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
think that the Lord accepteth of a false saith ministery baptisme prayer preaching excommunication the rest make these things agree Mr. Bern. if you can if you cannot cease your scoffing give glory vnto God I demaund of you do you think that God accepteth the prayers Religious exercises of the Papists the Arrians the Anabaptists the Familists or any other heretiques or Antichristians if not what is the true cause that God accepteth them not is it not for that ther is not that true communioÌ„ of the Saynts there the true Church the true spouse of Christ the Spiritual Temple where God hath provised his presence So then it followeth invincibly that a tiue constitution of a church that is a true communion of Saynts is that only lawful religious society or communion of men wherby God wil be honoured wherin he wil be served wherto he hath promised his presence acceptance as conventicles are vnlawful assemblies of men in civil states so are al false churches vnlawful ecclesiastical assemblies the actions therein performed vnlawful so abhominable in the sight of God the summe of all 〈◊〉 breefly thus much That communion of men wherto God hath given the covenant the Holy things the promises Christ for King Preist Prophett is only accepted their Ecclosiasticall actions only acceptable But a true visible church that is a communion of Saynts joyned together in the true covenant is that only communion of meÌ„ wherto God hath given his covenant his promises his holy things Christ for King Preist Prophet Therfor a true visible church that is a communion of Saynts their actions ecclesiastical as preaching prayers c. are only accepted by consequent on the contrary 〈◊〉 inserre thus That communion of men wherto God hath not given the covenant the holy things the promises Christ for King Preist Prophet is not accepted of God neither their actions ecclesiastical are acceptable A Church falsely constituted as in the old Testament was the Apostate church of the ten tribes in the new Testament is the churches of Antichrist is such a communion of men wherto God hath not given the covenant the holy things the promises Christ for King Preist Prophet Therfor a church falsely constituted is not accepted of God neither are their actions ecclesiastical as prayer preaching c. acceptable in the sight of God Herevppon I conclude not as Mr. Bern. blasphemously scoffeth that the Idol or Goddesse constitution but that the true constitution of a Church which is the Lords Holy ordinaÌ„ce is that which Sanctifieth al ecclesiastical actions that a false idolatrous Antichristian constitution of a church corrupteth polluteth stayneth al the ecclesiastical actions of that false church So saith the Apostle vnto the pure al things are pure but vnto them that are defiled vnbeleeving is nothing pure Tit. 1.15 this is my welbeloved sonne saith the Father from heaven in whome I am wel pleased Mat. 3.17 God heareth not synners but only the true worshippers Ioh. 9.31 Finally I avouch that a falsely constituted church is a greater more abhominable Idol then any Idol that possibly can be in a true church For a false worship Ministery government may be indeed in a true Church through ignorance the like occasions But a true ministerie worship government cannot possiblie be in a false Church For the true Ministerie worship Government are the Holy things of God which are not given to false Churches but only to the true Churches of Christ the true communion of Saynts a false Church being an Idol doth conveigh her idolatrous false constitutioÌ„ as a poison through all her Ecclesiasticall actions or workes off communion Breefly therefore to compare True False Idols Ordinances together Bonum quâ— communius eo melius Malum quo communius eo peius They are two maximes true in nature experience so also in Religion Truth ordinances the more common vniversal the better more excellent Falsehood Idols the more common generall the worse more pernitious For example a true Church better then a true worship then a true Ministery then a true government c. A false Church worse then a false worship then a false Munistery then a false government c. For a true Church is the first most noble vniversal in Religion from whence al the rest issue as a streame from the Fountayne a false Church is the first most ignoble general qualifying al the ecclesiastical actions of the Church with her owne falsehood idolatry Therfor I am bould to pronounce your false idolatrous Church constitutioÌ„ to be worse then your false Ministerie worse then your false worship worse then your false government c. on the contrary our true constitution to be the most honorable beautiful ornament of our Church more glorious then our true Ministerie worship government sith these latter issue do flow from the former as from the spring â—r Fountayne A true man may have a wooden legg an eye of glasse So a true Church may have a false ministery worship or government A man carved out of wood cannot possiblie have any truth of a man in him but al his parts limmes are wooden eveÌ„ as the image is of wood So a false Church can have nothing true in it but al is false idolatrous vsurped for what agreement hath Christ with Belial These things are playne enough to them that will vnderstand The fourth Section Your ninth position followeth viz 9. That those which are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Christs Kingdome This you hold error I hold it truth which I wil manifest vnto you most evidently The true Church in the Scripture is called the house of God Heb. 3.6 The Temple of God which the L. inhabiteth wherin he walketh 2. Cor. 6.16 The household of fayth Gal. 6.10 the body of Christ Eph. 4.15.16 The Kingdome of heaven of Christ of God Eph. 5.5 Mat. 3.2 Luk. 19.11.12 Act. 1.3 Further this true Church is but of one shape forme fashion or constitution Eph. 4.4 The body that is the Church is one that is of one shape For one in that place signfieth vnum specie not vnum numero for ther are many Churches in nomber but one true Church in the frame or constitution Let this therfor be set downe for an invincible truth that the true visible Church is the Kingdome of Christ wher Christ the King only ruleth raigneth in his owne lawes officers over his owne subjects al those that wil not be subiects to this King in this his Kingdome he accunteth his enemies wil have them slayne before his face Luk. 19.27 Hence then it followeth that those that are not members of a true constituted Church are not subjects of Christs Kingdome which you say is error wherin you see
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
not truly as I have expounded vnto you before in respect whereof also the Lord is said to see no iniquity in Iacob nor transgression in Israel Nomb. 23 21-seing that people at that present was typically Holy so typically without imputation of iniquity in respect of their typical communion And for the Parable Mat. 13. of the wheate tares I doe constantly avouch that though you al divines with you doe expound it of open wicked impenitent persons Saints supposed in communion together yet the parable is wrested from the true purpose of Christ who doth not intend to teach that for then he should teach contrary to himself who by the parable of the Leaven declareth that one wicked persone defileth the whole lump Mat. 13.33 compared with 1. Cor. 5.6 Exod. 12.18 And wheâ—eas in the conclusion of this point pag. 88. you would prove that bicause the auncient Church of the Seperation have as you say wicked men among them therfor the parable Mat. 13. is truly expounded in that sense of a mixture of good bad I say for that point as the parents of the blind man said they are auncient enough lett them answer for themselves And thus have I ended this parallele with you Mr. Bern. concerning Mr. Ainsworth who renounceth this Holy truth of the Lords which I have thus clered I say hereby he renounceth the saith in this particular renounceth the Apostles testimony who saith they went out from vs they were not of vs for had they been of vs they would have continued with vs 1. Ioh. 2.19 The seaventh Section Now followeth you fifth position which you also perswade your selfe to be an error and which being wel expounded I account the vndoubted truth viz. 5. That the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principal members therof These are your wordes I hold maintayne out of the word that a coÌ„pany of faithful people Seperated from al vncleanenes joyned together by a covenant of the L. are a true Church yea though they be but two or three So Adam Hevah were a Church so Lot his wife his daughters were a Church So Noah his family in the Ark were a church So the twelve men at Ephesus were a Church Act. 19.7 So in Q. Maries dayes the Martyrs seperated were a church if but two or thre of them lived together That this is a truth I prove vnto you thus 2. Cor. 6 16-18 with whome God maketh his covenant to be ther God whome he receaveth to be his people they are a Temple that is a Church vnto him vs 16. But two or three faithful people comming forth from the vnbeleevers being Seperated touching no vneleane thing are Gods people God with them maketh his covenant they are his sonnes daughters he is their Father vs 16.17.18 Therfor two or three faithful people are the Temple and Church of God The Premisses are evidently delivered in the Scripture therfor the conclusion foloweth necessarily Mat. 18.20 wher two or thre are gathered together into my name ther am I in the mids of them In the mids of whomsoever Christ doth dwel walk they are a true Church of Christ Even his Temple Tabernacle habitation as these Scriptures teach being compared together Mat. 28.20 2. Cor. 6.16 Levit 26.11.12 But among two or three gathered together by love into the name of Christ by faith Christ is present to dwel walk Mat. 18.20 2. Cor. 6.16 compared together Therefor two or three faithful people are the Temple Church of God I could alledg other Scriptures but two or three witnesses are sufficient Remember for this point that the covenant made with Adam Abaham Isaac Iacob al the faithful is made with any faithful people in the world as if two or three faithful people should aise vp in the dominions of the Turk or Pope or Iewes or Pagans joyne together to walk in the faith the Lord maketh his covenant with them he is their God they are his people they are his Temple he walketh ther he is their Father they are his sonnes daughters Christ is their King they are his Kingdome even a Kingdome of Preists c therfor whersoever in the Scripture the covenant is made with any it is to be vnderstood as made with Abrahams childreÌ„ according to the faith therfor with two or three faithful people any were in the world This being premised as the ground of our whole cause we having departed from al the profane of the Land having seperated touching no vncleane thing 2. cor 6 17 We are Gods people his temple his Church he dwelleth walketh among vs he hath given to vs made with vs his covenant Heb. 8.10 although we were but â—ew in nomber yet the Lord chose vs to be his Wee being now the Church of God wee have the powre of the L. Iesus Christ given vnto vs For we have himself out owne by title possessioÌ„ vse that by vertue of the covenaÌ„t God made with vs for so God is our God our Father only in Chr. through him al the promises of God in Christ are yea Amen Christ therfor is ours Christ he is our King our Preist we are his Kingdome we have his powre that this is so I prove vnto you by these Scriptures Marc. 13.34 Christ ascending vp into Heaven for that is his going into a farre country as may be perceaved by Luk. 19.12 with Mat. 28.18 Eph. 4.8 gave authority to his servants leaving his howse that is his Church according to his bodily presence now what authority is this that Christ gave vnto his servaÌ„ts that is evident by other places of scriptures 1. Cor. 5. the powre of our Lord Iesus Christ which the Corinths had that is the powre of admonition excommunication the powre of binding losing a powre to administer Christs Kingdome al the ordinances therof Mat. 16.19 The powre of binding losing is given to Peter Ioh. 20.23 The powre of binding losing is given to al the Apostles Marc. 13.34 The powre of Christ it given to his Servants 1. Cor. 5.4 The powre of Christ is in the hands of the Corinths Now let vs make collections gather instructions out of these places the truth wil most evidently appeare The Pope saith out of the 16. of Mathew that the powre of binding losing is giveÌ„ to Peter his successors the popes of Rome that al the Bbs. Preists in the world the whole Church vniversal receaveth binding losing from him Nay say the English Prelates out of the 20. of Iohn Christ gave the powre of binding losing to al the Apostles their successors the Lord Bbs. of EnglaÌ„d that al the Preists people in the Land receave binding losing from them in their severall
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
avoyded among them Lost or wandring sheep must be sought out brethren impenieent must be bound penitent losed That they have the powre of binding losing on earth That Christ promiseth to them his presence acceptance that they must til 70. tymes 7. tymes remit offences private c. Ergo Christs ministerial powre is given to the Disciples or brethren if they be but three or two so much more if they be a multitude The third Argument from Mat. 28 16-20 From this place of Scripture I reason after this manner To whome preaching baptizing is committed to them the powre of binding losing is given Powre to preach baptize is given to the Disciples of Christ or to the brethrē or to the body of the Church Ergo powre to bind lose that is Christs ministerial powre is given to the disciples or brethren or the body of the Church The Major of this argument is true by proportion of parity For by one the same powre doth the Church preach pray baptize administer the L. Supper excommunicate absolve c. viz by the ministerial powre of Christ therfor if the body of the church being more or fewer have powre to preach baptize they have powre to bind lose The rather considering that preaching the Gospel is a mayne part of binding losing of men to from their sinnes a principal part of the powre of the keyes in shutting opening heaven gates to the impenitent or penitent sinners The Minor of this argument may be confirmed by this reason To whome Christ promiseth his presence to the worldes end To them he giveth powre to preach baptize But to his Discipls Christ promiseth his presence to the worldes end even to two or three gathered together into his name Mat. 18.20 28.20 yea to any Seperated people 2. Cor. 6 16-18 Ergo To his Disciples to two or thre gathered togēther into his name doth he give powre to preach baptize The fourth argument from Marc. 13 33-37 From this place of Scripture I frame an Argument thus Christs Servants have Christs authority Christs visible Church or two or three faithful people are Christs Servants Ergo Christs visible Church hath Christs authority Heer by the way may be noted that in this place Marc. 13.34 Christ giveth authority to his Servants But Mat. 28.18 Christ receaveth authority or powre from his Father evē al the powre in heaven earth wherby wee may collect that which was before affirmed that Christs powre is donble 1. that powre Monarchicall which is inherent in his owne person is incommunicable to any creature 2. That powre Ministeriall which he delegateth to his Servants to his Disciples to two or three faithfull people wheresoever But concerning the argument if it be objected that Christs Servants are the Apostles their Successors I deny it For ther is a distinction made between the Servants the Porter Now the authority is given generally to the Servants of the howse watching is specially enjoyned to the Porter if it be any thing that the Apostles their Sucicessors have it is watching by way of office for so the porter is to wach yet that duty also is particularly applyed injoyned to every one vs 37. The fifth Argument from Ioh. 20 18-24 Luk. 24 35-53 From these places of Scripture compared together I collect this argument If Christs Ministerial powre of binding losing be given to Marie Magdalene Cleopas joyntly with the rest of the Disciples of Christ Then it is given to the body of the Church But powre of binding losing remitting retayning sinnes is givē to Marie Magdalene Cleopas joyntly with the rest of Christs Disciples Therfor Christs ministerial powre of binding losing or remitting retayning sinnes is given to the body of the Church The Minor of this argument may easily be proved by comparing the two former places of Seripture together For in Luke Cleopas the other Disciple brought tidings off Christs Resurection to the eleven others that were with them Luke 24.33.34.36 VVhence it is evident that Cleopas the other Disciple the eleven others were together This day was the first day of the weeke vs 23.33.36 Even that very day wherein Christ arose Now vppon this day Christ spake those wordes gave the powre of remitting retayning sinnes vnto al the Disciples not only to the eleven but to Cleopas Marie Magdasene others assembled together that night when Christ appeared to them al together jointly in the howse Joh. 20.23 The sixth Argument from Act. 2.39 3.25 compared with Rom. 4.11.12 Gal. 3.7.9.14.15 From these places of Scripture compared together I frame this argument Vnto whom the promises the covenant the blessing is given vnto them the ministerial powre of Christ viz the powre of binding losing is given But the promises the covenant the blessing is given to the posterity of Abraham according to the faith that is to al the faithful who are indeed the true children of Abraham Ioh. 8.39 Ergo Christs ministeriall powre viz The powre of binding losing is given to the faithful That is to two or three faithfull people which are a true body vnto Christ The consequent of this argument only is doubtful For cleering whereof wee must know that the keies of the Kingdom of heaven is a promise which Christ maketh to his Church Mat. 16.19 wherin the cheef part of the comfort of the Church consisteth it is also one principal part of the covenant or new Testament which Christ hath established by his blood purchased for his Church which is sealed vp vnto the Church in administring pertaking in the seales of the covenant it is also a special part of the blessing by the same reason For the blessing is this That they that blesse the Church faithful shal be blessed they that curse the Church shal be cursed Genes 12.3 also remission of sins is a part of the blessing Rom. 4.7.8 binding losing is remitting or tetayning sinne blessing cursing as is most evident So that seing that powre of binding losing remitting retayning sinne is a part of the promise covenant blessing therfor the faithfull having the covenant promise blessing given to thē they have also therwith the powre of binding losing that is Christs ministerial powre therfor the consequent of this argument is fume the vndoubted truth of God The seaventh Argument from Esa 9.6 Ioh. 3.16 Ioh. 13.13 Act. 2.36 3.22.23 Luk. 2.11 From these places of Scripture compared together I reason thus Vnto whom Christ is given to be King Preist Prophet directly immediately vnto them is Christs ministeriall powre given viz powre of binding losing But Christ is given as King Preist Prophet directly immediately to two or three faithful people wheresoever living together in the world Therfor Christs ministerial powre of
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
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
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
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
themselves from brethren walking inordinately from persons excommunicate from converteous persons al other that either teach false doctrine or deny the powre of Godlines indeed though inword they professe the same 2. Tim. 3.5 Tit. 1.16 2. Thes 3.6 1. Cor. 5.11 The third Argument from Mat. 28.19.20 Act. 19.4.5 10.48 Mat. 18.20 The true Churches of the Apostolique institution were by baptisme gathered into the covenant or new Testament of Christ The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not by their baptisme conunited into the New Testament of Christ but only into the constitution ministery worship government into that faith doctrine which is by law established in the Land Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the Apostolique institution The ground of this argument is this that the Apostles baprized men in definitely into the whole new Testament of Christ al the ordinances thereof which was not stinted or limited at the pleasure of men vnder certaine canons injunctions articles or Ecclesiastical constitutions but was large even as large as the whole word of truth then inspired or written by the Apostles Prophets whereas the assemblies of England do neither them selves professe the true saith of Christ conteyned in the new Testament their faith being stinted limited vnder certaine devised articles convocatiō howse Synodical decrees or constitutions wherevnto al the ministers of the lād are bound to Subscribe which is the faith of the whole nation neither therfor do they baptise into the new Testament of Christ indefinitely simply but respectively definitely into that faith doctrine which is taught in their stinted book of articles wherto they subscribe which they beleeve teach wherof the body of that Church is wherin wherto they are by baptisme admitted receaved their faith therfor being devised stinted or false therfore their baptisme false therfor their covenant false therfor the forme of their Church false therfor the Church it self a false Church For how can that be a true Church which hath a false faith covenant forme The fourth argument from Mat. 18 18-20 Marc. 13.34 Ioh. 20.23 Mat. 16.19 These places other like Scriptures afoard an argument which may be framed after this manner The true Churches of the Apostolique institution had Christs powre ministerial in the body of the Church The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England have not Christs ministerial powre residing in the body of the Church Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive Apostolique institution The Major or first part of this Argument hath been largely proved in the seaventh Section and in the Paralleles Censures Observations therto aperteyning whither the Reader is to be referred where this particular is handled affirmatively and negatively The Minor or second part of the argument is evident in it self For the powre Ecclesiastical of the assemblies is resident in the hands of certaine Archb. Lordb. Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries Officials and other Ecclesiastical Superintendents which have powre over thousands or hundreths of Parish Ecclesiastical assemblies and the Ministers in them which have powre Ecclesiastical one over another to suspend excommunicate and absolve them according to their canons decrees and decretals the Prelate in his diocese or jurisdiction having absolute powre to interdict one or more Parish Churches from having any prayers or Service they have no powre to come into the Parish Church or Temple to worship whiles the interdiction with the Bbs. seale cleaveth vppon the Church dore c. divers particulars of like nature which doe evidently declare that the parish assemblies have no powre at all of themselves but are meerly and wholly subject and in bondage to the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and subordination of Clergie-men having Superintendency Superiority jurisdiction over them as their proper Spirituall LL. to Whome they dayly yeeld Spirituall homage and Subjection in their oaths off Canonicall obedience and actions of like Servitude The fifth Argument from 1. Timoth. 2.5 Heb. 9.15 Gal. 3.15.16 Iohn 17.9 These places of holy Scripture other of like nature may asoard an argument which may thus be framed The true Church of the primitive institution Apostolical had Christ Iesus for their mediator that is for their King Preist Prophet The assemblies Ecclesiastical of Englād have not Iesus Christ for their Mediator that is their King Preist Prophet Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive institution Apostolical The Minor or second part of the Argument may be confirmed by divers particulars as 1. Christ is not their King seing he onely ruleth by his owne Lawes and Officers and not by Antichristian Lords and Lawes such as are their Prelates and the Officers Courts and Canons 2. Christ is not their preist to ratifie vnto them by his blood that ordinance of Church Ministery VVorship and Government which they retaine among them which is not Christs Testament but the Testament of Antichrist the vtter enemy of Christ neither doth he prostitute the blood of his Testament to establish such a worship as their service book affoardeth or such a Ministery as their Clergie is from the ArchP to the ParishP or such a Government as their Ecclesiasticall Hircarchy or such a people for his body as are compounded of the Serpents seed a viperous brood of wicked men of all sorts 3. Christ is not their Prophett to teach them by the false Prophetts the instruments of Antichrist which dayly by their doctrine set vp Antichrists Officers Lawes oppugne the true New Testament of Christ in the true constitution Ministerie VVorship Government taught in his word Seing therfor Christ is not their King Preist Prophet how is he their Mediator Seing his mediation consisteth not in the execution dispensation of these their offices of King Preist Prophet The sixth Argument from Eph. 1.22.23 1. Cor. 12.27.12 Gal. 3.16 Eph. 5.23 From these places of Scripture compared together truly expounded may an argument be drawne framed thus The true Church of the Apostolique primitive institution hath Christ for the head and is a true body vnto the true head Christ truly vnited by the Spiritt of Christ The ecclesiastical assemblies of Englād are not a true body vnto Christ the true head truly vnited by the Spirit of Christ Ergo the ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive Apostolique institution The Minor or second part of the Argument may thus be confirmed in the three parts therof 1. Christ is not their true head seing they deny all his offices though they hold the doctryne of his nature and persons soundly as is plainly proved before in the fifth Argument 2. the assemblies as they stand in confusion with all the vngodly and vitious persons of the Land vnder the Antichristian Lords and Lawes Ecclesiasticall can not be a true body vnto Christ but
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
you see they vanish away as chaffe before the wind your matter is false not bad as appeareth evidently if you wil not be blind To proceed pag. 116-122 of your book you describe vnto vs the true forme of the Church inwardly to be the Spirit Faith Love outwardly the word profession the Sacramēt of the L. Supper these things say you are in your assemblies Ergo you conclude your Church hath a true forme I answer have not the Papists the word preached do not they make profession live as strictly as you do not they communicate in the L. Supper so by consequent have Love Faith the Spirit yet you say they are false Churches wanting the true forme even so are you although you do al that they doe much more for so you are much bettered in doctrine vse of the Sacrament but in profession practise I suppose you are inferior to many of them bicause rejecting Christ in his offices as hath been said especialy in his Kingdom it is impossible in that constitution communion you should aright vse the word make profession partake in the Sacrament or have the true visible Love Faith Spirit of Christ For a false matters vncapable of a true forme it is impossible that the body of Antichrist should have the true Spirit of Christ or the true covenant new Testament of Christ invested vppon them invisibly I hope wel am perswaded of millions among you but I speake of your visible politique body Ecclesiastical in that mixture of persons subordination of Ecclesiastical officers communiō Spiritual in the Holy things which by Law is established supported in your Ecclesiastical assemblies But pag. 121. you bid vs note this what viz that corruptions doe not hinder men from being a true Church before men no more then the corruptions of the hart do hinder a man from being an elect one invisiblie to the Lord I suppose bicause you bid vs in the margent of your book note this that you account it a matter worth noting and I surely think it a note worth nothing For although corruptions of matters accidentall make not a false Church yet corruptions essential of matters essential make a false church namely if the matter be false or the forme false yea I avouch that if a truly constituted Church detected of corruptions accidental convinced impenitent therin do so continue they become a false Church as hath been proved already before in the 8. Section for impenitency inward or outward maketh a false Christian Church inwardly or outwardly according to due proportion Furthermore pag. 122-128 you bring vs three true visible properties of your true Church as you say 1. continuance in the vse of the word Sacraments prayer 2. the holding forth of the truth against the enemyes thereof 3. mutual care for the welfare each of other al these you say you have among you so you say you must needes be a true Church I answer Seing your matter and forme is false your propertyes cannot be true For they arise necessarily from the vnion of the matter and forme or from the forme induced vppon the matter seing therefore the first is already proved the latter also must needs follow but let vs examine these things particularly I denie therfor in the first place that you have wel propounded the propertyes of the true Church For the first and principal essential property of a true Church is interest and title to al the Holy things which is extant in divers particulars as parcels of that general and whole property therfore a people declaring their faith and repentance by Seperating themselves from all vncleanenes by resigning themselves wholy to the Lord to become his people have God for their Father Christ for their King Preist and Prophett and so with Christ have title to all the meanes of Salvation and this title consisteth in the VVord Sacraments Censures Prayers Almes and al other parts of Spirituall visible communion whatsoever even as when the soule is induced vppon the matter viz when the breath of life is breathed into the nosthrils of dust of the Earth Genes 2. then ther is a man with a reasonable and Religions Soule So when a company of faithful people are invested with the New Testament of Christ then ther is in them title to al the holy things of God whatsoever This is evident by that which I have before manifested in the seaventh Section whither the Reader is to be referred wherfore Mr. Bern. to apply this vnto your Church I avouch that seing you are a false matter of a Church and have a false forme or covenāt induced vppon you as hath been shewed before therefore you have no true title to the meanes of Salvation but in vsurping the VVord Sacraments Censures Prayers Almes c. you therein incurre the reproof of the Prophet saying Psalm 50.16 what hast thou to doe to declare myne ordinances that thou shouldest make my covenant into thy mouth seing thou hatest to be reformed and hast cast my wordes behind thee And as the Prophet speaketh Esay 1. 11-18 your worship is iniquity I cannot beare it I am weary of it I hate it Therefore you may plead as long as you will the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord yet I say vntill you intertayne Christs true Kingdome Preisthood Prophecy you are but vsurpers of all that visible communion in the Word Sacraments Prayers c. which is among you For it doth not follow that bicause you have the Word Sacraments Censures prayers c. therefore you are a true Church neither are the vsing of these true propertyes of a true Church But the title to them is the true propertie of a true Church For the Papists and all Antichristians and Heretiques vse the Word Sacraments Censures prayers but they are not therfor a true Church as I know you will confesse But heer you wish vs againe pag. 122. to observe well Lett vs heer what it is that you wish vs to observe well Namely the true VVord preached and the true Sacraments administred are the true propertyes to a true Church And that you have those things as you say well VVhat is the true word and what are the true Sacraments is not the true word the true doctryne of the word the true doctryne of the New Testament but you have rejected the whole doctryne of Christs Kingdome in a manner and have advanced all that false doctryne of the Antichristian hierarchy which is taught and commaunded by Law to be taught in your Church And you in your pulpits proclayme all them Heretiques or Schismatiques that teach and erect the Church Ministerie VVorship and Government according to the paterne of Christ his New Testament And so you have abrogated and disanulled the VVord of God by your traditions and Antichristian devises Againe VVhat are true Sacraments is the breaking of bread and
I desire may be embraced if not I require an answer of them to whom it is specially directed to conclude this first point Mr. Bern. seing your VVorship for the most part is book-worship I conclude it to bee Iewish and so false VVorship Now I come to answer your cavils which are conteyned pag. 146-151 First you referre vs to the treatise in the end of your book I referre you for answer partly to Mr. Ains partly to the book intituled the differences of the Churches of the Seperation For I doe acknowledg that in the Old Testament Psalmes Prayers Prophecies were read out of a book yet further I answer three things 1. that it will not follow that seing it was so in the old Testament therfor it must be so in the new nay contrary it was so in the old Testament therefore it must not be so in the new This is the true manner of reasoning or thus In the Old Testament they had Psalmes Prophecyes Prayers read out of a book which was the Type the manifestation of the Lettre Therefore in the new Testament wee must have Psalmes Prophecyes Prayers brought out of the hart which is the Spiritual book of the New Testament wherein the Lord doth write his Lawes Heb. 8.10 which is the truth the manifestation of the Spirit 2. it will not follow that if it were granted that reading the Prayers Prophecyes Psalmes of Scripture out of the Originall tongs the Hebrue and Greek were lawfull that therefore the reading of the Apocrypha translations which are the workes of men is Lawful For theone is interpretation of a Language or Tong that is the vttering of matter from the knowledg of the Tongs and the gift of interpreting the other is reading wordes out of a book which a child of eight yeeres old may doe 3. neither will it follow that if it were found lawfull to read the English translation of the Scriptures therefore it shal be lawful to read your English Masse-book your book of Homilies and Articles your book of Canons For then why may you not read also Mr. Perkins vppon the Creed Henry Smyths Sermons or any other good Catechisme Commentary or Sermon book Secondly you prove your worship true by two reasons 1. Say you you worship no False God 2. you worship the true God with no False worship For you preach the true word admister the true Sacraments pray such prayers as are agreeable to the Scripture the forme of prayer taught by Christ if any things els be prescribed it is not imposed as worship Or if it were prescribed as a part of worship it doth not therefore follow that all the worship is False well I answer That Israell in Ietoboams tyme and after and when Aaron made the Calfe did not worship worship a false God yet their worship was false So may your worship be false though you worship the true God that hath revealed himself in the old Testament but their worship is not true by your owne confession therfor your consequent is not good that seing you worship the true God your worship must needes be true if the meanes wherby you worship be a false meanes devised by the wit of a man not taught in the word of God I say your worship is false so that place of Mat. 15.1 importeth that whosoever worshippeth God by any invented meanes taught by mans precept worshippeth God invayne Such is an image as the second commaundement teacheth now the meanes of your worship are false as first your false Church which is an Idol 2. your stinted devised imposed literal service book which is an Idol 3. your false Christ which is not your King Preist Prophet which is one of our Idols For though you truly beleeve concerning his person yet your Faith is false your doctryne false concerning his offices mediation therfor these meanes of your worship being false meanes they must needes be false worship therfor seing your doctryne is much of it false your communiō false your worship stinted book worship it followeth that your word is not the true word your Sacraments the signes of your false Faith communion are not true your prayers are not true whereas you plead that other things besides the word Sacrament prayer are not imposed as worship I answer what doe they then in your worship wil you mingle that which is no worshis worship together either they are worship or els let them be cast out of your worship further whereas you alledg that though some parts of your worship he false yet al shal not be false I grant it if your Church were true your ministery true but seing your Church ministery be false therfor though you do preach the true word administer the true Sacraments pray true prayers yet they can not be true worship offered vp in a false Church by a false ministery for the falsehood of the Church ministery doth essentially corupt the worship if al that is set vppon the table be either poisō or poysoned meate I say such is your worship For death is in your worship as Coloquintida was in the pot So that you see the distinction of true false doth most properly aperteyne to your worship as it doth also to your ministery Church as hath been shewed In the next place you declare vnto vs out of Philip Mornaeus the order of the worship of the old Testament out of the Scripture the parts of the worship of the new Testament out of Iustinus Martyr the order of worship in his tymes which I wil not contradict yet I plead that seing your Church is false your ministery false your service book a false meanes of worship therfor though al that you alledg were true it doth not follow that your worship is true wheras you plead that reading Col. 4.16 is cōmaunded as a part of worship I wish you to read the book intituled the differences of the Churches of the Seperation you shall have your answer and thus much for this Section The eleventh Section The next position is your third which is this viz. 3. In maintaining that it is not lawful to heare any ministers amongst vs whatsoever they be no◠to joyne in prayer with such as feare God among vs I for my part hold both vnlawful bicause your ministers are false ministers your people of false Churches Now how can wee who are the Church and body of Christ have any Spirituall communion with you who are the ministers and subjects of Antichrist 2. corinth 6 14-16 But heer you would needes have vs beleeve that ther be many that feare God among you that they are particularly known vnto vs for my part I do beleeve generaly that God hath his people in Babylon even among you who are Babel that is confusion I do also beleeve that those who are miscalled by the name of