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
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
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
Protestants are prospered in their course Ergo The English Protestants have the truth I answer That this is false doctrine For the wiseman saith Eccles 9 1-3 That prosperity or adversity are no signes of love or hatred Ierem. 12.1 2. that the wicked are in prosperity and 1. Pet. 4.17 judgment beginneth at Gods howse This your reason therfor is most absurd false is fit to breed Atheisme overthrow the whole truth of the Scriptures but let vs see what judgments are vppon the Seperation you frame them thus If Mr. Bolton that Apostated did hang himself if Mr. Harison Mr. Browne did differ one fel back if Mr. Barrow Mr. Greenwood for calling you serpents generations of Wipers were martyred by the persecuting Prelates if Mr. Iohnson pronounced excommunication against his brother if the Church excommunicated the Father if Mr. Burnet died of the Plague if Mr. Smyth was delivered twise from the Pursivant was sick allmost to death doubted of the Seperation for 9. monethes space then the Seperation is not the truth But al these things befel Mr. Bolton Mr. Browne Mr. Harison Mr. Iohnsons Mr. Burnet Mr. Smyth Ergo The seperation is not the truth I answer The Churches of England have had thousand thousands of such accidents as these are befalling their Officers and Leaders and yet as it were folly in vs to alledg them against you as the Papists doe so it is no wisdom but weaknes of judgment in you to mention them in your book against vs VVhat is it good reasoning to say Iudas hanged himself Christ was Crucified for blasphemy Demas embraced the world Nicholas the Deacon proved an Heretique Paull and Barnabas fel out Paull chardged Peter and Barnabas with dissembling Peter denyed Christ All the Apostles were put to death for heresy Ergo the Christian Religion is 〈◊〉 bee false yours false yet this is your goodly reason if this bee a good argument wher is your Faith 〈◊〉 But in this Likelyhood you have a sting at me in particular Mr. Ber. charging me with divers vntruths which I wil manifest 1. That I doubred 9 months I acknowledg but that ever I did acknowledg the seperation for truth seperated from the English assemblies then returned againe vnto them which you say I do vtterly deny I appeale to the towne of Ganesbrugh those ther that knew my footesteps in this matter therfor herein I indite you as a publique slaunderer 2. VVhereas you say I became satisfied at Coventree after conference had with certayne Ministers and herevppon kneeled downe and praised God I answer I did not conferre with them about the seperation as you they know wel inough in your consciences but about withdrawing from true Churches Ministers and VVorship corrupted VVherein I receaved no satisfaction but rather thought I had given instruction to them and for kneeling downe to praise God I confesse I did being requested to performe the duty at night after the conference by the Ministers but that I praised God for resolution of my doubts I deny to death and you therein are also a slaunderer I praised God for the quiet peaceable conference such like matters desired pardon of the L. for ignorances errors weaknes of judgment any disordered caryage if the ministers that heard my prayers praises of God did misconstiue my meaning let them look vnto it 3. VVhereas you impute an absurdity to mee as yet vnanswered viz that I should affirme the spit whereon the passeove was rosted was the Altar I say seing the passeover was a sacrifice Marc. 14.12 that every sacrifice hath an altar either the spit was the altar or els it had no altar Now â—el me which is the Likeliest of the two if this be a reasonable speech that the wooden crosse was the Altar whereon Christ was sacrified why may not by a good reason the spit be the altar of the passeover the sacrifice was not slayne vppon the altar but it was burnt vppon the altar so that was not the altar wherevppon the passeover was killed but wherevppon it was burnt or rosted Mr. Bern. I doe confidently affirme against you that the spit was as much the altar to the passeover as the crosse was an altar to Christ let me heare what you in your best Logick can say against it The 7. Likelyhood against the Sep. is framed thus The truth increaseth in short space into a multitude The Seperation doth not increase but is kept vnder Ergo the Seperation is not the truth I answer you Mr. Bern. that this is but a popish argument Christ saith his Flock is but a litle Flock but how very many yeeres hath the cause of the Seperation had il successe Forsooth 20. or 30. yeeres alas as Mr. Be. what increase hath the Prelacy gotten in the world this hundreth veeres they say that is the truth against the Presbytery what increase hath puritanisme gotten this 20. or 30. yeeres in England yet they say that is the truth against the Prelacy is not the cause of the Reformists almost dead and buryed but know Mr. Bern. that the cause of the Seperation being the same in the mayne groundes and essentiall parts with the Reformed Churches it hath had infinite increase ever since Luthers tyme and whereas you object heer that wee leave our country without leave I answer that you know the Law of the Land doth banish vs all and if Abraham did lawfully passe from one country to another people Iâ—se no reason that wee may not doe so though Israel could not get from Egipt nor Iudah from Babylon being deteyned by violence in captivity yet the Lord in working ther deliverance declareth that he will have his people depart wher they may freely professe it without let or disturbance besides you doe pervert the Prophet Ezechiell his speeeh Cap. 3.6 For was not Ionas sent to Nineveh were not the Iewes caryed into captivity were not the Apostle sent to al Nations did al the Corinths speak with straunge Tonges is it vnlawful to send men to convert the Pagans but the meaning of Ezechiell is that though the Iewes vnderstand his preaching yet they wil not beleeve the straungers viz them of Tyrus Sidon as Christ saith would sooner beleeve him then the Iewes for a Prophet is not without honor save in his owne country so the place is misconstrued by you Finally whereas you object that the L. leaveth a curse behind vs in the Land I say that is an argument that it is the truth we professe which bicause it is not intertained doth therfor prove the savour of death vnto death and hardeneth the hart of that people where it hath been offered and is refused thus much breefly of your froth In the next place you bring vs reasons of more force then bare probabilityes wherby you confesse that your 7. Likelyhoods are of litle force which I desire
vs moraly Spiritually Now I doe confesse vnto you that by ther typical Church ministery worship government Spiritual things were signified both for them for vs For them the morality or Spiritual signification was double viz 1. that the Lord required that they should be that indeed which was typed vnto them els they could not be accepted 2. That in them they ought to see as in a glasse the glorious condition of the Church ministerie worship government of the new Testament which were shadowed out by those ceremonies For vs the moral or Spiritual signification is that except we be correspondent in our constitution ministerie worship Government to those types of the old Testament our constitution ministerie worship government is either jewish or paganish therfor Antichristian Herevppon thus may I reason against you most soundly therin you Mr. Bern. shal have your mouth so stopped as that you shal never be able to reply or once to mutter against the truth any more except you have a cauterized conscience viz. If in the Old Testament ther visible typical communion was typically polluted by typical ceremonial vncleannes vncleansed Then in the New Testament our Spiritual visible communion is really poluted by moral vncleanenes vncleansed that is sinne vnrepented of But in the old Testament ther visible typical coÌ„munion was typicaly poluted by the typical ceremonial vncleanes vncleansed Therfor in the new testament our visible Spiritual coÌ„munion is realy poluted by moral vncleanes vncleansed that is sinne vnrepented of The major cannot be denyed for it is a just analogie proportion from the type to the truth from the shadow to the substance The minor is evidently confirmed by these places of Scripture compared together Nomb. 19.13.20 Hag. 2.14 Act. 21.28.29 Againe If in the old Testament the persons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes we excluded from the tabernacle or the host of Israel then in the new Testament persons morally vncleane by impenitency during the tyme of ther impenitency must be excluded from the communion and fellowship of the true visible Church But in the old Testament persons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes were excluded from the tabernacle or host of Israel as may be seen Nomb. 5 2-4 12.14.15 2. Chron. 26.21 Terfor in the New Testament persons morally vncleane by impenitency during the tyme of ther impenitency must be excluded from the communion of the true visible Church But I shal have better occasion hereafter namely in the 8. Section to manifest this particular whither I referre the reader Breeflie I answer concerning David his suffering of loabs murther The Kings of Iudah suffering the brasen Serpent to be worshipped the high places Moses giving the bill of divoice that eyther they knew them not to be sinne or if they knew theÌ„ that they were polluted therwith by consent but yet ther typical communion was not defiled ther by if they were ceremonialy cleane they therfor being typicaly Saynts were true matter of the typical Church for the Church of Corinth the Churches of Asia I answere that they were not impenitent in sinne so were Saynts For know you that not sinne but impenitency in sinne maketh meÌ„ a false matter of a church making saynts no saynts Now how can you prove that either the Corinthians or the Churches of Asia were impenitent after once twise admonition I think it passeth your skil to prove that therfor I think this second objection of yours to be idle of no value Your third objection reason is that the places of Scripture which we bring declare what men ought to be not what men are you say we cannot conclude from the places of Scripture we bring that bicause men are commaunded so to be therfor if they be not so they are none of Gods people To this objection reason I answer that hereby you confesse that the L. requireth that al the members of the visible Church should be Saynts whence I also conclude that seing they ought so to be therfor if they be not so they are otherwise then they ought to be so by consequent if the Church be framed of those that are not Saynts it is framed of another matter then the Scripture appointeth I would know if that be not a false matter Moreover I avouch flatly contradictory vnto you that if men be not as God commaundeth they are none of his people but you are to know that true repentance is the true tryal of a Saynt or of one of Gods people impenitency is an evident declaration that the partie therwith affected is none of Gods people Therfor you must observe the difference betwixt the commaundements Legal Evangelical The commaundements legal require absolute obedience in the highest degres therof The gospell requireth true vnfeyned repentance in the best degre we can aford I would not have you think that wee imagine men should beframed in obedience absolutely according to the exactnes of the low For wee are not vnder the law no wee only hold that men must in vnfeyned desire endevour yeld obedience to the law repent of al that wherin they are defective this is the obedience of the gospel which is acceptable for wee are vnder grace wherfor Mr. Bern. if you doe conceave that we intend the most perfect obedience of the law as a proper adjunct or formall difference of a Saynt you are very grosse in your apprehension if you conceave that we entend that men should be absolutely according to the gospel in faith repentance or els to be none of Gods people then your conceipt is true fit but your objection is frivolous ridiculous For then men either are so or none of Gods people this doth our places of Scripture which we quote prove for any thing you yet have manifested to the contrary when wee see you manifest otherwise you shal receave answer in the meane tyme you have discovered your self to be but a wrangler Your fourth objection reason is for that Saints in Scripture are not so called 1. eyther for soundnes of knowledg 2. or internal pure affection 3. or holy practise of their duty alwayes But 1. For their outward calling to Christianity 2. For their profession of faith 3. inâ—espect of their baptisme 4. in regard of the better part 5. or in respect of the visible signes of Gods favour 6. Gods good pleasure I answer you thus you deny three things affirme six I doe poremptorily deny your three negatives I constantly affirme that sound knowledg pure affections continual obedience are most pregnant and couvertible properties off true Sanctification Soundnes of knowledg is a proper note of life Eternall Iohn 17.3 Heb. 8.11 so a true note of Sanctification Tit. 1.16 that which you bring of Christs Disciples being ignorant of many things which we acknowledg is
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
committeth against his brother now to hate his brother by suffering sinne to rest vppon him not to admonish bring him to repentance is a greevous sinne of one man against his brother so it is a very greevous hatred for a man to suffer the whole Church vnreformed from sinne therfor by this place or Christ you gaine nothing but rather leese the cause which is hereby confirmed viz that til a man doe his duty to the vtmost to his brethren he cannot offer his gift now his vtmost duty is either to bring him to repentance or to leave him impenitent al them that justifie his sinne in their impeniteÌ„cy so in the violation of the holy things For they being al poluted with his sinne have deprived themselves of title powre to the holy things so vsing them doe violate them al that partake with them therin partake with sinne shall receave of their judgments The place 1. Cor. 11.28 is also against you For the Apostle willeth the Corinths to examine themselves how they have performed their duty to God their brethren in the first second table finding themselves to be cleere then to eate drinck otherwise finding our selves to faile in that commaundement Mat. 14 15-17 wee are poluted by contagion cannot eate drinck without hurt judgment bicause we have not judged our selves aright But your last place Mr. Ber. is somthing to the purpose viz. 2. Cor. 12.21 13.1.2 compared together for I wil help to vrge your argument then give you an answer Your argument may thus be framed If the Corinths might without sinne have communion with the Church of the Corinths after they were once twise admonished did not repent then may we have communion with persons obstinate impenitent in the holy things without sinne in vs. But the Corinths had communion with the Church of Corinth poluted with sin after once twise admonition without sinne Ergo we may have communion with persons obstinate in sinne in the holy things without sinne in vs. This is the force of your reason wherto I answer that you must prove your minor For it is weake the places of Scripture do not confirme it For you must know that the latter Epistle to the Corinths was the second admonition as may be seen 2. Cor. 13.2 before the despising of the second admonition they could not be judged obstinate impenitent in sinne now for the ful sufficient confirmation of your minor you should prove vnto vs two things First that the Corinths did despise Pauls second admonition in this his second Epistle Secondly that if they did despise this his second admonition the faithful among the Corinths did keep communion without sinne with that poluted obstinately impenirent company now bicause I know this is to hard a task for you I will therefore conclude that this argument of yours is insufficient to prove your purpose Your last least reasoÌ„ wherby you endevour to prove it lawful to vse the holy things though obstinate impenitent sinners be present in communion is that Gods commaundement must be obeyed absolutely another mans sinne cannot dissolve the bond of allegiance betwixt God man which our position seemeth as you pretend to dissolve seing we say that a man must not keep communion in the holy things if wicked men be present in communion with vs To this argument I answer thus viz that God indeed commaundeth vs to pray heare the word communicate in the Sacraments but he also prescribeth both the persons wherwith the manner how we must performe these actions prayer hearing the word partaking in the Sacraments are actions of communion ther is in the preformance of them a manner of doing modus agendi to be observed wee must therfor respect two things in performing these actions of Religion First that our communion be such as it ought to be for I may not keep communion with Iewes Turks Pagans Papists but with Christians viz true Christians such as the new Testament describeth ought to be members of the visible Church which is the mystical body of Christ Secondly that the actions of our communion be performed after that holy manner order as the new Testament of Christ teacheth as that prayer be conceaved not read out of a service book that prophecy come out of the hart not be read out of a book as Homilies be that baptisme be administred simply as Christ teacheth without Godfathers the crosse questions to infants that the L. Supper be vsed sitting not kneeling finaly that al the parts of worship be clensed according to the primitive institution not vsed with those polutions which the man of sinne hath cast vppon them breefly we must worship God with the meanes he hath apointed as the 2. coÌ„maundemeÌ„t teacheth after the maÌ„ner he hath taught as the third commaundement informeth otherwise ther is idolatry committed in violating the second commaundement worshipping God by other meanes then he hath ordemed profanation of the name of God in violating the third commaundement when his ordinances are not so vsed as he hath prescribed So that to speak directly to your objection the bond of alleageance betwixt God vs is preserved kept inviolable by our position for we teach that men must pray heare the word receave the Sacraments but in a true visible communion of Sains as the Lord hath appointed not with al manner of persons as theeves muâ—derers witches conjurers Papists Atheists Dronkards perjured persons c. as in your Church nor after your manner which is devised by man as Ieroboam devised in Israel but as the Lord hath in the new Testament taught vnto vs. And heer Mr. Bern. you take vppon you to reduce the places of Scripture which wee alledg for Seperation from your assemblies to certaine topical or categorical heads so give them answer according to your fashion as thus the places that forwarne Gods people to Seperate vnder the law are thus to be taken 1. From idols of false Gods as Israel from heathenish Gods 2. From Idols of the true God as Indah from Israels calves 4. From persons ceremonially polluted The places vrging Seperation vnder the Gospel are thus to be taken 1. From lewes not receaving Christ but rayling against him 2. From Gentils without Christ 3. From Antichrist vnder the shew of Christ persecuting Christians 4. From familiar companying with excommunicates or wicked men But say you what are al these places to vs who are not vnder any of these heads of reference I answer you Mr. Ber. that your Church is respectively vnder al these topical places which you mention excepting the first For 1. you make Idols of the true God in setting vp your own inventions making Christ a King Preist Prophet as you jmagine 2. you ought much more to Seperate from persons morally vncleane if the lewes ought to