you have placed them in but to assume thē in the natural order wherin things vsually among Schollers are discoursed Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the Second Section I desire heer to advertise the reader that these 16. points which Mr. Bern. accounteth error are againe in his book intituled the Seperatifts Schisme rehearsed refined augmēted changed as it pleaseth the forger into another order shape nomber which it shal not be impertinent heer to propound for evidence sake that the Reader comparing these 16. points with those 22. For so they are in nomber may discerne the agreement difference so more fully be informed of the whole cause The particulars are these following as they are expressed in divers pages of his booke as pag. 78 the title of them is this The Errors of the Seperatists the matter of their Schisme 1. They hold that the constitution of our Church is a false constitution pag. 78. 2. They hold our constitution a real Idol so vs idolaters pag. 79. 3. That such as are not of a particular constituted Church to wit such a one as theirs is are no subjects of Ch. Kingdom pag. 80.81 4. That all not in their way are without do apply against vs 1. Cor. 5.12 Eph. 2.12 pag. 82. 5. That only Saynts that is a people forsaking al knowne sinne of which they may be convinced doing al the knowne wil of God in creasing abiding ever therein are the only matter of a visible Church pag 83. 6. That the powre of Christ that is authority to preach to administer the Sacramēts to exercise the censures of the Church belongeth to the whole Church yea to every one of them not to the principal members thereof pag. 48. 7. That the sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in being not reformed not the offender cast out doth so pollute the whole congregation that none may cōmunicate with the same in any of the holy things of God though it be a Church rightly constituted til the partie be excommunicated pag. 102.103 8. That every of our assemblies are false Churches pag. 109. 9. Al our Ministers say they are false Ministers pag. 128. 10. Our worship say they is a false worship pag. 146. Divers other opinions they hold which I will also set downe they be these pag. 150.151 1. That our congregations as they stand are all every of them vncapable before God to chose them Ministers though they desire the meanes of salvtion pag. 151. 2. That God in our best assemblies is worshipped after a false manner pag. 151. 3. That baptisme is not administred into the faith of Ch. simply but into the sayth of Bishops or Church of England pag. 152. 4. That our saith repentance is a false faith false repentance pag. 152. 5. That our Ministers converting men to God heere do it not as Pastors but as Teachers pag
although a false constitution be a sinne yet it is not Idolatry you must manifest it to me to be a sin of another commaundemeÌ„t if you plead that otherwise I stil hold it to be a sinne of the Second commaundement viz to worship God in a constitution of an humane invention even as it was in the Church of Ieroboams in vention as it is in a popish parish assembly as it is in the English assemblies now further to prove vnto you that a false constitution of a Church is an Idol I use these places 2. Cor. 6.16 VVhat agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols The faithful who have made a covenant with God are heer cailed the temple of God thervnto are Idols opposed signifying that an assembly of men who are vnfaithfull though some faithful meÌ„ be among them who are commaunded to come out to be Seperated endevoring to worship God after ther fashion are an Idol therfor if the temple of Ierusalem now stood the Iewes assembled to worship God ther after the fashioÌ„ of the Old Testament that assemblie was an Idol So are the assemblies of Turkes Idols So are the assemblies of Papists Idols as Abbayes Monasteries c. Such are al churches framed of a false matter or having a false covenant 1. Ioh. 5.21 Babes keep your selves from jmages Zach. 11.17 The Apostle who wrote the Revelation forseing through the Spirit of prophecy the abhominable Idolatryes of Antichrist which would grow vp in the Church giveth the Churches a caution especially to take heed of those Antichristian Idolatryes now the Idolatryes of Antichrist are not heathenish paganish but of another nature viz not false Gods but meanes invented by men to worship the true God in or by Hence I gather thus VVhatsoever meanes is devised out of a mans brayne vsed as a meanes to honour God in or by is an Idol A devised constitution of a Church is of that nature Ergo an Idol For further amplification whereof consider that as a false minister wherof afterward is an Idol minister Zach. 11.17 So a Church of a false constitution is a false Church that is an Idol Chuch as it was vnlawful yea flat Idolatry for a Priest of Ieroboams devising to offer Sacrifice to the L. So is it also Idolatry to offer vp service to God in a Church of a false constitution Col. 2.23 Mat. 15.9 Wil-worship vayne-worship is forbidden in these two places namely such worship as is offered to God after the wil precept of man whose wisdome is enmity to God But a false constitution of a Church is after the will precept of man even invented devised go it is forbidden but wil worship vayne worship is a transgression of the second commaundement go it is idolatry so that false Church wherin or wherby it is offered vp to God an Idol These things are manifest to him that wil not blindfold himself I pray you consider of the particulars by mee alledged if you find a truth in them embrace the truth lead on your people with you to the truth if not let vs heer from you an answer that we may see our errors wee wil can reforme so cannot you so long as you stand as you doe ther is no way to reforme but to Seperate as we have done already Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the third Section I published a litle Methode not long since intituled Principles inferences concerning the visible Church in the tenth page of the book I write thus visible Churches constituted according to the devise of men are Real Idols Mr. Bern. in the beginning of his third Section chargeth vs to hold That an erroneous constitution of a Church is a real Idol in his book intituled the Seperatists Schisme pag. 79 hath these wordes They hould our constitution a real Idol so vs idolaters pag. 152. of the same book he writeth thus that our Church viz the Church of England standeth in an adultrous estate accounting this as an error that wee defend Mr. Ainsw in the answer to Mr. Bern. pag. 172. faith that a false constitution of a church set vp in stead of a true what is it better then a very Idol Heer let vs consider the difference agrement betwixt Mr. Ains me he saith a very Idol I say a real Idol I cal a false constitution a real Idol For that in existence being it is an Idol Mr. Ainsw calleth a falsely constituted Church a very Idol bicause it is indeed truly an Idol heer is litle difference except it be in wordes but for the further cleering of my position viz that a falsely constituted Church is a real Idol two things must be discovered 1. what an Idol is 2. what Real is For the first vnderstand that most properly an Idol is contrary to an ordinance apoinred by God in matter of Religion So the Apostle willeth the brethren to keep themselves from jmages or Idols 1. Ioh. 5.21 the Lord himself in the Second Commaundement forbiddeth vnder the phrases of making worshipping jmages al inventions of men in matter of Religion Exod. 20.4.5 Now matter of religion especially subsisteth in Religious worship or religious government For the Saynts are made Kings Preists vnto God as Kings they excercise a regiment as Preists they performe their Sacrifices Revel 1.6 1. Co. 6 1-9.1 Pet. 2.5 therein they performe homage to the Lord submit their consciences to be wrought vppon seing the conscience must bow only to the Lord not to man otherwise then in the Lord therfor in matter of Religion the conscience is not to yeeld to any thing devised by man but must alwayes have the Lord for the leader Governor therein hence then it foloweth that whosoever substituteth any devise of man any thing taught by the precept of man Mat. 15.9 Esay 29.13 any will worship or any ordinance of the world in matter of Religion setteth vp that which is contrary to the Lords ordinance contrary to the Lords wil contrary to the Lords wisdome I would fayne learne whither this be not an Idol or jmage So that Idols are of two sorts 1. A false God 2 A false meanes to honor or submit or doe homage to the true God in or by as a false or devised tyme place person instrumeÌ„t action if theâ—be any thing of the like consideration therfor a false or devised tyme may be caled an Idol day as 1 King 12.33 the month which Ieroboam appointed for the worship of his Calves is called the month which he had forged of his owne hart that is an Idol moneth so by consequent the 15 days of that moneth an Idol day So in the old Testament the place where God was to be worshipped was the Tabernacle or Temple Deut. 12 5-8 therfor the high places in iudah also DaÌ„ Bethel in Israel were Idol places bicause
they were places forged out of the harts of them that first appointed them such were al the places dedicated by the hethen to worship their Gods in which therfor were commaunded to â—he rased downe Deu 12.2.3 so likewise a shepheard or minister framed according to the devise of man is called a foolish or Idol Shepheard Zach. 11.17 Such were Ieroboams Preistst 1. King 12.31 the false Apostles 2. Cor 11 13-15 who are therefor called the ministers of Sathan In like maner Gideons Ephod judg 8.27 Michaes Ephod Teraphinâ— molten jmage Iudg. 17.4.5 The brasen Serpent 2. King â—8 4 being instruments of idolatry might justly have been called Idol instruments so forth for actions Thus we see the first point what an Idol is by consequent that Idols are infinite in nomber that they are not only 47. as Mr. Bern. fayth Marlorat reckeneth them againe that Mr. Bern. question is answered which he maketh pag. 152. What Idol worship wee Saith Mr. Bern I answer that Mr. Bern. doth both worship an Idol worshippeth in or by Idols The Idol which he worshippeth is a false Christ who is neither a King to him seing he submitreth not to his kingdome ordinances thereof nor a Preist seing he yeeldeth not to his true Ministerie nor a Prophet seing he receaveth not the Holy doctryne which he teacheth but yeeldeth to a Kingdom Preishood Prophecy erected established according the doctryne commaundements of men as shal be sufficiently cleered heare after hath been oâ—t tymes already done The Idols wherein wherby he worshippeth is 1. his owne false Church 2. his owne false standing as a meber of the false church 3. his owne false Ministery 4. his owne false parish Church or Idol Temple 5. his service book 6. his Lords the Prelates their courts ministers wherin wherto he submitteth Generally look how many Prelates Preists Deacons Parishes Temples Service books Surplices Crosses Holy dayes Courts Ecclesiastical Officers in these Courts ther are in the Land So many Idols there are that wee may say as Esay said in his tyme of Iudah Esay 2.8 their land is ful of Idols so this question of yours Mr. Bern. is answered Now the second point to be manifested is VVhat is Real I opposed Real to mentall as may be seen Princip Inferenc pag. 9. 10. Mental or intellictual is that which hath his being in the mynd or vnderstanding as the frame of the English Churches conceaved in the mynd I called a mental Idol Real is that which hath an existence being out of the mynd conceipt as the Parish Church of worksop whereof Mr Bern. is vicar is a real Idol having existence being not only in the mynd conceipt but also in deed truth Now Real is eyther Natural or Moral or Artificial or Political Natural as a man Moral as vertue Artificial as a howse Political as a Cittie or common wealth whereas I called a falsely constituted Church a real Idol I intended it a real Politique Idol For so a Church is a politie Cittie or common wealth Revel 11.2 18.2 VVherefore as the true Church is the Holy Cittie the new Ierusalem that commeth downe from God out of heaven Revel 21.2 Even that true Politie common wealth of Israel Eph. 2.12 So the false Church is Babylon Egipt Sodom that Cittie Politie common wealth or Sinagogue of Sathan so a Political Real Idol therfor the English assemblies being proved to be false Churches are real Idols Let vs in the next place consider what Mr. Bern. saith to these things First he saith the Scripture never taketh an Idol in this sense I have both in this Section of my lettre also in this Parallele shewed him already that an Idol is so taken in the Scripture but for further evidence I use this argument That which is contrary to a true Church is an Idol A falsely constituted Church is contrary to a truly constituted Church Ergo A falsely constituted Church is an Idol The Major is true by natural reason as also by the consideration of the nature of contraries For as light is contrary to darknes vertue to vice white to black fire to water So is true contrary to false a true Church to a false Church The major is the Apostles owne argument 2. Cor. 6.16 his wordes are what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols whence I reason thus That which is contrary to the Temple of God is an Idol That which is contrary to the true Church is contrary to the Temple of God For the true Church is the Temple of God Ergo That which is contrary to the true Church is an Idol Herevppon it followeth that seing the Apostle opposeth an Idol to the temple of God as he opposeth light to darknes Christ to Belial seing the Temple of God is the true Church therfor an Idol in that place is a false Church now Mr. Bern with al your learning avoyde this place I wil yeeld you this particular Further A false Christ is an Idol A false Church is a false Christ Ergo a false Church is an Idol The Major is vndeniable The Minor is proved two wayes First by the contrary thus A true Church is true Christ as may be collected from these two places 1. Cor. 12.12 Gal. 3 16. Therfor a false Church is a false Christ Secondly it may be proved by Christs owne wordes Mat. 24.24 ther shal arise false Christs false Prophets that is to say false churches false Ministers which professe teach doctrynes of the Lord Iesus falsely both of his person offices as the Arrians the Lutherane vbiquitists the Papists the Anabaptists c. Thus you see wee have proved vnto you now this second tyme that a falsely constituted Church is a real Idol But bicause you cannot soundly answer therfor blasphemously you scoffe at the doctryne of the constitution of the true Church wee doe constantly bouldly defend that out of a Church truly constituted when a man can may joyne therto no ordinance of God can be accepted neyther preaching nor praying nor Sacraments nor any other religious action what the Lord accepteth in secreat that we dispute not but what the word of God teacheth vnto vs to be acceptable that wee speak of And tel me Mr. Bernard can ther be a true ministery a true baptisme a true faith true prayer true preaching or administring the L. supper true excommunication in the church that is falsely constituted did the L. accept of the Sacraments Sacrifices of the Church of Israel constituted by Ieroboam that author of Idolatry doth not the Lord say vnto that people in that false Church Lo Ammi Lo Ruhamah No People No Pitie Hosea 1.6.9 is not the Lord as severe now against a Church falsely constituted in the New Testament as he was against the false Church of the ten tribes in the old Testament or do you
ber pag. 81. First he saith the Scripture never setteth forth any of Gods people by this marke say you so Mr. Bern is not the Scripture plentiful in declaring vnto vs that the L. addeth dayly to the Church such as should be saved Act. 2.47 that they that gladly receaved the word were baptized added to the Church continued therin Act. 2.14.42 doth not the Apostle teach that ther is one faith one body one baptisme one Lord but one Eph. 4. And that they that are not of this faith body baptisme Lord are without the faith without the body that is the Church without the true baptisme without this true Lord King Iesus Christ so are none of Gods people visible none of Christs Kingdome none of Christs body none of his faith baptisme Are not true faith prayer baptisme the Lords Supper the true church plaine pregnant do monstrative proper adjuncts of Gods visible people how can you with any face of truth or a good conscieÌ„ce of your judgment knowledg say that to be of a true visible church is no note of Gods visible people out you say further that he synneth which doth not live in a true coÌ„stituted Church ordinarily when he can hath meanes offered nay we say further then so that he synneth that doth not seek meanes to live in a true constituted Church not only he that vseth not meanes offered so to doe wherfor we say that which you say more also but I pray you what meaneth your ordinarily living in a true constituted church doe you hold that ther are two sorts of meÌ„bers conversers in the true church some ordinary some occasional or extraordinary do you think that to be of a true chuch to live in a true church are one thing we say that members of true churches are al ordinary of one kind consideration further we say that it is one thing to be of a true church or a member of a true church another thing to live in the true church a man may be a member of a true church potentialy actualy as I have already declared in the 4. former particulars but al this is nothing to that which I affirme for I say thus that he which is not of a true visible Church is no subject of Chr. Kingdom that is he is not vnder the visible dominion Lordship of Chr. in his church which is his Kingdom I do not say that he is invisiblie none of the L. people for a man may be one of the L. people in election grace invisiblie yet not in the true visible church which is Chr. visible Kingdom againe take an instance to exemplifie the mater al we that are of the seperated churches in these contryes are of the common wealth of England therfor subiects of the King of England our Soveraigne Lord on earth though we are not actually vnder the execution of his lawes courts officers by reason of banishment that we may submit to Chr. ordinance c. So a true seperated Christian is a subject of Chr. visible politie Kingdom which is his church eyther actually or potentially although by banishment that is by vndeserved communication by imprissonmeÌ„t by other occasions he be actualy absented seperated from the presence therof wherfor Mr. Bern. I doe in this section indite you before the L. the world as one that of purpose so maliciousty perverteth my meaning slaundereth this excellent truth of God doth not your conscieÌ„ce tel you may you not read it in the copy of my lettre that I distingnish betwixt Gods people which are of two sortes visible subjects of Ch. visible church which is his Kingd invisible ones known only to the L. certaynly particularly further this doctryn of myne you say is contrary to 4 places of Scripture pa. 81. the first place is Gal. 3.7.9 the Apostles wordes are these They which are of saith are the children of AbrahaÌ„ vs 7. they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham which scripture proveth my doctryne or rather the L. truth I say that faith heer is oposed to the works of the law that faith signifieth a visible faith For the Apostle Iames saith Iam. 3 21-24 Speaking of the same matter viz of Abrahams faith that it was made perfect by works for if Abrahams faith had not been manifested by his workes it had been invisible it would not have been discerned by maÌ„ therfor in the same place vs 14. the Ap. speaketh directly of a visible faith this place of the Ap. therfor confirmeth my assertioÌ„ plainly that they that are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Chr. Kingd bicause they do not by their workes shew their faith _____ but if they have faith they have it with God not with man who can judg only by the fruites The second place is 1. Ioh. 3.14 where the Apostle speaketh thus VVee know we are traÌ„slated from death to life bicause we love the brethren VVho are the brethren are not they that cal God Father who can cal God Father but they that have Christ for their Lord Mr. for their Elder brother To whome is Christ Lord Mr. but to them that are subjects of his Kingdome So that this place also maketh most evidently for the confirmation of this truth of God which I defend But you Mr. Bern. dreame of am visible faith of an invisible Kingdome of an invisible brotherhood or consanguinity whereas Christ saith directely that they which doe the wil of God are his brethren of his Fraternity Marc. 3.35 what have we to do with things invisible hidden secreat Deut. 29.29 I avouch that you cannot prove to me by any rule of Gods word certaynly that those that are not members of a true constituted Church are subjects of Christs Kingdome invisible as you I am sure intend it Further what is the love of the brethren wherof the Apostle speaketh is it not a visible love testified in the performance of the visible â—utyes of love Christ faith Ioh. 14.25 if ye love me keep my commaundements obedience is the true touchstone of the love of God 1. Ioh. 3.17 whosoever hath this worlds good seeth his brother need chutteth vp his compassion from him how dwelleth the love of God in him So the visible dutyes of brotherly love are the true touchstone of brotherly love but the principal visible dutyes of brotherly love are the dutyes of admonition consolation supportation patience 1. Thes 5.14 Exhortation edification vs. 11. among theÌ„ admonition is most excellent Mat. 18 15-17 compared with Levit. 19.17 they therfor that altogether omit these visible dutyes of admonition in the degrees thereof injoyned by Christ the Apostles how can they be said to love the brethren but al they that live out of a true constituted Church wholy omit the visible dutyes
of love to the brethren seing they neyther know nor have brethrē vppō whome they may exercise these dutyes Therfor this place of the Apostle is pregnant invincibly strong against you The third place is 1. Cor. 1.1 Now what wordes Mr. Bern intendeth in this place I can not conjecture except they be these viz. in the second verse with al those that cal vpon the name of the L. Iesus Christ in every place whence it may seem he would gather that ther were some subjects of Christs Kingdome not of a constituted Church I do verely think that seing these persons that were absent frō the Church of Corinthus did call Iesus Christ Lord they did therfor acknowledg him for their Lord King therefor did apertayne to his Kingdome which is his visible Church happily they might be some brethren which did not dwel in Corinth but in some villages about Corinth that this is so the place afordeth evidently For he wrote both to the Church that was in Corinth to the brethrē that were in other places which were no doubt of the church of Corinth El◠how did that Epistle in the contents of it concerne them For seing the Apostle writeth this Epistle to them they had to doe with the matters wherof he taxeth the church for he taxeth them al indifferently seing he writeth indifferently vnto them al Herevppon it followeth that eyther these persons that were in other places were mēbers of the Church of Corinth or els if they were no members off that church the Apostle in vayne doth direct his Epistle to them taxing them off the corruptions off that Church Except it be said that the Apostle doth hereby interest other churches to deale with the Church of Corinth for their corruptiōs then Mr. Bern. gayneth nothing by it neither seing therby he confesseth that these other brethren were members of other true constituted churches The third place therfor is nothing to the purpose The last place is 2. Thes 3.15 count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother To passe by what some think of this place I say vnto you Mr. Bern that it hath not so much as a shew for your purpose The Apostle speaketh in this verse negatively affirmatively For he teacheth that they ought not to recken of an excommunicate as they account of an enemy but they are to admonish an excommunicate as they doe admonish a brother Therby teaching vs that an excōmunicate is in a midle condition neyther an enemy nor a brother but one that is vnder the censure of the church as a meanes ordeyned by God for his reformation how wil this place prove that an excommunicate is a member of Christs invisible Kingdome or if it should prove that some excommunicate are members of Christs invisible Kingdome how can you prove that this or that excommunicate is so do you know the Lords Elect certaynly particularly that are out of the church Or what doth this assertion of yours this place of Scripture against my assertion who say that such as are not of a true constituted church are no subjects of Christs Kingdome viz Of the Kingdome which he shal give vp into the hands of his Father in the day of his final judgment In the third place Mr. Bern. asketh what may be said of wicklife Hus Luther Bucer Melanchthō the Martyrs Gods people in England of Lot Iob the people in captivity in Mordecay his tyme wherto I answer as I have already done That Iob was a member of a true constituted church so a subject of Christs Kingdome So was Lot so were the people of the Iewes in captivity though violently deteyned from the Holy land Cittie Temple therfor Mr. Bern. in these three demaundes gaineth nothing except the estimation of ignorance folly be gaine to that of the Martyrs Hus Luther Gods people in England I say two things eyther that in affection desire they aperteyned to the true visible church being seperated from the false church or that they were of the invisible church of the invisible Kingdome which is vnknowne to man the members therof vnknowne disprove you this if you can In the last place you demaund whither Christs Kingdom be not Spiritual invisible also Ioh. 18.33 10.16 The two places of Scripture quoted by you do not prove that Christ hath an invisible Kingdome so invisible subjects knowne to vs For Ioh. 18. Christ saith my Kingdom is not of this world that is to say it is not begunne continued perfected by worldly meanes So Christ expoundeth himself afterward saying my Kingdom is not from hēce my subjects would fight for mee vs 36. meaning that his Kingdom is neyther erected nor supported by worldly meanes as by sword speare or shield in respect whereof the Apostle saith Rom. 14.17 The Kingdome of God is not meate nor drinck 2. Cor. 10.3.4 Though we live in the flesh yet we do not warre after the flesh for the weapens of our warfare are not carnal The second place is Ioh. 10. VVher Christ saith not as you dreame very ignorantly childishly that he hath an invisible Kingdome but that he hath sheep of two sorts some of the visible Church of the Old Testament which is one fold some of the visible Church of the New Testament which is another sold o◠the Iewes Gentils both which sorts of people shal in Christ Iesus the partition wal being taken away be joyned made one that so ther may be one sheepfold one shepheard but what is al this Mr. Bern. to disprove the truth of my position Again to answer your demaund I say that Chr. Kingdome is Spiritual invisible aswel as outward visible For when we say that Christs Kingdome is visible sensible we do not deny that it is also invisible Spiritual neyther are these two contraryes to be oposed as excluding one another For as a man is not only the body which is visible sensible but cheefly principally the soule which is invisible as the true Sacraments are not only the outward Elements but the inward grace also that most especialy So the visible Church which consisteth of men is not only the outward communion but especially cheefly the inward Spiritual fellowship which the Saynts have with Christ one with another The Apostle therfor saith both that ther is one body one Spirit Eph. 4. that al that are baptized are baptized into one body al that communicate are caused to drinck into one Spirit 1. Cor. 12.13 And as the Saynts are members of Christs body of his flesh of his bones Eph. 5.30 So they that are joyned to the Lord are one Spiritt 1. Cor. 6.17 we grant you therfor Mr. Bern. that Christs Kingdome is Spiritual visible but we deny that Christs Kingdome is only invisible or only visible he that doth plead to me that
he is a member of Christs visible Kingdome yet cannot shew vnto me his fayth by his workes I say vnto him as Iames saith VVhat avayleth it him o thou vaine man shal thy sayth save the thy sayth is dead he that shal plead with the Lord in the day of his judgment that he hath prophesyed in Christs name by his name cast out Devils wrought many great workes given his body to be burned in the fire given al his goodes to the poore hath spoken with the tongs of men aungels wanting true inward love faith the Lord wil say vnto him depart thou worker of iniquity I know the not al this outward shew was hypocrisy thou art but as sounding brasse a tinckling Cymbal Therfor as the Apostle saith glorifie God with your body and Spirit for they are Gods 1. Cor. 6.20 he that is only an invisible member of Christs kingdome is but half a subject of Christs Kingdome at the vtmost though it be the better half he that is only a visible member of Christs Church he is vnto vs truly fully a subject of Christs Kingdome though vnto the Lord he is but half so the worse half so as good as nothing Let the Lord judg in secret what he pleaseth in mercy but wee must judg in visible that which we see visiblie therfor to conclude this Parallele I say he that pleadeth himself to be a true subject of Christs Kingdome by his invisible fayth yet standing in confusion with the world in the false Church worship ministery Government let him be what he may be vnto the Lord to me he is eyther an Antichristian or Famelist he that wanting true faith only in secreat knowne to the Lord is yet a meÌ„ber of a true Church though I must needes say vnto him thou art holy faithful Elect yet the Lord wil cal him an Hypocrite a worker of iniquity in the day when he will bring vnto light every secreat thing whither good or evil Therfor my position standeth firme notwithstanding al your cavils that he that is not of a true constituted Church is no subject of Christs Kingdome The fisth Section In the next place followeth your eighth position which you account error viz. That such as are not in your way are to be accounted whithout after the Apostles meaning 1. Cor. 5.12 I take it to be most evidently true vppon the former groundes that seing the true visible Church is Christs sheepfold his Kingdome his howse his household or family his Temple or Tabernacle his body That therfor al those that are not within this sheepfold this Kingdome howse family Temple body are without For they are either within or without but they are not within go they are without Now for the Apostles meaning in that place of the 1. Cor. 5.12 I do also take it to be manifest that he aymeth not only at the grosse Idolaters in paganisme but at al manner of vnbeleevers that is both Iewes Gentils that did not embrace the saith now these persons were of 4. sorts 1. persecuting pagans 2. civil pagans 3. persecuting Iewes 4. the Iewes that were Zealous vnreprovable in the law of Moses as was Paul yet refused Christ Such as the Apopstle speaketh of Rom. 10. 1.2.3 VVho have the Zeale of God but not according to knowledg who sought to establish their owne righteousnes did not submit to the righteousnes of God al these 4. sorts of persons were then without the true visible Church of the Apostolique institution which is called the Kingdome of God Now whereas you say wee doe account al without that are not of our way I answer two things First that all the members of every true Church in the world wee doe account within Secondly that al the members of false Churches wee doe indeed account without therefore we doe account your particular Church at worksop to be without For it is not the true constituted Church of Christ therfor it is a false Church therfor without according as the holy Ghost testifieth the court that is without the Temple cast out Apoc. 11.2 Now you know that in the old Testament al sorts of people good bad came into the vtter court but now in the new Testament Iohn by vision was commaunded to cast that vtter court out not to measure it bicause it is given to the Gentils who shal tread the Holy Cittie vnder foot now only the true visible Church which is the Temple of God 2. Cor. 6.16 consisteth of a holy people which must come out from the vnrighteous vnbeleevers that are Belial even without the yoke of the L. ordinances must be a Seperated people And must have no followship nor agreement with vnrighteousnes not touch any vncleane thing such a people the L. promiseth to receave to be his owne people no other I avouch therfor that seing you parish Church wherof you are parish preist consisteth of a confused rowt even such a people as came into the vtter court in the old Testament that therfor by the commaundement of the Lord your parish church must be cast out not measured therfor it is without so are all such assemblies as yours is what say you Mr. Bern. now either justifie your Church or forsake it Let vs heer what answer you make to this matter for I gesse it toucheth your freehold very neerly but I proceed Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the fifth Section In the beginning of this Section Mr. Bern. imputeth to vs to hold that such as are not of our way are to be accounted without after the Apostles meaning 1. Cor. 5.12 In the book called the Sep. Schisme pag. 12. Mr. Bern. saith This is one â—â—ror of ours that all not in our way are without And that wee do apply against them 1. Cor. 5.12 Eph. 2.12 Mr. Ainsw confutatioâ— of Mr. Bern. pag. 173. saith we hold that al not in the way of Christ are without In the midst of this fifth Section I expounding what wee hold saying thus All the members of true Churches wee account within all the members of false Churches without al that are of Christs visible Church which is his Sheepfold Kingdom Family Temple Body are within al that are not within this true visible Church are without Hereby it appeareth that in this particular ther is no difference betwixt Mr. Ainsw me indeed truth Mr. Bern. I do wonderfully mervayl at your boldnesse that you dare so contrary to all truth contrary to my expresse wordes in this Section thus impute vnto vs I say and so al of vs say That the members of the true Churches whatsoever are within therefor not only our particular Churches that Seperate from the English assemblies but all other true Churches that seperate from the false wayes of Antichrist walk in the true faith of Christ are within
section of this lettre whither I referre the reader desiring him for his information satisfaction in that particular to read that Section before he proceed any further in reading lest it should be thought that I deceave shift of thys mayne point which is indeed the cheef most principal of our cause Seperation The third thing that you object is that God Almightie hath witnessed that you are his people by giving you his word Sacraments by effectual conversion by his strange miraculous delivering you these things Mr. Ainsworth hath answered most fully hath stopt your mouth for ever that you shal never be able to mutter any more in this matter therfor I wil spare my paynes Neverthelesse I advertise you of one thing that we do acknowledg that the Lord hath his peâ—ple among you whome he calleth to come out from among you to be Seperated to touch none of your vncleames 2. Cor. 6.17 Saying vnto the faithfull that are among you Goe out of Babylon my people that ye be not partaker of her sinnes that ye receave not of her plagues Revel 18.4 that they may be the better perswaded to come out from you to be Seperated the Lord threatneth a woe a fearfull woe to them that worship the beast or his jmage or that receave his mark in their forehead or right hand Revel 14.9 al this the Lord performeth by our testimony Yet neverthelesse we say that your assemblies Ecclesiastical are false Churches that they are Babylon Epipt Sodom where Lot the Lords people are kept captives by reason of the presence of Gods people with you therfor it is that you have those many deliveraÌ„ces which you have even as the Lord gave Paul the lives of al that Sayled with him in the Ship Act. 27.24 whereas you plead you have the word Sacraments conversion I say it is but as the theef hath the true mans purse as the false Church of Ieroboam had as the Samaritanes the Edomitts Moabites Ammonites Ishmaelites had circumcision the Sacrifices by vsurpation which by continuance of tyme were at the last worne out among them even so you see Mr. Bern. that Gods people the sincerest preaching by the forwardest among you the conscionable practise of the truth by the best professors the reformation which the reformists so long have sought is almost expired out of date in the Land The Prelates Subscription Conformity Declining to Popery a Linsy wolsey Religion prevayleth in the Land you your selfe among the rest have lost or forsaken your sincerity are become a Tymeserver a Newter a Temporizer then what els but an Hypocrite except the Lord be mercifull vnto his people among you it is likely to come to passe among you as among the Samaritanes Edomites Moabites Ammonites Ishmaelites that the Holy things of God which by violence vsurpation you have invaded wil be eyther overwhelmed with Egiptian darknes or vtterly banished out of the nation I would fayne know whither even at this present ther be not a thousand parishes in the Land wher ther is no more true profession of Christ then among the Antichristian Papists Finaly to conclude this Parallele whereas you object that wee like it that you call vs brethren but we wil not so account you nor admonish you as brethren I answer that we like it to be counted brethren by you nor for that wee are so vnto you but for that here by wee would judg you out of your owne mouths that whereas you account vs Brownists Schismaticks Heretiques Traytors c. you may hereby perceave your wicked slaunders that thus intitle vs yet account vs your Brethren For otherwise as we detest your Church ministery worship Government as Antichristian So also wee have in abhomination your brotherhood which is Antichristian also wee abjure to be brethren to your Lords the Prelates to your vice Lords the Archdeacons Chancellors Comistaries Officials of their Courts to the damned crew so termed in the Land to your Church Papists to the adulterers Thâ—eves Murtherers VVitches Conjurers Vsurers Atheists Swaggerers Dronkards Blasphemers infinite sorts of sinners impenitent in your Churches yea take the forwardest preachâ—rs professors of the nation wee vtterly dislike their brotherhood visiblie standing members of the assemblies visiblie joyned in communion with the forenamed Antichristians abhominable persons in one the same body nay wee goe further we reject the fraternity of those that deny themselves to be ordinary members of your Churches yeâ— are so extraordinarily that refuse communion with you continually yet reserve liberty to heare communicate occasionally For seing they hereby are made one with 〈◊〉 â—ntichristian body wicked members ther of being vnseperated from them we cannot acknowledg our selves thâ—â—r brethreâ— lâ—â—â— we joyne light darâ—â—es Christ Belial the Temple of God Idols together wherefore neither are we your brethren nor you our brethren visibly neither do wee delight so to be called in these respects but only as you have heard that we may be wel reported of by them that are â—ithout that we may heapeÌ„ coales of fire vppon your head wheÌ„ you acknowledg vs brethren yet slaunder vs so shamefully this shal suffice as concâ—â—ing this Section The fixth Section Your â—leventh position followeth to be considered of which is this That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4. properties are the matter oâ—ly of a visible Church This you hould error I hold it the most certayne truth of Gods word as these Scriptures doe evidently prove Rom. 6 4.5.8.11-22 1. Pet. 3.11 2. Pet. 3.18 1. Iohn 2.19 Apocal. 3.5 compared with Roman 1.7 Eph. 1.1.4 Revel 11.2 22.14.15 18.2 compared with Deut. 14.2.3.11.2 Cor. 6.16 compared with 1. King 5.12 The 4. properties wherby I describe saynts are these though you mention them not iâ— this your note 1. To forsake all knowne sinne 2. to doe all the will of God knowne 3. to grow in grace 4. to continue to the end For the further cleering of this point consider that al the members of the true visible Church of the Apostolique institution are persons who are to be accounted holy faithful elect now if they be elect I hope they wil continue faithful to the end but you wil happily object that many fal away by Apostacy true then they are fit to be entertayned in your churches as some of ours have been of them I say as the Apostle Iohn saith if they had been of vs they would have continued with vs Therfor they were none of vs For although they were in the outward communion yet they were not of the true visible Church but were only Hipocrites as superfluous excrescences in the body no natural true parts of the body For as in the matural body an eie of glasse is not indeed a true part of the body
though it occupie the place or a natural part So an Hypocrite or one that continueth not to the end possesseth only a rome in the visible Church is not indeed a true member You wil demaund then why we receave Hypocrites among vs wherto I answer we cannot discerne an hypocrite therfor we are to judg of men according to that we see measuring them by the word of God That which is concealed from vs wee are not to prie into VVherfor our judgment must alter chang as occasions varie so the Scripture speaketh of a righteous man forsaking his righteousnes Ezech. 18.24 VVhereas in truth the gifts calling of God are without repentance Rom. 11.29 Breely therfor to deliver vnto you the truth I hold concerning this point 1. The visible Church consisteth of an outward inward communion 2. The inward communion is knowne only to God So are the members therof 3. The outward visible communion is 〈◊〉 discerned by men So are the members thereof 4. VVee aâ—â— to judg men for the present to be both of the inward outward communion if they manifest to vs an ourward 〈◊〉 faith ◠〈◊〉 afterward men Apostate finaly then wee chandg our mynd say they were â—ever of vs for had they been of vs they would have continued with vs. Now Mr. Bern. I pray you answer vs this which wee thus justifie out of the word if you can if you cannot yeeld to the truth embrace the faith wee shal rejoyce 〈◊〉 you with you Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the sixth Section Mr. Bern. in his book intitâ—led the Seperatists Schisme pa. 83. hath these wordes viz Their fifth error is that only Saynts that is a people forsaking al knowne sin of which they may be convinced doing al the knowne wil of God increasing abiding ever therin are the only matter of a visible Church In this Section Mr. Bern. saith thus It is an error to teach That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4 properties are the only matter of a visible Church Mr. Ainswortht confutation of Mr. Bern. pag. 174. Saith that he denyeth this position disclaymeth the errors which Mr. Bern. gathereth from them referring him to them that hold it then Mr. Ainsworth sheweth what he holdeth that Saynts by calling are the only matter of a true visible Church yet that many be called few chosen Let the reader consider the exposition that I have given to this position in this section of my lettre then let him give his verdict the exposition is summarily thus much viz that seing the visible Church consisteth of an ontward inward communion they that are only of the outward visible communion as hypocrites are no true members of the visible Church but only in reputation account before men Now I demaund of Maister Bernard againe with what face or good conscience he durst thus â—â—â—se the VVorld to publish this position barely without my expoâ—â—â—ion or not to answer that which I brought for the confirmation thereof but naâ—â—dly to set it downe then only to object against it Herein you bewray to mee a mynd willing to hyde the truth to deceave the VVorld to draw the Lords truth into detestation which whither it be not the quality of a false Prophettâ— I leave to the judgment of the Godly mynded And whither hereby you doe not verefie Christs speech that you come to rob kill to destroy that therfor you are a theef a robber Ioh. 10.1.10 But bicause you are so importunate with your objections reasons let vs heer what they are First you say my description of Saynts is a proper description of the invisible members of Christ Iesus that it excludeth Hypocrites from being true matter of the visible Church I answer two things namely 1. that an Hypocrite may performe al these 4. properties mentioned in the description of Saynts for he may 1 Forsake all knowne sinne 2. doe al the knowne wil of God 3. grow in knowledg grace 4. continue to the end yet be an Hypocrite to the Lord in secâ—eatâ— doe you think Mr. Bernard that all that die thus qualified in the estimation of men are indeed saved with the L I confesse to mee they are vndoubtedly saved but are they so to the Lord make a direct answer to this particular you shal be compelled to see confesse your 〈◊〉 Vâ—â— 2. I answer more properly thus when I define Saynts I must define them not as they are in shew for the present but as they are indeed truth Now truth is so eyther before men or before God before men that is true somtyme which is false before God before God that is true somtyme which is false before men That is true before men which is proved by two or three witnesses Mat. 18.16 He therfor is a Saynt before men in truth that continueth to the end in faith repentance the fruites thereof He is a Saynt before men in â—hew appearance for the present that for the present bringeth forth fruites worthy amendement of life For a righteous man may forsake his righteousnes Ezech. 18.14 I am not therefore to define a Saynt as he is in shew for the present but as he is indeed for ever in the judgment of men neither do I define a Saynt as he is in the Lords knowledg which is not revealed to men but as he is revealed to be judged by the word of God I wil declare this by instances for your further information satisfactioÌ„ Stephen Damas Tertullus Stephen continued to the end Demas embraced the world fel back from the truth Tertullus never came to the truth for ought that is revealed I say Stephen was a true member of the visible Church who continued to the end Demas was no Saynt nor no true member of the visible Church indeed but only in shew Tertullus was no Saynt nor true member of the visible church so much as in shew or appearance what Tertullus was in secreat to the Lord I dispute not nor regard not what Demas was what Stephen was in the Lords counsel it doth not aperteyne vnto vs we must judg according to that we see know I say still with the Apostle continuance is a true propertie of a Saynt member of the visible Church indeed truth of the ful compleat communion thereof 1. Ioh. 2.19 Your second Objection reason is that by this my definition of Saynts or the matter of the visible Church so determined I exclude the members of the visible Church of the old Testament as Hezechiah David Ichosaphat Moses c. VVho committed suffered knowne sinne yea the Corinthians 2. Cor. 12.21 Also the Churches of Asia Revel 2 20.21 VVho did not amend yet were Saynts true matter of the visible Church I answer First to that of the old Testament objected by you I say your
to the covenant Christ the promises as a freholder hath to his lands possessions Esa 9.6 Vnto vs a sonne is given the chruch is the spouse of Christ so hath powre to Christ the covenant promises the Church is the body of Christ the body hath a real possession title powre to the head all the helps therof For the faithful are flesh bones of Christ Eph. 5.30 these things are manifest to them that wil vnderstand if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant But it may be Mr. Bern. you wil say that powre to bind lose are no properties of the Church but only priviledges For shame say not so Surely this plea argueth that either you got litle Logick in the vniversity or that you have forgot it or if you remeÌ„ber it you either carelesly neglect it or wilfully pervert the vse of it to seduce your followers I pray you tel me in good sooth what difference is there betwixt a priviledg a propertie Is not a priviledge according to the notation of the word privata lex a private law wherin one person or state is interessed The King hath certaine previledges or prerogatives as to pardon condemned persons to dispence with his law a negative voice in parliament c. I would faigne know of you whither these be not properties such as the Kings Queenes of the nation only have title to no other but consider wel with your self what relation ther is betwixt a priviledg the person that is interressed in the priviledg Is it not the relation of the subject the adjunct A priviledg therfor is an adjunct to the priviledged person Now al adjuncts are either proper or common adjuncts but a priviledge is not a common adjunct as I am sure you wil confesse or els you want reason therfor it is a proper adjunct It it be a proper adjunct it is a propertie so your distinction is senselesse vnscholler like you may aswel say that pepper is hot in working cold in operation as to say that the true Church may be without her priviledges but not without her properties Therfor I doe heer before the L. attach you as a deceaver of the people in teaching thus contrary to al learning true vse of reason that the powre of the Lord Iesus Christ given to the church one part whereof consisteth in binding losing is only a priviledg not a propertie of the true Church that the true Church may want it It is as impossible for the true Church to want Christs powre as for a man to want reason Mr. Ber. answer now or els yeeld to the truth you cannot for shame denie the one of them Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the seaventh Section In this Section I write prove that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principal members therof Mr. Bern. in his book intituled the Sep. Schisme pa. 88. calleth it the A.B.C. of Brownisme to hold That the powre of Christ that is authority to Preach to administer the Sacraments to exercise the censures of the Church belongeth to the whole Church yea to every one of them not the principal members therof Mr. Ains answering Mr. Ber pa. 174. Saith that Mr. Ber. may put this opinion if he please in the Criss-crosse-rew of Bernardisme he himself being the first that ever he heard to vtter such a position afterward pa. 175. 176. 177. 178. Expoundeth what that auncient Church whereof of he is teacher holdeth concerning it Wel Let vs handle these things largely to ful satisfaction herein I professe befor the Lord befor the whole world that if I do not prove evidently my assertion that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principall members therof I wil acknowledg the Churches of England yea the Churches of Rome yea the Greek Churches also to have a true ministery to be true churches of Christ For if the ministerie the holy things with the ministerie come by succession from the Apostles handes through the churches of Rome the Grecians that ther are no ministers but such as are made by theÌ„ froÌ„ theÌ„ successively our whole cause of Seperation lyeth in the dust we must disclaime our Schisme which we have made our heresies which we hold but if it be proved that the true ministerie commeth not by succession from the churches of Rome or the Grecians that the holy things are not given to the ministery by sucessioÌ„ but are giveÌ„ first to the body of the church the faithful yea though they be but two or three that both the ministerie and all the powre that the ministerie hath doth â—â—ow from the Fountayne Christ Iesus through the body of the Church 〈◊〉 the Presbytery then is your Church ministerie false so are the Churches of the East West much more then we those Churches only which raise vp their Ministerie from the Election aprobation ordination of a faithful people are the true Church of Christ having the true Ministerie of Christ you with the rest of Gods people in Babylon must seperate joyne together walk in the Lords ordinances as we other true Churches doe or els woe be vnto you from the Lord Therfor in this particular I would supplicate the Kings Majestie my Soveragne Lord on earth the Lords of the Parliament The Gentlemen that susteyne the person of the commons in the nether howse al the learned men of the Land to confider to search out this point For it being throughly cleered may breed peace infinite good to the whole nation whereas it being suppressed choked darkened neglected draweth with it al the contentions and controversies amongst them that professe Christ in the whole earth For my part Mr. Ber. I wil endevour according to my poore hability to discover what I have conceaved and doe vndoubtedly beleeve from the Scriptures and doe make the beginning of my inquisition after this manner which I desire the gentle reader to weigh consider of with his best attention Christs visible church which is his Kingdom hath in it a spiritual powre and jurisdiction by the confession of al that professe Iesus Christ which powre is of two sortes 1. The powre of Christ himself who is the Lord King of his Church Mat. 28.18 and he is the Fountaine of powre being the head of the Church which is his body Eph. 1.22.23 For as the head is the Fountaine of life sense motion powre to the whole body as the Mr. of the howse is the original of al oeconomical powre So is Christ the original of al spiritual life sense motion powre to the Church which is his body family This is evident in regard of this powre which is inherent in Christ the church which
is Christs Kingdome may truly be termed a Monarchie Mat. 23 8-11 Ephes 4.5 Iam. 4.12 This powre which Christ hath in himself cannot passe from himself to any other For as his preisthood is eternal not passing frō him to another Heb. 7.24 so may it as truly be said of his other offices particularly of his Kingdome Monarchicall powre Neverthelesse 2. The Lord Iesus hath ordeyned appointed a certayne order to be observed in his absence in the true visible Church hath delegated a certaine powre authority to his Servants subjects for the preferving of that order for the execution of those ordinances This delegated powre authority is mentioned Marc. 13.34 1. Cor. 5.4 This delegated powre is avouched by the Papists to be in the Pope by the English Prelates to be in the Lord Bbs. Archdeacons By the Presbyterians to be in the Eldership by the brethren of the Seperation to be in the body of the Church primarily and fundamentally For if the Pope Prelates Presbytery or Body of the Church do say that the powre which is in Christ Iesus is in them they doe blaspheme most fear fully robbing Christ of his honour Regal powre make themselves even Christ him self The Pope therfor is not Antichrist for that he vsurpeth that regal powre which is proper to Christ neither are the Bbs. of England Antichrist for vsurping that proper kingly powre which is only in Christ nor the Presbytery Antichristian for challendging the powre Monarchical of Christ but they are al Antichristian for vsurping the delegated powre of Christ which he hath originally given to the body of his Church which is his mysticall body This delegated Ministerial powre which the Pope Bbs. Presbytery challendg they say commeth to them by succession from Christ The Pope he saith Christ hath given this ministerial powre to Peter only his successors the popes of Rome The Bbs. say Christ hath given this delegated powre to al the Apostles the Apostles have given it to the Bbs. their successors The presbyterians say that Christ hath given this ministerial powre to the presbytery or Eldership they conveigh it successively to the elders succeding to the worldes end in the Church Al these three opinions are equally Antichristian for they al of them establish succession which is Iewish so Antichristian For in the old Testament the preisthood was conveighed by successiuon Heer therfor I will prove vnto you by vndeniable arguments that the powre of Christ is not given eyther to the pope Bbs or presbytery but primarily it is given to the body of the Church First Argument If Christs ministerial powre be given by succession to the pope Bbs or presbytery primarily then the ministerie is before the Church Seing that ther must needes be a ministery before ther be any powre of Christ this consequent is infallible But the ministerie is not before the Church but after the Church For it ariseth out off the Church as a part off those Holy things which God hath given to his Church Therfor Christs ministerial powre is not given to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church They that affirme the ministery to be before the Church must needes hold that a minister is no relative to a Church but that a man may be a minister have no flock to attend on yea that ther may be is a ministery when where ther is no Church or that the chardges of other men are his chardg or that the world is his chardge they must also maintayne that all grace floweth from the ministerie to the Church that the ministerie is a more excellent ordinance then the Church that the Church hath no powre to make ministers but that the ministers have powre to make both ministers churches that ministers are properly by their office Apostles over the whole world for the converting of men planting of Churches the like absurdityes Second Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. presbytery then the ministery of Rome is a true ministerie and al they that are made ministers by the pope and his clergie are true ministers Then it is lawful to joyne with the true ministerie of Rome and then whosoever are ordeyned and not by a precedent ministery are falsely ordeyned and so are false ministers But the ministerie of Rome is no true ministery and they that are ordeyned by the pope and his clergie are no true but false ministers and it is vtterly vnlawful to joyne with the ministerie of Rome by the confession of al the Protestants and ministers may be ordeyned truly without ministers by the confession of the sincerest reformists Therefor Christs ministeriall powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. Presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church Third Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. presbytery then the Lord hath absolutely bound men to sinne seing that wee must needes joyne to the sinnes off the Ministers otherwise men cannot possiblie have enjoy the holy things of God For it is the ordinance of God that wee should vse the holy things this assertion doth avouch that we must have thē from the ministery therfor let ther sinnes be what they wil we must have them from their hands so must joyne to them in al ther sinnes But the L. hath not bound vs necessarily to joyne to other mens sinnes seing he hath commanded vs to Seperate from them this were to lay our sinnes vppon the Lord most blasphemously Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church The fourth Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery then the Lord hath made the Ministers Lords over the Church so that the Church can not have or enjoy any of the holy things any of the L. ordinances except they wil agree or consent them vnto for ther Holy things are in ther powre But the L. hath not made the Ministers Lords over his Church which is his inheritance but they may have enjoy his owne ordinances even al the Holy things contrary to the wil of wicked ministers Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church The fifth Argument If Christs Ministerial powre commeth to the pope Bbs. or presbytery then the presbytery may excommunicate the whole Church Then the Bbs. may excommunicate ther whole dioceses or provinces then the pope may excommunicate the whole church vniversal on earth But the L. Bbs. of England say the Pope cannot excommunicate England The Reformists hold that the Prelates cannot excommunicate their diocesses by consequent just proportion the Presbytery cannot excommunicate that particular Church whereof they are Presbyters
Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The sixth Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery Then the office of the Deacons widowes are lost sith succession in them is interrupted lost for as in the old testament a Preist came of a Preist a Levite of a Levite so an Elder maketh an Elder a Deacon ordeyneth a Deacon a widow must ordeyne a widow But the office of the Deacon widow is not lost for none of Gods ordinances are perisht but may be had or els Gods truth mercy to his Church fayleth who hath said that he wil be with his Church to the end of the world Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The seaventh Argument That doctryne which destroyeth it self is false The doctryne of succession viz that Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. or Presbytery destroyeth it self Therfor the doctryne of succession is a false doctryne The minor I manifest thus If the papists say truly that al ecclesiastical powre floweth from Christ to the Clergie though the pope then why doth the college of Cardinalls make a pope by Election why doth not one pope make another pope before his death Therfor Election overthroweth the succession of the popes office For the pope cannot both give Christs Ministerial powre to the Clergie of Rome take the same ministerial powre from the Cardinals by Election but when the pope is dead then is Christs ministerial powre dead also in the popes person thus doth successioÌ„ overthrow it self in the pope by consequent in the rest For Christs ministerial powre being once interrupted in the pope can never be recovred againe but is vtterly lost so the Church is abolished For if the presbytery be lost the Church is lost if the bbs be lost the presbytery is lost if the pope be lost the bbs be lost if the pope be dead the pope is lost if the pope be lost Christs ministerial powre is lost for if it be said that the pope hath his powre by Election from the Cardinals theÌ„ succession is destroyed so you may see evidently that succession destroyeth it self seing Election must needes be interposed Therfor indeed ther is no true succession but that of the old Testament viz by descent genealogie this succession which is pleaded for by ordination of precedent presbytery bbs pope is mans invention destroyeth it self therfor is a meer Antichristian devise But heer certayne objections must be answered for the further manifestation of the matter of succession for sactisfaction therein The first Objection Alchough the Ministeriall powre of Christ be not given to the pope so perisheth not with him yet it is given to the bbs who are the Successors of the Apostles in that Ministeriall powre and in the dispensation of it to the Ministerie and Church Seing therefore that ther is a certayne and vndoubted Succession of bbs from the Apostles dayes hetherto one ordeyning another successively therefore though succession be interrupted in the Pope whose ministerial heads hip we renounce yet it is continued in the Bbs. who are the Apostles successors in dispensing this ministerial powâ—e to the ministerie Churches Answer to the first Objection This objection dependeth vppon an vncertanity viz That ther hath been a succession of Bbs. one ordeyning another successively froÌ„ Peter Paul Iames through the Church of Rome the Greekes therfor I answer that except they can shew the courte rowles that I may so speak of the vndoubted successive ordination from Peter Paul Iames c. I shal say vnto al the Bbs. of England as Nechemjah said to the Preists that could not shew ther succession from Aaron by Genealogie Nehem. 7 64.65 Bicause their successive ordination is not found they shal be put from their Bishopricks they shal not administer in the Bbs. office til their arise vp one as with Vrim Thummim to divine vnto vs the truth of this matter For we wil not beleeve the records of the Church of Rome who also are defective in this particular for though they have the succession of Popes yet not of other Bbs. Further the vanity of this objection appeareth in this that hereby they are vrged for the justifying of this Antichristian devise of succession by ordination to go to the throne of Antichrist the popedome to fetch their ministerie thence as if the true ministerie off Christ could be in the false Church of Antichrist hereby also they do acknowledg Rome to be the true Church their Sacrificing Preisthood a true Ministerie orders a true Sacrament the Eucharist a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick dead prayers for the dead a thousand such abhominations which are necessary dependances therevppon They must also acknowledg themselves Schismatiques from the Church of Rome are never able to answer the popish bookes the petitions of the Papists to the King who object these and the like things against them The Second Objection Although the pope Bbs have not Christs ministerial powre given to them by succession yet the presbytery may have that powre by delegation from Christ when their shal arise a company of true faithful teachers who standing out against the popedome prelacy al the abhominations therof also renouncing al the corruptions of their ordination refining both the doctryne of faith the true calling of ministers from the drosse of Antichristianisme doe yet notwithstanding retayne the truth which they in the seate of Antichrist had as in the faith so in the ministery For Antichrist had not â—â—â—erly abolished but only corrupted the Lords ordinances Answer to the second Objection This objection dependeth vppon the former grounds namely that the Church of Rome is a true Church though corrupt having a true ministerie though corrupt c. of the rest For otherwise how can they plead ther ministery to be true from the Bbs. except they do acknowledg also the Bbs Ministery to be true receaved froÌ„ the Popedome the popish ministerie to be true for otherwise they must maintaine that a true ministerie commeth from a false ministerie which is as impossible as to bring light out of darknes So that this Objection is also answered in the former already needeth no further answer yet neverthelesse I say vnto the point that al the refining of the world can not bring a true ministery out of a Sacrificing Preisthood Or a true presbytery out of a false Antichristian prelacy For as it was impossible for the preists of the Old Testament to ordeyne true Ministers of the New Testament So much more is it impossible for the false popish Sacrificing preisthood to ordeyne true ministers of Christs true Church For the Sacrificing
preisthood of Aarons Family was the Lords ordinance sometyme but the popish Sacrificing preisthood in the mayne substantial parts therof is not only mans device but infinitely impious blasphemously derogating from the honour dignity of Christs Sacrifice preisthood which is aparabatos intransitive Heb. 7.24 according to the order of Melchisedech seing the popish Sacrificing preisthood is in the very essence of it false how can the English prelacy preisthood Deaconry which issued from that Romish preisthood be any other but a sacrificing preisthood although the English prelates have cast away that essential Sacrificing property or forme rather of the Romish preisthood have reduced it to a better temper yet that wil not serve the turne for al that they have in their prelacy preisthood Deaconry they had frō Rome or els where If from Rome then their prelacy preisthood Deaconry is absolutely Romish no other if elswhere then their Succession is gone If both from Rome els where let them declare that Ridle vnto vs. The third Objection The presbyters may have ordination or imposition of hands from the Romish preisthood yet not their office For that may come from heaven or by some extraordinary meanes even as the Lord raised vp some men extraordinarily in these last tymes to restore the truth of doctryne to reduce things to the Apostolique primitive institution as amongst others Hus Luther the rest Answer to the third Objection It is straunge that a man shal have imposition of hands from one his office from another Besides it is contrary to the nature of Succession wherein the partie that ordeyneth giveth the office ministeriall powre to him that is ordeyned for that it the thing that is pleaded that Christs ministeriall powre commeth by Succession through ordination of precedent presbyters It contradicteth their owne ground therefore to say that imposition of hands is from a popish preist and the true office from some other meanes But let vs inquire what that other meanes may be To say that Christs Ministeriall powre is from heaven is not denyed but the question is What is the instrument or meanes which Christ hath appointed to conveigh that Ministeriall powre vnto man kind And who are they that first receave it from Christs hand out of heaven Or what is proton dektikon the first subject of this ministerial powre We say the Church or two or three faithful people Seperated frō the world joyned together in a true covenant have both Christ the covenant promises the ministerial powre of Christ given to them that they are the body that receave from Christs hand out of heaven or rather from Christ their head this ministerial powre you say not so but this ministerial powre commeth by succession from the ministery which is the first subject of this powre that al this powre is derived from man to man from the Apostles hands through al the Preists hands of Rome the Prelates hands of England to you Mr. Bern. your line pedigree of Preisthood is lineally descended from Peter or Paul c. to you through so many generations of popish preists as have succeded from Peters person to your person Even as Annas Cayaphas descended lineally from Aaron only this is the difference that the succession of Annas Cayaphas was by genealogie or generation yours is by succession of ordination or imposition of hands therfor bicause you see that you fal vnder this foule absurdity that your Preisthood must be of necessity of the same kind that the popish preisthood is you have invented a new trick to say that it commeth from heaven extraordinarily with Hus Luther and the rest of those glorious witnesses which the Lord in these last tymes raised vp to the destruction of the man of sinne VVhich if it be so Then say I shew your succession from Luther Hus Prage c. Or els Nechemiah will putt you from your preisthood The fourth Objection But every King in his dominions is appointed by Christ to be a head ministerial to the Church al the Preists of that country do receave their ministerial powre from the King by the ordination of the Bbs. vnto whome the King hath committed the dispensation of that powre so that the King being the Lords Lieftenant in his owne dominions hath this ministerial powre from Christ the Bbs. from the King the Preists from the Bbs. the Church from the Preists Answer to the fourth Objection If the King of every country hath Christs ministerial powre given to him immediately from heaven that the Clergie of that nation have Christs ministerial powre from the King then these consequents folow which are intolerable absurdities 1. The King of every country is a person civil Ecclesiastical having al civil ecclesiastical powre that immediately from Christ 2. The King of every country can preach administer the Sacraments exercise Spirituall jurisdiction excommunicate c. 3. The King of every country can make ordeyne Ministers 4. The King of every country is a Pope or Patriarch in his owne territories and Dominions How these points wil agree with the Analogie of faith let every man judg so give sentence whither this objection conteyne any the least shew of truth in it yea or nay Now what authority the Lord hath given every King in his owne dominions I leave to be descussed in his proper place viz in the 15. Section of this lettre to Mr. Bern. The fifth Objection But the ministery is now extraordinarily raised vp For as in the first planting of the Churches the Lord Iesus vsed the extraordinary ministery of Apostles Prophets Evangelists to publish the Gospel to the world to plant Churches so after the Apostacy of Antichrist in the restoring of the truth the Lord vseth the same extraordinary ministerie not indued with those extraordinary gifts which they had but apointed by the L. for the same purposes viz the planting of true Churches the revealing of his truth Answer to the fifth Objection First the Ministers of England namely you Mr. Ber. among the rest do not chalendg to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists but you say you are true presbyters or Pastors of particular true visible Churches therfor this objection helpeth you nothing if it were yeelded you Secondly you cannot maintayne your ordinary ministerie as succeding by ordination from these supposed Apostles Evangelists Prophets for then you must acknowledg the prelates of England to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists whereas they doe challendg no such thing But only maintayne themselves to be ordinary Bbs. the ordinary Successors of the Apostles neither do they intend to make you ministers as Apostles but as Bbs. Thirdly ther is none of the Reformists that ever I heard of that vndertake as Apostles Prophets Evangelists to ordeyne Elders Finaly how can any of you be Apostles Prophets or Evangelists who stand members of
the assemblies in subjection to the prelates whose Lords you are if you be either Apostles Prophets or Evangelists but you see they are your Lords For either you are false Apostles false Prophets or els by the evidence of the word Spirit you must rise vp stand out against depose the prelates whose authority you say is Antichristian besides that you must prove vnto vs by good sufficient warrant that the Lord raiseth vp Apostles prophets Evangelists to overthrow Antichrist to restore the true ministerie that you who with al your might support the Throne of the beast are those Apostles prophets Evangelists whome the L. raiseth vp for that purpose which yet you never have done or attempted to do whither you can do or not I leave to the consideration of al those that search after the truth Hetherto I have proved by sufficient arguments negatively that Christs Ministeriall powre is not given by Christ primarily by succession either to the pope Bbs. or presbytery whose claime dependeth vppon one the same title viz Successive ordination from the Apostles through the Church of Rome to the hands of every preist or presbyter in England therfor the Ministerial powre of Christ must needes be given primarily to the bodx of every visible Church though they be but two or three in nomber For this is a sufficient Enumeration of parts that Christs ministerial powre is given primarily either to the Pope Bbs. Presbytery or body of the Church except that men wil say it is given to the King of every Kingdom which is an absurdity intollerable as is already declared which I never heard pleaded for which the Kings of England doe renounce But Christs ministerial powre is not giuen by successive ordination either to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily or originally therfor Christs ministerial powre is givē to the body of the Church viz to two or thre faithful people joyned together into an Ecclesiastical politique body by the true covenant or new testament of Christ Iesus But bicause happily some persons may be vnsatisfied seing the former arguments are only grownded vppon reason not frō particular evidence of Scripture Therfor I hold it necessary furthermore to confirme this truth of the L. by vndeniable growndes of Scripture that affirmatively as followeth The first Argument from Mat. 16 13-20 From this place of Scripture I frame an argument after this manner Christs Disciples are Christs Church Mat. 16.13.18 Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Disciples Ergo Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Church The Minor of this argument which only is doubtful I confirme thus That which was spoken given to Peter that was spoken given to al the Disciples of Christ Mat. 16.13.14.19 Christs ministerial powre was vttered delivered to Peter who spake for in the name of the rest Mat. 16.13.15.16.18.19 Ergo Christs ministerial powre was by speech indeed committed to all Christs Disciples The Major of this argument only is controversal which I manifest thus Vnto them did Christ speake commit his ministerial powre that made the confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God But Peter al the Disciples by Peters mouth made that confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God Ergo Vnto all the Disciples did Christ speake give that his Ministeriall powre The Minor being cleered the whole Argumēnt is evident VVherfor consider 1. That Christ in the vs. 13. asketh his Disciples a question 2. In the vs 15. he saith whome do ye say that I am by which it appeareth that Christ asketh this question of all his Disciples generally and so it followeth by proportion necessarily that seing all were demaunded that question therfor all made that answer confession the argument is framed after this manner They answered made the confession vnto whome Christ propounded the question or made the demaund But Christ propounded the question or demaund to all his Disciples and not only to peter or only to the twelve Apostles as may be proved in the course of the text vs. 13-24 Ergo All the Disciples answered made the confession ther mentioned by the Evangelist The Second Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 16.19 From these places I reason after this manner That which is given to two or thre of Christs Disciples is given to the body of the Church if they be many in nomber Christs Ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Ergo Christs ministerial powre much more is givē to the body of the church being many in nomber The Major is without controversie for iff Christs powre be given to two or three then much more to twenty thirtie an hundreth they being al of them Christs Disciples The minor is proved after this manner The keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Christs ministerial powre is the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing Ergo Christs ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples off Christ The minor being evident the major may thus be confirmed Vnto them doth Christ give the keies of the kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing to whome of whome he speaketh But Christ speaketh to Diseiples of brethren Ergo the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing is givē by Christ to the Disciples or brethren The minor viz that Christ speaketh to Disciples of brethren is manifest by divers particular vs. 1.15.21 The Disciples move a question vnto Christ concerning the Kingdom of heaven Christ teacheth vnto them vs. 15. that the litle ones that is the brethrē the Disciples must not be offēded or if they go astray be lost they should be sought againe vs. 15-17 teacheth the dutyes of admonition in the degrees therof for the winning of our brethren perserving of them from going astray therfor vs. 18. he speaketh of brethren Disciples attributing to them the powre of binding losing vs. 19. promising the hearing of their prayers vs. 20. promising to them his presence if they be but three or two vs. 21.22 teaching them remission of offences private vnto seaventy tyme seaven tymes VVherevppon I ground this infallible argument Iff the whole scope intent of this place Mat. 18 15-20 compared with Mat. 16 13-20 doth ayme at the Disciples of Christ or the brethren Mat. 23.8 teaching that binding and losing the keies of the Kingdom of heaven Christs presence acceptance of their prayers c. aperteyneth to them then Christs ministerial powre is given to the Disciples or brethren if but three or two so much more if they be a multitude But the whole scope of these places is directed to the Disciples or brethren Teaching that offences must be
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
an Aristocraty a Democratie In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy of the Eldership an Aristocratie of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government For Christ the King he ruleth by his owne lawes Officers The body of the Church the spowse of Christ ruleth as the wise vnder the husband according to the wil appointment of her husband The Elders rule as the stewards of Christ the King of the church which is the wise or spowse of the King Now as it is vnreasonable to appoint the steward or Servant of the King either over the King himself or over the Queen who is the Kings wife So is it Antichristian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church although every particular person and cause is subject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Christ and delegateth to them wee say therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Christ and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church which powre of the Eldership is not exercized nor can not be vsed over or against the whole body of the Church for that is an Antichristian vsurpation but only it is exercised over and against particular persons and disorders arising in the Church the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof breefly therefore to answer in generall to all your nine reasons vsed against popularity wee dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not but wee dispute who have the negative voice in their hands or who have the determining powre in them or who give the definitive sentence in al matters VVee say that the definitive sentence the determining powre the negative voice is in the body of the church not in the Elders yet we say the Elders are to lead governe al persons causes of the Church but to lead governe contrary to the definition voice of the body that we deny that we say is Antichristian Your first reason Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnder the law and before the law vnder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites befor the law it was in the first borne this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnder the law but from the Lord by Moses but the people only approved the Lords appointment I answer The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did type two things 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Christ Iesus hath who is the first borne having the preeminence in all things Colos 1.18.1 Cor. 15.20 Revel 1.5 For Christ is the first most noble in the Church even the head Fountayne of al heavenly grace excellency 2. The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did shadow out the church Exod. 4.22.23 who is the first borne of al the men of the earth most deere and pretious to the Lord So that this reason of yours may thus be retorted vppon your selsf If the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the preheminence then Christ the visible Church which were shadowed out by the first borne by the Levites have the preminence powre in the new Testament But the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the powre preheminence by your owne confession Ergo Christ the visible church from Christ shadowed out by the first borne the Levites have the powre preheminence in the new Testament Remember for this particular that the first borne the first Fruites the Preists Levites Rings Princes of Iudah did al type forth vnto vs in the new testamēt the visible church the Saints next vnder Christ who is the head to the body of the Church as these scriptures do manifestly declare 1. Pet. 2.5 9. Revel 1.5 6. Col. 1.18 1. Cor. 15.20 The second of your nine reasons against popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apostles tyme The Apostles alwayes begune continued and composed church matters the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters aliberty granted them to chose officers but they did never make any themselves nor attēpted any thing of themselves This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue partly against your self Vntrue it is thus far forth that you say the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders For I demaund of you what did the 120. persons in the first of the acts did they not chuse an Apostle into office ordeyne him but they had no Elders as yet for the holy Ghost was not come downe vppon them so the◠were no Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers Eph. 4.8.11 did not the Churches of Lystra Iconium Antiochia think you worship God admonish excommunicate during the tyme of the Apostles absence from them when as yet they had no Elders Act. 14 21-23 did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God governe in the absence of the Apostles Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed Tit. 1 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were established before they had officers if you do the Apostle saith that they that are to be chosen Elders must not be newly planted into the faith 1. Tim. 3.6 so by consequent from the tyme of establishing Churches til Election of officers ther must needes be a space of tyme for tryal of mens gifts conversation constancy in the faith during which tyme the Apostles being absent from the Churches I make no doubt but they did worship God performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion it they did so then I say look how many Churches were established by the Apostles So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almost without Elders so the Second reason of yours conteyneth so many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apostles in the Acts who did not the first day of their planting institute their Elderships but some certayne competent space of tyme afterward wherin ther might be sufficient tryal knowledg of mens gifts qualifications fit for office this may suffice for your vntruths Now further your reason is against your self in this particular wherein you yeeld the cause that the body of the congregation had a liberty to chose their officers whence I reason thus against you They that have liberty to chose their owne officers to worship God publiquely before they have officers they have al the rest of Christs powre ministerial befor they have officers But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely as you see have liberty to chose their owne officers as you confesse yet want Elders Ergo the body of every congregation hath al the rest of Christs ministerial powre before they have officers I say the body of
his Ministeriall powre extraordinarily from heaven VVhy you confesse that powre of binding and losing was given before Christs ascension but now you would prove by this place Ephes 4. that the powre of binding losing is given after Christs assension and that these gifts and this powre are given together is not this to contradict your self hereby you see the weakenes of your reason For you must distinguish betwixt the powre of binding and losing which the Disciples had committed vnto them before Christs ascension and betwixt the gifts of the day of Pentecost But what are those gifts mentioned in that place of Ephes 4.8.11.12 and vnto whome are those gifts given I will declare it vnto you and so your mouth shal be â—â—opt These gifts which are said to be given to men are those foure sorts of Officers which the Apostle mentioneth vs 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers for the two last are one office These officers with their gifts are said to be given to men who are these men vnto whome these officers with their gifts are giveÌ„ are they not the Church is not the office of an Elder Pastor or Teacher the L. gift to the Church This place you see therefore is most pregnant against your opinion as may appeare thus That which is given by Christ to the Church is in the powre possession of the Church The officers offices of the Church are given to the Church Ergo the officers offices of the Church are in the powre possession of the Church Wherfor I say vnto you that the gifts of preaching administration of the Sacraments Governing are given vnto some meÌ„ but the office officers indued with these gifts are given vnto the Church who have powre to appoint them to their office who do receave both their office powre to administer in their office from the Church vnto whome the office powre of Christ is given primarily being the next Lord therof vnder Christ the Monarch And for your similie of the parts receaving their properties from God not from the body it is perversly applyed For this is the true vse and application of the similie as the head communicateth all the powre facultie which any part hath from it self to that part by the body so the head Christ communicated his powre to the parts and officers of the Church by the body of the Church which is Christ mysticall I confesse some parts of the body have some special properties and qualities which they receave not from the head as the Stomach hath the quality Chilificandi the liver Sangnificandi c. not from the head but the powre and faculty to vse the property it hath from the head So some members of the Church have special gifts given them of God but the powre of vsing those gifts they have from the head Christ by the meanes of the body which is the pipe that from the Fountaine conveigheth all powre Ecclesiastical to every officer The Fifth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the Scripture doth not lay the Government vppon the people nor reproveth them for sussering abuse of Holy things but vppon the governors civil Ecclesiastical Ezech. 22.26 1. Sam. 2 17. 1. King 13. Mat 23. Revel 2.1.8.12.18 3.17.14 I answer breefly from the Type to the truth concerning matters of the Old Testament Seing now the Saynts are all of them made Kings and Preists vnto God Revelat. 1.6 Or as the Apostle Peter saith Basileion hierateuma 1. Pet. 2.9 a Kingly Preisthood Therefore now in the New Testament the Saynts succeede in the place of the Kings and Preists of the Old Testament in Ecclesiasticall causses and as they were burdened with Government and reproof for profanation of holy things so are the Saynts the members of the visible Church now burdened with Government Ecclesiasticall and reproof for violating the Holy things committed to their custody fidelity therfor I reason from your owne confession against you thus If Kings Preists in the Old Testament were chardged with Government and blamed for violation of holy things Then in the New Testament the Saints who are Kings Preists are chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things But Kings Preistts in the old Testament were chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things Therfor the Saints in the new Testament are chardged with government ecclesiastical blamed for violation of Holy things And thus you see Mr. Ber. how your owne weapon entreth into your owne bowels concerning the places of the Revelation that the Aungels of the seaven Churches were chardged with government blamed for abuse of the Holy things not the body of the Church I say herein you vtter foule vntruths For Chap. 1. vs. 4-7 the Apostle witeth to the 7. Churches of Asia wisheth grace peace to the Churches all the members of the Churches Chap. 2.11 at the end of every Epistle the Apostle maketh application of every Epistle to al that have eares to the particular Churches wher for I wonder at your shamelesse ignorance that should thus falsely belye the Scriptures abuse the reader To turne the point of this reason of yours also vppon your self I say thus If Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with gouernment abuse of holy things though the message be sent to the aungel to be published to the whole church then the whole churches are charged therwith viz with government violatioÌ„ of holy things But Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with the government abuse of Holy things though the message be sent to the Aungel of every Church to be published to the whole Church Therfor the whole Churches are chardged with the government violation of the holy things Thus much breefly concerning your fifth reason heer you make a digression to prove vnto vs that Matt. 18.17 Tell the Church must be expounded Tel the Governors For confirmation whereof you bring vs seaven reasons which I will handle in order Your first reason to prove that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this for that otherwise Christ could not be vnderstood for if he had brought in a strange course not heard of before nor then practised no man could vnderstand his meaning Seing therfor before then after the practise was to tel to the Elders or governors therfor tel to the Church is tel to the Governors or Elders A las for you Mr. Bern. this is borrowed stuffe yet stark naught For it is but froth chaffe what is the chaffe to the wheat Do not you think that the whole Gospell is a mystery which was kept secreat from the beginning of the world is not the visible Church of the new Testament with all the ordinances thereof the cheef principal part of the Gospel therfor seing this ordinance of telling the Church is a part of the Gospel it was
formerly hidden mystical now it was revealed plainly by Christ although happily the Disciples vnderstood not Christs meaning at that present yet after ward the Holy Ghost brought that many other necessary things which they eyther vnderstood not Christs meaning at that present yet afterward the Holy Ghost brought that many other necessary things which they either vnderstood not or forgot to their knowledg memory as the Scripture witnesseth But further I say that particular was obscurely signified by the Typical King and Preists in the Old Testament vnto whome the Government was committed as I have already more then once declared vnto you further the government was then given to al Christs Disciples by commission as I have already proved sufficiently to your conscience the conscience of all that love the truth in sincerity That of the excommunication of the blind man Ioh. 9.22 was a devise of the Iewes for ther is no warrant for it in al the law if it were the L. ordinance it typeth vnto vs thus much that the visible Church succeeding in the place of the typical Kings preists have in their hands the powre of excommunication And although Cloe made complaint to the Governor yet it is nothing to the purpose For Cloe complayneth of an whole Church to an Apostle not of a particular person to the Elders of a particular Church and doe you think that this is a good argument That seing a particular person complayneth to or informeth the Apostle of the state of the Church who had an infallible gift of instructing and directing of Churches therefore a particular person in the third place or degree of admonition must tell the Elders that therfor those Elders are the Church The argument is altogether inconsequent Your second reason that tel the Church is tel the Governors is Christs chandg of the person From the third to the second The force of your argument is this If Christ having spoken in the third person saying Tel the Church afterward turneth his speech to the second person saying whatsoever ye bind c. then tel the Church is tel the Elders But Christ chandgeth his speech from the third to the second person Therfor tell the Church is tel the Elders Mr. Ber. you were not wel advised in making this argument For it overthroweth your exposition most manifestly as thus If Christ calleth his Disciples the Church then tel the Church is tel the Disciples or the body of the Church But Christ calleth al his Disciples the Church For this commission of binding and losing is given to all the Disciples jointly as is already declared more fully in the former arguments Therfor tel the Church is tel the body of the Church al Christs Disciples not only the Governors Therfor this reason confirmeth the truth we hold not the error which you seek to defend by wresting the Scripture Your third reason that tel the Church is tell the Governors is for that Christ speaketh of two or three That is to say after your exposition of two or three Elders or governors not of the whole body I answer that your argument is without al force of consequence For to argue thus is to argue without reason or force of argument viz. Iff Christ speaketh of two or three then he speaketh of two or three Elders or Governors But Christ speaketh of two or three Ergot Christ speaketh of two or three Elders or Governors Further by this argument one Apostle could do nothing but ther must needes be two or thre so one Elder can do nothing but ther must needes be two or thre so your Prelates Monarchy in their dioceses falleth to the ground but your arguments grow ridiculous Now the reason why Christ speaketh of two or thre is for consolatiō to the Church Disciples of Christ teaching that if but two or thre of them at any tyme walk together in the faith truth of Christ those two or thre have title to Christ al his ordinances have promise of audience acceptance as also to instruct the Saynts to stand for the truth against multitudes though they be the smallest nomber which is three or two for Christ he wil not leave them destitute of his presence and asistance Your Fourth reasons that Tel the Church is Tel the Elders in this that the person is changed from the second to the third vs 19. if two of you shal agree c. whatsoever they shal ask c the force of the argument is al one with the second so hath receaved answer there but it seemeth you delight in nomber multitude yet for further evidēce I will show you the reason the frame whereof is thus to be conceaved Iff ther be a Grammaticall change of the person viz you they then ther is a Reall chandg off the person physicall viz The Governors The Church But ther is a grammatical chandg of the person you they Ergo Ther is a Real chandg of the person physicall viz The Governors the Church I deny your Major stil I avouch that the chandg of the person is by way of exposition teaching that they you are one namely whither they be two of Christs Disciples then living viz you or any other two or thre to the end of the world viz they Christ hath promised his powre presence acceptance to them For so he saith wheresoever two or thre vs 20. Mat. 28.20 Lo I am with you alwayes So that these two general circumstances of place tyme are for the consolatiō instruction of the Church if they be but two or three in al ages For not the multitude but the truth is respected of Christ al tymes places are indifferent for the Church of the new Testament which was otherwise in the old Testament For the Lord then promised his presence especially in the Temple vppon their Sabbaths to the special people but now the partition wal is broken downe now al tymes places persons are indifferēt for the church the Lord. Your fifth reason that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this that otherwise absurdityes cannot be avoyded that arise out of the text the absurdityes you suppose would follow are 1. confusion 2 carelesnes wherevppon follow pride contention 3. weomen childrē speaking in the Church 4. that the whole Church cā speak 5. Christs should crosse himself who giveth the powre to two or three Herevnto I answer the supposed absurdities either do not follow or if they do folow are no absurdities For the truth is not absurd First it doth not follow that ther must needs be confusion carelesnes pride or contention if a brother be promoted to the body of the Church for his offence after once twise admonition but rather the brethren vnderstanding that al are interessed in the busines wil be careful to dischardg their dutyes whereas by your fancy the
care chardg being cast vppon the Elders from the brethren they may wholly neglect the matter the Church grow corrupt through the Elders partiality negligence or other sinister respect for confusion it is not intended as you grossely imagine that al should speake but that al should consent For as in prayer one speaketh al the Church consent So in publique admonition excommunication one speaketh at once the rest consent if any man have any thing to say he may speake the first hold his peace as in Prophecy so in admonition by proportion 1. Cor. 14.30 yet the Lords oâ—der not be violated if pride therevppon contentions do arise it is through the corruption of men not through the ordinance of God may ther not much more pride grow in the Elders think you when they are absolute Lords as it were over the people wil not that breed much more contention And to contend for the truth is good and warrantable yea contentions must be in the true church but woe be to those by whome they come Secondly you say the whole Church cannot speake joyntly nor severally one by one except weomen children speak I deny it the whole Church may speake joyntly as in prayer prophesying 1. Cor. 11.4 So also in admonition excommunication by some persons deputed therto either Elders if ther be any or other if ther be no Elders for the speaking of weomen in the Church I say it needeth not for they so al the brethren may speake by silence or if any dissent they may speak either woman or youth yet the rule of the Apostle not violated who forbiddeth weomen to lead the action of worship in prayer or prophesy or praising God or any action of Government in the presence of men but he doth not forbid a woman to speake when she is called therto in matter of Government neither doth the Apostle intend to forbid weomen to pray or prophesy in the presence of weomen only as somtyme the occasion may be ministred if the church consist only of weomen that this is so you shal perceave by comparing these places 1. Cor. 14.34 1. Tim. 2.12 considering the reasons of the Apostles prohibition but let vs see the force of your argument If tel it to the Church be tel it to the body of the Church then every member of the Church must speake in rebuking the partie But every member must not speak in rebuking the partie that is promoted to the Church for sinne Therfor tel it to the Church is not tel it to the body of the Church so it must needes be tel it to the Elders I deny your consequent for al may heare take notice give consent speake if they se just cause orderly yet it followeth not that al are bound to speake vocaly one by one For silence is a sufficient testification of consent Further I say your minor is weake For every one is bound to speak that seeth just cause or els he shall ther by strangle his conscience and quench the Spirit and suffer sinne which he cannot do without sinne Lastly Christ crosseth not himself in giving powre to two or thre For he may give powre to two or three if ther be no more yet to twenty an hundreth a thousand if ther be so many but you Mr. Bern raise vp false expositions wrack the text to support heresies therby making the Scriptures a leaden rule to frame to your crooked conceipts a nose of waxe to be wrung which way your perverse apprehensions incline Your sixth reason that tel the Church is tel the Governors is this that els the Corinthians offended who were al commaunded to deale with the incestuous Corinth yet some only did so Paul should sinne who vppon the advertisement of Cloes howse did not wayt for the churches consent but himself alone determined the matter wils them to exente his senteÌ„cein the open congregation I answer al the Corinths did deale with the incestuous person though many spake the rest giving consent to their speeches therfor ther can no more sinne lye vppon theÌ„ for not rebuking by voice then ther lyeth sinne vppon the whole Church for not lifting vp their voice to speake in prayer prophesy being al commaunded so to do besides all might speake for many somtyme signifieth al as I have already shewed but this is but idle stuffe which you object Furthermore Paul was an Apostle having powre infalibility to plant direct reforme Churches wil you froÌ„ hence fetch a rule for the perpetual government of the Church it followeth not Paul did thus go one Prelate may do thus nay by your owne exposition ther must nedes be two or thre Prelates but what did Paul did he performe the whole decree of excommunication I deny it vtterly but the Apostles meaning is that he for his part gave his voice advise commaundemeÌ„t as having receâ—ved grace to be faithful that the incestuous person should be excommunicate note it wel Mr. Ber. Paul doth bid the Elders as you say excommunicate him caÌ„ these things agre I beleeve your wit was wandering when you wrote these things for you avouched out of the 2. Cor. 2.6 that many Elders did excoÌ„municate the incestuous person now you say that Paul at the information of Cloes Family like a Lord Bb. decrees the sentence of excommunication in his court coÌ„maundeth them to pronounce it you gave this powre of late to the Elders now you take it froÌ„ the Elders give it to Paul make the Elders only his deputyes but I wil shew you the reason of this your oversight contradiction you had by you in your study when you penned your book the writings of the Reformists the writings of the Prelates being in wrath choler enraged against vs of the SeperatioÌ„ you thought to make Herod Pilate frends against Christ have gathered both the Prelates Reformists objections against vs put theÌ„ downe in your book without judgment so through the weaknes of your vnderstanding not discerning the reasons of the Reformists Prelates to contradict bicause they fitted you against vs you not regarding the truth but the victory have fallen into this grosse contradiction which your learning can never salve only your repentance confession can cure it Your last reason that tel the Church is tel the Elders is this for that al reformed churches judg so wel yet you said even now that tel the Church is tel the Apostle Paul the Lord Bb. by consequent his successors are you in your right mynd Mr. Ber. that stumble thus but you see what it is to resist the truth But what if al the reformed Churches say so is it so if the Scripture say contrary it is not so the Churches must be reformed yet further according to the Scriptures
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
were not Apostles they Elected Deacons Act 6 Now Election is the very essence of a true Minister The Church admonisheth an Elder Col. 4.17 deposeth false Apostles Reve. 2.2 preacheth prayeth worshippeth wanting Elders Act. 13.22.23 whereas you say that Ministers only make Ministers I answer it is the ground of Succession which I have formerly overthrowne I say that the body of the Church hath in it al ministerial powre immediately from Christ your slender stuffe hath prevailed nothing against this truths of the Lords the vniversity may make a Doctor a Bachelor a Maister yet â—t not any such thing but a compound body having a charter from the King for that puâ—pose a corporation may make a Major Sherifes yet the corporation is not a Major or a Sheriffe So the Church may make Ministers yet the Church it self is not properly an Elder or Deacon or VVidow but a body politique having powre to produce such workes by verue of the charter which Christ hath given vnto it And thus Mr. Ber. I have done with you for this point but Mr. Ains steppeth vp with a new kind of Antichristianisme never heard of before he teacheth vs if we wil beleve him that Christs ruling powre is in the Eldership that the Pope Prelates are not Antichrists for taking into their hands the powre of the multitude but the powre of Christ Heer in the first place we must remember that the powre of Christ which we speak of is a ministerial delegated powre given to man that the question is who is the first subiect of this ministerial powre who receave it immediately from Christ I say the body of the Church is the first subject of it I say that whatsoever the Eldership hath it hath from Christ through the body of the Church by the Churches disposition this if you deny Mr. Ains which I think you do not I say you are therein departed from the faith The body of the Church having al her powre from Christ retaineth keepeth it intire to it self doth not so delegate it to any officers as that she leeseth it is deprived of it neither doth she delegate any powre to her officers but that which she formerly receaved from Christ her head husband Lord For Christ giveth not a double ministerial powre one immediately to the body of the Church which she hath keepeth another mediately to the Eldership by the Churches disposition which the church hath not at al but is only a conduit pipe to conveigh it to the Eldership if you hold such a matter declare it vnto vs out of the word of God we wil receave it when we see it in the meane tyme we hold that whatsoever the Elders have they have it from the Church by delegation that the Church hath it in ther owne hands receaved it from Christ by vertue of the covenant God maketh with it in Christ giving Christ for King Preist Prophet to the Church therfor the Church hath from Christ the head al powre al the members officers of the Church have al their powre from the body which they hold vse in the body not Seperated from the body The Elders as it were the hands are conjoyned to the Church as to the body The body of the Church is conjoyned to Christ the head The body hath no powre devided from the head the hands have no powre divided from the body So a company of men have no powre Seperated from Christ an Eldership hath no powre Seperated from the Church but as all powre floweth from the head to the body then to the haÌ„ds through the body which is first in the body before it come to the hands So al powre Ecclesiastical or ministeriall is derived from Christ to the Church then through the Church to the Elders which is first in the Church before it come to the Elders And as when the hands are cut of the body stil retaineth the powre intire though it waÌ„t hands the powre of the hands is sâ—â—â— in the body So when the Eldership is deposed the Church stil retaineth the powre of the Eldership though it want an Eldership as the hands can do nothing contrary vnto the liking of the whole body but the actions of the hands are by consent of the body So the Eldership can do nothing contrary to the liking of the Church but the actions of the Elders must be by consent of the Church as those hands are worthy to be cut of that rebel against the body wrong it or endaunger it So are these Elders worthy to be cut of from the Church that rebel against the Church wrong it or endaunger it This is the faith which I hold Mr. Ains if you hold any other faith it is not the faith of Christ but let vs see what your book wil aford vs. First you say Christs ruling powre which the papists say is in the pope we say not is in the body of the congregation the multitude but in Christ himself that the Pope is Antichrist not for taking into his hands the powre of the multitude but of Christ to rule governe the Church as head of the same confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. You know Mr. Ains that the Pope doth not assume that powre which Christ as King hath in his owne hands reserved to himself but the pope claymeth to be a ministeriall head vnder Christ having a Ministerial powre given vnto him by succession from Peter although it cannot be denyed but that he doth many actions which are proper works of Christs powre Monarchical proper to himself yet that is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial headship not vnderstaÌ„ding how far that ministerial headship which he challengeth extendeth it is not his proper clayme to Christs office therfore properly the Pope is not Antichrist for challendging Christs Kingly powre proper to himself but for assuming Christs Ministerial powre delegated to his Church although I do not deny but the Pope enlargeth the delegated powre further then Christ hath prescribed in his word So that the Pope is Antichrist in two respects 1. For clayming that powre which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For extending that ministerial powre beyond the compasse which Christ hath limited in the word Secondly you say Christs ruling powre which the Protestants say is in the Bbs. the Prelates we do not say is in the multitude but in Christ himself that the Bbs. are very Antichrists for assuming Spiritual jurisdiction aperteyning to Christ alone confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. Heer also you cannot be ignorant Mr. Ains that the Prelates do not challendg that Monarchical powre which is properly inherent in Christs person but renounce it vtterly as confidently as you do but they only challendg that Ministerial powre which Christ as they say hath delegated
to the Apostles their Successors the L.Bbs. neither can you with any good conscience say that they clayme Christs Kingly powre but only they are Antichrists as the Pope is for two causes 1. For clayming that powre Ministeriall which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For enlarging that ministerial powre beyond that compasse which Christ in his word hath determined Thirdly you say Neither that ruling powre of Christ which the Puritanes say is in the presbytery do we say is in the multitude For we acknowledg Christ to have ordeyned a presbytery or Eldership that in every Church for to teach rule them by his owne word lawes vnto whome al the multitude the members the Saints ought to obey submit themselves as the Scriptures teach confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 176. VVee say Christs ruling powre is originally fundamentally in the body of the Church the multitude we acknowledg further that the Elders receave by delegation powre from the body of the Church which powre ministerial in the hands of the Elders is not so large as that which is in the body but it is rather a leading powre then a ruling powre neither are the Elders in al the new testament to my knowledg called Rulers archontes but overseers leaders Elders prohistamenoi wherby the holy Ghost would teach that their powre is not to rule but to leade direct I do therefore vtterly disclaime this your error Mr. Ains as one part of Antichristianisme in your Church but you had need expound it wel for the satisfaction of the brethren of the Seperation least you here in destroy your constitution before you be aware VVhat we hold concerning the Presbytery I have delivered partly in that which before I have written in answer to Mr. Bern. partly in that which I lately published concerning the differences of the Churches of the Seperation in the second part the first Section Chap. 5. 6. wherfor if you hold that Lordly vsurped Antichristian powre of your Eldership to be that ruling powre which the word of God warranteth it shal be your part to justifie it to rebuke al that gainst and it for herein wee vtterly disclayme your judgment practise we maintaine that the powre of the Eldership is a leading directing overseeing powre ministery or service both in the Kingdom Preisthood of the Church that the negative voice the last definitive determining sentence is in the body of the Church wherto the Eldership is bound to yeeld that the Church may do any lawful act without the Elders but the Elders can do nothing without the approbation of the body or contrary to the body The eighth Section In the next place followeth your second position which is this in your copie In holding that one sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in not reformed by a true constituted Church doth so pollute it that none may communicate with it in the holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawful conviction you say is error I say it is the most comfortable holy truth wee hold in our walking one with another in communion of Gods ordinances This truth ariseth from the former ground that al the members of the Church have powre to the censures of admonition excommunication to bind lose For observe I pray you that every brother is bound to admonish his brother for a fault he observeth in him if he reforme not he must take one or two witnesses admonish him if he reforme not yet he must bring the matter before the Church suppose the Church consist of 12. persons as at Ephesus Act. 19.7 The matter being before the Church the eleven deale with the twelvth discover his sin convince it to his conscience he refuseth to â—eer them but despiseth the admonitions I say if they retaine him stil in communion they consent to his sinne For as the civill Magistrate in pardoning willfull murther consenteth to it bicause the murtherer should die Even so the Church suffering the vnrepentaunt persone among them consent to his sinne and are polluted with it and consent to all the profanation and violation of the Holy things committed by that vnrepentaÌ„t person For God hath commaunded the church to watch over their brethren if they do not they hate their brother in suffering sinne to rest vppon him God hath commaunded that no vncleane person should medle with the Holy things if they doe they profane polute the Holy things offering violence to the Lords ordinances But it may be you wil say that by this meanes we assume to our selves a kind of perfection puritie in that we wil have no sinners among vs I answer that you must distinguish betwixt our persons our communion we confesse our persons severally every one of vs to be subject to sinne that we doe sinne dayly bicause of our sinning nature the Lord hath appointed the ordinances of the visible Church as helps meanes to subdue this sinning nature of ours especially these ordinances of admonition excommunication which are to be vsed administred vppon al by al as occasion is offered Now this is the perfection puritie of our communion that we suffer no vnrepented sinne no vnrepentant sinner among vs but either we cast out the sinne by repentance or the sinner vnrepentant by excommunication that our coÌ„munion may be pure holy the church without spot or wrinckle that we may be a new lump dayly vnleavened the leaven being purged out of vs continually oh Mr. Ber. if you knew but the comfort powre of the L. ordinances of admonition excommunication as we do blessed be our good God in some measure that growth reformation which is in some of vs thereby you would be so wonderfully ravished with the powre of Gods ordinances that you would acknowledg the Church to be terrible as an armie with banners yet amyable lovely comely beauteful in so much as Christ himself saith that the love of the church is faire that she woundeth his hart with one of her eyes in regard of the beautyful holy communion which is dayly maintayned in her by vertue of the censures but your confused assemblies al the members of them not only omit but reject yea oppose al these holy ordinances which Christ hath given to his Church therby you proclaime to all the world that you are of Belial that is without the yoke of Christs ordinances you cast away from you these cordes bandes wherwith wee are bound one to another knit faster faster vnto Christ our head therfor you living thus without the yoke out of the Lords Holy order having broken these bandes cast the cordes froÌ„ you mingling your selves vnto joyning with al manner of profane persons that violate al Gods ordinances how can we have any
fellowship communion agreement concord or part with you Answer to this now Maister Bernard and seduce your hearers no longer with vanityes Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the eighth Section Mr. Ber. in his book intituled the Sep. Schisme pa. 103. hath these wordes viz that ouâ— seaventh error should be to hold That the sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in being not reformed nor the offender cast out doth so pollute the whole congregation that none may communicate with the same in any of the Holy things of God though it be a Church rightly constituted til the party be excommunicated In this eighth Section the position is thus vttered by you by mee justified viz That one sinne of one man publiquely and obstinately stood in and not reformed by a true constituted Church doth so pollute it that none may communicate with it in the Holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawfull conviction Afterward expounding this truth I say that if the Church hold this obstinate impenitent convicted person in communion they consent to his sinne as the civil magistrate suffering wilful murther consenteth vnto it Mr. Ains confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 178.179 doth first renounce this truth denyeth it to be either their judgment or practise referring vs to the confession of their faith Art 26. wher their judgmeÌ„t is that none is to Seperate for offences but by due order to seek redresse yet afterward affirmeth that if the Church will not rebuke nor cast out a man obstinate and impenitent in wickednes but plead for him against such as call vppon them for judgment then are all such abettors of the wicked sinner themâ—elves and that in a high degree now not that one mans sinne but the sinne of them al polluteth them Wel Mr. Ains you I wil not differ about this point for wither it be his sinne consented vnto by them or their sin which is a consent approbation to his sinne or both I regard not The truth is the truth that that one sinne polluteth them al by contagion as the leaven leaveneth the whole lump although Mr. Bern. hath not so plainly directely propounded it as he might yet let it not be denyed for it is the truth he doth chardg vs withal giving a true exposition I tell you true Mr. Ains you deny the truth if you deny the position but indeed your denyall your affirmation contradict Heer Mr. Bern. for your sake I wil performe two things First I wil confirme this truth which we defend against you that joyne with open knowne sinners in the communion of your false Church Secondly I wil refel your cavils against this truth of God wherin wee walk For the first point I wish you to remember what hath been proved vnto you in the former Section viz That Christs ministerial powre is given to the body of the Church which if it be true as it is proved to be the vndoubted truth of God then this second position followeth necessarily therevppon therefore is to be embraced for the truth of God in like manner For every consequent necessarily deduced from the Scripture is as wel as truly the word of truth as that which is in plaine termes expressed noted downe in nomber of wordes For even as the branches of the tree doe as truly proceed from the root as the great graines or body of the tree are al of one kind nature doth root body graynes braunches So a necessary consequent growing by true discourse out of the Scripture is aswel as truly the word of truth as the position or doctryne or sentence is whence it was raised wherfor I frame an argument from the former ground afteÌ„r this manner If they that have Christs ministerial powre to reforme obstinate convicted sinners or to excommunicate theÌ„ do neither reforme them nor cast them out froÌ„ among them but suffer them stil in communion consenting therby to their sinn then the persons so suffering consenting to sinne are polluted by contagion of the sin impenitent wicked sinner But it may fal out that a Church true in the constitution having Christs ministerial powre yet afterward declining may neither reforme an obstinate convicted sinner nor cast him out of their communion but may suffer him stil in communion therby consenting to his sinne Ergo a Church truly constituted having Christs Ministeriall powre of reformation or excommunication suffering and consenting to sinne sinners convinced are polluted by infection of that sinne and of that impenitent obstinate convicted sinner And so by necessary consequent I conclude after this manner If a Church truly constituted be all of them polluted by consent as is already declared then they do violate and profane all the Holy things of God wherin they pertake For to the vncleane nothing is cleane as the Apostle testifieth Tit. 1.15 the Prophet Esa 1.12 But a Church truly constituted may grow to polution by consenting to obstinate sinne sinners as is already declared Therfor a Church truly constituted may grow to the violation manifest profanation of al the Holy things of God From this evident truth I proceed reason after this manner To that Church company or communion of men we may not joyne in Spirituall communion that violateth or profaneth the holy things of God But a Church truly constituted may grow to the violation manifest profanation of al the Holy things of God Ergo to a Church truly constituted growne to polute violate the holy things of God we are not to joyne in communion Thus you se Mr. Ber. the evidence of this truth manifested vnto your conscience if the Lord vouchsafe you mercy to see the truth Like arguments may be drawne from many places of Scripture as from Mat. 13.33 compared with 1. Cor. 5.6 an argument may be framed thus As the whole lump the feast of the passeover was leavened with a litle leaveÌ„ so one open knowne sinne polluteth the visible Church the holy things therof for you must vnderstand that the Apostle doth not cal vnknowne sinne leaven but by leaven he vnderstandeth sinne openly knowne convinced vnrepented els ther could be no communion for men on earth But the Apostle our Saviour saith out of the law that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump feast of the passeover Therfor one sinne convinced vnrepented polluteth the visible church the holy things therof therevnto may no man joyne Againe from persons ceremonialy poluted so defiling the Sanctuary of the Lord as appeareth Nomb. 19.13.20 Hag. 2.14 I reason thus As persons ceremonialy poluted vnclensed entering into the Sanctuary of the Lord or medling with the holy flesh or pottage did polute the Sanctuary the holy flesh pottage the rest So the visible Church of the new Testament morally poluted impenitent in sin medling with the holy things
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
also he is to be admoniâ—hed convinced openly if then he repent not to mee he is a Heathen Publicane no Saynt what he is in the L. account to himself in secreat I know not nor regard for it aperteyneth not to me Lastly for the consequence of the argument viz That seing in the Old Testament the faithful were not defiled joyning in prayer preaching praising God with open known sinners therefore wee in the New Testament so doing are not defiled I deny vtterly yea and I deny the Antecedent in some sence also It shall not be vnprofitable therefore fully to discussce both the Antecedent and the consequence of this Objection The Antecedent is thus to be expounded conceaved of namely That the L. required one thing outwardly in the communion of the Church another thing inwardly in the hart for acceptation before God If any circumcized Israelite or proselyte clensed according to the purification of the Sanctuarie did joyne in prayer preaching praising God no man could justly refuse his outward communion in these actions seing he was outwardly cleane according to the dispensation of those tymes For vs in the new Testament ther are required other visible actions for our outward clensing which were not then required of the carnall Israelites for their outward clensing if they did declare their inward repentance by Sacrifices for their sinnes general Speciall by clensing themselves with those rites ceremonies which were appointed by the Lord for those infant tymes of the Church they were to be judged holy by al men so communion might be had with them without sinne but if they were not clensed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they were not visibly cleane therfor communion could not be had with them without sinne so Hezechiahs prayer importeth 2. Chron. 30 18-â—â— the Prophets declare plainly NoÌ„b. 19.31.20 Hag. 2.14 yet heer also cautions must be remembred viz That this ceremoniall vncleanenes must be made known vnto others for otherwise how could it polute others if it were vnknowne to them Furthermore it cannot be denyed but that the Sonnes of Belial very vild wicked men did deale with the holy things in the old Testament but yet I say it cannot be proved but they were visiblie cleane according to the dispensation of those tymes the Lord did not then require men to proceede with their brethren in the thre degrees of admonition so to bring them to the acknowledgment of their sinne repentance That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament But the L. order for those tymes was 1. reproof for sinne Levit. 19.17 2. The partie reproved was to offer a Sacrifice which if he did he was clensed from hys sinne visiblie Levit. 4.23 3. If he wilfully refused to harken he was to be promoted to the Magistrate put to death for his presumption Levit. 15.30.31 Deut. 17.12 This was the L. aeconomie for those tymes when this order was violated then al communion was defiled whiles it was observed all was wel in the visible communion Let any man declare the contrary if he be able breefly therfor to make a ful answer to the objection if the faithful did keep communion with persons visiblie vncleane according to the vncleanenes of the old Testament knowne vnto them I say they were polluted with their vncleanenes by consenting therto to the violation of the Lords order appointed for those tymes if men were the children of Belial yet were clensed according to the dispensation of the Old Testament their visible clensing did intitle them to the ordinances of the old Testament before men though before God their consciences were impure wherfor both the Antecedent consequent of the argument are weake and vnsound so this truth of God remayneth firme that impenitency in sinne defileth the communion of the visible Church as in the old Testament Your third reason is for that the Prophets did not Seperate who did know the meaning of the L. for this thing nor taught not the people so to do I answer as in the new Testament so in the old ther ought not to be Seperation til the vtmost meanes be sought for redresse of things The vtmost meanes for reforming abuses in the Old Testament was the Magistrates authority in whose hands the powre of reforming was Hence it is that the Prophets alwayes reproove the Kings for the wickednes of the Land but the Lord did never teach bicause he thought it not meet ther being but one true Church that when the King neglected his duty the people should forsake the Holy things of God Seperate but stil they ought to depend vppon the Lord for redresse of things but now in the New Testament the Lords administration in this particular is otherwise 1. Visible Churches may be infinite so ther is a possibility of enjoying the Lords ordiâ—ances though a man forsake the communion of one Church 2. the fulnes of tyme being come the nonage of the Church being past the Lord hath now revealed his whole wil pleasure hath set vs at liberty whereas in the old Testament they were in bondage vnder worldly ordinances 3. The Saints now in the new Testament are answerable to the Kings in the old Testament having powre Ecclesiastical in their hands but not civil to reforme the abuses that arise in the visible Church 4. Therfor we are in the new Tament to vse al meanes appointed by the Lord for reformation before wee Seperate al the meanes I say whatsoever If then ther be no reformation what then I answer Seperation is then lawful why The reasons are these 1. The visible Church cealeth to be a time Church being obstinate in sinne from a false Church Seperation is lawful 2. the Lord hath commaunded to come out â—â—om among persons obstinate in sinne so the Apostles practised 2. Cor. 6.17 Act. 19.9 2.40 3. bicause the Lord hath said that if we pertake with them in their sinnes we shal receave of their plagues 4. bicause if but two or thre faithful ones being Seperated joyne together they are a true Church vnto Christ where the Lords presence acceptance is But in the Old Testament they were necessarily tyed to the Kingdome Preisthood Temple for the worship obedience of God but now in the New Testament al things are free the bondage is gone Mr. Bern. I would have you note this wel lay it vp in your hart for your instruction reformation for in this particular I know you al that feare God in the land are scandalized from the truth not vnderstanding the difference between the New Testament the ordinances thereof the Old Testament with the ordinances thereof Summarily therefor to deliver the truth The Church Ministery VVorship Government of the Old Testament were so constituted by the Lord as that no Seperation could be made from them seing they were al by Succession
the people therfor were necessarily bound over vnto them otherwise they could not find the Lord his truth which was only at Ierusalem in the New Testament the Church Ministery VVorship Government are so constituted by the Lord as that in them ther is no Succession nor alligation of tyme place person c. But when the Church is become false by impenitency the faithful may Seperate cary the truth with them if but two or three Mr. Bern. the L open your eyes the eyes of al his people in England to see this blessed truth of the Lord then the cause of Separation wil be evident vnto your consciences in the meane tyme you cannot but be ignorant A south reason whereby you would prove that to joyne to the Holy things in the communion of obstinate impenitent persons is no sinne is for that the Scripture teacheth the contrary as you say two wayes 1. by acquitying the Godly from the transgression of others 2. by declaring it to be a sinne to leave the Holy things of God for the wickednesse of others this you say cutteth deepely I answer you Mr. Ber. that we do not feele this cut at al for the iron is blunt you had need put to more strength your reason hath in it no cutting quality at all For I doe acknowledg that the Godly if they consent not to nor approve not the sinne of others are by the Lords sentence acquit from the transgression but I would learne of you if the Holy Ghost in the Scripture doth not account the principal the accessary in the lame condition though not in the same degree of sinne what say you to the sinne of Achan the sinne of the men of Gibean concerning the Levites concubine The feare of the Israelites in respect of the Altar built in the border of the Land of Canaan by Iorden These places are evident that consent to sinne polluteth the person consenting the places by you quoted do not prove any thing contrary to this assertion of ours but rather they prove this vndoubted truth of the Lords the place Ezech. 33.9 proveth that as the watchman that dischargeth his duty is acquit so if he discharg not his duty he shal be accessary to the sinne partaker of the punishment as may be seen vs. 6. the place Ezech. 18.14.17.20 doth declare two things that if the child follow not the sinne of the parents he shal be guiltlesse if he partake in ther sinnes he shal be partaker of the. punishment the place Ezech. 14.18.20 sheweth that Noah Daniel Iob shal deliver their owne soules by their righteousnes but al those that are polluted with other mens sinnes shal partake of their plagues Revel 18.4 So that you see these places of the old testament quoted by you do not only not help you but vtterly overthrow your conceipt The places of the new Testament alledged by you also make as litle for you Tit. 1.15 teacheth that al thing are pure to the pure yet the intent of the place is not to shew that sinne is pure to any man although I may lawfully vse the Holy things of God being my self cleane yet being partaker of another mans sinne by consent I polute al the holy things to my self have no title to vse them so the Apostle saith presently to the impure is nothing pure the place Revel 3.4 teacheth that so many of the Church at Sardi as defiled not their garments by consenting to the polution of the rest of that Church but that stood out against their corruptions to the vtmost shal be innocent the other place Revel 2 22-24 sheweth the same thing but for these two places I say you must prove Mr. Ber. that your assemblies are true churches as these were againe you must prove also that these persons neglected their duty of admonishing standing forth against the Church that the church was convinced by them yet did joyne with them in communion of Holy things For otherwise we say we are not to Seperate till wee have done our vtmost endevour neither are we poluted til then your last place is Gal. 5.10 wher the Apostle teacheth that he that troubleth the Galatians shal beare his condemnation whosoever he be yet the Apostle telleth them vs. 9. that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is to say if you consent to this false doctrine of joyning circumcision to Christ the person that perswadeth you shal beare his burthen whosoever he be yet you also shal be punished receaving the false doctrine but I hope otherwise of you this is the meaning of the Apostle Secondly you say the Scripture teacheth it to be a sinne for to leave the holy things of God for the wickednes of other for this purposes you alledg 1. Sam. 2.24.17 wher you say the wordes are plaine cannot be avoyded by another exposition of the word gnabarwell although the word doth as properly signifie to passe vppon or to passe by as to trespasse that it is so expounded by Pagnin yet I will not plead it at this tyme sith it needeth not Therfor take the place according to your construction that the Sonnes of Ely by their sinnes caused the people to sinne by abhorring the L. offering through occasion of ther wickednes I answer thus in the old Testament no man was to forsake the Sacrifices for other mēs sinnes if they were ceremonialy cleane therfor that the people did abhorre these ordinances of God vppon the wickednes of Elyes Sonnes was ther transgression the L. taught no such thing in the old Testament in the typical communion therof but now in the new Testament we having the truth that was then signified by the old Testament the ordinances therof it followeth necessarily thus that as in the old Testament the communion therof which were typical persons typicaly cleane might not have communion typical with persons typically vncleane without polution ceremonial So in the new Testament the cōmunion therof which is the truth persons moraly cleane may not have Spiritual communiō with persons moraly vncleane without polution moral which is sinne so you are answered according to your exposition of the place yet I deny it to be necessary to expound the place so as you doe Your fifth reason proving it lawful for the Saints to hold communion in the holy things though persons obstinate in sinne be present is For that in the word we have liberty given to come to partake in the holy things if wee look to our selves to reforme our owne wayes mat 5.23.24 1. Cor. 11.28 the Corinths did partake in the holy things with them that were once twise admonished 2. Cor. 12.21 go so may we do I answer The place of Christ Mat. 5.23.24 teacheth that a mā must first reconcile him self to his brother before he offer his gift truth but it must be for al the sinnes he
Seperate from persons ceremonialy vncleane 3. if the Apostles commaund Seperation from the Iewes members of that true Church of the old Testament refusing Christ rayling against him Then much more ought we to Seperate from you the members of false Churches refusing persecuting Christ in his members new Testament vnto death as they have felt 4. if Antichristims Gentils be in degree equall as they are in the Holy Ghosts account as I have formeâ—ly proved theÌ„ from you who are AntichristiaÌ„s visible members of false Churches ought Seperation to be made 5. although you are not excommunicate from the true Church whereof you never were yet you entertaine excommunicates from true Churches you are cages of every vncleane hateful bird if I must avoyd private familiar communion with excommunicate wicked persons then much more must I shun Spirituall holy communion with them except any man wil be so ridiculous as to say that the Hoâ—y Spiritual communion afordeth more liberty to sinne sinners then private civil communion in meate drinck c. so by your own confession al the places of Scripture alledged against you by vs may by just due proportion be applyed vppon you being as you stand in your constitution worship false Churches false worshippers persecuters of Christ his truth faithful witnesses To end al you say that it cannot be proved that it is sinn to heare the word preached to receave the Sacraments of one that hath converted him is called of the church wel Mr. Bern. I vnderstand your drift I wil give you an answer I say in your assemblies men do not convert to the true visiole faith of Christ taught in his word viz in the new Testament nor you ever converted man therto but pervert men from it as this book of yours al your railings against our testimony do plainly evince what you do invisibly the Lord knoweth every mans owne conscience can speak that feeleth but what say you of the Popish preachers do you think they convert none invisiblie what doe you gaine by this fancy neither they nor you convert to the faith or new Testament of Christ but they pervert meÌ„ from you you pervert men from the Seperation both hinder draw from the truth what you do invisiblie I seek not nor ought not to respect for visible walking yet know that we hold that ther are 7000. that are of the Lords Election in your false Churches So are ther in Rome it self Revel 18.4 whence did al the worthy witnesses of Christ arise as the waldenses Hus Prage Luther the Martyrs in Q. Maries dayes in EnglaÌ„d at other tymes in other places did they not come out of the bottomlesse pit of Antichristianisme being converted there yet I hope you wil not say that they might stil joyne to that ministery yet the ministers then had the calling of that church such as it was if therfor the argumeÌ„t be not good for them no more is it for you for you wil be proved to be AntichristiaÌ„ Ministers as truly in quality though not asmuch in quantity as they are this shal suffice for answer to this point The ninth Section Your next point wherto I will speak is the sixth in nomber which you hold error but I hold as a truth if it be wel conceaved it is this 6. That the word truly preached Sacraments rightly administred are no infallible tokens of a true Church I am sure you doe or may remember that proprium cum specie convertitur as the Logicians speak For example Every man is reasonablâ— every reasonable creature is a maÌ„ Now al I say is that the word truly preached the Sacraments duely administred are no properties of a true church For although this be true that whersoever the word is truly preached ex officio the Sacraments rightly administred ther is a true Church yet I denie the other viz That wheâ—soever ther is a true Church the word is truly preached the Sacraments are rightly administred For these two are not convertible but this I hold that a true Church powre to preach the word truly and administer the Sacraments duely are convertible and therefore that the powre of our Lord Iesus Christ given to the Church is an essential propertie of a true Church and therefore convertible with a true Church Now sometyme it falleth out that a true Church hath not the word ministerially preached nor the Sacraments administred namely when it wanteth Officers as it sometyme falleth out This point also is plaine enough if you have not loft your Logick therefore I leave it requiring your answer Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the ninth Section I cannot find in all Mr. Bern. book intituled the Sep Schisme any thing in opposition to this Section of my lette vnto him whereby I collect that he yeeldeth it as a truth it is not material to the point of Seperation any thing at al only the truth must be defended for the Author of truths sake that the Lord his truth may in all things be honored the summe of al this Section is thus much that as not the act of reasoning is the true propertie of a man but the faculty to reason Non ratiocinari sed rationale So not the actual preaching administring of the Sacraments but the powre of Christ to have vse al the holy things of God is the true property convertible in fallible token of a true Church For as every man although he be reasonable yet doth not actually vse reasoÌ„ at al tymes as namely being an infaÌ„t being a sleep being in a Lethargie or sincope So the true Church though it have alwayes powre to al the holy things yet actually it doth not vse the powre But I list not to speak much concerning this particular which is more Scholasticall then profitable the rather seing Mr. Bernard contendeth not about it The tenth Section The next position is according to your order the twelvth viz That every of our assemblies are false churches al our ministers false ministers our worship a faise worship you cal this en or I cannot beleeve you wherfor I declare them vnto you particularly in order after this manner But bicause your Wordes seem to import that you doe not defend all your assemblies to be true Churches all your Ministers true Ministers the worship of every assemblie to be a true worship for that I gesse by your covenant you exclude dumb Ministers the assemblies over which they are the worship offered vp by them Therefore I wil onely plead against your parish Church at worksap and your owne Ministerie and the worship offered vp by you for your people in the parish Church at worksap First for your assemblie I vse this reason to prove it no true Church wher the people are not Holy Elect faithful having not entered
covenant to walk in all Gods wayes standing in confusion with every abhominable liver subject to al the Antichristian orders officers set over them deprived of the powre of Christ for ther mutuall help edification ther is no true Church But the parish assemblie of worksap is such go it is no true Church The Major is manifest by these Scriptures compared together Math. 15.9 Apocal. 14 9-11 Ephes 1.1.4 2. Corinth 6 14-18 Math. 28.20 5.19 Apocal. 18.4 Math. 5.24 The Minor you dare not deny I assure my self For you have at least five or six hundreth communicants you account not past 30. or 40. of them faithful al of you submit to Antichrist his lawes courts dayly especially your self who cap knee runne ride after Antichrists officers courts feeing him with your money yea you plead for them write your peny pamphlets for them and yet once yon wrote against them and lost your vicaridg in your testimonie against them but bicause you could not buy and sell except you receaved the mark of the beast now you are content to yeeld to all yea to plead for all that you may tâ—affique with your marchandize Secondly for your self I hold you to be no true minister of Christ For your Church being false how can your ministerie be true For if the Fountaine be bitter the streame caÌ„ not be sweet your Church is false your ministerie which ariseth out of your Church as astreame from a Fountaine is false also Thirdly your worship which commeth from a false Church a false ministerie cannot be true but is false in that double respect but particularly I except these things against your worship 1. That it is qualified with your false ministerie 2. That it is offered vp in a false Church 3. That it is offered vp to God in the behalf of al your people which are many of theÌ„ I presume lewd persons al of them subjects of Antichrists Kingdome this I except against your conceaved prayers Against your service book I except thus besides the former 1. It is devised invented by the man of sinne 2. That it is imposed vppon you your people of necessity 3. That it is stinted limited the Spirit therby quenched 4. That it is read vppon a book 5. That it is corrupt in all the particular errors objected by the Puritans All these 8 particulars are contrary to these Scriptures compared together Roman 8.26 Math. 15.9 Apocal. 5.8 8.3 1. Thessal 5.19 Apocal. 9.20 16.13.14 Act. 16.18 19 13-16 Math. 24 23-26 1. Corinth 12.7 and 2.4 and 14.15.26 Ierem. 23.16 Deut. 13.3 Col. 3.16 Iam. 5.13 Ioh. 4.24 Mr. Ber. I would not have you passe by these things lightly but weigh them wel and let vs have your answer vnto them Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the tenth Section This Section consisteth of three maine branches which Mr. Bern. handleth from pag. 109. to the 150. of his book called the Sep. Schis Heer therfor I must endevor two things First to prove by vndeniable arguments drawne from the Scriptures that 1. the asseÌ„blies Ecclesiastical of England are false churches 2. the Ministers administring the holy things to these Ecclesiastical assemblies are false Ministers 3. the worship performed by the ministery people in the communion visible to be a false worship Secondly Mr. Bern. objections cavils must be refuted wher the reader must be advertised that in performing this latter part I shall not endevour to handle all things that Mr. Bernard propoundeth for ther is much truth by him propounded which I with him consent vnto only the points of difference shal be discusted the rest omitted In the first place therfor to deale as they say positively Kataskeuasticos I prove that al the Ecclesiastical assemblies of the Land as they stand established by law are false Churches that is to say not framed or constituted according to that presideÌ„t which Christ hath left for the constituting of the Churches of the new Testament but are framed according to the invention of man even that man of sinne Antichrist the Archenemy of Christ The first Argument from Mat. 3.6 Iam. 2.18 Rom. 1.7 1. Cor. 1.2 Eph. 1.1 Mat. 28.19 From these places of Scripture compared together I collect an argument which may thus be framed The true Churches of Christ were established of men that did repent beleeve and shew their faith by their workes that were Saints faithful visiblie of these only The assemblies Ecclesiastical of England are not established only of such persons but of al sorts of persons even the most profane of the Land being compelled by law to submit therto Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true established churches of Christs institution Heer it may be considered that before the Churches of the new Testament were established the gospel was preached vppon the publishing of the gospel men were converted to the faith of Christ being made the Disciples of Christ so many of them whither Iewes or Gentils as gladly receaved the word were baptized added to the Church continued in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread prayer this was the constitution walking of the Churches of the Apostolique institution therfor the Churches of England being raised by compulsion without procedent teaching conversion to the faith making of them Disciples of Christ being newly hardly drawne from the Egipsian darknes of most palpable Antichristianisme being many of them brutishly ignorant prosessed Papists vild Atheists witches conjurers theeves dronkards blasphemers al of them submitted to Antichristian Lords Lawes to Popish Sacrificing Preists for their ministers were not newly ordeyned to a stinted devised corrupted Popish service book or worship they in this their constitution walking cannot be accounted the true established Churches of the Apostolique institution but rather are yet â—emayning in the gulfe of Antichristianisme The second Argument from 2. Cor. 6.17 Revel 18.4 Act. 19.9 2.40.47 5.13 1. Timoth. 6.5 From these such like places of Scripture compared together truly expounded may be collected an argument framed after this manner True Churches of the Apostolique institution consisted of a people seperated from â—â—eleevers whether Iewes or pagans or other The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England consist not of such a Seperated people but are compounded of a mixt people which for the most part are as bad as Iewes or Pagans viz persons notoriously wicked Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the truly constituted Churches of the Apostolique institution Heer it wil nothing availe them to alledg as they are accustomed that they are neither Iewes nor Pagans For I have already proved that persons that submit to Antichrist his abhominations are in the Lords account equal to Pagans being called in the book of the Revelation Egiptians Sodomites Babylonians Gentils the Apostle willeth the Disciples to Seperate
is a monstrous body like vnto the body of Nebuchadnetzars image Daniel 2.32 3. this monstrous body cannot be vnited to the true head Christ by his Spirit but the people of the assemblies being for the most part the seed of the Serpent must needes be knit together and vnto their head Antichrist by the Spirit of Antichrist the Spirit of Sathan All this I speak of their visible communion and of that politique body Ecclesiasticall which is called their Church For otherwise I doe acknowledg vnfeynedly and doe vndoubtedly beleeve that the Lord hath his thousands among them even a remnant according to the Election of grace Thus have I proved vnto you Mr. Bernard positively that the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England in their present constitution and walking are not the true churches of the primitive Apostolique institutioÌ„ but are in their outward visible politique subsistence the churches of Antichrist framed after the shape of the popish asseÌ„blies though much refined from the venemous drosse of popery now in the second place it remayneth that I deale anaskeuasticos with you answering those things which you alledg for your Churches to prove them true The great maine pillar of your building is this that seing your Church hath not a false head false matter false forme false properties therefore it is not a false but a true Church To these 4. particulars I answer distinctly First you have a false head in that you worship God in a fantastical Christ of your owne devising in that you shape him a Kingdom Preisthood Prophesy of your owne invention making him a mediator intercestor to al the profane people of the Land causing him to offer vp other worship worshippers to his Father then he hath taught in his new Testament purchased by his blood by this meanes dealing with Christ as somtyme the Iewes did putting a reed in his hand a crowne of thornes vppon his head kneeling downe vnto him as to a King bidding him prophecy yet smite him vppon the face spit at him presently crucify him For whereas you frame him a Kingdom Subjects Officers Lawes a government after your owne invention or rather out of the Propes decretals decrees hereby you seem to make him a King but indeed you Crucifye him againe and tread vnder foote the blood of the Testament which he hath purchased established at so high a rate Secondly your church hath a false matter For seing you do al this indignity to Christ the head of his true Church do you think that he wil entertaine you for the true matter of his Church the true subjects of his Kingdom the true members of his body the faithful Servants of his howse his chast true welbeloved Spowse wife either you must repent reforme your selves of al that vild indignity which you offer vnto Christ or els he wil never receave you for the matter of his Church the Subjects of his Kingdom the members of his body the Servants of his howse his espowsed wife For Christ wil not take a wife of fornication children of fornication Hos 1. he wil not have the Servants of Antichrist to be his howsehold Servants Mat. 6.24 nor wil he take the members of an harlot make them the members of Christ 1. Cor. 6.15 the Subjects of his vtter enemy Antichrist cannot possibly be the true faithful Subjects of Christs Kingdom Luk. 19.27 But in the pa. 111-116 of your book you make a distinction of matter as No matter True matter False matter they are no matter of a church say you which do not professe Christ as Iewes Turks Pagans They are true matter that professe Christ to be the Sonne of God the Sonne of Mary the only Saviour of man False matter say you is contrary to the true Further this true matter of the Church you say is good bad good matter you say as it seemeth to me is men walking vprightly in this profession of Christ bad matter are men walking wickedly this you illustrate by the matter of mariage for she may be a true wife though a bad one also by the similitude of subjects to a King who may be true though bad ones breaking his lawes a true tradesman though vnskilful in his professioÌ„ for your selves you say you are true matter of Christs church though not good matter bicause you professe Christ truly as is said before wel Mr. Ber. I yeeld the general distinction of matter but I deny the particular application of it to your selves I say you are false mater how therfor do you prove vnto vs that you are â—â—ue matter by 4. reasons wherof the first is for that you beleving this forsaid truth you beleeve the summe of the gospel I deny it vtterly the summe of the gospel is this that Iesus Christ the Sonne of God the Sonne of Mary is the only King Preist Prophet of his Church governing Sacrificing making intercession prophecying after that holy manner according to those rules which he hath prescribed in his Testament Now to beleeve truly concerning the person of Christ to beleeve falsely concerning his office as you doe is not to beleeve the whole gospel but only a peece of it So that this is the doctrine alone by which the Apostles did gather a people to make them a Church disciples of Christ the profession herof admitted men as true matter of a Church this only differenceth the true Church from Iewes Turkes Pagans Papists al other Antichristians Heretiques viz Iesus Christ God and man King Preist Prophet mediator of his owne Testament Therfor your second third fourth reasons fal flat to the ground the first being vnderminded as you see but ther is one thing that I wonder at that you should hold the Papists to be false matter of a Church for holding justification by workes therby denying Christs Preisthood hold your selves to be true matter of the Church denying Christs Kingdom in the true frame ministery worship government of his Church what is not Christs Kingdom as pretious as his Preisthood is it not as horrible impiety to deny Christs Kingdom the ordinances therof as to deny his Preisthood the vertue therof or is Christs Preisthood more fundamental then his Kingdom or justification by workes more pernitious then to deny Christ to raigne as King to refuse his regiment wel if the papists be false matter by your owne confession for the one you must needes also be false matter for the other For I am confident that Christs Kingdom is as pretious an office as his Preisthood even as the Kingdom in the old Testament was as excellent as the Preisthood now Mr. Bern. what is become of the Church seing your matter is false as you may perceave by this description what shall your similies of a bad wife a bad subject of a bad artificer help you
Ergo the ministers of England are Apostles as Paul or thus He that converteth Soules is sent of God Rom. 10.14.15 The Ministers of England convert Soules Ergo the ministers of England are sent of God If I should yeeld your first argument theÌ„ it would follow that you al the ministers that convert soules in England are Ap. but you intend not to prove your selves Apst but ordinary Pastors of visible churches therfore your argument if it were yeelded proveth not your purpose I know you do not challendg to be an Apostle as Paul was Againe to answer to your second argumeÌ„t we yeeld you that no maÌ„ caÌ„ coÌ„vert to the true saith of Chr. new TestameÌ„t which is visible except he be sent of God but seing you pervert men froÌ„ the new testament of Chr. as I have proved how can you herby prove your selves to be sent of God nay I say you are the instruments of Sathan sent by the L. in his wrath to keep the people in bondage froÌ„ the obedience of the faith taught in the new testament I do not determine what you are invisibly secreatly known to the L. neither doth the Scripture teach vs so to judg of faith For how can the Scripture teach vs visiblie to judg an invisible thing which is not appearing in visible Fruites Further wher as you say that the 1. Cor. 9.1 2. Cor. 3 1-3 doth not intend the constitution of the Church of the Corinths other Churches but their conversion from idolatry to embrace the doctryne of the gospel by faith I answer that these two things which you distinguish are al one they are no other in distinction then Arons beard the beard of Aaron as you speake for to convert men to the Faith of the gospel is to convert men to the true constituted Church of Christ For they are not converted to the true faith til they be converted established into the true Church if it may be sound So that this objection of yours is very insufficient if not altogether ridiculous for the force of the Apostles argument in these two places of the Corinths I say it is mistaken by you vtterly so wrested from the Holy Ghosts purpose misapplyed by you to prove your intention For the seale of Pauls Apostles hip was the Church of the Corinths converted to the saith established into the true constitution of the new Testament 1. Cor. 9.2 so Paul expoundeth himself in the other place 2. Cor. 3.10 saying that he was made an able Minister of the new Testament even as Moses was of the old For the vnderstanding of which place the whole matter you must remember what Moses did to the Church of the Iewes what Paul did to the Church of the Corinths Moses did constitute the Church of the Iewes according to the paterne shewed him in the mount that most faithfully Heb. 8.5 Paul being the Apostle of the Gentils sent by Chr. Iesus for that purpose hath established the Church of the Corinths according to that paterne which Christ the Mediator revealed vnto him which none could doe but an Apostle sent by Christ So that the force of Pauls Argument to prove himself an Apostle must thus be propounded conceaved He that hath the seale of an Apostelship is an Apostle Paul hath the seale of an Apostelship viz an infallible direction from Christ Iesus by the Spirit to convert establish the Church of the Corinths into the true constitution of the new Testament Ergo Paul is an Apostle of Iesus Christ Now Mr. Bern. I would require you to answer directly plainly whither this be not the true Scope intent of these two places of Scripture if yea then are you a most ignorant shameles perverter false interpreter of the Scriptures wherof I require your repentance before the Lord the world for your sinne is publique if nay then discover the contrary if you can justifie your self or els I doe professe vnto you to all the ministers of England that you doe abuse the honest harted people of the Land misleading them meerly by the pretence of this argument of converting soules For they feeling in their consciences secreatly the Lords work of inward conversion by the ministery of the Land especially the sincerest most forward puritans thereby are brought to reverence their ministery vnder the vizaâ—d of this inward work in their consciences pretending conversion to the visible faith of Christs new Testament doe hereby resolutely persist vnder that ministery whereby say they they were converted assuring themselves that it cannot be a false ministery that converteth men to the Lord inwardly and secreatly then you the ministers of the Land deceaving others being deceaved your selves by the misconstruction of these the like places of Scripture stand vp stoutly to defend your ministery after this manner are wee not true ministers of Iesus Christ have wee not converted Soules are not you the Seale of our ministerie the forward professors of the Land wee appeale vnto your consciences if you in our ministery have not felt the powre of the word to your inward conversion If this be so how can you forsake your Fathers that begat you how can you go to the Seperation that never coÌ„verted you c. I answer what you doe inwardly in conversion I dispute not the Scripture regardeth not what you doe outwardly that I plead the Scripture discovereth you convert not a man to the true faith of Christ which is visible in the visible communion of the true Church of the Apostle Pauls constitution such as was the Church of the Corinths and therfor you cannot by your inward invisible conversion which you plead for prove your ministery For except you can produce such an effect as Paul did in the Corinths you cannot prove your selves to be the true ministers that are sent of God For Paul saith yee Corinths are our Epistle vnderstood read of al men So that Pauls Seale of his ministery was an outward visible legible faith viz The faith of the true Church of the new Testament whereinto the Apostle had established them which al men did see behold read manifestly wherefore if you the Ministers of England wil prove your selves to be the true ministers of the new Tesament then shew mee such a seale of your ministery as the Apostle heere speaketh of convert men establish them in the true Apostolical Church of the primitive institution I for my part wil yeeld vnto you that as paul was sent extraordinarily so are you ordinarily by the Lord you are the true ministers of Iesus Christ truly sent Rom. 10. but seing you doe what you can to hinder al your disciples from the true Corinthian Church established by paull according to the paterne of Christs new Testament not bringing the people that depend vppon you so far as you know acknowledg but stil counsel them
to stay wayt for a better tyme til the civil Magistrate wil give his allowance vnder these pretences stil keeping them in Spiritual boundage to the abhominations of Antichrist retayned in the Land I say herby you manifestly discover vnto al the world that seing you know the wil of your Lord Mr. Christ doe it not you are worthy to be beaten with many stripes that seing you break the commaundements of Christ teach men so you are the least that is none in the Kingdome of Heaven practising flat contrary to the Apostles who thought it better to obey God then man yet the Magistrates that forbad them were the Magistrates of the true Church of the Iewes wherefore breefly to answer both Ministers professors To the professors I say Shew mee your faith by embracing the whole new Testament of Christ To the ministers I say Shew mee the Seale of your ministery by converting establishing a Church after the Apostolique Corinthian frame constitution I wil grant that then you are true ministers your disciples truly converted in the meane tyme I wil judg your visible standing in Christianity as it is visible your invisible being in Christianity I wil leave to the Lord who seeth in secreat who knoweth who are his not doubting but the Lord hath his thousands even in the depth of popery much more among you this is that Mr. Bern. which wee hold grant concerning this point Now for your objection which you for vs make answer pag. 129. 130. That private persons may convert I say you herein also are deceaved deale deceiptfully For you are to distingnish of conversion according to the circumstance of tyme wherein meÌ„ were converted to Christ Iohn converted baptized many into Christ Iesus before the visible Church of the new Testament was revealed which came vppon the day of Penâ—ecost Act. 2. Eph. 4.11 Thus were al the Disciples of Iohn of Christ converted of this conversion Faith must the places of the Evangelists be vnderstood as namely that Ioh. 4.39 others so were the Iewes Proselites some of Samaria converted for as yet Chr. was not preached to the Gentils which he himself for bad to be done Mat. 10. thus were meÌ„ converted to beleve that the Messias which they knew should come was come that Iesus the Sonne of God the Sonne of Mary was hee who vppon their conversion baptisme became Christs Disciples to learne practise whatsoever he should afterward teach them That this is so read Act. 18 23. 19.2.3 Now after the day of Pentecost conversion was larger as I may so speake in respect of the visible manifestatioÌ„ therâ—f other like considerations For then men were converted to the matter of the day of Pentecost to al that frame constitution of the church of the new Testament which was purchased by Christs death exhibited vnto the Apostles by the promise of the Spirit given vnto them Thus were men converted after the death resurrection ascension of Christ after the comming of the Holy Ghost as may be seen Act. 2 38-42 8.16.17 10 44-48 So that Iohn converted men to the Faith of Christ to be manifested after the day of Pentecost the Apostles converted men to the Faith of Christ already given exhibited Seing therfor that the new Testament of Christ is now confirmed established revealed manifestly in the Scriptures of the Apostles of our Lord al that are converted now are converted to the new Testament the ordinances there of or els they are not converted to vs visiblie This being thus premised as necessarily to be vnderstood for the true knowledg of true conversion in the next place we must take notice for the answering of the objection of private mens converting that Antichrist hath defaced the Faith of Christ in the whole new Testament so the true ministery therfor it must needes be that whosoever doth convert from Antichristianisme establisheth a people into the true Faith new TestameÌ„t of Christ performeth that work either as a minister of Antichrist or as an Apostle Prophet Evangelist of Christ or as a Private person For this is a sufficient enumeration of parts ther being no other sort off persons to convert men from Antichrist to Christ but one of these For you have heard that Pastors do not convert but feed the flock I suppose you dare not a vouch that the Ministers off Antichrist do convert to the true Faith new Testament off Christ Iesus neither dare you say that ther are now in the world the offices of Apostles Prophets Evangelists wherfor when men convert they do it as private persons Therfore choose Mr. Bern. which of these three you wil affirme then tel mee whither private persons doe not convert as Act. 11 19-21 this shal suffice for this point of converting performed by private persons in the rising vp from the Apostacy of Antichrist for the discovering of your objection answer Now from the pa. 130-141 you teach vs the doctryne of the vocation of ministers which I wil not altogether disalow nor approve wholly seing it aperteyneth not to our question I leave it wholy vntoucht come to that which is pa. 141-146 wher you endevour againe to prove your ministery true that after this manner They that are called of Christ having both gifts graces they that are also outwardly caled of the church being examined aproved elected ordeyned they that preach true doctrine administer the true Sacraments peâ—forme their office faithfully live conscionably are assisted by Chr. to convert soules are approved by the people are the true ministers of Christ The ministers of the Church of England have al these particulars Ergo the ministers of the Church of England are the true ministers of Christ I answer you Mr. Ber. that the Popish ministers have al these forsaid qualifications in common with the ministers of England I plead not of the degree or measure of these things for I confesse some of them to be much more in the English ministers but I speake of the kind or nature of the qualifications which I prove by induction thus 1. The Popish ministers many of them have excellent outward gifts graces asmuch learning vtterance zeale gravity as any ministers of England though al of them have not so as al the ministers of England have not so 2. The Popish ministers are called examined aproved elected ordeyned of the Church that is as you expound the cheef governors who are as true ministers as you are seing your ministery is a branch of the roote So are you 3. The Popish ministers preach the true doctryne of Christ administer his true Sacraments for you retaine the baptisme that men have in popery as true and they breake and eate bread and wine in remembrance of Christs death although you preach more truth
then they do administer baptisme the L. Supper more purely or rather lesse corruptly yet they have the same truths Sacraments that you have even the Scriptures baptizme the L. Supper 4. The Popish ministers many of them performe their office Faithfully in many things as Faithfully as you do the best you do not performe al the parts of the true ministery the worst of you are as bad as â—he worst popish preist 5. The popish ministers some of them live conscionably according to their rule the best of you do no more the worst of you are as vild beasts as the grossest shavelings in Rome 6. As the Popish ministers convert none visibly to the true Faith and new Testament of Christ vet I doubt not but that thousands are by them converted saved what Mr. Be. wil you condemne al the men that have lived from Gregory the great til the councel of Constance to this day vnder the dominions of the pope For shame do not so So though the forwardest ministers of England convert many invisibly to life Salvation by Christ yet you ordinarily say that the Formalists convert none the dumb ministers cannot convert bicause they cannot preach none of you al convert a man visibly to the true Faith taught in the new Testament of Christ but with al your might pervert men from it 7. Finally the popish ministers are approved by their people aswel as the best or worst of you are according to the dispositions of the people Seing therfor that al these things are as evident pregnant for the popish ministers as for you therfor either they are true ministers if you be true or els bicause they are fals as you say yet have al these forsaid qualifications therfor these qualifications make not a true ministery So that you see Mr. Ber. that you argument is weak to prove your ministery true you must seek out a better definition of a true ministery according therto shape your ministery if you wil have it true In the next place you with an objection answer would prove that although your ministers have a false entrance viz ordination of the Bb. yet may be true ministers namely by two reasons 1. For that none were ever ordeyned but by ecclesiastical persons as Apostles Evangelists Bbs. 2. a false entrance cannot make a false ministery as in mariage I answer First if it were yeelded you that ther could be no true ministers made without ordination of Apostles Evangelists Bbs. yet bicause your L. Bbs. are not those true Apostles Evangelists Bbs. of the primitive institution but rather the Servants of Antichrist as your forwardest professors preachers instantly affirme therefore ther ordination is Antichristian and so your ministery is false in the entrance but Secondly I deny it to be true which you affirme for ordination by procedent Elders For I have proved vnto you by many vndeniable reasons that the whole ministeriall powre of Christ is given to the body of the Church whereby as in the first constituting of Churches so in the rising of Churches from Antichristianisme the body hath powre to al the Holy ordinances of Christ for ther mutual edification to life Salvation whereof the true ministery is a principal therefore the Church hath powre to enjoy the true ministery you confesse the Church wanting officers hath powre to elect her officers which is the principal Act. 6. 14. why not to approve ordeyne which are but the inferior lesse principal Further you may read Act. 1. that before ther were any Apostles actually in office the Church did chose Mathias into the rome of Iudas that by a commoÌ„ consent wherfor this first exception of yours is nothing Your Second exception is as weake that seing a faulty entrance into mariage which is one ordinance of God doth not disanul it why should a faulty entrance into the ministery disanul it I say the violating of accidental circumstances through ignorance shall not disanul any of Gods ordinances For then their should be no true having of any ornance of God whatsoever Seing it is impossible wee should perfectly strictly keep all every circumstance therto aperteyning but the wilful breach of essential parts of the ordinance doth corrupt the ordinance make it false as for example The matter or forme being false the ordinance cannot possible be true A man marieth a mayde that is 6. yeer old or a woman marieth an Evnuch the mariage is false for the matter is false A man taketh a woman not as his wife but as a concubine as the yonger brethren the geÌ„tlemen of Venice doe this is no true mariage bicause it wanteth the true forme of mariage so your Churches assume them ministers suppose they be the true pastors described in the word as I am perswaded your Puritanes so endevour I say bicause your churches or Ecclesiastical assemblies are false your ministery is not true For a true Minister a false Church cannot mary together Further if your Church ministery were true yet if you should be presented by a Patron ordeyned by a Prelate inducted by an Archdeacon contrary to the wil of the Church the mariage is false bicause the calling is false So then you see Mr. Ber. how litle your similies help you wherein notwithstanding you by your disciples are thought Specialy to excel and to have the prehemenence over your fellow Preists And heer you bring a flourish out of the 10. of Iohn to prove your ministers true ministers what Mr. Bern. in good sooth doe you plead this for all your Ministers of England Speak plainly double not with God man doe you in your conscience think that al the ministers of England eveÌ„ your dumb Preists whome you have excluded by your covenant your grosse nonresidents idle bellyes the Cathedral or Collegiate Preists your double benificed men that al these every one of them doe enter in by the dore have entrance by the porters opening know their sheep by name lead theÌ„ by sound doctrine holy life save many destroy none Speak plainly Mr. Ber. to this point seek no shifts yet these are the only men alowed by Law in your ministery For be he never so dumb idle non resident wicked yet if he subscribe weare the geere do read the Service book wil do homage to his Spiritual Lords their Courts if he be amicus curiae if he be conformable obedient al is wel is not this even so this you know in your conscience Mr. Bern. therfor pag. 143. Lin. 7.8 you speake warily you say The propertyes of a true Shepheard agree wel with Ministers in England you dare not say with al the Ministers of England Therefore by your owne conscience al the Ministers of England are not true Shepheards your Lords the Prelates wil con you litle thank for this but let
vs exclude your dumb Preists idle bellyes and al the rable of the conformists if you wil which are 9. parts of 10. and then I think you are excluded your self among them I wil plead only against the best minister that standeth by Law in your assemblies 1. he entereth not in by the dore seing the dore is only in the Sheepsold that is in the true Church seing you are a False Church as is proved your dore cannot be true 2. The porter that is as you say Gods Spirit but I think rather the porter to be the watchman that is the whole Church Mat. 13 33-37 he openeth not to you for you convert none to the true visible Faith of the new Testament or if you did it doth not prove your true Pastorship seing Shepheards do not make sheep but feed them it should only prove that you are Spiritual Fathers that convert men which private persons doe as you have heard 3. he doth not know them nor is knowne of his Sheep For of 300 perhaps he wil not acknowledg above 30. to be sheep the rest he thinketh goates the goates wil not acknowledg him as Shepheard but hate fly from him 4. he doth not lead them by sound doctryne to perfection◠but by False doctryne perverteth them from the truth which blasphemously he proclaymeth dayly in his pulpit to be Brownisme Schisme Heresy c. 5. he doth not lead them by Godly life for if the cheef part of Godlines be the true worship of God how doth he lead them in Godlines that leadeth them vp downe in your False Church Ministery VVorship Government blind fold like the men of Sodom that sought Lots dore Therefore I dare in the true feare of the Lord cal the best of you al a Spiritual theef a robber yea a VVolf that cometh to kil rob and destroy not that you so entend to doe or that you do so wilfully yet I would have you Mr. Bern. Look wel to your self for I dare not cleare you from sinninge against your conscience who have acknowledged the truth but for that you do so indeed by necessary consequent For seing you are in a False Church Ministery and vse a False worship submit to a False Government you must needes by defending al this Falsehood teaching it to others perswading them to the obedience therof perswade them to al these abhominations of Antichrist so do rob them kil them raven them like wolves theeves robbers For men may rob kil destroy ignorantly as Paul did when he was a Pharisee as I my self did when I was one of your Preists as many do in popery except you wil say that they al do sinne against their conscience Act. 3.17 1. Tim. 1.13 And heer you have a fling at our ministers wil needes have them no Lawful ministers you dare not say false this you endevour to prove bicause that we are not made Ministers by Successive ordination First Mr. Be. I tel you bicause of your importunity in this particular of ordination by Succession that if it must needes be which we deny vtterly that we have it if you have it for we were made Preists by your prelates why then do you condemne our ministery say you why do you condemne the ministery of the Church of Rome say I For if you may have a true ministery yet condemne the ministers of the Church of Rome from whence yours came then may we have a true ministery yet condemne your ministery whence ours cometh this I speake not for that I plead it but to stop your mouth For I vtterly renounce your orders which I had from Wickā prelate of Lincolne when I was chosen Fellow of Christs College in Cambridg I receaved doe retayne my ministery from that particular Church wherof I am Pastor which hath the whole powre of Christ ministeriall delegated to her from Christ her Husband when he contracted with her Secondly you neieher can nor do prove Succession in the new Testament For that which you alledg for the Succession of the old Testament I say it was typical is abolished by Christ For do you think this is a good argument one Preist begat another in the old Testament therfor one minister must ordeine another in the new Testament why may you not plead after this manner Therfor one Preist may beget another Preist in the new Testament wheras you say that Preists did consecrate preists which consecration was ther ordination I deny it vtterly I prove the contrary that during the captivity of Babilon ther were many priests borne none consecrated only for their admission in to the preists office it was requisite that they should shew their Genealogie Nehe. 7.64 65. but their ordination was their generation or byrth though I deny not but when they entered into the performance of their office ther were some rites performed which was no part of their ordination but I would know of you what is ordination is it any thing but the declaring of the partie elected approved to be in office by prayer for him a chardg given vnto him can none do this but a precedent officer Againe for the old Testament I say God created the first Preist viz Adam then til Aaron men begat Preists for the eldest in the Family were the Preists Moses who was the yonger brother no preist ordeined Aaron his Sonnes after that Preists begat preists til Christs tyme then Christ appointed officers in the Church Apostles made Evangelists Evangelists Apostles ordeyned Bbs. Deacons al this I confesse Mr. Ber. what is this to Succession in the new Testament I shew you plainly that the Church Elected Mathias ther being yet no Apostles Act. 1. ther being Apostles the Church elected Deacons Act. 6. Elders Act. 14. seing they performed election which is the contract why may they not performe all For ordination is nothing in respect of Election as you may see in al Societyes corporations whatsoever The contract which is the mutual consent of a man woman for mariage maketh man and wife before God Election which is the mutual consent of the pastor his Flock maketh a man pastor of his Flock So that in this particular Mr. Bern. you show your willfullnes and blindnes asmuch as in any thing in your book although I doubt not but it is the best that can be pleaded for Antichrist thus much for the second part of this Section The third part of this Section is that your worship is a false worship wherin as I have dealt in the two former points so wil I deale in this viz first prove the position Secondly answer your cavils To prove your worship a false worship I vse these Arguments following First Argument The true worship of the L. cannot possiblie be offered vp in a false Church The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are
false Churches Ergo. The worship offered vnto the L. in those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a false worship The ground of this argument is this that al the Ecclesiastical actions performed by a false Church are stayned with the false constitution of the church For God wil not have every communion of men worship him but he wil be worshipped by such a company of people as he hath described in his new Testament as in the old Testament no man or company of men might worship or be accepted visibly but such as were circumcized Gen. 17.14 Exod. 12.48 Deut. 23 1-4 Act. 21.28 2. King 17 25-28 Ioh. 4.22 So in the new Testament no man or communion of men visiblie can be accepted of the L. but such as are described in the new Testament viz. men Seperated from al the abhominations of Antichrist 2. Cor. 6.17 gathered into the name of Christ Iesus Mat. 18.20 being made Disciples have receaved baptisme whereby they are counited into Christ Mat. 28.19 If any communion of men otherwise constituted viz men not Seperated not gathered together not gathered into Christs name not made Disciples not baptized truely with the baptisme of the new Testament if any such company of men do worship God ther worship is not accepted of God but as the L. sent Lyons among the Samaritanes for persuming to worship him in the land of Israel they being an vncircumcized coÌ„pany 2. King 17.24.25 as the L. punished the vagabond Iewes exorcists by the violence of an evil Spirit for naming the L. Iesus being an vnbeleeving vnbaptized company Act. 19 13-17 even so wil the L. be avenged on al them that joyning together to worship God have not Seperated themselves or calling vppon the name of the Lord do not depart froÌ„ iniquity 2. Cor. 6.17 2. Tim. 2.19 neither wil it serve to say that the worship is true bicause it is true conceaved prayer or true preaching or thanksgiving For true worship must be defined not only in the matter but cheefly in the forme For otherwise among the Antichristian papists Heretiques ther is true conceaved prayer preaching thaÌ„ks giving els in the old Testament ther was true Sacrificing among the Babylonians wheÌ„ they Sacrificed an oxe to the God of Israel Dan. 6.25.26 whereas it was manifested that no Sacrifice could be accepted that was offered with straunge fire Levit. 10.1.2 there for the Sacrifices of the Babylonians must needes be abhominable though the matter was true bicause the forme which cheefly consisted in the fire was false So though the matter of the worship of the new Testament be true viz conceaved prayer preaching praising God yet bicause it proceedeth not from the true fire which is alwayes living vppon the Altar Levit. 6 9-13 at Ierusalem that is in the true Church and Temâ—â—e of God bicause it is not inflamed by the true Spirit of Christ the true visible annoynting which is only in the true body the true Church Ephes 4.4 For there is one body and one Spirit Therefore the worship is not true worship visibly what it may be inuisibly I dispute not nor doe not censure at all but leave to the Lord and to every conscience The Second Argument The worship that is offered vp vnto the L. by a false Ministerie is a false worship ceÌ„ not visibly be judged true or accepted The worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is offered vp by a false ministery as hath been proved already Ergo the worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is a false worship cannot visibly be judged true or accepted The ground of this Argument is the same with the former wherefore as in the old Testament the worship that was performed in Israel by the Preists of Ieroboams devising which were not of the Linage genealogie of Aaron was a false worship could not be accepted visibly or be judged as accepted judging by the rules of the word 1. King 12 31-33 and as the inceÌ„se which Azariah the King of Iudah would have offered could not be accepted or so judged bicause it was not offered by the true Preists the Sonnes of Aaron 2. Chron. 26 16-22 and the King was punished with Leprosy for his presumption So al the worship which is offered vp vnto the Lord by a false ministery is visibly to be judged abhominable bicause Christ only offered vp to his Father the worship of the worshippers which his new Testament hath described no other Rev. 8.3.4 coÌ„pared with Revel 5 8-10 11.1 stil let it be remembred that I dispute not nor censure not the invisible things of the Lord. The third Argument Iewish that is literal stinted imposed book-worship is false worship The worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is Iewish that is literal stinted imposed boom-worship Ergo the worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is a false worship The ground of this argument is the Analogie and proportion which ther is betwixt the type and the truth the shadow and the substance the lettre and the Spirit the Old Testament with the ordinances therof the new Testament with the ordinances there of For seing the old Testament was a type of the new therfor the Church ministery worship government of the old Testament were types of the Church ministery worship government of the new Testament therfor the worship of the old testameÌ„t being lyteral beginning in the lettre as was carnal circumcision Rom. 2.29 did type forth the worship of the new Testament to beginne in the Spirit Ioh. 4.23.24 For the Lettre was a type of the Spirit Col. 2.17 Seing therfor that Reading the Law was a typical ordinance of the old Testament therfor literal stinted manifesting the letter book-worship it followeth that it is now abolished by Christ the thing signified by the literal Reading is now to be retayned in the new testament which is vttering matter out of the hart called the manifestation of the Spirit the demonstration of the Spirit the ministring of the Spirit the like by which phrases of Speech the Holy Ghost would teach vs that seing we are fet at liberty from the bondage of the law which was a Schoolmr to leade to Christ we are not therfor againe to be intangled with the yoke of bondage in any thing no not in this matter of stinted literal book worship which is flat ludaismâ— but we being placed in the liberty of the Spirit are to vse our gifts in Gods worship as the spirit giveth vtterance as we see the Apostles practised vppon the day of Pentecost when the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled vppon them as we see the Church of Counth practised 1. Cor. 14.15.16.26 12 7-â—1 He that desireth to know further of this particular of book-worship let him read the book lately published intituled The differences of the Churches of the Seperation wher this point is largely discussed which if it be the truth
wel to follow the Holy Ghosts prophecy Revel 17.16 even to make the whore of Babylon desolate and naked to eate her Flesh and burne her with fire and not to suffer her wares that is her vessels of wood Ivory Brasse Iron marble to be bought any more which I am perswaded shal in due tyme be accomplished that as the goodly buildings of the Abbayes Monasteries Nunries are already destroyed made barnes stables swineslyes jakes so shal it be done with al the Idol Temples when the howre of their visitation shal come whereas you object for the justifying of the vse of the Idol Temples that seing Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God that therfor when the Idol Temples were built the Church took possession of them to keep possession for the Lord in his creatures therby concluding a lawful vse of them now for the Church restored I answer you your ground is faulty therfor your building tottereth the place of the Apostle 2. Thes 2.4 wher it is said that Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of God is falsely by you conceaved interpreted for it doth not import that as you would have it Antichrists Church the true Church of Christ are one the same that the same company of men can be and are both the true visible Church of Christ at that same tyme the Church of Antichrist this is impossible for the true Church is not the false Church But this is the meaning viz either that Antichrist shal sitt in the consciences of men which is properly the Temple of God Or that Antichrist shall arise vp out of that company of men which once were the Temple of God as Rome was or that the Church being true in the constitution Antichrist shal foyst into it by litle and litle his false ministery VVorship and Government as experience teacheth he hath done For a true Church may have Antichristian ordinances retayned raised vp in it this being the true meaning of the Apostle how can you hence conclude soundly that the true Church tooke possession of the Temples which the false Church of Antichrist built Seing the true Church is not the false Church seing that the temples were built in the palpable darknes of grosse popery some of them perhaps dedicated to heathen Idols some of them to Antichristian Idols as ther Hee shee Saints al of them to Devils For if Ieroboams Preists were appointed for Devils 2. Chron. 11.15 if the Antichristian preists are the Spirit of Devils Revel 16.14 the worship of Antichristians the worship of Devils Revel 9.20 the Antichristian Churches the habitation of Devils Revel 18.2 then the Temples are dedicated to Devils not that they intended so to dedicate them but for that they are so indeed the Lord accounting that to be done to the Devil which is not done to him as he hath commaunded the Devill substituting himself in Gods place when men go a whoring after ther owne inventions Therefor the Apostle saith plainly that the Gentils Sacrifice to Devils 1. Cor. 10.20 to conclude this point therfor so to leave you to meditate vppon these things Seing the Gentils Sacrifice to Devils seing the Antichristians worship Devils seing Ieroboams preists were appointed for Devils yet al these intended to worship God even the true God then it followeth that though the Antichristians did intend to dedicate their Temples to the true God which yet is not granted neverthelesse they were dedicated to Devils therfor are to be raced downe converted to the habitation of Iim Zijm Satyres Shrich â—â—yles Raveas as the Prophet speaketh Esay 34 8-15 The eighteenth Section Your first point now commeth in the last place to be considered viz. 1. In seperating from al the reformed Churches you say we do il Let vs consider what we hold Surely we say the Churches are of two sorts false Churches such as yours of worksop is al others of like fashion 2. true Churches those also of two sorts pure wherin no open knowne sinne is suffered corrupt wherin some one or more knowne sinne is tolerated to the true Churches which are pure wee may wil joyne to the true Churches which are corrupt we cary our selves thus First we labor to discover their faults vnto them admonishing them to reforme which wee are bound to doe bicause they are our brethren Secondly if they wil not reforme after we have convinced their errors vnto them we depart from them lest wee should partake with their sinnes this is our judgment practise if you can reprove it let vs heer from you wee pray you Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the eighteenth Section Heer I desire the Gentle Reader not to be offended that wee endevouring to walk in the liberty of the gospel do not tie our selves to any Church or Churches whatsoever but only to the rules of Gods word therfor howsoever it may seem odious that wee Seperate from al churches yet the causses being indifferently considered the matter wil seme reasonable for we Seperate from al Churches vppon several reasons 1. From some such as are the English Churches we Seperate for the Falsehood of them that is a just cause in any indifferent mans judgment 2. from other such as are the Reformed Churches wee Seperate not for that they are false but for that being true they are corrupt herein our Seperation is not total but for a tyme til we have performed our dutyes vnto them wheÌ„ we have therfor admonished them of their corruptions they repent then we joyne in communion with them if they repent not wee leave them to the Lord we must needes keep our selves vnspotted take heed that we partake not with other mens sinnes The nintenth Section And now Mr. Bern. suffer me a litle to deale with you as with one of whome I have thought so wel as I have done it greeveth my Soule for you to see you so straungely seduced by Sathan so violently carryed in your boysterous robustious disposition against the truth the professors therof it hath greeved me heretofore to see you arrogant proud ambitious cariage preferring your self in place before men both more auncient holy learned then your self in the judgment of al that know you them it hath greeved mee to hear such calumnies as you have in the bitternes of your wrath vttered against divers of vs which I could relate to your eternal infamy but I spare you it hath greeved me to heare your formality that you are become an absolute conformitaÌ„t in judgment that you would be so in practise if some persons hindered you not it greeveth me exceedingly to see some Letters of yours wherein you your Disciples lying at the advantage take all things in the evil part pervert misconstrue mens writings manifesting therein much perversnes of Spirit it greeveth mee above all that you should support the
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
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
for their God so are the Church of the new Testament Mr. Bern. this point is cleerer then can be denyed al the world can never be able to overthrow it the vnderstanding feeling whereof I do â—artily wish vnto your soule to al the vpright harted of the Land The Fifth Argument They that are the true matter of the Church of the new Testament shall be invested with the true forme of the new Testament they that have true matter forme have the true property which ariseth from the vnion of matter forme that is Christs ministerial powre to assume al the meanes of their edification to Salvation so by consequent the ministery Two or thre Faithful people are the true matter of the true Church of the new Testament therfor have the true forme or covenant of the new Testament induced vppon them so being a Church subsisting of true matter forme have the true property arising from the vnion of the matter forme viz the powre of our L. Iesus Christ to assume vse al the meanes of their edification to salvation so by consequent have powre to assume the ministery Ergo two or thre Faithful people being a true Church may create that is Elect approve ordeyne their owne officers And this may suffice for the proof of this point The Fourtenth Section And so I passe to another point which is you Fourtenth viz. 14. That baptisme is not administred among vs simply into the Faith of Christ but into the faith of the Bbs. or the Church of England This point you say is also erroneous let vs consider of it I pray you seriously I would know into what Faith they are baptized if not into the Faith of the church of England they are members of the Church of England they professe the Faith of the Church of England are they not then baptized into that Faith of the Church wherof they stand as members of which Faith they make profession are they baptized into one Faith and do they professe another Faith or do you think that the Faith of Christ the Faith of the Church of Engeland are not one me thinkes Mr. Bern. you lay a fowle imputation vppon your Church in holding that the Faith of the Church of England is not the faith of Christ that baptisme is not administred into the Faith of the Church of England respectively but into the faith of Christ simply I dare say your Lords the Prelates wil coÌ„ you litle thank for this geare but let vs consider of your Faiths The Prelates Church of England have one Faith wherto they Subscribe The Puritanes their Faction have an other Faith for they wil not Subscribe to the Prelates Faith Christ wee of the Seperation have a third Faith for we wil Subscribe neither to the Bbs. Faith nor the Puritanes Faith but to the Faith of Christ indefinitely comprehended in the Holy Scriptures Heer now are thre Faiths thre Churches so thre baptismes But the time Faith is one the true Church is one the true baptisme one Therfor you we have not both the true Faith Church baptisme but we approve vnto you our Faith church baptisme to be true therfor your Faith Church baptisme is false so certainly it is For whosoever have stinted their covenant limited their repentance abridged their Faith have a false Faith Covenant Repentance but you in your assemblies have your Covenant Faith repentance at the wil of the Prelates you dare not covenant and practise al that you know but walk in violating of the whole Kingdom of Christ are mingled among al the refuse of the Land in your Church worship communion of holy things therfor your Repentance Faith Covenant is false your church false your Ministerie false your worship false your baptisme false the Lords Supper false al false heer give me leave to advertise you to look to your selves that know the wil of God doe not nor dare not practise as you know I wish you consider your own doctryne that whosoever liveth in any open knowne sinne hath no grace but you live in open known sinnes For you know you should reforme many things which you doe not nor cannot seing you want the Censures how then can you perswade vs that your repentance is true that your faith is true you plead you have a true ministery bicause you conuert soules you convert soules a pace do you not when you convert them to your falfe repentance false Faith false Church false Ministery false VVorship false Government is this the conversion wherby you would prove your ministery not only to live in your false repentance covenant Faith Church vnder your false Ministery Government but to reject oppose the truth that with such slaunderous lying courses as we heare of you you must affoard vs better evidences of your Faith repentance of your true ministerie or els we hold them al false Consider what I say Mr. Bern. the Lord give you vnderstanding in al things Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the Fourteenth Section Against this Section of my Lettre Mr. Ber. taketh exception in two particulars pa. 252. of the Sep. Schisme accounting them both errors 1. that baptisme is not administred into the Faith of Christ simply but into the Faith of Bbs. or Church of England so say I 2. That our Faith and repentance is a false Fayth and a false repentance so say I of their visible Fayth not speaking of things secreat Mr. Ainsw confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 159. accounteth both those imputations of Mr. Bern. vncharitable collections and caluminations Seing Mr. Ainsw doth renounce them I wil therefore vndertake the defence of them vnto whom they aperteyne and heer I wish the Reader to observe whither it lay not vppon mee justly to answer Mr. Beâ—n whose whole book in the essential parts of it was directed against this lettre of myne as may evidently be perceaved as in the whole tenor of it so especially in these two particulars against which he excepteth in this Section Now for the first let vs consider the intendment of the baptizer How the Ministers of the Church of England intend their baptisme How the law of the Land intendeth baptisme how the Service-book intendeth directeth baptisme how the parents Susceptors or Suretyes do demaund baptisme consent to baptisme administred vppon the conceaving of these particulars the baptisme must be censured now if al these intend definitely that Faith which is by law established in the Land that the partie is baptized into that Faith which they intend it wil follow necessarily that baptisme is administred not simply indefinitely into the Faith of Christ but particularly definitely into that Faith which the Bbs. the Church of England do teach professe For which consideration an argument may be framed thus Into that